Chris Dodd's Email Reveals What MPAA Really Thinks Of Fair Use: 'Extremely Controversial'
from the oh-really-now? dept
Two years ago, we were among those who noted how odd it was to see the MPAA in court arguing in favor of fair use, since the MPAA tends to argue against fair use quite frequently. The legal geniuses at the MPAA felt hurt by our post and some of the other news coverage on the issue, and put out a blog post claiming that the MPAA and its members actually love fair use. According to that post, the MPAA's members "rely on the fair use doctrine every day" and the idea that it "opposes" fair use is "simply false, a notion that doesn't survive even a casual encounter with the facts."Now, as you may have heard, Wikileaks has put the leaked Sony emails online for everyone to search through for themselves. I imagine that there will be a variety of new stories coming out of this trove of information, now that it's widely available, rather than limited to the small group who got the initial email dumps. In digging through the emails, one interesting one popped up. It's Chris Dodd revealing the MPAA's true view on "fair use" in an email to Michael Froman, the US Trade Rep in charge of negotiating agreements like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement and the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP).
You see, about a year ago, Froman gave a speech where he made a very brief mention of the importance of fair use, and how, for the first time, the USTR would be including fair use in agreements. Here's what Froman said:
And, for the first time in any trade agreement, we are asking our trading partners to secure robust balance in their copyright systems – an unprecedented move that draws directly on U.S. copyright exceptions and limitations, including fair use for important purposes such as scholarship, criticism, news commentary, teaching, and research.Nothing major. Nothing controversial. In fact, as we've pointed out, the actual text in the various leaks of the TPP show that while it is true that the USTR has, for the first time, mentioned concepts related to fair use, it has only done so in a manner that would limit how fair use could be implemented.
And that brings us to Dodd's email to Froman, in which he reveals that, contrary to the MPAA's "we love fair use" claim in its public blog post, the MPAA is actually quite fearful of fair use and the idea that it might spread outside of the US to other countries:
Dear Ambassador Froman:So, the MPAA loves fair use... but the very idea that the USTR might include fair use in a trade agreement (as it had announced years earlier, and which it is doing in very limited -- and limiting -- ways) is "controversial and divisive"? All the way to the point that the MPAA is concerned about whether it can still support the effort? That does not sound like an organization that really does support fair use at all. In fact, it sounds like an organization that actively does "oppose" fair use, contrary to the claims in its blog post. Funny how the MPAA's public statements appear to completely disagree with what it says directly to politicians, huh?
I am writing to you today regarding your Wednesday remarks at the Center for American Progress. I am concerned about your suggestion that previous free trade agreements’ copyright provisions were unbalanced and that USTR has addressed this lack of balance by including “fair use” in the TPP. Quite to the contrary, the recently ratified US-Korea FTA was supported by a broad cross-section of US industry, from tech and the internet community to the copyright community, and furthermore has been held up as a model agreement.
As I know you are aware, the inclusion of “fair use” in free trade agreements is extremely controversial and divisive. The creative community has been, and remains, a strong and consistent supporter of free trade, but the potential export of fair use via these agreements raises serious concerns within the community I represent. Over the last 24 hours, I have received calls from my member companies questioning what they perceive as a significant shift in US trade policy and, as a consequence, the value of the TPP to their industry.
It may be that people are reacting to the subsequent press releases by private groups following your remarks. I am certain these concerns have been elevated by indications from the US government that the ISP liability provisions in the TPP are going to be weakened. Nonetheless, this issue is of enough significance that I felt I must reach out to you directly prior to your departure for Singapore to register our deep concerns.
I am hopeful that I can report back to my members that that US trade policy has not changed, that USTR is committed to securing strong copyright provisions in the TPP. But, there is no question Wednesday’s speech is reverberating in the content community, and I would be remiss if I failed to raise these concerns to you personally. I would be very grateful if you would respond to these concerns at your earliest convenience. I realize you will be traveling, but this is a sense of urgency surrounding our concerns.
Regards,
Christopher J. Dodd
Motion Picture Association of America
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: balance, ben sheffner, chris dodd, copyright, fair use, michael froman, tpp, trade agreements
Companies: mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Corporations are people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporations are people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Corporations are people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Corporations are people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporations are people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Corporations are people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporations are people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How would he know? He doesn't represent anyone creative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Michael on Apr 17th, 2015 @ 8:42am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Michael on Apr 17th, 2015 @ 8:42am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're hilarious, Masnick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But you folks love to stifle dissenting opinion here on Techdirt, so I see why you would suggest censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dissent is fine, but combative vitriol and ad hominems are clearly unwelcome by the community, which is why the community chooses to hide (not censor) such posts from immediate view. The community deems that such posts are irrelevant or not constructive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong. We love disproving idiots like you who come around and insist we discuss these issues 'on their merits' and not on the facts and real world evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In what universe is a promise to insult everyone else on a website for holding views that disagrees with yours not trolling?
Sounds like someone's mad they got called out for being a useless spammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please do us the favor of actually reading the article. Mike says clearly to those of us who read it, exactly what he means:So either you can't read, or you're trying to deflect the debate onto something you think you can win on. Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure it's fine
Oh wait - Chris Dodd can probably read it from the comfort of his office, can't he ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sure it's fine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By "fair use" pirates mean "the whole for free".
My reaction was same as prior AC:
"controversial" -- Obviously so. Point to Dodd.
"divisive" -- Yes, exactly as Masnick IS using it. Point to Dodd.
Score: Dodd 2, Masnick 0.
Now, I actually don't like MPAA or Dodd, people, but this Masnick is SO DIVISIVE, WRONG, AND PIRATEY that he's definitely not helping settle anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: By "fair use" pirates mean "the whole for free".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: By "fair use" pirates mean "the whole for free".
Would that include anyone who doesn't agree that Steamboat Willie deserves to be able to sue anyone until the heat death of the Universe if there's an even passing mention of him in derivative works?
Would that include someone who doesn't agree that the US DoJ should be the private enforcement arm of special interests?
Would that include someone who doesn't think Dept. of Homeland Security has any need to conduct panty raids on the behalf of professional sports franchises?
I could go on, but that's enough for now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: By "fair use" pirates mean "the whole for free".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: By "fair use" pirates mean "the whole for free".
Arrrr ye be pullin my peg-leg!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: By "fair use" pirates mean "the whole for free".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The community I represent doesn't think much about copyright or fair use at all, which is why you don't hear from us very often. After all, we aren't paid huge sums of money to send you emails like Chris Dodd is. We aren't paid to try and get laws passed and trade agreements made to benefit ourselves. We aren't in the room when all those industry representatives get together to decide what's best for our country. In fact, we aren't even allowed in the room.
But we're the reason you have a job. We're the ones you're supposed to be helping. We're the people most affected by your trade agreements. Your job isn't to help Chris Dodd keep his job, and what's best for Chris Dodd my not be best for us.
All we ask is that you keep us in mind through all of this, because your job, most of all, is to represent us. You're all we've got to protect us from Chris Dodd and all those seeking to profit from your actions. Please stand up for us.
Sincerely, The American Public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Eat a bowl of dicks.
Sincerely, Ambassador Froman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Did anyone tell you you look like a used cotton swab?
"Sincerely," Anonymous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Dodd
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unflagged to show I can foil the childish censors.
What's so difficult to understand? All depends on point of view definitions.
My reaction was same as prior AC:
"controversial" -- Obviously so. Point to Dodd.
"divisive" -- Yes, exactly as Masnick IS using it. Point to Dodd.
Score: Dodd 2, Masnick 0.
Now, I actually don't like MPAA or Dodd, people, but this Masnick is SO DIVISIVE, WRONG, AND PIRATEY that he's definitely not helping settle anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unflagged to show I can foil the childish censors.
Hey Mike, I know you hate it, but you might want to look at the CFAA in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's probably a CFAA violation in there somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I hope not, but you're probably right. Apparently, there is nothing that you can do with a computer that can't be interpreted as a CFAA violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unflagged to show I can foil the childish censors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unflagged to show I can foil the childish censors.
What's so difficult to understand? All depends on point of view definitions.
My reaction was same as prior AC:
"controversial" -- Obviously so. Point to Dodd.
"divisive" -- Yes, exactly as Masnick IS using it. Point to Dodd.
Score: Dodd 2, Masnick 0.
Now, I actually don't like MPAA or Dodd, people, but this Masnick is SO DIVISIVE, WRONG, AND PIRATEY that he's definitely not helping settle anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unflagged to show I can foil the childish censors.
Kiss the black spot, matey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unflagged to show I can foil the childish censors.
Reported this one too though anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unflagged to show I can foil the childish censors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unflagged to show I can foil the childish censors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All for me, none for you
When it comes to other people making use of Fair Use however, they're much more of the opinion that any use that doesn't involve money changing hands is at best questionable, and more often than not should be downright illegal. Can't have just anyone creating things after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dodd is correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dodd is correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dodd is correct
How can that be?!? Oh yeah, The text of the agreement is a state secret which even members of Congress cannot study! You are a very unfunny joke, and very possibly an outright liar.
What's wrong with that? Sue the infringers if you must, not their ISPs for doing what ISPs do! We don't sue auto mfgrs when drivers lose control, nor gun mfgrs for people using their guns to rob banks.
Dodd is a paid shill, and he's failing miserably even at that. Nothing he does can even remotely be described as correct. He's enabling the fleecing of the online users of the world.
Boycott Hollywood! May they all whither away to dust soon!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dodd is correct
Can you explain how?
There was a coordinated effort on the part of certain lobbyists to insert language into the TPP that would indemnify them in any enablement of online piracy.
First of all, which "certain lobbyists" do you mean? Could you explain more? Because Dodd's letter says no such thing. He does talk about the safe harbors, but only in the idea that they would be weakened, not strengthened in the TPP.
Furthermore, *current US law* already indemnifies platforms, because *that makes sense* and is part of the reason why the internet has been so successful. You don't blame Ford because someone used a Ford as a getaway car. If you did, Ford would hobble their cars for the millions of law abiding users. In the same way, you don't hold YouTube liable for some users infringing, as they would be forced to hobble YouTube for all of the law abiding users. It would massively stifle the internet.
Dodd here was correctly defending the consistent stance of the MPAA related to this specific definition of fair use.
No, he was not. He was arguing that there should be NO FAIR USE in the TPP. That is not a consistent stance, nor the "specific definition" of fair use the MPAA is using. The MPAA has consistently fought back against fair use expanding to any other country, despite claiming it supports it in the US.
In the meantime, considering the document is secret, how is it that you claim to know what language was being inserted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dodd is correct
I don't know where to begin. The TPP text was drafted over 5+ years, involving hundreds of lobbyists, corporate policy executives, industry leaders, government officials, and others. Also, the text was leaked online numerous times over these years. The contents of the "state secret" document, as you call it, were common knowledge.
As for the rest - well I think it's pointless here to review the history of private-public sector IP negotiations across industries in recent years. If you are well-versed on the topic - or even if your understanding is limited to well-publicized battles such as SOPA - you know what Dodd is referring to here. I'll give you a hint - the ISP's do not have a seat at the TPP negotiating table. What players do you think would sneak in the last minute fair use language, and why?
And finally - you want to refer to Dodd as a "shill". Well, then what do you call the rest of the players? Are the hundreds of other lobbyists and policy execs. working on TPP doing so pro-bono, representing the voice of the customer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
In secret. That's not how democracy works.
Also, the text was leaked online numerous times over these years. The contents of the "state secret" document, as you call it, were common knowledge.
No, parts of the TPP, always a few months outdated, have leaked. But not the entire thing. And if we're talking about the IP section, by "numerous" you mean "twice."
As for the rest - well I think it's pointless here to review the history of private-public sector IP negotiations across industries in recent years. If you are well-versed on the topic - or even if your understanding is limited to well-publicized battles such as SOPA - you know what Dodd is referring to here. I'll give you a hint - the ISP's do not have a seat at the TPP negotiating table. What players do you think would sneak in the last minute fair use language, and why?
Those interested in protecting the free speech rights of the public? After all, the Supreme Court has noted how important fair use is in protecting free speech.
Yes, yes, I know what you're getting at. You think lobbyists for those nefarious search engines are trying to sneak in "fair use" because it's been so damaging.
But, that just makes the point I was making. The MPAA is lying about supporting fair use.
And finally - you want to refer to Dodd as a "shill". Well, then what do you call the rest of the players? Are the hundreds of other lobbyists and policy execs. working on TPP doing so pro-bono, representing the voice of the customer?
I didn't refer to him as a shill. But the rest of your comment, once again, sort or reinforces the point, doesn't it? Why is the TPP only being negotiated behind closed doors by lobbyists and policy people, rather than having the documents publicly out there for debate?
The reason, of course, was admitted by Froman's predecessor Ron Kirk, who said that if the public knew what was in the TPP it would never approve it. You're right that lobbyists are driving the process. We agree. And we agree that's problematic.
But that's unrelated to the question of the MPAA's dislike of fair use, which is what we were discussing here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
I don't want to get into a drawn out back and forth but I think you have a pretty good understanding of how the game is played.
Let me go back to my original point, which is that the article here spins this letter by Dodd into something it is not. I think it's amusing how well the media plays into the narrative created by a few players. The same media that decried SOPA because "we have to keep government out of the internet and let industry protect it" now cries in reaction to net neutrality "we have to get the government involved in the internet and keep the greedy corporations from destroying it."
That's what's happening here. The MPAA has not flipped its position. That is my point.
And by the way - on at least one occasion TPP drafts were leaked on Wikileaks before they were available to the pubic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
I also find it ironic that the people who claim that Net Neutrality will allow the government to take over the internet are the same people who would push the government to do exactly that if they came to power. In actuality, Net Neutrality acts like the building and fire codes that keep your house from falling apart or burning down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
Your thesis is poorly constructed and lacks support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
In the meantime you still have not shown how Dodd's position is consistent. You just say it is. You raise issues that he doesn't in his email but you don't refute what is said.
In the meantime would you care to state who you are and your connection to all of this. From your language I have my suspicions. But I'm commenting under my name. Would you care to reveal yours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
I don't mind if you disagree with the MPAA position. But the MPAA has been consistent when it comes to fair use. I think, again, when the context and meaning of the term "fair use" is changed, you can create the illusion that the MPAA changed its position. But that's not being honest.
The bottom line is what the intent of the language regarding fair use being referred to here is. That's what people should debate. There are two sides, and we can discuss as adults. But creating a narrative about the MPAA or Dodd flipping positions is disingenuous and detracts from the crux of the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
The gist of the anti-SOPA movement was "don't let the government censor what you can access on the internet". The mainstream media ate that up and regurgitated it. You don't think so?
No, that was not the gist of it. The gist of it was "don't pass a stupid copyright law that will have massive unintended consequences, including messing up some of the basics of how the internet works." There was very little "anti-gov't" sentiment involved.
I don't mind if you disagree with the MPAA position. But the MPAA has been consistent when it comes to fair use. I think, again, when the context and meaning of the term "fair use" is changed, you can create the illusion that the MPAA changed its position. But that's not being honest.
Again, this is simply not true. How has the "context and meaning" of the term fair use different in the two examples above. It is not. It is the same "fair use" being discussed. In fact, even if I try to twist and squint to look at what you're actually saying, your argument makes no sense. The "fair use" provisions that were put into the TPP involved using the Berne three-step test, a highly problematic rule that was supposed to be a floor for fair use, but which some (like the MPAA) have tried to pretend is a ceiling.
So, at *worst* the fair use mentioned in the TPP was a very, very, very limited version of fair use. And if you are who I think you are, you also know damn well that the MPAA was actively involved in making sure that Australia failed to include fair use in its copyright reform proposal.
To argue that the MPAA is in favor of fair use is clearly a lie.
The bottom line is what the intent of the language regarding fair use being referred to here is. That's what people should debate. There are two sides, and we can discuss as adults. But creating a narrative about the MPAA or Dodd flipping positions is disingenuous and detracts from the crux of the issue.
It's not about Dodd flipping positions. It's about the MPAA saying one thing publicly, while saying exactly the opposite in private to politicians.
You know this is happening. Why can't you admit it?
And again, I put my name on this. Will you put yours so people can know who you are making these claims?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
I'm sorry you don't understand. But I also see that you are convinced you've uncovered some "shocking truth" about MPAA deception. There is none.
But that doesn't make a good headline, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
So then, with that answered, your name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
Ooh, that's clever! Make revealing your vested interest dependent on Mike providing info he couldn't possible know.
"But I also see that you are convinced you've uncovered some "shocking truth" about MPAA deception. There is none."
On that I'm sure we all agree. Nobody is shocked that the MPAA is being deceptive by publicly claiming one thing while telling politicians and trade reps the opposite in secret. At this point we'd be surprised if they weren't doing that. But that doesn't mean it's not newsworthy or worth reminding people of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
No, we learned all about MPAA's deceptions when it was revealed that it was bribing multiple attorneys general, as well as writing their lines for them, in order to attack Google.
I don't give a rat's ass what your name is, by the way. I already know what you are, and that's more than I want to know. Your ilk has been infesting civilization from its earliest stages, spreading disease among simple hard working folk. You should be ashamed for doing what you do, but I know you haven't the capacity for it. Die screaming in a fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
My source was, as you know, Wikileaks. I'm not sure if you think you're being clever here, but as seen by the response from others, it just makes you look kinda silly. That's fairly typical for people who think they're clever.
Anyway, no big deal. I know who you are. I thought it was only fair to ask you if you wanted to reveal your affiliations. You don't have to. People will make their own assumptions.
I'm sorry you don't understand. But I also see that you are convinced you've uncovered some "shocking truth" about MPAA deception. There is none.
No, I don't think it's a shocking truth at all. I think it just highlights and confirms what we've know all along. The MPAA says one thing publicly, but another behind closed doors. That's not at all shocking, but it is a truth.
In the meantime, I note that you still haven't answered my questions. Perhaps there are reasons for this, but let's try to do it this way. I'll write out and number a set of new questions, and let's see if you'll actually answer them.
1. If the MPAA truly believed in fair use, then why wouldn't it want fair use to be a part of our trade agreements with other countries?
2. If the MPAA truly supported fair use, then why would it call the proposal to include fair use in the TPP "controversial"?
3. Why did the MPAA directly fight *against* Australia and the UK implementing fair use if they truly support fair use?
If you're serious about having a discussion, you can start there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
MPAA has been consistent in its support of fair use using the common definition of the term. I think you understand a lot about the lobbying process and some of what the issues are. But I guess you don't understand the nuances here, and the way the term "fair use" has been misapplied to support piracy enablers.
And yes, it is hypocritical to latch onto illegally obtained private communications, to take the contents at face value despite no knowledge of the source and the integrity of the text, and then to attack me for remaining anonymous.
But please continue your noble bate to fight the power. Surely if we can bring down Hollywood, everyone will be very happy. Just like we did to the music industry. By the way, did you hear the new Beyonce single? It's better than anything those "musicians" of the record industry era ever produced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
1) I notice that you STILL didn't answer Mike's individual points. Lots of weaseling around, but no definitive rebuttals.
2) None of the crap Beyonce puts out even remotely compares to the music I like, but that's simply my opinion and means nothing. Just like your high opinion of Beyonce's crap means nothing, so why bring it up in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
MPAA has been consistent in its support of fair use using the common definition of the term. I think you understand a lot about the lobbying process and some of what the issues are. But I guess you don't understand the nuances here, and the way the term "fair use" has been misapplied to support piracy enablers.
Ok. I will give you a new question (will you answer it?): How, exactly, is fair use being applied in trade agreements like the TPP to "support piracy enablers"?
And yes, it is hypocritical to latch onto illegally obtained private communications, to take the contents at face value despite no knowledge of the source and the integrity of the text, and then to attack me for remaining anonymous.
I did not attack you for remaining anonymous. As I said, that's your right. It's why we all you to comment that way and also why I will not reveal your identity, even though I know who you are. I just wanted to see if you were willing to put your name behind your comments so that the others in this thread would be aware of your past and present affiliations. You chose not to. No sweat.
Surely if we can bring down Hollywood, everyone will be very happy.
I have no desire to "bring down Hollywood." Quite the opposite. I wish Hollywood would wake up already and realize that fighting innovation and treating its best fans and consumers like criminals is counterproductive.
Just like we did to the music industry.
The *music* industry is thriving. The legacy recording industry, perhaps not as much. But more music is being made today than ever before, more people are listening to more music and (this is the part you don't seem to realize) more people are spending MORE MONEY on music than ever before.
Just because some old gatekeepers have been cut out of that system is no reason to fret. Well, unless you work for a legacy gatekeeper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
This actually made me laugh out loud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dodd is correct
You seriously think anyone who's not Dodd represents the voice of the customer? The whole reason why attempts to shoehorn laws like these always result in public backlash is precisely because the public, the customers were never consulted.
Unless your point is that Dodd isn't the only one who's being paid to sing for the MPAA - in which case, so what? That doesn't mean he's not a shill, it just means he's not the only shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most likely it was exactly what it looked like, a random hacker group deciding to break in and look for interesting stuff, but given I don't believe I've run across anyone being able to say for certain who exactly was responsible(other than Sony's abysmal security), it's impossible to say for sure.
As such, you're basically asking for Mike to provide information he has no way of knowing, in exchange for meeting his request. Either say flat out that you won't provide your name, or provide terms that are at least achievable. Don't act like you'll take up his offer of providing your name if you have no intention of ever doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Voice of the customer" is a commonly used business term. Opposite would be "voice of the business", and in operation, "voice of the process". These terms make you laugh because... you don't know anything about business?
- Kim Jong Un
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm glad you love Beyonce too. Because the result of the demise of the music industry through piracy means no more bands, no more albums & CD's, no more good music. You get crappy singles from pop icons. Let's take down Hollywood and do the same thing to film.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike asked three distinct questions - which you have ignored. Makes me wonder why.
When the meaning of "fair use" is intentionally misapplied to support enablement of piracy, of course the MPAA objects.
Taking Australia as an example, what they were looking to implement was very similar to the US' fair use doctrine, so how is that "intentionally misapplied to support enablement of piracy"? Please explain.
But the MPAA has not changed its stance.
I agree. The MPAA has always disliked the concept of fair use. What MPAA spin doctors put out there is completely different story though.
I'm glad you love Beyonce too.
Ummm, no. You are either being sarcastic or your reading comprehension needs some work.
Because the result of the demise of the music industry through piracy means no more bands, no more albums & CD's, no more good music. You get crappy singles from pop icons.
What a complete load of horseshit. More music being created right now then any other time in history. More opportunities for more musicians to make decent livings than ever before. One isn't required to win the "A & R Lottery" to participate anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I always find it funny, if rather annoying, when people conflate the recording industry, with the music industry. If the recording industry crashes and burns(and the sooner the better), the music industry will still continue on perfectly fine. In fact, without one of the main supporters of constantly ratcheting up copyright law around, it's quite possible sane reforms could be made, leading to even more music created.
Even with the recording industry raking in record profits on an almost yearly basis(despite whining for decades about how piracy was on the verge of destroying them, funny how that works), as you point out, more music than ever before is being created and sold, it's just that most of it isn't through the parasitic labels anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So tell me more of this golden age of music we now live in. Should I buy the new Pitbull CD? Or one of these GREAT new pop country bands? Black Veil Brides? So much great new music out there... and NONE of these performers lip sync at the Grammys, on Saturday Night Live, or in their concerts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not me. Just another industry as far as I'm concerned. My problem is when their business model conflicts with my inalienable rights.
You loved Fight Club and the scene where he destroys the corporate art (even though this was a Hollywood movie). Fight the power!
Never watched Fight Club, sorry.
So tell me more of this golden age of music we now live in. Should I buy the new Pitbull CD? Or one of these GREAT new pop country bands? Black Veil Brides? So much great new music out there... and NONE of these performers lip sync at the Grammys, on Saturday Night Live, or in their concerts.
Ok, now you are coming off as some sort of snob who feels that his own interpretation of art is the only measuring stick that matters. Most intelligent people realize that art is subjective. One man's garbage is another man's masterpiece.
I'm done with this thread. Have a nice life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As for the recording industry, strawman much?
I hate them not for what they are, but because what they have, and continue to do. Being half of the parasitic duo that fights to ensure nothing ever enters the public domain, pushing for laws that have absolutely zero effect on the claimed target(piracy), but impact tons of innocent people and services, constantly demanding that everyone but them should be responsible for their content... I could probably go on for a while if I cared to, but the fact remains that they have done plenty to earn their toxic reputation.
As for new music, try Youtube, Bandcamp, Soundcloud and other similar services. Services that allow musicians to post and even sell their music, all without some parasite demanding a huge share and the rights to the music for hosting and/or selling it. You want to throw money at the rubbish that the major labels toss out, paying money to those that consider their paying customers barely better than a pack of criminals, knock yourself out, but don't expect those of us who care about who we give money to to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the "When did you stop beating your wife?" line of questioning. Chris Dodd never beat his wife. And the MPAA never changed its position on fair use. You guys just don't give up.
Youtube - yes. Justin Beiber was discovered by Youtube. You are so right - the future of music is in great hands. I'll go on over to Kickstarter to fund some band's recording fees so they can put their MP3's up on Soundcloud since none of them have enough talent to play live and make money any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Money thrown at the MPAA/RIAA is never going to make it into the hands of artists. For that matter, most of the money thrown at labels doesn't make it into the hands of artists; it's a fact regularly trotted out by labels so they can justify demanding more money.
Why would suddenly throwing money at Chris Dodd and Cary Sherman result in an increase in the music you like? (I say "you like", because it's obvious you don't think anyone else's taste counts.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. If the MPAA truly believed in fair use, then why wouldn't it want fair use to be a part of our trade agreements with other countries?
2. If the MPAA truly supported fair use, then why would it call the proposal to include fair use in the TPP "controversial"?
3. Why did the MPAA directly fight *against* Australia and the UK implementing fair use if they truly support fair use?
At this point I'd say I've got a pretty good idea as to why you refuse to answer the questions, and it has nothing to do with them being 'loaded questions' as you are trying to claim. But hey, if you don't want to answer them, just say so, don't try and dodge around and pretend that they are somehow 'unfair'.
And the MPAA never changed its position on fair use. You guys just don't give up.
You may have missed it when you were busy constructing your strawmen, but I don't think anyone here thinks the MPAA have changed their position on fair use. They've lied about their position before, sure, but they have maintained a consistent position on the matter, and it's not for fair use.
Youtube - yes. Justin Beiber was discovered by Youtube. You are so right - the future of music is in great hands. I'll go on over to Kickstarter to fund some band's recording fees so they can put their MP3's up on Soundcloud since none of them have enough talent to play live and make money any more.
Really, that's your counter-argument? That Beiber got started on Youtube, so therefore you can dismiss every other artists using the various independent services? That's the best you can do?
However, assume for a moment that you're right though, that Beiber got his start on Youtube, various people consider him a rubbish musician(myself included), and therefore the platform he started on is composed of nothing but similar rubbish musicians/singer...
Remind me again, who is he signed with currently? Ah yes, a major label. By your argument then, the labels, and the poor saps they've conned into signing for them are all rubbish, and can be dismissed as insignificant.
I always find it funny, how while pirates are often portrayed as the ones who 'hate artists and musicians', to find the real loathing and disdain for creators, you need look no farther than those defending the parasitic middle-men, who it seems have nothing but dismissive contempt for those that aren't stupid enough to sign their rights and money away for a lottery ticket at 'making it'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
https://your logicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
Or heck, just about any other in the overall list.
Okay. So, Justin Bieber was discovered on YouTube. So was Jack Conte. And he's great and has now built up an entire separate company helping to fund tons of creative folks. So do we say that Bieber and Conte cancel each other out or do you realize that a single example proves nothing?
There are tons of musicians using the internet to do amazing things, from Jack Conte to Zoe Keating to Amanda Palmer to Alex Day to Steve Lawson to Jonathan Coulton to Matthew Ebel... and I could go on and on and on. And all of them have one thing in common: they used the internet to their advantage and realized that the "traditional" recording industry had no place for them. But in using the internet they could find their audience, connect with that audience and do something amazing (and make a living too!).
If you're really trying to go down the path of arguing that the internet has been bad for *music* you're going to lose so badly that you're going to look even more ridiculous than you already do.
I know, I know, you think your clever and you're arguing on an internet forum where everyone here is an ignorant fool. I'll just give you a heads up: your assumptions are wrong and you'd be wise to reconsider your path before we make you look even more foolish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A: Children should not smoke
B: We agree
A + B: Let’s agree to promote “youth smoking prevention”
Tuesday
B: Let’s insert language into the TPP that allows us to sell cigarettes at school cafeterias.
A: We don’t support this. It contradicts “youth smoking prevention”. It will be controversial.
Wednesday:
Techdirt: MPAA are liars!! They say they support youth smoking prevention. But they now say it is controversial!
Chorus of ignorant Techdirt posters: F*ck the MPAA! Anyone who disagrees with our position, based on a stolen document of unknown origin and unverified accuracy that we declare the immutable truth, needs to answer an arbitrary set of illogical questions and give us their name and photo ID or else!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We don't need your photo ID; it's obvious Dodd and his buddies are buttering your bread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Monday
A: Fair use is a good thing
B: We agree
A + B: Let’s agree to promote “Fair use”
Ok, looks good so far. Meshes with the public statements.
The next part involved a negation of the idea of "Promoting X" on the part of B. Let's take a look, shall we?
Tuesday
B: Let’s insert language into the TPP that allows us to limit fair use.
A: We don’t support this. It contradicts the promotion of “Fair use”. It will be controversial.
...Wait a minute. That doesn't match our current scenario at all, now does it? The problem is trying to include it, isn't it? Let's try again.
Tuesday
B: Let’s insert language into the TPP that allows member nations to enact fair use legislation.
A: We don’t support this. It contradicts “Fair use”. It will be controversial.
Hmm... That seems to be more aligned with our current situation. "A" does seem a little odd here, but let's look at the last one.
Wednesday:
Techdirt: MPAA are liars!! They say they support fair use. But they now say it is controversial!
Hmm, that seems to make sense, given the fix to "Tuesday", B/MPAA does appear to be contradicting itself here.
While an argument could be made for shades of gray, it was NOT the argument you made here. No, what you did was twist the events to completely reverse the situation, which CERTAINLY explains why you changed the subject in your scenario. This... argument... was nothing more than blatant dishonesty.
Now for the rest of your post. Well, most of it is an Ad Hominem, meant to discredit the opponent without actually making an argument against what they said, so it can be safely discarded.
All that's left is the statement about the veracity of the documents. Honestly, this is a fair argument. Fair, but irrelevant. Not one of the three questions posed by Mike seem to rely on these documents, merely using those documents as a stepping stone to discuss the topic at hand. They could just as easily be based on comparing what the MPAA says, and what it does.
The name and photo ID bit? That was just infantile. If you intend to be taken seriously, grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, your little example is just a little off from reality, a more accurate one would be something along these lines:
Public/TD: Fair Use is a good thing.
MPAA: We agree.
Public/TD+MPAA: Let's support fair use.
Trade rep in charge of US negotiations for 'trade' agreements: Let's consider including Fair use in the 'trade' agreements*.
MPAA: Woah now, let's not get carried away, that's a very controversial and divisive decision there.
Public/TD: Clearly the MPAA does not in fact support Fair Use, given they consider it's inclusion 'controversial and divisive', despite their claims to the contrary previously.
*Ignoring for the moment the only reason he wants to include fair use is to limit it, as the few leaked parts of the 'trade' agreements make clear.
Chorus of ignorant Techdirt posters: F*ck the MPAA! Anyone who disagrees with our position, based on a stolen document of unknown origin and unverified accuracy that we declare the immutable truth...
Ah, and now it's on to trying to discredit the documents themselves by bringing their validity under question. Sorry to say though(well, not really), but Sony's actions during this who debacle makes it pretty clear that they at least believe the documents are genuine, as rather than making a simple statement refuting the legitimacy of the documents and files, they are instead trying to stop them from spreading, and keep people from discussing the contents.
In addition, several bits of information from them(paying off AG's in multiple states, the MPAA's involvement in such) have been found to match up with other information and evidence elsewhere, something that would be just a bit difficult to manage if the documents were false.
needs to answer an arbitrary set of illogical questions and give us their name and photo ID or else!
'Arbitrary and illogical' now are they? Really, watching you do everything you can to avoid answering those three simple questions is almost funny.
Also, speaking of 'arbitrary and illogical', you were the one who offered to provide your name, in exchange for Mike answering a question he had no possible way of knowing the answer to. Rather than being honest and admitting that you had no intention of giving your name, you instead threw out an impossible challenge, and when he called you out on it, you suddenly got defensive and acted all offended. Really now, just be honest from the start next time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use has long-standing precedent in the US, which is a common law country. Many of the countries in the TPP are not common law countries, which is somewhat tantamount to the case-by-case analysis required for something as flexible as the fair use doctrine. Many countries (see Japanese copyright law for instance) have a large laundry list of very specific exceptions that end up being as broad if not more broad than US fair use.
Additionally, fair use is incredibly nuanced, and without the guidance of over 150 years of jurisprudence, there are legitimate concerns that other countries may misinterpret fair use, either making it so narrow as to be pointless, or so broad that it undermines the purpose of copyright in the first place.
The point is that it's not really fair to say that Dodd is anti-fair use just because Dodd doesn't think "fair use" without any other guidance should be a mandatory condition of complying with the TPP. The issue is much more complicated, and by oversimplifying it to fit your narrative, you're doing everyone an injustice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Blah blah. This is a favorite talking point of the anti-fair use crowd and it's easily debunked. Plenty of other common law concepts have shown up in trade deals with non-common law countries. This article here debunks the myth:
http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/042415-why-u-s-tpa-should-promote-balanced-c opyright/
Key point:
In fact, civil law countries have long wrestled successfully with open-ended principles in international agreements. For example, copyright’s idea/expression dichotomy is similarly developed by common law, and yet we’ve inserted that into the TRIPS Agreement and the WIPO Copyright Treaty, both of which have numerous civil law signatories. If inserting principles interpreted through common law into trade agreements would cause the international IP system to grind to a halt, it would have happened twenty years ago
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We can disagree about whether or not exporting fair use is a good idea, but your consistent need to conflate being against exporting fair use in a free trade agreement with being against fair use altogether is simply inflammatory and wrong.
Reasonable people can disagree about what fair use is supposed to entail, and I won't go into a long discussion on the history of fair use, and why fair use was established. You clearly support a very broad view of fair use. The MPAA supports a more "traditional" view of fair use, and feels that the way courts have elevated "transformative purpose" above the "market harm" analysis has distorted the fair use analysis. That doesn't mean the MPAA is anti fair use. Indeed, the MPAA has filed briefs on numerous occasions in favor of fair use (see, for example their brief in Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens - http://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Bouchat-v.-Ravens-2013.pdf). I completely understand that you disagree with the MPAA's view of fair use, but to say they are against fair use just because their view differs from your view is simply disingenuous and you know it.
Additionally, nobody--the MPAA included--is saying that other countries shouldn't be able to apply fair use if they want to. The language of the current TPA bill requires, I believe, that the provisions entered into by the US "reflect a standard of protection similar to that found in the US." That standard of protection includes all US limitations, including fair use. It's one thing to say that we won't foreclose fair use, and it's another thing entirely to say that we, as the US, think all other countries at the negotiating table should specifically adopt provisions similar to fair use.
And thank you for your article; I read it, and while I think it makes some good points, I think reasonable minds can differ. For instance, here's a well-written article that takes a complete 180 from the one you shared: http://www.techpolicydaily.com/technology/fair-use-tpp-bad-idea/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_mediu m=paramount&utm_campaign=cict.
Again, we can debate long and hard over what fair use should be, and the merits of inserting fair use provisions in a free trade agreement, but don't go on and say that just because the MPAA, or anyone else disagrees with your opinion of fair use, that it is because they are "anti fair use." It's just childish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]