GOP group issues, immediately retracts disturbingly sensible paper on IP law

[Lemur]

Consider the public good? Balance creator rights with common sense? We can't have that.

On Friday afternoon, an influential group representing conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives released a shockingly sensible memo calling for sweeping reforms of the nation's copyright laws. But less than 24 hours later, the group's executive director, Paul Teller, issued a statement saying he was recalling the memo because it had been "published without adequate review."

The Republican Study Committee is a caucus consisting of more than 160 conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives—a majority of that party's House members. It acts as an internal think tank for the group, developing policy proposals and providing intellectual support for conservative positions. Hence, an RSC endorsement of sweeping reforms to the nation's copyright laws would be a watershed moment in the national copyright debate.

The memo, titled "Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it," is a direct assault on the relentlessly pro-copyright worldview dominating Washington for decades. "Most legislative discussions on this topic are not premised upon what is in the public good or what will promote the most productivity and innovation, but rather what the content creators 'deserve' or are 'entitled to' by virtue of their creation," the memo says. That's a problem, it argues, because the Constitution says the point of copyright is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"—not merely to line the pockets of incumbent copyright holders.

The memo also contends "copyright violates nearly every tenet of laissez faire capitalism," granting content producers a "guaranteed, government instituted, government subsidized content monopoly." Excessive copyright protection, it claims, "leads to what economists call 'rent-seeking' which is effectively non-productive behavior that sucks economic productivity and potential from the overall economy."

The memo concludes with policy recommendations, and it reads like a copyright reformer's wish list. It calls for reducing statutory damages, which under current law can go as high as $150,000 per infringement. It advocates expanded fair use and penalties for false copyright claims. And it proposes a complex new scheme for copyright renewals that would reduce the maximum term of copyright to 46 years.

[Idaho]

Very interesting. The very opposite of a conservative view really.

[Beskar]

That sounds like a Republican policy I would vote for, I hope they re-release it.

[Jolt]

Very interesting. The very opposite of a conservative view really.

Mostly. But it is very Republican to use rhethoric against big government. You can clearly see that in the memo.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'm on board. Republican's aren't necessarily in favor of excessive copyright laws. I know that I'm not.

[drone]

I imagine they received a strongly worded letter from Bob Iger...

[Major Robert Dump]

They won'r re-release it because then Big Pharma will lose trillions of dollars. Our state-funded medical system for old people won't even allow generic drugs to be used despite their lower costs, why would anyone think anyone Republican or Democrat would have the balls to face Big Pharma?

Recently the scheme has been to change one small, insignificant component of the drugs anatomy and claim that it is "new and improved" hence resetting the timer on the patent expiration

[Lemur]

To echo ICSD, this is an area where Repubs could draw a meaningful distinction between themselves and the Dems. After all, the Dems are thoroughly dependent on contributions from Hollywood, so it's not like they're ever going to say anything against the life plus 100 copyright span, or propose a meaningful IP law reform.

And don't get me started on trademarks and patents, which are a bottomless pit of lawyers and scorpions. (Just imagine how much economic activity is wasted on patent disputes. And then have a good cry.)

[rory_20_uk]

They won'r re-release it because then Big Pharma will lose trillions of dollars. Our state-funded medical system for old people won't even allow generic drugs to be used despite their lower costs, why would anyone think anyone Republican or Democrat would have the balls to face Big Pharma?

Recently the scheme has been to change one small, insignificant component of the drugs anatomy and claim that it is "new and improved" hence resetting the timer on the patent expiration

Pharma is arguably one area where copyright or something similar is needed - unless you can think of another way of getting companies to spend close to £1 BILLION per product and a decade of research; having the same rules in this industry as those where product cycles are every 6 months is insanity.

The healthcare system in the USA is utterly flawed where doctors are paid a percentage of the drug costs - and hence are incentivised to use the most expensive ones. In the UK unless a new version has significant improvements it is not used first line. That has nothing to do with patents though (although Big Pharma might be responsible for the situation - odd that it can strong arm such a powerful country yet not most others).

This year, Google and Apple have spend more on patents than on research.

[Ironside]

They won'r re-release it because then Big Pharma will lose trillions of dollars. Our state-funded medical system for old people won't even allow generic drugs to be used despite their lower costs, why would anyone think anyone Republican or Democrat would have the balls to face Big Pharma?

Recently the scheme has been to change one small, insignificant component of the drugs anatomy and claim that it is "new and improved" hence resetting the timer on the patent expiration

Pharma is about 15-20 years according to wiki. Lipitor is appearently some big brand approved 1996 and patent expiring 2011.

Media is slightly (by 60 years) worse there.

[Major Robert Dump]

Pharma is arguably one area where copyright or something similar is needed - unless you can think of another way of getting companies to spend close to £1 BILLION per product and a decade of research; having the same rules in this industry as those where product cycles are every 6 months is insanity.

The healthcare system in the USA is utterly flawed where doctors are paid a percentage of the drug costs - and hence are incentivised to use the most expensive ones. In the UK unless a new version has significant improvements it is not used first line. That has nothing to do with patents though (although Big Pharma might be responsible for the situation - odd that it can strong arm such a powerful country yet not most others).

This year, Google and Apple have spend more on patents than on research.

I do not disagree with pharm patents at the surface. It's the non-improvements they create to extend their patents and the government welfare programs only using name brands even after the generics are already being made that irritate me. This is less the case with Part D than it was 5 years ago and more generics are being used, which is an improvement for sure.

[Xiahou]

And don't get me started on trademarks and patents, which are a bottomless pit of lawyers and scorpions. (Just imagine how much economic activity is wasted on patent disputes. And then have a good cry.)

Then just imagine the similar amount wasted on businesses navigating our labyrinthine tax laws. Both are a national disgrace.

I wonder if the RSC is getting any pressure to re-issue their paper? If they're really for limited government, and not just shielding corporate donors, this would be a good way to show it.

[CountArach]

Too much money at risk from too many important companies who have given too much money to congressional candidates on both sides of the aisle. Sensible policy but not surprising that they are retracting it.