Forget the Fiscal Cliff, How About Copyright Reform?

, Corporate Counsel


The Republican Study Committee released a report advocating major copyright reform that could have helped win over the young and tech-savvy. But then it disappeared.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • Vanilla Ice My Copyright Reform

    In case the post title isn't clear enough, let me elaborate:
    Herein lies the problem w/ such "wide-sweeping copyright reform" --It's not Us v Them where "Them" is the music, movie/TV and book industries and "Us" is the World Wide Web User...
    Its not even Us v Them where the "Them" is the collection of ISPs v "Us" the WWW Users...

    It IS the "Us" v "Them" where the "Us" is anyone who effectively asserts their creative efforts and talents to share (or not share) with an audience they select (control) or to distribute such works to a profitable platform of their choosing (control,)
    the "Them" who see fit to take any creation of their fancy for FREE and without ANY consideration for the Creator of the work. I.e. the Vanilla Ice generation.
    To really bring it home; It's ME versus my Daughter. Feel me now?

  • Ethicalfan

    Piracy by data volume in the US grew by 40% from 2011 to 2012 and Cisco forecasts that it will double by 2015.

  • Ethicalfan

    42% of all US Internet upload traffic is used to illegally distribute music, movies, tv shows, games, software and books. That is the equivalent of 31 billion movies if it was all movies. Pro-piracy advocates say it is impossible to reduce piracy. It is very possible. US law says that ISPs only have safe harbor from their subscribers illegally distributing content if they have a policy for terminating repeat infringers (17 USC 512 (i). Many ISPs terminate repeat infringers and have less piracy on their networks. Many do not. If all US ISPs were doing following the law, 42% of all US internet upstream traffic wouldn't be used to illegally distribute music, movies, games, software and ebooks. Pro-piracy advocates say that ISPs cant know who the repeat infringers are. ISPs get millions of infringement notices. It is very easy for them to know which accounts have received thousands of infringement notices over half a dozen months.

  • Ethicalfan

    The tech industry's assault on copyright has decreased the wages of US musicians by 45% according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. ISPs have built a $50B a year broadband business while the US recording industry has decreased from $12B to $6B, the US Home Video Industry has decreased from $26B in 2006 to $18B in 2011. The US Video Game industry (console and PC) has decreased 13%. A very small group of people have benefitted from the assualt on copyright. The founders and investors in Youtube sold the company to Google for $3B and never paid the hundreds of thousands of individual people and the companies that represent them who held the rights to those videos. Their claim that copyright is "a barrier to innovation" could not be more disingenous. Copyright allows individual creatives to be paid for their work and it creates incentive for investors to invest in creative work. The tech companies want to be able to continue to make billions on the backs of creative people and pay them nothing.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202578976264

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.