MPAA: EFF Just Jealous It Doesn't Control Copyright Office Like Hollywood Does
from the regulatory-capture dept
Earlier this week we wrote about the revelation, via a FOIA request by the EFF, that the Copyright Office consulted heavily with Hollywood (the MPAA directly, and a variety of movie studios) before weighing in on the FCC's set top box competition proposal. As we noted, the Copyright Office's discussion on the issue involved completely misrepresenting copyright law to pretend that an agreement between to industries (content studios & TV companies) could contractually wipe out fair use for end users. That's... just wrong. The FCC's proposal had absolutely nothing to do with copyright. It was just about letting authorized (paying) customers access content that was already authorized through other devices. What the FOIA request revealed was that the Copyright Office not only had many, many, many meetings with Hollywood, but that it actually prioritized those meetings over ones with the FCC -- and lied to the FCC to say that key Copyright Office personnel were not available the very same week they were meeting with the MPAA, in order to push back the meeting with the FCC.It was a pretty big deal, given the Copyright Office's reputation for acting as a taxpayer-funded lobbying arm for Hollywood. Of course, the MPAA is now mocking the EFF over this story, with a blog post by Neil Fried, one of the top lobbyist's for the MPAA, and someone who features prominently in the conversations with the Copyright Office revealed by the FOIA request. The crux of Fried's post is that there's no news in the revelations, and that the Copyright Office met with the MPAA because the MPAA asked to meet with it.
The bottom line is that the Copyright Office did not approach stakeholders, selectively or otherwise. It spoke with any and all comers who asked for the opportunity. It then examined the issues and met its statutory obligation to advise federal agencies and Congress on the law. Any EFF suggestion to the contrary is entirely false.That's... fairly misleading. It's true that there are those pages of email chains trying to schedule meetings, but the vast majority of those are from the MPAA or other Hollywood representatives. And those meetings are clearly eagerly being scheduled by the Copyright Office prior to meeting with the FCC to help shape the Copyright Office's response. The MPAA conveniently leaves out the Copyright Office's meeting with the FCC being pushed off so that the Office can meet with the MPAA first (and even telling the FCC that a key member of the Copyright Office is not available the same week she's meeting with the MPAA). Also, the "TiVo" meeting wasn't even on "the other side" of the debate, really, as the letter there notes that TiVo "will be advocating a simpler solution" compared to what the FCC proposed. It's also noteworthy that this meeting occurred on August 2nd of this year. That was the first time TiVo met with the Copyright Office, but by then the Copyright Office's position was set, as its response was delivered the very next day. The MPAA, on the other hand, first met with the Copyright Office back in early April and met a few times after that as well. So to say that the meetings were on the same level is clearly not true.
Of 310 pages EFF has “uncovered” in a Copyright Office FOIA request, 232 are transmittals of FCC filings, congressional letters, and other documents from all sides that were already public. The remaining 78 are almost all snowballing email chains to schedule meetings and calls—also from parties on all sides, including the FCC itself and device maker TiVo.
The documents reflect what we know to be true. The Copyright Office did not “jump into this fight,” as EFF asserts. Rather, it studiously avoided being brought into the debate until: 1) Chairman Wheeler asked for its analysis, and 2) Members of Congress requested it share that analysis so everyone, not just the FCC, could benefit from its expertise.Right. About that. That's not true either. As the FOIA documents reveal, then head of the Copyright Office Maria Pallante apparently went directly to Congress and requested that it make a formal request to the Copyright Office to send an opinion on the FCC's proposal. It appears that Fried either missed or ignored this bit of the FOIA request in which a staffer for Rep. Ted Deutch contacts the Copyright Office asking for input on what Deutch should put into the letter requesting the Copyright Office weigh in, and explicitly noting that the reason it was doing so was because they had been told that Pallante wanted them to make that request.
Finally, Fried basically mocks the EFF, suggesting that it's just upset that it didn't think to lobby the Copyright Office as aggressively as Hollywood did:
Like anyone else, the EFF could have just as easily made its own inquiries, rather than issue a hyperbolic blog complaining about the entirely legitimate practice of a government agency communicating with a range of parties.Yes, well, the EFF is a small non-profit. The MPAA is a giant machine of Hollywood with offices blocks away from the White House. Guess who has better access and resources to bug the hell out of the Copyright Office and get it to side (once again) with misleading claims about copyright law?
Besides, when your argument boils down to "sure, the Copyright Office is a captured agency, and if you don't like it, go capture your own agency..." it's not exactly a ringing endorsement for functional policymaking.
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: copyright office, fcc, lobbying, maria pallante, neil fried, power, regulatory capture
Companies: eff, mpaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Tell it like it is brutha!
Sadly, we gave it to them too!!! And will keep giving it to them in the pursuit of trying to control them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good grief, Mike.
You say: "Ted Deutch contacts the Copyright Office asking for input on what Deutch should put into the letter requesting the Copyright Office weigh in, and explicitly noting that the reason it was doing so was because they had been told that Pallante wanted them to make that request. . . . That, uh, certainly doesn't look like "avoiding being brought into the debate" until after Congress requested it. It looks like the head of the Copyright Office going directly to Congress and concocting an excuse to publicly weigh in on the debate against the FCC."
Amazing how you DISHONESTLY don't include the very next message in the chain, which appears on the very same page. See page 151 of the documents: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3179528/Foia-Dkt-No-22-2016-Response-and-Records-20161024 .pdf
Referring to the email from McLaren, Charlesworth tells Temple Claggett and Pallante the following: "Strange ‐‐ in every meeting in which I have participated on this topic, we have indicated that this is NOT something we wish to invite."
That DIRECTLY contradicts the claim that Pallante was soliciting the opportunity to weigh in. You are a dishonest liar, Mike. Always have been. Always will be. It's frankly disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That DIRECTLY contradicts the claim that Pallante was soliciting the opportunity to weigh in. You are a dishonest liar, Mike. Always have been. Always will be. It's frankly disgusting.
That's not how I read it at all (and one can simply interpret things differently without being a "dishonest liar"). I read it as Pallante telling Deutch to ask the CO to weigh in, but doing so without telling JC or KTC. It certainly appears that at least some effort was made by someone at the Copyright Office to get that official request. Otherwise, why would Deutch's staff say that?
The only other explanation I've heard in talking to people was that Fried himself told Deutch's staff that Pallante wanted that letter, and thus it was the MPAA's doing in the first place.
Neither is a good look.
Anyway, what is more "disgusting"? Having a different interpretation on things, or actively misrepresenting copyright law for the sake of helping your lobbyist friends?
Meanwhile, you never answered me if your organization shows up in those emails? I wonder why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(1) We have the June 17 email from McLaren, Deputy Chief of Staff for Deutch, to Temple Claggett indicating that her “boss had been told that she [Pallante] expressed a willingness to weigh in” if asked by Deutch.
(2) Temple Claggett immediately emailed Charlesworth indicating that she didn’t “know where she’s [McLaren] getting that from.”
(3) Charlesworth then responds to Temple Claggett, cc’ing Pallante, saying “Strange – in every meeting in which I have participated on this topic, we have indicated that this is NOT something we wish to invite.”
(4) On June 21, Temple Claggett responds to McLaren, cc’ing Charlesworth, saying: “At the Register's request our General Counsel's office is actually working closely on an interagency basis with the FCC on this issue.”
So we don’t know who told Deutch that Pallante would weigh in if asked. What we do know is that this suggestion was a surprise to both Temple Claggett and Charlesworth. We also know that Temple Claggett’s response to McLaren pointed out that the Copyright Office was already “working closely” with the FCC. Rather than jumping at the chance to have Deutch ask Pallante to weigh in, the response indicated that the Copyright Office was already working on things with the FCC directly.
What makes it dishonest on your part is that you didn’t present all of the evidence. You only showed the email from McLaren, not the subsequent emails from Temple Claggett and Charlesworth showing surprise at McLaren’s email. You also excluded Temple Claggett’s response to McLaren where she indicated that the Copyright Office was already working the FCC (and nothing about taking up Deutch on his offer).
In your post, you say: “That, uh, certainly doesn't look like "avoiding being brought into the debate" until after Congress requested it.” What you conveniently left out are the other emails that do in fact make it look otherwise. Being honest means presenting all of the facts, even the ones that cut the other way. You didn’t present those other facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's a hell of an assertion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
See pages 151 and 153 in the pdf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is a perfect microcosm of everything that’s wrong with you and Techdirt.
Also a perfect microcosm of why we leave our comments open for people like you to present your viewpoint. I will note that the MPAA and many of your friends don't do this.
Your interpretation of the emails is interesting and certainly a possible explanation. We did, in fact, post the entire file for anyone to look at in the original post, so your claim that we hid it is inaccurate.
You make a reasonable argument that I should have made it clear that others in the Copyright Office were confused by the statement from Deutch's staff, so I'll add that to the post.
Again: what you see as dishonest may simply be a different interpretation. And, really, you still haven't answered the organization that pays your salary and whether or not it appears in those emails. Because, you know, that's kinda relevant as to where you're coming from, no?
Anyway, maybe instead of attacking me as dishonest and despicable and whatnot, you might consider that sometimes I just have a different opinion and perhaps a different interpretation of things.
I mean you'd probably argue the same thing regarding the NPRM, in which you falsely claim that it implicates copyright. This is because you misread it. I don't think you're DISHONEST and a LIAR and a awful human being, I just think you don't understand what the NPRM actually says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know about enough to sway an election. She certainly seemed to think it was enough to sway a primary, which is why she changed her stance: to shore up her blue-collar bona fides in the race against Sanders.
Whether she'd have felt the need to do the same thing in the general election if she'd skated to the nomination with no sufficient challenge is an open question, and of course one we'll never know the answer to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIfP5NhaZ2E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you miss the point on two fronts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Straight from the **IA's playbook but this way you don't like it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The reform does not make it legal for third parties to infringe and IP laws still apply. If you can't acknowledge this then you are just a liar and this conversation is over.
You are a scumbag you dishonest liar. Not an honest bone in your body. Is this what you aspire to be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MPAA Lies,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I DO NOT CARE if the MAFIAA types are actually factually correct every once in a while (the phrase, 'even a blind pig...' comes to mind), THEY ARE WORKING AGAINST THE INTERESTS of the 99%, 99% of the time...
that a shill gets all holier-than-thou because someone MAY have misinterpreted a sequence of emails, etc, is noise in the machine: the salient point is, the machine keeps running us down...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They keep arguing that the reform allows third parties to use content without licensing it. That's a lie. It allows third parties to provide their own content that they are legally able to provide. The laws against infringement do not change.
Until IP shills can at least make one honest statement this whole conversation is a non-starter. These people have no business at all telling government what to do and we need to run these corporations out of office when it comes to writing our laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah! The government shouldn't ask specific people who likely know things to come in an educate them. They should just hang around the office waiting for whatever unvetted information wafts in the window. You don't see Congress or the FCC actively asking for input when they have to make decisions on complex topics. I mean, COME ON!
Then again, the Copyright Office was supposed to be the fraking expert on Copyright, which is why they were "asked" in the first place. So I'm not sure why they needed to gather input from stakeholders at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The USA has the best government money can buy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]