Did Hollywood Not Use Available DMCA Tools Just To Pretend It Needed SOPA?

from the transparency's-a-bitch dept

The more you dig into Google's new copyright transparency reports the more eye-catching info you find. Julian Sanchez, for example, has noticed the rather interesting timing of massive explosions in Hollywood studios using Google's DMCA takedown system for search... in correlation with key elements of the fight to get SOPA passed. For example, there's a really big spike in DMCA takedowns for search the week of November 14th.

Hmmm... what happened that week? Oh, that's right: the House Judiciary Committee hearings about SOPA, where part of the "evidence" for why SOPA was needed was the MPAA's anti-piracy boss Michael O'Leary insisting that doing Google searches on certain movies led you to links to pages where you could download unauthorized copies. He was wrong, actually -- as our own tests showed, they took you to legal versions. But isn't it interesting to see that, for example, the very first search takedown that Lionsgate sent to Google happened on November 15th? Similarly, it's interesting to see that right after the SOPA blackouts made it clear that SOPA was going to die... there's another new "burst" of takedown filings. Twentieth Century Fox appears not to have used the system at all until January 30th of this year -- or a week or so after SOPA was officially declared dead. How about Paramount Pictures, one of the more vocal supporters of SOPA? It filed just one search takedown prior to the whole SOPA debate. But about a month after SOPA was declared dead, suddenly Paramount started using the tool. NBC Universal certainly had been a regular user of the system all along -- but right after SOPA died, its usage clearly trended upwards -- whereas prior to that, its usage looked pretty flat.

In other words, you could certainly make a reasonable case that the studios went to Congress to complain about how they couldn't get rid of search results they don't like from Google... when they hadn't even tried to use the tools available which appear to do the job they wanted.

There certainly may be other factors, but it's possible that the studios had been holding back on using the tools as a way of providing extra "evidence" of a problem that had to be addressed by law. Again, as Sanchez points out:

How about before you break the Internet, you try USING THE F***ING TOOLS YOU ALREADY HAVE?

A reasonable question, but don't expect a reasonable answer.

Filed Under: dmca, hollywood, house judiciary committee, michael o'leary, sopa
Companies: google, lionsgate, mpaa, nbc universal, paramount pictures, twentieth century fox

Congress Proposes Giving Another $10 Million To ICE To Censor More Websites For Hollywood

from the not-cool dept

Ever wonder how many of your tax dollars are going to the federal government censoring music blogs based on no real evidence, but just the say so of the RIAA and MPAA? Well, in the newly proposed Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, just introduced in the Senate by Mary Landrieu, the federal government would like to set aside the following for the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) unit that is in charge of being Hollywood's private law enforcement wing:

Provided further, That not less than $10,000,000 shall be available for investigation of intellectual property rights violations, including the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination

Yup. At least $10 million of your hard earned dollars may be going to ICE to help them continue to be Hollywood's private police force, censoring websites without evidence. This is for just one year. You'd think with that kind of money, ICE could actually hire its own actors for the PSAs it's been putting on censored sites, rather than "pirating" a video put together by NBC Universal.

Filed Under: censorship, congress, hollywood, ice
Companies: mpaa, nbc universal

Why Hollywood Is Doomed: It Takes Sensible Advice Like 'Make Good Movies' And Turns It Into A Screed About Piracy

from the wow dept

Last week, Rob 'Cmdrtaco' Malda (and, can I just say that I think it's awesome the Washington Post allows Rob to keep "Cmdrtaco" in his byline?) wrote a perfectly reasonable (perhaps even tame) column with the admittedly inflammatory title Why Hollywood is doomed. But if you read the actual article, it basically argues that the answer to Hollywood's problems is not to focus on passing bad laws in a quixotic and pointless attempt to "stop" piracy, but rather do what they should be best at: making good movies. He also suggests a much bigger threat to Hollywood than any amount of piracy is (*gasp!*) bad word of mouth:

While Hollywood blames piracy, at least for now, I put the blame squarely on texts and tweets. These days, a month-long $100 million marketing campaign culminates in a 24-hour social network frenzy. The first $10 million-worth of ticket purchasers influence the potential $90 million-worth with knee-jerk reviews broadcast via their smartphones. These viewers determine if the movie will make a profit.

Ultimately, Hollywood, here’s the secret: Make good movies. “The Avengers” is simply fantastic. It’s no surprise, since the film’s director, Joss Whedon (of Buffy and Firefly-fame), is known for making cult, ensemble TV action. His most recent film, prior to “The Avengers”, is “The Cabin in the Woods” -- still the most fun movie of 2012.

This is perfectly reasonable advice. If Hollywood actually focuses on making top notch movies, it seems pretty clear that people have no problem paying. The success of the Avengers is hardly the only data point to show this.

So how do the folks at the MPAA react to such reasonable advice? They start whining all over again. In fact, they sent out their "big guns," starting with Michael O'Leary (basically Chris Dodd's righthand man) to attack Malda by totally misreading his column:

The Washington Post’s Rob Malda’s recent blog post appears to argue that the success of a particular film at the box office somehow means that concerns about widespread piracy are misplaced. This is a bit like condoning shoplifting if it’s done at a successful store. Of course, we shouldn’t. And it overlooks the economic damage – and the damage to consumers -- of turning a blind eye to such forms of theft.

Except that's not what Malda said at all. He said the concerns were misplaced because good movies can still get tons of people to pay -- far more than ever did in the past. This isn't saying that shoplifting is okay from a successful store. It's saying that there's little to no evidence that such infringement actually has a negative impact, because it seems pretty damn clear that people are still quite willing to pay to go see a good movie.

From there, O'Leary goes on to misrepresent the already ridiculous White House report that tallies up jobs in "IP-intensive" industries, but ignores the fact that very few of those jobs exist because of IP laws. In fact, an awful lot of those jobs come from industries (tech) that have fought the hardest against the expansion of IP laws, and have worked hard to reform them. On top of that, the report clearly states that it's not intended to be used for policy purposes, but that hasn't stopped the MPAA and all its friends from mentioning it every chance they get:

According to a recent Department of Commerce report, IP-intensive industries such as film and television support 40 million jobs and add $5 trillion dollars to U.S. gross domestic product annually – nearly 35 percent of America’s economic output. 2.2 million American jobs depend on the film industry and television industry alone.

We think that the hard work of those people should be protected. But the reality is that rampant online theft undermines the ability of IP-intensive industries like ours to invest in new ideas and new products if it’s simply accepted fact that they will be stolen – often before they even have a chance to hit the marketplace. Copyright protections are critical to keeping the creative industries vibrant so they can continue to employ millions of Americans and produce the films and other creative content that have become such a vital part of our cultural fabric.

O'Leary conveniently leaves out that this same report noted that these "IP-intensive industries" are currently growing faster than other industries and pay people more than other industries. I guess that doesn't fit with "the story" that the sky is falling and they need special protections.

As for those protections, last I checked, we were supposed to live in a capitalist free market economy, where even the most basic economics student learns that you don't "protect" industries, you let them compete. And if they fail, they fail. The fact that O'Leary wants the government to be protectionist for his industry, rather than letting it compete in a free market pretty much makes clear what he thinks his own industry's chances of survival are.

And he's mostly right... because it goes right back to what Rob said. For the most part, they don't seem to make that many good movies these days. They've focused on crappy, formulaic, derivative flicks. Every so often a good film gets out, but Hollywood has become afraid to make good movies most of the time. Perhaps if it spent more time focusing on that, and less on whining about how it needs to be protected, it wouldn't have so many problems.

Filed Under: chris dodd, cmdrtaco, hollywood, michael o'leary
Companies: mpaa

MPAA: Censorship Is Good For Consumers

from the say-what-now? dept

Ah, the MPAA. Hardly a day goes by when someone there doesn't say something positively ridiculous. The latest is a reaction to the news that a court in the Netherlands has expanded the censorship of The Pirate Bay to a few more ISPs. The MPAA has decided to explain that this kind of censorship is good for consumers:

The UK ruling and indeed other recent ones in Austria, Belgium, Denmark and Finland as well as this one are positive developments that support not only the creative community but also consumers.

It's not entirely clear why they say "the UK ruling," since the post only refers to a ruling from The Netherlands, but it's a strange world when someone is claiming that censoring a website that consumers find useful is "good for consumers." So how do they defend such a ridiculous claim? Well, by getting the story backwards yet again:

The number of sites that offer legitimate creative content continues to increase dramatically. But to fully enable this growing sector to thrive and provide consumers with content when they want it, where they want it and how they want it, it is imperative that the content not be siphoned off and distributed illegally by those seeking to profit from the work and creativity of others.

Hogwash. First of all, if the industry had its way, it would never have to innovate online at all, preferring greatly to live off of the old system of DVDs with crippling DRM. The only reason they were pushed to start innovating online was because of competition from the likes of The Pirate Bay, which finally caused them to agree to license platforms like Netflix, which has shown that it's actually quite easy to compete with The Pirate Bay if the MPAA and its studios would stop demanding ridiculous restrictions on content (and insanely high prices). Offer a good service at a good price, and The Pirate Bay simply can't compete.

The claim that for such services to thrive the content can't be "siphoned off and distributed illegally" is again totally bogus. Netflix competes quite nicely in the US with The Pirate Bay, and if the studios allowed more Netflixes to exist (rather than locking down every competitor with stupid rules like only having 24 hours to watch a movie) there would be plenty of innovation. Furthermore, even if they block The Pirate Bay, it doesn't stop the fact that the content still is and will be available. Claiming that legitimate sites can't compete if there is unauthorized content available means that legitimate sites can't compete at all. Yet we see them compete successfully with unauthorized content all the time.

So why does the MPAA lie?

As always, it's about control. They don't like being pressured by such innovation. They don't like having to adapt and to change. So they attack any new form of innovation and brand it as piracy -- just as they did with the VCR. Of course, amusingly, it's now that same home movie revenue which they fear losing. Yet if the MPAA had had its way 30 years ago, there would be no home movie market from which to lose revenue. Because, just a few short decades ago, the MPAA insisted that such a market would kill Hollywood.

Oh, and as for this point:

The court verdict found that The Pirate Bay is predominantly devoted to illegal activities with more than 90% of all content infringing on copyright.

You know what else had more than 90% infringement in the early days? The VCR. But thankfully courts recognized that it also had substantial non-infringing uses -- as does The Pirate Bay. It's not difficult to see how the industry could have embraced sites like The Pirate Bay to their own advantage, but failing that and having them censored... and then insisting that somehow benefits the public? Sorry, the public isn't going to buy that kind of crap.

Filed Under: censorship, drm, netherlands
Companies: mpaa, netflix, the pirate bay

Ad Industry Is Already Getting Ads Off Of 'Rogue' Sites; So Why Did We Need Legislation?

from the just-saying... dept

Recently, the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A's) put together a statement of best practices as part of an "International Anti-Counterfeiting Conference." The best practices say that advertisers and marketers should be explicit that they don't want their ads on "rogue" sites. This leads to a bunch of thoughts.

First up, as Dan Mitchell at Fortune points out, the companies that already advertise on "rogue" sites aren't the major advertisers. For all the talk by copyright maximalists of how big companies are getting rich off of rogue sites, that shows they don't know much about how advertising works. The ads that show up on most of those sites is the crappiest of the crappiest of advertising -- the pure bottom-filler type crap that doesn't pay very much at all. While Mitchell uses this to suggest that such a best practices won't "staunch the flow of revenues" to these sites, he totally ignores the more important point: that it shows that these sites aren't making very much money in the first place because all the advertisers who actually pay decent ad rates have already made sure their ads don't show up on these sites.

Second, this raises questions about why the MPAA was so insistent on the need for SOPA. It sure looks like the major players in the industry are already doing things like blocking ads from "rogue" sites voluntarily. It's amazing how the entertainment industry likes to pretend that companies would never do such things without a law, when they do it all the time anyway.

Finally, the Adweek article (first link above) notes that ad giant GroupM already had put in place a blacklist. But what the Adweek article unfortunately left out was that the "list" GroupM came up with was a complete joke -- listing all sorts of perfectly legitimate sites, like the Internet Archive, Vimeo and Soundcloud. Oh yeah, and a bunch of hip hop blogs... and 50Cent's personal website. It's great to declare that they won't let ads show up on "rogue" sites, but it gets worrisome when they define "rogue" sites so broadly.

Filed Under: ana, counterfeiting, rogue sites, sopa
Companies: groupm, mpaa

Google's Fiber Makes MPAA Skittish. Why Does Hollywood See All Technology In Terms Of Piracy?

from the negativity dept

One of the points we're always trying to make about piracy is that it has less to do with people just wanting everything for free and more to do with people rushing to embrace the possibilities of new technology. The industry has been slow to offer products that take advantage of these possibilities, and when they do they usually cripple them and charge too much for them, because they refuse to acknowledge the impact of better distribution systems on the market. Instead of recognizing that technological capabilities dictate how they should distribute their content, they think they get to dictate how far people should utilize technology. So piracy moves in to fill the gap, offering people the sort of comprehensive, on-demand service which they know is possible but which can't be bought at any price.

An anonymous reader points us to a perfect example of the technophobic attitude that has become so ingrained in Hollywood. It starts with a story in Bloomberg Businessweek about Google's pilot project in Kansas City, where they are laying fiber to bring super-high-speed internet to the community. With 922 Mbps download speeds already available in nearly a thousand homes, the topic of piracy was inevitably raised:

[Google spokeswoman Jenna] Wandres stresses that Google Fiber isn’t meant to empower pirates: “We hope higher speeds will actually make it easier to deliver and download more authorized content,” she says. Nonetheless, Howard Gantman, spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, notes that piracy is always a concern of the entertainment industry. Google Fiber “could be a great opportunity for consumers whose access to creative content is often hampered by slow speeds,” he says. But in South Korea, “the home entertainment marketplace was decimated by digital piracy” enabled by the widespread availability of high-speed Internet.

For one thing, the statement about South Korea is incredibly flimsy. The Korean music industry thrives on high-speed internet—it grew into an economic powerhouse while the country had some of the highest and earliest broadband penetration rates (and digital piracy rates) in the world. Smart Korean entrepreneurs have figured out how to succeed in the new market. Moreover, claiming that "home entertainment" as a whole was damaged by broadband is just hubris from an industry that thinks only its own products count as "entertainment".

It seems like every Hollywood statement about new technology follows the same format. "This new thing is great, but... piracy!" The problem is that they refuse to act on the first part until someone gives them a bulletproof solution to the second part—and since such a solution does not and never will exist, they ruin every attempt at a new service with ineffective restrictions and DRM schemes. Ars Technica picked up the story and spoke further to the MPAA spokesman, getting yet another "great, but..." response:

"We want to reinforce that higher speeds could be a great opportunity for consumers, and that's the bottom line," Howard Gantman, spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, told Ars on Friday. "There are problems that can, in terms of [an] increase of digital piracy, come with that, but we are hopeful that efforts can be made... to address digital piracy."

Someone should tell Gantman that it's not "the bottom line" if you go on to add caveats and addendums. It's also interesting that he thinks blazing fast internet only "could be" good for consumers—maybe because he knows Hollywood "could" (but won't) offer them a service that fully leverages the technology. Really what's amazing about this is that the MPAA thinks anyone cares about its opinion of fiber broadband, as if the public is going to stop and think, "Gee, I guess I'll just have to wait for faster internet access while Hollywood develops better piracy controls".

The fact that the MPAA can't get through a single statement about something as clearly positive as faster internet without bringing up reservations about piracy doesn't bode well for Hollywood's future. The studios should be getting ahead of the new technology, and making sure that everyone who gets hooked up to a new fiber network is immediately greeted with a well-made, well-priced movie service that gives them a chance to test out their speedy new connection. Instead they're probably going to watch the technology develop with caution, wait for pirates to beat them to the punch, then arrive in the market with an inferior product and complaints about how they "can't compete".

Filed Under: fiber, kansas, piracy, south korea
Companies: google, mpaa

Too Much Copyright: This Generation's Prohibition

The folks over at ReasonTV have put together a great episode about the state of copyright law today. Hosted by Zach Weissmueller, the video includes three guests. Professor Tom Bell, who is well known for his useful depiction of the insanity of copyright extension via the Mickey Mouse curve, Cheezburger CEO Ben Huh, and the MPAA's Ben Sheffner. There's a nice animation of the Mickey Mouse curve which is even more powerful than the standard image version: Sheffner trots out the usual lines about property rights and how we're going to see less content going forward, which Bell rightly scoffs. The video then uses our Sky Is Rising report to highlight how silly Sheffner's claims are. Sheffner also has the unenviable task (because it's a despicable position to take) of claiming that site blocking is a perfectly reasonable solution. Go censorship!

It's also nice to see ReasonTV highlight the ridiculousness of copyright laws today by refusing to use any material covered by copyright to demonstrate certain points. So, rather than show Mickey Mouse, they show three revolving balls, and ask you to imagine how they might come together to form a mouse-like shape. Is this an exaggeration of the restrictions in place today? Sure. They have a perfectly valid fair use claim to showing Mickey Mouse -- but they're being safe in an era where people are getting sued for the same sorts of things all the time. And, in an era where the MPAA argues, with a straight face, that blocking entire sites is a reasonable remedy, you can understand why they'd rather be safe than sorry.

The whole thing is worth watching, but the key point really comes at the end from Ben Huh, and it's a point that we've been raising for years:

This disconnect between the public's view of copyright and fair use and what should and should not be prosecuted vs. the copyright maximist's view of the law is our generation's prohibition. The law no longer reflects what the society believes to be true. And I think that if they continue to go down that route, they're going to see even bigger backlash.

This is such a key point, and one we've raised over and over again. The disrespect for copyright law today is not because people are uneducated or immoral. It's because copyright law just doesn't make any sense at all. It's so disconnected from reality and societal norms, that people can't respect it. The fact that the industry's response to this is to push to make the laws even more ridiculous and push them further away from people's natural tendencies, is only going to serve the opposite purpose of the maximalists' intentions. They are driving an entire generation into thinking that the whole of copyright law is entirely pointless.

Filed Under: ben huh, ben sheffner, mickey mouse, sky is rising, tom bell
Companies: mpaa, reasontv

Hollywood Loses Its Big Copyright Lawsuit Against ISP iiNet Down Under

from the secondary-liability dept

Well, here's some good news on the copyright front down under in Australia. You may recall that, back in 2008, a bunch of Hollywood studios (along with two Australian movie studios, just to make it seem "local") sued Australian ISP iiNet for failing to "do enough" to stop infringement. As far as we can tell, Hollywood basically wanted iiNet to wave a magic wand. We later learned, thanks to a US State Department cable leaked via Wikileaks that, not only was the MPAA really behind the lawsuit (though it tried to keep its involvement secret), but that it chose iiNet (the third largest Australian ISP) on purpose: they were "big enough to be important" but not big enough to have the resources to fight back (in the tangled mind of the MPAA). This, like so many MPAA actions these days, turned out to be a serious miscalculation.

iiNet fought back, and fought back hard -- and won at every single level in the court system, including today's High Court ruling that effectively ends the case. Oh yeah, the High Court also says that Hollywood has to pay iiNet's legal expenses -- approximately $9 million.

From the beginning, contrary to the MPAA's assumption, iiNet fought back hard. Beyond the obvious, which was pointing out that as a service provider it was not responsible for its users' actions, iiNet also protested that the notices the MPAA's anti-piracy front group AFACt, was sending were deficient:

They send us a list of IP addresses and say 'this IP address was involved in a breach on this date'. We look at that say 'well what do you want us to do with this? We can't release the person's details to you on the basis of an allegation and we can't go and kick the customer off on the basis of an allegation from someone else'. So we say 'you are alleging the person has broken the law; we're passing it to the police. Let them deal with it'.

The original district court ruling was fantastic, and did such a great job illustrating why it makes no sense to blame third party service providers for infringement -- because infringement is not an absolute, but requires a court to decide what really is infringement. As the original ruling stated:

Regardless of the actual quality of the evidence gathering of DtecNet, copyright infringement is not a straight 'yes' or 'no' question. The Court has had to examine a very significant quantity of technical and legal detail over dozens of pages in this judgment in order to determine whether iiNet users, and how often iiNet users, infringe copyright by use of the BitTorrent system. The respondent had no such guidance before these proceedings came to be heard. The respondent apparently did not properly understand how the evidence of infringements underlying the AFACT Notices was gathered. The respondent was understandably reluctant to allege copyright infringement and terminate based on that allegation. However, the reasonableness of terminating subscribers on the basis of non-payment of fees does not dictate that warning and termination on the basis of AFACT Notices was equally reasonable. Unlike an allegation of copyright infringement, the respondent did not need a third party to provide evidence that its subscribers had not paid their fees before taking action to terminate an account for such reason.

In other words, just because someone accuses someone else of infringement, it's ridiculous for the ISP to automatically assume infringement has taken place. That turns the basic concepts of due process on their head. AFACT/MPAA appealed and lost again, with the court once again pointing out that general knowledge that someone on your site infringes is not nearly enough to terminate or suspend users.

This latest (and final) ruling basically takes the same stance. The full ruling is a bit dry, but makes some salient points. It notes, for example, that as a mere ISP, iiNet has absolutely nothing to do with BitTorrent and can't control the fact that some of its subscribers used BitTorrent. It also notes that iiNet was not hosting any of the material, nor doing anything with the infringing material. On top of that, it notes the pointlessness of AFACT/MPAA insisting that iiNet has to kick people off the internet:

Termination of an iiNet account with a customer who has infringed will assuredly prevent the continuation of a specific act of communicating a film online using a particular .torrent file on a particular computer. Regrettably, however, on receiving a threat of such termination, it is possible for a customer to engage another ISP for access to the internet on that computer or access the internet on another computer using a different ISP. Whilst any new infringement would be just as serious as the specific primary infringements about which the appellants complain, this circumstance shows the limitations on iiNet's power to command a response from its customers, or to prevent continuing infringements by them.

And, once again, the court finds that mere notice of infringement certainly is not proof of infringement, and requiring iiNet to investigate further is too big a burden:

Updating the investigative exercise in the AFACT notices would require iiNet to understand and apply DtecNet's methodology – which, among other things, involved a permission to DtecNet from AFACT to use the BitTorrent system to download the appellants' films. Before the filing of experts' reports in the proceedings, the information in the AFACT notices did not approximate the evidence which would be expected to be filed in civil proceedings in which interlocutory relief was sought by a copyright owner in respect of an allegation of copyright infringement. Also, any wrongful termination of a customer's account could expose iiNet to risk of liability. These considerations highlight the danger to an ISP, which is neither a copyright owner nor a licensee, which terminates (or threatens to terminate) a customer's internet service in the absence of any industry protocol binding on all ISPs, or any, even interim, curial assessment of relevant matters.

iiNet's inactivity after receipt of the AFACT notices was described by the appellants as demonstrating a sufficient degree of indifference to their rights to give rise to authorisation. However, the evidence showed that the inactivity was not the indifference of a company unconcerned with infringements of the appellants' rights. Rather, the true inference to be drawn is that iiNet was unwilling to act because of its assessment of the risks of taking steps based only on the information in the AFACT notices. Moreover, iiNet's customers could not possibly infer from iiNet's inactivity (if they knew about it), and the subsequent media releases (if they saw them), that iiNet was in a position to grant those customers rights to make the appellants' films available online.

All in all, this is a good ruling concerning copyright and secondary liability -- and a bunch of money down the drain for the MPAA, who could have spent this time helping its studios to innovate, but has instead focused on this quixotic legal strategy.

Of course, it doesn't sound like this ruling will have the MPAA come to its senses either. The AFACT front group is already claiming that the ruling means Australia must change its laws to turn ISPs into copyright cops:

The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) is ramping up the pressure on the government to act. It said today's judgment exposed the failure of copyright law to keep pace with the online environment and the need for the government to act.

"It would seem apparent that the current Australian Copyright Act isn't capable of protecting content once it hits the internet and peer-to-peer networks...," AFACT managing director Neil Gane said.

No, Neil, it's not Australian law that's the problem. It's reality, and the fact that the movie studios refuse to bother to understand how the internet works and how they can adapt. No law will fix this. It will only make things worse. And Gane and the MPAA should be careful, lest they think they can try to pass another SOPA down under. I get the feeling that won't go over well.

Filed Under: australia, bittorrent, hollywood, liability
Companies: afact, iinet, mpaa, wikileaks

Revolving Door Between The MPAA And The Federal Government

from the how-you-get-laws-passed dept

Via Parker Higgins we learn of a graphical representation of the revolving door between the MPAA and the federal government from geke.us, purveyor of useful visuals to explain economic truths:
Not all of these are current, of course. Dan Glickman left well before Chris Dodd showed up, for example Still, it does give you an idea of why the MPAA always seemed to get its way with the government.

Filed Under: chris dodd, dan glickman, graphic, revolving door
Companies: mpaa