The Government And Silicon Valley: Lead, Follow Or Get Out Of The Way?
from the all-of-the-above? dept
A bunch of folks have sent in Mike Arrington's recent blog post, angrily pointing out that the federal government keeps trying to meddle in Silicon Valley, and it would be better off just keeping as far away as possible from the Valley, because it's only going to mess things up. We'll get to the particulars of his post in a minute, but there was one key part of the story that a bunch of submitters highlighted in sending it in: a recent "off the record" meeting between Victoria Espinel and various Silicon Valley folks, which was supposed to be about "helping" Silicon Valley, and instead, turned into "how can the government get Silicon Valley to protect the entertainment industry":Earlier this year I was invited to a small closed door meeting with Victoria Espinel, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator appointed by Obama. In attendance were CEOs and other senior executives of a number of large and small Silicon Valley companies. The meeting was supposed to be about how her office can help Silicon Valley thrive. But it became very apparent very quickly that Espinel has a single agenda when it comes to copyright issues -- helping the music labels and TV/Movie studios deal with the Internet on their own terms.Of course, none of this is shocking or surprising. This was obvious since Espinel was first appointed to the job, and even as I and many others expressed our concerns about the "strategic plan" she's working on, the nature of the questions she asked made it clear that her role is not to promote the progress, but to prop up the business models of certain industries.
The meeting was strictly off record, which is why I didn't write about it immediately after leaving the room. And the things that she said in that meeting will remain off the record as I promised. But I will say this -- I walked out in utter frustration after an hour. And among the many things I said in that room was this:The government can keep pissing in our flowerbed, but pretty soon all the flowers are going to be dead.The problem with Espinel is that she has to follow the lobbying dollars, and those dollars come from the old entrenched players -- TV and movie studios, and record labels. And as she said in the meeting to me (the one quote I'll use), "My job title is Intellectual Property Enforcement after all."
That said, I also agree with Anil Dash's response to Arrington, pointing out that Silicon Valley can't ignore the federal government, because that will only make things worse. However, I don't think the two of them are really disagreeing. Dash is right that folks in Silicon Valley do need to be involved and talk to folks in DC... but in part as a way to make sure that Arrington's goal of keeping them from doing something stupid is at least a possibility.
Yes, there will always be lobbying from other interests in DC, and politicians will do stupid, innovation- and job-killing things to help protect the big dollars from other industries. That's how it works. But ignoring that doesn't help matters. Instead, it really is important to get involved, not for the sake of getting DC more involved in Silicon Valley, but to keep making it clear that they need to not mess with what works and, maybe even clear out a few of the aspects of the law that really are getting in the way. Yes, we should hope that the federal government stays out of Silicon Valley, but the best way to do that isn't for Silicon Valley to stay out of DC.
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: government, innovation, lobbying, politics, regulations, silicon valley, washington dc
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please, tell me why every government must be such a cliche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Completely Believable Account
I think the best possible response would have been for all the players to have completely ignored the invitation, to a (wo)man.
Do not feed the monsters. Let her (illegally) enforce IP upon air.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not only must we protect the Internet, we need to seek to turn more public airwaves into unlicensed channels that anyone can freely use to broadcast long distance content and news and we need to seek to undue the cableco monopolies so that a wider variety of news and viewpoints, not just pro IP views and not just news and views that portray the blue collar criminal and bank robber and liquor store robber as societies biggest problems, could make it on the news. The news and viewpoints here on techdirt should also exist on mainstream media just as well. Cases of IP abuse should make it on the news, the ridiculous nature of copy privilege laws should make it on the MSM, Mike Masnick should freely be able to talk on the mainstream media to give his opinion on these issues. but our current mainstream media is coerced and this needs to be corrected with more media competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doing nothing to something is still making a decision on the matter. If you deregulate or not regulate something to begin with and that something fails and people lose their jobs or lives over it the issue is brought to whoever is in overall charge of the land. Why didn't they regulate off shore drilling more, the regulation they had was ineffectual. It was damn near de regulation under the guise of regulation. They completely screwed up here.
That is just one example don't drag it out like a red herring.
The point I'm making is government exists in all forms and it's about finding what works. Saying "government screws EVERYTHING it touches" over simplifies the matter and seems to point to only one ultimate conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not sure what you mean. You asked for examples of arenas in which the government hasn't gone ahead and pooped all over all that was good and proper. The highway system appears to be an example....
Government is good at what government is SUPPOSED to be good at: overarching concerns that apply to a majority of the citizenry it is supposed to represent. Things like transportation apply. So should the FDA, although they certainly have allowed that agency to be horribly compromised. Same with the SEC, the intelligence alphabet agencies, and the military.
A shame that they don't. The fact that so much has been compromised means that Eisenhower was close but wrong. It isn't the military industrial complex we ought to fear, it's the international banking complex....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then again, the Federal Government did threaten to pull funding unless the States lowered speed limits... that counts as messing it up, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, no, I would think that would be the application of what you were originally advocating: government getting out. If they pull funding, that's their version of leaving. Isn't that what you wanted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
government screws up EVERYTHING it touches
I consider using funding for interstate highways to strong arm states into lowering speed limits to be "screwing up" the system.
Then again, my initial remark was more of a joke than a serious question. Further, for clarification, I desire a small Federal Government and stronger state governments so things like interstates and FDA and defense from foreign threats are what I feel the Federal Government *should* be doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I won't hold my breath on that one....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Enforcement"
Well, she actually has a point. As galling as it is, the very fact that her title is U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator proves that they've already decided what the problem is and how to fix it, not actually promoting the progress. What you call a thing can have a big power to influence how people think of that thing. It can short circuit the thought process and lead a person to a certain opinion. (This is, in part, why people get so particular about the use of "theft" in reference to IP.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i can see a huge business in selling crack in inner cities. but since it is doubtful i will change the laws, i cannot enter into it as a legal business. while copyright violation is not like selling crack, in legal terms it is pretty much the same thing, something that is illegal by the laws of the nation. just flaunting the laws isnt going to get the job done, especially when its done not for any noble cause, but rather for a profitable bottom line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good grief. Now you're comparing Silicon Valley companies, most of whom don't have anything to do with copyright infringement, with drug dealers. Way to go, TAM. You've truly outdone yourself with this rediculous stretch. Once again you've undermined your argument by making an absurd comparison. But you're right, I'm the one with the 3rd grade reasoning. %-\
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just another
When they start pushing issues like this one, you are not performing a service to anybody.
The government is only putting on it's "that's how we've always done it" hat and stepping on the little guy who has a better idea (internet).
Stop making bs policies to hinder the future!
Open commerce, Freedom of ideas, Survival of the fitest; that's how we stay on top, that's how we keep America strong.
Besides, why do they even think controlling 309 million Americas is actually going to help you?
There are ~5.7 billion more people out there that are outside your jurisdiction that can do whatever they want, despite policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politicians want employment for income and taxes, and productivity. And they are NOT stupid.
Politicians are many things, they can be nasty, evil, greedy, and many things, but stupid,,,, no.. there are very few unintelligent, or incompetent people in the higher levels of a governemnt, such as the US or here in Australia.
You might not like them, you might not agree with them, but they are bound by set and specific rules, and laws that they cannot fool with, it's just about impossible for one politician to get something stupid passed. And it can easily be reversed.
"Big Dollars" !!!
Politicians also want above everything else is to get votes and keep their job's, you talk of 'big dollars' as if that is a bad thing, what is the alternative ? massive unemployment. You dont want the government to help successful industries stay successful?
You are happy to see the "big dollars" go to another state or country, and employ an entire new group of people ?
Are you anti-employment ?
What is you're alternative, if you are talking about file sharing, what model are you going to put in place that will take over from the "big dollars", that will still gainfully employ large numbers of people?
You dont think it's in the governments and countries best interest to keep big money in youre state or region, them paying taxes, having jobs and paying rates, buying houses, using electricity, and not relying on social security, and create product that makes more money and taxes, employs more people and so on.
But because you dont like "big money", you would not like the government to protect allready established value and a viable and working business model.
And you propose to replace that with what again ?
It seems like you concept is the equivalent to a bank with it's vaults open, so you can enter at any time, and take what you want.
The problem with that model is, there is no one actually putting money back into the vault, (ie no one creating worthy content). So the next time you go to the open vault to get some money it will be empty.
What would happen if file sharing of songs and movies was the only model available ?
Who is going to throw in the $100 million dollars to produce a movie, knowing that there is no mechanism to regain that cost ?
How is he going to get someone to put money in that vault ?
How is he going to pay for production, for the actors, sets, equipment, and so on?
Where does the money come from, if there is no protection against his investment being used for free and not paid for?
So mike, will you give me $100 million dollars for me to make a movie about the Pole trying to assinate the US president (it's called "Pontif no return") (concept by Mo syslack of The Simpsons).
We'll put it on a big file sharing network, and make it available for all to download, so mike, you tell me how you are going to make you money, youre $100 million dollars back.
Ill give you the movie, and the copyright for the movie, as long as you make it available for free download.
I will let you worry about how you are going to get you money back. Rather you than me though. Good luck.
And you talk about politicians making stupid decisions!!!!
But it comes back to you by saying someone is making stupid comments about a model and successful industry, without even trying to define a viable alternative.
At least one is trying !! the other is crying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politicians want employment for income and taxes, and productivity. And they are NOT stupid.
So you were in favor of "red flag laws" that required anyone driving a car to have someone walking in front of them waving a red flag?
After all, it helped successful industries like the railroads and the horse and buggy makers "stay successful". That was the point of those laws.
That they also limited the growth of the auto industry and all of the economic benefits that came from it apparently is of no concern to you?
Fascinating.
You are happy to see the "big dollars" go to another state or country, and employ an entire new group of people ?
You assume too much. More efficient means of production, distribution and promotion means more economic opportunity for those people.
The problem with that model is, there is no one actually putting money back into the vault, (ie no one creating worthy content). So the next time you go to the open vault to get some money it will be empty.
Except, that's totally wrong. As we've seen with both the music and the movie industry more money IS going back into the vault. It's just going in through other openings. Your inability to see that is troubling.
Who is going to throw in the $100 million dollars to produce a movie, knowing that there is no mechanism to regain that cost ?
You make the false assumption that there is no way to regain the cost without the old way of doing things. You should not make such assumptions.
Where does the money come from, if there is no protection against his investment being used for free and not paid for?
If he has a smart business model, then he'll make his money back.
In the meantime, though, most movies right now lose money. Based on your reasoning, no movies would ever get made. In other words, Darryl, you are wrong. Very, very wrong.
So mike, will you give me $100 million dollars for me to make a movie about the Pole trying to assinate the US president (it's called "Pontif no return") (concept by Mo syslack of The Simpsons).
I wouldn't give money to anyone who can't understand basic economics, so, no, I would not give you the money. But that's really beside the point. If there's demand for such a movie and people smarter than yourself come up with a good business plan for it, then it can get funded and make money.
Ill give you the movie, and the copyright for the movie, as long as you make it available for free download.
I will let you worry about how you are going to get you money back. Rather you than me though. Good luck.
Sure, we've already highlighted numerous moviemakers who have chosen not to enforce their copyrights, and found they were able to make more money by doing so. Do you deny reality so easily?
But it comes back to you by saying someone is making stupid comments about a model and successful industry, without even trying to define a viable alternative.
You should learn a little economic history. You find me a single industry that let the old guard wait until a new equivalent model existed before the newer players took over.
Go ahead. I'll wait.
At least one is trying !! the other is crying.
Good luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Politicians want employment for income and taxes, and productivity. And they are NOT stupid.
Give you a hint: The amount of US laws repealed at the Federal level, can be counted on one full hand and 3 fingers from the other - and one of those laws led into the Civil War.
And yes, politicians can be stupid. We elected an idiot C-student as President, not once, but twice, and got policies to match his stupidity in return.
I won't even bother commenting on the quality of politicians that come from California, Arizona, or Utah.
Those politicians take legal bribes, pass laws that have loopholes in them that exclude themselves and their interests from those very laws, etc. It's a bunch of hooey.
As for the rest? Oh well, no more multi-million dollar overpaid crap-fests coming out of Hollywood, boo-hoo. No loss to society at large, and I dare say a great gain would be had to our national IQ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, Alot of talk but short on answers ! A model is the exchange for goods and services for money.
Class Mike strawman argument, try for some examples in this millenium please :).
So strawman no.1 shot down, and im sure if you look up that law it will have been repeeled.
Ok, what next !
"You assume too much. More efficient means of production, distribution and promotion means more economic opportunity for those people."
High on rhetoric, zero on factual support for youre argument.
Its a strawman argument, what file sharers do is distribute, they do no promote, sell or produce a product.
And for youre "basic ecomonics" how do you explain how production and promotion and management are done and paid for ?
sure, you can distribute, even if youre not allowed too but as for production, promotion, and management you need to leave it up to professionals and quite often the musicians do NOT want that job, they want to play and record, they dont want to mix, edit, produce, create, product, edit and promote music videos, tourns, concerts, bookings, tickects, security and list is endless and costly.
So illegal file sharers, can take allready producted content, that is desired, that people are willing to legally pay for. And you copy and distribute it, but you do not create it, and you do not promote it, produce it or manage it. All CRITICAL branches of any succesfull business model.
You think all the mixers, editors, camera people, managers and so on are or will be willing to do all their work, buy all the equipment they need, and pay for promotion for NO MONEY, and little or no prospect of making money.
not only is it a strawman argument, but its incomplete and hollow, it certainly does not address many issues, and gaping holes in youre proposed but highly incomple model.
(a model mind you, is deemed by the law to be illegal as well).
So he is a criminal strawman as well as incomplete and as you propose unworkable.
"Sure, we've already highlighted numerous moviemakers who have chosen not to enforce their copyrights, and found they were able to make more money by doing so. Do you deny reality so easily?"
Ok, name 5 popular movies that have done that !
You know 5 movies people would actually want to go and see for example, otherwise, you're just building more strawmen.
"You find me a single industry that let the old guard wait until a new equivalent model existed before the newer players took over."
What you want ME to find examples to confirm youre argument, its not me trying to build a flimsy case to allow you to download what you like. Its up to you to provide factual proof of youre proposed (and presently illegal) model actually works.
"You find me a single industry that let the old guard wait until a new equivalent model existed before the newer players took over."
you show me any industry that has significantly changed their model at all. To give you a bit of economic history.
Throught history, people work, they make things, but often as they dont make everything, they need items that someone else makes. One might be a woodchopper, one a iron worker, one a hunter.
So they trade, after awile they worked out it was better to swap tokens that represented value, it was eventually called MONEY.
What most if not all business models are, and always have been is this, Read carefully.... you might learn something.
People produce something of value to others, either singlely or in a group, they play a money value on what that make, and people come along and buy that thing off them. For money.
That gives those people money to buy other things they might need (but cant make). Plus, the people who come and buy things of them need money to pay for it, so they work and makes things they too can sell, they get money for it, money they need to buy other things.
Thats a business model, you make something, you sell it and you get something in return for it. It's usually money because everyone can use money, its universal.
So there has to be a continuous flow of things to sell and things to buy, the only way for there to be things to buy and things to sell AND the money to buy other things is by creating a product or a service that people are willing to exchange money for.
It all comes down to a very small number of things for a viable business model that is.
1).Product or servies to buy (have to be make which takes brains and effort)
That creates a thing called "a market" that means "things you can buy".
Markets are great, if there is something to sell, and also great if you have money to pay for the product.
You get that money, by providing a product or service for a price, you exchange goods or services for tokens deems a certain value (money, cash, cheques).
All business models are this fundamental model, there are veriations of it, but it all boils down to exchanging something of value for something else of value. To create value (wealth), so you exchange more stuff.
Sure, Red Hat has a different business model than microsoft, one is a software design company, and the other is a technical support company, using outsourced core product.
But BOTH are the same in that they exchange goods or services of a percieved value (real value if the purchaser likes the product or service) the customer pays his tokens (cash) for the product. That gives RH or MS cash to pay staff and promotion. So they can exchange more stuff for money. And around it goes.
In youre hollow model, well, really there is not model that you have yet to define,
From what I can work out, you model involves high quality music, books and movies to put out of smoke, and just appear on bittorrent for quick and easy and free distribution.
That is NOT a model, its a pipe dream, where does the content come from. Who is producing blockbuster movies (ones you would actually pay to see) for FREE ?
And if they are, how are they paying for producing the movie?
And how are they making enough money off the movie to pay for the investment required to make it???????
All, these basic economic questions, that you should be able to at least answer but also with authority, conviction and clear examples of youre presently illegal model would or does actaully work to the point of being viable.
Closest ive seen you come on this is saying the movie industry is still making money using their old model, even when we are stealing from tham. Therefore 'no harm, no fault'.
It's like saying, banks are still making profit, but people are still robbing them. Sure they are, but every cent the robbers take is money out of the pocket of you and me, and everyone who pays insurance.
"In the meantime, though, most movies right now lose money. Based on your reasoning, no movies would ever get made. In other words, Darryl, you are wrong. Very, very wrong."
Actually most movies make money, and just saying im very, very wrong !!! well thats a strong counter argument if I ever (didnt) hear one.
"If he has a smart business model, then he'll make his money back."
Ahh I see, but youre not willing to actually define one, or explain how that immaginary, almost magic model would or could work.
So now the poor old movie director and producer are going to have to try to raise funds for a untested movie, and an untested model to create it. With (so far) ZERO explination or reasoning as to how the money to cover the cost of production and promotion is going to be paid for.
And im sure some actors would be happy to work just because they want to learn, or get famous, but I think you might have a bit of trouble getting a Mel Gibson, or Tom Cruise on the set without a few million bucks his way, and a damn good and professionally written (and copyrighted) script, and a known director.
So without the best writers, directors, producters and actors, promoters and the best boy being willing to work for no money, and not having a proven viable model to finance the project, who do you propose to create the money.
No money, no talent, no sales, no profit, no investment, no promotion, and NO FILE TO SHARE WITH YOURE MATES....
And youre model is ?? please exaplain. Enlighten us with youre wisdom, show us how this new utopian model actually works.
As for youre vault being "filled up by other means", what other means, what is the source of the money that you put in the vault ? where does it come from.
It would seem the only place you would be able to get cash to put back in the vault (that anyone can take) is to take it out of the vault first, or take it out of someone elses vault.
Sooner or later (probably sooner) ALL the vaults will be empty, and where do you get the money to put in the vault then ?
You fail to provide any explination of youre argument, to the point where I think and believe you dont fundamentally believe it would work, but you try to convince others it will, by just saying "it will work".. Not good enough Mike.. sorry..
More detail and examples, and far less rhetoric, and at least i go to great lengths to show and explain why youre wrong, you just so "no, youre wrong". With ZERO supporting facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike, Alot of talk but short on answers ! A model is the exchange for goods and services for money.
Piracy is here to stay.
So, you can find new business model, mimic (or, copy, if you will) someone else's successful business model, or find a new job. That is to say: Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike, Alot of talk but short on answers ! A model is the exchange for goods and services for money.
Your trust in legislators is quite refreshing. Interestingly enough, there is a law on the book which prohibits people of certain sexual orientations from serving in the military. Now, if that's not dumb, I don't know what is.
"Its a strawman argument, what file sharers do is distribute, they do no promote, sell or produce a product.
And for youre "basic ecomonics" how do you explain how production and promotion and management are done and paid for ?"
Don't you read this blog? File sharers do in fact promote content. They do so by sharing it interestingly enough. On how to make money, there are dozens of examples to be found on this blog ranging from "meet-the-artist" type schemes, to t-shirts, to premium box sets, to concerts etc... That's how the production and management teams get paid. Simple enough.
"Ok, name 5 popular movies that have done that !
You know 5 movies people would actually want to go and see for example, otherwise, you're just building more strawmen."
It is being explained to you that we are here discussing a set of business models which is developping and growing. Not that it is currently established. However, if you want an example where movies are made available for free and people still made money, you got it. Every single movie in the past 5-10 years have been "pirated" widely available online, widely downloaded and their success rate is equivalent with movies before illegal file sharing became popular.
"Sure, Red Hat has a different business model than microsoft, one is a software design company, and the other is a technical support company, using outsourced core product.
But BOTH are the same in that they exchange goods or services of a percieved value (real value if the purchaser likes the product or service) the customer pays his tokens (cash) for the product. That gives RH or MS cash to pay staff and promotion. So they can exchange more stuff for money. And around it goes."
Except that the core item which people get in relation to Red Hat is not the support, it's Linux Red Hat! Which is free content! If linux didn't exist, Red Hat would make 0 money. Also, Linux is created by people who do NOT get remunerated because others buy Linux. Since no-one does! You are building a straw man by saying that there is only one business model: You make stuff and people buy that stuff. That argument is idiotic. Of course people paying for goods and services is central to every business model! But it's thoroughly insufficient as a business model. How do you get others to buy your stuff/services? How do you make your stuff and services? Those are the interesting questions and the truth is there are thousands of different business models ranging from Dell who makes your computer just in time to MySQL who customizes and supports a product they give away for free, to Google who gives away great tools and sells ad space on those tools.
You are quite simply wrong because of all those facts I gave above. Also, you're intelectually dishonest which personnally I consider a significant character flaw. But hey, do what you want. It's a free country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]