California AG Pretends Copyright Infringement Is Theft; Charges Streaming Site With Grand Theft

from the hmm... dept

I was a bit confused to see California Attorney General Kamala Harris announce that she, with the help of the MPAA, had broken up an "online piracy ring" that was streaming movies online. That's because Harris has no authority when it comes to copyright issues. Copyright is a federal, not state law, and copyright cases need to be in federal court. But that's not what happened here. Instead, she rounded up a trio of brothers, Hop, Tony and Huynh Hoang... and charged them with grand theft, conspiracy and receiving stolen property. I was wondering if there was any actual "theft" going on here, or if Harris is simply redefining theft to get around federal preemption rules for copyright infringement. From her statements, it sounds like a blatant attempt to get around federal preemption as a favor to the MPAA.

“Digital piracy is theft. It is a serious crime that harms one of California’s most important economic engines – our entertainment industry,” said Attorney General Harris. “This case sends a clear message that the California Department of Justice will investigate digital piracy and prosecute violators to the fullest extent of the law.”

Except that infringement and theft are two very different issues, which are taken care of under two very different laws. I know that the MPAA loves to call infringement "theft" but it does not make it legally "theft."

Separately, it's worth pointing out that the details of this case, once again show that the claims of people that various "pirate" sites are making tons of money doesn't have much support:

Over the 18 months of the website’s operation, the brothers earned approximately $150,000 in advertising revenue.

So, 18 months, 3 brothers, $150,000. That's $50,000 per brother. Or, about $33,000 per year, per person, not counting expenses. If the sites were even remotely popular, most of that money went towards hosting. So, not exactly a huge moneymaker.

Either way, the bigger issue here appears to be the attempt by the MPAA and AG Harris to redefine copyright law as "theft" to avoid a federal case concerning copyright. That's an incredible attempt to change the meaning of the law, which one hopes a judge will toss out on preemption grounds. If these brothers actually did what they're accused of, why not go after them on copyright infringement grounds? It seems likely that the MPAA has been just waiting for a case like this to try to circumvent the basic tenets of copyright law, to pretend that laws on theft apply.

Filed Under: california, copyright, infringement, kamala harris, preemption, streaming, theft
Companies: mpaa

How The MPAA Fought To Keep Audiovisual Materials Out Of WIPO Treaty For The Blind/Deaf; And How That's A Disaster For Education

from the a-serious-problem dept

The MPAA has been trying to rehabilitate its image concerning its well documented attempts to screw over the blind and the deaf in blocking the decades-in-negotiations WIPO treaty to improve access to works. Over at KEI, Fedro De Tomassi, has a detailed explanation for how the MPAA fought to keep "audio-visual works" completely out of the treaty, and the massive impact it has on education. First, he notes how frequently video is now used in the classroom:

Since I started taking classes at St. Olaf college 3 years ago, there has not been one professor that has not used some sort of audiovisual aid during the course. I am a political science major, and the trends of using videos is no different in the humanities. For example in my Russian and Eurasian politics class, we studied the relations between the Soviet Union and its satellite states today, and the use of Youtube videos and documentary films were instrumental in giving us a better understanding of the situation. The use of videos in education has become a norm to address the needs of various types of learners as well as to complement the various tools and sources at the disposal of the professors.

Videos are not used solely in the classroom, they are assigned as homework and part of the syllabus and the “reading list” of most if not all courses you have to take to get a bachelor today. Audiovisual materials also compose a large part of the library. Archival footage for example is an essential part of a history major curriculum.

Just last week, I had dinner with a university professor who was telling me the difficulty she had in trying to get the use of videos approved for her teaching, asking a variety of people about the copyright issues of even linking to clips online and getting back vague or contradictory answers.

Fedro then points out how the MPAA made sure the treaty for the blind and the deaf turned into one just for the blind.

In 2009, the Motion Picture Industry began to lobby the Obama Administration to narrow the treaty to "print disabilities" only, and to eliminate deaf persons as beneficiaries. By 2010, the Obama Administration took a hard line in the WIPO negotiations, backed upon by the European Union, to narrow the treaty, excluding deaf persons. This was designed to overcome political opposition from the MPAA, and the USPTO said the compromise on beneficiaries was necessary for the text to move forward. In November 2010, the WIPO SCCR agreed to separate the more "mature" issues of visually impaired and reading disabilities from "other disabilities" in its negotiations. In June 2011, a new committee sponsored negotiating text for this treaty (SCCR/24/9) defined beneficiaries in such a way that deaf persons were excluded.

But, that's not all. There were still questions around "audiovisual works" and the MPAA went to work again:

From 1985 to 2011, the various treaty proposals all would have covered any copyrighted work, including, for example SCCR/23/7, the text published in December 2011. But shortly after the MPAA was able to remove deaf persons as beneficiaries, they lobbied the Obama Administration to remove audiovisual works from the text. The Obama Administration proposed this formally in June 2012, and in December 2012, there was a deal to eliminate audiovisual works from the text, in order to get an agreement to hold a diplomatic conference in June 2013. Since nothing is set in stone in the negotiation, that decision can be changed, but it will probably require a change of position in the Obama White House, which has threatened to block the treaty if audiovisual works are included.

The MPAA's claims that it wants this treaty passed ring pretty hollow. It wants a completely gutted version approved at a time when audiovisual works are increasingly not just important, but necessary, for education.

Filed Under: audiovisual materials, blind, copyright, deaf, exceptions, fair use, treaty for the blind, wipo
Companies: mpaa

MPAA: Oh, Of Course We Want To Help The Blind Read More... Just As Long As You Don't Touch Copyright

from the nice-try dept

So it appears that late last week, the MPAA realized that their whole stance on trying to block the approval of an important copyright treaty for helping the visually impaired and the blind gain more access to works was a PR nightmare, and decided to put out a joint statement with the National Federation for the Blind. Apparently, Chris Dodd's initial weak attempt at claiming that it loved helping the blind, despite working hard to stop the treaty, wasn't enough. Of course, the new "joint statement" is really more of the same when you peel back the basics.

We fully support a Treaty that facilitates access to published works in the form of text, notation and/or related illustrations for the blind and print disabled to address the book famine wherein the blind and print disabled have access to less than five percent of published works worldwide.

Then why have your lobbyists been the key blockade in that very agreement for years?

The Treaty must achieve two overarching goals: creating exceptions and limitations in copyright law which allow published works to be converted into formats accessible to the blind and print disabled, and permitting accessible copies of published works to be shared across international borders.

Yup. And that's what's been on the table for quite some time. And you know who's made sure to hold it up? Yes, the MPAA.

Ultimately, we believe it should be for signatories to determine how they will implement the Treaty in accordance with their legal and administrative traditions. We underscore that this important Treaty must not be a vehicle for extraneous agendas. The goal remains, as it has been since the outset, a meaningful treaty to create greater access to published works for the visually impaired.

Again, then you shouldn't have been blocking what's on the table for a while. Furthermore, it's kind of funny to see the MPAA now say that it wants countries to "determine how they will implement the Treaty in accordance with their legal and administrative traditions." Because that's the exact opposite position that the MPAA takes on other copyright efforts, like ACTA/TPP/etc. where the goal is to force the US's way on other countries. Hell, the MPAA has spent years telling other countries they need to add "digital locks" provisions to copyright law, even when that was inconsistent with their own legal and administrative positions. Basically, the MPAA is lying here. They only want that "flexibility" when we're talking about giving the public more rights, because they know they have enough sway with various governments such that those governments will block any meaningful changes to copyright law to allow more access to works by the blind.

From there, they list out a bunch of "core principles" that any treaty must follow, most of which are completely uncontroversial. But the two at the end are the ones that the MPAA is really focused on is:

4. Ensure that the treaty will be fully consistent with international copyright norms.
5. Avoid addressing extraneous copyright issues not directly related to creating greater access to published works for the blind and print disabled.

Basically, the MPAA will ensure that "international copyright norms" doesn't allow for things like fair use or other rights of the public, preferring instead to lock everything down as much as possible. And the "extraneous copyright issues" are, basically, the rights of the public. The MPAA's not a big fan of all that.

It's great that the MPAA is now saying this kind of stuff, and it could have said all of this a couple years ago and we could have had this treaty in place way back then, because nothing they say goes against what's been on the table. So, let's see what happens in the next negotiations, and we'll see how helpful MPAA lobbyists really are in terms of completing this process....

Filed Under: blind, copyright, exceptions
Companies: mpaa, nfb

Blind Law School Dean Explains Why We Need The WIPO Copyright Treaty For The Blind

from the must-watch dept

As the MPAA and other copyright maximalist organizations continue to try to block the WIPO copyright treaty for the blind, which will make it easier for blind people around the globe to be able to access creative works, I was touched by this incredible video from Ron McCallum, the former dean at the University of Sydney Law School, where he is now an Emeritus Professor. McCallum has been blind since birth, and in the video he talks about how technology changed his life and allowed him to do so much -- and how important the treaty in question is, to allow that same revolution to help others, especially in less developed countries. It's touching and entertaining at the same time, and should make you wonder why the MPAA wants so badly to reject this treaty. Obviously, the MPAA doesn't hate blind people, but they're so ridiculously scared of any expansion of the rights of the public (things like fair use) that they'll block any and all moves in that direction, even if the collateral damage means that other Ron McCallums around the globe won't be able to have the wonderful experiences that he did.

Filed Under: blind, books, copyright, reading, ron mccallum, treaty, wipo
Companies: mpaa

Access Hollywood: Detailing A Hollywood Mogul's Connections To The White House

from the modern-politics dept

There's been plenty of talk about how the Democratic Party is strongly supported by Hollywood -- and MPAA boss Chris Dodd famously threatened politicians that Hollywood might not fund their campaigns if they didn't support SOPA. So it's quite interesting to see Mother Jones' detailed analysis of Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg's strong support of President Obama's last campaign. There's a lot of nuance in there, so this is not just a case of clear tit-for-tat political funding in exchange for political favors. The article states multiple times that Katzenberg doesn't really seem that focused on getting anything back for his efforts and money.

Katzenberg has said he wants nothing, personally or professionally, in exchange for his support of the president, and DreamWorks' DC agenda is hard to glean: The studio has no lobbyists and is not part of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

Later in the article, it notes that Chris Dodd asked Katzenberg to speak to Obama to find out his stance on SOPA in January of 2012, which was "mortifying" for Dodd, since Dreamworks is not a member of the MPAA. Katzenberg, who did support SOPA, still refused Dodd's request, but then did help to "soothe the egos" of other studio heads after Obama came out against SOPA, to make sure they kept funding him. As the article notes: "In the end, Katzenberg chose to help Obama win over his industry rather than helping his industry win over Obama."

Elsewhere:

Obama officials say they respect Katzenberg not only for his fundraising, but also because he has no specific "ask"—no ambassadorship to Switzerland, no regulatory tweak, no nights in the Lincoln Bedroom.

While that's good, the article does make clear two things: (1) even if he's not asking for anything specifically, he does have incredible clout, (2) the administration seems to want to keep wider Hollywood happy anyway, knowing that it will keep Katzenberg happy. In other words, even if Katzenberg's own motives are entirely pure, the possibility of policy pandering to him and his friends is high.

Obama takes Katzenberg's calls, and he and his political adviser, Andy Spahn, visited the White House almost 50 times between them during Obama's first term. (Not all of Spahn's visits had to do with Katzenberg.) It has also left him well positioned to advocate for his industry's and his company's interests in China's booming film market.

And, of course, lots of Democratic politicians now want to curry favor with Katzenberg and his friends, whether or not he asks for it.

Adds Paul Begala: "Every Democrat who has presidential ambitions is now going to beat a path straight for Jeffrey's door. Or they're too dumb to be president."

The end result, of course, are favorable deals even if they don't ask directly.

Yet it is hard to deny that he—along with Hollywood as a whole—has benefited from his connections. In the 2012 fiscal-cliff fight, for instance, the White House insisted Congress preserve a $430 million tax break for film studios that keep production jobs in the United States.

But, the much bigger deal, as the article explains, is how the administration, led by Joe Biden (of course), has helped clear the way for the Chinese market.

In July 2011, ahead of a trade visit to China, Vice President Joe Biden met with industry leaders who asked him to press their case. Biden, too, returned empty-handed. Seven months later, Xi Jinping, then China's leader-in-waiting, made his first official visit to America. On hand to greet him was Katzenberg, who scored a seat next to Xi at a State Department luncheon.

Later that week, Xi and Biden traveled to Los Angeles, and Katzenberg joined them for lunch with Gov. Brown. Biden spent the day pushing Xi on the film quota and profit sharing disputes. The White House wanted to bump the studios' portion from 13 percent to 27 percent, but as the negotiations intensified, Biden asked Katzenberg and Disney CEO Bob Iger what they could live with. Then Biden made Xi a new offer: 25 percent. Xi agreed, and he also said China would let in 14 more foreign-made 3-D and IMAX movies each year.

Katzenberg was simultaneously working on a $350 million deal to open Oriental DreamWorks, a new animation studio in Shanghai—and it couldn't happen without Xi's approval. That same day, at a US-China economic forum held at a downtown LA hotel, Katzenberg officially unveiled the project—and proudly announced that it now bore Xi's personal endorsement.

Having the VP of the US personally negotiate a huge deal like that for you is certainly a nice side benefit.

There's a lot more in the profile, which is really worth reading in full. It seems pretty clear that, unlike some who donate heavily, it really doesn't seem like Katzenberg is funding Obama because he wants something back directly, but rather because he believes in Obama himself. But what's most interesting to me is that, even if that's the case, the end results are almost still the same thing. Even without specific policy desires or asks, because of the money on the line, politicians (especially those vying for that money in the future) often feel they need to heed the general desires of the industry in order to keep that money flowing. That, alone, at least gives the appearance of corruption. Or, as Larry Lessig has called it repeatedly, "soft corruption." It's not the out and out bribery that many people think, but rather the overall set up that generally incentivizes behavior in the direction that favors the funders, even if it's at the expense of the public.

Of course, in the end what this comes down to, as always, is the issue of money and politics, and how it turns a democratic process into one in which those with more dollars have a lot more power and say. And that's still a big problem.

Filed Under: china, corruption, democrats, funding, hollywood, influence peddling, jeffrey katzenberg, lobbying, money in politics, politics, president obama, soft corruption, sopa
Companies: dreamworks, mpaa

Petition Asks Obama To Support Treaty For The Blind, Rather Than Siding With Hollywood

from the where-do-you-stand dept

During the course of President Obama's administration, he has gone back and forth over support for the WIPO treaty for the blind, which would make it easier for vision impaired people to get copies of books that they can read (allowing legally made copies to be shared across borders). It's a pretty simple proposition, and while the White House had announced support for the agreement back in 2009, the people who were responsible for that position were later replaced by content industry folks, who suddenly changed the administration's position on the treaty. Since then, the administration has been responsible for blocking the treaty from getting done. And, of course, we've seen the MPAA celebrate this lack of a treaty, because it sees any attempt to negotiate a treaty that includes "exceptions" to copyright (i.e., rights of the public) expanded as a problem.

With the next round of negotiations set to take place soon in Morocco, a "We the People" petition has been set up to ask President Obama to side with the blind, rather than the MPAA.

Less than 1% of printed works globally are accessible to the blind. This is because laws around the world bar printed material from being turned into formats useable by the blind and visually impaired, or for such material to be shared across borders.

That’s why 186 countries will soon convene in Morocco to finalize a Treaty that would empower the world’s nearly 300 million blind citizens with the same rights to read, learn, and earn that the sighted enjoy. However, huge and powerful corporations – many wholly unaffected by the proposed Treaty – are working to fatally weaken it or block its adoption.

Ask the President to compel US negotiators to fight for a strong Treaty that gives blind people equal access to books and doesn't burden those who want to provide them. Please sign today!

It may be difficult to get to 100,000 signatures, but We The People petitions have previously been successful in getting the administration to come out against SOPA and against the Library of Congress' decision to say that unlocking mobile phones is a form of copyright infringement.

Filed Under: blind, copyright, petition, president obama
Companies: mpaa

MPAA Freaks Out: Insists That Having To Consider Fair Use Before Filing A DMCA Takedown Would Be Crazy

from the oh-really-now? dept

Oh, there go the wacky lawyers at the MPAA again. Last week we noted that a key fight may be shaping up concerning the contours of Section 512(f) of the DMCA -- the clause that is supposed to allow people to fight back against bogus DMCA takedowns. The details of the fight itself are pretty silly -- basically two angry bloggers fighting with each other -- but the underlying legal issue is of critical importance. As we've noted, to date, 512(f) has been rendered almost entirely toothless, such that tons of completely bogus DMCA notices are filed all the time, stifling free speech. Here was a case that might actually allow a 512(f) win, and provide some further basis for future responses to abusive DMCA takedowns.

Is it really any surprise that the MPAA suddenly took notice of the case after the EFF filed an amicus brief? The MPAA had to step in and argue why it should be allowed to continued to file millions of DMCA takedowns without having to be that careful about bogus takedowns, because actually having to make sure a work is infringing would be too much work. So, the MPAA basically says, "we should be allowed to stifle free speech with no consequence because OMG PIRACY@!@!!" Yes, that's a paraphrase, but that's the crux of the MPAA's argument.

The MPAA respectfully submits that such an interpretation of § 512(f) is wrong and threatens to cause significant harms that Congress could not possibly have intended. The MPAA's interest in this matter is not academic. The MPAA and its members confront the piracy of their works by Internet actors on a massive global scale. One of the only means that the MPAA and its members have to ensure that Internet services that carry, host, or link to such content take steps not to facilitate such rampant piracy is through the DMCA's notice-and-takedown provisions. The rule that Plaintiff and Amici advocate, if carried to its logical conclusion, would impose significant and unwarranted burdens on copyright owners like the MPAA and its members who unfortunately must send literally millions of takedown notices every year to combat the mass infringement of their works on the Internet.

That's both wrong and ridiculous. It's not an "unwarranted burden" to ask DMCA filers to actually check to make sure a file is infringing. It's the whole freaking point. What's really going on here is that the MPAA is finally realizing that its now-common practice of hiring companies like DtecNet to send automated takedowns might run afoul of 512(f) because the computer programs aren't taking into account things like fair use.

So, the basic point that the MPAA is making is silly and wrong.

They're also flat out wrong on the law. The issue here, once again, is that the MPAA insists that fair use is only an "affirmative defense," and thus it has no reason to consider it before filing a DMCA takedown.

Fair use is an affirmative defense. It excuses conduct that otherwise is actionable as infringement, as the Supreme Court, the First Circuit, and numerous other courts and the Copyright Act’s legislative history have made clear.

But that is not what the law actually says. It does not say that it "excuses conduct that otherwise is actionable as infringement." Section 107 of the Copyright Act says:

... the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

This is important. The law does not say that this it is an infringement, but "excused." It says it is not an infringement. If it's not an infringement, then it means that the use is authorized. And that's the key to the whole issue here, because 512(f) says you can be liable for damages if you misrepresent "that material or activity is infringing." Infringing. Again, fair use is not infringing. So if it is a clear case of fair use (and we agree that not all cases of fair use are clear), then not considering fair use whereby one would recognize that the use is authorized, and still filing the DMCA takedown, would be a misrepresentation that the work is infringing.

This isn't just me making this up. It's what the court said in the Stephanie Lenz case as well:

Here, the Court concludes that the plain meaning of “authorized by law” is unambiguous. An activity or behavior “authorized by law” is one permitted by law or not contrary to law. Though Congress did not expressly mention the fair use doctrine in the DMCA, the Copyright Act provides explicitly that “the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 107. Even if Universal is correct that fair use only excuses infringement, the fact remains that fair use is a lawful use of a copyright. Accordingly, in order for a copyright owner to proceed under the DMCA with “a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law,” the owner must evaluate whether the material makes fair use of the copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v). An allegation that a copyright owner acted in bad faith by issuing a takedown notice without proper consideration of the fair use doctrine thus is sufficient to state a misrepresentation claim pursuant to Section 512(f) of the DMCA. Such an interpretation of the DMCA furthers both the purposes of the DMCA itself and copyright law in general. In enacting the DMCA, Congress noted that the “provisions in the bill balance the need for rapid response to potential infringement with the end-users [sic] legitimate interests in not having material removed without recourse.”

The MPAA's desired interpretation of 512(f) is basically an attempt to reject the Lenz ruling entirely... and, more importantly, to make sure that almost no case could ever qualify for 512(f) damages. Which is exactly what they want: to be able to brush off all of the bogus DMCA notices they send without ever having to fear reprisal for stifling someone's speech.

I guess this is one more to add to the pile of evidence showing how absolutely ridiculous it is when the MPAA pretends it's a defender of fair use. A defender of fair use wouldn't support an interpretation of 512(f) that basically allows for DMCA takedowns on clearly fair use situations. And yet that's exactly what the MPAA is arguing for here.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, dmca abuse, fair use, takedowns
Companies: mpaa

MPAA Accused Of Tampering With Evidence In Key Copyright Case In Finland

from the above-the-law dept

Once again, it appears that folks in the MPAA seem to believe that they are completely above the law. In an interesting revelation in a big copyright case in Finland it came out during the trial that important evidence was tampered with, and when asked about it, IFPI officials who were in the courtroom said that it was an MPAA exec who was in the room with them when it happened, though they declined to name the exec.

The case involved some servers in Finland that were apparently used by a warez group there called Angel Falls. The tampered evidence came out when an expert investigator was on the stand, and showed some video of his investigation. However, the defense pointed out that the username in the video did not match up with the relevant entry in the logfile, at which point it was revealed that the MPAA exec had tampered with the evidence in an attempt to cover the tracks of the "user" who was a part of the investigation. According to TorrentFreak's summary of the events:

The video, a screencast of the investigation, showed a particular username accessing an Angel Falls FTP server. However, the corresponding text log for the same event showed a completely different username.

“When the IFPI investigator was asked about this he acknowledged that the names did not match. He said that the Finnish anti-piracy people and IFPI had collected the information together, but there was also an MPAA executive in the room while the evidence gathering took place,” Hietanen explains.

The IFPI investigator was then asked to reveal the name of the MPAA executive. He declined, but did offer an explanation for the inconsistencies in the evidence.

In an apparent attempt to hide the identity of one of their spies, the MPAA executive edited the evidence gathered during the session.

“The IFPI investigator handed over the evidence material to the MPAA senior executive who then changed the text file before the anti-piracy organization handed over the evidence to the Finnish police,” Hietanen says.

Incredibly, the MPAA exec had not told the defense of this change, which is why it came out in court when they spotted it. This has resulted in the police starting an investigation into possible evidence tampering (they found 10 changes to the files), as well as the overall case ending in a less spectacular fashion than the MPAA and IFPI had clearly hoped. Two of the defendants were acquitted entirely, while the other four were given suspended sentences. The plaintiffs' request for 6 million euros also was knocked all the way down to merely 45,000 euros.

Still, the really incredible thing here are the actions of the MPAA and their continued apparent belief that they are entirely above the law, so long as they're pursuing someone they feel is involved in copyright infringement. It calls into question the "evidence" presented in other cases as well.

Filed Under: finland
Companies: mpaa

Chris Dodd Says The MPAA Loves Helping The Blind; It's Just Not Going To Weaken Copyright Protection To Do It

from the good-guy-MPAA-wants-to-help-but-doesn't-want-to-make-any-real-effort dept

It looks as if the MPAA might be a bit sensitive about its new "enemy of the blind" status, a title it picked up during its lobbyists' recent visit to the White House. Chris Dodd has penned a slightly defensive op-ed for the Huffington Post defending the MPAA's undying support for the opening access to the blind lobbying to keep the status completely quo. Here's what Dodd is defending (and insisting we're all misunderstanding):

[L]obbyists for the MPAA and publishers have been all over the White House, demanding a retreat from compromises made in February, and demanding that the Obama Administration push new global standards for technical protection measures, strip the treaty text of any reference to fair use and fair dealing, and impose new financial liabilities on libraries that serve blind people...

To be fair, Chris Dodd doesn't actually defend these actions. In fact, his very short piece doesn't refer to the lobbyists' actions at all. Instead, he claims the MPAA has been a friend to the blind all along, and one of the first to support "accessible-format copies" in "participating countries."

The MPAA doesn't have it in for the blind, Dodd says. It's just a bunch of (unnamed) "groups" falsely painting his upstanding organization as the villain.

Unfortunately, however, some groups have sought to use this meaningful treaty as a vehicle to weaken copyright and ultimately undermine the global marketplace WIPO is charged with strengthening. Such groups have advocated for the inclusion of certain provisions that would establish lower thresholds for copyright protection and weaken certain means used for protecting copyright works. When content owners voiced their concerns with these provisions, these groups attempted to inaccurately portray content owners as being opposed to the treaty.

"Inaccurately," eh? Well, if they weren't opposed to this treaty, you'd think something would have been passed by now. The administration took a stand against making exceptions for the blind all the way back in 2009 and ever since then has withheld its approval thanks to pressure from publishers and other content owners. So, while we could say "the administration" is opposed to the treaty, the reality is it's the content industries making the push.

Dodd says this:

We believe that access for the blind to books and other publications is a cause worth promoting.

But follows it up with this.

We also believe in the fundamental principles of copyright that empower creators and encourage creativity around the world.

"Fundamental principles" obviously don't include fair use (of which the MPAA is a fair-weather friend) or DMCA exceptions. Then, he drops this disingenuous sentence.

Unlike those who seek to weaken copyright protection, we believe these two objectives are not mutually exclusive.

Nice try, Dodd. These groups you refuse to name don't believe these two objectives are mutually exclusive, either. Providing access to the blind doesn't mean destroying copyright, but to certain content owners, any perceived "weakening" is treated as a full-scale assault. The MPAA may state publicly, as Dodd does here, that access for the blind is a "cause worth promoting," but it (along with major publishers) has shown very little interest in actually following through on this empathetic statement.

Strong copyright laws also benefit consumers by promoting free markets and incentivizing innovation, both of which are hallmarks of a healthy global economy.

"Strong copyright laws" do not promote free markets and actually stifle innovation, so they do not "benefit consumers" (and, obviously, not the blind). If Chris Dodd really wants to do something for the blind, he should use some of that lobbyist power he has at his disposal to lean on the more reluctant members of the copyright industries, rather than join them in defending copyright from all comers -- even the blind.

Filed Under: chris dodd
Companies: mpaa