Probably at the behest of the entertainment industry
moochers sorry lobbyists, the GOP has discovered it has other principles more in line with those who fund it rather than the US Constitution.
On reading their original views based on the actual Constitution that they claim to hold dear, I was impressed; not only is the current US copyright legislation un-Constitutional, but any attempts to make it more restrictive are too.
Conclusion: To be clear, there is a legitimate purpose to copyright (and for that matter patents). Copyright ensures that there is sufficient incentive for content producers to develop content, but there is a steep cost to our unusually long copyright period that Congress has now created. Our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with explicit instructions on this matter for a limited copyright – not an indefinite monopoly. We must strike this careful Goldilocks-like balance for the consumer and other businesses versus the content producers.
It is difficult to argue that the life of the author plus 70 years is an appropriate copyright term for this purpose – what possible new incentive was given to the content producer for content protection for a term of life plus 70 years vs. a term of life plus 50 years? Where we have reached a point of such diminishing returns we must be especially aware of the known and predictable impact upon the greater market that these policies have held, and we are left to wonder on the impact that we will never know until we restore a constitutional copyright system.
Current copyright law does not merely distort some markets – rather it destroys entire markets.
In short it advocates a great fair use policy in the name of progress, so of course the Republicans have denounced it and withdrawn it. Why? Bribery and corruption at work via the lobbying process? Who knows but it isn’t unheard of in politics where corporations are people now.