CreativeAmerica Denies Copying; Inadvertently Shows Why SOPA/PIPA Are Dangerous

from the private-right-of-action? dept

Thu, Jan 12th 2012 12:52pm — Mike Masnick

Remember how CreativeAmerica flat out copied an anti-PIPA organizing email from Public Knowledge, and "remixed" it to make it a pro-PIPA organizing email from this MPAA-set up astroturf group. It was obviously directly copied text. The style and the text were so close, there was no way that it was developed independently. And yet... CreativeAmerica is now insisting it did it on its own and is pretending that people are complaining about the idea of the email:

But that's not the case, said Craig Hoffman, a Creative America spokesman. He said Creative America did not copy Public Knowledge's email but was just encouraging supporters to get in touch with their senators, a common strategy.

"It's a standard organizing technique," Hoffman said.

Either Hoffman didn't understand what happened or he's being purposely misleading (neither of which makes CreativeAmerica look very competent). No one is complaining about them sending out an email urging supporters to contact Senators. What they're complaining about is that the text is almost identical, and uses the same three bullet points that folks at Public Knowledge admit they "over-edited" internally, including a long discussion that turned what had formerly been a paragraph into three separate bullet points.

But, ironically, Creative America's insistence that it didn't copy the email demonstrates one of the many problems with SOPA and PIPA. It's that reasonable people might disagree over whether or not something is infringing. I'm pretty damn sure that CreativeAmerica copied PK's email. But they say they didn't. Now, under SOPA/PIPA, with its "shoot first, admit you shot the wrong dead guy later" approach to censorship... that would be a problem for CreativeAmerica. Isn't it a better situation when you guarantee that everyone gets to make their case before we cut sites off...

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: astroturfing, copyright, grassroots, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: creativeamerica, public knowledge

17 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chris Rhodes (profile), 12 Jan 2012 @ 1:07pm

Tomorrow's Possible Non-Sequitur PR Statements
He said Creative America did not copy Public Knowledge's email but was just encouraging supporters to get in touch with their senators
"We didn't copy the email; I had waffles for breakfast!"
"We didn't copy the email; my cat's breath smells like catfood!"
"We didn't copy the email; Chewbacca was a Wookie!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 12 Jan 2012 @ 1:13pm
  
  Re: Tomorrow's Possible Non-Sequitur PR Statements
  Ah yes, the Chewbacca defense; a known solid case-winner in jury trials... [/sage observation]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 12 Jan 2012 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re: Tomorrow's Possible Non-Sequitur PR Statements
  Damn it! ... He's using the Chewbacca defense!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JMG, 12 Jan 2012 @ 1:50pm
    
    Re: Re: Tomorrow's Possible Non-Sequitur PR Statements
    Here. Look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rekrul, 12 Jan 2012 @ 2:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Tomorrow's Possible Non-Sequitur PR Statements
      Look behind you! A three-headed monkey!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- el_segfaulto (profile), 12 Jan 2012 @ 2:00pm
  
  Re: Tomorrow's Possible Non-Sequitur PR Statements
  I bent my Wookie!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AdamBv1 (profile), 12 Jan 2012 @ 4:44pm
  
  Re: Tomorrow's Possible Non-Sequitur PR Statements
  And here I figured he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 12 Jan 2012 @ 1:36pm

of course they copied it! they think that because they did it, it's fine. he just thinks everyone is as stupid as him and would ignore it. had it been the other way round, they would have been tripping over their own feet trying to get lawyers involved, and they know that as well!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 12 Jan 2012 @ 1:41pm

Well, I wouldn't expect anything less from an astroturfing group. They're already pale imitations of the real thing, a facade of concern hastily erected over an unsmiling corporate face.

It's easy to see why CA can't be bothered with originality. There's no percentage in it. Why pay a creative to write compelling stuff for you when a mishmash of borrowed words and boilerplate achieve the same aim: ushering the converted to their phones/clickable buttons.

And I'm sure most of its supposed "army" is composed of other corporate entities and representative groups that are more than happy to speak for the entirety of their respective employees and sign their name in support of this bill, whether said employees agree or not.

All in all, the whole CA effort reeks of pleather trying to pass itself off as homegrown, honest, full-grain leather. All it does is make the wearer look cheap and dishonest at worst and cheap and easily-fooled at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2012 @ 2:21pm
  
  Re:
  I think part of it is these companies are just so use to being able to use things without paying for a license. If sony needs to use a song their lawyers just call EMI and say give me rights to that song, you know you will want one of ours later. Same with all these other content companies, they are use to only having to deal with their friends to get the rights to things. Its basically "We never copied anything before because we owned everything, this is strange and foreign to be liable for what we were always nagging others about."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 12 Jan 2012 @ 1:50pm

What do you expect from a bunch of lowlifes ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2012 @ 2:30pm

Now, under SOPA/PIPA, with its "shoot first, admit you shot the wrong dead guy later" approach to censorship... that would be a problem for CreativeAmerica.

yeah, except it doesn't apply to US registered websites. Other than that, you're spot on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 12 Jan 2012 @ 6:49pm
  
  Re:
  So they say now. So they say now.
  
  But censorship is still censorship regardless of who it applies to.
  
  We'll wait to see how long it is before US registered sites are targeted, shall we?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jan 2012 @ 7:58pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The current US law is far more onerous than the ones proposed to deal with foreign infringement. Why do you think the infringement-as-business-model sites have all migrated to foreign domains?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 13 Jan 2012 @ 12:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The current US law is far more onerous than the ones proposed to deal with foreign infringement. Why do you think the infringement-as-business-model sites have all migrated to foreign domains?
      
      The three most frequently named targets of this bill: The Pirate Bay, Megaupload and Rapidshare... all continue to use their .coms and .orgs.
      
      So. Um. You're wrong. Try the next talking point on the list.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brandt Hardin, 12 Jan 2012 @ 4:12pm

Living in a Society of Fear
Two frightening pieces of controversial legislation, SOPA and The NDAA only go to further stifle our Constitutional Rights without the approval of the Americans, just as the Patriot Act was adopted WITHOUT public approval or vote just weeks after the events of 9/11. A mere 3 criminal charges of terrorism a year are attributed to this act, which is mainly used for no-knock raids leading to drug-related arrests without proper cause for search and seizure. The laws are simply a means to spy on our own citizens and to detain and censor public opinion without trial or a right to council. You can read much more about living in this Orwellian society of fear and see my visual response to these measures on my artist�s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/09/living-in-society-of-fear-ten-years.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Al Bert (profile), 12 Jan 2012 @ 5:51pm
  
  Re: Living in a Society of Fear
  The provisions of the recent censorship (let's call them what they are) legislation really does go hand in hand with those prior bills designed to circumvent 4th and 5th amendment rights. Despite the fact that i am very much for copyright and patent reform, this is the one reason i am most convinced that eventually some form of SOPA-like bill will pass. While the entertainment industry wants protections and been effectively demanding custom legislation from governments here and abroad, I cannot help but fear that those with twisted interests in pursuing NDAA and PATRIOT don't now have a massive hardon for the things SOPA-like laws would provide.
  
  That said, I'm not sure that this is the thread for such soapboxing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]