USTR's Surprise Turnaround: Now Advocating Limitations & Exceptions To Copyright

from the who-are-you-and-what-have-you-done-with-ron-kirk? dept

One of the big complaints about ACTA and SOPA and the like was the extreme maximalist positions that they entailed, without recognizing the very important exceptions and limitations that can often be even more important in encouraging culture and creativity. The version of the US's recommendations on the IP chapter of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement that leaked last year, suggested a similar maximalist approach: all enforcement, all the time, no concern about limitations or exceptions.

In a somewhat surprising turnaround, the USTR has now admitted that it is actively embracing limitations and exceptions in its latest proposal around IP for TPP:

For the first time in any U.S. trade agreement, the United States is proposing a new provision, consistent with the internationally-recognized “3-step test," that will obligate Parties to seek to achieve an appropriate balance in their copyright systems in providing copyright exceptions and limitations for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. These principles are critical aspects of the U.S. copyright system, and appear in both our law and jurisprudence. The balance sought by the U.S. TPP proposal recognizes and promotes respect for the important interests of individuals, businesses, and institutions who rely on appropriate exceptions and limitations in the TPP region.

Given the USTR's general lack of transparency and intellectually insulting attitude towards anyone who questions TPP and ACTA transparency, I don't trust the USTR on its commitment to this... but I have been hearing from multiple sources that the protests against SOPA and ACTA have had a big impact on the administration's thinking on intellectual property issues... and that the MPAA/RIAA folks are not at all happy about the latest version of the USTR's IP chapter. There have also been multiple assurances that the USTR will fight strongly to make sure that this language on exceptions remains in the agreement, even if some of its "advisers" from the legacy content industry don't like it. That suggests that maybe, just maybe, some voices of reason have gotten through to the USTR.

All that said, this requires very close scrutiny. And, of course, there's all sorts of things that can be hidden in the language -- which, of course, the USTR still has not revealed. In the interest of openness and making sure that these provisions actually are in the best interest of the public, it would be nice to actually have the USTR live up to its transparency commitments and publish the specific text that relates to these limitations and exceptions. On top of that, the so-called "3-step test" that the USTR mentions is somewhat limited (and a bit antiquated) in these modern times with an internet where things like mashups and remixing occur on a daily basis. It would obviously be a lot nicer if we actually moved forward with our limitations and exceptions to copyright law to bring them into the 21st century -- but having the USTR actually acknowledge such limitations and exceptions as an important part of the IP chapter on TPP is a huge (almost monumental) step forward.

Either way -- and I know that some people will never trust anything from the USTR considering how many bridges it has burned -- the USTR deserves at least some kudos for taking this surprising step, and hopefully it continues to recognize that this is an important issue. With further exploration, and further acknowledgement that the MPAA/RIAA's view of thew world is not the only one, perhaps the USTR can recognize that setting up a maximalist/protectionist plan does not help the US, the economy or creativity. Enabling a more functional system, including knocking down the barriers that copyright sometimes sets up, is a much more effective path.

Filed Under: acta, fair use, sopa, tpp, transparency, ustr
Companies: mpaa, riaa

Nearly 50,000 People Ask Why The Government Is Seizing Their Digital Files

from the speak-out dept

The folks at Demand Progress today filed a brief in one part of the ongoing Megaupload case: the fight over users being able to get their files back. The DOJ is trying to block this, while also wanting the evidence destroyed. The MPAA says it is okay with data being returned... if there is a 100% guarantee that no infringing works are accessed (an impossibly high standard). The Demand Progress filing points out that this whole thing flies in the face of being innocent until proven guilty, and argues that users who are non-parties to the lawsuit should have access to their files.

Related to this, Demand Progress has also put together a petition, asking people to sign on to support a user's right to his or her own files -- and against the government just magically taking files out of the cloud:

One day after the Internet staged a massive blackout to protest Congress's Internet censorship legislation (SOPA/PIPA), the United States responded by seizing millions of ordinary user files hosted on the popular website Megaupload.com.

With an aim of shutting down Megaupload and other Cloud-based hosting services (like Dropbox, YouTube or even your email provider), the government is trying to claim website operators should face decades in prison for the misdeeds of some of their users. But while they pursue trumped up criminal charges against the companies' founders, they are shutting down dozens of websites, and leaving ordinary Internet users without any way of retrieving their files.

Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak called the case against Megaupload a "threat to innovation." Wozniak likened the Megaupload site to a highway and those who shared pirated movies and songs to speeding motorists. "You don't just shut down the whole street because somebody is speeding," he said.

Numerous laws on the books already give copyright holders plenty of avenues to stop actual infringement, but that's not enough to satisfy Hollywood's lawyers and lobbyists. The prosecutor in the case, Neil MacBride, previously served as the Anti-Piracy Vice President of the Business Software Alliance, where he represented the intellectual property interests of countless multinational corporations.

Now Hollywood's lobbyists, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, want him to make it nearly impossible for ordinary Internet users to get their property back.

As I write this, the petition appears to have just short of 50,000 signatures, and the number is increasing rapidly... The Internet vs. Hollywood

Filed Under: congress, data, doj, hollywood, petition, pipa, sopa
Companies: megaupload, mpaa

Anonymous Courtroom Notes Raise Serious Questions About SurfTheChannel Conviction

from the a-nod,-a-wink-and-a-false-beard dept

Update: The blog has been taken down, but a Google cache remains.

We just wrote about the extremely troubling ruling in the UK that has left Anton Vickerman, the operator of the TV linking website SurfTheChannel, facing up to ten years in jail. The charge is the rather ambiguous "conspiracy to defraud", which is not surprising, because it's still not clear what STC did that was actually illegal—it certainly wasn't copyright infringement, since similar sites in the UK have been found to be non-infringing in the past. These websites don't host any pirated content, they only index links to videos on other sites—and there's no evidence that their operators assisted in the uploading of that third-party content. At worst, it can be argued that they were somehow implicitly encouraging their users to upload infringing content and submit the links, which is why "conspiracy to defraud" is just about the only charge that could stick. The UK has a notoriously low bar for conspiracy charges, which can be used to go after people who have gotten on someone's nerves without really breaking any laws, and this has been the subject of controversy for some time.

But, even when it comes to the conspiracy charge, there are some serious questions that need to be answered—especially after a look at this collection of notes from the trial posted by an anonymous blogger. I'm taking this information with a grain of salt, because the source is unidentified, and it also can't be ignored that the notes are one-sided and focus on flaws in the prosecution's case—so there may well be another significant side to the story. But there is also enough specific information about the case that it seems unlikely that the notes are fake, and some of the things that happened look very bad no matter what other evidence was presented.

First, there are several things the judge did that are concerning:

• Judge leaves jury little choice after directing as a matter of law that knowingly linking to infringing content is illegal despite no such offence in the UK;
• Judge ignores SportsRadar High Court judgement that states if an infringement takes place it takes place in the country the server is based (linking to infringing content legal in Spain where SurfTheChannel was based);
• Judge states "if I have got the law wrong then a higher court than this one will sort it out";

What the entertainment industry has wanted all along is for linking to content to simply be illegal, so they twist around interpretations of various laws to try to make it so. From the sound of it, the judge let that happen to some degree, despite precedent to the contrary. The notes then go on to detail the activities of FACT, the Hollywood-backed private group that independently investigated Vickerman (without police knowledge) then helped set up the raid on his offices. Their investigation included posing as potential home buyers to gain access to his house, and telling service providers (like his ISP) that he was selling counterfeit DVDs to get them to share information about him. There was even a bizarre dispute about whether or not Vickerman was wearing a false beard at some point, but the details are unclear, and the FACT agent claimed in court to have lost the log book about the incident. FACT also admitted that it conducts about 15 of these surveillance operations a month. Other statements made by FACT reveal that it was extremely sloppy in its evidence gathering methods, and that it had a clear goal of shutting down STC regardless of legal authority:

• FACT Ltd staff admit to attending raid on Vickerman's address with USB stick that contains a replacement home page to be placed on SurfTheChannel website that states “This website is under investigation” despite having no legal authority to do so and in contravention of the Computer Misuse Act 1990;
• FACT Ltd contractor Ben Clelland admits to copying all case evidence from Vickerman’s computer to a USB drive, putting USB drive in pocket and leaving house without alerting Police that this evidence existed or bagging and tagging it. All forensic evidence in case emanates from this USB drive.
• FACT Ltd contractor Ben Clelland admits to “making a mistake” by not attaching a write blocker to his examination computer before examining USB drive data. All file creation dates on evidence are changed.

I don't know the details of UK procedure, but it sounds like there should be serious questions about the admissibility of that evidence. The other component of FACT's case was their star witness, Brendan DeBeasi, who had been involved with STC in the past and admitted offering to bring the site "to its knees" for the highest bidder. DeBeasi faces charges in the U.S., and testified in exchange for immunity and more:

• DeBeasi says he is not tailoring his evidence to help FACT despite admitting that his immunity deal in the US is dependent on him “performing well” in the Vickerman prosecution;
• DeBeasi admits MPAA offered him a job not long after he agreed to cooperate in prosecution of Vickermans;

A representative of the MPAA also testified, revealing that he posed as a potential STC investor to gain access to Vickerman. Then, some interesting facts about the MPAA's broader strategy were revealed. It turns out that STC had commercial deals with some networks, including A&E and Discovery, but those partners withdrew before the charges were brought—allegedly under targeted pressure from the MPAA:

• Defence accuses the MPAA of arranging commercially damaging news stories containing false information about STC in an attempt to isolate it as a “piracy site” so that its commercial partnerships with TV networks such as Discovery Channel, A&E Television Networks and others are destroyed;
• [MPAA representative] Pascal Hetzscholdt admits that senior MPAA personnel including John Malcolm contacted NBCUniversal to pressure them into terminating A&E Television Networks partnership agreement with SurfTheChannel;

The notes also highlight several serious errors on behalf of FACT's lawyer throughout the trial. Most notably, the prosecution repeatedly presented digital forensic evidence that was clearly flawed and in some cases seemingly presented in a very selective way to paint a picture of guilt. Though FACT did back down on some of these instances, it casts a lot of doubt on their approach to building a case:

• [FACT Prosecutor David] Groome opened case by saying that the Chinese websites linked to by STC are “run by Chinese Gangsters”, “obviously and completely illegal” and “owned by thugs” amongst other things. Anton Vickerman accuses him of misleading the jury when he presents evidence that the sites referred to (Youku & Tudou) are listed on the New York Stock Exchange and that another (56.com) is funded by the Venture Capital arm of FACT Director Walt Disney Studios. Vickerman also presents evidence that many of FACT's directors have partnership deals with these so called “Chinese Gangsters”;
• Groome tells jury that there were many many movie files found on Vickerman's computers and that he was uploading them to third party websites before linking to them from STC. This is again proven false when the defence shows that there is only 1 movie file found on any of Vickerman's computers and the other handful of video files are for TV shows all of which were downloaded for personal use. The defence also shows that there is not one shred of evidence that any uploading took place from Vickerman's computers despite 3 separate teams of forensic investigators inspecting the computers;
• Groome tells jury that Vickerman saved specific forum posts and private messages to his computer that talk about uploading and other controversial topics. Vickerman accuses Groome of again misleading the jury by showing that the posts they have exhibited are extracted from a backup of the forum which contained 91,000 posts which he had only seen a tiny amount when browsing the forum from day to day. Groome tells the jury that a spread sheet produced by the prosecution proves that links to movies were added to the STC site by Vickerman from his computer. When Vickerman says that is not true Groome tells him that he is therefore calling FACT witness Andrew Smith a liar. Vickerman then points out that the spread sheet is an extract created by Smith of a backup from the STC database that shows list of links to movies added to the STC database by those users. Not Vickerman adding the links from his computer. Groome eventually agrees.
• Groome ambushes Vickerman with a printout of a forum post and accuses him of running a server that staff uploaded material to which was then streamed to STC's users. Vickerman flatly denies this and explains that he is getting confused and that STC used a complicated system for hiding its links from its rivals. The next day Vickerman accuses Groome of misleading the jury again by printing out only the first page of the forum post when the third page actually shows that the forum thread is regarding the link hiding system not the hosting/streaming of content by STC.

Vickerman himself raised some damning points as well, including something that sounds a lot more like a genuine "conspiracy"—evidence of infringing links being added to the site by anti-piracy groups themselves:

• Vickerman explains that SurfTheChannel's then number one rival, BlinkX.com, has commercial partnerships with every one of FACT's directors despite BlinkX.com having the exact same links that FACT is using as evidence of illegality in this case;
• Vickerman provides unchallenged evidence that Anti-Piracy companies, in particular Aiplex Software, are responsible for automated adding of around a million links to the STC website.

(Interestingly, BlinkX.com—once a well-known pirated TV destination—seems to have been recently scrubbed of most infringing links.)

Again, it's entirely possible that there are errors and omissions in these notes—but the points of concern really are piling up. It seems insane that Vickerman faces ten years in jail for actions taken primarily, and perhaps entirely, by the users of his website and not by him. In court he noted that he researched the law and received advice that merely linking to infringing material was entirely legal—and from the many apparent flaws in the evidence showing that he participated in uploading, it looks like he was careful to ensure that he didn't cross that line. Some will call this exploiting a legal loophole, but it's not a loophole—it's a vital safety valve on copyright, a law that already flirts dangerously with curtailing freedom of speech. It is not illegal to merely point to something in the internet. The real legal loophole is the charge of "conspiracy to defraud"—a seemingly magic way to create a general sense of wrongdoing where no lucid laws have been broken.

Filed Under: anton vickerman, conspiracy, uk
Companies: blinkx, fact, mpaa, surfthechannel

US Copyright Office, MPAA Celebrate Handing Hollywood Stars Their Own Special Copyright Monopoly Powers

from the oh,-phew,-the-mpaa-was-on-hand-to-help dept

So remember how we were just talking about WIPO passing a totally unnecessary new form of monopoly protection for Hollywood movie stars? The negotiations concluded with everyone -- including the US -- already "signing" the agreement, and now countries just need to ratify it. In a rather sickening display of cluelessness, the US Copyright Office put out an announcement about just how awesome it was that they were able to lock down some more culture to make a few Hollywood stars happy and able to block anyone from creating mashups or remixes of their work.

Copyright Office boss, Maria Pallante, who incorrectly believes that copyright is "for the author first and the nation second," was overjoyed at being able to give Hollywood actors more power to lock up content they performed in, over which they have no copyright interest:

“The Beijing Treaty is an important step forward in protecting the performances of television and film actors throughout the world," said Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante.

But, um, why do they need this? No one ever answers that question, because the answer is they don't need this. At all. It's just a way to lock up culture some more. It's sickening.

Not surprisingly, the Copyright Office's announcement plays up the fact that the MPAA was in Beijing to help the US negotiate. And, of course, Chris Dodd is just thrilled at how awesome this treaty is, and how it shows how "substantive" treaties can be created. Yeah, there's no regulatory capture going on here... none at all. And, um, who was there to represent the public's interest? Who was there to make sure that our culture wasn't locked up and that free speech and technology weren't stifled? No one. Pallante then says that:

"There was a renewed atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration among all of the delegations in attendance...."

Well, you know, that's what happens when you only invite your friends, and leave the public and the public interest out in the cold. She might as well have just been more honest and said what the truth is: "For the Hollywood stars first, and screw the nation."

And I thought after the SOPA/PIPA and ACTA debacles, Hollywood and the US government has promised no more backroom deals signed just to support Hollywood...

Filed Under: chris dodd, copyright office, hollywood, maria pallante, performer's rights, wipo
Companies: mpaa

Big ISPs Expected To Start Six Strikes Program This Weekend [Updated]

from the just-what-we-need dept

Update: Dah. Got fooled on the date. Someone had sent that one anonymously, and we missed that the date was from back in March. Others are reporting the program won't go into effect until the fall.

At this point, it's no surprise, but the RIAA's Cary Sherman has now confirmed that (as had been previously stated) the big ISPs (Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon) will be ready to kick off their "six strikes" plan this weekend. Apparently, the idea of actually giving the public a seat at the table, and looking into whether or not this made sense, wasn't seriously considered. Of course, none of this will do anything to bring revenue back to RIAA or MPAA members. It won't even do anything to stop infringement in the long term. As always, people will figure out ways around this. We've already seen the massive failure of an even stricter program, Hadopi, in France. Can anyone seriously claim that this will somehow work better in the US? Instead, it won't be long until we hear the stories of false accusations, or families who have their internet connection limited or locked down because a neighbor maybe downloaded some infringing content. Little Susie needs to do some research for her homework? Not tonight, kids. Hollywood has to teach you a lesson. Of course, the only real lesson is that the entertainment industry needs to stop blaming customers, and start looking inward, at its own failure to innovate. Pissing people off by limiting their internet connections is not a productive path forward.

Filed Under: cary sherman, hadopi, isp, six strikes
Companies: comcast, mpaa, riaa, time warner, verizon

USTR Gives MPAA Full Online Access To TPP Text, But Still Won't Share With Senate Staffers

from the transparency? dept

US Trade Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk continues to insult the intelligence of the Senate. During a recent hearing Senate hearing at which Kirk appeared, Senator Ron Wyden once again quizzed Kirk about the lack of transparency the USTR has (video link, key point starts around 89 minutes and 30 seconds) regarding the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. Except, this time, Wyden went one step further. He pointed out that while many in Congress have no real access to the document, special interest company representatives are given special logins to the USTR's site, allowing them full access to the text of the document. We've pointed out many times before that Kirk seems to have given himself over entirely to the special interests, and this kind of access only shows how true that is. But where Kirk returns to being a disingenuous apologist for these special interests is to argue that this is no big deal because anyone in Congress can see the document too.

Wyden: What I've learned is that when trade agreements are negotiated, industry advisors sit in a far stronger position than virtually everyone in the Congress. For example, an industry advisor from the Motion Picture Association can sit at their desk with a laptop, enter their username and password, and see the negotiating text of a proposed trade agreement. Virtually no one in the Congress has the ability to do that. How is that right?

Kirk: Well, Senator, I want to make it plain, that it's not just industry, but it's all of the members of our trade advisory commissions which are established by this Congress, and they're cleared advisors, they have security clearance and they represent a broad range of interests from both industry and environmental groups, business groups.... Every member of Congress, any member of Congress, that wants to see the text of a trade agreement we're negotiating has the ability to do so, as long as we're doing so in a secure environment that's private, so I would only offer that one clarification that any elected official in this body has the ability to see the same text as any of those cleared advisors.

Kirk's answer is insulting in how misleading it is. He chooses his words very carefully, so let's break this down to expose why Wyden is concerned, and why Kirk's answer is no answer at all. Remember, folks on the MPAA and other "industry advisors" (of which there are no internet company representatives) have a direct login, so they can access the latest negotiating docs wherever they'd like. Kirk's response, in which he claims that any member of Congress can see the same text is technically true, but it is not the same level of access. What Kirk meant is that any member of Congress can go to the USTR offices by themselves and be shown a copy of the negotiating text on a so-called "read and retain basis." That means: no notes, no copies, no staff -- even staff that have all the necessary "security clearance" as Senator Wyden himself found out when he had a trade expert on his staff obtain the necessary security clearance, only to find that the USTR denied him access to the documents.

So, let's compare: the MPAA and other industry groups can log into a website at their own convenience. They are even allowed to (with certain limitations) share parts of the text with others, supposedly for the sake of getting an "analysis" of what the text means. But when a Senator -- who is the chair of the Senate subcommittee on International Trade -- wants to take a look at the same document, he has to go to a "private room" where he will be shown the document, but not allowed to make copies, take notes or bring along his own staff expert on the matter.

Who does it sound like Ron Kirk is listening to more in this case? The MPAA? Or the Senator who's supposed to have oversight concerning the agreement. I tend to think the word "corrupt" is thrown around too easily, but at this point, is there any way to look at this situation and not judge it to be a case of massive corruption?

Filed Under: ron kirk, ron wyden, tpp, transparency, ustr
Companies: mpaa

Feds Say We Need Stronger IP Laws Because Grocery Stores Employ Lots Of People

from the but-think-of-the-poor-can-stackers dept

You may recall that, back in April, we criticized a Department of Commerce/US Patent and Trademark Office "study" that claimed it was trying to "better understand" intellectual property by adding up all the jobs in "IP-intensive" industries. We had significant concerns about the report, in particular the reasoning behind the methodology of how it chose "IP-intensive" jobs (and why it thought that had anything to do with stronger IP laws).

The folks over at KEI have put the problems of the report into plain view by digging into the details of the methodology, and realizing that the vast, vast majority of these "IP-intensive" industries are actually coming from the trademark side of things. Now, that's fine, but trademark is an entirely different issue than copyrights and patents. And, even if we dig into the trademark side of things some big questions are raised about the methodology. For example, in counting up all these jobs, what "IP intensive" industry employs the most people? Grocery stores.

According to the report, the number one IP intensive industry in terms of employment is “grocery stores,” with 2.5 million jobs. The six industries with more than a million jobs are the following:

1. Grocery stores, 2.5 million
2. Depository credit intermediation, 1.7 million
3. Computer systems and designs,. 1.6 million
4. Insurance carriers, 1.4 million
5. Management and technical consultants, 1.2 million
6. Clothing stores, 1.1 million

These are just a few of the industries the Department of Commerce calls IP-Intensive: Oil and gas extraction, Residential building construction, Grain and oilseed milling, Dairy product manufacturing, Lessors of real estate, Gambling industries, Household and institutional furniture, Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills, Sporting goods and musical instrument stores, Travel arrangement and reservation, etc.

Now, we can argue over just how much grocery stores rely on IP protection, but I think most normal people would agree that even if we abolished IP laws, grocery stores would likely still exist. Would they employ a different number of people? Possibly, though I'm not sure the difference would be significant. The simple fact is that even if grocery stores do benefit from trademark law, the number of jobs at grocery stores that exist because of trademark laws is minimal. And yet all of them are counted towards this total number -- which is regularly being touted by the entertainment industry as proof as to how important stricter IP laws are.

But, you might be saying, you know what's missing from the list above? Yes, that's right: the entertainment industry. In fact, as KEI points out, the only sector in that list above that can "honestly" be described as "IP-intensive" is "computer systems and designs," and if you look, those were some of the folks arguing most vociferously against copyright law expansions like SOPA and for patent reform that reduced the impact of patents. To use those jobs as evidence of the need for a stronger IP regime is downright misleading.

KEI points out that when you look at the number of jobs in the industries that people normally think of as relying on IP, the numbers are much smaller... and even then are potentially misleading in terms of the need and reliance on actual IP laws:

Industries like these overwhelm the statistics on jobs for the more legitimate choices, such as Sound recording industries (just 36.4 thousand jobs), or Software publishers (259.8 thousand), making it seem as though the IP-Intensive industries are truly enormous employers.

[....]

It was also pointed out that while the Software publishing sector was a high wage sector, it was a relatively small employer of the professionals in its key occupations. For example, less than 5 percent of computer programmers work for Software publishers. What do the other 95+ percent of computer programmers do? Quite a few build applications and services than use various open source free software platforms, which are both inexpensive and easy to customize.

And, where is the growth for employment? For the computer, mathematical science occupations, the rate of growth is three times higher outside of the Software Publishers Sector than inside the sector. So what can USPTO or the Economics and Statistics Administration tell us about the relationship between IP and employment? Not much, other than grocery stores, insurance companies and oil companies use a lot of trademarks, and not many people work in the sound recording industry.

The report itself explicitly states that it is not designed to be used to support any particular policy. Yet since it's come out, and despite this ridiculous methodology, it is regularly cited by the MPAA, the RIAA and supporters of things like SOPA and ACTA as "proof" that we need these laws. In fact, Jamie Love from KEI notes that right after the event where they discussed these problems with the methodology of the report, and the fact that all these grocery store employees have been unwillingly drafted to claim they need more IP laws to protect the small number of jobs under the RIAA umbrella, he went to a meeting where a US trade official used the report to claim that it showed we needed to adopt ACTA:

After we left the TACD plenary where the IP and employment report was discussed, the TACD IP Policy Committee met with four US IP/Trade agencies, and three Directorates of the European Union. The meeting began with a US trade official telling us about this new employment study that showed the need for ACTA. No kidding. And, we will certainly continue to hear about this report, with very little understanding of how it was put together.

Before the report came out, the White House had reached out to me, and said that since they knew I was interested in these issues, they could set up an interview with the "economic experts" who put together the report. I tried to take them up on the offer. The response was so ridiculous and so embarrassing for the Department of Commerce that I have actually emailed them back asking them to make sure they really wanted me to run a story based on what was said. I'll have a follow up story soon, either with that response or (hopefully) with a more substantive discussion, should they reconsider.

Filed Under: acta, department of commerce, grocery stores, kei, methodology, sopa, uspto
Companies: mpaa

MPAA Ok With Allowing Users To Get Back Their Megaupload Files If 0% Infringement Can Be Guaranteed

from the and-no-access-for-megaupload dept

We've been covering the ongoing series of fights concerning what happens to to all the data that was stored on the Megaupload servers. The government has wanted it destroyed. Some users have wanted access to their legitimate content. Megaupload wants access for its own defense. The MPAA has wanted it preserved in case it can be used to sue others. Megaupload wants access for the sake of its defense. Carpathia -- the hosting company -- just wants to stop paying $9,000 per day to maintain the servers and data.

However, as TorrentFreak notes, the MPAA's latest filing in this debate offers a very, very, very slight backtrack, in which it says that it kinda sorta would be okay with letting users have access to download their own content... but if and only if there can be a guarantee that not a single bit of infringement occurs as a part of that process. Oh yeah, and also so long as the Megaupload defendants don't get access either (though, it says that's a separate discussion for a separate legal filing).

...the MPAA Members’ position continues to be that if the Court is willing to consider allowing access for users such as Mr. Goodwin to allow retrieval of files, it is essential that the mechanism include a procedure that ensures that any materials the users access and copy or download are not files that have been illegally uploaded to their accounts, given that MPAA Members and other rights holders are certain to own the copyrights in many of the files stored on the servers. In addition, in no event should any Megaupload defendants or their representatives—who have not generally appeared in this proceeding, and who are not subject to the control and supervision of the Court—be allowed to access the Mega Servers under such a mechanism designed for the benefit of third party Megaupload users. Whether and under what conditions the Mega defendants should have access to the servers (again, assuming they are subject to the control of the Court) is a separate issue.

Of course, this assumes it's even possible to prevent 100% of infringement. Which it's not. And that's probably the point. The MPAA gets to pretend that it's being "reasonable" by saying some access is okay... but immediately including an impossible caveat on top of that. It's a neat way to pretend to be open to compromise, while really sticking to an extreme position.

Filed Under: content, doj, hosting
Companies: carpathia, megaupload, mpaa

Hollywood Bending Over Backwards To Appease China

from the and-i-thought-they-were-all-thieves dept

For decades, we've been hearing complaints from the entertainment industry about just how evil China was, and how rampant "piracy" was in China and how the country needed to crack down... blah, blah, blah. But a funny thing happened on the way to the Great Wall, it seems that Hollywood has finally realized that there are over a billion people in China, and a lot of them are interested in paying for American movies. Back in March, when the MPAA's yearly numbers came out (showing continued growth, of course), the report repeatedly mentioned the rapidly growing Chinese market.

What's interesting, though, is that this is now causing Hollywood to actually rethink how movies represent people in China. That link is to a recent segment from the radio show On the Media, where they talk about how Hollywood suddenly is bending over backwards to make Chinese consumers happy -- including changing the content of movies so as not to offend the Chinese. The key story: when MGM remade the movie Red Dawn (yes, another remake), it replaced the "Soviet" enemy threat from the original with a Chinese threat. Except... after the movie was done, the studio realized that might cut out the Chinese market, so they went back in and re-edited the film to make the Chinese people into North Koreans instead.

The studio is now digitally removing Chinese flags and military symbols from the movie and are hard at work re-recording dialogue so that no one mistakes the brazen invaders for the Chinese.

There seems to be something rather ironic in the fact that Hollywood spent so much time bitching about the awful Chinese market... and now they're making massive changes to movies just to appease that market... But, of course, there's a bigger lesson here: actually providing markets with what they want, rather than worrying about piracy, seems to be a pretty good way of making money. It's just too bad that Hollywood hasn't realized that back here at home yet.

Filed Under: china, hollywood, piracy, red dawn
Companies: mgm, mpaa

Resetting The Balance To Save Copyright (Part III)

from the alternate-side-of-the-street dept

Summary of Parts One and Two: The essential balance of copyright between incentives for creators and the feeding of a rich and unlicensed public domain has been undone by a long series of misguided efforts to save copyright by making its rules both stronger and less enforceable at the same time. The industry’s tactics have backfired, eroding what was left of any moral authority for obeying the law. And that was the chief (and most efficient) mechanism for enforcement all along.

The repeated and retroactive extension of copyright terms, largely at the behest of the Disney Corporation, has had the unintended consequence of creating a nation of felons, both technically and in spirit. According to one provocative study by John Tehranian, we all violate copyright unintentionally many times a day. And to the extent we realize it, we don't care.

To return to the parking analogy, the result of these legal changes has been to paint every curb a red zone—it's now illegal to park anywhere. The result is not perfect enforcement of copyright but its opposite. No one obeys the law or thinks they ought to. Getting caught is more or less a random event, and rational consumers won't change their behavior to avoid it.

The center will not hold. Large media holding companies are becoming desperate, expending their resources not to find new ways of making money but to secure passage of increasingly draconian laws (SOPA) and treaties (ACTA) that give them more, largely unusable new powers. Even if passed, these legal tools will do little to improve legal enforcement. But they are certain to cause dangerous and unintended new harms.

At the same time, the marketing machines of these same companies have convinced us that our right to enjoy content is inherent—the American Way. Once offered, we imagine free content should always be free, even if the rightsholder changes its mind or intended all along to attach conditions to consumption based on time or place or the ability to associate mechanisms, such as advertising, that allowed for indirect revenue generation.

Americans don't understand that subtlety, and rightsholders have given them no reason to try. Public education efforts have been pathetic. Instead of teaching consumers the costs and dangers to the delicately-balanced system from copyright infringement, they emphasize moral and legal prohibitions that are rightly perceived by consumers as petulant, cynical, and amusingly out-of-touch.

These campaigns, for starters, say nothing about the economics of content production and distribution. They are morality tales, narrated by fabulists who pride themselves, in their day jobs, on their mastery of manipulation and misdirection. It's as if Darth Vader sat down with preschoolers to talk about why they shouldn't throw stones at the Death Star because of the potential for property damage.

Consider just a few examples below: YouTube's mandatory copyright "school" for violators and the classic 1992 "Don't Copy that Floppy:"


Clearly, not much has changed over the last twenty years in efforts to change public perceptions and behaviors. The Hollywood that can produce blockbuster movies somehow can't make a PSA that isn't a self-parody.

I think the public can be educated, and should be. Here's where I part company with those who reject copyright altogether. The theory of copyright—limited monopoly in exchange for a rich public domain—is still a good one, and the system created by the English, adapted by early Congresses, had the virtue of being largely self-enforcing and therefore efficient.

It is the 20th and 21st century imbalance in copyright, and not copyright itself, that must be fixed. And it can be fixed. There is a way out of this dangerous and increasingly tense cold war between content industries and their customers. Here's a simple three-step solution:

1. If rightsholders want consumers to obey the law and support their preferred business model, they first need to stop making it impossible for consumers to follow the rules. Copyright needs to be weakened, not strengthened.
2. Content industries need to end the stalling and excuses—perhaps understandable in 1998, when I first wrote about digital distribution in "Unleashing the Killer App," but not now, nearly fifteen years later. They need to embrace digital media and new channels fully, even if doing so means tolerating a considerable amount of unauthorized distribution and reuse as working models for profit-generation rapidly evolve.
3. Public education needs to focus not on self-righteous indignation but on collaborating with consumers on finding ways to compensate creators for the value of their work. If consumers understood the economics of content creation and distribution, and given an easy way to cooperate, they'd do it.

Ironically, there's every reason to believe that embracing a relaxed copyright regime and encouraging creative reuse would actually generate more revenue for creators. That, in any case, has been the lesson of every form of new media to be invented in the last hundred years or more.

Each of them was initially resisted and branded as illegal and immoral. Each of them—from the player piano to the photocopier to the VCR to the Internet—has instead offered salvation and riches to those who figure out the new rules for working with them and not against them. (Hint: network effects rule.) Rightsholders consistently confuse each fading media technology with the true value of the content they control. The medium is not the message.

For now, industry apologists—the MPAA, the RIAA, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others—are caught in a dangerous cycle of denial and anger. A growing number of consumers refuse to follow the current rules. So they lobby to make the rules stronger and the penalties more severe, amping up the moral rhetoric along the way.

But this only serves to starve the public domain more, undermining the basic principles of copyright. With the system increasingly out of balance, self-enforcement becomes even less likely. The law is impossible to obey, and rarely enforced. So consumers make up their own rules, for better or worse, with expensive and unnecessary casualties piling up on both sides.

Eventually, consumers and creators find the right balance and the most effective forms of compensation, regardless of the industry's efforts to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Then along comes another disruptive technology and a new round of customer innovation, and the cycle starts all over.

Rights holders remain stubbornly parked in the same old spots, afraid that if they move their vehicles at all they'll be doomed to circling the block forever, unable to stop until they permanently run out of gas.

The rest of us, meanwhile, are happily enjoying our flying cars.

Filed Under: acta, advertising, hollywood, john tehranian, parking, sopa
Companies: disney, mpaa, riaa, youtube