Hollywood Film Editor Gives Detailed Explanation For Why Hollywood Shouldn't Support SOPA/PIPA

from the nicely-done dept

Thu, Jan 19th 2012 7:45am — Mike Masnick

Marta Evry, a successful freelance film editor who's worked on Castle, House and many other shows and movies -- and who is a member of the IATSE union, one of the unions supporting SOPA/PIPA -- has written a very thorough, very detailed, and totally worth reading explanation of why she cannot support SOPA/PIPA. It's quite well written and thought out. She points out that she is, clearly, directly impacted by piracy in that her living is made from working on content that is frequently infringed upon. She also demonstrates the potential limitations of existing law that SOPA/PIPA supporters insist are the problems that require such new bills. However, she then goes into great detail on the problems in the bills, and explains why she can't support them. Honestly, it may be the most thorough, convincing, and detailed takedown I've seen of the bills -- and from a Hollywood insider whose union supports the bills.

How is this possible? Because the divide over SOPA/PIPA isn't political, it's between those who understand how the internet works and those who don't, those who see opportunities for growth and innovation and those who fear change and are holding on to old business models for dear life.

Seriously. Just go read the whole thing.

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: film editor, hollywood, pipa, protect ip, sopa

34 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

ken (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 7:48am

People who work for Hollywood who do not support SOPA/PIPA may find themselves blacklisted. Hollywood moguls are saying they will now withhold donations to Obama for not supporting Internet censorship.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/01/exclusive-hollywood-moguls-stopping-obama-donations-b ecause-of-administrations-piracy-stand/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:04am

How is this possible? Because the divide over SOPA/PIPA isn't political, it's between those who understand how the internet works and those who don't, those who see opportunities for growth and innovation and those who fear change and are holding on to old business models for dear life.

My mind exploded. The most insightful comment of the year has made the interwebz before January is over and it came from inside the MAFIAA?

*goes collect the pieces of neural tissue spread around*

Jokes apart, it's refreshing to see such great article. She earned +1000 internets today =D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDR, 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:12am

What will the shrolls say, I wonder?
Should be interesting to see how the shrolls (shills/trolls) respond to this one, hehe. ^_^
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:13am

Re:
Is this the same Hollywood who claimed that the White House response was a signal to move forward with the Bills?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simon, 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:19am

Re:
Murdoch et al are terrified that their control is coming to an end. Before yesterday they were buying politicians relatively cheaply. On the one hand these legacy corporations were making cash donations and promises of cushy jobs, and on the other they could say "plus there's not real opposition. Check the media, no one cares, you might as well just pass our laws". Politician's were either genuinely of wilfully ignorant to any other point of view and took the path of least resistance. Now suddenly the Internet has woken them up to a whole new level of Democracy, where voters suddenly matter again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:20am

Re: Re:
Yeah, pretty sure that's the same one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:24am

Re:
I agree. That was a well thought out, well worded* article that laid out most all of the issues with these bills in layman's terms.

*Except for the usual non-lawyer mistake of using "probably cause" instead of "probable cause".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:25am

Re:
How is this possible? Because the divide over SOPA/PIPA isn't political, it's between those who understand how the internet works and those who don't,

It's more a battle between one way broadcast and interactive IP based communication. The old schools know how to dictate, the new school knows how to interact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:29am

It is a comprehensive yoeman's effort to present her views and why she holds them. Nevertheless, it, like so many articles on this subject, does not examine what the proposed bills, considered as a whole, actually say.

My grade for the article: Clearly an A+ for effort, but at best a D for substantive content.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:34am

Re: What will the shrolls say, I wonder?
Three standard options:

1. Attack her for not being famous enough for her opinion to be valid.

2. Claim she hasn't read the bill and so doesn't understand it / has been brainwashed by those of us daring to have a different interpretation.

3. Attack Mike for posting another SOPA article.

Let's see where they go...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:35am

Re: Re: What will the shrolls say, I wonder?
I guess they went with 2.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:35am

Re:
Ah, option 2 it was then...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simon, 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:35am

Re:
I think you've just demonstrated that the shill's have no coherent response...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:37am

That was a good read, and clearly she's spent a fair amount of time on TechDirt aswell =)
Would be interesting to get HER view of our resident trolls and the garbage they spew.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Loki, 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:37am

Re:
Considering I counted about half a dozen links to Techdirt articles, I do not find this the least bit surprising.

Clearly she is just one of the freetards, and I'm sure even now agents of her employers are scouring her computer(s) to see if she is the spy secretly downloading infringing content in an effort to sully their names.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:45am

www.righthaven.com
It looks like the Righthaven domain is being put to good use.

:-)

Good for a chuckle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
joe c, 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:47am

Infographic: Why the movie industry is so wrong about SOPA
http://matadornetwork.com/change/infographic-why-the-movie-industry-is-so-wrong-about-sopa/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Loki, 19 Jan 2012 @ 8:47am

Re: Re:
Give it time. I'm sure one of the regulars will go for the 2-3 punch of criticizing Mike for be self-serving (linking an article that links heavily to his own work) while noting she is clearly too naive to understand the larger implication and is instead swayed by hyperbole. Yadda Yadda Yadda.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Th'eejit, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:07am

Re: Re: Re:
YOU TAKE THAT BACK! HYPERBOLE AND A HALF IS THE BEST BLOG IN THE WORLD!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
EF, 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:57am

Excellent post, Mike.
I agree with your assessment of the writer and the comprehensive quality of the work. Good stuff!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gwiz (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 9:57am

Clueless
Anyone catch this tweet yesterday from RIAA's Senior Vice President of Communications?

http://gizmodo.com/5877143/riaa-reminds-us-why-we-hate-them-with-obnoxious-smarta ss-tweet?tag=sopa

Love the line from Gizmodo:

...If you want to convince the public (you know, those people you like to sue) that you aren't a bunch of assholes, maybe try a different tack. Or, if you're going to be a dick, maybe be a dick who can spell?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alexander Pensky (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 10:17am

Safe harbor?
It's a good article overall, but I think she's a bit confused about what "safe harbor" means in DMCA? She thinks that it protects the person who unknowingly uploads infringing content, as long as that person responds to a takedown. But it applies to the ISP, not the infringer. There's never been an "innocent infringement" defense or an "I took it down" defense, not before DMCA or after DMCA.

Therefore she's kind of missing the point about what's so bad with SOPA/PIPA. They don't really change the landscape that much for infringers, but they change it drastically for ISPs and others who currently have DMCA safe harbor protection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 19 Jan 2012 @ 10:28am

Re: Safe harbor?
"There's never been an "innocent infringement" defense or an "I took it down" defense, not before DMCA or after DMCA. "

Unless you are a politician. Or the RIAA/MPAA. Or a Big Content Rights Holder. Then you can remove and go "my bad, sorry" and sweep it all under the rug like a big giant "redo" without any repercussions. Do this as an individual sharing 8 songs however, and you get sued out of existence in the harshest manner possible with the full weight of the judicial system pushed squarely down on top of you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Violated (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 10:30am

Re:
If Hollywood wants to give up lobbying the Administration and Congress then all the better for us.

This is also why Obama has arranged a meeting, and fundraiser, with the Tech Industry, another Hollywood betrayal.

What is interesting is that the Tech Industry dwarfs the Hollywood based Entertainment Industry but these are people not used to lobbying. They shape the future through innovation and development where they usually prefer to keep the Government out of the loop.

However it seems the time has come that the Internet needs protection from the abuse of Hollywood. It would be most interesting if Obama changed paymasters provided the Tech Industry assembles a large enough pool.

The future without Hollywood trying to endlessly ram through new IP laws would be most interesting. Maybe even the Tech Industry can fix the many Copyright problems that already exist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kirillian (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 10:32am

Re: Re:
Agreed...anyone that knows how to Google and read must be a freetard. Everyone else only watches and listens to their employers broadcasts over cable to be fed the Truth every day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Violated (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 10:40am

Re:
I would say congratulations to Marta Evry when it was a very well thought out and assembled article. In many ways this reads like a recent history lesson.

I will be pointing SOPA/PIPA newbies to that article from now on when it is an easy detailed read.

I did spot a few minor things missing like this dreaded new law making linking unlawful. For example YouTube gets hit through the removal of safe harbour but FaceBook gets punished as well through letting their users link to YouTube and other media sharing sites.

These bills are so bad that they cannot be fixed and need to be killed outright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Violated (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 10:46am

Re: www.righthaven.com
LOL. Good use indeed.

I was worried for a while there when I feared that the IP protection industry may have got it.

We can now look forwards to a full site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DH's Love Child (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 1:38pm

Re: www.righthaven.com
OMG! That was one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jan 2012 @ 5:11pm

Re:
Go on, then. Link us to an article that examines "what the proposed bills, considered as a whole, actually say".

Too much for you, Lamy? DOn't worry, I think Wikipedia's ended its blackout so you can do some proper research. Perish the thought ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 5:49pm

Re: Re:
Being dictated to is something the new school doesn't take to very well, if at all.

Then again, she is right. It's not political, It's those who don't know the internet and how it works and those who don't and won't.

So sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 5:52pm

Re:
I'd suggest to you from my reading of her blog that she HAS examined the bills actually have to say and that frightens her even more that what she heard.

Anyway, nice pick, #2 is the one that requires the least effort and thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 19 Jan 2012 @ 5:56pm

Re: Infographic: Why the movie industry is so wrong about SOPA
Accurate historically, factual and right on the point!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Luke Witnesser, 20 Jan 2012 @ 4:34am

Here lies the truth about SOPA/PIPA that even TechDirt has yet to report: what MPAA, RIAA, and Hollywood execs do not want you to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJIuYgIvKsc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzS5rSvZXe8

The truth behind why these big companies responsible for SOPA and PIPA are also responsible for piracy itself is far more insidious than even their outmoded business model.

Can you say, do as I say so I can crush you under heel?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marta Evry, 21 Jan 2012 @ 6:08pm

Re: Safe harbor?
Hi Alexander,

I wrote the article in question.

Just a quick response - I originally posted this article on my own blog, so I was referring to how DMCA's "safe harbor" works for me as the owner of a site, not a user uploading a clip to YouTube or another site I didn't own the domaine name for. My understanding is I would be covered under those circumstances. However, if I am mistaken about this, I'm willing to correct the record. Any information you may have would be appreciated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]