Chris Dodd: Hollywood's Most Predictable Dissembler

from the make-it-stop dept

There were actually a few different interesting events happening in San Francisco last night, all of which were tempting, but it was impossible not to head over to The Commonwealth Club to hear former Senator and current MPAA boss Chris Dodd being interviewed by former SF mayor and current California Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom. Given pretty much everything we've written about Dodd during his short tenure at the MPAA, I could have guesssed most of what he was going to say... and, indeed, there were few surprises.

As in the past, he stuck to his favorite themes since the defeat of SOPA, pretending to extend an olive branch to Silicon Valley, to talk about how we all need to "work together," but ignoring that Silicon Valley has tried repeatedly to help Hollywood innovate, and every time we're called thieves for doing so. Or, worse, Hollywood starts demanding ever increasing fees, making it impossible to build a profitable business, or innovators are told to make the product worse to slow the inevitable move into the future. What Dodd really means is not that he wants Silicon Valley to help Hollywood innovate, but rather wants Silicon Valley to figure out ways to prop up the obsolete parts of Hollywood's business models with technological forms of protectionism.

As per usual, Dodd also tried to completely ignore the fact that there were many, many times during the crafting of SOPA and PIPA that the tech industry asked for a seat at the table, and Dodd's MPAA rejected it. He ignored the fact that, during the height of the debate, when Senator Feinstein tried to broker a meeting between top tech companies and Hollywood studios, it was the MPAA studios who rejected the meeting. When asked directly (after the on-stage interview) about the failures of the MPAA itself to actually work with the tech industry, Dodd more or less tried to pass it off on past MPAA leadership, despite much of it happening under his watch.

And, of course, Dodd continues to focus on the tech industry as being who he needed to talk to... and not the public. This, honestly, is the biggest problem and misconception with Dodd's approach to all of this. He's still viewing it as a fight between the tech industry and the movie industry. He still hasn't figured out that it was really the users of technology -- i.e., the public at large -- who form the key party here. While speaking at the Commonwealth Club is one way to "reach out" (though, it didn't seem like there were very many tech industry folks there), that's not the people he needs to reach (I would guess that the majority of the audience were AARP members). What Dodd could have done is actually met with the public. He could have gone on Reddit and done an AMA. Even the President of the US can do that -- why not Chris Dodd?

Perhaps it's because Dodd and the MPAA know that the folks on Reddit would actually fact check his bogus statements in real time.

Because if there's one other common thread through Dodd's speeches since the whole SOPA/PIPA fight blew up, it's that he often has a rather loose relationship with something called "facts." And last night was no exception. He, once again, argued that the movie industry employs 2.1 million people. As the Congressional Research Service has shown, the actual number is 374,000 -- oh, and it's growing, except possibly at theaters, but that's got everything to do with consolidation, not copyright issues.

Dodd's bizarre move of the night was to use The Hurt Locker as his key example of why we need greater copyright protectionism. He argued that the movie was a financial disaster, because of piracy. Unfortunately, the evidence says... no freaking way. The movie had a production budget of $15 million. Yet, it made $17 million in the domestic box office, $33 million in the international box office, and then another $34 million on DVD. And that doesn't count any additional licensing, such as for Netflix streaming or TV broadcast. So, between box office and DVD rentals, we're talking a take of $84 million on a $15 million production budget. Another report claims that the movie was rented 8 million times, and was purchased on pay-per-view or VOD another 3 million times by mid-2010 (and probably plenty more since then). So there's likely to be a few more millions to pile on top there.

Now, that doesn't include the marketing budget, but the same report that details the rentals also highlights that the studio behind The Hurt Locker, Summit Entertainment, didn't spend that much on marketing the flick. In fact, people in the article complain that "Summit is not spending any money." Even if we go crazy and assume that Summit spent twice the production budget on marketing (so another $30 million in marketing the film), it seems pretty clear that the movie did quite well. To argue that it was in trouble due to piracy is simply hogwash.

Even worse, Dodd conveniently left out that the producers of The Hurt Locker sued tens of thousands of fans, and called any fans who criticized this bizarre move morons and thieves. He also ignored that among those that the producers sued was a dead man. So far, this strategy of suing fans has not met with legal success. Either way, you'd think such things would be relevant, but Dodd didn't mention them at all. In fact, quite bizarrely, he later claimed that one of the things the movie industry learned from the failures of the recording industry was that suing "the kids" who are file sharing is "misguided."

And yet his one shining example of a movie decimated by piracy (even though it wasn't) is a film whose producers directly sued over 20,000 of "the kids" and continues to do so? Really?

Perhaps this is why Chris Dodd doesn't want to have an open discussion with the public. The public might call him out (and, if you were wondering, people could only submit written questions at the event, rather than getting to stand up and ask).

Again, when Dodd was asked about The Innocence of Muslims film, after first distancing himself from it and noting that it was not an MPAA production, Dodd delivered a stirring defense of free speech, directly arguing that he "gets uncomfortable" with the idea of the movie industry "becoming a cop on speech." That's kind of funny, because so many of his efforts are about forcing others -- mainly the tech and broadband industries -- to "become cops" on expression.

There were a couple points at which Dodd went into his current favorite stump speech. Newsom asked him a question about whether Hollywood was "all red carpets." That had to have been fed to him by Dodd, who has been using the line about how Hollywood is not all red carpets for months now. He then does his "pull on the heartstrings" bit, about how the makeup artist and "the guy behind the microphone" are all suffering because of piracy -- but he fails to explain how. Again, the industry is making more films than ever before, and they're actually doing pretty damn well. He also ignores the real reason why those people might be suffering: because they're union employees, and the big MPAA studios have been trying to do non-union productions or move filming offshore to avoid having to pay American salaries.

Finally, he did the politician thing where he made statements that he'll ignore later or weasel out of at some point. He talked about how he would "do anything and everything... to protect the vitality of the internet." Yet, it was under his watch, and via direct MPAA suggestion and later pressure, that both SOPA and PIPA included DNS blocking which would have undermined the internet in a big, bad way. In fact, from what we've heard, even when Congress talked about dropping DNS blocking early on, it was Dodd's MPAA who was adamant that it had to stay in. Later, he also claimed that SOPA and PIPA were dead and that they needed a completely different approach. When asked directly afterwards, he insisted that he didn't think there would be any more legislation... but, of course, he left out the international trade forums that the MPAA has its fingers deeply in. Things like ACTA and TPP are heavily influenced by the MPAA, and while ACTA is on life support, the TPP is still very much alive, and may be significantly worse. So, don't think for a second that the MPAA isn't still pushing legislative and regulatory "solutions" to its perceived problem.

All in all, there was nothing too surprising, but it all highlights, yet again, how Chris Dodd is absolutely the wrong person for the job. There was no visionary talk. There was no recognition of a truly new approach. There was no recognition of the public's concerns. There was no realization that the talk needs to be with the public, not with top execs from a few big tech companies. In other words, he's still doing business as usual, when what the MPAA really needs is a visionary who will actually recognize that the path forward is learning to embrace, not fear, innovation, and working with the public to understand what they want and to try to fulfill that. The MPAA needs a visionary right now, and that's not Chris Dodd.

Filed Under: chris dodd, hollywood, silicon valley
Companies: mpaa

MPAA & RIAA: If People Can Sell Foreign Purchased Content Without Paying Us Again, US Economy May Collapse

from the a-bit-of-an-exaggeration dept

We've written a few times about the upcoming Kirtsaeng case before the Supreme Court concerning first sale rights. If you don't recall, the 2nd Circuit appears to have wiped out the first sale doctrine for content purchased outside the country that you want to resell within the US. As we noted, there are significant worries about how such a ruling could really harm innovation. At issue was a guy who bought textbooks abroad and resold them in the US (for less than the cover price that the publishers wanted students to buy). The courts basically found that because the textbooks were made outside the US, they weren't "lawfully made under this title," which is some clumsy phrasing that's at issue here.

Of course, thanks to our copyright maximalism, under Kirtsaeng, if a product is made outside the US and then imported, US copyright law appears to apply to almost everything that's copyrightable... except that first sale rights go away. If that seems dangerous, you get a sense of how important the Supreme Court's ruling in Kirtsaeng can be, hopefully by bringing back some sanity, and showing that if you legally purchase some digital content you have the right to resell it.

It appears that the RIAA and MPAA are pretty scared about this possibility. They've filed quite the amicus brief in the case claiming that buying goods overseas and selling them in the US is the equivalent of piracy. No joke:

Copyright protection is essential to the health of the motion picture and music industries and the U.S. economy as a whole. Like the sale of “pirated” copies, unauthorized importation of copies of protected works made overseas and intended only for sale in a foreign market can undercut or eliminate the economic benefit that Congress intended to provide under the Copyright Act.

Oh, and it gets worse. You see, if that darned first sale is allowed on foreign goods, why (*gasp*) the MPAA and RIAA might actually have to deal with people buying goods in one market and selling them elsewhere. Horrors!

Extending the first sale doctrine to copies made abroad for distribution in a foreign market could impede authors’ ability to control entry into distinct markets, limit their flexibility to adapt to market conditions, or undermine territorial licensing agreements. If accepted, Kirtsaeng’s view of the first sale doctrine could thus prevent U.S. copyright holders from obtaining the economic reward Congress intended to provide under U.S. law to motivate investment in creative activity.

Now that's an interesting interpretation of copyright law. The RIAA and MPAA are arguing that if they can't block people from importing the versions they sell overseas, it will somehow motivate less investment in creative activity. Really?

Here's the real problem: the RIAA and MPAA want to have their cake and eat it too. If products bought abroad and then imported into the US don't get first sale rights, then it seems only reasonable that they shouldn't get US copyright protection either. Part of the deal with copyright protection in the US is that as part of it, you accept that buyers have first sale rights that allow them to resell what they legally purchased. What the RIAA and MPAA are attempting to do here is to take away the public's right to resell what they've legally purchased, because it might interfere with one aspect of their preferred business model.

Of course, what this really comes down to is that the RIAA and MPAA absolutely hate the idea that they might have to compete in a global market. They more or less admit this in the brief, suggesting that prices are cheaper elsewhere in the world because copyright law sucks in other places... and allowing cheap goods into the US means that they don't get the "separate benefit" of expansive US copyright law:

When copyright owners distribute tangible copies of creative works in a foreign market, they recoup the economic benefit made possible by the copyright law of that country, which may be substantially less generous or well enforced than U.S. copyright law. They do not realize the separate benefit Congress intended them to derive from their U.S. copyright. If those copies are imported into the United States without permission, the copyright owner might never obtain that full benefit.

Boohoo. You sell into one market, people buy, they sell into a different market. Every other business in the world has to deal with exactly that. Why should the RIAA/MPAA get special treatment?

Oh, and of course, they rush to play up how much "harm" this would do if they can't overprice content in the US (what this is really about) by trotting out the same debunked stats about just how important they are -- even to the point of suggesting that allowing people to resell goods they legally bought elsewhere would have deleterious consequences for the entire US economy.

Those harms, in turn, could have deleterious consequences for the U.S. economy as a whole. As of 2010, the motion picture and television industry supported 2.1 million jobs and nearly $143 billion in total wages in the United States.... In addition to the major motion picture studios, the industry supports a nationwide network of nearly 95,000 businesses throughout the 50 States. Id. The music industry employed over 25,000 paid employees as of 2004.... The industry supports many smaller businesses such as retail stores, distribution companies, recording studios, and music professionals. The retail trade alone generates over $7 billion from the sale of sound recordings... Maintaining robust copyright protection is thus crucial to preserving not only the health of these creative fields themselves, but also their substantial contributions to the national economy.

That the actual evidence suggests something quite different is, of course, not mentioned. That the overall music and movie industries have been growing quite nicely, even as copyright is more and more ignored, is not mentioned. That more content is being produced and more money is being made... is not mentioned. Inconvenient facts are not allowed.

The filing at one point gets so snarky that it claims that those arguing the other side are using the word "arbitrage" as a euphemism (for what?!), rather than as an accurate description of what happens to normal economies that can't set up protectionist tariffs on importation of goods.

The whole thing shows the same myopic thinking of the RIAA and MPAA -- that anything that threatens their chosen obsolete business model simply must be illegal. Because having the courts and Congress prop up old business models must be better than actually innovating and (*gasp*) letting people resell what they legally bought.

Filed Under: copyright, economy, first sale, foreign works, kirtsaeng
Companies: mpaa, riaa

The USPTO's Reality Distortion Field: Web Filter Blocks Critics Like EFF, Welcomes Maximalist Lobbyists

from the but-techdirt's-available dept

Updated: At 5pm ET, the USPTO called Jamie to say that a contractor had set this up, and after reviewing their policies, they had stopped blocking such sites...

Well this is bizarre. Jamie Love from KEI was over at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for a meeting about "global negotiations on intellectual property and access to medicine." The meeting itself was held in a room that it uses for the USPTO's Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA), and there is free WiFi for people to use. Love tried to log onto his own website... and found that it was being blocked as a "political/activist group."

Access Denied (content_filter_denied)

Your request was denied because this URL contains content that is categorized as: "Political/Activist Groups" which is blocked by USPTO policy. If you believe the categorization is inaccurate, please contact the USPTO Service Desk and request a manual review of the URL.

For assistance, contact USPTO OCIO IT Service Desk. (io-proxy4)

Love then checked a bunch of other sites... and noticed a rather distressing pattern. For public interest groups who advocate that the existing copyright/patent system is broken, the websites were all blocked. ACLU, EFF, Public Knowledge, Public Citizen, CDT... all blocked. However, if you're a lobbyist for maximalism? No problem! MPAA, RIAA, IIPA, IPI, PHRMA, BSA... come on through. They do allow Creative Commons. Thankfully (for us, at least), they don't seem to block blogs that talk about this stuff. Techdirt is allowed, as are things like BoingBoing, Groklaw and Larry Lessig and Michael Geist's blogs. Though, oddly, a bunch of political sites (DailyKos, TPM, RedState, Rush Limgaugh's site) are blocked.

It may be an "over active" filter -- but it does seem particularly disturbing that all those groups who fight for the public's rights on the very issues the USPTO is dealing with on a regular basis have their sites completely blocked.

Filed Under: advocacy, uspto, web filter
Companies: aclu, bsa, cdt, eff, iipa, ipi, kei, mpaa, phrma, public citizen, public knowledge, riaa

Hollywood Lobbyist Hasn't Seen The TPP Text, Cannot Read The TPP Text, But Knows What's In The TPP Text?

from the fascinating dept

The Daily Dot's Kevin Collier has a detailed article about his experience as a journalist at the latest TPP negotiating round. He talks mainly about the various "stakeholder" presentations, which are the only access concerned groups have to the negotiators. As we've already noted, the USTR made sure to limit access to the stakeholder presentations, giving them 8 to 10 minutes (reduced from a promised 15) and then scheduling a bunch to run concurrently -- and during a time when many negotiators would likely be out to lunch. From Collier's report, we also learn that the rooms where these presentations were held only had about 20 seats in them -- and there are more than 400 negotiators. He attended the EFF's presentation, but also noted that "Attendees from a nearby presentation exited their conference room and loudly spoke outside the open door to [the EFF's Carolina] Rossini’s room, drowning out her message."

But, perhaps more interesting was Collier's encounter with Michael Schlesinger, a lobbyist for the IIPA (the International Intellectual Property Alliance -- a sort of "super group" of lobbying organizations, including both the RIAA and the MPAA, among others). The IIPA presentation immediately followed the EFF presentation, and involved Schlesinger promising to debunk the "myths" being spread by folks like the EFF. Key among them? That TPP would mandate disconnecting people from the internet. Myth, myth and more myth, Schlesigner declared: there are "no mandates to kick legitimate users off the Internet." Note the weasel word "legitimate."

However, Collier wasn't born yesterday. So he went and found the leaked draft of the IP section that was revealed back in February of 2011. And he noted that it does seem to include mandates for kicking people offline, such as saying that "effective action against any act of copyright infringement" would include things like "removing or disabling access... [and] terminating specified accounts." So, Collier went and found Schlesigner to bring this up, and Schlesinger made a remarkable admission: he claims he hasn't seen the text:

I asked him whether he stood by his presentation's claim that "TPP will result in 'kicking people off the Internet'" was a myth.

"It is," he said.

I showed him a printed-out copy of the section of the TPP leak that referred to "terminating specified accounts" of copyright infringers.

He visibly stiffened. "I'm not commenting on a leaked draft," he told me. "From what I know, the TPP framework would not force anyone off the Internet. I don't know anything about the TPP draft."

Had Schlesinger actually read the TPP, either the leaked chapter or the current draft? I can't say for sure. Legally, he can't have read the latter, because he's a federally registered lobbyist, which would bar him from seeing the text.

Got that? (1) He's not allowed to see the text. (2) He gets upset when someone points him to the leaked text. (3) He... also insists he knows, absolutely, what will not be in the text. How is that even remotely credible?

Filed Under: disconnection, lobbyists, michael schlesinger, three strikes, tpp
Companies: eff, iipa, mpaa, riaa

MPAA Sends Five Key Propaganda Points To Politicians

from the break-it-down dept

Deadline Hollywood has the story of the MPAA sending out a list of key "talking points" to the two major presidential candidates, though we've heard that the same letter is being distributed to folks in Congress as well. It's the expected fluff and bogus info, but since these talking points will undoubtedly get parroted by clueless politicians, we might as well take a moment to cut through some of the clutter and point out where the MPAA is being deceitful, dishonest or just marginally misleading.

The television and film industry is an important economic pillar of the US economy – and a major private sector employer. Film and TV production takes place in all 50 states across the country.

The American film and television industry is a massive contributor to the US economy, generating $42.1 billion in wages from direct industry jobs and distributing $37.4 billion in payments to nearly 278,000 businesses around the country in 2010. Making movies takes more than just stars – it takes a vast number of hardworking creators and makers whose work takes place behind the camera and beyond. In fact, the entertainment industry is a major private-sector employer, supporting 2.1 million jobs across the country in 2010. These jobs exist in every state, and boast average salaries 32% higher than the national average.

Whether or not the TV and film industry is an "important" economic pillar depends on how you define "important." But let's grant the premise, and then ask: what does that have to do with the government or copyright? Answer? It doesn't.

As for the specific numbers, it's worth noting that the TV and film business has been growing massively over the past decade -- even though (as the MPAA constantly reminds us) copyright has been getting less and less respect, and infringement has been spreading. An organization based in reality recognizes that perhaps the weakening of copyright laws is not a "problem" in such a situation. As for the specific numbers, those are complete bunk. 2.1 million jobs? No. The Congressional Research Service looked into the movie industry and found a grand total of 374,000 employees in 2010 -- which is a number that the MPAA tries to hide by pretending that all sorts of ancillary jobs, such as flowershops and laundromats that service film crews while shooting, count in this calculation.

Free expression and free speech are cornerstones of the entertainment industry.

Copyright law, which is enshrined in our constitution, protects those who create everything from books to movies, from songs to software. Copyright is not censorship. Rather, it incentivizes innovation and creativity; the Supreme Court has called copyright the “engine of free expression.” Free speech is vital to creators and innovators, and the movie business wouldn’t exist without freedom of speech and expression. In fact, the motion picture industry has fought aggressively for freedom of speech on behalf of its storytellers for over a hundred years.

An intellectually honest person admits that copyright has two conflicting impacts: it may encourage some increase in production by providing a limited monopoly, but it can also prevent expression. The real question is which side you think outweighs the other. But the MPAA document simply refuses to admit that copyright can be used for censorship, despite the fact that its own members are quite familiar with using copyright to take down legititimate content. The MPAA's extremist position here is clearly bogus on its face. Copyright can absolutely be used to censor. To claim that the two things are mutually exclusive means you're either lying or clueless.

As for the MPAA fighting for free speech, how about its close involvement with ICE and the DOJ in censoring websites? So far, ICE and the DOJ have had to admit that they totally screwed up two of those seizures, censoring blogs and forums for over a year -- and we fully expect to see ICE and the DOJ have to admit a few more, similar mistakes. However, one thing that ICE has also stated? That these seizures came about thanks to its close working relationship with the MPAA. In fact, the very first time ICE seized domains, it made the announcement from Disney's headquarters. Imagine if the federal government seized a news blog... and did so from the offices of the NY Times. People would point out that this doesn't seem right, but the feds have been able to get away with this blatant crony protectionism.

If the MPAA can't admit that it's been involved in blatant censorship, then it has little recognition of its own abuse of the law.

The motion picture and television industry is an industry of innovators.

Our companies embrace and harness the rapid development of technology. From IMAX to 3-D to shooting films at 48 frames per second, movie studios are on the cutting edge of entertainment technology. They are relentlessly innovating to bring audiences not only the latest in moviemaking, but also a seamless content experience that allows them to watch the shows and movies they love where and how they want. Hulu, HBO Go, Vudu, Crackle, UltraViolet, Epix, MUBI, Netflix, Amazon – and that just scratches the surface.

We've already addressed this one at length. Offering something is not the same thing as offering what people want. Furthermore, the MPAA had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept some of these offerings, and not because of the foresight of the movie industry, but because the tech innovators it now wants to shackle kept pushing and prodding until Hollywood came around. Netflix and Amazon came much more from the tech industry than Hollywood. Hulu may have come out of Hollywood, but it gave the team (with a tech background) pretty free rein in building out the service... and the second it started taking off, Hollywood sought to kill it. To present these as signs of innovation is like saying that I "innovated" in the food business because I ate a Korean taco. Having a tangential relationship with those who actually innovate is not innovation itself. And when Hollywood then seeks to kill off said innovation, it shows how they really view the world.

The entertainment community supports an internet that works for everyone.

It is critical to the entertainment community that we protect the free flow of information on the internet while also protecting the rights of artists and creators. The internet must be a place for investment, innovation and creativity – that’s critical not just for our industry, but for intellectual property-intensive industries around the world. In April, the U.S. Department of Commerce released a report that found that intellectual property-intensive industries – including film and television -- support at least 40 million jobs and contribute more than $5 trillion dollars to U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). That’s 34.8 percent of US GDP. Simply put, protecting American creativity from theft is critical the U.S. economy – and so is protecting the freedom to express creativity online.

Creators must have the freedom to innovate online, and they must also be secure in their ability to benefit from their creations. Copyright protection is critical to ensuring that. We can protect creative works while ensuring that the Internet works for everyone.

First of all, the infamous Commerce Department "study" was quickly proven to be complete bunk. The whole "IP intensive industries" metric is a joke -- highlighted by the fact that the report showed the number one employer in the "IP intensive industries" was... grocery stores. The report just lumped together copyright, patents and trademarks, and most of the "jobs" and GDP being talked about are in "trademark" intensive industries -- a definition is so stupidly broad as to include every single person who works at a grocery store. Yet under MPAA propaganda, the teen who checked you out when you bought your groceries is a symbol of why they need a new SOPA bill.

Second, any time someone says they want an internet that "works for everyone," what they really mean is that they're relying on a business model that has been disrupted by the internet, and the only way to make things fair is to break the internet where it challenges their old and obsolete way of doing business. The market decides what "works for everyone." Not the government. If the MPAA can't keep up, get out of the way and let real innovators step in.

The film and television industry has become one of this country’s most important and most consistent exports.

The movies and TV shows made here in the U.S. tell stories that resonate with people around the globe, and as a result, the film and television industry has become one of this country’s most important and most consistent exports. The entertainment industry boasted a positive services trade surplus of $11.9 billion in 2010, or 7% of the total U.S. private sector trade surplus in services. Maintaining that positive balance of trade is crucial to the continued growth of the U.S. entertainment industry and an important pillar of our national economy. Trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement aim to protect the hard work of American creators and makers around the world, while including important safeguards to protect the free flow of information on the internet.

I agree that the US makes films and TV shows that resonate around the world -- and then seeks to make it impossible to view them elsewhere thanks to ridiculous regional restrictions, release windows and DRM. Furthermore, the problem that the MPAA faces around the world won't be solved by ACTA or TPP. As has been studied in great detail, the international issues the industry faces are almost entirely business model issues, not enforcement issues. Yet, the industry refuses to even contemplate that this might be the case, preferring to support scorched earth campaigns for things like ACTA and TPP.

I recognize that this is how the MPAA has worked for half a century or so. It produces propaganda for politicians, and then tells them to write treaties and laws that support the propaganda. But, really, rolling out the same bogus and debunked stats that have long since been disproved, seems bizarre. It's as if the MPAA is so stuck in this rut of "we lie, you do what we say" that it can't get out of it. I'd love to see an MPAA that is willing to engage on issues, but instead we get one whose only mode of doing business is to lie consistently.

Filed Under: campaigns, copyright, movie industry, politicians, propaganda, talking points
Companies: mpaa

Want To Know How Weak The GOP's Internet Freedom Platform Is? The MPAA Loves It

from the which-means-it's-not-at-all-about-internet-freedom dept

We were already skeptical of the GOP's claims about supporting "internet freedom," and it seems that our concerns have been more or less confirmed by the fact that the MPAA seems positively thrilled by the GOP's official position on internet freedom. If the MPAA is pleased with someone's policy outline for the internet, you can bet that it's bad policy. Here's what Chris Dodd had to say:

The Republican Party platform language strikes a very smart balance: it emphasizes the importance of us doing more as a nation to protect our intellectual property from online theft while underscoring the critical importance of protecting internet freedom. As the party points out, the internet has been for its entire existence a source of innovation, and it is intellectual property that helps drive that innovation. Copyright is the cornerstone of innovation; it allows creators to benefit from what they create. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- herself once a Republican elected official -- wrote, '[I]t should not be forgotten that the Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing a marketable right to the use of one's expression, copyright supplies the economic incentive to create and disseminate ideas.'

I agree wholeheartedly with my friends in the Republican Party that we must protect the free flow of information on the internet while also protecting American innovators. It is imperative to our national economy and our national identity that we protect an internet that works for everyone.

As he is prone to doing, Dodd is presenting a very distorted version of history and intellectual property. There is no evidence (none, zip, zilch, zero) that "intellectual property helps drive innovation." Historically, it's been shown that competition and need is what drives innovation -- whereas intellectual property laws tend to lock in place legacy players, holding back disruptive innovation. Either way, the MPAA's support pretty much shows that the Republican's "internet freedom" platform isn't serious.

Filed Under: chris dodd, internet freedom, republicans
Companies: mpaa

MPAA Joins RIAA In Having Budgets Slashed

from the obsolete-organizations-die-off dept

Following the news that the RIAA's revenue was cut dramatically in the past few years, TorrentFreak has also posted the MPAA's 2010 tax filing, showing that it, too, has taken a pretty massive beating in terms of revenue from its gatekeeper members.

In just three years the revenue generated by the anti-piracy outfit reduced from $92.8 million to $49.6 million. The decreased budget is a direct result of the major Hollywood studios cutting back on their MPAA funding. In the same period membership dues dropped from $84.7 million to $41.5 million, more than a 50% decline.

The filing (embedded below) includes some interesting tidbits. It's not at all surprising to see that the MPAA funds the Copyright Alliance, but I had not seen before that it funds ITIF. ITIF was the think tank who was the major "intellectual backer" of SOPA/PIPA. They had published the first paper that more or less suggested the approach found in SOPA/PIPA, and when the MPAA was absolutely desperate for technology "experts" who could argue that SOPA wouldn't break DNS, the only people they rolled out were ITIF staff members. It's not surprising that the MPAA funded them, but I don't recall that being disclosed anywhere previously.

Also, as with the RIAA's salaries, it's pretty ridiculous to see the MPAA complaining about being rich as proof that someone must be breaking the law, when its top execs are all making pretty large salaries. Nearly every person listed in their list of key employees/highest compensated employees is clearly way far north into the 1% of most highly compensated Americans.

And all that while its budget keeps getting slashed. Perhaps the studios are recognizing that they're better off no longer throwing good money after bad. Of course, it's noteworthy that a number of people on the list ended up leaving the MPAA. Former CEO Dan Glickman left earlier than expected, apparently due to dissatisfaction from the studio heads, and a number of others left as well. So it will be interesting when the 2011 report finally comes out to see if they studios fed money back into the MPAA once Chris Dodd was brought in.

Filed Under: budgets, failures, funding
Companies: copyright alliance, itif, mpaa, riaa

MPAA Pretends 'Offering Something' Is The Same Thing As 'Offering What People Want'

from the and-that's-why-they're-such-failures dept

We recently wrote about David Pogue's article highlighting how the movie industry's failure to embrace what technology allows is a huge cause of infringement, and the industry still doesn't seem to get that. In response, in typically tone deaf fashion, MPAA spokesperson Howard Gantman has taken the usual tack of not actually addressing what Pogue wrote, but making an unrelated argument. He says that somehow, magically, because there are more crippled, annoying, expensive, incomplete movie services out there, no one should complain. You see, in the MPAA's world "offering something" is proof that they're innovating, even if it's not what people want.

But this shows a rather remarkable lack of awareness of what customers seem to be saying. They're saying they don't want services that only let you watch a movie for 24-hours. They're saying that they don't want movies that cost ridiculous prices. They want reasonable access at reasonable prices -- and the reasons some people aren't flocking to some of these services isn't that they're evil "thieves," but that they don't find those new offerings compelling. The proper response is to make them more compelling. But, apparently, in the world of the MPAA, the response is to berate and guilt people for not using their crappy offerings.

Filed Under: customers, movies, online
Companies: mpaa

Is Being Rich And Arrogant Against The Law? The RIAA & MPAA Seem To Think So

from the guilt-by-arrogance? dept

I'm planning to do some more thorough coverage of many of the comments that were submitted to the IP Enforcement Coordinator for next year's "Joint Strategic Plan." I just need to find an open block of time to go through a bunch of them. However, the folks over at TorrentFreak have highlighted one of the more ridiculous claims made in the combined filing from the RIAA & MPAA -- suggesting that people like Kim Dotcom are guilty of breaking the law because they're rich, arrogant and are trying to influence public opinion:

In this case, the Justice Department and other federal agencies are now grappling with a set of wealthy and arrogant defendants who are leaving no stone unturned in their efforts to sway public opinion against efforts to hold them accountable...

This reminds me of the debate I had with Jonathan Taplin, in which he referred to Kim Dotcom's (rented) yacht, and asked where were the musicians' yachts. Thing is, if I wanted to, I could easily find evidence of various rock stars with yachts. I could easily point to evidence of record label and movie studio execs with yachts, or who are phenomenally wealthy. Hell, I could just point you to the fact that the RIAA's boss, Cary Sherman made $3.2 million in salary in 2009 -- a number that I imagine is more than what nearly every single person reading this site makes in a year (or, in their lifetimes). Being wealthy is certainly no sign of guilt. And he got this amount even as he's leading the RIAA through it's clear decline in relevance phase, where he's still fighting the wrong war.

Similarly, it's not hard to find examples of massive arrogance on the part of these execs -- from the RIAA and MPAA putting down the public (repeatedly) or ignoring valid concerns about SOPA and PIPA, to decades of arrogant efforts to destroy all kinds of innovations they don't like, from radio to cable TV to the VCR to the mp3 player to the DVR.

Finally, these are the guys who run the media, and they're complaining about a few execs trying to influence public opinion? The MPAA's largest members are Universal (who owns NBC), Disney (who owns ABC), Viacom (who owns a bunch of TV stations and spun off CBS). And they're going to complain that some tech folks have an undue influence on public opinion? Really? And, let's not forget that these same groups have also "left no stone unturned" for decades in trying to influence public opinion. "Home taping is killing music." Remember that? You know those "FBI warnings" on every single movie you watch?

I'd say that if we're going to stack up which side of the debate has involved more "wealthy and arrogant" individuals "who are leaving no stone unturned in their efforts to sway public opinion"... it has to start with the RIAA and the MPAA. But, of course, they're allowed to do all of that, because none of it is illegal. But to try to associate such activity with illegality seems to be a stretch way beyond anything reasonable. Is Kim Dotcom loud, arrogant, crass and tacky in his displays of wealth? Absolutely. I doubt he's the kind of person I'd care to spend any amount of time with, personally. But just because his style is so outlandish, it doesn't automatically make him a criminal, as the RIAA and MPAA imply. Similarly, I don't automatically assume that super wealthy, arrogant individuals who work for the entertainment industry are obviously criminals either.

It is really quite obnoxious and demeaning for these large trade agencies to go around smearing people based on superficial items like arrogance and wealth. Kim Dotcom may eventually be found guilty of criminal activity. And, at that point, they're free to publicize that his actions here were criminal. But in the meantime, they're acting like cliquish high school girls, tarring and feathering people because they don't like the way they look or act.

Filed Under: arrogant, cary sherman, copyright, entertainment industry, kim dotcom, rich
Companies: mpaa, riaa

Seven Reasons Why Google Is Making A Mistake In Filtering Searches Based On DMCA Notices

from the the-wrong-calculation dept

I've been thinking some more about Google's announcement last week that it will be filtering searches based on how many DMCA notices a site gets. Google insists that this shouldn't hurt "legitimate" sites, because the DMCA notices are only a one factor in determining how a site gets listed (and, thus, it says that sites that get a ton of DMCA notices, like Facebook, IMDB, Tumblr, Twitter and Youtube shouldn't be impacted). However, there are a few reasons why I think Google has made a mistake here.

1. This is the first change to Google's rankings that isn't in the best interest of its users. Google has argued that these new changes will actually benefit users by pointing them to "better" results. That argument is effectively that sites that they are demoting in the rankings are akin to "spam" sites. But there's a very big difference here. Spam sites tend to be sites that the person doing the searching doesn't want and which clutter up the results. For content searches, the searches that Google will be demoting actually might be the ones that the consumer does want. Google has always been pretty religious about making sure the search results best matched what the searcher was, in fact, looking for. But it's now changing that policy. That seems like a dangerous step down a potentially very slippery slope.
2. Admitting that it's willing to cave to the interests of businesses, rather than users, will lead to more such demands. Already, we've seen companies complain about how Google rankings work -- and Google could always point to the fact that it determined how to rank its results based on what was best for users. But that's no longer the case, as others can point to Google caving in this one instance. Expect other industries to start asking for special treatment here, too. Google can fend these requests off, but it's going to start to get a lot of them.
3. It's never enough. The industry will always want more: As we've already discussed, the MPAA and RIAA aren't satisfied with this move, and will continue to pressure Google to do even more. Opening the door here won't mean that they'll suddenly be satisfied. It's just going to convince them to keep up what they'd been doing in the past: complaining to anyone and everyone that Google doesn't do enough.
4. Google's defense in anti-trust cases just got that much more difficult: Google has always argued in the antitrust efforts against them, that the ratings results are the best for users, not for any particular business. But this new effort will be pointed out time and time again to show that's not always the case, as those on the other side of antitrust fights will start asking why the RIAA and MPAA get special treatment, but others can't.
5. This will harm new innovations: As we noted above, Google claims this shouldn't hurt YouTube. But, imagine if Google had this in place years back, when YouTube was first starting out. It gets a bunch of DMCA notices early on, Google "filters" it down, and YouTube never becomes "YouTube" -- one of the most important tools that many artists today use for promoting, distributing and monetizing their works. Did it have lots of infringement early on? Hell yes. Did it develop new tools that tons of artists now find so valuable that they rely on them every day? Yes. Would that have happened if Google had demoted them early on? Probably not.
6. This may hold back other search engines: This one Google might not mind. As the entertainment industry has done with things like Content ID, it will now argue that all other search engines, by default, should do the same thing -- even though most of them may not have the tools or the DMCA data to make this work effectively. In doing this, Google may end up burdening other search engines -- especially upstarts -- in the space. Google may not mind this, but historically Google has at least been a reasonably good neighbor in not actively trying to undermine competing search engines.
7. This won't hold back infringement. At all. The underlying rationale for this is that the RIAA and MPAA think that people searching for content online are too stupid to realize the difference between a paid link and a free link. They think that if someone does a search on the name of a movie along with "free online," that if they're shown an authorized fee-based offer, they're willing to pay for it. There's little evidence to support that. The people doing such searches know exactly what they're looking for. The real problem is not that Google is showing it to them, it's that the traditional entertainment industry players aren't providing users what they want.

The end result of all of this is that this move seems likely to hurt everyone and help no one. It makes the entertainment industry marginally happier than they were, though still not satisfied. And, historically, when the entertainment industry gets what it wants, it usually means that what it needs to actually help it move forward gets pushed further away. That seems likely here as well.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca notices, search, search results, users
Companies: google, mpaa, riaa