Anything that destroys copyright is a good thing. It is a societal evil.
H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office
51–60 of 143 posts
Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office
#52I 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...
> Are people worried they're going to start selectively enforcing copyright law?
Yes.
Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office
#53 > In a voice vote earlier this week, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6028, the “Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act.”
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.
Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office
#54Anything that destroys copyright is a good thing. It is a societal evil.
This bill very much does not do that. It does the opposite, in fact. I encourage you to re-read the article.
Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office
#55Odd 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... 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 hop…
The 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.
Ignoring power politics doesn't make them go away
Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office
#56> 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 ca…
Oh and the biggest bullshit about this is it removes one’s ability to hold their local representatives accountable. I just assume the worst!
Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office
#57I 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...
It’s not hypothetical at all. The FCC is currently being used for political attacks: https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/28/media/abc-fcc-disney-licenses... Those who are under attack happen to also be the biggest copyrighter holders, so this would open up a new avenue of attack.
> Those who are under attack happen to also be the biggest copyrighter holders, so this would open up a new avenue of attack.
Don't threaten me with a good time
Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office
#58Odd 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... 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 hop…
The 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.
The identity of the people who crafted the bill is the second most relevant thing besides the bill itself.
Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office
#59Anything that destroys copyright is a good thing. It is a societal evil.
This bill very much does not do that. It does the opposite, in fact. I encourage you to re-read the article.
I 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.
Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office
#60This 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-clarif...
The 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.