MPAA: Millions Of DMCA Takedowns Proves That Google Needs To Stop Piracy

from the huh? dept

The delusions of the MPAA are really impressive sometimes. For years, they've been pushing to make search engines like Google liable for blocking sites they don't like. That was a key provision in SOPA -- that it would force "information location services" to disappear links to sites deemed "dedicated" to infringement. Of course, as we've noted, it was only after SOPA failed that Hollywood finally started using the tools already available to it to ask Google to remove links to infringing works. At the same time, we noted that the fact that Google is now processing an astounding 2.5 million DMCA takedown notices a week suggests that something is really, really broken. We meant copyright law itself -- but our good friends at the MPAA went in the other direction, and suggested it showed how Google needs to do more, and how artists are overly burdened by the DMCA:

There is a staggering amount of copyright infringement taking place every day online and much of it is facilitated by Google, as their own data shows. According to Google, they receive 2.5 million takedown requests per week – and that data does not even include YouTube, where an enormous amount of infringement takes place. That means that by Google’s own accounting, millions of times each week creators are forced to raise a complaint with Google that the company is facilitating the theft of their work and ask that the infringing work or the link to that work be removed. Often, even when the links are removed, they pop right back up a few hours later. That’s not a reasonable -- or sustainable -- system for anyone....

We couldn’t agree more with Google that this data shows that our current system is not working – for creators, or for Google. But we can’t lose sight of the fact that it also confirms the important role that Google has to play in helping curb the theft of creative works while protecting an Internet that works for everyone. We look forward to continuing to work with them to tackle this urgent challenge.

Now, I agree that it's difficult for copyright holders (often not the actual creators, as the MPAA falsely implies) to have to monitor and track all of this stuff. That's a big burden. But... the MPAA ridiculously implies that there are only two options here: (1) "Creators" keep filing DMCA takedowns or (2) Google has to do more. That ignores reality in multiple ways. First off, the staggering number of bogus takedowns highlights the key point that we've made all along, which is that the only party who actually knows if a work is infringing is the copyright holder -- and even then, they often seem to get confused. Somehow thinking that a third party with no direct knowledge can somehow do more or should be more responsible is a little silly.

But the bigger issue is that this assumes -- as the MPAA always seems to assume -- that the only response to infringement is "more enforcement." What it seems to refuse to consider is that there's another path: it's the path in which the MPAA studios stop focusing so much on beating everyone with a stick, and start fixing the broken parts of their business model. Time and time again the evidence shows that if you offer people what they want, at a reasonable price, and with convenience, they pay -- and the "problem" of copyright infringement shrinks to being minimal (or, in some cases, it actually helps you). So, a rational individual or organization would look at the scale of the "problem" that the MPAA is talking about, along with all of the historical data on how little enforcement does to get people to actually buy -- and realize that perhaps that strategy is a mistake. Even the MPAA admits in this very post that the works often pop back up online.

Maybe -- just maybe -- the problem isn't search engines not doing enough, but rather the strategy that focuses on the stick of enforcement, rather than the carrot of providing consumers more of what they want. I recognize it's a crazy idea, especially at the MPAA -- where they have a whole freaking division of "content protection" VPs who need to justify their giant salaries, rather than a division for helping filmmakers embrace useful business models -- but it seems like a more productive path forward.

Oh, and one other thing. Could the MPAA stop with its bullshit claims that enforcing copyright couldn't possibly have an impact on free speech? This blog post has this in it:

One thing that’s important to make clear in any serious discussion about tackling online theft: absolutely no one is advocating for the restriction of speech on the Internet. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of the Internet, and a cornerstone of the film community, which has spent the last century advocating for artists to be able to express themselves freely on the screen. Removing infringing works online isn’t limiting access to information or ideas, it's ensuring that the creativity and hard work that went into making a film is encouraged to flourish.

If the only thing taken down due to copyright claims was "infringing works," they'd have a point. But it's not. Copyright claims are used all the time to censor or take down sites or content that people just don't like. That's the concern. The massive expansion of copyright law and broad tools like the DMCA's notice-and-takedown lead to massive amounts of collateral damage that -- absolutely and without question -- infringe on free speech rights. Until the MPAA is willing to acknowledge that simple fact, it's difficult to take the organization seriously.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, strategy, takedowns
Companies: google, mpaa

Entertainment Industry Mourns The End Of 'Hollywood' Howard Berman Being Their Personal Voice In Congress

from the time-to-get-with-the-times dept

We noted after the election that Hollywood's absolute favorite elected official -- "Hollywood" Howard Berman -- lost his seat. He was often referred to as "the Representative from Disney" for his unwavering support of passing legislation that helped the big Hollywood studios and record labels over the public interest. For many of us interested in the public benefit, his loss seemed like a good deal -- but, of course, for folks at the big movie studios and record labels, it was a disaster. Just witness this unintentionally hilarious Politico piece by former MPAA exec and current Universal Music 'Executive VP of Public Policy,' Matt Gerson, which read like a love letter to Berman, where he reveals what everyone knew already: that Berman and the MPAA were apparently in constant communication, with Berman regularly being called into MPAA meetings to help.

I first met Howard Berman when I was with the Motion Picture Association of America. I remember Jack Valenti uttering a phrase that I would hear repeatedly over 20 years: “What does Howard think?” When we have an idea for a compromise, someone runs it by Howard. When we develop a strategy, someone is tasked to get Howard’s reaction. When we speak with his congressional colleagues, the usual response from Democrats and Republicans alike is, “Let me grab Howard on the floor and see what he is thinking.”

The article is also a little wacky, in that it both highlights Berman's supposed "attention to detail," as well as his apparently frequent failures to know the names of the people he was talking about.

Either way, you can understand why the legacy entertainment industry companies are sad to be losing such a close "friend," but aren't we all a little better off with Representatives who actually pay attention to what's best for the public, rather than just what's best for a few companies?

Filed Under: congress, copyright, howard berman, matt gerson, politics
Companies: mpaa, universal music

MPAA To Aussies: Obey US Created Copyright Rules! But Don't Even Think About Importing Fair Use

from the we-write-your-laws dept

As reported here back in August, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) is taking a long, hard look at current copyright laws and has been gathering submissions from a variety of businesses and rights holders in response to 55 copyright-related questions. The submissions have been posted at the ALRC website for public view.

Unsurprisingly, many representatives of legacy industries have responded with suggestions that the status quo be protected and any major or minor modifications of current law in favor of "fair dealing" or "exceptions" be discarded immediately. If any changes have to be made, these industries would prefer that they skew entirely in their direction. For some reason, the MPAA has chimed in, despite the fact that this entity's views on copyright are widely known, thanks to the fact that it never, ever shuts up about it. 

The MPAA's response (RTF) opens up with stating it support of the Australian Film Bodies' views, before gently (but firmly) reminding the ALRC that Australia signed some very skewed and restrictive trade agreements with the US, lest there be any questions about which country's rules it should be following.

While both the Terms of Reference and the “Guiding Principles” make reference to Australia’s copyright law obligations with respect to copyright, it is important to recognize that these are not simply random or uncoordinated requirements with which Australia has agreed to comply. Australia is an active participant in an evolving international dialogue that articulates comprehensive norms and minimum standards for participation in an dynamic global marketplace in works of authorship and other copyright materials... In addition, the copyright and enforcement provisions of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) are of particular significance, not only because AUSFTA was, at the time of its adoption, a state-of-the-art pact between Australia and one of its most important trading partners, but also because it has contributed significantly to the template for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement negotiations, in which Australia is now actively engaged along with ten other trading partners around the Pacific Rim.

The MPAA goes on to point out that the "three-step test" for limitations and exceptions to existing copyright law means that no one's going to be creating blanket exemptions for "private use" or "backup copies" which, according to the MPAA "falls well short of compliance with global norms." The MPAA also warns the ALRC to not get any funny ideas about adopting American-style "fair use," something it enjoys using ("MPA members, who, after all, are users as well as creators of copyrighted works, depend upon it in their business and creative operations...") much more than it enjoys being forced to respect it.

The enactment as part of Australian law of a new system based on the fair use doctrine would not bring with it this century and a half of judicial precedent that allows counsel, and the companies and individuals they advise, to rely upon the doctrine. Indeed, at its introduction, the new system would be unsupported by any binding precedent at all.

Hmm. I would imagine our fair use doctrine began without any binding precedent as well, because when things start, it's usually on the ground floor. Then there's this bit of hypocrisy, considering the MPAA spent a couple of paragraphs reminding the ALRC that it was subject to trade agreements composed by the USTR, an American entity.

Since it is inconceivable that, as part of any new system of copyright exceptions in Australia, its courts would be directed to slavishly follow U.S. precedent, it is inescapable that there would be considerable uncertainty about the resolution of claims based on the new system in Australian courts. This is likely to create a deleterious level of unpredictability for copyright owners, copyright users, and the public. Whatever social benefits might fairly be attributed to the fair use doctrine under U.S. law would be unlikely to survive the passage across the Pacific to Australia. 

"Inconceivable." The MPAA keeps using that word. I do not think it means what it thinks it means. The MPAA has clearly pushed for Australia, along with many other countries, to follow US precedent when it comes to copyright length, restrictions and enforcement. Those negative aspects seem to "survive the passage" without any deleterious effects. But somehow, "fair use" just can't make the trip unscathed.

Judging by the followup paragraph, it looks like the only reason fair use couldn't make its way across the ocean is because the MPAA would have its boat scuttled and its crew tossed overboard to be eaten by shrieking eels. Here's the MPAA's real fear: someone might get something for free!

An additional uncertainty involves the impact of a change in Australian law on existing licensing agreements. Since the likely purpose, and even more likely a result, of borrowing from fair use to amend Australian law would be to expand, at least to some degree, the scope and applicability of exceptions to copyright protection, it is almost inevitable that some licensees would be compelled to re-examine whether they any longer needed to obtain a license for particular uses, or whether they could instead rely upon the expanded exception resulting from the new fair use provision. 

The MPAA states that any new exemptions would "destabilize settled markets for the licensing of copyrighted material." Good old MPAA. It loves "settled markets." The IP world has been changing very quickly over the last 15 years, but the MPAA's ongoing response is determined stasis, making it look for all the world like a plate spinner who's down to his last plate, but is spinning the HELL out of it, all the while yelling "NOBODY TOUCH ANYTHING!" 

Filed Under: australia, copyright, copyright reform, fair use
Companies: mpaa

MPAA To USTR: More Shutdowns Like Megaupload, Please

from the protectionism-at-its-finest dept

The USTR has released the various comments sent in for its annual "notorious markets" report. This is related to its annual Special 301 report, and it's where the USTR basically takes the list of sites and countries that the entertainment industry (and the pharmaceutical industry) don't like... and declares them "notorious" for not doing enough to please the execs in those industries in cracking down on infringement. TorrentFreak points us to the latest filing from the MPAA, which is chock full of... not a single surprise. Basically it just names all the websites that it doesn't like because they challenge its business model. Same old story. But where it gets a little interesting is where the MPAA gleefully talks up how totally awesome it was when the feds shut down Megaupload, and implies that life would be that much grander if the feds did that kind of thing more often:

This year's seizures of Megaupload.com and Megavideo.com by the Department of Justice illustrate the extent and impact that hosting hubs have on the online landscape. Prior to the seizures, Megavideo.com (Alexa 177) and Megaupload.com (Alexa 72) were estimated to receive 3,447,7741 and 2,640,8452 unique visitors each month, respectively. Megaupload.com alone was estimated to have consumed 11.4% of the Internet bandwidth in Brazil. When these two websites were taken down, many linking websites, custom search engines, and custom streaming scripts that relied on the sites for content became inoperable. Some websites were abandoned by their operators, others lost traffic, while still others shifted their business model. For example, Wupload.com (Alexa 918), which was featured in MPAA's filing last year, disabled file sharing. Affiliate programs that paid uploaders for content were also discontinued or removed by many hubs. Further, infringing content was purged by operators in bulk, which was followed by uploaders who deleted their own files to prevent the hubs from profiting on the uploads without paying incentives. In sum, the impact of these seizures was massive and the hub landscape is still recovering.

I have to admit that I'm not sure I understand the comma notation in those unique visitor numbers (don't you normally put a comma every 3 digits rather than 4? Is that a phone number? Are they talking about 3.4 million or 34 million?).

But, either way, the whole bit of glee over Megaupload is fairly unseemly given a few key points. First off, the absolute disaster of the case against Megaupload so far. Eventually, they may get their act together, but to date, it's involved missing or destroyed evidence, questions about the warrant, illegal spying, more requests to destroy evidence and general attempts to demonize the people involved. While Megaupload may eventually be found guilty, that's far from certain at this point. All of these errors are certainly raising significant doubts about the DOJ's ability to understand what's actually happening.

And it's that last fact which highlights why the takedown process here is totally broken. Even if Megaupload is eventually cleared, the company will have lost more than a year (and likely more) to fight the lawsuit, and the company, as it is, is basically dead. It's still never been adequately explained why the MPAA can't do what the law requires, and take the targets to court, seeking an injunction. These aren't drug lords they're dealing with. They can be tracked down and found (without resorting to illegal spying). That's not to say the sites should be legal, necessarily. That's fact-specific. But, the idea that the US government, at the urging of Hollywood, should just take down a business, without letting the site owner even express their side, is so extreme as to be laughable. You would think that, given how badly this whole thing may backfire in its face, that MPAA would have started backing away from the whole "Megaupload is a perfect example" stump speech by now. But it seems to want to play out that lie for a while. To then play that up as a good example really suggests that the MPAA is in denial and still thinks that the scary caricature of Kim Dotcom that it has built up in the minds of Hollywood execs, is still a legitimate thing.

Filed Under: censorship, notorious markets, ustr
Companies: mpaa

$1.5 Billion In Taxpayer Funds Go Directly To Movie Studios Each Year... And Very Few Jobs Created

from the and-they're-complaining-about-what? dept

If you've been following MPAA boss Chris Dodd ever since the death of SOPA, you'll be aware of his stump speech. He seems to give it every chance he can: "the movie industry is all about jobs, jobs and more jobs." Of course, he lies about the number. He usually trots out his favorite 2.1 million figure, ignoring the fact that the Congressional Research Service showed it's really 374,000 people employed in the movie business.

What isn't mentioned so much (though, it depends on the audience) is the fact that various tax subsidies that different states pay to movie studios means that $1.5 billion in taxpayer money goes straight to Hollywood studios. Perhaps that would be justifiable if it created jobs. But the evidence there is actually lacking. That link involves the NY Times looking closely at Michigan, which not too long ago put in place massive subsidies for Hollywood to make movies in their state. The cost? Suffering Michigan citizens foot the bill. However, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm thought it was worth it because a local movie director wanted more work at home (and because, when she was younger, she had hoped to be a movie star). Lots of studios are looking to make movies in Michigan now, because the cash back from the state is way too lucrative to pass up.

Within two months, 24 movies had signed up to film in Michigan — up from two the entire year before. The productions estimated that they would spend $195 million filming there, and in return they would be refunded about $70 million in cash.

Before long, residents were rushing out on their lunch breaks to catch a glimpse of celebrities like Drew Barrymore, who was filming her movie “Whip It” in Ann Arbor, and Clint Eastwood, who was shooting “Gran Torino” in the Detroit area. Even Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called “Capitalism: A Love Story,” sought and received incentives.

But does it create jobs? Not really. The story is horrifying. It involves Hollywood hotshots continually demanding more and more subsidies from the state and insisting that jobs would be plentiful as soon as they could get things up and running, but balking any time anyone asked them to put the job promises in a contract:

Ms. Granholm declared the city in a financial crisis in February 2009 and appointed an emergency manager, Fred Leeb. The city’s budget was $54 million a year, but it was overspending by an estimated $7 million to $12 million. Pontiac was also still weighted down by old incentives it had given to businesses like G.M.

The movie studio was an added challenge, since it was seeking financial incentives from the city — not to mention from other branches of the government. It won redevelopment tax credits from the federal government and separate aid from the state that included incentives for technology companies that hire residents.

Job creation became a point of contention with beleaguered Pontiac, which was being asked to waive virtually all property taxes for the studio. The investors claimed that thousands of people would be employed, but Mr. Leeb said that when he asked for job numbers to be written into the contract, the investors refused. “We started seeing some backpedaling,” said Mr. Leeb, who added that the negotiations featured “knock-down, drag-out fights.”

But wanting to bring the big lights of Hollywood to Michigan, eventually the state agreed to it. Who paid for the subsidies? Former state workers basically were forced to bet their pensions on Hollywood:

Over the objections of some local officials, the state agreed to use the state workers’ pension funds to guarantee the bonds. If the investors failed to pay, the retirees would be on the hook.

And the promised jobs? Keep looking. Sure, some crews from LA flew in, but for locals? Almost none.

The studio had created only 200 positions by the summer of 2011, according to correspondence between the company and local officials. And when temporary construction workers were excluded from the tally, Pontiac’s records show, the studio reported only two employees in 2010 and 12 the next year.

Earlier, in the article, they note that this particular project was pushed through with the promise of 3,600 jobs. You don't do that by hiring two people one year and a dozen the next.

How about tax revenue from the local operations? Yeah, big Hollywood studios have ways of avoiding paying that sorta thing, even as they're collecting millions in local subsidies:

The city later had problems collecting some of the taxes because Disney operated through a separate business entity that was difficult to track down, he said.

“This is a glamorous industry if you want to talk about Hollywood, but it’s not very glamorous for the municipality that wants to collect something,” Mr. Schimmel said. Pontiac, he said, was outgunned.

Disney declined to comment.

And... soon after that, the studios moved on to other sexier states that suddenly offering up bigger incentives than Michigan. And who did it cost? Oh yeah: remember those state workers' pensions? Yup. Them.

When the bill for the studio’s bond interest came due in February this year, it paid only a portion, $210,000. The state pension fund had to pick up the remaining $420,000....

In August, the studio defaulted on the entire $630,000 payment on the bond, despite a decision by Mr. Snyder to temporarily allocate some film incentives.

All around, it's a horror story that's being repeated in other states and countries around the globe. Hollywood studios go around pitching "jobs!" and demanding special taxpayer-funded incentives, offering giving them millions to film in a certain location. The filmmakers take the subsidies, bring in crews from LA, hire a couple people here or there... and then move on, leaving a mess in their wake. And this is the industry that is demanding even more protection from the federal government via copyright law? When is enough enough?

Filed Under: chris dodd, economics, jobs, michigan, movies, subsidies, taxpayer
Companies: mpaa

That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform

from the so-that's-how-that-works dept

So, late Friday, we reported on how the Republican Study Committee (the conservative caucus of House Republicans) had put out a surprisingly awesome report about copyright reform. You can read that post to see the details. The report had been fully vetted and reviewed by the RSC before it was released. However, as soon as it was published, the MPAA and RIAA apparently went ballistic and hit the phones hard, demanding that the RSC take down the report. They succeeded. Even though the report had been fully vetted and approved by the RSC, executive director Paul S. Teller has now retracted it, sending out the following email to a wide list of folks this afternoon:

From: Teller, Paul
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 04:11 PM
Subject: RSC Copyright PB

We at the RSC take pride in providing informative analysis of major policy issues and pending legislation that accounts for the range of perspectives held by RSC Members and within the conservative community. Yesterday you received a Policy Brief on copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard. Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand. As the RSC’s Executive Director, I apologize and take full responsibility for this oversight. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and a meaningful Thanksgiving holiday....

Paul S. Teller
Executive Director
U.S. House Republican Study Committee
Paul.Teller@mail.house.gov
http://republicanstudycommittee.com

The idea that this was published "without adequate review" is silly. Stuff doesn't just randomly appear on the RSC website. Anything being posted there has gone through the same full review process. What happened, instead, was that the entertainment industry's lobbyists went crazy, and some in the GOP folded.

Frankly, if they wanted to win back the youth vote, this was exactly how not to do it. If you just look through the comments on our post on the original, or through the Twitter response to this report, there were tons of people -- many of whom were lifelong Democrats -- claiming that they would switch parties if the GOP stuck with this. Instead, they folded like a cheap card table in less than 24 hours.

In the long run, that's going to hurt the GOP, because the people who were suddenly interested in supporting the GOP will assume that any such effort is subject to a similar bait-and-switch. Meanwhile, this leaves open an opportunity for the Democrats as well. The Republicans just came close to becoming the party that actually listened to what was important to young people today -- and they quickly changed their mind. The Democrats can sweep in and take the issue since apparently it's there for the taking. All they have to do is be willing to tell some Hollywood lobbyists to pipe down.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright reform, gop, lobbyists, rsc
Companies: mpaa, riaa

Biden Takes Part In MPAA Board Meeting; Suggests Studios Tell Paying Customers They're Thieves

from the that'll-teach-them dept

For all their talk about piracy and yearly losses measured in billions, the big movie studios sure do seem to enjoy smacking their paying customers around with anti-piracy warnings and ads. Consider the poor sucker who actually went out and paid cash money for the latest shiny disc and now has to watch a multitude of eagle-laden logos and horrible analogies parade unskippably across his or her screen before finally being allowed to watch the unskippable trailers before finally being allowed to watch 15 seconds of unskippable animation before they can actually watch the movie they're now regretting having shelled out actual retail price for.

Now, 20th Century Fox has found a new way to pack up paying viewers for another guilt trip, all expenses paid (by the viewer.) If the viewers failed to pick up on any of the front-loaded anti-piracy "education," they're now being graced with a reminder of the "true cost of piracy" right as they exit the theater.

It's hard for Hollywood to explain to consumers about the losses to the movie industry caused by piracy. Especially when talking heads like studio moguls and government officials try and fail. So kudos to Ted Gagliano, president of 20th Century Fox feature post-production, who began putting end cards on the studio's movies like this one.

I agree. It is hard to explain to consumers about these losses, especially when so many highly successful movies have failed to turn a profit. It's also hard to explain things using imaginative interpretations of severely extrapolated data that turns the kid bagging your groceries into the equivalent of an executive producer.

This bit of information could conceivably deter a few people from rushing right home and onto the internetz for the "home version." When they see that many people worked many hours, the few not shouting "Citation, needed!" will sleep the sleep of angels, knowing their full retail price ticket purchases will keep the grocery bagger off the street at least one day longer. Their sleep will be even more angelic when they realize who's behind this new idea.

Twentieth Century Fox Film Chairman/CEO Jim Gianopulos tells me that the end card anti-piracy project was suggested by the Obama administration. "It was actually an idea of Vice President Biden's when we visited him during a MPAA Board meeting earlier this year. We thought it was an excellent suggestion and adopted the idea and will continue for all movies going forward."

Yes. An elected official in the second most powerful position in the world took time out of his busy schedule to help out some buddies of his who looked like they could use a hand: the always-right-on-death's-doorstep movie industry. And the fact that Joe Biden sits in on MPAA board meetings should concern no one in the slightest, especially when it comes time to discuss things that affect the movie industry -- like free trade agreements that value draconian IP protection over all else.

There's not much real estate left for anti-piracy infotainment. The front end has had it for years. This takes care of the back. Maybe they'll start popping up factoids and warnings at the bottom of the screen during the actual running time, making the movie-going experience indistinguishable from a night in front of broadcast television. Or maybe they're just waiting for the President himself to suggest that one. Perhaps at the next MPAA board meeting.

Filed Under: end cards, joe biden, movie industry
Companies: mpaa

MPAA & Megaupload Want In On Hearing Over Whether Former User Can Get His Data Back

from the jockeying dept

In the ongoing saga of all of the Megaupload servers that the federal government seized and then handed back to hosting company Carpathia, telling them to effectively destroy them (and with it all sorts of important evidence in the Megaupload case), the judge is considering holding a hearing to dig into some of the questions raised by the case -- leading a few motions to be filed. The first, of course is by Kyle Goodwin, represented by the EFF, over his desire to get his data back. The filing also raises significant questions about the entire situation:

... the available record already shows that the government acted (and continues to act) with a callous disregard for third-party property rights in data stored on Megaupload. For example, the government knew Megaupload operated a data storage business, and thus held the property of third parties lawfully using Megaupload’s storage services. The government knew its search and seizure of Megaupload’s assets would deprive such third parties of the ability to access and retrieve their property. In seizing domain names and executing the search warrant at Carpathia, the government took constructive possession of all the third-party owned data it had seized and to which it had prevented (and continues to prevent) access by their owners. The government then “released” the third-party owned data in a manner that deliberately made the data both inaccessible to property owners and subject to government-sanctioned destruction, while at the same time blocking all reasonable efforts to allow access.

These failings are striking given that the government is well familiar with the need to accommodate third-party Fourth Amendment rights through minimization when it executes searches and seizures, especially of electronic material.

Of course, Goodwin isn't the only one asking the court to pay attention. Megaupload itself pointed out that it should be included in any such hearing, even though it's technically outside of this part of the dispute. It notes that if the courts order the data retrieval, someone who understands what's on the servers and how to find the relevant material would be helpful. Furthermore, the company is concerned about how the servers will be handled, since it still believes there's useful evidence there that the DOJ appears to want to destroy.

Of course, if Megaupload is filing for something, you shouldn't be surprised to find out that the MPAA is right behind with its own filing, warning that it wants to be sure that the court magically make sure that no infringement occurs if anyone can access their backup data. We've heard this story before, but here it goes again.

... any remedy granted should not compound the massive infringing conduct already at issue in this criminal litigation.... Additionally, if it would be helpful to the Court to consider evidence from the MPAA or its members on such issues as the lack of authorization for the reproduction and/or distribution of their works via Megaupload, or the overwhelming amount of infringement of the MPAA members’ copyrighted work on Megaupload, they will of course cooperate.

Of course, the issue right here has nothing to do with the MPAA's fears about infringement. It's about getting someone back the legitimate data they have on the servers. Why would the MPAA fight so hard against that?

I would imagine this is going to drag on for a while.

Filed Under: kyle goodwin
Companies: megaupload, mpaa

Hollywood Star Rosario Dawson Speaks Out Against Hollywood's 'Six Strikes' Plan

from the speak-out dept

To hear the MPAA and RIAA tell the story, they represent "the entertainment world." They like to pretend that they represent all of the actual content creators, but more and more people are realizing the truth: they represent the legacy gatekeepers, who have often done more to screw over the actual artists than to help them. So, as we get closer and closer to the silly "six strikes" plan that the MPAA and RIAA worked out with ISPs, it's good to see that some of those they pretend to represent are speaking out against the plan. Actress Rosario Dawson has taken to Twitter to speak out against the plan:

ISPs caving to copyright holders- could shut off your Internet if you're accused of piracy...! bit.ly/VRNLFa via @demandprogress

— Rosario Dawson (@rosariodawson) October 11, 2012

If you can't read that, it says:

ISPs caving to copyright holders- could shut off your Internet if you're accused of piracy...!

And then it links to DemandProgress' petition to the ISPs telling them not to support the six strikes plans or subscribers will take their business elsewhere. Of course, for too many customers, "elsewhere" isn't an option, thanks to a lack of a truly competitive market. Either way, as we saw with the SOPA fight, more and more artists -- musicians, actors, writers, etc. -- are making it clear that the RIAA & MPAA don't represent them, and they know part of these crazy plans that are being pushed in their names. Kudos to Dawson for speaking up.

Filed Under: hollywood, isps, rosario dawson, six strikes
Companies: mpaa, riaa

The MPAA's Problem In A Nutshell: Views Relationship With The Public As One Way

from the consume,-consume,-consume dept

We just wrote about some of the more questionable bits of Chris Dodd's appearance in San Francisco this week, with part of our complaint even being the venue. As impressive as the Commonwealth Club is in bringing in big name speakers, it's not a venue that actually attracts the people Dodd needs to talk to. The average age there was probably close to double my age and the non-press attendees seemed more interested in his take on the Presidential election than copyright policy. Dodd has now penned (well, probably some flunky wrote it for him) an opinion piece for Politico, in which he tries to claim that his visit to SF was about working together with the tech industry. Of course, the tech industry, for the most part, wasn't at the event. That's because most of them were a few blocks south of there, in the various incubators in SOMA working hard on new and innovative services.

Reading Dodd's column, it's pretty clear where the problem lies. He still thinks of the movie business and its relationship to the public as a one way thing: they deliver content that the public consumes. He's right to point out that the public is the ultimate boss for the entertainment industry, but he frames them, incorrectly, as consumers, rather than something more:

If there is one key point I hope the audience left with, it’s this: Despite what the media and the advocates on the extremes would have you believe, the content and technology communities are not adversaries, we’re partners. Our companies call them audiences and tech companies call them users, but giving consumers the best possible experience is our shared goal. In the end, we all report to the same people: consumers.

We both share a commitment to innovation. Developing fresh and interesting content, and new platforms for seamlessly delivering that content to audiences, is the lifeblood of both of our industries. That’s why Hollywood is partnering with Silicon Valley and others — from YouTube to Facebook to Netflix to Roku — to deliver our great content to screens of all sizes. In fact, every one of the studios that I represent at the Motion Picture Association of America has a distribution deal with Google. Partnerships with these tech companies are only growing. There are currently more than 350 unique, licensed online services that provide motion picture content to viewers around the world, including more than 60 in the U.S. alone.

Notice the language here. The public's job is only to consume what the MPAA delivers. It's all about distribution, in one direction only. There is no attempt to actually further listen to what the public says (in fact, Dodd has famously dismissed the concerns of the public, calling them thieves for wishing for better and easier access to content that they can share and build upon). There is no attempt to understand the public. It's all about shoving content to them in one direction.

But that's not how the media landscape works any more -- and this is a big part of the problem. Above all else, the internet is a communications platform, in that the conversation is multi-directional. Yes, part of that can be broadcast content, but the public wants to do much more. They want to discuss and share and have experiences with each other. And their concern over the MPAA's constant overreaching on things like copyright law are that the end result will actually prevent them from communicating and sharing.

If he were actually concerned about the public, he wouldn't just talk about shoving content to them, he'd be talking about understanding what they want, and that would mean actually talking to the public on the internet, where they live.

Take UltraViolet, for example. UltraViolet is technology that allows customers to purchase content in one form — digital or physical — and then watch it on any of their devices. UltraViolet is the result of a coordinated effort between dozens of content and tech companies — because all of these companies understand that it is in the best interest of their customers to ensure that people do not have to buy multiple forms of movies or shows.

Indeed, he spoke about UltraViolet over and over again at the event. But UltraViolet is really the shining example of the MPAA's wrong approach. It's an attempt not to deliver what the public really wants -- but to have the MPAA and some tech companies try to build a service that fits what Hollywood wants, while pretending to give the public some more control. It's just a new form of DRM. The fact that it's received mostly scathing reviews says it all. This wasn't designed with input from the public. It was yet another attempt to tell the public what it should like.

The tech community will be integral to helping solve this problem. It’s going to require cooperation and voluntary best practices from all interested parties. We saw some of that earlier this summer when Google altered its algorithm to de-emphasize pirated content. That was an important step because it recognizes the problem, and it recognizes Google’s ability to do something about it. It was not a silver bullet, and there’s much more to be done — but it was a good acknowledgment from Google that content theft is a problem and one that can be tackled.

Yes, the tech industry is important, but not nearly as important as the public. And Dodd has made little to no effort to actually hear from them. Just the fact that he thinks Google's decision to pervert its search results is an example of the kind of innovation that's needed, again shows how misguided his approach is. He thinks that the "innovation" is about limiting consumers and holding back technology. It's about protectionism, not about opening up new opportunities and new markets. It's not about enabling what the technology can do, but holding it back.

That's not innovation. That's not what the public wants. It's protectionism for an industry that doesn't want to adapt.

Filed Under: chris dodd, consumers, the public
Companies: mpaa