>The Legislature should do a far better job making their intent clear. That would require a wholesale redesign of creator's monopolies in software; CONTU basic

>The Legislature should do a far better job making their intent clear. That would require a wholesale redesign of creator's monopolies in software; CONTU basically said "oh yeah, judges can just use fair use to wriggle out of any market harms software copyright might cause" and Congress went with that. Furthermore, Congress's actions over the past few decades have generally not squared with any sort of actual copyright reform. The last major actions I can think of were: - Implementing the EU's reciprocal copyright extension so that Mickey Mouse could get more copyright protection in France (Sonny Bonno CTEA) - Implementing an overbroad and policy-laundered set of protections for DRM that companies took to mean "all you have to do is put software in a thing and you can sue anyone for making parts for it" (DMCA 1201) - Extending criminal copyright liability to filesharers (NET Act) - Granting more copyright term extensions to old music recordings that weren't federally copyrighted until the 70s (CLASSICS Act/MMA) The last thing I would ever want is to hear Congress's intent on any of these, as I would imagine it would sound something like "Fuck you, pay me". Australia, the EU, and the UK get a lot more shit these days for overbroad copyright laws, but this is mainly because doing so lets them rein in foreign tech companies. The US doesn't do that anymore because tech companies gained enough clout here to stop even more misguided copyright nonsense like SOPA/PIPA. However, with tech companies falling out of favor I wouldn't be surprised if Congress decides to start busting kneecaps again.