The New Face of Copyright Infringement?

Is this America’s youngest music pirate?

Under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, copyright owners can issue so-called “takedown notices” to sites like YouTube seeking the removal of infringing material. (This is a different section of the act than the anti-circumvention provision I criticized in a policy analysis last year.) According to Ars Technica, Universal issued such a takedown notice in June against this clip because of the Prince song playing in the background.

Now Stephanie Lenz, the owner of the clip, with help from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital civil liberties group, has filed a lawsuit against Universal demanding the recovery of attorney’s fees and a declaration that the file is fair use under copyright law.

I think that Lenz has an open-and-shut case that her use of the Prince song is fair, and therefore legal. But the question of whether Universal should be held responsible for issuing an erroneous takedown notice is more complicated. On the one hand, a takedown notice is a formal accusation of copyright infringement and it will often require seeking the advice of an attorney, which isn’t cheap. It’s not right for copyright holders to issue takedown notices too recklessly. On the other hand, it’s not hard to sympathize with Universal’s position. There are thousands of plainly infringing videos on YouTube, and so it’s not too surprising that in the process of issuing thousands of takedown notices they’d make a few mistakes.

This is an area that will continue to evolve rapidly, as policymakers struggle to balance the need to protect copyright against the desire not to squelch innovative new products. A site like YouTube probably couldn’t exist at all if the DMCA didn’t provide service providers a “safe harbor” against liability for the infringing activities of their customers. But some copyright holders complain that the “safe harbor” shifts too much of the burden of enforcing copyright law onto them, by requiring them to issue an individual takedown notice against every instance of copyright infringement. As we see in this case, companies sometimes make honest mistakes. Striking the appropriate balance will be an ongoing challenge for Congress and the courts.

Andy Stern’s Angle on Universal Coverage

Last night, I debated Andy Stern on the Jim Bohannon radio showStern is president of the Service Employees International Union, which represents 1.8 million nurses, health care workers, janitors, security officers, and public employees. He is definitely not a member of the Anti-Universal Coverage Club.

I was pleased to find that we agree that the employment-based health insurance system cannot last. What I found most interesting, though, were two weaknesses in the case he makes for universal coverage.

First, Stern argues that unless we have universal coverage, American firms won’t be able to compete with foreign firms. To me, that claim is economic nonsense, as I explained in our debate and in Health Care News:

Employers don’t need the government to save them from the rising cost of health benefits. Just as Dorothy always had the power to return to Kansas by clicking her heels, employers have always had the power to pare back their health benefits…

All else being equal, firms that contain their labor costs this way will beat the firms that don’t. Those companies that support ‘universal coverage’ want to increase the labor costs of their competition, whether through higher taxes or health premiums. Universal coverage won’t make America more competitive — it will cripple America’s most competitive firms to protect its least competitive firms.

And, of course, that’s the entire point…. Companies that support ‘universal coverage’ never bother to mention that covering all the uninsured would cause health spending to explode, because they don’t really care about overall health spending. All they care about is that their competitors spend as much as they do.

Nor does Stern seem to mind if health spending explodes. I think that may be because…

Second, Stern argues that we could get a better deal on prescription drugs if Medicare were allowed to negotiate with drug companies. But seeing as how he represents so many health care workers, I don’t think he’s going to be leaning on Medicare to be that tough a negotiator. During our debate, I invited him to discuss SEIU’s role in helping Medicare set the payment rates that affect his members. He didn’t take the bait.

Thank Senator Hatch for This MediKid Nightmare

My latest post reminded me that back in 1997, I actually produced a number of papers surrounding the creation of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program — also known as SCHIP, but which I prefer to call MediKid.

One of those papers is a two-pager titled, “Congress Can’t Help Uninsured Kids If it Doesn’t Understand Them.” The data are old, but the argument is still relevant to the current debate over MediKid reauthorization.

But what I really wanted to share was this paper: “Top Twelve False Claims Made about the Hatch-Kennedy Children’s Health Coverage Bill.” You see, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) was a principal sponsor of MediKid, which was enacted by a Republican Congress. (That’s right.  MediKid — like Medicare Part D — is a Republican health care entitlement.)

In that paper, you will find documented refutations of the following claims supporters made about the Hatch/Kennedy/MediKid/SCHIP bill. Some of the claims may seem familiar to those watching the current reauthorization debate. See if you can guess which one was made by Sen. Hatch himself:

  1. “This is not an entitlement.”
  2. “It’s fully financed.”
  3. “The [tobacco] tax is a user fee.”
  4. “It will not create massive new bureaucracies.”
  5. “It relies on the marketplace, with coverage provided through private insurance and the existing network of local community health centers.”
  6. “This legislation clearly represents a free-market approach at solving an important national problem.”
  7. “The fact is that this bill is a far cry from the Kennedy-Kerry bill.”
  8. “Children that are not covered should be covered, and that is what the Hatch-Kennedy bill will do.”
  9. “This is going to be a state program, run through the private sector.”
  10. “It gives the states the flexibility to decide whether to participate and how to target benefits.”
  11. “The states set their own eligibility.”
  12. “It’s about as moderate to conservative a bill as you can get.”

Have you made your guess? If so, click here:

Aha! Trick question! All claims came from the conservative Sen. Hatch, except for #3, #8, and #9.

My insincere thanks to Sen. Hatch for moving America that much closer to socialized medicine. And my sincere thanks to the Heartland Institute for giving those old papers a home on the web.

$1.4 Trillion and Counting

Last October we estimated that unfunded costs for state and local government health care plans were about $1.4 trillion nationwide. That is the amount that taxpayers will be hit unless governments cut excessive benefits for teachers, firemen, and other workers.

Some new estimates have been released since our report, and it appears that we were conservative.

  • Credit Suisse has put nationwide unfunded costs at $1.5 trillion.
  • We estimated New Jersey at $20 billion, but the NYT reports today that unfunded costs for the state are now estimated to be $58 billion.
  • San Francisco has reported a $4.9 billion cost, Los Angeles County $16 billion, and the LA School District $10 billion
  • In December, Pennsylvania reported a $34 billion cost, which is one of the highest figures we’ve seen for the states.

MediKid

That was the name I gave the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), before it even had a name, 10 years ago this month.

It appeared in a paper I wrote for Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation titled “MediKid: Whose Idea Was This, Anyway?” At the time, I foolishly hoped the paper would head off this Orrin Hatch/Ted Kennedy love-fest. CSEF issued the paper just as the House and Senate were about to go to conference on different versions of the program.

Ten years later, MediKid is about to expire. As Congress and the president are trying to figure out just how much more to spend on this ill-advised program, I thought it would be fun to share a few gems from my 1997 paper:

Congress is about to cast one of its most damaging votes ever against children’s health. Taking a page from the Clinton administration’s playbook, Congress will soon vote to expand government-run health care for children and continue the slow march toward imposing government-run health care on everyone. Instead of wasting over $8 billion on “MediKid” proposals, Congress should help parents protect their children’s health by providing additional tax relief to families…

Congress has debated the issue of uninsured children under the premise that 10 million American children are unable to obtain health coverage — a premise that is utterly false. In fact, fewer than two million children in the U.S. are chronically uninsured.

Acting on this false premise, Congress has designed new government programs to give health coverage to low-income children. Over five years, these programs will waste more than $8 billion duplicating services already provided by the private sector. Worse, MediKid will actually harm children’s health by making parents less able to meet their children’s basic health needs.

In 1993, the Clinton administration’s Health Care Interdepartmental Working Group conceived of a strategy to nationalize health insurance by providing government coverage to children first and later phasing in the adult population. Ironically, a Republican Congress’ MediKid proposals are now implementing that strategy.

About the number of uninsured children:

This poor understanding of the dynamics of the health coverage market has led to inane solutions. The Senate MediKid proposal targets children too affluent to be eligible for Medicaid yet below 200 percent of the poverty level. The [Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation] reveals there are only 1.4 million chronically uninsured children in this income category. Nevertheless, the Senate designed a program to cover 2.8 million such children.

About the slow march toward government-run health care:

Congress’ MediKid proposals are a step toward nationalized health coverage. In 1993, the White House Health Care Interdepartmental Working Group devised a number of strategies for nationalizing health insurance. What the task force called “Option 3: Kids First Coverage” was a plan to move children out of the private health insurance market into government-run coverage as “a precursor to the new system” of national health insurance. The task force wrote:

This proposal is designed in two parts which will be implemented simultaneously: 1) The quick coverage of children — “Kids First”; and 2) the development of structures for transitioning to the new system and the phasing in of certain population groups.

Does anyone actually doubt that that’s the whole point?