Tag: maria pallante

With Register Pallante Out, What Now?

Photo by apparen.
Photo by apparen.

Creators, copyright advocates, and many policymakers were taken aback by last Friday’s announcement that the new Librarian of Congress Dr. Carla Hayden removed Maria Pallante from the position of Register of Copyrights. The decision was officially described as a reassignment for Pallante to the role of senior advisor for digital strategy, which Pallante has declined.  Associate register Karyn Temple Claggett stepped in as acting Register and the LOC is conducting what it calls a “nationwide search” for a new candidate.

Pallante’s ouster comes just barely six weeks after Hayden’s official start at the LOC, and rights holders and artists are justifiably anxious about the decision itself and the suddenness with which the change took effect.  Meanwhile, anti-copyright voices, who view Dr. Hayden as a fellow ideologue—many librarians are generally critical of copyright—were quick to begin writing the narrative in the twitterverse that their new champion is “cleaning house” by removing a Register who has been the target of organized criticism almost since the day she took office in 2011.

Organizations like the EFF and Public Knowledge, along with several anti-copyright bloggers have at various times accused Pallante of favoring the interests of large, corporate rights holders. This accusation is contrary to Pallante’s actual record and background, but that’s of little consequence in the grand scheme because the ongoing, negative PR campaign was really aimed at copyright law itself. Any Register who believes in the importance of copyright would have been targeted in the same way as Pallante; she just happened to become the face of copyright during a period when the critics amped up their industry-funded rhetoric to a new level.

One of the more concerning aspects of this unprecedented move is that those who are well-versed in Pallante’s background and policy recommendations know that she emphasized the interests of individual authors and the intended social benefits of copyright over the major rights holders whom she is accused of indulging. I cited one example of this in my post about the lawsuit filed by EFF arguing the unconstitutionality of DMCA Section 1201. That the EFF chose to litigate an 18-year-old law at the same time that Pallante herself was advocating policy changes which pragmatically addressed some of EFF’s exact concerns is at odds with the portrait of her as an industry-biased “maximalist.”  That the EFF also happened to file its 1201 suit at about the right moment for it to become one of Dr. Hayden’s first headaches is a curiosity as well.

I think there is little doubt that the organizations and individuals crowing on social media about the defenestration of Pallante see it as a step toward dramatically limiting, or even abolishing, copyright law.  Claims like Public Knowledge’s Friday afternoon tweet that this is, “A great opportunity to bring balance back to the Office’s policy work” are pure spin. Pallante was balanced, often siding with interests other than rights holders; but balance is not the honest goal of organizations like Public Knowledge, which was directly responsible for last month’s hatchet job against the CO when it issued a “report” composed of exaggerations and lies of omission.

Hayden’s Thinking and the Future of the Copyright Office

Whether Pallante’s dismissal represents an ideological split with Hayden on copyright or internal politics or any number of factors that may never be publicly known, the move may indicate that Dr. Hayden envisions taking a more hands-on role in copyright policy than past Librarians have done. If so, this whiplash firing of the Register ought to raise at least a few congressional eyebrows in context to the now three-year-long discussion on the prospect of separating the Copyright Office from the LOC.  Pallante’s unexpected and unprecedented removal could serve to emphasize for lawmakers the rationale for that separation. In essence, although the new Librarian has acted within the scope of her authority, this decision and its timing may reflect a significant lack of deference for the historic basis of that authority.

As explained in a previous post, the Librarian of Congress is not, and has never truly been, the nation’s copyright expert. The formation of the Copyright Office within the Library in 1897 came about as a largely functional relationship between the registration of works and the need to grow the collection.  It wasn’t until the turn of the 20th century, particularly with the passage of the 1909 Act, that copyright law started to become as complexly woven into the American economy as it is today.  As copyright law evolved along with the expansion of technology, the Register increasingly served as a national advisor on policy—well beyond oversight of the original registration function.

While the copyright registration and deposit process remains a major source of material for the Library’s collection; with the advent of digitization, there arises a natural tension between a Librarian’s ambition to make the collection accessible online and the Register’s responsibility to see that rights holders who deposit copies with the LOC remain protected. For instance, if the LOC were to make full-length, high-quality works available online for free, this would clearly harm the licensing opportunities for those works; and this, in turn, would dissuade authors from registration and deposit. In this context, it is noteworthy that Pallante was “offered” the “digital strategy” job.  As one knowledgeable colleague, speaking on background, suggested, “This is a firing in disguise, offering Pallante the one job she would be inclined to tell the Librarian she cannot do.”

So, although there remains a practical relationship between the registration process and the Library collection, there is no hard-and-fast reason, especially from a policy perspective, why the Register must continue to operate under the purview of the Library. In fairness, Dr. Hayden may not be the anti-copyright ideologue that folks at EFF, PK, et al assume her to be, but the timing and tone of Pallante’s removal has unquestionably been viewed as a slap in the face to creators.  If indeed that slap is a signal that Hayden considers herself the new “copyright sheriff in town,” that could easily trigger both rights holders and members of the Judiciary Committee to decide that indeed it is time for these two very different authorities to operate independent of one another.  After all, balance is what we get when opposing but equal forces are required to work together.

Copyright, copyright everywhere…

There is certainly no shortage of copyright in the news these days, and readers of this blog might wonder about my silence on subjects like the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kirtsaeng or the testimony before Congress by Register of Copyright Maria Pallante calling for the next great overhaul of the law. For starters, when I began writing IOM, I never intended for it to overemphasize copyright as a topic; and I have stated repeatedly in posts and comments that there are plenty of sites (see blogroll) hosted by legal experts in Intellectual Property, which I do not presume to be. In fact, one of my ongoing criticisms of the Web is that its mechanisms tend to bring out the armchair expert on all subjects, regardless of their complexity, which invariably reduces even the most intricate matters to popular sentiment based on prejudices already held before discussion began.  An illusion of discourse heading in no particular direction.

I write this blog from two main perspectives — as an artist working to navigate a changing career in the middle of tremendous upheaval and churn; and as a citizen with a measure of socratic humility, admitting that my observations are limited and that there are always experts who know more than I about many things. I bet if I walked into my local diner and talked to the 50+ crowd, I could gather a smattering of opinions on say North Korea but probably receive blank stares on copyright.  If I did the same thing with a bunch of local sixteen year-olds, I might get blank stares on North Korea and an earful on the evils of copyright.  Odds are, of course, few of these opinions will be grounded in quality journalism, let alone first-source expertise.  Yes, the Internet makes it possible to cut through bumper-sticker politics and acquire expert information, but it’s also a great tool for repeating the bumper stickers, which is why amateurs can make a whole career out of repeating what people want to hear, regardless of substance. So it is with copyright.

If uninformed, declaratives about copyright are the froth in your latte, then TechDirt is the site for you. I read Mike Masnick’s post, for instance, concerning Pallante’s testimony, and the typical blogger thing to do would be for someone like me to critique that post fallacy by fallacy; but the prospect of doing so is almost as tedious as it is futile.  After all, both Masnick and I are about as expert on copyright law as we probably are on plumbing.  Those opposed to strong copyright protections already agree with his post, and those in favor will agree with mine. Meanwhile, I’m betting a large segment of the American population neither knows nor cares to know about the inner workings of these laws; so I often find myself wondering about the value of us amateurs arguing via blog over some of the more fleeting and granular aspects of a legal system that will likely take several years to evolve into its next incarnation.

So, for anyone who reads this blog and is not knee-deep in the gore of the copyright battle, the big picture as I see it this:  I believe the copyright system will change over the next decade or so, but if that change is predicated too much on the self-serving premises of its tech-industry antagonists, the results for artists in particular, and for society in general, will be regressive rather than progressive. It would be like allowing the oil industry to overly influence emissions policy.  Copyright stifles innovation is a popular meme and a cornerstone premise of the entire cabal aligned against the system, but this assertion is never supported by solid examples or data, which leads one to conclude that innovation describes what is contemporary and popular, regardless of whether or not it is economically progressive or, dare I say, fair.  We generalists could boil down the details to  a few fundamental questions when considering the future of copyright:  Is enterprise-scale piracy innovation or exploitation? Is the right of the author a civil right or a government handout?  Is copyright relevant for the individual or just a tool for big corporations?

These may be questions my kids’ generation will have to answer, but in order to do so honestly, they will need to come to terms with certain practical realities that don’t require legal scholarship.  First, they’ll need to recognize that the Internet is not an extension of themselves, but a technological piece of infrastructure over which just a few corporations wield unprecedented power.  Next, they’ll need to see past the selfish habit of acquiring media for free and accept that there is no such thing as an economy based on free stuff, that someone always pays and who pays makes a difference.  They’ll need to recognize that no matter what they believe about big media companies and lobbyists, flesh-and-blood, independent artists and small creative businesses are experiencing tangible and measurable harm. In fact, as I write this, musician and activist David Lowery, speaking at the Canadian Music Week’s Global Forum, just said the following: “The first week our new Camper Van Beethoven album came out, I watched one seed on BitTorrent distribute more copies than we sold.” I think you have to be both daft and depraved to describe this as innovation, and this kind of spin has no business informing the future of copyright.

I was asked the other day by a gadfly baiting me on Twitter if a “win” for me would be the triumph of the RIAA and the MPAA. I don’t know what that means, and neither does the gadfly; but these implicit accusations are typical of the associative politics to which neither conservatives nor progressives are immune.  Such interactions are circular, boring, and meaningless. And the hypocrisy is off the charts. I won’t pretend I’m a legal scholar, but the number of tech utopians who presume to lecture the creative community about how to make albums, motion pictures, and other works is truly staggering.

As I say, this blog was never intended to be all about copyright, and it occurs to me that part of its intent was to share observations from the perspective of developing new film projects in the current landscape. I admit that I am too easily attracted to the broad discussion, and I shall make an effort to steer this blog to be a little more film project focused, if for no other reason than film is next and may be more vulnerable than music.  It’s been a long time since Lars Ulrich was pilloried on the steps of Napster, and today we see musicians, from fairly obscure to the biggest names, coming forward to talk about artists’ rights in the digital age, and not without reason.  The truth is I don’t care if I or one of my colleagues develops a new film as a self-produced project, a deal with a Netflix, a traditional studio, or an established indie production company — whatever best serves the work.  But there is not one of these paths that is not founded on the right of the author to retain first choice in the process by establishing a precedent of ownership in the work.  Beyond that fundamental reality are many intricate details for professionals to work out and a whole lot of amateur-hour bullshit that deserves once and for all to be moved to the fringes of the debate.

Turning Down the Noise

Photo by Dmitry Rukhlenko

One of the things I truly love about the Internet’s influence on human psychology is that there seems to be something about the act of typing publicly in real-time that makes so many of us into armchair experts on just about any subject we choose.  This is particularly striking when it comes to complex legal matters, and if you are unfortunate enough to find yourself engaged in a “discussion” about copyright, you will invariably encounter invocations of the Constitution and proclamations of reason from people who are not legal professionals of any kind, let alone intellectual property law.  Whenever I hear someone use the terms “copyright maximalist” or “copyright monopoly,” it reminds me of social conservatives who use the term “activist judges” to sweep away some  legal principle that doesn’t square with their personal agendas.

Several months ago, Registrar of Copyrights Maria Pallante made a statement in an interview that was not only innocuous, but also happened to be correct. She said that “Copyright is for the author first and the nation second.”  Silicon Valley’s Representative Zoe Lofgren, however, decided to take Pallante to task in a Congressional hearing; and TechDirt editor Mike Masnick got his righteous knickers in a twist over the whole non-issue.  Masnick posted several articles blasting Pallante and provoking reader comments from some of the great armchair, Constitutional scholars of our times (no doubt, you’d know them by their avatars).  One of these experts posed the following question, which is probably more telling than any of the ham-handed legal opinions put forth:  “In this climate, is it still a realistic expectation to ask the public to allow artists to be full time artists?”  If I read that statement out of context, I’d assume it came from a conservative politician who transparently disapproves of the NEA, and opaquely hates all us wierdo, liberal, artsy elitists.  In other words, “Get a real job.  You can write books, make movies, compose music as a hobby.”  And, yes, this is the vision of technocrats and their supporters.

I try very hard not to presume any more legal expertise than the average citizen who hasn’t been to law school.  As an exercise in logic, however, I find it impossible to see how the one-sentence clause in the Constitution on copyright could function in any other way than that described by Pallante — i.e. that creative work won’t benefit the public until it first benefits the creator(s); and both history and the rulings of numerous courts bear this out.  But don’t take my word for it.

For anyone who is truly interested in dispassionate, professional, and well-written analysis of copyright fundamentals, it is hard to find a better source than Terry Hart, a young lawyer with a specialty in intellectual property law, who hosts the blog Copyhype, named by the ABA Journal as one of the top 100 legal blogs in the U.S.  For example, I recommend Terry’s recent post on this this no-so-controversial statement by Maria Pallante.

People like Representative Lofgren and Mike Masnick have an axe to grind for a specific industry, and people like me and others who speak out from the point of view of creators can get more than a little emotional, especially when we encounter sentiments like the one above asking whether the “public should allow” us to make creative work a profession. So, I think it’s important, and frankly calming, to step away from the shouting and read the work of someone like Terry from time to time.