Comments on: Copyright debate heats up over Obama appointments

Groups representing intellectual-property holders and groups opposed to strict IP enforcement are sending President Obama opposing messages about his administration picks.

[rmva]

Slow news day in DC.

[rnaoncfixd]

I live in DC and every day is a slow news day. Ugh.

[man_w_balls]

impeach Obama

[Lumiseon]

Why, becuase you're a moron?

[unknown unknown]

"Why, becuase you're a moron?"

No because he's as bad as Bush Jr.

[subsider34]

Am I the only one who finds it rather sad that neither Privacy nor Intellectual Property Rights are listed as issues to be considered on whitehouse.gov?

[baconstang]

The babies are crying. Eventually you've got to pay some way or the flow of music/films/games etc. will dry up

[gerrrg]

Yeah...that's why DRM is so popular, such that they can charge more for files with DRM. LOL.


Follow the market forces, and watch the decline of the high prices for IP.

[unknown unknown]

People are willing to pay if they perceive a good value. The people in danger are ones sitting on their laurels or the ones producing formula generic crap. I personally wouldn't miss the bad movie remakes, the over compressed (removing the dynamic range so the music is just loud to hide how sh*tty it really is), and the large video game publishers are getting a bit stale in what they release.

Plenty of people are creating for free or considerably cheap than the big players and are a lot more innovative.
If it makes room for people who actually innovate. let em die.

[magicmaster]

There is no direct connection between stricter protection of IP and creation of new jobs. For example, I could hire new people without stricter protection of IP, but stricter protection of IP does not lead to guranteed job offer.

[pkron]

It's not that simple magicmaster.
A reasonable amount IP protection will encourage monetizing creative works. Unfortunately the IP holders, and not artists or creators, have put unreasonable IP protections in place. This stifles the use of creative works for the common good. A more pragmatic approach is needed. We all should be able to use content on the internet which does two things:
1) use is easily determined by the content owner (see Creative Commons)
2) Copyright expires in a reasonable time frame and available for all to use. A reasonable time frame will allow copyright owners to monetize IP without perpetual ownership. Perpetual ownership also stifles innovation and hurts potential creative works, which in turn creates jobs.

[Mergatroid Mania]

The real problem is the US Patent Office giving out patents to everyone and his dog. So many patents should never have been awarded. The only people making money off of those patents are lawyers.
Those are the patents stifling innovation and creativity.

Personally, I don't think software should be patentable at all. Since the people getting the patents did not invent the hardware, languages or command sets, they have no business patenting any work created using them.

[odubtaig]

Not that I'm disagreeing with your conclusion, but how you came to it is fundamentally flawed. If a person cannot patent something because they didn't make the tools used in its creation then anything after the flint axe is unpatentable. It's equivalent to saying that a physical invention couldn't be patented because it was made with tools bought from some other entity, that the guy on American Inventor who came up with the dissasembling wheelchair couldn't patent that design because he didn't invent metal tubes, welding torches or the garage he made it in.

[odubtaig]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, the government is supposed to represent the population which elected it, not special interest groups. Yes, even if they're wrong, the administration is supposed to reflect that.

Oh, who am I kidding? Different name, same old face. We have always been at war with Oceana.

A minor correction, should be 'cited', not 'sited' in the third from last paragraph.