Actually, Jobs In Making Movies Are On The Rise, Not Falling

from the oh-look-at-that... dept

One of the key talking points that the movie industry likes to bring up concerning the reason it wants SOPA and PROTECT IP is that it has to "protect jobs." In a recent talk by the MPAA's Chris Dodd, he once again talked up how many jobs were being "lost" in the movie industry. First, he pulled out the industry's favorite 2.2 million number, which is clearly bogus. As we noted earlier in the week, new research from the Congressional Research Service shows that the movie industry actually employs 374,000, making the claim (pulled from the highly questionable Institute for Policy Innovation) that the industry is losing 373,000 jobs each year... kinda questionable.

But I wanted to get a better understanding of what was actually happening to jobs in and around the motion picture industry. Seeing as CEOs of the major studios continue to bring in record salaries, it certainly sounds like the industry isn't doing that bad. Thankfully, research firm IBISWorld digs pretty deep into different industries to separate out what's happening. After digging through the numbers, it looks like the MPAA is (yet again) being intellectually dishonest.

If you look at the jobs in actual movie production -- the kind that they always imply are most at risk -- it turns out those jobs are growing rapidly. In 2002, there were about 43,000 people employed in the actual production of movies and videos. In 2010? That number had jumped to 77,000. Not bad. So where are the few job losses coming from? Well, there are about 1,500 fewer jobs in "movie and video distribution," but that makes sense, since technology is making that area less important. Really, the only place in the industry that has seen a significant loss in jobs (and even then it's not that big) is in the movie theater business. Employment in movie theaters dropped from about 134,000 in 2002 to about 119,000 in 2010. That accounts almost entirely for the drop in total employment in the movie business from 392,000 down to 374,000 that the CRS report noted.

In other words, the only "significant" job losses that we can spot are coming from the theaters themselves -- and it's difficult to see how that's got much, if anything, to do with piracy. As was noted in the CRS report, box office revenue has continued to hit records every year. So, really, it looks like theaters may just be cutting staff to cut costs, but that revenue at the box office keeps getting higher. So, more money with fewer staff. That's not exactly a story that shows an industry decimated by piracy.

Filed Under: chris dodd, jobs, movie making, movie theaters, movies, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: mpaa

Chris Dodd Resorting To Outright Lying In A Desperate Attempt To Get SOPA Passed

from the regret-the-error? dept

MPAA boss Chris Dodd has apparently resorted to out and out lying as he makes a big push to get SOPA passed. On Tuesday he spoke at an event for the Center for American Progress, in which he pulled out his usual "woe is us" story about why Congress needs to pass SOPA/PIPA. However, Dodd, once again, appears to be factually challenged. For example, during questions, Dodd claimed:

“The entire film industry of Spain, Egypt and Sweden are gone.”

James Losey thought this was odd, given that he was familiar with some films coming out of Sweden:

Sweden actually produces a number of high quality films. Released in 2008, the vampire flim Let The Right One In received critical acclaim here in the U.S. Additionally, all three best-selling books of the Millennium Trilogy are Swedish films and 2009’s The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was quite successful. The film made a modest $10 million in the U.S. and a respectable $104 million worldwide.

Considering the budget for the U.S. remake of the film is $100 million - as much as the original film has earned to date - perhaps Dodd meant that the film does not count until Hollywood gets a chance to remake it. Ironically, the U.S. remake of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was shot in Sweden.

Chris Dodd was correct to say that film is an international industry, but he was wrong to say that the Swedish film industry has disappeared and misleading to imply that all Hollywood jobs are American jobs. At least for this Hollywood production, Sweden has a lot to gain.

Of course, there's also plenty of actual data on the film industries around the world, so I figured that perhaps I'd dig into the numbers a bit more than James' excellent debunking, just to see if there was any truth to Dodd's bizarre claims. Thankfully, the folks at the UN actually track this data. On top of that, the awesome chartsbin has laid out how many films every country produces in a neat interactive map:
via chartsbin.com Let's start with Sweden. I think the chart above is a bit out of date. Looking through the UN data, it shows that Sweden produced 41 feature films in 2009 -- actually a significant increase from 2007 and 2008. No sign that the industry is "gone" there. But perhaps it used to be much bigger? Back to the UN we go... to learn that in 1995, Sweden made 17 feature films. Gone? Sorry, the facts say Dodd is lying.

Okay. Let's look at Egypt. The latest UN data shows Egypt produced 46 films in 2009. Not bad. But perhaps it used to be much bigger? Oh, whoops. 1996 (the earliest data available) shows that Egypt produced 24 films that year. So it looks like the industry has about doubled. Gone? Oops. Dodd is lying.

Finally, let's check out Spain. Spain has been a favorite target of both the MPAA and the RIAA lately. They like to claim that "lax" copyright laws there have decimated the entertainment industry in that country. Once again, the facts show a totally different story. If you look at the map above, you can see that Spain is actually a movie making powerhouse in Europe, and the data shows that it just keeps making more and more movies. In 2009 it produced 186 movies, and the trend has been directly up. In 2008 it was 173. Go back to 2005 and it was 142. Go back to 1999? 82 films. Back to '95? 59 films. Yeah, film production has more than tripled in the last fifteen years.

Sorry, but Chris Dodd is flat out lying.

Why do the public and politicians let him get away with blatant falsehoods as he seeks to push a law that will set up an American censorship system? The facts say that he's full of it... and yet we're supposed to trust him that this bill is needed?

Filed Under: chris dodd, egypt, movies, pipa, protect ip, sopa, spain, sweden
Companies: mpaa

MPAA Boss Chris Dodd Then & Now Concerning Google Censorship In China

from the how-much-does-it-cost-to-get-an-ex-senator-to-sell-his-soul dept

Last week, we quoted ex-Senator now MPAA-boss, Chris Dodd making somewhat surprising comments suggesting that it's fine to force Google to censor the internet at home, because the Chinese government made Google censor its results in China. His specific quote:

"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites."

That's an interesting statement, because almost exactly four years ago, when Chris Dodd was still a Senator and was also an aspiring Presidential hopeful, he went and gave a talk at Google. He discussed many things over the course of an hour, with one key point being that, for the sake of greater internet freedom, Google should stand up to the Chinese and not allow such censorship: In case you can't watch that video, he says:

Tell the Chinese government that Google.cn will no longer censor information with Google's consent. And should the Chinese government not find that acceptable, then Google.cn would shut down its operations. I understand that you've already moved all of your search records out of China, to prevent them from being turned over to the Chinese government. But what better way to affirm Google's commitment to the free flow of information as a human right, than to send this message to a nation with the largest population in the world?

From there, he goes on to talk about refusing to hand over information to our own government without a warrant, followed up by this statement:

When Google acts, others will follow in my view. Standing up in these instances will not only be good for business ethics, but I also believe it will be good for business.

Yet, when Google does stand up against censoring the internet today? The very same Chris Dodd says they're "accessories" to a robbery.

As Darwin said years ago, it's not the strongest of the species who survive, or even the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change.

Hey, Chris, perhaps it's time to look a bit at the MPAA, one of the organizations most resistant to change we've ever seen.

One way we respond to change, in my view, is to stand up, and to stand up for our principles, which do not change.

Unless, of course, the MPAA hires you for a salary upwards of a million dollars. Then your principles go right out the window and your commitment to not censoring search results does a 180, and suddenly you're demanding that Google censor results at home, and highlighting the censorship in China as if it's a positive example.

Filed Under: censorship, china, chris dodd, principles, us
Companies: mpaa

Shockingly Unshocking: Two Congressional Staffers Who Helped Write SOPA/PIPA Become Entertainment Industry Lobbyists

from the revolving-door dept

Two high level Congressional staffers who have been instrumental in creating or moving forward both PROTECT IP (PIPA) and SOPA have left their jobs on Capitol Hill and taken jobs with two of the biggest entertainment industry lobbyists, who are working very hard to convince Congress to pass the legislation they just helped write. And people wonder why the American public looks on DC as being corrupt.

Allison Halataei, former deputy chief of staff and parliamentarian to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and Lauren Pastarnack, a Republican who has served as a senior aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, worked on online piracy bills that would push Internet companies like Google, Yahoo and Facebook to shut down websites that offer illegal copies of blockbuster films and chart-topping songs.

Pastarnack went to the MPAA where she'll be "director of government relations" and Halataei to the NMPA (music publishers and songwriters) where she'll be "chief liaison to Capitol Hill." The Politico article linked above notes that this kind of "revolving door" is all too common. It may not be directly corrupt, but to the public it sure feels corrupt. It certainly gives off the appearance of "hey, write us the insane bill that we want, and then we'll reward you with a super cushy high paying job." At the very least, it should raise significant questions about whether or not these two bills were written with the public's interest in mind (I know, I know, don't laugh....) or their future employers'. Technically, neither of them can directly lobby the specific committees where they worked, but they can certainly assist in the process.

“They can provide invaluable insight to people on the outside — even in the consultation mode,” one tech industry lobbyist said, noting that Halataei had been Smith’s secondhand person and knows how the Texas Republican thinks and what would be an effective lobbying strategy.

Additionally, the Senate and House panels work closely together, and both Halataei and Pastarnack have ties to staffers in the chambers they didn’t serve in and aren’t banned from lobbying.

Also, as the Politico article notes, a year from now, you can bet there will still be fights about either this or similar legislation. American politics is a disaster.

Filed Under: allison halataei, congress, copyright, corruption, laren pastarnack, lobbyists, pipa, protect ip, revolving door, sopa
Companies: mpaa, nmpa

MPAA Boss: If The Chinese Censor The Internet Without A Problem, Why Can't The US?

from the wow dept

The MPAA is getting pretty desperate, it seems. MPAA boss Chris Dodd was out trying to defend censoring the internet this week by using China as an example of why censorship isn't a problem. It's kind of shocking, really.

"When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn't do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites."

Is that really what Chris Dodd wants the US government to aspire to? To setting up its own Great Firewall?

His other comments were almost as ridiculous:

"How do you justify a search engine providing for someone to go and steal something?" he asked rhetorically in a recent interview at the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers conference. "A guy that drives the getaway car didn't rob the bank necessarily, but they got you to the bank and they got you out of it, so they are accessories in my view."

But that completely misunderstands and misrepresents the situation. Google isn't the driver. Google is the car manufacturer. Do we sue Ford as an accessory?

It's this sort of ridiculousness that makes it so difficult to take Dodd and the MPAA seriously in these discussions.

Filed Under: censorship, china, chris dodd, us
Companies: mpaa

MPAA Tries Its Hand At Comedy With A Top 10 List In Favor Of Censoring The Internet

from the want-to-try-that-again dept

The MPAA has been sending around a sort of "top 10 list" to folks in Congress about why they should vote to censor the internet via PROTECT IP (PIPA). It's actually two different top five lists. The first is five reasons to vote for the law. The second is five reasons that "Google" is wrong about the law (as if Google is the only one complaining about the law -- which is pure hogwash). Of course, the ten reasons don't make much sense, and we figured that it might be helpful to shine a little of that reality light on the claims:

The PROTECT IP Act will preserve American jobs and encourage economic growth.
Internet piracy and counterfeiting puts millions of American jobs at risk. More than 10.6 million Americans depend on the copyright industries for their jobs. That’s about 1 in 10 private sector jobs in the U.S. And about 2.2 million Americans depend on the film and television industries for their jobs. Many of these Americans work behind the scenes in good paying middle class jobs.

Misleading in the extreme. First of all, as we've explained at great length over and over again in the past, "the copyright industries" (a made up term by the folks who support more draconian copyright legislation) does not mean that these people rely on copyright itself. Much of those jobs would exist with or without copyright. The myth here is that, but for copyright, those jobs wouldn't exist. Yet that's ridiculous. It assumes, a priori, that without copyright there would be no content creation at all. That's completely ridiculous. In fact, as we've seen, as copyright has been ignored, it's actually resulted in much greater output, and the size of these copyright industries has continued to grow and has outpaced the rest of the economy. Furthermore, using the exact same methodology as "the copyright industries," it actually can be shown that it's exceptions to copyright law that create even more jobs -- and thus the conclusion might be that copyright law should be weaker, not stronger.

Internet piracy and counterfeiting is a danger to consumers and national security.
Many websites dedicated to piracy and counterfeiting appear to be legitimate. Consumers looking for prescription drugs online have unknowingly purchased counterfeit goods such as tainted medicine. And the defense industry is very susceptible to counterfeit parts because many defense systems rely on electronic parts that are no longer produced by the original manufacturer. An Armed Services Committee investigation has found over 1 million suspect counterfeit electronic parts that were purchased for the defense supply chain.

Ah, the massive bogus conflation argument again. First of all, if counterfeit drugs are really a problem (and the data suggests that it's a very small problem), then craft legislation that targets just that. Don't lump it in with tons of other stuff that are not a danger to consumers. Ditto for military equipment. First of all, why is our military buying parts from "rogue sites"? Last I checked, the military, as a part of the government, had to buy from providers with a GSA contract, which are not easy to get. If somehow folks are buying around that, then that's an issue and let's deal with that. But lumping both of those, very narrow, and very limited, problems in with the much wider, but totally unrelated, issue of infringement online is dishonest and dangerous.

Internet piracy and counterfeiting funds organized crime networks.
Many organized crime networks engage in Internet piracy and counterfeiting. They often use the profits from this activity to fund other criminal enterprises that are violent and dangerous.

Bullshit. Seriously. This one is total bullshit. The argument has been entirely discredited based on a recent comprehensive study of the issue. From that SSRC report

Arguing that piracy is integral to [organized crime & terrorist] networks means ignoring the dramatic changes in the technology and organizational structure of the pirate market over the past decade. By necessity, evidentiary standards become very loose. Decades-old stories are recycled as proof of contemporary terrorist connections, anecdotes stand in as evidence of wider systemic linkages, and the threshold for what counts as organized crime is set very low. The RAND study, which reprises and builds on earlier IFPI and Interpol reporting, is constructed almost entirely around such practices. Prominent stories about IRA involvement in movie piracy and Hezbollah involvement in DVD and software piracy date, respectively, to the 1980s and 1990s. Street vendor networks in Mexico City--a subject we treat at length in the Mexico chapter--are mischaracterized as criminal gangs connected with the drug trade. Piracy in Russia is attributed to criminal mafias rather than to the chronically porous boundary between licit and illicit enterprise. The Pakistani criminal gang D-Company, far from "forging a clear pirate monopoly" in Bollywood, in RAND's words, plays a small and diminishing part in Indian DVD piracy--its smuggling networks dwarfed by local production.

The US record isn't more convincing in this regard. Jeffrey McIllwain examined the Department of Justice’s IP-related prosecutions between 2000 and 2004 and found that only 49 out of the 105 cases alleged that the defendant operated within larger, organized networks. Nearly all of these were "warez" distribution groups for pirated software--hacker communities that are explicitly and often fiercely non-commercial in orientation. McIllwain found "no overt references to professional organized crime groups" in any of the DOJ's criminal charges (McIllwain 2005:27). If organized crime is a serious problem in these contexts, it should not be difficult to produce a stronger evidentiary record.

But the MPAA fact sheet does not provide a stronger evidentiary record. It just repeats the bullshit.

Copyright protection encourages innovation and free speech.
Copyright protection laws have helped create the Internet of today, alive with free speech, innovation and commerce. Copyright laws in the U.S. uphold free speech while encouraging innovation by giving an economic incentive for artists and investors to create new content and distribute it on the Internet. And noted First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams has concluded that the PROTECT IP Act protects free speech.

Copyright protection, when done carefully may encourage free speech. When done wrong, it clearly limits and inhibits free speech. This is not a debate. Even the courts admit that copyright done wrong can and does inhibit free speech. That is our concern here. PROTECT IP is copyright done wrong. Floyd Abrams was hired by the MPAA to support PROTECT IP. Yet, well over 100 legal scholars, including constitutional experts like Laurence Tribe have said that it violates the First Amendment. The MPAA has yet to turn up anyone other than Floyd Abrams. And, even Abrams admits that these laws would censor protected speech -- he just doesn't think it's to the level that it's a problem.

The PROTECT IP Act provides needed tools to target criminals beyond the reach of current laws.
Foreign websites that traffic in counterfeit goods and stolen content are violating copyright protection but are often beyond the reach of our current laws. The PROTECT IP Act targets criminal behavior. Everyone engaged in legal commerce on the Internet should welcome this legislation.

There are other, better, ways to deal with the narrow issue of sites that are outside of our laws. The Wyden/Issa proposal, for example, narrowly targets that specific problem without all of the collateral damage.

Next up, are the anti-Google points, which repeat much of the above, but with a special anti-Google spin:

Google claims the PROTECT IP Act “threatens the ability for free speech.” Copyright law has promoted free speech on the Internet.
The PROTECT IP Act, like content protection law before it, promotes free speech. Content protection law has given us the Internet today, alive with free speech, commerce, and innovation. In fact, noted First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams stated that the PROTECT IP Act upholds our First Amendment Rights. And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has written, “The State Department is strongly committed to advancing both Internet freedom and the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights on the Internet. Indeed, these two priorities are consistent.”

See above for the Floyd Abrams crap. As for Clinton, she commented on copyright law in general, not the specific proposals under way. The two priorities can be consistent, but they can also be opposing. In fact, we've heard directly from multiple people within the State Department that they're very much opposed to these bills, and that they will undermine their internet freedom arguments.

Google claims that the PROTECT IP Act will be a burden to taxpayers. Criminals involved in Internet piracy do not pay taxes and the PROTECT IP Act will preserve American jobs.
Criminals who profit from piracy do not pay taxes. Internet piracy and counterfeiting puts millions of American jobs at risk. More than 10.6 million Americans depend on the copyright industries for their jobs. That’s about 1 in 10 private sector jobs in the U.S. And about 2.2 million Americans depend on the film and television industries for their jobs. Many of these Americans work behind the scenes in good paying middle class jobs.

Totally misleading. We already debunked the bogus jobs claim above, but more importantly, which sector of the economy has actually been creating new jobs these days? Tech. Facebook alone has created somewhere around a quarter of a million jobs itself, not by hiring, but through the companies that built off its platform. eBay has enabled over 750,000 small businesses to be built on its platform. Those people pay lots of taxes. Taking away and limiting the ability of the next generation of platforms to enable these new businesses and new jobs will significantly impact economic growth and taxes.

Google claims that the bill “is a trial lawyers dream.” The PROTECT IP Act is a nightmare for criminals.
The PROTECT IP Act provides needed tools to go after criminals beyond the reach of our current laws. It targets criminals who profit from trafficking in counterfeit goods and stolen content. Many organized crime networks make millions of dollars from Internet piracy and counterfeiting.

The bill is a nightmare for the entire internet. Its broad definitions mean that it will target significantly more than just the "worst of the worst." And when people tried to narrow the definition, the MPAA threw a hissy fit. That's because this isn't about going after the really bad actors. This is about the MPAA being unable to adapt and wishing to control new legitimate platforms as well.

Google claims the PROTECT IP Act “seeks to regulate the Internet.” The bill penalizes activity that is already criminal but beyond the reach of our current laws.
Foreign websites that traffic in counterfeit goods and stolen content are violating copyright protection but are often beyond the reach of our current laws. The PROTECT IP Act targets criminal behavior. Everyone engage in legal commerce on the Internet should welcome this legislation.

This is especially disingenuous. The bill works by putting massive compliance costs on tons of internet companies. Creating a startup is going to involve a huge legal budget. The fact that PROTECT IP only "targets" foreign sites, ignores that the mechanism for such "targets" is to use internet companies as cannon fodder. That's a problem.

Google claims the PROTECT IP Act is “a threat to our national security.” Site blocking techniques are already in use and the Senate Armed Services Committee has shown that counterfeiting is a threat to our national security.
Site blocking techniques are not new. They are currently used to combat all kinds of harmful behavior including spam, phishing, malware, viruses, and other forms of Internet crime, all without claims of Internet censorship or harm to the Internet. And, the defense industry is very susceptible to counterfeit parts because many defense systems rely on electronic parts that are no longer produced by the original manufacturer. An Armed Services Committee investigation has found over 1 million suspect counterfeit electronic parts that were purchased for the defense supply chain.

This is the craziest claim of all. Look at all of the credible people who have pointed out that PROTECT IP's DNS blocking will be a threat to national security. This includes Stewart Baker, the former Homeland Security Assistant Secretary and former NSA General Counsel. It includes Sandia National Labs, which is an expert in computer security issues, and it includes the freaking people who more or less built the DNS system. In all this time the MPAA has never brought out any expert who can argue to the contrary. The best it's done is have a guy from Hollywood claim he "doesn't agree" with these assessments.

The MPAA's arguments here are dishonest, disingenuous and downright dangerous. Because they don't want to adapt to a changing market, they've decided that collateral damage to security, the economy and innovation are no big deal. Hopefully those in Congress are able to see through the facade.

Filed Under: censorship, congress, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: mpaa

Yet Another Study Shows That Hollywood's Own Bad Decisions Are Increasing The Amount Of Infringement

from the and-again-and-again dept

We've pointed out over and over again that the real way to stop infringement is to offer compelling legitimate services that are reasonably priced. Time and time again, throughout history, it's been shown that the real reason there's widespread piracy is because the content isn't available legally at all, or is available in a limited or inconvenient way. Make things easy, not locked down, convenient and reasonably priced, and tons of people pay. Books have been written about this. Studies have been done on this. And just the success of things like Netflix and Spotify show how this works wonders.

Now there's a new study, once again, showing the same thing. Professors Michael D. Smith and Rahul Telang (from Carnegie Mellon and Heinz College) have added some more evidence -- and it again suggests the "problem" isn't that the law isn't strong enough or that enforcement isn't draconian enough. It's that the industry still refuses to give customers what they want:

Our research suggests that Hollywood is leaving money on the table — and is in turn failing to address a root cause of piracy — by preserving its separate release windows. Based on our analysis of seven large nations, we find that in most countries, every week customers have to wait before they can buy a DVD translates into, on average, 1.8 percent lower DVD sales. Given that good-quality pirated versions are available close to 14 weeks before the legal versions, the losses can be in the millions of dollars. Not surprisingly, a 14-week delay also translates to a 70 percent increase in pirated movie downloads in those countries.

The study basically found what many of us have been pointing out for ages: making things not available doesn't drive sales. It drives infringement. This is such a fundamental point, and it seems so obvious to many of us... but those in the industry still refuse to believe it. Now, some of the problem with the delays come from the theater owners, who flip out at any attempt to shorten windows, even if the "competing" options are priced ridiculously high.

But the studios themselves are frequently guilty of this same self-defeating thinking. Many are really pushing for rental delay windows, such as denying new movies to Netflix or Redbox until 28-days after they go on sale. One studio has broken ranks here: Paramount. That's the only studio that has made it clear that delaying movies doesn't increase sales. The other studios, though, still don't seem to get it, and don't realize that for people who want to see a movie, but are stymied due to a stupid release window, that they do have a few other options: (1) simply go away and forget the content entirely or (2) go find the content elsewhere. Neither scenario is good for the studios.

But the professors make the key point that the studios are going about this entirely backwards based on the data:

Together these results suggest that delaying content in the presence of digital channels is likely to cause consumers to lose interest in the product at best, and lead consumers to alternate pirated channels at worst. A better strategy would be to do the opposite: Make it easier for consumers to buy the content in physical and electronic channels. For motion picture studios this might mean selling content in theaters, on DVD and on digital services at around the same time, perhaps at different price points.

Shocking. We've only been arguing for many years that you should be able to buy the DVD of the movie you just watched as you walk out of the theater (and if you show the ticket, you get a discount). It still amazes me that this is still not really being done -- even as the evidence piles up that moves like that would increase, not decrease revenue.

Filed Under: day and date, hollywood, infringement, piracy, windows
Companies: mpaa

MPAA Pretends To Capitulate On SOPA, Will Offer Changes For 'Legitimate Concerns'

from the yeah,-ok dept

This is barely even worth mentioning, but it's making some news, so we'll point it out. The MPAA's point man on SOPA/PIPA, Michael O'Leary, told the press today that they're willing to "tone down" the legislation in response to the "legitimate concerns" raised:

“We will come forward with language that will address some of the legitimate concerns” of technology companies that have opposed the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, and a similar Protect I.P. Act in the Senate, Mr. O’Leary said.

First of all, this is nothing new. Rep. Lamar Smith, the official sponsor of the bill had already been on record using that exact same phrase: "legitimate concerns." The thing is, what they consider to be "legitimate concerns" are basically none of the concerns that many people have raised.

The more telling point in all of this is the outright admission that the MPAA is the one writing the bill. We've seen some reports making the rounds where defenders of the bill keep insisting "this bill isn't being written by Hollywood," but in the quote above, you can see that O'Leary is confirming that the MPAA is providing the language. The NYTimes report makes this point even clearer:

He said those who were pushing the far-reaching antipiracy legislation have been huddling with Congressional staff members from both parties and both the House and Senate in the last few days, in an effort to answer some objections raised by Google, Yahoo and others who say the bills reach too far.

Notice who's not included in those discussions? That's right. Everyone who raised objections. How the hell do you address concerns if you don't actually include the people who are concerned? The answer is you don't, and the whole thing is a sham. O'Leary also points out that most of the tech folks still won't be satisfied, which basically is an admission that he doesn't actually care about the concerns. From there he starts making stuff up:

“It’s all rhetoric and there are no proposals,” he said of the position staked out by the opponents to the bills. “From where I sit, it’s hard to see that as anything but a pretext for running out the clock and preserving the status quo.”

The thing is, O'Leary knows that's untrue. He knows damn well that plenty of folks have presented or are working on alternative proposals. It's just that when they're not allowed in the discussion at all, it's kinda difficult to have those proposals heard. Meanwhile, as we noted earlier, Senator Wyden has already said he's working on an alternative bill. Pretending otherwise is simply false.

Filed Under: copyright, michael o'leary, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: mpaa

Thoughts On The House Judiciary Committee's Hearings On SOPA

from the some-good-some-bad dept

As some of you know, I spent three plus hours this morning watching the House's SOPA hearings, with the deck stacked against anyone who pointed out concerns about the broad overreach of these bills. I "live tweeted" my thoughts, and apparently did so so much that, at one point, Twitter cut me off for having "exceeded my limit"! I had no idea such a thing was possible. The other technological issue of the day was that the video stream from the House was terrible for the first half of the hearings. It was choppy, at times it would stop, speed up, slow down or cut out entirely. The fact that they were using crappy streaming products really says something about the House's knowledge of technology. Seriously. BitTorrent just released a new streaming video product designed to handle high volume events... but, of course, the House won't bother with something like that. There's definitely a joke in there somewhere about how those who set up these hearings, on a bill that would make unauthorized streaming a felony, were unable to handle the technology for streaming.

Below, I've embedded a bunch of my tweets, along with those of a few others who were covering the hearing, which you can also see over at Storify. I'll list out a few thoughts, however:

• I was slightly surprised at the number of Representatives who expressed clear concerns over different aspects of SOPA. Reps. Lofgren and Issa were expected to come out against it, but it wasn't clear who else would do so. Among those who expressed significant concerns were Reps. Lungren, Jackson Lee, Waters, Cohen and Johnson. Their concerns may have been different, but all had significant concerns. Lungren worried about the problems with breaking DNSSEC. Jackson Lee, Waters and Johnson worried about the impact on entrepreneurs. Johnson worried about how China and Iran would view this law. Cohen, similarly, worried that the entertainment industry had expressed concerns about Russian and Chinese search engines, and if Google were forced to block them, that it might lead to diplomatic issues, and Russia and China deciding to retaliate against Google.
• Both Lofgren and Issa were extremely well informed and able to drill down on issues that others ignored. Issa, in particular, pointed out a key point: that we already have the ITC to deal with foreign patent issues, so why not let the well-known proven ITC process deal with copyright issues as well? He's apparently introducing legislation to that effect. While I have some concerns about how the ITC process works for patents (mainly in that it gives "two bites at the apple" in some patent cases), this actually is a much more compelling idea that should be explored further.
• The lack of any technology expert on the panel was glaring and made the Judiciary Committee look bad. Rep. Lungren made that clear by asking every panelist to respond to former DHS official Stewart Baker's concerns over DNS blocking... and got back blank stares and admissions that no one on the panel had any particular knowledge about that issue. This seems like a huge indictment of how the panel was constructed -- without any interest in dealing with the significant problems of the bill.
• The MPAA and some of its supporters on the Committee repeatedly claimed that you could just go to Google and put in the names of movies and find pirated versions. The two examples they used were "J. Edgar" and "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas." If you actually Google either of those, you don't actually get pirated versions, but official sites, reviews, news, etc.
  One of the Representatives (I forget who) countered by noting that he did the J. Edgar search on YouTube, including "free" after the name, and found full length versions for free. So I just did that search, and while there are a few videos that claim, "watch full length J. Edgar free," those videos are all 2 or 3 minutes long. In other words, they're not the full videos, contrary to the claims, and they're just trying to trick people into watching them.
• The MPAA's Michael O'Leary showed support for regimes that censor the internet, by saying that "the internet isn't broken" in places like China and Iran... He really should spend some time there speaking to those who have been censored.
• There were numerous questionable statements from different Representatives about how musicians and filmmakers need this. Yet, as we've seen (on this very site), many such musicians and filmmakers think that having a working internet, with cool and useful services, is more useful and important than propping up the big studios and labels who haven't adapted, and never had the artists' best interests in mind anyway. Rep. Deutsch said that the next Drake might not make music because of piracy. That's kind of funny since Drake has said he doesn't mind piracy and actually scolded Universal Music for issuing takedowns on music he purposely leaked.
• Along those lines, the really amazing thing is how few people pointed out that the real problem here is the industry's failure to adapt. Rep. Quayle worried that the only business model available to people, if piracy were allowed, is an ad-based business model, and fretted that this would cut off business models based on paying for content. Yet... some of the most popular services online today are pay for content services, including Netflix, iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, etc.
• Some other bizarre statements included Rep. Ross mocking Google for suggesting that it was okay when Google chose sites to block, but somehow if the government got involved, that was a First Amendment issue. Except, there's nothing mock-worthy there. That's actually the law. Google can choose what sites to block, but the government telling them what to block is censorship. Kind of strange that Rep. Ross found that to be a crazy suggestion. Rep. Poe had a "stealin' is stealin'" comment. That's nice, but "infringement" ain't "stealin'"
• Lots of complaints from Reps. about how the tech industry didn't suggest anything better than SOPA. This is a lie. Tons of folks in the tech industry offered up ideas, drafts, suggestions, etc. Plenty of folks in the tech industry offered to sit down, meet, discuss. And all of that was rejected by the authors of the bill.
• Google was clearly the pinata. As we expected, they were chosen to present because some felt they were easy to dismiss. Rep. Amodei, after admitting he doesn't understand technology, called Google execs "pansies." Rep. Smith used Google's trouble over online pharmacy ads to suggest this issue was the same thing -- where somehow the company is getting rich off of "piracy." Lots of others attacked as well. None of it made much sense.
• That said, I was disappointed by Google throwing Wikileaks under the bus, by using the example of how MasterCard, Visa and Paypal starved Wikileaks for cash, leading that site to shut down. Defining Wikileaks as a rogue site certainly raises some questions. I understand why it may have served as a useful example, but...
• Once again, disappointed that Maria Pallante, Register of Copyrights, seems so out of touch on this issue. She kept insisting that there was no problem with the bill, no liability issue, no change to the DMCA, etc. That's clearly not true. It's a shame. She should be better on this.
• And... that's about it. Nothing too surprising came out of the hearing, but it was interesting... And it certainly has driven a lot of new interest in the bill and its consequences.

Filed Under: copyright, darrell issa, hearing, judiciary committee, sopa, zoe lofgren
Companies: google, mpaa

A Look At The Testimony Given At Today's SOPA Lovefest Congressional Hearings... With A Surprise From MasterCard

from the they-said-what-now? dept

We already know that today's SOPA hearings for the House Judiciary Committee are totally stacked in favor of the bill. But with the hearings getting underway, we wanted to dive in and look at what's about to be said. Most of the testimony leaked out yesterday, allowing us to spend some time going through it -- it's all embedded below. However, here's a taste of what's going to be said... with some additional commentary (of course).

First up, the most troubling of all: Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights (aka, Head of the US Copyright Office). She should be here to defend the public and to make sure that massive regulatory capture by a couple of stagnant industries doesn't happen. But, that's not how the Copyright Office rolls. Instead, her testimony is basically the US Chamber of Commerce's key talking points (perhaps not a surprise, since the main lobbyist at the US Chamber who's in charge of shepherding this bill into law only recently worked at the US Copyright Office). If you had hoped for some reasoned argument about pushing back on the massive excesses of SOPA and the broad definitions, you're not going to get it from Pallante.

It is my view that if Congress does not continue to provide serious responses to online piracy, the U.S. copyright system will ultimately fail. The premise of copyright law is that the author of a creative work owns and can license to others certain exclusive rights – a premise that has served the nation well since 1790. Congress has repeatedly acted to improve enforcement provisions in copyright law over the years, including in the online environment. SOPA is the next step in ensuring that our law keeps pace with infringers....

[....]

The response provided by SOPA is serious and comprehensive. It requires all key members of the online ecosystem, including service providers, search engines, payment processors, and advertising networks, to play a role in protecting copyright interests – an approach I endorse. Combating online infringement requires focus and commitment. It should be obvious that we cannot have intermediaries working at cross-purposes.

In other words, the successful tech industry should be hindered and shackled because my friends in Hollywood are too clueless to adjust their business models. Really?

SOPA is also measured. It appropriately provides much broader tools and flexibility to the Attorney General than it provides to copyright owners. This is a sound policy choice at this time. The Department of Justice has experience fighting online infringers, will use resources carefully, must exercise prosecutorial discretion in bringing actions, and must plead its case to the court and obtain a court-issued order before proceeding. Put another way, while the copyright industries are extremely important (and certainly a point of pride with respect to the U.S. economy), SOPA recognizes that many sectors rely on, invest in, and contribute to the success of the Internet.

Almost none of that is accurate. It is not measured. It is vague, broad and dangerous. The Justice Department's "experience" going after infringers has been to take down websites with no notice based on false info from copyright holders... and then to threaten those who seek to appeal with criminal charges. This is not "using resources carefully," it's government sponsored censorship.

It is for this reason that SOPA puts only limited tools in the hands of copyright owners, and provides the Attorney General with the sole authority to seek orders against search engines and Internet service providers. This is not to say that we should not continue to assess Internet piracy and the impact of SOPA or whether additional measures or adjustments may be needed. Indeed, SOPA assigns ongoing studies to the Copyright Office and the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator for these very purposes. But I do think SOPA provides the right calibration at this time.

First off, the "limited tools" include the ability to completely cut off funding to any website based solely on accusations. Perhaps I learned a different language from Pallante, but that's hardly "limited."

Furthermore, how the hell can she say that this is "the right calibration," when even she admits this issue has not been studied yet? The bill is completely "shoot first, measure later," with no details on how it's effectiveness -- or harmfulness -- will be measured.

As with any legislation, SOPA deserves and can only benefit from a robust discussion. As the Committee works to further improve and refine the bill, I know it will fully consider a variety of perspectives and suggestions, including from my fellow witnesses. This said, I believe that Congress has a responsibility to protect the exclusive rights of copyright owners, and I urge the Committee to move forward with this in mind.

Yes, a robust discussion that leaves out nearly everyone opposed to the bill, and only allows a single party -- one easily dismissed -- to speak about concerns on the bill. A robust discussion that leaves out public interest groups, despite Copyright's entire purpose being for the benefit of the public. This is a shameful bit of testimony from the Head of the Copyright Office, and one that guarantees her a tarnished legacy in her role.

From there, she goes on to defend the US blacklist of sites the Attorney General decides are dedicated to infringement by (1) repeating the US Chamber's debunked talking points, (2) praising ICE's highly questionable domain seizures, which are currently being litigated (a fact she conveniently ignores) and (3) quoting (of course) Floyd Abrams, leaving out that he was paid by the MPAA to give that opinion. Even worse, she quotes the really questionable part of his claim:

It also bears repeating that injunctions are not at odds with the First Amendment. As noted First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams has observed, they are "a longstanding, constitutionally sanctioned way to remedy and prevent copyright violations."

This is true, but highly misleading. Injunctions are allowed against those infringing. But that's not what SOPA is about. SOPA is about issuing injunctions on innocent third parties. That's what we're concerned about. And for Pallante to ignore that point is really unfortunate.

She then goes on to defend the private right of action to kill off websites based on a single accusation. She claims, laughably, that because the private right of action only leads to injunctions, rather than monetary rewards, there's little incentive to abuse. Wait. Is Ms. Pallante totally ignorant of the past decade plus of the DMCA? The DMCA takedown process also is basically about blocking content and not about monetary relief, and yet it's widely abused, with some estimates suggesting that over 30% of DMCA takedowns are questionable. The problem with SOPA (totally ignored again) is that unlike the DMCA -- which targets the specific content -- SOPA will kill off entire sites.

Even more stunning: rather than suggesting that such abuses may come from copyright holders sending bogus takedowns, she worries instead that payment processors and ad networks may ignore such takedowns -- and hints that if anything, the bill may need refinement on that front. Whoa. It's like an alternative universe where everything is mirrored. Again, we know what happens. We have the less draconian DMCA already and see how widely it's abused. And we see that those who receive takedowns generally abide by them.

Speaking of the DMCA, she pretends -- totally against the text of the actual bill -- that nothing in SOPA will impact the DMCA. This is hilarious. Why would anyone use the DMCA to take down a specific piece of content when they can now kill off an entire site using SOPA? Amusingly, she points to the fact that payment providers and ad networks face no monetary liability under SOPA... but ignores that just two paragraphs above, she was hinting that perhaps the law should be changed to include such liability to make sure they comply. This is the ultimate in cynical, obnoxious politics. Put in that one clause that makes you able to pretend something is reasonable (no monetary punishment!) and then be ready to remove that the second the bill is in place.

Finally, she talks about how "pleased" she is that SOPA turns streaming into a felony. Apparently Pallante would prefer people no longer stream videos any more. Has she even used the internet? Amusingly, she cites YouTube as an example of a legal source for streaming... ignoring the fact that under SOPA, YouTube likely wouldn't have even existed. It's as if she doesn't even understand the bill she's supporting and what it will do to the technology world.

And people wonder why so many Americans think copyright law is a joke? Perhaps they should look at the Copyright boss.

Next, we've got MPAA VP Michael O'Leary. His testimony is really worthy of having been written in Hollywood, seeing as it kicks off with a tearjerker of a story about the poor, poor stunt coordinator, "who depends on the residual payments he earns to help support his wife and three children between productions." Of course, the rest of the world doesn't get to sit back and get a check for work they did in the past, but actually has to keep working to support their families. Of course, how much do random key grips, stunt coordinators and boom mic operators (the favorites for these multi-millionaires to exploit in this kind of way) really make from residuals? It's a lot less than these kinds of testimonies suggest.

O'Leary continues to pull at heart strings, by trying to rope all sorts of other businesses into the movie and TV industry including (I'm not joking) the dry cleaners that serve the cast and crew on location. Apparently, without movies, dry cleaners go out of business. Think of the poor dry cleaners!

Filed Under: copyright, copyright office, hearings, judiciary committee, maria pallante, michael o'leary, sopa
Companies: afl-cio, mastercard, mpaa, pfizer