FTC Wants To Straighten Out IP Law 97
coondoggie writes with this excerpt from NetworkWorld:
"What do you get when you mix the government, the court system, company lawyers and Joe Consumer? A serious mess that would send most people screaming into the night. But the Federal Trade Commission is no such entity. It wants to straighten Intellectual Property (IP) out and today said it will hold a series of hearings — the first in Washington, DC on Dec. 5 — it will use to examine IP law and the myriad issues surrounding it. Interested bigwigs from the tech industry, including Cisco, Yahoo and the Computer & Communications Industry Association are expected to testify along with professors, lawyers and other industry players. The patent system has experienced significant change and more changes are under consideration, the FTC said."
The FTC held some different, but related hearings this week which addressed topics such as copyright law and DRM interoperability. Transcripts, podcasts, and summaries of the talks are available on the FTC-hosted "Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-ade" site.
Re:Straighten out? (Score:5, Insightful)
When Mickey Mouse was allowed to decide the duration of copyright.
Who wants to bet (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of one of the great lies... (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the three big lies is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you".
I'd remind you that every time the government gets involved in IP law at every level, it ends up worse for consumers. Every time. So you should be scared when you see this. We'll end up like crazy canadian laws where an entrenched monopoly gets a tax on anything that poses a threat to that monopoly (taxes on ipods, black CD's, and likely ISP taxes).
And that isn't the worst thing that could happen. The monopolies will be pushing for chips inside devices that can "tell" when media isn't authorized. In the name of helping the people of course.
I realize I'm giving worst case scenarios here, but ask yourself this... Is the FTC likely to say "Goodness, none of the current laws are very consumer friendly, therefore, copyright/patent will be reduced in time and scope, there can be no more DRM, and people should be able to use music and video wherever they want, whenever they want". Won't happen, because the FTC doesn't have the authority to make it better. They do have the authority to make things *worse* for consumers though in terms of mandates and taxes.
No thanks.
Re:Me being a cynic says... (Score:5, Insightful)
It really depends upon who turns up from the corporations - if the IP lawyers have their say, then expect crazy software and business process patents to be favoured.
If the CFOs and CTOs are involved, then the debate may be more balanced - fighting stupid patent cases as a cost of doing business can't be attractive for the beancounters, and the technical guys are more likely to appreciate how ludicrous the idea of patenting an algorithm is.
This could turn out to be a good thing - the fact that it is being debated at all is encouraging.
In lobbyist ruled Washington... (Score:1, Insightful)
Does anyone else think that they're trying to get these hearings through before the next administration to make sure it goes through under this extremely corporate lobbyist-friendly administration?
"Defensive IP" is a big part of the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
"Defensive IP" is designed to be used as part of a counter-suit in the event that one big company sues another over IP infringement. This eventually gave birth to "IP Holding" companies whose primary purpose is to sue people over IP infringement and they are ultimately immune to counter-suits because they don't actually use or apply IP... just collect money from claims, settlements and law suits.
The problem with IP is that is has become an industry in and of itself.
And by IP, I mean copyrights and patents.
Re:Reminds me of one of the great lies... (Score:4, Insightful)
"So you should be scared when you see this. "
Maybe. The FCC spent the last two administrations catering to every whim of broadcast media owners. Clear Channel wouldn't exist in its present form without their helping, deregulating hand. Broadcasters hate the extra fiscal burden of IP, so this may be a case in which consumers benefit as a side effect of catering to large corporation. Irrelevant but lucky.
How a federal body with an original mandate to regulate broadcast spectrum has any authority over IP law is another question.
Re:Reminds me of one of the great lies... (Score:5, Insightful)
What about those that purchase CDs for other legitimate means? I haven't burned music to a CD in years (on the order of a decade). Why should I have to pay a music tax on blank CDs that I'm only ever going to be using to distribute Linux?
Re:In lobbyist ruled Washington... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In lobbyist ruled Washington... (Score:1, Insightful)
or do you really think that everything the democrats do is in favor of the small guy? please don't tell me you're that foolish.
Re:no, no, you don't understand U.S. elections! (Score:5, Insightful)
For some meaning of the word "fixed".
I don't hold out much hope for Obama making things better, but he might slow the rate at which they are getting worse.
One way to tell... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you see any mention of asking every day citizens whether they want to be able to copy a song from their friend? If not, it'll go industry's way.
Re:Reminds me of one of the great lies... (Score:3, Insightful)
How a federal body with an original mandate to regulate broadcast spectrum has any authority over IP law is another question.
I'm not sure about the FCC either; but the FTC has some authority over interstate commerce.
Re:Those are easy odds to figure (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, professors salaries are paid by research grants from the government, usually the DoD. And those same professors benefit the most from not having to use their diddly research grants on expensive proprietary technology; they risk those grants when they use cracked software. And seeing as those professors, last I checked, are the ones who are most avidly fighting the war on Imaginary Property, I might wonder why you're busy trying to piss them off. From Lawrence Lessig to Yochai Benkler to Richard Stallman, and many lesser known academics in between, we owe these professors for their work defending consumers in the realm of IP.
Re:Copyleft must be made into law (Score:3, Insightful)
A difference of scale (Score:3, Insightful)
20 years ago, no one really cared if you were out passing your mix tapes around. Now hell or high water it's the end of the world if you download an mp3.
There's a difference of scale. Passing mix tapes took more labor per copy and was more limited in geographic scope than passing MP3s over the Internet is.
Re:"Defensive IP" is a big part of the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
CLAIMS of Copyright infringement, even when fair use rules are clearly applicable, is a very large problem.
Re:From bad to worse (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes actually. I'm quite surprised so many people have been naysaying this situation. But honestly, when else have we had the decision-makers from the government, big business, and the best IP lawyers in the same location at the same time?
Any other bits of space debris scheduled to land during that time?