Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Doc Thompson’s 24-hour radio marathon, ‘#24forok,’ continues until 9 am ET — Listen Live!

Government

Meet the Fired Republican Staffer Who’s Taking on Hollywood Over Internet Freedom

Mar. 10, 2013 6:15pm

Back in November of last year, Republican staffer Derek Khanna faced a dilemma that, unlike the problems faced by many of his peers in the GOP, had nothing to do with the election. Specifically, Khanna had authored a memo on copyright reform for his then-employers, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) that shot down three “myths of copyright” – that is, that “the purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content,” that “copyright is the free market at work,” and that “the current copyright legal regime leads to the greatest innovation and productivity.” Khanna’s memo was meant to get  the ball rolling on a discussion of copyright policy within the GOP, with the goal of allowing some form of modest legislation to be crafted on that topic. What is more, the memo had been approved through the usual channels, and had been posted a few weeks back, to adulation from both conservatives and liberals. You can read the memo below:

Republican Study Committee Intellectual Property Brief by

The problem? The entertainment industry hated it, and many Republicans, who worked closely with that very industry, had pushed back on the memo. As such, Khanna found his celebrated memo pulled from the RSC site abruptly, with claims that it hadn’t been properly reviewed being issued as excuses. Within two weeks, he was fired.

Derek Khanna, Ex RSC Staffer, Leads War on Hollywood Over Copyright Reform, Internet Freedom

Derek Khanna (Photo Credit: AP)

But Khanna didn’t take his firing lying down. Since last November, he has taken his cause in a dramatically different direction, becoming a major activist in fights over intellectual property, most notably a recent petition attacking the decision by the Library of Congress to outlaw unlocking cell phones. As TheBlaze’s Liz Klimas described this fight:

The tech community spoke out strongly against the Library of Congress when it decided last year to stop allowing cellphones to be unlocked. More than 100,000 signatures (114,322 to be exact) on a petition to the White House later, the administration has responded, siding with those who support unlocking of cellphones.

Why should you care? Sina Khanifar, an entrepreneur who helped start OpenSignal, a database of wireless network information, and launched the initial petition to “make unlocking cellphones legal,” told TheBlaze in an email the general public should pay attention and care about the legislation that could follow the White House’s response.

“Unlocking phones means great competition between wireless carriers, a more open market and more freedom for consumers to choose the best carrier in their area,” Khanifar wrote.

Phones sold by specific providers include an SIM lock that prevents the phone from being used in other countries or with different providers. Prior to the Library of Congress’ ruling in the fall of 2012 going into effect this year, phones were exempt from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which meant they could be unlocked.[...]

Locking cell phones also prevents consumers from freely choosing their cell carrier. If you decide to change your network, say from AT&T to T-Mobile, the DMCA regulations mean that unless your carrier agrees to unlock your phone, you’ll need to buy a new device. As a result, manufacturers like Motorola and Apple are keen to keep devices locked so that they can sell more phones. The CTIA, the trade association that represents the wireless industry, claims that the illegality of phone unlocking prevents “large scale phone trafficking operations” that involve unlocking carrier-subsidized phones and selling them abroad. But consumers who buy subsidized phones commit to two-year contracts with hefty early-termination fees (up to $350 for most carriers). The carrier’s subsidies are already contractually protected.

The petition garnered a favorable response from the White House, but also prompted arch-conservative Republicans to leap into action, Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz being one major example. It is not difficult to see why. Many advocates of stringent copyright protection also happen to be some of the most forceful advocates of internet censorship, especially of the kind supported in the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) that failed in Congress last year. Libertarian leaning conservatives such as Glenn Beck slammed that piece of legislation at the time:

Since his firing, Khanna has become the face of copyright reform, a position which has landed him celebrity status within the tech community, and with pro-tech bloggers both on the Left and the Right. Both the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein and the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney, not ordinarily two writers found on the same side of an issue, have praised Khanna’s courage while slamming Hollywood and, by extension, the content industry. From Klein:

Khanna had unwittingly stumbled into a deep fissure in today’s Republican Party. The party sees itself as the champion of private enterprise. But which private enterprises? The ones that exist today? Or the ones that might exist tomorrow?

There’s a difference between being the party of free markets and the party of existing businesses. Excessively tough copyright law is good for big businesses with large legal departments but bad for new businesses that can’t afford a lawyer. And while Khanna, like many young conservative thinkers, believes in free markets, the Republican Party is heavily funded by big businesses.

And from Carney:

This paper upset some powerful interests. By Saturday afternoon, the RSC had pulled the memo from its website and officially retracted it. The reason, according to two Republicans within the RSC: angry objections from Rep. Marsha Blackburn, whose district abuts Nashville, Tenn. In winning a fifth term earlier in the month, Blackburn received more money from the music industry than any other Republican congressional candidate, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Blackburn’s office did not return calls seeking comment.

Lobbyists for the music and movie industries also called the RSC to express disapproval, according to Republicans involved.[...]

Republicans are surprisingly close to the entertainment industry. For instance, Mitch Glazier, as a Republican House Judiciary Committee staffer in the late 1990s, played a key role in drafting GOP bills expanding copyright before cashing out to the industry. He now runs the Recording Industry Association of America, a $4 million-a-year lobby operation that fights for more government protection of record labels.

So Republican politicians, with their sensitivities to K Street and their general pro-big-business tendencies, are not eager to roll back the extraordinary government protection for Hollywood and Nashville. But free-market think tanks and writers are banging the drum.

And as for Khanna himself? He is just getting started. TechCrunch sums up Khanna’s future prospects:

Khanna isn’t done yet; his next act partners with well-known tech policy advocates, such as consumer watchdog, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, to initiate sweeping copyright reforms. The coalition launched a new movement to effectively end much of the discretionary authority given to government agencies, like the Library of Congress, through a law that stands as a pillar of modern-day digital copyright, Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The Library of Congress has already rejected the White House’s pronouncement, and it will surely be joined by powerful content lobbies. Khanna and co are up against deep-pocketed, highly connected groups and their campaign is no longer flying under the radar.

The fight will test the mettle of grassroots activism. Regardless of the outcome, this digital David never would have had a chance against lobbyist Goliath were it not for a coalition of geeky officials and online tools that turned a fired staffer into a powerful voice.

For conservatives, many of whom have slammed the entertainment industry for its  decadence, wastefulness and corruption, this move by a young activist who is unapologetically on the Right to take on that very industry while earning plaudits from Silicon Valley is likely to sound welcome. As to whether Khanna’s war with the entertainment industry will work out? That remains to be seen.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Comments (56)

  • Obama_In_PeePee_By_Zee_Arteeest_Beck
    Posted on March 12, 2013 at 1:44am

    “Meet the Fired Republican Staffer Who’s Taking on Hollywood Over Internet Freedom”

    Past time to return the copyright law back to America (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 [the Copyright Clause] ):
    “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

    The original copyright law (1790) gave legal protection of a 14 year term (renewable for one additional 14 year term, if the author was alive at the end of the first time).
    The past century’s Congresses, think Progressives(communists) “100 years”, has unbelievably expanded that into terms of 95 / 120 years or life plus 70 years! That does NOT promote ANYTHING for America of which we Americans grant them legal protection.

    Add the Progressives(communists) angle and you can see it is to do precisely the opposite: LOCK UP any benefit to America in general; oh, and to use fellow Progressives(communists) in the lucrative media as money laundering associates for their fellows in Washington DC. (Every wonder how Hollywood became so … Liberal? Same way they got into everything else — the 100 years plan.)

    “DEMOCRATS OPENLY BOAST! Socialized Medicine IS KEY To The 100 YEARS Marxist U.S.-Overthrow Strategy!”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Loi_Vqu7Z28
    “This is a wonderful, exciting day for us [the U.S. Senate] and the culmination of nearly 100 years of work.”

    Report this comment

    Obama_In_PeePee_By_Zee_Arteeest_Beck  
  • phillips1990702
    Posted on March 11, 2013 at 12:38pm

    This is a very well written memo. I absolutely agree with him that patent and copyright laws have become too restrictive.

    Report this comment

    phillips1990702  
  • Vydunas
    Posted on March 11, 2013 at 11:23am

    Huh? What business does the Library of Congress have in this? They’re a LIBRARY, not part of the executive branch. If anyone gets a say, it should be the FCC.

    Report this comment

    Vydunas  
  • fr0thing
    Posted on March 11, 2013 at 3:13am

    Bill Clinton, a Democrat, signed the evil draconian Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in response to the Entertainment Industry demanding more control of content and intellectual property. This horrible law killed “fair use” and “public domain”. Look it up – it needs to be repealed.
    This is further proof that the Democrats are the party of big business and screw the little guy.

    Report this comment

    fr0thing  
    • Silvertruth
      Posted on March 11, 2013 at 11:07am

      Originally Copyright law and Patent law did their jobs. The really issue is that we allowed lobbying on both sides to change the laws to the will of major corporate industry. Disney is a prominent example. When “Steamboat Willy” Mickey Mouse design was going to come up for public access, Disney lobbied to get the copyright timeframe extended and WON. This does NOT benefit anyone but Disney and that was never the point of copyright. The works of masters like Beethoven, Bach and many others are now public domain, anyone can use their works to their own benefit. That is the way it should be.

      It’s the same with Patent law, the creator was given a period of time to benefit from the ‘invention’ and after that time, they would have to compete with others using the invention their own ways. Now you can just change a small thing and ‘re-patent’ the invention and keep going, something that was never intended in patent law.

      The DMCA was sold as a to protect creators rights to being paid for their works to keep from being electronically duplicated into oblivion. However, what it really did was keep the RIAA and Movie industry in a choke hold of all created rights. This has had its downside for those two industries though.

      More and more artists are going direct release, bypassing labels and distributors. Once this becomes the ‘norm’ then the DMCA will be meaningless.

      Lets work to get our copyright and patent law returned to what it should be.

      Report this comment

      Silvertruth  
    • GclefGinger
      Posted on March 11, 2013 at 12:59pm

      I see, in the credits of movies, a copyright for “Happy Birthday!” Crikey!

      Report this comment

      GclefGinger  
  • dsmith43
    Posted on March 11, 2013 at 12:04am

    This article inadvertently questions a real major problem. Big business stifles small businesses and start ups, mostly because our Congress on both sides push the big corps abilities to shut anyone down no matter what. Did anyone here know that The Bush families start here is based on false pretense’s. It seems his the grandfathers were Nazi’s which came into the country under the radar after WWI, that sure explains their love for starting wars and screwing countries over. NAZI’s

    Report this comment

    dsmith43  
  • MisterSarcastic
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 11:37pm

    Carney says the R’s are in tight with the entertainment industry and then names only one elected official. That’s hardly convincing.

    Report this comment

    MisterSarcastic  
  • Back To Reality
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 11:18pm

    Interesting story, I guess.

    Anyway, just a heads up that as soon as I’m done making copies of everything, I’m opening an online store where you can buy everything in TheBlaze bookstore and marketplace for half-price.

    You know, free markets and all…

    Report this comment

    Back To Reality  
    • MisterSarcastic
      Posted on March 10, 2013 at 11:50pm

      So you’re gonna pay Glenn full price and then sell it for half price?

      Report this comment

      MisterSarcastic  
    • Back To Reality
      Posted on March 11, 2013 at 1:19am

      Yes…buy one for full price.

      Sell millions for half-price.

      Sound like a flawed idea for you? Or maybe those copywrite laws are just a waste of time…

      Report this comment

      Back To Reality  
    • lwoot
      Posted on March 11, 2013 at 11:54am

      The point of copy right is that the cell phone maker retains it’s copy right of it’s phone that it sold you. But not the right to dictate who you use for service provider on the phone. It’s similar to the idea of a land line phone. You buy the phone and choose your carrier. By making unlocking the phone illegal it takes away your ability to use the phone you paid for and now is yours, with the provider of your choice. It is a scam on the consumer in the end not the copy rights of the maker of the phone.

      Report this comment

      lwoot  
  • denkat56
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 10:45pm

    Another case of don’t tell us the facts, we don’t want to hear the truth.

    Report this comment

    denkat56  
  • Libertyluvnmomma
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 9:59pm

    being able to replace a SIM card out of phones works well. It is like a “Trac” iphone and you’re able to utilize wifi at participating locations
    what a saver$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
    looks like their are a lot of fissures in the GOP. Obama is to the GOP as Bush to the DNC.
    the GOP needs to be destroyed.I can’t wait to get rid of smokey boozy boehner.
    RINO DiNO Mccain
    party PAC Cantor

    Report this comment

    Libertyluvnmomma  
  • chips1
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 9:34pm

    Tomorrow I’m going down and copyright the letter “E”. This is going to make me rich, I tell you. RICH!!!!!

    Report this comment

    chips1  
  • Verceofreason
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 8:19pm

    He’s too good-looking to be a Republican. RAHR!

    Report this comment

    Verceofreason  
    • mike taylor
      Posted on March 10, 2013 at 8:39pm

      Oh yea and dirty Hairy is so perty tooo!

      Report this comment

      mike taylor  
    • gauge
      Posted on March 10, 2013 at 8:53pm

      Apparently you haven’t taken a look at most democrats. Especially most, if not all, of their women….

      Report this comment

      gauge  
    • Xanderson
      Posted on March 11, 2013 at 1:27am

      Birth control for conservatives… Janet Napolitano, Supreme Courts Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Debbie Blabbermouth-Schultz, Sandra Fluke, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelious, Diane Feinstein, Lena Dunham, Joy(less) Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, Barbara Walters, Barbra Streisand……..this list could go on a very long time but then no babies would be born in December ’13 and I would feel bad about that!

      Report this comment

      Xanderson  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on March 11, 2013 at 5:56am

      GAUGE, When it comes to VERCEOFREASON, I really don’t think that he looks at women in that respect.

      Report this comment

      RJJinGadsden  
  • Vision Harry
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 8:03pm

    Anyone worried about technology and the personal security you “think” you have, had better go to Google and type in your Own home address, city, state. Then click on “Truvia”. As you now are looking at a very recent picture of your Personal belongings and even as you are watering your lawn, scroll down to the view of the ground and see the shadow outline of the vehicle and equipment taking these photos. This sent absolute chills down my spine. Hello Big Brother!

    Report this comment

    Vision Harry  
  • LameLiberals
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 8:01pm

    Oil companies buy up any innovative patent that gets us off oil. They then shelf the patents and sue anyone who attempts to get us off oil.

    A PATENT NOT USED or greatly improved with 10 YEARS should be GIVEN TO THE OPEN MARKET for anyone to develop.

    Report this comment

    LameLiberals  
    • Southernsoul
      Posted on March 10, 2013 at 8:06pm

      Patents only last 14 to 20 years depending on what is being patented. I’ve been hearing this lame excuse of big bad oil companies since the 70′s, when I was old enough to know what they were talking about. So where are all of those 100 mpg motors now?

      Report this comment

      Southernsoul  
    • SATworks
      Posted on March 10, 2013 at 8:48pm

      Just another fear tactic used by liberals to attract more poorly informed new voters.

      If you can prove that “Big Oil Companies” buy up patents that could “get us off oil”, then by all means, please provide some factual evidence. Otherwise, you’re just another duped citizen proliferating unsubstantiated rumor.

      For the record: You wrongly assume that everyone wants to “get us off oil”.

      Report this comment

      SATworks  
    • LameLiberals
      Posted on March 10, 2013 at 10:43pm

      ALL patents apply – oil was an example. It is not just oil companies. It is any company that has a vested interest in someone NOT developing something that would put them out of business.

      If a blacksmith had purchased the patent of a small but crucial bit early aviation and/or early auto work AND SAT ON IT to prevent anything from being developed, Ford and the Wright Brothers would never have gotten off the ground.

      Report this comment

      LameLiberals  
  • The Third Archon
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 7:39pm

    A rare Republican with a solid head on his shoulders.

    Report this comment

    The Third Archon  
    • Jim S
      Posted on March 10, 2013 at 7:57pm

      Ah great,I can hack into Glenn’s show..no messy copyrights to interfere with my Internet freedom !!..Glenn won’t mind right?..it’s just Hollywood and phone companies who are impacted..right?…I bet not..

      Report this comment

      Jim S  
  • The Third Archon
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 7:39pm

    A rare Republican with a solid head on his shoulders.

    Report this comment

    The Third Archon  
  • media-bias-steals-elections
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 7:32pm

    I don’t understand how Glenn Beck can call copy right laws censorship, there must be some kind of mis-communication going on here, because it makes no sense. Fair use allows people to talk about any work that is protected under copy right laws.

    Report this comment

    media-bias-steals-elections  
    • termyt
      Posted on March 10, 2013 at 8:09pm

      Copyright laws are a form of censorship. They deny speech from people because someone else said it first. Similar to patents for physical inventions.

      It’s a limitation we agree with in general because we believe people ought to be compensated for creating music and software and books we enjoy.

      But we also tend to believe there are limits to the copyrights – they are not absolute. The trick is finding the proper balance so that innovators are free to create (and earn the money to feed their families and continue to innovate) yet not so restrictive that others can’t take and improve upon those innovations.

      Copyright laws, like many other types, fall into an “if one law is good, 100 are reasonable, and 1,000 are better” syndrome most members of Congress suffer from.

      Report this comment

      termyt  
  • media-bias-steals-elections
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 7:29pm

    No, his proposed conversation is not limited to cell phones, and there is an exception to copy right law that I really don’t understand. If I register an internet domain name, but fail to renew it, how can the domain register allow someone else to register the domain name I created, if that is my intellectual property copy righted by law?

    An example is Google.com. Nobody ever used that name before, and of course it is trademarked, but what if was not because you can’t afford the outrageous fees to trademark something? Phone devices change so frequently that that is not even an issue when you had a choice to buy a locked phone or an unlocked phone – Duh? We are not going to change the law because you are not wise?

    Let’s say I want to remix someone’s music without their permission? Do I want libel and defamation suits if I accidently mix it the wrong way? What if I don’t like the ending to Independence Day, maybe I want the aliens to win, and watch them torture people, because I don’t think you are scared of aliens and you should be? I would be in court for the rest of my life?

    Intellectual property is protected for the reasonable lifetime of the individual, which they tell me is on the verge of being extended a few thousand years, and the laws should be changed? Get permission or write your own stuff, its that simple?

    Which politicians enabled ICCAN to be the exception to the copy right rules?

    Report this comment

    media-bias-steals-elections  
  • media-bias-steals-elections
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 7:10pm

    I would fire him too if he wasted good time trying to fix something that is not broken? If he did it on his own time, I would warn him, but maybe his attitude just rubs people the wrong way in the GOP? I read his proposal, and this sums it up:

    He calls the system a “government monopoly” to lock things up for “too long” then gives examples such as Google needs the right to publish books online and music artists should let their work remixed. He also mentions electronic devices, which I might add, are revised so often you are going to buy new devices anyway, and the market place is not forbidden to sell unlocked phones, yet the market should be able to compensate software engineers and pay investors.

    It would be really nice, if everything I wrote, could be copied, people could make money on it, and I could get a slice of the pie. That’s up to private industry to build that system, make it work and market it to me, otherwise the only writing that will be done, is to fight political oppression out of fear, because if you don’t fight back, nobody will make any money anyway?

    I don’t like the rules, but I also know, that if I walked up to an ATM machine, and the session was still active, and I could access somebody else’s account, you know what I would do? I would close the session, because I would not want someone taking money out of my bank account with out my permission.

    The GOP is right on this one.

    Report this comment

    media-bias-steals-elections  
    • Grover_Standpipe
      Posted on March 11, 2013 at 1:45am

      If we don’t draw a line somewhere we are going to end up with perpetual copyright on works whose actual creators died centuries ago. A copyright was originally for 14 years renewable once. For most of the 20th century it was 28 years renewable once. It was raised in 1976 and again in 1998 so that now it lasts 70 years after the death of the original copyright holder. You can thank Disney for that. Every time we approach the date when the first Mickey Mouse cartoons would start to pass into the public domain, they spend a fortune on lawyers and lobbyists to get the law changed.

      Report this comment

      Grover_Standpipe  
  • The-Monk
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 6:45pm

    In the photo with the Monument in the background….

    Does anyone know why they are digging on The Mall?

    Report this comment

    The-Monk  
  • katiefrankie
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 6:40pm

    Digging waaaaay back into my BYU days, an “American Technology” course taught by a brilliant professor shared the travesties of a copyright system that failed to protect major creators, and vice versa, one that stifled innovation. The untangling of the copyright laws in the early 1800s helped undergird the terrific leaps of scientific progress that brought America out of a medieval world into the modern era. While we touched briefly on copyright – and could have spent the whole semester studying it in the context of American technology – the fact that I still remember it speaks to the importance of an effective copyright system. It sounds like Khanna is on the right track – how disgusting that his peer-reviewed and approved memo got yanked, and so did he. Does ANYONE have morals and a backbone anymore??

    On a side note, what a babe!

    Report this comment

    katiefrankie  
  • JGraham III
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 6:35pm

    As my grandmother used to say, “it all depends on whose ox is being gored”. Either you stand on principle or not. Sorry to say but the GOP is part of the problem, and I fear they are far more comfortable siding with those whose desire is to control all of us and not to set us free to choose the course our own souls should take. People should support free enterprise and not capitalism or communism or any other “ism” which are really nothing more than variant forms of the so called ‘golden rule’ where those who have the gold make the rules.

    Report this comment

    JGraham III  
  • gyro
    Posted on March 10, 2013 at 6:32pm

    ok they have the right as employer to fire his ass if his memo wasnt what they wanted
    Now
    Seems he is smarter than them and likely has the goods on someone so I think he did corect thing
    Now
    This is a complicated topic so the last part of the artical with the cell phones I dont quite get
    lots of luck on that Derek the drones have your address

    Report this comment

    gyro  

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love