NBC Universal Threatens Partners That They Need To Sign 'Grassroots' Support Of SOPA/PIPA Or It Might Have To Drop Them
from the this-is-getting-sad dept
We've talked about CreativeAmerica, the astroturfing group set up by the major Hollywood studios, pretending to be a "grassroots effort" in favor of SOPA & PIPA. A month ago, we challenged the group's claim that it had "sent 100,000 letters to Congress." Turns out that wasn't true. They had sent 4,191, and then about 33,000 people had "signed a petition" that the group had set up. The math by CreativeAmerica is that each thing sent out three letters: one to your Congressional Representative and one to each of your two Senators. Of course, petitions are mostly ignored. Letters have only slightly more weight -- and based on Creative America's own math, they really only had about 1,400 people sign their letter.Either way, it seemed somewhat amusing to discover that some of the top execs at NBC Universal have been threatening all NBC Universal suppliers to sign the letter that CreativeAmerica put together or NBC might no longer be able to do business with them:
We are writing to ask you for help on an issue that is one our top business priorities � content theft on the Internet, which is a major threat to the strength of our business. Our major guilds and unions are joining us in the fight to keep our businesses strong so that the tidal wave of content theft does not kill jobs. But if the current trend continues, it�s not too strong to say that this threat could adversely affect our business relationship with you.Grassroots effort? When NBC Universal's General Counsel, Rick Cotton -- who famously once claimed that piracy was destroying the lowly corn farmer, since people who watch pirated movies don't eat popcorn (or something) -- is threatening suppliers who don't sign on? That's not grassroots. That's just insane. Now, it's true that Cotton wrote this carefully such that you can read it to suggest it means that if this law doesn't pass, NBC Universal's business will be in so much trouble that it has to shut down or cut off deals with suppliers. But it seems pretty clear that the obvious implication is: sign this or we may no longer do business with you.
But, given that "the big guns" at NBC Universal are pushing all their suppliers to directly sign (or else!) the letter found at CreativeAmerica's site, you might think that a lot more people would have signed on. Especially over the last month, with SOPA making so much news. So we went and checked.
That gives us 161 new signatures (actually 160.666666 etc -- which makes me wonder what happened to that extra third of a person). 161. In a month.
Meanwhile, a real grassroots campaign turned out one million emails to Congress and 87,834 calls in one day. It should be clear at this point that the public clearly does not support SOPA/PIPA, and no amount of "faking it" is driving any public support.
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: astroturf, creative america, grassroots, hollywood, protect ip, rick cotton, studios
Companies: creativeamerica, nbc universal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nothing to see here, move along now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For NBC? Probably not. They have enough money for it to not be illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Notice the carefully selected weasel words that were used.
Kind of like the local mob boss and his goons walking into your hardware store and saying "Real nice place you've got here. It would be a shame if something bad happened to it..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"It'd be a shame if we couldn't do business with youse guys anymore..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Smith
I am actually starting to get concerned this might pass because our elected officials care more for their wallets than their country, the people they represent, and their office. It is scary that we have come to this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SOPA support sounds similar to this 'grassroots' support of politicians supported by power hungry business bosses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt is like the Wikileaks of cut throat business practices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By the way, you've really had a poor showing today. You should think about Troll College. Trolls with degrees get 40% more replies over their trolling career than trolls without degrees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
what/will/happen/is/it/will "break the semantic web".
if you thought policing copyright was already too hard, just wait until independent DNS is setup, more darknets appear, and ubiquitous end-to-end encryption between darknets appears.
the internet doesn't need the content; it was around for many years before the first mp3 was made available.
however, the content industry NEEDS the internet
there are plenty enough people making content.. see Tosh.0, Ridiculousness, Facebook, Twitter, etc... This is only the beginning; The industry knows this and is doing everything it can to entrench itself.
how much of the daily intarwebs traffic does Netflix account for..?
piracy is such a small blip on the radar when you start to think about it- Especially when the entire industry continues to post record profits despite their incessant whining that piracy costs them trillions every year
what they are scared of is COMPETITION. These laws are about control of the platform. They are there to present a barrier to entry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Exactly, what is it that people are going to Netflix for? Content, they don't go there because Netflix is awesome, they go there because Netflix has the rights to distribute the content.
You act like the internet is some magical thing. It is a network, granted it is a truely vast massively fault tolerant network, but it is still a network.
The media companies do not need the tech industry. They can write their own streaming software. No one cares about who is delivering the content. People want instant access to content on demand and at a reasonable price. The media companies do not need the technology industry to deliever this they can set up their own internet delivered service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
OK, why don't they do it then? They "sure" can make it "piracy proof".
Oh, while at it, be sure to not borrow anything from the current inet, cos that's infringing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"They can write their own streaming software."
They can not even film their own movies if it weren't for the fact that the tech industry came up with cameras. The media companies can not invent their own cameras, they have to 'steal' / infringe from tech that other people already made.
How about this. Lets ban the media industry from using tech that's under 95+ years old, since that's how long copy protection laws last. They can have their 95+ year copy protection lengths but they can't use tech less than 95+ years old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
where once we were allowed access to these private networks through the public internet, now the doors will be shut and only vetted access granted. huge amounts of information (SPEECH!) will be hidden away from the public internet for fear of not being able to control the uncontrollable (ie. people).
why hasn't the industry set up their own internet delivered system yet? that seems like it would be incredibly profitable for them..........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This has to be the most uninformed sentence in the history of the world. Media companies are the leaches of the tech industry, from the equipment they use to products they release. Nothing in the media industry could be produced without the technology to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you ever get tired of proving other people's points?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The media companies do not need the tech industry.
So, you understand that the internet is actually a network, yet have no idea which industry has the expertise required to run and maintain networks?
Seriously, what would the media industry be without Blu-ray, DVD, VHS, CD, cassette, 8-track, TV, radio, film, and phonographs? NOTHING! All of the media and devices that the media industry depends upon for its entire existence were created by technologist. The internet, like all networks, was built by technologist too.
Most of the technology that the media industry was built upon existed and was used before they figured out what to do with it. Sure, a few companies like Netflix wouldn't likely exist without the media industry, by to say that the media industry doesn't need the tech industry is like saying that fish don't need water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The internet and the codecs and all that stuff were created for the military and for big science.
The content industry is a Johnny come lately to all of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All media, digital or analog, has limited space, and all forms of transmission have limited bandwidth. However, analog is inherently lossy--where you could trade fidelity and space by simply lowering the media speed or transmission bandwidth. Once the signal is converted to digital, it has to be copied bit-for-bit. The creation and development of digital compression simply arose from the need to represent information with fewer bits--and would have existed even if the commercial media industry did not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, mpeg4 was originally created specifically for video conferencing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
OK let them ignore ALL the tech of the last 150 years - they can run concerts for the Amish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think this is the most insane thing you have ever said on this site and I'm not exaggerating. You truly are in a different universe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1) Why aren't they doing it?
2) Why do they keep asking for (read: demanding) the tech industry's help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
here's a newsflash: they don't care about the internet. you pay them for access to _their_ network. once you go outside that network, they don't care what's going on.
besides that, most ISP's are in cahoots with the media companies. they have a vested interest in being best buds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Verizon is a particularly acute example of this, as they are a cable TV provider as well as an ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Increasingly, the ISPs *ARE* the media companies.
Time Warner
NBC Comcast
How's that for a vertical monopoly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are saying the threat of content theft could adversly affect their business relationship with the addressee. No where in that message does it indicate that failure to sign up with the grassroots organization would harm the business relationship.
You are the industry loathing, self-serving shill for the piracy industry some of these people claim. I don't understand why you would choose to publicly attack the people who own the rights to the content. Instead of attacking the media companies you should try sticking to alternate business models. These attacks of yours will not help your cause.
There is room for the existing media companies and new media companies to co-exist. It doesn't need to be an either/or situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Tell us how you really feel. I am not at all industry loathing. Quite the opposite. I want them to succeed: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111111/03372116719/believing-legacy-gatekeepers-will-fail-to-adap t-is-not-same-as-wanting-them-to-fail.shtml
What bugs me is when they do totally counterproductive things like this.
I don't understand why you would choose to publicly attack the people who own the rights to the content.
I'm not attacking them. I'm attacking stupid things that they do that do more harm than good *to themselves*.
Instead of attacking the media companies you should try sticking to alternate business models.
Yeah, I'd love to. But Rick Cotton and NBC Universal are trying to pass legislation that will make it effectively impossible to make use of many such business models. So that's a big problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Every post in which you mention one of these companies is biased against them. You claim you "want them to succeed", but the tone and content of your posts indicate otherwise. Every effort they make to counter piracy is mocked and ridculed by this site. Instead of telling them how NOT to fight piracy, try offering a solution to their problems.
You constantly bemoan their actions as unwillingness to "adapt", but their actions are defensive against the ever growing reality of piracy. You should have anti-piracy articles that illustrate your opposition to illegal theft of content instead of articles pointing out how smart the pirates are.
"Yeah, I'd love to. But Rick Cotton and NBC Universal are trying to pass legislation that will make it effectively impossible to make use of many such business models. So that's a big problem."
Please enlighten us again. What business models would be impossible under SOPA/Protect-IP? Those business models which rely on unlicensed content? Those are already illegal under existing statute. Unfortunately, SOPA isn't about creating new laws it's about enforcement of EXISTING laws. It is already illegal to share content but by the time the content is removed the damage has already been done. SOPA hits the pirates where it hurts, in their wallets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because they ARE ridiculous - except when they are also dangerous - not to piracy - but to those who simply want to use technology freely for their own purposes.
When I first bought a personal computer in 1981 it came with a cicuit diagram and a full listing of the operating system. Every part of the system was accessible to the user and a full set of development tools was bundled. You could create anything you wanted to.
Nowadays machines are much more powerful but the open access has largely gone. Some of that is simply down to increasing compelxity but a lot is down to the futile attempts of the content industry to prevent piracy. (incidentally the existence of most of the malware out there is down to mechanisms that were put in for DRM.)
So when you mess up my world in an attempt to protect an obsolete (and morally questionable) way of doing busines, and it doesn't even work you can expect me to be negative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can you come up with 10 independent non-industry posts anywhere on the internet that mention an entertainment industry company in a positive light?
"Every post in which you mention one of these companies is biased against them. You claim you "want them to succeed", but the tone and content of your posts indicate otherwise."
If that were true Mike could just shut up and let them continue their self-driven downward spiral into irrelevancy. All the advice Mike offers these companies is to help them succeed, not fail.
"Every effort they make to counter piracy is mocked and ridculed by this site."
Perhaps that's because every effort they make to counter piracy is ridiculous. Can you think of any efforts they've made that have successfully reduced piracy on a long-term basis?
"Instead of telling them how NOT to fight piracy, try offering a solution to their problems."
If you honestly think that hasn't been happening here, then you're either monumentally stupid or intellectually dishonest. Whether you agree with his suggestions or not, Mike has been doing what you ask for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Meanwhile, in reality, a lot of people will be in financial ruin because of the expensive lawsuits/settlement letters, or because their internet service got flagged by these leeches on society called RIAA and MPAA, for possible venues of potential infringing use, and to defend their web service against those attacks they had to pay a lot of damages or just shutter it.
Causing more bad blood against the RIAA and the MPAA, making damn sure that the market that these labels think is there, dries up even faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yesh, I only come around on occasion, yet even I've seen a few post about members of the media industry who "get it". It's rather hard though to give a "positive light" to industries that choose to take a largely negative defensive position.
You constantly bemoan their actions as unwillingness to 'adapt', but their actions are defensive against the ever growing reality of piracy.
The market is a race towards progress--always moving forward; you can either run with it, or get left behind. Taking a purely defensive stance in the market is like trying to win the race by standing still and pushing down anyone who tries to pass you. It might give the short-term illusion of success, but it's doomed to fail. People will ultimately bypass you, then avoid you, then eventually ignore you entirely.
"Piracy" is mostly due to others who are already ahead of you, and people tend to follow those who are in the lead. The best why to "fight" it is just simply be a better runner--take a leading position and convince others to run with you. Ones like iTunes, Netflix, Facebook, Youtube, etc. do just that. Taking a defensive position while pushing others down, or even shooting at those who are already ahead, doesn't accomplish either. Sure, some like PirateBay may get a starting lead by flouting the rules, but most know they're cheating and will follow someone else who can take a better position that doesn't take them through the grass and mud.
You should have anti-piracy articles that illustrate your opposition to illegal theft of content instead of articles pointing out how smart the pirates are.
TD regularly condemns infringement, but it's hard to miss the fact the media industry's defensive stance is keeping them from catching up to even the slowest of pirates.
Please enlighten us again. What business models would be impossible under SOPA/Protect-IP?
Ones that allow independent artist to make money outside of the legacy media's control. Since you've failed to notice, they're mentioned quite often.
Those business models which rely on unlicensed content?
LOL! No, the ones that actually help the artist directly without any involvement from the legacy media companies. You might be surprised to know that there's a lot of independent artist that don't rely old media for production, distribution, and promotion. Just because it's not licensed by old media doesn't mean that it's not licensed from the actual copyright holder, or otherwise within the realm of fair use.
Even plain infringement isn't always a zero-sum game, but that's been explained numerous times. Copyright isn't an absolute right, and absolute control doesn't maximize profit.
Unfortunately, SOPA isn't about creating new laws it's about enforcement of EXISTING laws.
No, it creates new rights that don't exist under current laws. Perhaps you should actually read the existing laws before making a fool of yourself.
It is already illegal to share content but by the time the content is removed the damage has already been done.
First, you have to provide actual proof of damages. And no, the decline of over-priced album sales only proves that the music market is in a state of transition, because the rest of the music industry is on the rise.
SOPA hits the pirates where it hurts, in their wallets.
First, most infringement is not only non-commercial, but generates zero-profit. There isn't a lot of money in piracy that doesn't involve physical goods, and most profits--if any--is sucked up by bandwidth and server cost. But I guess you somehow thought that they were getting all that for free as well.
Second, SOPA can be used against anyone the media industry wants to take down. The DMCA is often abused for censorship and attacks against legitimate businesses, even for content legally posted by company reps! The media companies don't know, or even care, if the content is legit before sending a notice, because the penlites for making false claims are almost never enforced. SOPA not only gives them more power, but it makes the enforcement against false claims even harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
the unfortunate thing is that the sopa law allows the media industry to do things outside of court, without evidence.
I actually almost want to see it passed just to see how bad they do afterwards, because they won't actually get more revenue since people will still pirate with it, it won't even make them flinch. And of course to see how many sites and people are taken out without actually having done anything against the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You are the industry loathing, self-serving shill for the piracy industry some of these people claim
Could it be that they actually have a ... sustainable business model?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You are the industry loathing, self-serving shill for the piracy industry some of these people claim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You are the industry loathing, self-serving shill for the piracy industry some of these people claim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You are the industry loathing, self-serving shill for the piracy industry some of these people claim
Yes it is - - it is a business model created by copyright laws and the behaviour of the content industry (DRM etc) which between them create a criminal business opportunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You are the industry loathing, self-serving shill for the piracy industry some of these people claim
And that's why they're in charge and not you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You are the industry loathing, self-serving shill for the piracy industry some of these people claim
Retroactive copyright extension takes content away from the public to put it in the hands of rightsholders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, you probably don't...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let me be the first to show your ignorance. As this article was submitted, contributors of Techdirt saw it previously, myself included. I specifically disagreed with Mike on his interpretation of the wording in question. Mike disagreed. No one's trying to censor your comment. In fact, if you didn't follow it up with your more douchey diatribe, I'd have flatout agreed with you here as I did with Mike originally.
Nice try tho....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Censor what? You didn't say anything, except that your comment is going to get censored
That�s right, Mike Masnick has nerve-level control over his detractors. Will the pirates stop at nothing!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, it's really quite amusing to see you mention that "the censors of TechDirt don't want to have a debate or discuss facts". Because we do in fact want to have a debate and discuss facts. But when you and people like you refuse to do that, again see previous bit about ad homs, we have no choice but to flag whatever stupidity/irrelevant/troll type nonsense you write instead.
You want to have a debate? Then by all means, present some facts to support your position/beliefs. FACTS. EVIDENCE. PROOF. Not your opinion presented as fact. That doesn't fly. Anyone here can back up anything they say (for the most part). And if they can't someone else (if they're on the same side) will present the evidence for them.
No one on your side of the debate ever seems to do the same. Again, you just present your tired old already shot down a gillion times arguments (and calling them arguments is being awfully generous) or you go with the tried and true "freetards who just want to keep stealing" bit. Which isn't really a fact or debate at all.
You're right about one thing and only one thing, "Welcome to TechDirt". Want to act like an adult or want to act like a child? It's up to you, but the way you act is the way you're going to be treated.
Hi, I'm an AC and I will back up what I say with facts/evidence/proof. Can you say the same? If not, perhaps you shouldn't try and play the "they call me TROLL" card. Because if you can't do the same, you are trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds like you merely want a stage upon which to stand and shake your fists in anger at the "evil" TechDirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Signed,
People with common sense who understand what this bill is TRULY about: The slow silencing of opposition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Signed,
Your Mom
Now go wash your mouth out with soap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By that, I think anyone taking a first glance of the original article will agree with you. However, after letting it sink in, especially this part which is highlighted from the original
The wording of the email are made in such ways so that the proximate cause of termination will appear to be the theft. However, I think the writer(s) made a blunder by saying "our business relationship with you" which stresses the receiver as the target, or at lower level than the sender. If they instead wrote "adversely affect our businesses" I might agree with you, as it put the sender and the receiver at the same level.
Then the email goes on to
After putting the receiver at a lower level, the above sentence feel more like a command (however polite) rather than call for help. I would write the above as:
So, I must agree with Mike, this is a threat letter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not to its existence, to its strength. Perhaps it's a sign of a glimmer of enlightenment that they no longer claim that it is an existential threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That "1/3 of a person"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too funny, but sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too funny, but sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too funny, but sad.
I don't think you have yet the other posts and comments over the lasts weeks which deal with SOPA and make abundantly clear that people here in fact DO know what it is. Which is why they are protesting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My job?
I'm outraged. This is a threat.
Our union is supposed to protect us from abuse like this but given their support of PIPA and SOPA I'm not holding my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NBCU, Comcast, and GE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some assistance...
FTFT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Creative America
From the ratings- NO one watches NBC shows- maybe this is their big excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given there poor treatment of customers, there blatant dishonesty, and crass treatment of many of their clients whom they rely on for there financial well being, they've pretty much turned me ambivalent to there cause, and an armchair boycotter of a fair amount of their products.
They are very quickly turning me into a very vocal, very loyal opponent of the entertainment industry.
These people are nothing but bullies, and I have absolutely no tolerance for bullies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm going to boycott them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]