6 ms·
H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office
- jeremyjh 5mo ago[flagged]
- shimman 5mo ago[flagged]
- relyks 5mo agoYes, but saying just "congress" implies both chambers passed it
- righthand 5mo agoNot necessarily. In the US traditionally the House Reps are referred to as congressmen (unlike the rest of the world) and the Senate, senators. So sometimes Congress is shorthand for the House. Though I agree it shouldn’t be.
- enraged_camel 5mo agoThis is false. Traditionally, when only one chamber of Congress passes a bill, headlines explicitly state which chamber. "The House passed a bill that..." or "The Senate passes a bill that..." The OP is correct that Congress implies both chambers. Yes, "Congressman" or "Congresswoman" refers to House members. But the headline says "Congress".
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 5mo agoNo
- shimman 5mo agoNo, you would say passes both houses of Congress in that case. Just don't like the immediate dismissal of the people's House when it comes to government affairs. When Congress does something it's important, regardless of the house it originates from.
- rayiner 5mo ago[flagged]
- dredmorbius 5mo agoThe author, Joe Mullin, is a policy analyst: <https://www.eff.org/about/staff/joe-mullin https://www.eff.org/about/staff/joe-mullin>. He's been working in that capacity with the EFF since at least 2018: <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/ipr-process-saves-80-companies-paying-sports-motion-patent https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/ipr-process-saves-80-c...>. Your further objections are ... facile.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- roenxi 5mo agoIt suppose I can see "executive power should be part of the executive branch" as a facile argument because it does seem basic and a bit tautological, but it is still quite a strong point. It needs to be addressed rather than just identified and dismissed.
- stonogo 5mo agoExcept that's a bad summary of a bad argument. "Rulemaking" is what Congress is supposed to do.
- rayiner 5mo agoThe Constitution doesn't say that Congress can have its employees (which is what the Copyright Office is) make legally binding rules. Congress can make laws, but only through a specific process involving votes in the House and Senate and the signature of the President.
- dredmorbius 5mo agoAs much as I'm inclined to disagree with your views on principle, that is actually a cogent and relevant point. Your initial comment would have been far stronger if it had dropped the irrelevant ad hom I called out previously, and had clearly stated your concern with Congress both legislating and regulating copyright, through the Library of Congress. This also makes the question of how the Library of Congress came to be empowered with executing and* regulating copyright of interest. You've failed to explore this history. I'm somewhat familiar with both copyright law and the history of the Library, though not as a lawyer, and not specifically on the history of copyright and the Library both being effectively an executive function of the Legislative. That also makes me wonder what other cross-branch functional contradictions exist. One that comes to mind immediately are ALJs (administrative law judges), which operate under the Executive rather than Judiciary, with one notable area being immigration law. The Senate and House each have Seargents of Arms, a nominally executive law-enforcement role under the legislative. And of course there's the question of the present Administration's view that not only is it a unitary executive, but apparently a unitary Legislative and Judiciary as well.
- phendrenad2 5mo agoI don't really understand the hypothetical problems here. "The copyright office head would be a presidential appointee, which could make the copyright office more political". I mean, I guess? Are people worried they're going to start selectively enforcing copyright law? But they don't enforce copyright law right now...
- plandis 5mo ago> Are people worried they're going to start selectively enforcing copyright law? Yes.
- dyauspitr 5mo agoAre you kidding? If there’s something in there they don’t like I don’t put it past this administration to break it internally and then make a case for shutting it down. This whole thing sounds very similar to the postal service situation…
- roenxi 5mo ago> Are you kidding? If there’s something in there they don’t like I don’t put it past this administration to break it internally and then make a case for shutting it down. Might be a win? The copyright system is one of the major suspects for why US industry ended up crippled and replaced by Asian labour refusing to respect US IP laws to their significant advantage. To say nothing of the corrosive influence on culture of locking down music and stories. The biggest IP success in the last 50 years seems to have been Open Source because they built a framework inside the copyright system to achieve the opposite outcome and build a thriving industry despite the lawyers trying to encourage them in alternative directions. The people defending the copyright system should have to keep making their case until they come up with something persuasive for how they're helping.
- jaggederest 5mo agoTongue in cheek, but the copyright system should only last for 12 years, with one straightforward renewal, without specific reauthorization. Just like copyright in works, in my opinion
- anigbrowl 5mo agoOdd that the article doesn't mention parties at all, although perhaps this was in an attempt to avoid accusations of partisanship that might ensue from stating facts. Anyway, a quick look at https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6028/cosponsors https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/6028... indicates that all 4 sponsors of the bill are Republicans. The Actions tab seems to indicated that the bill got only 12 minutes of debate before being passed,; I hope this is an artifact of how the page is updated rather than the actual time spent on considering it.
- bigstrat2003 5mo agoThe article doesn't mention parties because it's irrelevant. A bad bill is bad on its merits, not because of who has brought it about.
- thereisnospork 5mo agoFor those of us at home who need to decide which team to root for its very much relevant when and what bills a party sponsors.
- iririririr 5mo agotheir point was that both parties pass those laws. TPP and first-to-file passed under Obama. it's so tiring.
- ThePowerOfFuet 5mo agoIs there truly that much remaining to consider before marking your next ballot?
- colonCapitalDee 5mo agoIgnoring power politics doesn't make them go away
- joshka 5mo ago
- billfor 5mo agoThis is a one-sided article which does not discuss the opposing view, or the reason why they thought congress should appoint. Ironically, if this became law then it might have prevented Trump from removing the librarian as he attempted in 2025 (still pending in the supreme court). It also includes a term limit of 10 years. https://www.stoneslaw.net/legislative-branch-agencies-clarification-act-moves-toward-fasttrack/ https://www.stoneslaw.net/legislative-branch-agencies-clarif...
- Grombobulous 5mo agoThe plain language of the bill’s summary on the bill’s web page (ignoring the EFF article) explains it quite clearly: 1. Gives power to Congress to appoint/remove the librarian rather than the president (cool, great) 2. Strips the copyright power held by the Library of Congress away, library of Congress becomes a supporting resource like a consultant 3. Reassigns that same power to a different position that’s politically appointed by the president. What you are saying is technically true, but the deck chairs have been shuffled around in a way that seems to at least partially negate the positive change. I also find it odd that this was passed in a voice vote. It’s hard for me to tell if that means it has strong bipartisan support? I guess I’d have to watch a video recording of the proceedings to know. If I am recalling correctly, congresspeople can call for a tallied vote if they think the voice vote was too ambiguous.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- panny 5mo agoI usually agree with the EFF on things, but after reading their linked https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/us-copyright-offices-draft-report-ai-training-errs-fair-use https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/us-copyright-offices-d... I couldn't disagree more. An LLM is a predict the next word algorithm. If the model is overfitting, it's basically copy paste. There have been several documented instances where that happened and full GPL code, including headers and attribution were copy/pasted by the "AI." AI is essentially copy paste with more steps. The part that AI companies use to defend this is ?how are we supposed to decide how much each author deserves? They try to wave this away, but their own model can tell them. Their models work off of weights. They can determine how much each work contributed based on those weights, so it's dishonest for them to argue it isn't possible. The way the models are engineered now don't make this possible, but that's intentional and we can all recognize that. They throw up their hands and claim it's not possible because they simply don't want to pay. The most infurating thing however is how AI companies sidestep the IP rights of authors, but then claim to own those IP rights when their own generated output leaks. Anthropic filed DMCA takedowns on the leaked claude code repos, claiming ownership over something they explicitly have stated is almost entirely AI generated as part of their marketing. They take code, mix it up just enough to scrub away the GPL or whatever license belongs on it, then try to claim ownership of the result, in spite of the Copyright Office repeatedly stating that AI generated works have no copyright protection at all.
- anematode 5mo agoAgreed. Moreover, the authors of copyright law could never have anticipated this type and scale of abuse. Maybe the companies are legally in the right, maybe not, but that's irrelevant for the question of whether it's ethical. The EFF's post definitely goes against their mission to "ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world."
- pona-a 5mo agoIs it actually possible to determine how much the weights were influenced by each work? I might recall reading some interpretability paper years ago that trained a special model that could attribute each answer to a part of the corpus (like Wikipedia, ArXiV, or "Blogs") but it had a non-zero effect on performance and wasn't nearly as straightforward as weights go in, attribution comes out.
- OutOfHere 5mo agoAnything that destroys copyright is a good thing. It is a societal evil.
- tadfisher 5mo agoThis bill very much does not do that. It does the opposite, in fact. I encourage you to re-read the article.
- OutOfHere 5mo agoI understand it risks adding unpredictable political corruption to the process, but I feel that such unpredictable corruption is exactly what it takes to gradually destroy something in an indirect way. It is not clear to me what their political agenda is. Overall it might be good for AI if the goal is to scrape freely and use it for AI training.
- browningstreet 5mo agoThis position makes it impossible to discuss these things.
- eli_gottlieb 5mo agoWhen I aim to accomplish something, to destroy some institution, I tend to favor the direct way, because it relies on fewer intermediate points of failure than the indirect way.
- quantummagic 5mo agoWhat we favor, and what is possible, often diverge.
- palmotea 5mo ago> [Copyright] is a societal evil. Such an extreme and emotional statement makes me think you've never really thought it through. For instance: without copyright the GPL is nothing. Also without copyright, all of the profit made on creative works (of a perhaps smaller pie) would get be kept by distributors like Amazon or Netflix. Authors wouldn't get a dime anymore, it'll all go to the likes of Bezos.
- andrekandre 5mo ago> In a voice vote earlier this week, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6028, the “Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act.” wow, i had always assumed actual laws have to pass a recorded vote, but its not true... from wiki: > In Congress, "the vast majority of actions decided by a voice vote" are ones for which "a strong or even overwhelming majority favors one side", or even unanimous consent. Members can request a division of the assembly (a rising vote, where each sides rise in turn to be counted), and one-fifth of members can demand a recorded vote on any question, after the chair announces the result of a voice vote. > It is estimated that more than 95 percent of the resolutions passed by state legislatures are passed by a unanimous voice vote, many without discussion; this is because resolutions are often on routine, noncontroversial matters, such as commemorating important events or recognizing groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_vote#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_vote#United_States
- Computer0 5mo agoOh and the biggest bullshit about this is it removes one’s ability to hold their local representatives accountable. I just assume the worst!
- Grombobulous 5mo agoFrom what I understand it’s rather true that a lot of Congress’ actual work is incredibly boring and that these procedures were invented to move it along. You can see a lot of difference in the way congresspeople talk based on whether it’s televised or not as well, especially in committees. I’m just a little surprised that voice votes haven’t been replaced by some kind of digital process. A voice vote doesn’t save time compare to a modern method of tallying votes. Why avoid making records when records are so “cheap” these days?
- jklowden 5mo agoHey, the economy is great and gas is cheap. All we had to put up with is mean tweets. Whenever anyone complains about Trump, remind them he’s not the cause but the product. Seventy million voted for him, and Republicans in congress let him do illegally what they cannot accomplish legislatively. And all the while they’re busy selling the country for parts, whether through tax policy, or neutering the CAFE standards, or handing copyright to Disney.
- pbhjpbhj 5mo agoHe's certainly part of the cause, it seems the reason his handlers were able to use him so effectively is because he was going to jail if republicans and Musk et al. (and Putin?) didn't use him to get the election. Expecting a convicted felon to live with the consequences of their further crimes, when all they need do is end the republic and steal billions, with the help and financial support of tech bros, ... well. There's a very simple first patch to a new republic, no convicts in elected offices.
- dredmorbius 5mo agoThe question of why US copyright law is administered and, to some extent regulated within the Legislative rather than Executive branch has been raised in a dead thread. The cogent point is made that under the US Constitution, the phrase "checks and balances" generally applies to both the division of powers amongst the three branches (Judiciary in addition to the two previously mentioned), and the principle of review and oversight amongst those branches (e.g., legislation is passed by Congress, approved or vetoed and administered by the President / Executive branch, and subject to interpretation or invalidation by the Judiciary; executive appointments are subject to Congressional approval; and members of both the Executive and Judiciary may be impeached and removed by Congress). That said ... ... there are other instances in which separation of powers is not strictly followed. Examples which come to mind are: - Administrative law judges (ALJs), notably in matters concerning Social Security and Immigration law, being a judiciary function under the executive. - The Sergeants at Arms of the US Senate and US House, both legislative bodies, but performing executive functions. Recent history suggests that the Executive cannot be entirely relied upon to provide this function. - Judicial Review is probably the biggest appropriation of powers, in which the US Supreme Court arrogated the right to rule on, interpret, and invalidate legislation. This is a power arguably derived absent any constitutional, legislative, or executive foundation. And of course the present Administration has increasingly expressed a philosophy not only of Unitary Executive, but increasingly of Unitary Government, enacting law by decree, executing citizens without due process, and openly flouting courts. H.R. 6028 could be seen as part of this expansion of the Executive. Which still leaves us with the question of how Congress ended up administering copyright. I don't have a full history, and have only been exploring the question for the past hour or so. The US Copyright Office itself has a history page noting that: On July 8, 1870, Congress centralized the administration of copyright law in the Library of Congress at the encouragement of Librarian of Congress Ainsworth Rand Spofford. <https://www.copyright.gov/history/copyright-exhibit/history-co/ https://www.copyright.gov/history/copyright-exhibit/history-...> Which remedied the previous arrangement in which Copyright was administered by ... the Judiciary. Why Congress ended up regulating copyright is probably largely a set of historical accidents and conveniences. The Library of Congress does in fact serve Congress (and IIUC the Judiciary, to which it is also proximate) as a legislative research tool. I've read enough of the annual reports in the latter half of the 19th century to know that the Library was growing rapidly at this time, and was constantly pressed (literally) for space, culminating in the commissioning, construction, and opening of the separate Library of Congress Jefferson Building, in which the main collection is now housed. (As I'd recently commented, there were concerns at the time of how merely moving to an adjacent building might affect retrieval time for materials.) Arguably, the US Library of Congress had, and still has, more expertise in the management of large corpora of physical publications than virtually any other institution on Earth. Copyright registration itself served the interests of Congress by growing the collection. And as of the late 19th century, the overall size of the US government, though growing, was still comparatively small. The Executive would possibly have had neither the interest nor capacity to administer the Library, or even the Copyright office sufficiently, nor the convergence of goals in growing the Library's collection noted here. Given numerous issues with other areas of intellectual property which are administered under the executive (patents and trademark, though my criticisms are largely of the former), its also possible Things Could Have Gone Badly Wrong, though arguably as the EFF piece notes they have already. Though the House legislation seems likely to worsen that. The present situation though is that the Library of Congress and Copyright Office do strongly blur the separation of powers principle, affording a complex set of legislative, executive, and even judiciary roles, all under the Legislative branch. That just my own nonexpert nutshell summary. If anyone has further information on the history of the US Copyright Office, legislation, and judicial rulings, please pitch in.
- Noehy 5mo ago[flagged]