Hollywood Front Groups Decide To Kick Facebook While It's Down, Advocate For More Internet Regulations

from the this-will-surprise-basically-no-one dept

It's no secret at all (though, they tried to hide it) that Hollywood and various MPAA front-groups were heavily involved behind the scenes in getting FOSTA/SESTA passed and signed into law. It all goes back to Project Goliath, the plan put together by the MPAA a few years back to use any means necessary to try to attack the fundamental principles of an open internet. While there have been all sorts of attempts, SESTA (i.e., misrepresenting the problem of sex trafficking as being an internet problem, and then pushing legislation that won't stop sex trafficking, but will harm internet companies) was the first to make it through.

But it's unlikely to be the last. Immediately on the heels of everyone now hating on Facebook, various MPAA front groups led by CreativeFuture and the Content Creators Coalition -- both of whom will consistently parrot complete nonsense about how the internet is evil (amusingly, sometimes using the very platforms they seek to destroy) -- have now sent a letter to lawmakers demanding more regulation of the internet and, in particular, more chipping away at intermediary liability protections that enable the free and open internet (the letter was first reported by TorrentFreak).

Most of the letter continues to play up the exaggerated moral panic around Facebook's actions. As we've noted many times, there are reasons to complain about Facebook, but so many of the complaints are on bad solutions, and that's absolutely true with this particular letter. Specifically, this letter presents three demands:

Last week’s hearing was an important first step in ensuring that Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other internet platforms must (1) take meaningful action to protect their users’ data, (2) take appropriate responsibility for the integrity of the news and information on their platforms, and (3) prevent the distribution of unlawful and harmful content through their channels.

On number one: yes, companies should do a better job protecting data, but the real issue is that companies shouldn't be holding onto so much data in the first place. Rather individual internet users should have a lot more control and power over their own use of data, which is very different than what these Hollywood groups are demanding. Besides, given Hollywood's history of being hacked and leaking all sorts of data, it certainly seems like a glass houses sort of situation, doesn't it?

As for number two: "take appropriate responsibility for the integrity of the news and information on their platforms." Really? This is Hollywood and content creators directly calling for censorship, which is truly fucked up if you think about it. After all, for much of Hollywood's history, politicians have complained about the kind of content that it puts out, and demanded censorship in response. Is Hollywood now really claiming to call for other industries to go through the same sort of nonsense? Should we apply the same rules to the MPAA studios? When they put out movies that are a historical farce, such as the very, very wrong propaganda flick Zero Dark Thirty, should Hollywood be required to "take appropriate responsibility" for spewing pro-torture propaganda? Because if they're insisting that internet platforms have to take responsibility for what user's post, it's only reasonable to say that Hollywood studios should take responsibility when they release movies that are similar nonsense.

And, finally, number three: preventing the distribution of unlawful and "harmful" content. Again, one has to wonder what the fuck happened to the legacy entertainment industry that it would now be advocating for some sort of legal ban on "harmful content." Remember, this is the same industry that has regularly been accused of producing "harmful" TV shows, movies and music. And now they're on record speaking out against harmful content? How quickly do you think that's going to boomerang back on Hollywood concerning its own content.

It's almost as if Hollywood is so focused on its hatred of the internet that the geniuses they brought in to run these front groups have no clue how their own arguments will end up shooting content creators right in the foot. I mean, if we're going to stop "harmful" content, doesn't that just give more fodder to religious groups attacking the legacy entertainment industry over "blasphemy," sex and drugs? Won't groups advocating against loosening morals use that to demand that Hollywood stop producing films that support these kinds of activities. Or what about violence, which Hollywood has glorified for decades.

Now, some of us who actually support free speech recognize that Hollywood should be able to produce those kinds of movies and TV shows and musicians should be able to record whatever music they want. But we also think that internet platforms should be open to decide what content they allow on their platforms as well. It's a shame that Hollywood seems to think free speech is only important in special circumstances when it applies to professionally produced content. Because that's exactly what this letter is suggesting.

The letter also includes this nonsense:

The real problem is not Facebook, or Mark Zuckerberg, regardless of how sincerely he seeks to own the “mistakes” that led to the hearing last week. The problem is endemic in a system that applies a different set of rules to the internet and fails to impose ordinary norms of accountability on businesses that are built around monetizing other people’s personal information and content.

This is... wrong. There isn't a "different set of rules." CDA 230 and DMCA 512 are both rules designed to properly apply liability to the party who actually breaks the law. Both of them say that just because someone uses a platform for illegal behavior it doesn't make the platform liable (the individual is still very much liable). That's not a different set of rules. And to argue that internet companies are not "accountable" is similarly ridiculous. We have a decently long history of the internet at this point, and we see, over and over again, when companies get too powerful, they become complacent. And when they do dumb things, competitors spring up, and the older companies fade away.

Hollywood, of course, isn't quite used to that kind of creative destruction. The major studios of the MPAA are 20th Century Fox (founded: 1935), Paramount (founded: 1912), Universal Studios (founded: 1912), Warner Bros. (founded: 1923), Disney Studios (founded: 1923) and Sony Pictures (which traces its lineage back to Columbia Pictures in 1924 or CBC Film Sales Corp in 1918). In other words, these are not entities used to creative upstarts taking their place. They work on the belief that the big guys are always the big guys.

And, really, at a time when many of Hollywood's biggest names are being brought down in "me too" moments, when it's clear that they had institutional support of their abuse going back decades, is it really appropriate for Hollywood, of all places, to be arguing that the tech industry needs to take more responsibility? This seems like little more than a hypocritical attempt by the usual MPAA front groups to kick Facebook while its down and try to use the anger over Facebook's mistakes to try to chip away at the internet they've always disliked.

Filed Under: cda 230, dmca 512, fosta, free speech, hollywood, intermediary liability, sesta
Companies: content creators coalition, creativefuture

Why Is Hollywood Pushing A Totally Bogus Push Poll Trying To Undermine The Internet?

from the questions,-questions dept

If you've spent time on Facebook lately, you may have come across the following advertisement:

The ad is from "CreativeFuture", an MPAA front group that pretends to be representing the interests of "artists" but miraculously only seems to promote the extreme viewpoints of the giant Hollywood studios (imagine that). The group is often the go to quote for the copyright extremist position -- and has a history of basically blaming technology for Hollywood's own failures to adapt.

Not surprisingly, then, that it's now running this highly unscientific "survey" with a bunch of ridiculous leading questions, to try to argue that internet companies aren't doing enough and that Congress should destroy the laws that protect the open internet. You can check out the survey yourself, but let's dig into the questions and just how leading and/or silly they are.

It starts off with the following preamble:

In recent months, there has been rapidly growing concern in Washington, in the press, and among members of the public over the lack of responsibility shown by the major internet platforms (including Google and Facebook) toward potentially illegal activity taking place on their services.

From sex trafficking to foreign influence on our elections, from privacy to piracy, it has become increasingly clear that more needs to be done – by the internet platforms themselves, and possibly by the U.S. government – to ensure platform responsibility.

Note the use of "sex trafficking." For the most part, Hollywood has been trying to hide the fact that it's been one of the biggest supporters of SESTA, the fake law that pretends its targeting sex traffickers, but is really targeting the internet. It's kind of rich for an industry that includes Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen and Roman Polanski among its biggest "names" to be complaining about sex trafficking.

From here on it, I'll just post the text instead of screenshots, but I'll include the above so you can see what it looks like in case it magically disappears after this post goes live.

1. There is growing evidence that the major internet platforms are being used for purposes that may violate U.S. laws. Should the major internet platforms take responsibility for these uses of their services?

• Yes
• No

That's a broad and incredibly leading (and misleading) question. Lots of tools are used to violate US laws. This includes cars and telephones. But we don't call for Ford to take responsibility for the fact that people speed, or for AT&T to take responsibility for the fact that someone phones in a bomb threat. That's not how it works. But, of course, if you don't know any of that and just think "oh, bad stuff is happening, of course someone should take responsibility" gullible people are going to vote "yes." You could just as easily rephrase the question as "Bad people sometimes use the internet too. Should that be the fault of Google and Facebook that they don't magically make bad people good?" Such a question would be equally as meaningful.

2. Recently, the major internet platforms opposed the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) because they want to avoid responsibility or legal liability for such uses of their services. Do you believe that the major internet platforms need to do more to stop sex trafficking on their services?

• Yes
• No

First of all, this isn't entirely accurate. As we've discussed, the Internet Association and especially Facebook have been supportive of SESTA. And the reason that other (smaller) platforms have opposed SESTA is not because "they want to avoid responsibility or legal liability," but because they know why that's a really dangerous plan that will create lots of problems unrelated to sex trafficking while actually making the problem of sex trafficking worse. As we've discussed at great length -- and which the team at Creative Futures would admit if they had an intellectually honest bone in their bodies -- the problem with SESTA is that it creates a moderator's dilemma. It will lead some sites to stop moderating entirely to avoid the "knowledge" standard in the bill. And it will cause others to censor with wild abandon to try to avoid any and all liability, no matter how ridiculous. Of course, coming from Hollywood -- an industry famous for sending tons of bogus DMCA takedowns -- widespread censorship of legitimate content apparently isn't a big deal. Hollywood should be fighting for the First Amendment, not shitting all over it.

3. The major internet platforms benefit greatly from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 and the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, two 20-year-old laws that were intended to give the then-fledgling internet the opportunity to grow. Today, the major global internet platforms – companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter – use these laws to avoid taking responsibility for the content they deliver to consumers or help them find, and from which they make immense profits. Given the tremendous growth of the internet in the last 20 years, do you believe it is time to reconsider the DMCA and the CDA?

Hilarious. Remember, the DMCA was pushed for by Hollywood back in the 1990s. They even went so far as to route around Congress (who refused to give them the DMCA) and get it into a trade agreement in Geneva, forcing Congress to pass the DMCA to "comply with our international obligations." For Hollywood to now whine about the DMCA that they pushed so hard for is hilarious. Separately, the "reason" given in this question about why Congress passed both the DMCA and CDA 230 is not at all accurate. Hollywood engaging in historical revisionism? What a surprise! The reason for both laws was not to let the fledgling internet grow. It was to properly place liability on those actually breaking the law. Yes, growing the internet was cited in the debate for both, but because anyone with common sense could see that falsely putting liability on websites for actions of users would be a disaster for the internet -- whether its in its early days or end-times.

4. Do you believe that services like Facebook, Google, and Twitter should take greater responsibility for the use of their platforms to promote false and misleading news articles?

Does Hollywood really want to call out others for "promoting false and misleading" information? Does no one in Hollywood know anything about Hollywood's own history of propaganda and fake news? Either way, once again, what CreativeFuture is pushing here is misleading and ridiculous. The people creating fake news are responsible for creating fake news. Making a tool that they use "responsible" for it would be like making the guy who built the printing press responsible for fake news propaganda published in newspapers. That's not how it works.

5. Do you believe that services like Facebook, Google, and Twitter should take greater responsibility to ensure that foreign agents cannot use their platforms for political advertising or influence?

Great. Now Hollywood is trying to argue that Google and Facebook should block foreigners from using its platforms. Lovely. As we pointed out when the Mueller indictment of Russian trolls came out, they went to incredible lengths to hide the fact that they were Russian. People looking to abuse the system will always figure out ways around blocks -- and it's not like Google and Facebook and others haven't been pressured already to do more, just in the court of public opinion.

6. Do you believe that services like Facebook, Google, Twitter, and others should take greater responsibility for protecting the privacy of their users?

This one's a layup. Who's actually going to say no to this? Everyone's going to say yes, but no one will discuss the details or what it means. Besides, is Hollywood really positioning itself as the bastion of protecting privacy? The same Hollywood that couldn't even protect Sony Pictures' emails from leaking all over the internet? And the same Hollywood where Harvey Weinstein was famous for running an army of spies to go after critics, and leaking personal information about them to the press? That same Hollywood?

7. Do you believe that services like Google, Facebook and Twitter should take greater responsibility for the use of their platforms to facilitate the illegal distribution of creative copyrighted movies, television shows, music, photography, and books?

What does "greater responsibility" even mean in this context? All of those sites have spent many, many, many millions of dollars to set up systems that go way beyond what the law requires to take down (or block from ever being posted) tons and tons of content. And, of course, to Hollywood, it's never enough. It can never be enough. But rather than get its own house in order, it just wants to blame the internet. Same old song.

8. Has the growing public attention to the failure of giant internet platforms like Facebook, Google, and Twitter to take responsibility for their role in facilitating illegal activities changed your opinion of the companies?

No. But the growing flailing by CreativeFuture and the MPAA has made it clear how desperate they've become.

I can't wait for CreativeFuture to release the ridiculous "results" of this poll and pretend that it proves anything.

Also, irony of ironies: without CDA 230 it's quite unlikely that this ad or this survey would exist at all. SurveyMonkey relies heavily on CDA 230 to allow anyone to post whatever surveys they want -- without requiring it to be reviewed carefully before it went up. If SurveyMonkey needed each poll to be reviewed by an editor, SurveyMonkey wouldn't exist at all. Similarly, Facebook's ad platform would not be open to all to use, would likely be significantly more expensive and less useful and targeted. But, CreativeFuture doesn't know or doesn't seem to care about any of that, so long as it can push this extremist viewpoint against the internet.

Filed Under: blame, cda 230, dmca, hollywood, intermediary liability, push poll
Companies: creative future, creativefuture, mpaa

Film Director's Op-Ed Ignores Reality To Push Hollywood Lobbying Talking Points

from the opportunistic-assertions-of-lack-of-opportunities dept

John Singleton -- the director of "Boyz n the Hood" -- has written an op-ed for The Hill (apparently at the behest of two groups heavily-influenced by major studio money) decrying "digital theft." What will happen to young indie directors like he once was, so many years ago?

At just 24 years old, I was the youngest person ever nominated for the Oscars for Best Director and for Best Original Screenplay. My career launched in 1991 — before the explosive growth of the internet, before Facebook, Twitter and torrent sites — during one of the creative and financial high points of the entertainment industry. Even then, the odds of convincing a major film company to take a risk on giving a 24-year-old kid from South Central L.A. such an enormous opportunity was highly unlikely. In 2017, I believe it’s nearly impossible.

I’m deeply concerned the creative voices of the next generation won’t have the same opportunities I had.

So, what has changed? There’s certainly no shortage of young talent. On the opportunity end of the equation, however, you can draw a straight line from the widespread digital theft of creative works to the barriers filmmakers face when breaking into the industry.

It's hard to believe Singleton isn't aware of the numerous opportunities indie directors have now that weren't available when he first broke into the business. It's also hard to believe Singleton truly believes more barriers exist now than did 25 years ago. So, it's not that Singleton isn't aware of the opportunities and lower barriers. It's that he's being intellectually dishonest to further the objectives of the two entities that asked him to speak to Congress about digital piracy.

At the invitation of CreativeFuture, a creative industries advocacy group, and the Creative Rights Caucus, a bipartisan group dedicated to protecting the rights of content creators, I spoke to hundreds of government officials about what millions of us do for a living and how critically important that work is to our society and culture.

CreativeFuture is the rebranded CreativeAmerica: a Hollywood astroturfing group supported by several major television and motion picture studios. The Creative Rights Caucus was formed by reps Judy Chu and Howard Coble. Coble wrote the "Sonny Bono Act," the bill that has saddled us with "life+70" for copyright terms. He also helped push through the PRO-IP Act back in 2008. Judy Chu is basically an unofficial mouthpiece for the entertainment industry, seeing as she can't even be bothered to rewrite their talking points before delivering them.

With this propelling Singleton's statements, it's no surprise he doesn't depict the entertainment world as it actually is. Instead, he's simply regurgitating talking points about how piracy has so badly damaged the motion picture industry, it can barely post record ticket sales year after year after year.

The tiniest amount of perfunctory Googling would have shown Singleton his assertions are full of shit. Indie filmmakers are still selling films at film festivals. Only now, it's more likely Netflix or Amazon are picking up the tab. Not only that, but streaming companies are investing heavily in original content, so it's far more likely these filmmakers will find more work outside of the traditional studio system than within it.

Singleton wants us to believe that if the major studios aren't involved, it simply doesn't exist. (This is what major studios would like you to believe as well, as they treat Netflix and Amazon more like enemies than colleagues.) But his assertions are completely divorced from reality. Here's another eminently eye-rollable passage from Singleton's screed:

It’s easy to look at piracy in a vacuum and chalk the illegal streaming of a movie up to a mere $5 or $10 loss for Hollywood investors. Yet the aggregate cost of piracy goes far beyond that. It makes film and television companies far more risk-averse, narrowing their output to that which seems the most bankable, thereby creating a climate in which no one would be willing to take a chance on a 24-year-old with a script about inner city life.

Where's the concern for the small filmmakers, who arguably lose more when people illegally stream their work? Can't find it here. All I see is concern for major motion pictures studios, that will have slightly less money to screw directors, producers, and actors out of.

And the statement about television being more "risk-averse" than ever flies in the face of reality. TV shows that would have been unthinkable during Singleton's mid-90s prime are being made as fast as TV studios can crank them out, with budgets that far exceed the average major network TV show.

Even if Netflix, Amazon, and other streaming services weren't handing out checks to indie filmmakers, platforms like YouTube and Vimeo would allow them to bring their creations to millions of viewers and monetize every play.

Singleton closes his op-ed with the expected "piracy will kill us all unless…" statement:

A critical component of that is understanding that copyright is the only thing that separates 5.5 million working Americans from the breadline. Without it, filmmaking is in jeopardy of becoming an afterthought, a hobby for the weekends.

Copyright doesn't keep filmmakers from the breadline. Copyright can't prevent infringement, so even with the absurdly-strong and ridiculously-lengthy protections given to US creators, the breadline may still be the end result. But there's no proven connection between file sharing and unemployed artists, no matter how many conclusory statements are presented without backing evidence.

Copyright doesn't enhance creativity and it can't prevent anyone from being unable to make a living doing creative work. The only purpose it really serves is to make legal threats more threatening by dangling the possibility of statutory damages above the heads of accused infringers. And that's pretty much the only purpose Singleton serves her: propping up legacy industries with legacy arguments.

Filed Under: business models, culture, hollywood, independent film, john singleton, piracy
Companies: creativefuture

Hollywood Funded Group Demands BitTorrent Inc. 'Take Responsibility' For Piracy

from the just-like-hollywood-takes-responsibility-for-its-movies? dept

You would think that a Hollywood astroturfing group, funded by all of the major Hollywood studios, would know better than to issue a blatant attack on another company for "failing to condemn" how some people viewed their products. After all, Hollywood is the industry that glorifies murder, con men and (yes) piracy. And Hollywood gets quite up in arms any time anyone suggests that its movies might influence folks in that way. That's the correct response because it is silly and ridiculous to attack an industry that makes one thing for then not condemning how that thing may be viewed or used improperly. But, apparently, some folks in Hollywood have no problem casting similar aspersions on industries they hate.

Earlier this year, we wrote about the "launch" of a new Hollywood-funded organization called "CreativeFuture." As we noted, this "launch" was a bit misleading, because CreativeFuture was just the rebranding of Creative America, an organization that Hollywood slapped together as an astroturfing group in support of SOPA and PIPA. It pretends to represent the interests of creators, but actually is almost entirely funded by the major Hollywood studios. After Creative America was a complete disaster, widely derided (even inside Hollywood) as a joke, Hollywood did a rebrand to CreativeFuture, and brought in new leadership in the form of Ruth Vitale, whom the NY Times described as "sassy." Except, as we noted, the playbook remained the same: basically misrepresent issues related to copyright, pretend to represent "artists" when actually representing the big studios who regularly screw over artists, and always, always, always blame the innovators and technology companies who have provided new tools and services that have helped reinvent the industry for decades.

Vitale is bringing her "sassy" take to this playbook with a bizarre attack on BitTorrent, entitled: We're All Waiting, BitTorrent. The basic argument is that since BitTorrent is often used for exchanging unauthorized copies of content BitTorrent Inc. has a responsibility to (1) "condemn" how its own technology is used and (2) figure out a way to stop it from being used that way.

If BitTorrent wished to prevent their client applications from being used to facilitate massive piracy, it could do something about it. The company says it’s all about technology, so how about using technology to reduce piracy?

Funny how some technology companies like BitTorrent are always extolling the unlimited power of technology – except when it can be used to help creators by preventing the unauthorized distribution of their creative content.

I believe that BitTorrent’s failure to publicly condemn the misuse of its protocol – and to actually do something about it – is going to hurt the company’s efforts to build legitimate business models... just like it hurts everyone else’s.

Despite the fact that, for many years, Hollywood has been blamed for all sorts of stuff concerning its movies -- and Hollywood has, rightly, pointed out that it's ridiculous to blame its movies for idiots imitating what's in the movies, or for believing they're anything more than fictional stories. And yet, now, when it comes to technology, Hollywood wants to take the same bogus moral panics used against it and turn it on technology? Just how cynical can Hollywood get?

Oh, actually much more cynical. Vitale also pulls out a sarcastic "manifesto" that BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen wrote many years before working on BitTorrent, in which he jokingly talked about building tools to "commit digital piracy" as if she's found the smoking gun.

The whole point of this "sassy" rant appears to be to drive creators away from embracing new technologies. She directly says that creators should "pause" before working with BitTorrent Inc., because even though it's created a massive tool for free distribution, combined with a very committed and loyal audience, which many creators have found help drive sales, she doesn't like that they haven't "done enough" to "stop piracy."

This is the same misguided playbook that Jack Valenti played for years, attacking the very technology his industry needed to embrace, delaying the inevitable and harming the very industry he "represented." Because, really, what does Vitale think will happen if either of her demands are met? If BitTorrent could magically make its protocol less useful, people will immediately switch to something else. If BitTorrent were to vocally "condemn" uses of its technology for infringement, does she honestly think that people who use BitTorrent to infringe on copyrights will magically change their ways? Who is she fooling, other than herself?

Instead of recognizing that there are many big entertainment fans that the industry could embrace and drive towards additional offerings, Vitale wants to make this a silly moral stand that will do no good -- not unlike the silly "morality" attacks on Hollywood for "promoting" sex and violence. Why Vitale would take such a page from the very people who tend to attack her industry is beyond me. It's hardly a strategy for embracing the future, and seems like one that only cements legacy Hollywood's image of being clueless and out of touch with today's entertainment fans, as well as new and innovative technologies.

Filed Under: astroturfing, blame, copyright, innovation, responsibility, ruth vitale, sassy, technology
Companies: bittorrent, creativefuture