The responses are now on the web, here.
My response is not there. Either one. A bit disappointing really. Make that VERY disappointing.
However, I'm more disappointed by the actual contents of the report Ms Espinel released. It makes little notice of the purpose of "Intellectual Property" (aka Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks) given in the US Constitution, and focuses on economic benefits. Actually, it focuses on alleged economic losses because of 'lax' protection. Just to be clear, the purpose of copyright, enshrined in the piece that allows the US Congress to pass copyright laws (and which, therefore, should be the prime focus of all such laws) is as follows:
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;It doesn't say 'to promote the ECONOMY, or certain industries, it says the progress of the whole field. And frankly, if that means that certain industries fall behind, have to restructure, or go out of business, well, too bad.
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;
That's what Capitalism is all about. Not that it's stopped the Vice President talking crap either. But he was bought years ago, and is well known for talking crap.