« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

EU: Obama is too beholden to Hollywood

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  December 2nd, 2009 at 06:11 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In another triumph of openness for the Hopenchange™ administration, the secret negotations of the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting and Trade Agreement (ACTA) continue. And according to Wired, they’re not going well for the President. A note from the EU to the US was leaked and published to a European website, and it exposes two facts. First, Hollywood isn’t content to have gotten two expansions of copyright in the 1976 Copyright Act, which extended copyright about thirty years, and the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which extended it about another twenty years on top of that. It wants to gain, through treaty, even more tilting of the scales of copyright, and according to the EU, the Obama adminstration is negotiating purely with Hollywood’s interests in mind.

Most shocking, according to this document, is that the US wants to expand the enforcement of copyright beyond infringers themselves, but to those people who merely receive infringing broadcasts; that is, Obama wants to punish the downloaders of files. In fact, he wishes to mandate that ISPs worldwide, without any recourse or appeal by the users, be disconnected from the Internet service they’ve paid for according to the whims of the Motion Picture Association of America and other trade groups. Other trade groups including the Recording Industry Association of America, which Wired says has sent five lawyers to join the Obama administration.

The President is clearly embarassed by this gross shilling for a particular industry which treated him so well in the election, because he has declared the negotations of this treaty to be a secret on the grounds that divulging the information would harm the security of the nation.

Yeah, Obama thinks his polling numbers are a matter of national security. And he’ll use the entire power of the Presidency to protect them. That’s the Chicago way.

Regardless of whether “information wants to be free,” Obama wants to lock it up as tightly as possible for the benefit of his donors, for as long as possible. Elections have consequences. How’s that working out for you, Libertarians?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • sarge324

    ever time i read what is coming out of the whitehouse the word liberty is not there.obamas hollywood will suck the freedom from our bodies.america always wins because of liberty.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    Simple quid pro quod.

    And the more that Obama destroys our country, the more he need Hollywood to produce a Potemkin Village that covers up the disaster and tries to hoodwink the American people.

    What is shameful is the invoking of national security to cover up the continuing dalliance.

  • jackbenimble

    This is not going to sit well with the youth vote. They are by far the biggest violators of copyright law with file downloads. And the left in general hates intellectual property rights even more than they hate other types of property rights. Hence the vast support for things like GNU Licensing schemes. The only reason these property rights exist is so that people can profit and profit in their view is evil.

  • jackhammer

    I think only public servants and auto unions (with their pensions)….and people who believe in eternal copyright.

    Walt Disney was a startup company who had ot compete against big established companies, and did so with continual innovation, coming up with characters after mickey mouse to build a meaningful company. They shouldn’t be allowed ot protect their current position for all eternity under the guise of “copyright”.

    Copyright should not extend for eons beyond the death of the creator, it prompts laziness rather than creativity. Why should some country singer who had a hit 15 years ago be paid every single time that 15 year old song is played? No one at my work pays me for something I did 15 years ago? Either I do somehting good now that commands a recurring salary, or I’m gone, and that is how it should be.

    What makes artists this special group that should be paid forever for old work? At some point, and that point is much closer to 7 years than it is to 70, things become public domain, they become part of the landscape, and should be able to be used as such. If an artist is creative, they will come up with new stuff, and that will guarantee a continual income stream. The same should be said for movies, as for virtaully any other invention.

    Copyright is a form of corporatism and protection from competition, and it is lobbying the ogvernment to do such. As such, it is anathema to anything one would consider conservative….

    We should be a country with ever new millionaires and billionaires and not a country that tries to protect, inside and outside of our borders, the wealth of those who currently have it….

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I just also favor the part in the Constitution where the copyrights are for a ‘limited time,’ and Disney isn’t given a perpetual copyright on Steamboat Willie.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    Music is an even bigger problem You ought not be able to hold a copyright on a piece of music for, not only and entire lifetime, but the kids and grandkids lives too,

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • jackhammer

    limited time, is actually a limited time. And I say it is more like 7 years than 70, or the 110 or whatever it is under the Sonny Bono Mickey Mouse law of 1998.

    Copyright in its current incarnation keeps lawyers and lobbyists busy, and protects those who know how to use both from competition.

    It would be as if KMart had patented the conept of big box retailing and banned WalMart, Target and all others form entering the sphere….

  • RedBeard

    Said stooges being the leftie EU, Obama the leftie, and Hollywood Leftieland.

    The difference is that the real Three Stooges were funny. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

  • mschmitt

    http://www.articlesbase.com/music-articles/how-the-happy-birthday-to-you-song-was-written-476763.html

    Ordinary citizens are miffed that, thanks to some changes in copyright law in the 1970s and 1990s, Summy’s rights to the birthday song were extended. Originally destined for public domain in 1991, Summy will continue to profit from it until 2030. Many people feel that the birthday song rightfully belongs to the public, especially since the Hill sisters never profited from the original tune.

  • zroxx

    Most shocking, according to this document, is that the US wants to expand the enforcement of copyright beyond infringers themselves, but to those people who merely receive infringing broadcasts; that is, Obama wants to punish the downloaders of files.

    What is your position regarding someone who downloads a copy of, for example, “The Dark Knight” from a site on the Internet?

    Do you feel they have committed copyright infringement and/or committed theft and should be held liable for it, presumably because they have unjustly violated the rights of the copyright holder?

    Do you feel they have committed copyright infringement and/or committed theft but should not face any criminal liability?

    Do you feel they have committed copyright infringement and/or committed theft, should face criminal liability, but that the government should not pursue such persons?

    Or something else?

    Limited copyright makes sense, but it’s not clear to me from this paragraph how you think the distinction should be made between “infringers”, “people who merely receive infringing broadcasts”, and “downloaders of [infringing, I presume] files”, particularly with regards to who should be held criminally liable by the government.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens