It’s often said that the Republican Party as an institution is generally more pro-business than pro-market, and that implies a host of things; energy subsidies, tax loopholes, and though it often goes unmentioned, strong intellectual property protection.
The pro-IP lobby in Washington is powerful, though perhaps the new presence of the Internet Association, a lobbying group comprised of web companies, could put some counter-pressure on lawmakers.
But from a policy standpoint, in an age when the RIAA sues grannies and innocent parents of torrenting children to intimidate file-sharers, and tech companies waste billions on patent trolling, perhaps it might be time for the GOP to consider a more authentically laissez faire approach.
It appears they are. A Republican Study Committee policy brief released today to members of the House Conservative Caucus and various think tanks lays out “three myths about copyright law” and some ways to go about correcting what many see as a broken system. Derek Khanna, the RSC staffer who authored the paper, acknowledges an important role for intellectual property while also pointing out how badly the current system has gone off track.
The paper also suggests four potential solutions:
- Statutory damages reform — in other words, saving granny the legal headaches
- Expand fair use — set those DJs free!
- Punish false copyright claims
- Heavily limit copyright terms, and create disincentives for renewal
That would be a heck of a start towards making copyright actually incentivize innovation, rather than stifling it, as it most often does today.
It’s great to at least see this issue discussed in a substantive way–complaints about rigid IP protections have until now been limited to folks like Sen. Ron Wyden. Surprise opposition to SOPA excepted, neither party has taken a strong public stance on copyright reform. If the paper suggests a new turn for the GOP on the issue–against the Chamber of Commerce and for Internet companies, DJs, and millions of consumers–that would certainly beat the protectionism of bought-off legislators like Bob Goodlatte (who knew the good people of Roanoke had such a stake in strong IP?). Read the whole thing (it’s only nine pages, and easy to digest) here.
[UPDATE Saturday 4:48 pm]: The RSC has now taken down the brief and disowned it via this memo from Executive Director Paul Teller. Here’s a copy of that:
And the original paper:
Republican Study Committee Intellectual Property Brief
Follow Jordan on Twitter.
Joel Spealman 
Samuel Lawson 
@Demo
First off, thank you for turning towards explaining your stance in the wake of the mountain of opposition. It represents the concept of disagreement and debate that is heavily lost in politics. Even if those of us continue to disagree, I ask that you maintain the focus on explaining your concepts while attempting to see where we are coming from (even if we come to the wrong conclusions)
You Do bring up a good concept, though, the idea of treating IP as if it was traditional property.
I do feel there’s a flaw in this stance, though. It’s the idea of resource scarcity. to put it simply, if I lose my house to ‘public domain’ after 28 years, I literally do not have a house. It’s not just that what is mine is being used by another: it’s that I cannot use it either. If it was the case that me writing a song would mean I could not sing it or sell it after 28 years, then it would fit the same context.
“But something IS stolen. I will not be able to control how it’s used afterwards.”
That, I believe, is the essence of why your point has merit and needs to be remembered when thinking of copyright.
There also needs to be a difference between copyright and patents: something I realize I failed to differentiate and many others. When many people think of this issue, they think of ‘patent trolls’: companies that Patent ‘e-commerce’. They also think of Apple patenting “a square with rounded corners” or Microsoft patenting “double clicking”.
Then we think of copyright, which can easily last for over a century.
This isn’t to strike back at corporations: we’re not shallow. This is to stop the shut down of innovation due to individuals creating a monopolistic lockdown: sort of like wanting to start a Fast Food company, then McDonalds buying out all of the spatula companies. Allowing ‘only individuals’ to do that won’t make it any better.
That wont’ be fixed by this conversation: Patents already only last 20 years. It’s what can be patented that the abuse comes from.
Along with this, patents aren’t meant to be treated as ‘property ownership’. You don’t own the patent like a house. Patents are there just to allow you to benefit from the idea for a time first.
As far as Copyright, I’m sure someone can argue against treating them like physical property, but as I don’t have a strong argument I’ll give you the point there. Thus we get to these questions:
At what point can my house be no longer under my name?
For my lifetime, at least. Depending on the state, it would then fall to my family. However, due to the nature of how copyright ‘abandonment’ works differently from physical items, I would argue that there should be some ‘test’ to show that the surviving members are still interested in the copyright. A will transfering the copyright would set it by default. If no transfer is made then perhaps the family should make the request within a period of time (thinking years btw): no cash required, just to show interest in maintaining the copyright.
What can be done with my house without my permission?
Pictures can be taken of the house outside. You can build a house like mine, a parody as you will. You can discuss about my house or critique it. You simply can’t USE it.
In that regard, perhaps the idea is to put a firm line between what is actually CLAIMED in a copyright. For example, singing a copyrighted song strait would be just using their idea for yourself. However, wouldn’t a remix of a copyrighted song count as a copy, like building a house similar to mine? You wrote a country song, and this is clearly a rap song. It’s based on your idea, but it’s NOT your idea so it’s not yours to control.
Beyond that, the only other major change would probably be in Proof before Punishment. Currently, if a claim of copyright infringement is made, the default is to stop the action before there’s any evidence of infringement occurring. This, to me is excessive and stiffling. Infringement claims can be made, but the burden of proof needs to be on the copyright holder and the accused should be deemed innocent until proven guilty.