IPI Policy Blog

There is an enlightening (and thus infuriating) article at National Review where a reporter described how she has been issued three free "Obamaphones" in the past month. It's a must-read.

The SafeLink vendor then referred me to his opposite number, a rep from Assurance. She too took down my information, registering me for another Obamaphone.

Traveling to several of the welfare offices in the city, I learned this was common practice. Obamaphone reps come in twos, and both will sign you up if they can.

In today's copyright review hearing, in the heat of his passion to point out that there are many exciting new ways to distribute content that don't involve nasty old paternalistic devices like copyright, one of the witnesses mentioned how enthusiastic the bands Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails are for free distribution.

Um, you might want to update your gallery of CopyLeft heroes, according to an article entitled "Radiohead, Nine Inch Nails, and other digital pioneers sour on 'pay what you want' music":

Not long ago, many hoped the Internet would emerge as a music fan's Shangri-la, a utopian world where any track, no matter how obscure, was available for free, record labels were extinct and artists made a good living because their fans chose to reward them. Acts like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails championed this brave new world. "The way things are," Trent Reznor, Nine Inch Nails' frontman, told CNET in 2008, "I think music should be looked at as free. It basically is. The toothpaste is out of the tube and a whole generation of people is accustomed to music being that way."

But that dream has turned into a nightmare, according to Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke.

There's a strong and provocative piece in the Australian press today by novelist and author Linda Jaivin on how the proposed changes will cause economic losses to authors.

Jaivin writes powerfully and persuasively about the importance of intellectual property protection for creators. The occasion of her piece is proposed Australian legislation that would remove some author protections in the form of statutory licenses, and in the course expands Australia's fair use exceptions.

Over the last several years the U.S. patent system has received a great deal of attention. However, patent pools, one area that was previously largely ignored, are now coming under greater scrutiny.

This morning, the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held its second in a series of hearings that form the beginning of a review of current copyright law. And while the first hearing was largely comprised of copyright critics, today’s hearing featured those who make their livings and who are innovating new technologies based on the copyright system.

Along those lines, of particular interest was witness William Sherak, whose company handles the 3D conversion of blockbuster movies. In addition to getting committee members to don 3D glasses, Mr. Sherak pointed out that both the technology his company developed and the workers he employs are all dependent upon the copyright system.

The list of witnesses for Thursday's Judiciary Committee hearing on copyright and innovation has been released:

Sandra Airstars
Executive Director, Copyright Alliance

Eugene Mopsik
Executive Director, American Society of Media Photographers

Tor Hansen
Co-Founder, Yep Roc Records/Red Eye Distribution

John Lapham
General Counsel, Getty Images

William Sherak
President, Stereo D

Webcast link: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/hear_07252013.html

Reporter Claudia Kienzle cites IPI’s copyright piracy study in a comprehensive piece, "What is the cost of free?" examining efforts to curtail online copyright infringement in the June/July issue of Streaming Media Magazine.

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” –Thomas Jefferson

Conservatives get off track on issues like privacy when they lose sight of the fact that government’s first priority is NOT to protect Americans’ security, but is rather to protect Americans’ freedom. If you assume that government’s first job is to protect national security, you are already on the thinnest end of the wedge that eventually leads to a surveillance state, which is simply the last bus stop just before a police state. Our system, including the justice system, by design correctly values freedom over security anytime the two come into conflict, which as it turns out is pretty often.

So public horror at the disclosure of widespread data collection on the activities of ordinary Americans by the National Security Agency is entirely warranted. People realize that, while there is always going to be a tension between security and privacy, discovering that the federal government is building massive databases of our phone communication, Internet activity, credit card transactions and God knows what else suggests that the government has crossed the line and is prioritizing security over freedom.

We've just gotten word that the next hearing in the Judiary Commitee's series of hearings on copyright review has been scheduled for next Thursday, July 25, at 9:30 am in 2141 Rayburn. The theme of this hearing is "Innovation in America: The Role of Copyrights."

A good theme. In fact, that would have been a pretty good theme for the FIRST hearing in this series, instead of the near waste-of-time topic that occupied the first hearing. But I've already ranted about that . . . 

While the House Judiciary Committee is certainly busy with a raft of issues these days, sooner or later they will continue to hold hearings about the copyright system in the U.S., considering how it works in an age of rapidly advancing technology, business models, an ever growing pool of content and new means to access that content.

This week marks the initial negotiating session for the new Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement, which is a new free trade agreement between the U.S. and the European Union. And IPI will be there.

Like most trade agreements, the goals include lowering tariffs, but because the E.U. countries are for the most part advanced economies, there will be more focus on technical regulations, standards and certifications—all designed to make it easier to sell and ship goods between the U.S. and the E.U.

There’s nearly a $trillion per year in trade between the U.S. and the E.U., but the barriers are such that both sides of the agreement think there are $billions in savings to be achieved by lowering tariffs and otherwise making it easier to do business across the pond.

Reporters and legal commentators shout from the roof-tops when landmark rulings stop everything and change the world. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court did them one better in Shelby County v. Holder—it issued a landmark ruling that recognized that it was time to stop something because the world had changed.

Liberals think they can slow Medicare spending by imposing price controls on drugs. Of course, 30 years of Medicare price controls haven't controlled spending yet.

On May 15, IPI convened a panel to discuss software patents, to discuss the criticism that the U.S. patent system has recently attracted, and to address whether that criticism is warranted. The goal was to explore a couple basic questions, such as can any of the existing challenges be addressed by creating a stronger system overall? If there are "trolls," then to what extent are they enabled by software patents? Is software best protected under copyright as an expression, or under patent as an invention? Why are there more software patents now? And how do we address the challenges while protecting US innovation? What role should patents be playing in protecting software? Why do they play a role at all? Doesn't copyright protect software adequately?

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has taken a lot of heat for asking--some would say shaking down--health insurance executives for money to help implement ObamaCare. So it has changed the messenger, but not the message.