MPAA Tells The FCC: If We Don't Stop Piracy, The Internet Will Die
from the moral-panic dept
Never let it be said that the folks in Hollywood aren't good at coming up with a totally fictional horror story. I just have a problem when they use it not to entertain, but to create a moral panic to push the government to pass laws in their favor. In discussing the recent 60 Minutes piece that was really nothing more than an MPAA scare tactic, some suggested that it was really just a first step in the process of getting the government to make sure net neutrality rules had a special Hollywood exception. So, it's interesting to note that just before that 60 Minutes episode aired (and just before Halloween), the MPAA sent a "scary" filing to the FCC warning it how the US would always be a broadband laggard if it didn't stomp out piracy. The full filing (warning:pdf) claims, repeatedly, that piracy is sucking up all our bandwidth and getting rid of that would somehow make it cheaper to install faster internet connections.The Commission has projected that it could cost $350 billion to ubiquitously deploy broadband networks capable of delivering 100 Mbps, which is rapidly becoming the international standard. The Commission, however, should not ignore that illegal content accounts for a vast amount of online traffic. Thus, it could generate substantial savings in this tremendous build-out cost -- to be borne by both government and private sector investment -- by encouraging construction of networks that are designed not on the basis of accommodating capacity-hogging transmissions of unlawful content but rather with the goal of providing consumers a rich broadband experience.And, of course, it pushes for kicking file sharers off the internet (it hides this by calling it "graduated response," of course, rather than the more common term "three strikes"). The filing also goes on about how the MPAA is just so sure that ISPs can stamp out piracy, and because of that, it thinks the government should force them to get on it.
The MPAA wastes little time mocking those who disagree with its position, and suggesting that the FCC "pay no heed" to consumer concerns:
[The] Commission should pay no heed to assertions by some members of the advocacy community that the problem of content theft can be ignored because some amount of legitimate e-commerce already occurs through vendors such as iTunes.... The same holds true for the preposterous notion that the law should be ignored unless a property owner can demonstrate that a thief, in the absence of stealing, otherwise would have legitimately purchased a stolen product. A shoplifter who steals a DVD from a store in a mall is not immune from security intervention, let alone prosecution, simply because he might not have planned to buy the product that he attempted to steal.Except, of course, there's a huge difference there. If someone steals a DVD it's no longer there for someone else to buy. If someone who never would have purchased the movie views it online there's no loss. it's difficult to see how the MPAA can simply ignore this while assuming that FCC commissioners are too stupid to grasp this rather simple economic concept.
But where the filing really comes into its own in being laughably funny is where it tries to claim that if the FCC doesn't do this, the internet will effectively die. How does it get there? Well, first, it claims that the reason people use the internet is to view content from Hollywood. And, if file sharing keeps up, there won't be any of that content left, and then why would anyone use the internet? Think that's an exaggeration? How else do you interpret this:
Quite clearly, it is the promise of access to the content flowing over the Internet's network architecture that motivates Americans to adopt broadband. The Internet without content would be nothing more than a collection of hardware; a series of computer links and protocols with great capacity to communicate but nothing to say. Television once was unfairly derided as little more than a toaster with pictures. In the absence of compelling content, the Internet would offer consumers even less value than that proverbial toaster. It is the content that flows over and through the Internet that makes the breakthrough technology so potentially powerful.Yes, because even though the internet existed for decades before the folks at the movie studios had even heard of it, they had nothing to say, at all, until people could start sharing the latest camcorded blockbuster. Do they really think people are this stupid? Sorry, Hollywood, but it's not "the content" that you're thinking about that makes the internet so powerful. It's the ability to communicate. Sure, the content is a nice-to-have, but the internet grew and grew because it let people talk to each other, not because it was another broadcast medium. This fantasy story by the MPAA also leaves out the fact that more content than ever before is being produced today, even as "piracy" numbers have gone up. And, oh yes, once again, the movie business is hitting record highs at the box office. Funny that the MPAA seems to spend so much time insisting that its industry is dying, while leaving out the record revenue bit. Instead, it just keeps jumping out and yelling that piracy will kill the movie business...
And then it gets into rewriting history, by insisting that every new technology is only successful if the big media companies support it:
Throughout history, whenever transformative communications technologies have captured the imagination of consumers, compelling content has been the vehicle for forward progress.Apparently, the MPAA is unfamiliar with the telephone. Hopefully, the FCC is a bit more familiar with that particular technology.
The filing goes on and on like this, designed to "scare" the folks at the FCC with a bit of a moral panic, but only inducing laughter (good show, Hollywood) from anyone with any actual understanding of technology, history and copyright. Another favorite tidbit is the MPAA's demand that the FCC not pay attention to how incredibly screwed up every single attempt at using technological measures to stop piracy has been in the past:
MPAA does not want the Commission's consideration of the important overarching issue of unlawful online conduct to be derailed by backward-looking debates about the pros and cons of any given technology, particularly those that already have been surpassed by new innovations. MPAA firmly believes that future developments will yield an entirely new generation of ever-more-sophisticated online protection technologies.In other words, please ignore how badly we've screwed up in the past. Don't worry about things like rootkits and security vulnerabilities we've created. Also, ignore the fact that DRM doesn't work and only punishes our legitimate customers while driving more people to piracy. That would be a waste of time. Really.
And finally, I leave you with the most stunning statement of all, along those lines. One that I'm amazed the MPAA lawyers let go through in this filing, because it absolutely has to come back to haunt the MPAA in the future. In responding to concerns from lots of different people, including consumer advocates and consumer electronics firms that the various technological protection measures the MPAA wants to force on ISPs will harm, the MPAA states:
That a tool intended to stop unlawful conduct could be put to ill use, however, is not an argument for prohibiting the use of the tool....Wait... isn't that exactly the argument that the MPAA has used for years against every new file sharing technology out there? Wasn't it the crux of the Grokster lawsuits? That because the tool could be put to ill use, it needed to be prohibited? Yet, now, suddenly it doesn't want its own technologies prohibited just because they can be put to "ill use." Double standard, much?
This is nothing but a typical moral panic from Hollywood. They are storytellers out there, and they know how to craft a horror story. Hopefully, though, the FCC reviewers of this particular fantasy will give it the thumbs down for simply being totally unbelievable.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband policy, copyright, fcc filing, moral panic, movies, propaganda
Companies: fcc, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cheers!
I personally would have worded it more along the lines of "The MPAA is a bunch of delusional fucks with less brains than even the stupidest star in Hollywood," but the same overlying concept and emotion stands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and they know our broken government will believe anything with enough bribes. The FCC is not elected and they face little to no accountability so what do they care?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm Game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm Game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HD DVD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Networks are People, People are Networks, The Internet won't die.
The internet uses something of a mesh topology, and can be seen on Satellites too. American cities weren't planned around the Church, but rather around commercial activity, and legislative bodies, with multiple roads and avenues connecting them.
Application of this concept.
This is why people can still see pictures of serious dogs, and videos of cats playing keyboards if a bundle of fiber somewhere in the world breaks. It's like a road closure. With mesh, a node can be broken, but connections can be re-routed or re-established.
This is a relatively simple networking concept that I imagine the MPAA has a tough time understanding. If "The internet will die" means they'll stop supporting internet efforts, it wouldn't be a bad thing.
An industry, MPAA-backed removal of all copyrighted materials would certainly help, because internet-based consumption of media doesn't seem to be slowing anytime soon, and some enterprising folks somewhere will have to fill the gap. It'd be a few years out, but someone's going to start a crowdsoured, CreativeCommons-based movie studio.
In this hyperbole, an industry solution would be similar to roadwork at the entry into the industry's cul-de-sac. If that's what they are talking about, well, alrighty then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_topology
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it gets better mike
ACTA leaked, and it's not pretty.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/03/1943237
basically, global DMCA. This is why they're suddenly noisy to the FCC again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it gets better mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it gets better mike
Here is an excellent reason why we don't want more government regulation/interference--regulatory capture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: it gets better mike
Not all regulations are restrictions are there to be abused. If all you do is shout about how government regulation needs to be lessened or increased, you're stifling potential useful debate and also doing what we call the "traditional republican strawman" and/or basically asking for your opinion to be made irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: it gets better mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: it gets better mike
Okay then, nice talk. Don't forget to take your Haldol medication at regular intervals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it gets better mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You completely overlook the fact that the FCC et al pay attention to whoever bribes them and that its' not beyond the MPAA to bribe them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We all know that before American Idol allowed people to use the phone to vote their favorite singers from home, it was little more than an useless curiosity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Round we go
"it could generate substantial savings in this tremendous build-out cost -- to be borne by both government and private sector investment -- by encouraging construction of networks that are designed not on the basis of accommodating capacity-hogging transmissions of unlawful content"
So if we eliminate piracy, we'll have all the bandwidth we need without spending a lot of money.
"but rather with the goal of providing consumers a rich broadband experience."
But, isn't rich broadband experience going to hog all the bandwidth? Won't we have to spend a ton of money to build out the network?
Maybe not a circular argument, but perhaps a mobius strip...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steal music and movies to keep the internet alive!!!
This article goes to show how desperate the MPAA are these days. Now they resort to blatantly lying to us - downloading movies will kill the internet. Bahhumbug!
I want everyone of you to "illegally" download something worth watching tonight. Then burn it to DVD and share it with somebody you love. Because they lied to you.
Scientifically speaking it would be pretty much impossible to kill the internet. It is here for ever:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227062.700-unknown-internet-7-could-we-shut-the-net-d own.html
Who going to believe. Corporate snouts or scientific super stars :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Steal music and movies to keep the internet alive!!!
your problem is that you think too small.
download 4.7 gigs of torrentpacks (a collection of related torrents), decompress them, and burn 10 DVDs. give 5 to your friends, and leave 5 in random public places.
you could also swap usb hard drives with your friends. i smile and evil smile every time i hand over my disney collection for a friend to copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Steal music and movies to keep the internet alive!!!
The MPAA report seems to be suggesting a worldwide traffic jam. That's a totally different scenario but equally ridiculous when you consider that torrents are programmed to send information along the path of least resistance.
In actuality torrents are some of the most bandwidth friendly apps out there. NON-P2P users are like a thousand times more likely to jam up the lines.
Bog down the net? Pirates are way too savvy, ye savvy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ummm....I work in Hollywood AND I use the internet
First of all - movies and the internet are not related, tied, nor connected in any way. Other than the same way every industry uses the internet - as a means to make money and advertise.
Piracy is a huge problem. But, the internet will actually thrive as broadband becomes more readily accessible and yes movies and music will continue to be pirated, and downloaded. But, it's up the the film industry not government to stay on top of their ability to adjust with the changing times or die like the music industry learned all too late.
Bottom line, close your release windows (releasing earlier on DVD after it's in a theater) and be ready to accept new modes of distribution even if you don't like them.
People will always go to the movies in theaters because it's an experience. But, people will always find easy ways to pirate films as well. You can never stop it only stay one step ahead of them.
It's the industries responsibility to combat piracy and protect themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scary and Sad
It never ceases to amaze me that they make all the money and rally against any and all innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Motivations...
I'd be considered a pirate. This is not, however, because I hate paying for anything and don't care about the content producers. I will gladly pay for content, and I enjoy supporting bands or other content producers I support. The only reason I pirate is because when I weigh the options pirated content is a better option for me. With pirated content, even when you consider the fact that the quality is usually not as good, or that I could get into legal trouble, or any of the other drawbacks, it still holds more value to me than the "legal" content options simply because it is easier to use. I know that it will play on whatever I have due to the absence of restrictive DRM, I (usually) don't have to worry about it sneakily installing all kinds of software on my computer, and so on.
So basically, while there are a good number of people who pirate content simply because they don't want to pay for it, there are a lot of people like me who like to support the artists and don't mind paying for the content, but instead pirate it because the legally produced content is a lot more trouble than it is worth. DRM and other tactics to try and stop piracy by restricting the consumers actually do the opposite, they drive the people who would gladly pay for the content to instead pirate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are right :)
PS. needed one to comment here but that is that worthless too ;) ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What can we do?
With the MPAA hired guns inundating Congress and the main media with their double-speak how can we fight back?
Posting here doesn't get the word to those who need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What can we do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unchanging Behemoths in a Changing World
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really?
" No one rationally could argue that widespread stealing is not occurring, nor
could anyone reasonably claim that theft of this magnitude has little or no impact on the economic
fortunes of the content industries and, thus, the American economy. The bottom line is, no matter
what the actual losses measure up to in economic terms, a decrease in the amount of piracy necessarily
would increase overall revenues, which in turn would increase incentives for investment in the content
industries."
So...... the MPAA admit's that the number the numbers given might be a tad out of whack ( ok... maybe a lot), but that shouldn't detract from the argument. Which cites those "possibly" bogus numbers. Sound like a lot of logical distortion to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really?
fortunes of the content industries and, thus, the American economy."
Monopolies inherently harm the efficiency of the particular product market in which they operate. An abundance of small monopolies has the power to grossly inflate prices, extending the harm to the rest of the market. Thus artificially scarce movies and music are ACTUALLY depriving starving people of food to AT LEAST SOME DEGREE.
While it's true that piracy cannot do much to help the particular product market where the monopolies are, IT CAN significantly lower the price of those goods via black market forces and help soften the impact on the rest of the market.
Pirates feed the hungry. It's true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really?
You are, by far, one of the dumbest techdirt posters currently posting. Congratulations. Here's your award, it's a bunch of matches. Don't stop playing with them until you successfully light yourself on fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
merely a formality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
technology has made this possible. Just ask the the MAN watching us at all times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Videos, music and other forms of entertainment are on the network because the media CREATORS (not necessarily the "owners") want it there. Removing it won't kill the infrastructure.
What COULD create problems is that some of the media companies are the same as those that provide access to the net to millions of consumers (ie: Time Warner and other cable companies that are part of media conglomerates). If these organizations decided to cut off access, that would effectively "kill" part of the net for a little while.
On the other hand, traditional telecommunications companies that don't have 50%+ interests in media companies would swoop in to fill the gap (AT&T, Verizon, etc). So from a purely business perspective, it wouldn't make sense for the TW's of the world to stop providing access.
At the end of the day, there is going to have to be some sort of balance in the copyright world. What always strikes me as funny is that with every new transmission media, the content creators ALWAYS try to fight it first rather than figuring out how to benefit from the greater reach the new media creates.
Seems silly to me. If they'd have invested even a fraction of the effort into figuring out how to create a more pervasive form of iTunes and Hulu a decade ago when all of this was really taking off, they'd be making money, people would be paying fractional-use amounts to consume and everyone would be happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is false. The loss is to the author's copyright itself. Copyright, you see, is *supposed* to be an exclusive right to copy (with some limitations still applicable). Exclusive, by definition, means that nobody else is doing it, so if somebody else is copying a copyrighted work without permission then again, by the very definition of the word "exclusive", the copyright holder has lost something that he or she values. This is irrespective of any financial value that anyone may attach to copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please explain. They did not lose the copyright at all. They still retain it. There is no loss. None.
Copyright, you see, is *supposed* to be an exclusive right to copy (with some limitations still applicable). Exclusive, by definition, means that nobody else is doing it, so if somebody else is copying a copyrighted work without permission then again, by the very definition of the word "exclusive", the copyright holder has lost something that he or she values.
Actually, this is not true. You should read the excellent book "No Law" which goes through the history of copyright law, and the drafting of the language -- noting that it was originally "an exclusive right to profit" not an all encompassing "exclusive right." The "to profit" part was eventually cut because it seemed rather obvious. But now people seem to think that the exclusive rights go beyond just profit, when that was never the intention at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For instance, I may deem my neighbors car to be of value to me. But my neighbor does not owe me his/her car and and when s/he takes his/her car to work then I have no standing to yell that s/he did something wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are copying it.
This has been beaten with a stick already. Why is it so hard for you to understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA Hypocrites...
They suggest that file-sharing is the ONLY "big hog" on the network..HAH!!
As if Net-Flix, Amazon, Hulu, and YouTube, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, Reuters, BBC are low-bandwidth contributors. The MPAA, RIAA are not just MAFIA Organizations, they are..
THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITES ON THE PLANET. Blame the rest of the internet, so they and their butt-monkey partners can be the only ones to serve high-bandwidth content. Butt-Holes!!
}:>
It's obvious that anyone with an IQ over "10" can't be employed as a Hollywood entertainment executive. I give those already employed a "10" because they have at least figured out a way to financially rape the general public!
Mafia, indeed. ;p
That's it! I'm outta here! Nuff said! ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I also have exclusivity over the moon. If the government or you or anyone denies me that exclusivity and goes on the moon without my permission then I lost something of value to me and therefore I lost something. So now they're stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess they never heard of creative commons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Lemme Get This Straight...
Really, do they even make technology like that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Lemme Get This Straight...
Much of the internet backbone runs on 10G optical routes. In most applications, it just needs new transceivers on each side of the fiber, and any repeaters on the route also need to be upgraded, but it beats having to put more cables in the ground
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25946
It's a great breakthrough for carriers who were limited to a total 10G of bandwidth on a strand of fiber just two years ago.
This is an old video--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IkJcR4vYvQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
throttled to death
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hope is not a strategy or a solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contradiction
Now, in contradiction to that claim, we must remove the pirated commercial precious from the Internet in order to save it.
So which is it?
Earlier: if piracy is stopped the Internet will die.
Now: if piracy continues the Internet will die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please don't let the FCC set neutrality terms
Congress may be slow and also easily corrupted, but at least they are elected and have to go through a drawn out process of changing anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hold up, its not stealing
Netflix has the right idea, instant queue is awesome. 16 bucks a month! The movie companys need to change their ways, go cheaper. ill buy movies at 5 / 10 bucks all day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban Piracy No Problem
Sorry, but stealing music and movies has hurt alot of people. for example the music business earns less than half the amount it did about 10 years ago. i know tons of people that have lost jobs and earn so little it is ridiculous, all because the love art and working in the creative field.
sorry, but the RIAA is right, illegal pirated content on the internet runs about 50-75% of the traffic at many given times. so why not ban it, track it and send warnings to those trade illegally? sorry but i agree with all of this. people shouldn't have the right to steal, and while i hate the RIAA lawsuits against consumers. i don't believe anyone has a god given right to broadband if they are stealing.
let them surf the web on a 56k modem for a year as a penalty! three strikes and they lose broadband for a while is fair to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban Piracy No Problem
I am now sad(der) for the American public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ban Piracy No Problem
This is simply not true. The *music* industry is earning more than it ever has. The CD industry is down by about 50%, but that is not the music industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ban Piracy No Problem
... problem is the big labels arent the "music business" its a distinction they dont seem to be able to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If anyone is up for this kind of thing on the weekends, drop me a line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ummmm ok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh yes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]