Chris Dodd Says The MPAA Loves Helping The Blind; It's Just Not Going To Weaken Copyright Protection To Do It
from the good-guy-MPAA-wants-to-help-but-doesn't-want-to-make-any-real-effort dept
It looks as if the MPAA might be a bit sensitive about its new "enemy of the blind" status, a title it picked up during its lobbyists' recent visit to the White House. Chris Dodd has penned a slightly defensive op-ed for the Huffington Post defending the MPAA's undying support for the opening access to the blind lobbying to keep the status completely quo. Here's what Dodd is defending (and insisting we're all misunderstanding):
[L]obbyists for the MPAA and publishers have been all over the White House, demanding a retreat from compromises made in February, and demanding that the Obama Administration push new global standards for technical protection measures, strip the treaty text of any reference to fair use and fair dealing, and impose new financial liabilities on libraries that serve blind people...To be fair, Chris Dodd doesn't actually defend these actions. In fact, his very short piece doesn't refer to the lobbyists' actions at all. Instead, he claims the MPAA has been a friend to the blind all along, and one of the first to support "accessible-format copies" in "participating countries."
The MPAA doesn't have it in for the blind, Dodd says. It's just a bunch of (unnamed) "groups" falsely painting his upstanding organization as the villain.
Unfortunately, however, some groups have sought to use this meaningful treaty as a vehicle to weaken copyright and ultimately undermine the global marketplace WIPO is charged with strengthening. Such groups have advocated for the inclusion of certain provisions that would establish lower thresholds for copyright protection and weaken certain means used for protecting copyright works. When content owners voiced their concerns with these provisions, these groups attempted to inaccurately portray content owners as being opposed to the treaty."Inaccurately," eh? Well, if they weren't opposed to this treaty, you'd think something would have been passed by now. The administration took a stand against making exceptions for the blind all the way back in 2009 and ever since then has withheld its approval thanks to pressure from publishers and other content owners. So, while we could say "the administration" is opposed to the treaty, the reality is it's the content industries making the push.
Dodd says this:
We believe that access for the blind to books and other publications is a cause worth promoting.But follows it up with this.
We also believe in the fundamental principles of copyright that empower creators and encourage creativity around the world."Fundamental principles" obviously don't include fair use (of which the MPAA is a fair-weather friend) or DMCA exceptions. Then, he drops this disingenuous sentence.
Unlike those who seek to weaken copyright protection, we believe these two objectives are not mutually exclusive.Nice try, Dodd. These groups you refuse to name don't believe these two objectives are mutually exclusive, either. Providing access to the blind doesn't mean destroying copyright, but to certain content owners, any perceived "weakening" is treated as a full-scale assault. The MPAA may state publicly, as Dodd does here, that access for the blind is a "cause worth promoting," but it (along with major publishers) has shown very little interest in actually following through on this empathetic statement.
Strong copyright laws also benefit consumers by promoting free markets and incentivizing innovation, both of which are hallmarks of a healthy global economy."Strong copyright laws" do not promote free markets and actually stifle innovation, so they do not "benefit consumers" (and, obviously, not the blind). If Chris Dodd really wants to do something for the blind, he should use some of that lobbyist power he has at his disposal to lean on the more reluctant members of the copyright industries, rather than join them in defending copyright from all comers -- even the blind.
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: chris dodd
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There's none so blind as those who will not see.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's none so blind as those who will not see.
Suck my dog's butt Mr. Dodd !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's none so blind as those who will not see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There's none so blind as those who will not see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
But now the UK is going to try doing away with copyright! For more on this line see:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
'Copyright "reformers" of course rarely like to talk about such unpleasant matters - and will steer the conversation away from economic consequences as rapidly as possible. Indeed, the they generally talk using Orwellian euphemisms - like "liberalising" or "rebalancing" copyright. It's rarely presented as an individual's ability to go to market being removed. This is what "copyright reform" looks like in practice.
"It's corporate capitalism," says Ellis. "Ideally you want to empower individuals to trade, and keep the proceeds of their trade. The UK has just lost that."'
It's just that here the minion is using the old sympathy ploy to try and destroy income streams for the creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
First Rihanna and Chris Borwn get back together, now this! It's like 2008 all over again!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
My favorite part is the outright lie about copyright being a basic human right. That's was fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
Must be a hard pill to swallow knowing that all sorts of artists don't rely on copyright and are hugely successful...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
This is such utter bullshit and has been PROVEN over and over to NOT be true. You look like a fool trotting this out.
By the way, TV and Radio are free. Large chunks of the internet are free. THIS VERY SITE YOU ARE POSTING YOUR LIES ON IS FREE.
You might want to consider that when you come charging in with your "Copyright is ALL!" garbage. If you truly believe that, then why don't we see you swinging in here SUPPORTING Mike and the site so he can make a living against the so-called "freeloaders?" Oh thats right. Mike is able to make a living by a) not being a failure like you and b) creating stuff people want in SPITE of, and not because of, copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
Have you ever heard of bottled water?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
Unfortunately the ENTIRETY of human history disagrees with that statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
then more or less existing copyright is the ONLY system under which creations will be produced. No one is going to expend efforts if anyone can take the product and use it as theirs. You can't compete with free.
Well, copyright didn't exist anywhere in the world before 1710, was only in England until the late 18th century, and didn't become widespread until the 19th and 20th centuries. But many creative works were created and published back then. Clearly, copyright isn't necessary. It may be useful, depending on how it's implemented, but that doesn't make it obligatory.
But now the UK is going to try doing away with copyright!
The UK is in no way doing away with copyright. But kudos to them for getting an orphan works bill through! It's a small step, but this represents real progress!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
*then more or less existing copyright is the ONLY system under which creations will be produced
this is false there had been others systems also i must say the copyright used to be the best but now is obsolete and is running contrary to its purpose
so we are hoping for a new better system
* No one is going to expend efforts if anyone can take the product and use it as theirs. You can't compete with free.
so the spriters that put their sprites in rpg maker forums and deviantart arent doing an effort? what about collaborative stories they are sharing and they dont say this is mine you cant use it
*But now the UK is going to try doing away with copyright! For more on this line see:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
biased bad written and atagonistic so lets disregard it
*'Copyright "reformers" of course rarely like to talk about such unpleasant matters - and will steer the conversation away from economic consequences as rapidly as possible. Indeed, the they generally talk using Orwellian euphemisms - like "liberalising" or "rebalancing" copyright. It's rarely presented as an individual's ability to go to market being removed. This is what "copyright reform" looks like in practice.
this i will grant have a small point but the thing they shy away as any economic consequences of removing copyright are especulative
also one tend to speak of the negative in the hopes it will be fixed and i must say right now copyright law is broken and is in a need of a fix or replacement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
I guess someone forgot to tell him that he can't compete with free.
Oh, and since a lot of his 'original work' was based on older works and stories, he might not have gotten away with writing his second play if Copyright existed in it's current form when he was writing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
> take the product and use it as theirs.
Tell that to Mozart and Shakespeare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It gets even better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
Arduino is open source hardware anybody can go there and take their work and sell it, and still it makes millions each and every year.
Red Hat, Open Stack, MariaDB and many others all give their efforts for free since they are all open source and still those companies manage to be profitable.
If you want to attract customers to your store today you have to given them more than just something, you have to show them how they could use it and why it would be useful to them in some way, so you need to give away that knowledge.
If you are a grocery stores, one could start teaching customers how to make groceries and start selling the ingredients because it takes time and effort to produce things, people know that and so most people will just buy the ready made even though they can be copied and replicated by others.
Most people can sing or play, some even can build their own instruments but they would pay somebody else to sing, play or produce those things for them.
Also Leibniz, Tesla, Kelvin and others probably didn't do what they did to own it.
In the real world copying is of no consequence to anybody, in the real world only monopolists get hurt mostly by others copying anything, for most people it opens opportunities that are far better and robust than a granted monopoly will ever be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Hat, Arduino and so many others do, why can't you?
I know you are not Leibniz or Archimedes but lesser minds still can make it.
Carpenters survive without "protection", fashion is made without "protection", comedians and magicians have no "protections", what makes you believe you need "protection"?
And if you don't want to produce anything, fine that is your choice, but forcing everyone to endure a granted monopoly that inflict so much pain on society is not going to make you a lot of friends where it counts and that is the public eye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So how much money has he donated to help them? What has he personally sacrificed to help him?
Grandstanding words don't count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How much have you donated, boy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You obviously haven't seen many of that brainless AC's posts, have you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, and "We accept money paid by blind people just as we accept money from non-blind people" doesn't count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's my stuff now.
Interesting tech should not be suppressed by dinosaurs engaging in artistic megalomania.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What copyright protection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed
Chris Dodd Says The MPAA HATES The Blind; It's Not Going To Weaken Copyright Protection To Help Them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fixed
Chris Dodd doesn't give a shit about the blind despite what he says which is less important because unless you are a politician taking the MPAA's money you aren't listening to anything he says anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He basically says that "bullshitting", particularly the kind done by politicians, is different and much more effective than lying because the person truly believes, to an extent, in what they're saying.
Dodd is a perfect example of this with his background in politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
comments disabled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: comments disabled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: comments disabled
Information flows one way unless you recognise 1984's "Double Speak" as the peoples information being processed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: comments disabled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: comments disabled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People: This man has two broken legs, what can you do to help him walk?
MPAA: We can assure you, we have no desire to amputate this gentleman's legs.
People: Awesome, but what can you do to help him walk?
MPAA: We aren't really against the disabled you know, we think it would be highly inappropriate to prevent his ability to access a walker.
People: Great, but what the %^&*%$ can you do to help him to walk?
MPAA: I fail to understand your point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There, FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congratulations on ignoring pretty much all of human history in this 20th century effort to rewrite that history. Several have already given you examples of well known names whose works have survived centuries that did just that. But it isn't just those we know the names of. All through humanities existence have been dances, song, music, storytelling, none of which was ever copyrighted until stole by the likes of Disney and the rest of the hateful gang to turn a buck.
As usual, OoTB has missed the target with his BS by miles. If anything ever spoke of just how important turning a profit was over humanity, this is one glaring example of how low and inhuman the copyright industry can be. You don't have to hunt to find examples, they come up and slap you in the face with outright outrageous behavior that then needs a spin master to try and make it look better when it is very obvious on the face of it, that it is just what it looks like.
Greed above all else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These people have no shame at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Dodd is proposing to destroy good culture. Many blind people have joined society and lead valuable lives using and benefiting from the blind community's support. Careless legislation eliminates and destroys opportunities presently enjoyed and used.
The phrase “not one shred of human decency or kindness” seems to be applicable here. Commercial exploitation does have limits that are measured by a society's determination to keep a strong hold over such attempts to take away, by legislation, valuable parts of those lives.
First off we have a presently horrific copymight system that doesn't help create new works, hinders new work in technology and innovation, stifles culture and chokes society in ways that more resemble communist dictatorships than just a law or act. For a senator to think that such a system needs strengthening? Definitely he took the, plug me into the matrix, blue pill.
Metaphorically speaking. The shinigami grim reaper copyright cultural death scythe wielding salespersons are definitely busy buzzing around capitol hill plying their ruinous societal and culturally lethal copyright wares. They use only the best well honed cigarette augments money and lawyers can buy. (You'll love it! Just do It'll feel goooooood. what we Need a loan? say)
“[L]obbyists for the MPAA and publishers” The MPAA would sponsor ill advised legislation that makes 90% of Americans criminals just to collect a few pennies. (already have done so?) How low is that on the stupid legislation list? Copyright now rivals the drug criminalization laws of government intrusion into the lifestyles and culture of citizens. Just for Dodd to mention that he listens to these groups brings up many doubts on his ability to lead.
This sort of self perpetuated hype is to be ignored. What difference does is make when the proponents of legislation themselves note that they are proponents. For Dodd to pompously worried about 'nothing much' is on the lame side. It does bring one to wonder how well this legislator has been spooked by these very special interest groups. Nothing good can come from listening to the media lobbyists who are obviously not worried about stepping on blind peoples lives.
Its just grandstanding in ways to hopefully generate an artificial viral-ness. Usually these groups are clever and avoid an obvious gaff like hitting on defenseless social groups.
It strains all belief when anyone says that the MPAA (or any media special interest group?) is or has been friendly to the blind. Such attitudes devalue the institution of congress to such a level. In the MPAA's mind a small donation to any blind group might, to them, satisfy the destruction of a meticulously and lovingly created support network. (Books for the Blind)
Its never a good sign when personal action does not meet the tale. Tall tales are meant for drunken parties and other events where fiction is the venue. The fiction spouted by Chris Dodd about the benefits of copyright to the blind might allow his nose look somewhat over extended.
Reactionary.
Much is washed about both strengthening and reducing copyright law. Law is supposed to make sense in terms of the everyday lives of its citizens. They are not supposed to be intrusive nor overly strong most notably if there are civil solutions they should be used first.
Copyright reform goes both ways. What is also universally important is the effects on the populations culture and society. Any argument for or against copyright must include discussion about these. Without law/legislation put in to context with the very way we live and want to live (culture and society) then such talk is meaningless. Baseless arguments (like the above Chris Dodd spat) only.
Of course its worth mentioning the unfair way 'exceptions' are treated over time as loop holes. Fair Use clauses are similarly marginalized. What good is Fair Use without the Rights added to it? Fair Use and Public Domains need to be fully enshrined as rights.
Its so easy to forget what we need to defend.
If there was no copyright tomorrow so what? Books will be sold. Authors will be paid for new works. Newspapers will be read. Eventually some clamber might rise up to propose a new original works protection scheme with expectant short term lifespan and fair use elevated to Fair Use Rights status (not some silly exemption shmemption weak assed terminology).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]