How The Copyright Industry Wants To Undermine Anonymity & Free Speech: 'True Origin' Bills
from the unconstitutional dept
As we've noted many times in the past, the entertainment industry likes to take a multi-pronged approach to its quixotic efforts to "stop piracy" (which could be much better dealt with by simply giving the public more of what they want). Working on federal copyright law to continually expand it is one main strategy, but there are a lot of others as well, including pressuring private companies to voluntarily censor content, getting international trade agreements to force laws to change and... getting random state laws to force through big changes quietly. This last strategy has come into focus lately, especially with the rise of so-called "true origin" bills, that are almost certainly unconstitutional, but are rapidly popping up in a variety of states. This is actually a replay of an old strategy. I remember similar "true origin" efforts being pushed about a decade ago, and I'd thought they'd completely died out... but they're back.The way they work is pretty simple: they outlaw anonymity on the internet if your website distributes any kind of audiovisual work. The point of this is twofold: one, for those who "register" and reveal their name and address, it makes it easier for the RIAAs and MPAAs of the world to sue a site for copyright infringement. And, for those who don't reveal their names, the RIAA and MPAA can ask the states to prosecute the site owners for failing to reveal their names.
A few weeks ago, we wrote about Florida's proposed law, which would require any website that hosts audio or video to reveal their name and address. This could have disastrous consequences for whistleblowers or anonymous critics. In the US, the Supreme Court has long recognized the importance of protecting anonymity as a part of the First Amendment, but this bill does away with that completely, just because the movie and music industries think it's necessary to stop piracy (even though it won't do that). Unfortunately, it appears that despite widespread criticism, the Florida bill is expected to move forward this week. If you happen to live in Florida, the EFF has set up a tool to help you alert your elected representatives to why such a bill is a terrible and unconstitutional idea.
But... it's not just Florida. One year ago, Tennessee enacted a similar bill, called the "True Origin of Goods Act" which is nearly identical to the Florida bill. And just last month, here in California, Assemblymember Ian Calderon (who has positioned himself as friendly to technology) introduced a similar bill. The California bill is at least somewhat more limited than the others in that it appears to focus mostly on physical copies that are offered for "sale" or "rental" -- but it at least raises questions about anonymity rights, and opens the door to future adjustments to "match" this law to internet displays of content.
The efforts here are all basically the same: quietly use state laws to undermine anonymity in an effort to help the RIAAs and MPAAs of the world try to track down the owners of websites they don't like. Whether or not you agree with that idea, the fact that to accomplish that (somewhat pointless) goal would undermine basic First Amendment concepts like anonymity and the ability to speak freely, doesn't seem to be of much concern to the supporters of these bills.
It's the same old story we've seen before with SOPA and other bills: the copyright industry doesn't seem to care in the slightest about collateral damage from its quixotic effort to stop piracy, rather than to provide the public with better offerings. And, of course, copyright is supposed to be an issue for federal law, not state law, and these efforts are ways that the copyright industry is trying to backdoor in systems to undermine free speech in yet another weak attempt to accomplish a singular and pointless goal.
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: anonymity, california, copyright, florida, free speech, tennessee, true names, true origin
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope -that also gave organised crime a big boost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think you are wrong about the target
I think what is rather involved here is that RIAA/MPAA want to stop artists from distributing some works of their own anonymously once they have signed with their blood on one of the standard 5-year minimum all-works included exclusive contracts reserved for everybody but the superstars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
High Court / Low Court
Meanwhile, bogus DMCA takedowns have become routine practice. Not so routine, is that some of them have led to bad publicity for the companies issuing them. Unacceptably, some of had to withdraw their takedowns.
Which is why we now have services for the copyright industry to issue their takedowns anonymously:
Corporations are people too, my friend. But only they get the high court, and the right to anonymity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
I am guessing that the Florida law will have to be invalidated at the Supreme Court, likely on the simple basis that "on the internet" does not make a voided law good again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's already broken in a lot of ways compared to what I remember. There are a lot of parasites sucking its blood.
Why was your comment flagged?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
About time too. You'd think with so many cocksucking has-beens licking Lowery's shoes they'd be done by now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luntz Label
I cringe when I see statements like this that seem to accept the copyright industry's stated intentions as genuine. When collateral damage equals suppression of competition, it's a feature of their strategy. Seriously- the word "Piracy" is merely a Frank Luntz-esque hook the MPAA and cohorts can hang their hat on as they work to enhance market share by any and all means. And their strategy is not "quixotic" when any tilt of the market means profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Luntz Label
There are ideologies/goverments out there that will stop at nothing (including violence) to suppress criticism.
Want to criticise the Chinese government or Islam or Putin?
Being anonymous might be a smart move if you have ties to their countries or relatives under their regimes.
Want to host some of that critical content in the form of videos?
Well this law will deprive you of anonymity (and maybe of your life).
I'm sure that this wan't an intended cosequence by the *AA's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Luntz Label
While China's motives are probably more ideological and less financial than the AAs', they're still allies in wreaking havoc on the net and free speech. As far as the copyright industrialists not intending the damage that will result from their actions, I don't buy it. They're evil, not stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Luntz Label
In the article it is
This could have disastrous consequences for whistleblowers or anonymous critics.
I'm sure that the *AAs aren't really interested in getting critics of Russia, China or various Islamic regimes killed.
At worst they just don't care - at best they just don't realize.
I agree with you about the other consequences though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Audio / Video only?
The government isn't about protecting all copyright holders, only those with money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Audio / Video only?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just another law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just how bad can a real names policy be?
Remember, violent groups out to silence critics need only use an automated DMCA system to get their targets' contact information and issue targeted death threats. Laws that forcibly de-anonymize people on the internet are a boon for anyone wanting to deprive others of something far, far more serious than anything the publishing companies can even imagine to gain from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just how bad can a real names policy be?
If all audio-video has to be under real names, the MPAA/ RIAA/ etc. probably want that to include YouTube. How many people use YouTube?
Also, Nintendo uses YouTube to host videos from games like Mario Kart 8 (it appears Splatoon will have a similar video thing, but that isn't confirmed, yet, as far as I know), which would identify children, as well.
Can everyone say "skyrocketing risk"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All text is audio. All audio is text.
What if my website hosts a transcript of my audio only, but some of my readership are visually impaired and using screen readers? Isn't my text now an encoding of audio?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
technologically obsolete
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opportunity for abuse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Putin says Russians are free...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]