Obama White House: Copyright treaty is a 'national security' secret

[Double Trouble]

Linky

When people like Spector (R-PA) and Leahy (D-VT) say it goes "too far", you know it must be really bad since both those guys have always been very much on the "strict IP enforcement", no fair use etc side of the spectrum.

Basically, the treaty is being circulated to lobbyists and corporate interests in the US and abroad, but yet the white house claims it is so sensitive that releasing it to the public would be a threat to national security. :roll: In reality it probably has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with not allowing opposition to build before it gets attached to some bill and passed.

Sure doesn't look like the transparency and open government we were promised does it? Just like with the presidential powers, signing statements etc, Obama seems to be embracing a lot of the things I thought made the Bush admin so bad.

 

[MadRat]

Copyright is a farce in today's age. I can understand the protection of trademark, but honestly the original copyright rules in the U.S. Constitution was already too long. Extending them out every new generation is plain evil.

 

[Craig234]

- It's unclear to me how much the claim is related to anti-counterfeit measures, which seem more legitimate, and how much to proposed copyright protection, which doesn't.

- I'm a strong supported of IP rights, and a strong opponent of those rights being excessive and exploitave. Protect *legitimate* IP interests; don't feed corporate greed.

- I'm watching the Obama administration to see how much it sides with the corporatist agenda versus the progressive agenda. It's a bit early for me to say much.

I'm sure Ill be disappointed - our system is hardly one in which a progressive saint is elected president, free of the special interests - but we'll see how bad it is.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Dems are to the RIAA and their ilk as Reps are to oil interests. There needs to be IP protection, however there is such a thing as too far, and I'm afraid we'll see exactly what constitutes that.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Dems are to the RIAA and their ilk as Reps are to oil interests. There needs to be IP protection, however there is such a thing as too far, and I'm afraid we'll see exactly what constitutes that.

I think one part of the problem is how unclear it is to draw the line at any given point.

On many issues, it's a lot clearer, you're on this side or that side. But what constitutes the 'right' types and durations of copyright protections is quite subjective.

Another problem IMO is how the 'responsible protections' movement is so often outshouted by the sort of anarchist movement, distracting from the legtimate issue

If you quote this post in a response don't forget (c) 2009 Craig234.

 

[Double Trouble]

IP is one of those funny areas where there's a weird mix of interests that make for strange bedfellows.

Ultimately, I get the feeling that we as consumers are going to lose out in all this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of these hippie "everything should be free man" kind of guys, IP protection is a good thing. Killing off fair use rights and infringing on all of our rights in the name of protecting an antiquated business model is just wrong.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Dems are to the RIAA and their ilk as Reps are to oil interests. There needs to be IP protection, however there is such a thing as too far, and I'm afraid we'll see exactly what constitutes that.

We already see protections going to far. There is no reason why Steamboat Willey should still be under copyright, ~80 years after its initial release.

 

[BoberFett]

Is it any surprise that Hack234 is calmly giving Obama some slack in a situation where he'd be calling a Republican taking the same action a crook?

 

[Robor]

The worst part is most of this DRM crap harms legit users more than those who steal material. :-/

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Copyright is a farce in today's age. I can understand the protection of trademark, but honestly the original copyright rules in the U.S. Constitution was already too long. Extending them out every new generation is plain evil.

I assume you have a job and get paid to do that job.

Now imagine if I figured out a way to steal part of your job and therefore steal part of your paycheck.

At that point I don't think you would be complaining about copyright rules anymore.

Why does it always seem that people who complain about copyright and IP laws never work in an industry where their work can be stolen and used by other people?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: MadRat
Copyright is a farce in today's age. I can understand the protection of trademark, but honestly the original copyright rules in the U.S. Constitution was already too long. Extending them out every new generation is plain evil.

I assume you have a job and get paid to do that job.

Now imagine if I figured out a way to steal part of your job and therefore steal part of your paycheck.

At that point I don't think you would be complaining about copyright rules anymore.

Why does it always seem that people who complain about copyright and IP laws never work in an industry where their work can be stolen and used by other people?

My God your are making sense. Very nice post!!

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: MadRat
Copyright is a farce in today's age. I can understand the protection of trademark, but honestly the original copyright rules in the U.S. Constitution was already too long. Extending them out every new generation is plain evil.

I assume you have a job and get paid to do that job.

Now imagine if I figured out a way to steal part of your job and therefore steal part of your paycheck.

At that point I don't think you would be complaining about copyright rules anymore.

Why does it always seem that people who complain about copyright and IP laws never work in an industry where their work can be stolen and used by other people?

I work in an industry where work is stolen all the time but I oppose many things with copyright law. Mostly it favors the big companies and not the individual.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: MadRat
Copyright is a farce in today's age. I can understand the protection of trademark, but honestly the original copyright rules in the U.S. Constitution was already too long. Extending them out every new generation is plain evil.

I assume you have a job and get paid to do that job.

Now imagine if I figured out a way to steal part of your job and therefore steal part of your paycheck.

At that point I don't think you would be complaining about copyright rules anymore.

Why does it always seem that people who complain about copyright and IP laws never work in an industry where their work can be stolen and used by other people?

I work in an industry where work is stolen all the time but I oppose many things with copyright law. Mostly it favors the big companies and not the individual.

So lets get this right...you believe that it is OK to steal somebody elses intellectual property.......

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda



So lets get this right...you believe that it is OK to steal somebody elses intellectual property.......

Where did I say that ?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: MadRat
Copyright is a farce in today's age. I can understand the protection of trademark, but honestly the original copyright rules in the U.S. Constitution was already too long. Extending them out every new generation is plain evil.

I assume you have a job and get paid to do that job.

Now imagine if I figured out a way to steal part of your job and therefore steal part of your paycheck.

At that point I don't think you would be complaining about copyright rules anymore.

Why does it always seem that people who complain about copyright and IP laws never work in an industry where their work can be stolen and used by other people?

Wouldn't it be more like copying his salary?

I'm not against copyright, but I think current law is extremely slanted toward corporations. There's something wrong with the system when Disney can just lobby to Congress for longer copyright terms every time a Mickey Mouse cartoon is about to go into public domain.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Dems are to the RIAA and their ilk as Reps are to oil interests. There needs to be IP protection, however there is such a thing as too far, and I'm afraid we'll see exactly what constitutes that.

I think one part of the problem is how unclear it is to draw the line at any given point.

On many issues, it's a lot clearer, you're on this side or that side. But what constitutes the 'right' types and durations of copyright protections is quite subjective.

Another problem IMO is how the 'responsible protections' movement is so often outshouted by the sort of anarchist movement, distracting from the legtimate issue

If you quote this post in a response don't forget (c) 2009 Craig234.

actually under the terms of service that post (and this one) are (c) Anandtech:

All comments and materials submitted to the Forums shall be considered non-confidential and the property of Anandtech, unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing by Anandtech.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Dems are to the RIAA and their ilk as Reps are to oil interests. There needs to be IP protection, however there is such a thing as too far, and I'm afraid we'll see exactly what constitutes that.

I think one part of the problem is how unclear it is to draw the line at any given point.

On many issues, it's a lot clearer, you're on this side or that side. But what constitutes the 'right' types and durations of copyright protections is quite subjective.

Another problem IMO is how the 'responsible protections' movement is so often outshouted by the sort of anarchist movement, distracting from the legtimate issue

If you quote this post in a response don't forget (c) 2009 Craig234.

actually under the terms of service that post (and this one) are (c) Anandtech:

All comments and materials submitted to the Forums shall be considered non-confidential and the property of Anandtech, unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing by Anandtech.

Hey, I wrote that copyright rule - AT stole it!

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
My God your are making sense. Very nice post!!

I must of missed the circle jerk part of the post - you know the part where you found excitement - because what he said made absolutely no logical sense.

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
So lets get this right...you believe that it is OK to steal somebody elses intellectual property.......

Where did I say that?

You didn't. He is obviously trying to play devil's advocate. Intellectual property is only as real as one pretends it to be. The vast majority of the younger generations seem to think more along the lines that these oppressive and unfair intellectual property rights need to go the way of the dodo bird. But like many rules put in by the baby boomers, they benefit on the backs of the youth.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: MadRat
Copyright is a farce in today's age. I can understand the protection of trademark, but honestly the original copyright rules in the U.S. Constitution was already too long. Extending them out every new generation is plain evil.

I assume you have a job and get paid to do that job.

Now imagine if I figured out a way to steal part of your job and therefore steal part of your paycheck.

At that point I don't think you would be complaining about copyright rules anymore.

Why does it always seem that people who complain about copyright and IP laws never work in an industry where their work can be stolen and used by other people?

Wouldn't it be more like copying his salary?

I'm not against copyright, but I think current law is extremely slanted toward corporations. There's something wrong with the system when Disney can just lobby to Congress for longer copyright terms every time a Mickey Mouse cartoon is about to go into public domain.

Thats example is just plain ignorant....
Mickey Mouse is copywrited by Disney..it is Disneys intellectual property.
Why shouldn`t Disney be allowed to look after their own interets??

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: MadRat
Copyright is a farce in today's age. I can understand the protection of trademark, but honestly the original copyright rules in the U.S. Constitution was already too long. Extending them out every new generation is plain evil.

I assume you have a job and get paid to do that job.

Now imagine if I figured out a way to steal part of your job and therefore steal part of your paycheck.

At that point I don't think you would be complaining about copyright rules anymore.

Why does it always seem that people who complain about copyright and IP laws never work in an industry where their work can be stolen and used by other people?

Wouldn't it be more like copying his salary?

I'm not against copyright, but I think current law is extremely slanted toward corporations. There's something wrong with the system when Disney can just lobby to Congress for longer copyright terms every time a Mickey Mouse cartoon is about to go into public domain.

Thats example is just plain ignorant....
Mickey Mouse is copywrited by Disney..it is Disneys intellectual property.
Why shouldn`t Disney be allowed to look after their own interets??

Because copyright needs to expire at some point so that the public domain can be enriched.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: MadRat
Copyright is a farce in today's age. I can understand the protection of trademark, but honestly the original copyright rules in the U.S. Constitution was already too long. Extending them out every new generation is plain evil.

I assume you have a job and get paid to do that job.

Now imagine if I figured out a way to steal part of your job and therefore steal part of your paycheck.

At that point I don't think you would be complaining about copyright rules anymore.

Why does it always seem that people who complain about copyright and IP laws never work in an industry where their work can be stolen and used by other people?

Wouldn't it be more like copying his salary?

I'm not against copyright, but I think current law is extremely slanted toward corporations. There's something wrong with the system when Disney can just lobby to Congress for longer copyright terms every time a Mickey Mouse cartoon is about to go into public domain.

Thats example is just plain ignorant....
Mickey Mouse is copywrited by Disney..it is Disneys intellectual property.
Why shouldn`t Disney be allowed to look after their own interets??

Because copyright needs to expire at some point so that the public domain can be enriched.

What the bottom line is.....Disney keeps remewing their copywrite on Mickey Mouse and others who would love to make money off of Mickey mouse are crying because Disney will not let them make money of Mickey mouse.
NO the public domain does NOT need to be enriched!

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: MadRat
Copyright is a farce in today's age. I can understand the protection of trademark, but honestly the original copyright rules in the U.S. Constitution was already too long. Extending them out every new generation is plain evil.

I assume you have a job and get paid to do that job.

Now imagine if I figured out a way to steal part of your job and therefore steal part of your paycheck.

At that point I don't think you would be complaining about copyright rules anymore.

Why does it always seem that people who complain about copyright and IP laws never work in an industry where their work can be stolen and used by other people?

Wouldn't it be more like copying his salary?

I'm not against copyright, but I think current law is extremely slanted toward corporations. There's something wrong with the system when Disney can just lobby to Congress for longer copyright terms every time a Mickey Mouse cartoon is about to go into public domain.

Thats example is just plain ignorant....
Mickey Mouse is copywrited by Disney..it is Disneys intellectual property.
Why shouldn`t Disney be allowed to look after their own interets??

Because copyright needs to expire at some point so that the public domain can be enriched.

What the bottom line is.....Disney keeps remewing their copywrite on Mickey Mouse and others who would love to make money off of Mickey mouse are crying because Disney will not let them make money of Mickey mouse.
NO the public domain does NOT need to be enriched!

Disney does not keep renewing their copyright, Congress renews the copyrights at the behest of Disney and other corporations ad infinitum regardless whether or not these continual copyright extensions are good for the public domain.

Congress is effectively giving corporations perpetual control of the copyright system even though it was originally created to give a fair balance between public and private interests.

 

[chess9]

Why should anything be copyrighted for longer than, say, 5 years? The continuation of copyrights primarily serves large corporate interests and heirs. How does it promote creativity? In fact, I would think the opposite would be true....

-Robert

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: chess9
Why should anything be copyrighted for longer than, say, 5 years? The continuation of copyrights primarily serves large corporate interests and heirs. How does it promote creativity? In fact, I would think the opposite would be true....

-Robert

I've always wondered why copyright terms were so long. They're significantly longer than patent terms, despite the fact that a much greater amount of money and time is usually required to develop and commercialize new technologies. With a copyright on the other hand it's much easier to recoup costs.

And JEDIYoda, Mickey himself is protected by trademark law for as long as Disney is in business and still uses the character as a mascot. I don't have a problem with trademark laws. I was referring to the Disney cartoons which would have gone into public domain recently if the copyright laws hadn't been changed.

Interesting graphic I found on Wiki, check out what's happened to our copyright terms over the years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.../2f/Copyright_term.svg