House Judiciary Committee SOPA Hearings Stacked 5 To 1 In Favor Of Censoring The Internet

from the what-are-they-afraid-of dept

Apparently the folks behind SOPA are really scared to hear from the opposition. We all expected that the Judiciary Committee hearings wouldn't be a fair fight. In Congress, they rarely are fair fights. But most people expected the typical "three in favor, one against" weighted hearings. That's already childish, but it seems that the Judiciary Committee has decided to take the ridiculousness to new heights. We'd already mentioned last week that the Committee had rejected the request of NetCoalition to take part in the hearings. At the time, we'd heard that the hearings were going to be stacked four-to-one in favor of SOPA. However, the latest report coming out of the Committee is that they're so afraid to actually hear about the real opposition that they've lined up five pro-SOPA speakers and only one "against."

Why is the Judiciary Committee so afraid to hear the concerns of the wider internet industry?

The five "pro" speakers are the Register of Copryights, someone from the MPAA, someone from Pfizer, someone from MasterCard, and someone from the AFL-CIO. The choice of MasterCard is deliberate, since Visa is against the bill -- because Visa recognizes that supporting a bill that requires them to cut off customers based on accusations of infringement is going to be a huge burden, and one that isn't good for their own customers.

Furthermore, the "one" against SOPA is going to be Google. This is a strategic choice, because the pro-SOPA folks know that Google is easy to dismiss on this topic, because they'll claim (not accurately) that Google just wants to profit from infringement. Google is already under a lot of scrutiny in Congress, and so it makes it much easier for pro-SOPA supporters to say that "ah, the only opposition is Google." And, yet, that's not true. Companies throughout the tech and internet industries have expressed concerns. Facebook, Twitter, Mozilla, eBay and over 160 startups have all come out against the bill. This isn't "just a Google issue." This is an issue of the entertainment industry trying to change the fundamental legal and technical framework for how the internet has functioned -- and in doing so, creating tons of liability and compliance costs for the part of the economy that is growing and has been creating jobs. Just because Hollywood is jealous, doesn't mean that they should get to use Congress to punish the industry that's doing well.

Either way, it's quite stunning that the Committee has decided to go so far in stacking the deck, and it shows just how unwilling they are to hear the real concerns about the bill.

Filed Under: copyright, fairness, hearings, industry, lamar smith, sopa
Companies: afl-cio, google, mastercard, mpaa, pfizer

First Amendment Expert Floyd Abrams Admits SOPA Would Censor Protected Speech, But Thinks It's Okay Collateral Damage

from the not-really dept

Supporters of SOPA/PROTECT IP have been going absolutely nuts in pushing the claim that famed First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams has said SOPA does not violate the First Amendment. This wasn't a surprise. First of all, the MPAA is a client of Abrams, as are various other Hollywood trade groups. He didn't write the letter on his own behalf, but was paid by these groups to write the letter. As such, he's speaking as a paid advocate for them, not as an objective independent observer. Given that, it's really quite incredible how timid the letter actually is. The fact that it takes fourteen pages to hem, haw and equivocate away the clear problems of SOPA is quite telling.

While the argument goes on for a while, the really telling part is late in the letter, where Abrams actually admits that SOPA would result in the censorship of protected speech, something that can't be denied, but which many supporters of the bill have refused to admit:

Regardless of the particular standard or definition of foreign infringing sites, court-approved remedies under the Stop Online Piracy Act may result in the blockage or disruption of some protected speech. As discussed above, the bill provides a range of injunctive relief is available, with a court making the final determination as to whether and how to craft relief against a website operator or owner or third party intermediaries. When injunctive relief includes blocking domain names, the blockage of non-infringing or protected content may result.

Setting aside the odd sentence construction ("the bill provides a range of injunctive relief is available"), this really is the key point. Abrams then spends another couple pages trying to explain why it's okay to block protected speech, properly noting that caselaw has said it's okay when that speech is "incidental." What he fails to do is explain how the speech blocked here would be "incidental." And that's really the whole crux of the matter. The exceptionally broad definitions in the bill mean that it won't block just incidental free speech, but wide open forums of free speech. Again, remember that under this bill, it's likely that YouTube would not exist because Viacom sees it as "dedicated to theft of US property" under the definitions in the bill. And under the law Universal Music would make the case that the Internet Archive and a variety of blogs and forums are "dedicated to theft of U.S. property." This would be about shutting down huge forums of free speech, not just incidental free speech.

Abrams ignores all of that.

The letter also presents a long argument about how laws apply on the internet. Well, duh. That's just sleight of hand. It's a favorite bogus talking point of the industry: that those who are worried about overreaching laws really believe that there should be no rule of law online. Everyone agrees that our laws apply online. What we question is how they're applied in an overly broad manner that conflicts with free speech rights. Narrowly targeted laws that seek to stop actually illegal content -- libel or infringement -- are reasonable. Broad legislation that will take down significant non-infringing speech is where we have a problem. Unfortunately, Abrams sullies his distinguished legacy in the space, by more or less brushing aside such concerns in favor of his big clients.

Abrams is also somewhat selective and misleading in his choice of citations. For example, as "evidence" of the right to completely shut down websites over copyright claims, he "cites" the first of ICE's domain seizure "cases," a couple times. While he eventually notes that the legality of these seizures is currently being litigated, he doesn't mention that until after he's brought it up a couple times, and leaves out the fact that the citations he notes in support of such a right refer to a one-sided (and error-filled) affidavit presented by ICE and rubber-stamped by a magistrate judge -- rather than a ruling in any sort of adversarial hearing. Again, this is not a balanced letter on his viewpoints, but a lawyer advocating for some of his biggest clients.

In discussing the specifics of SOPA, Abrams is careful to point to the letter of the law, refusing to acknowledge the actual impact of the law. For example, he notes that "the bill neither compels nor prohibits speech or communication by the four entities regarding any measures they take." This is technically true, but misleading in the extreme. While it does not specifically prohibit speech directly, it is set up in a way that the only way to avoid liability is to massively prohibit non-infringing speech. That's the issue, one totally ignored by Abrams. The vague standards for liability -- the equivalent of how the Great Firewall of China works -- makes it such that in order to avoid liability sites will certainly overblock. While Abrams can brush this off because the law does not directly compel a site to block speech, he's not being intellectually honest in pretending that the actual impact will not block speech.

It's no surprise that the MPAA and its supporters are waving this flag around -- it's about the only serious legal support they've got on this issue. And Abrams is a big and respected name -- but his own letter seems to indicate the failings of his own argument, and the complete avoidance of even digging into the massive expansion of what is dubbed "dedicated to theft," shows why this bill is problematic. When even your biggest "supporter" has to skirt around the issue, admit that the bill would suppress protected speech, and then try to hand-wave it away... you know the bill is bad, bad news. Either way this seems like a sad move by Abrams, who has been taking a number of missteps after a long and distinguished career. Between supporting this and his oddly ill-informed attack on Wikileaks (in which he insisted Wikileaks had done things it had not done), Abrams seems to be putting his legacy at risk.

Filed Under: collateral damage, first amendment, floyd abrams, free speech, sopa
Companies: mpaa

Copyright Industries Massive Success Shows That They're Dying And Need More Draconian Copyright Laws?

from the say-what-now? dept

One of the favorite misleading tricks of supporters of more draconian copyright laws is to put out a report each year about the "size" of "the copyright industries," by the "International Intellectual Property Alliance" (a trade group made up of other trade groups, including the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, ESA, NMPA and others) There are numerous problems with this report. First off, it makes the ridiculously wrong assumption that "the copyright industries" exist solely because of copyright law. That is, they use the size of the numbers to suggest that stronger copyright law is necessary. Yet that's ridiculous. They present no evidence that the industries would be any different size, if copyright law were weaker or stronger. They simply present that as the obvious implication. Furthermore, their definition of what makes up "the copyright industries" is insanely broad, and tends to include plenty of operations who don't actually want stricter copyright laws at all. For example, I'm sure Techdirt technically qualifies under whatever measure they're using. After all, we're a publisher, so technically we're in "the content industries." Yet I can tell you right now that exactly zero percent of our revenue is due to copyright law. That's true of many, many of the companies included as being in "the copyright industries."

Unfortunately, this myth persists that if you add up all of the broadly defined "content industries," it somehow shows why you need stricter copyright. But that makes no sense. If they actually showed a direct causal relationship -- or even any evidence that copyright policy directly drives aggregate revenue, they might have some argument. But they don't go near such things. But it doesn't stop grandstanding around the issue. With the latest release, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Orrin Hatch, along with Reps. Bob Goodlatte and Adam Schiff, welcomed the various lobbyists who produced this report (i.e., the heads of the ESA, NMPA, RIAA and MPAA) to cheer on the report and use it to falsely pretend this is proof that more draconian copyright laws are important.

This makes no sense and, frankly, it insults the intelligence of just about everyone, to pretend that total revenue within an industry is the automatic indicator of how policy should be determined for that industry. You determine policies based on deltas, not absolutes.

It gets even worse, when you look at the actual report, which shows the industries in question are doing tremendously well. In fact, as many are noting, the report actually appears to undermine the industry's entire argument that "piracy" is somehow decimating their businesses. Instead -- even through a recession, these companies are making a ton of money, and there's no evidence of significant job losses.

It's a pretty weak move when our Congressional leaders to then take those points, that simply do not support the need for more copyright law in any way... and then use it to support such policies. Each year, of course, CCIA puts out a report that shows that if that's how you're going to calculate "the copyright industries," it's only fair to use the same methodology to calculate the industries that are built from "exceptions to copyright law," which turns out to be significantly larger than "the copyright industries." So if any of the elected officials praising this latest report are intellectually honest, they should actually be advocating for weaker copyright laws. After all, the same methodology shows that exceptions to copyright law contribute much more to the economy than copyright law itself.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright industries, orrin hatch, sheldon whitehouse, studies
Companies: bsa, esa, iipa, mpaa, nmpa, riaa

What Would The Movie Business Be Like If The MPAA Succeeded In Killing The VCR?

from the a-thought-exercise dept

As the fight over the E-PARASITE/SOPA bill continues, it's worth taking a step back, and conducting a short thought exercise:

What would the movie business be like today, if the MPAA had succeeded in banning the VCR?

Remember, in the Betamax case, the studios sought to kill off the VCR, leading to the famous quote from MPAA boss Jack Valenti:

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

And, Valenti and the MPAA came very close to convincing the courts, who only granted immunity for those offerings with substantial non-infringing uses by the narrowest of margins (though court initially decided to side with the MPAA before changing its mind). Unfortunately, while SOPA seeks to couch its broad upending of the legal and technical frameworks of much of the internet in the claim that this is "just" about "stopping pirate sites," twenty years ago, this case was about "just" stopping this "pirate technology."

But what happened after that? Once the court finally declared VCRs legal, suddenly the movie industry exploded. With this new method of video distribution, the entire movie business was reinvented in a good way. It meant no longer just viewing in the theaters. An entire new category soon took over: home movie viewing (and renting). Before long, the home video market actually overtook the theater. And, these days, ironically, what do you hear the MPAA whining about the most? That online sharing is decimating the home video market. Of course, if the MPAA had had its way 20 years ago, we wouldn't even have a home video market.

So the thought exercise of where the movie industry would be today, if the VCR had been declared dedicated to infringing purposes twenty years ago, seems particularly relevant. That's doubly true, seeing as the E-PARASITE bill effectively looks to overturn the court's Betamax decision, and open up the floodgates for the MPAA (and others) to cut off all funding from any new technology it believes is "dedicated to the theft of US property" under the exceedingly broad definitions in the bill.

Take a moment, and consider where the movie business would be today, if the VCR never existed. And think about just how wrong the MPAA was then to freak out about a technology that later saved it. And consider that perhaps we should wait before changing the law to allow the MPAA to kill off the next "VCR" in the digital age.

Filed Under: copyright, e-parasite, hindering, innovation, protect ip, sopa, vcr
Companies: mpaa

Well, If Firefighters Support E-PARASITE Law... Then You Know It Must Make Sense

from the who-are-they-kidding? dept

Want to know just how desperate the folks at the MPAA are getting in their attempt to turn back the clock and outlaw all sorts of innovation? They're reaching the absolute bottom of the barrel, touting the fact that firefighers have come out in favor of PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE. What the hell do firefighters have to do with understanding detailed concepts like free speech, censorship, prior restraint, third party internet liability, and related topics? If you said absolutely, positively, nothing at all, you'd be correct. So, why are firefighters suddenly in favor of the censorship of the internet in America? It's not hard to guess, given how DC lobbying works these days:

"You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"

Yup. What are the chances that the International Association of Fire Fighters has received large checks from those associated with the movie business? But, more seriously, who does the MPAA actually think it's fooling? Is Congress so stupid that it can't figure out for itself that firefighters have no clue what this debate is about? Otherwise, why would they be supporting censorship in America? Read the letter below, and wager a guess how much was actually written by a firefighter, rather than a lobbyist for Hollywood?

Filed Under: e-parasite, firefighters, lobbying, protect ip, sopa
Companies: mpaa

MPAA Helped Police Seize 'Pirated' DVDs That Were Actually Fully Authorized

from the expect-more-like-this dept

Here's a story that touches on a few different issues of importance around these parts. We'll get to the details of the legal ruling in a bit, but the background is really the key part. At the beginning of 2009, a company in Valencia, California, called L&M Optical Disc West, received an order from an authorized partner of the producers of the film Milk to manufacture the DVDs of the film. They began doing exactly that. On February 2nd, as part of a supposedly unrelated police raid, police saw those DVDs and found them "suspicious." They rang up the MPAA who sent over an "investigator," who falsely declared that the DVDs were unauthorized, leading the police to seize them (though, oddly, allowing the private investigation firm to hold them) and to declare to the press that they had found "pirated" DVDs of Milk. This happened despite multiple attempts by L&M staff to explain that they had a legitimate order, even offering to show the "investigator" the details of the order.

The following day, L&M provided the police with all of the evidence that they were authorized to make those DVDs, and the police sergeant told L&M's owner that the DVDs could not be released because they were "pirated." From there, a bunch of press stories followed, with the police repeatedly telling the press that L&M was being investigated for such "piracy," even after the MPAA and the police realized that the DVDs were, in fact, authorized. Months later, however, the press was still quoting the police as saying that L&M was "under investigation" for "piracy."

Because of all of this, L&M claims that customers canceled jobs with L&M and past customers chose to find new partners. It also meant that other vendors who used to send "overflow" work to L&M no longer did so. It effectively dried up much of L&M's business.

If this all seems pretty horrifying, think of how much worse this kind of situation may be about to get. First off, just a few weeks ago, we noted that Governor Jerry Brown in California passed a law that would let law enforcement do more of these kinds of raids but they no longer need a warrant to do so. Yes, despite this massive failure on such a raid, the government now has even more authority to do these kinds of raids, and the MPAA can continue to get away with providing bogus information and effectively killing businesses.

Take it one step further: this is the reason why so many of us are so worried about the new E-PARASITE bill. The MPAA and other copyright holders have a dreadful history and reputation for being inaccurate when it comes to accusing others of infringement. Yet, under E-PARASITE, they get to kill sites dead, without any recourse, before anyone even looks to see if the copyright holder's claim is legit. Doesn't that seem the least bit problematic?

Now, as for the actual case at hand, for which you can read the full decision (pdf and embedded below), it involved the court tossing out a lawsuit by L&M against the MPAA over all of this, using California's anti-SLAPP laws. We're big fans of California's anti-SLAPP laws, and while we find the MPAA's conduct in this situation reprehensible, the ruling actually makes sense. The comments that were the most problematic to L&M in the newspaper reports were not, in fact, made by the MPAA but by the police. If anyone is responsible, it should be the police who made them.

L&M tries to place liability on the MPAA by claiming that the police and the MPAA had a "joint venture" going in these raids, but that isn't supported by the facts. This raid wasn't done at the request of the MPAA, and originally had nothing to do with copyright at all. So, we agree that blaming the MPAA for the comments in the press is improper, as it's misapplied third party liability. Of course, there does seem to be a bit of irony in the fact that the MPAA appears to be working overtime to increase third party liability by undermining the kinds of safe harbors that protect a party from being blamed for the speech of others. However, it's no surprise at all that the MPAA is -- yet again -- too clueless to recognize how its actions undermine its own legal protections elsewhere.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 4th amendment, anti-slapp, defamation, dvds, e-parasite, infringement
Companies: l&m optical disc west, mpaa

An Open Letter To Chris Dodd: Silicon Valley Can't Help Hollywood If You First Cripple It With Bad Regulation

from the misdirection-or-a-step-in-the-right-direction? dept

Dear former Senator Dodd:

It was refreshing to hear your recent speech, in which you suggested that there really isn't a "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley" fight, and that the two sides need to work together to help create the ecosystem where both can thrive. It’s hard not to agree with that assertion, absolutely. There isn't a fight between Silicon Valley and Hollywood, and there never has been. Every new technology that Hollywood has decried as being terrible has eventually turned out to be a massive boost to Hollywood's profits and ability to make, promote, and distribute its works. If that's a "fight," then it's an odd one, in which we in the tech community keep providing all of the weapons Hollywood needs to succeed... only to see you frequently aim them at your own foot before finally working out how to use them properly.

So when you say, "'those who would pit' Hollywood content creators against those in Silicon Valley who create technology 'in a manufactured conflict more reminiscent of the Beltway chatter I learned to ignore on my last job,'" we in the tech community agree and celebrate that sentiment. The real debate isn't between our two "sides." It's between old and new -- whether there will be a level competitive playing field that enables our country's continued progress and job creation, or a market regulated so as to protect incumbents.

Unfortunately, the timing of your claim and the statement itself were odd, coming as they did on the very same day as some members of Congress introduced SOPA, which the MPAA was heavily involved in crafting. After all, despite numerous attempts to be a part of these discussions, we in the internet industry were denied any opportunity to even look at, let alone provide input on, the draft of a massive bill that would fundamentally change the nature of how the internet functions. As you well know from your decades of distinguished service in government, not circulating drafts of such laws or seeking input from those you seek to restrict and regulate is, to put it mildly, highly unusual.

That certainly did not strike us as being in the spirit of "cooperation" you put forth last week. The day after your comments, a group of us -- venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, artists and innovators alike -- all went to Washington DC to talk to elected officials, to express our grave concerns about the bill. Consider the thoughtful comments of one of us on the trip: Fred Wilson, an investor in Twitter, KickStarter (which has helped artists raise millions of dollars online), Indeed.com (a Texas-based job search engine), and many other services. In discussing the trip, he argues that this bill is the very opposite of cooperation.

At every turn during the trip, we were told that your lobbyists were working overtime to discredit the concerns of us in the internet industry, and to keep us away from the table as you sought to completely upend the legislative framework that allows the internet to thrive. How are we to work together to create all of those wonderful new opportunities for your industry to create, promote, distribute and monetize, if you are fundamentally blocking our ability to do so?

We can't build those tools for you if you restrict us by massively regulating the internet, making it much, much harder for new startups to form or receive investments. A bill like SOPA creates so much liability that it would be impossible for two engineers in a garage to build the next great startup unless they also had a dozen lawyers sitting with them. We can't help the artists and creators who were in our group with the new platforms they rely on, if these new innovative startups don't even bother starting. We can't help the users and participants who want new and convenient and legitimate access to content, as well as ways to make their own content. At the end of the day, both Silicon Valley and Hollywood work best when we focus on creating and providing what our consumers want. So, in many ways, we are in the same business.

I'm happy you can see that there's no conflict. Now, let's prove that by actually working together. If it's true that you believe that there's only a "manufactured conflict" between Silicon Valley and Hollywood, why don't we get together and work this out between us? Prior to this bill being introduced, no one from the internet side was invited to negotiate, or to review the legislation. We suspect the larger internet players would be happy to sit down with you, and can say for certain that the group of us who went to DC last week would be happy to represent investors and startups in such a conversation.

Why don't we start by throwing out SOPA and PIPA and talking about how we in the internet industry can (and already are) building the next set of weapons for you to succeed in the modern world. And let us help show you how to work those weapons, so you don't point them at your own feet first.

Let’s work together not only to help one another, but also to help artists, innovators and entrepreneurs alike. You have an open invitation to come to any of our offices and discuss this whenever you want, or we're happy to meet you anywhere in Silicon Valley, NY, LA or anywhere else in this country where amazing new technology and services are being created. But let's keep the conversation out of Washington DC, so we can focus on getting something done, rather than another round of "manufactured conflict."

Sincerely,

Mike Masnick, Floor64
Fred Wilson, Union Square Ventures
Brad Burnham, Union Square Ventures
Bijan Sabet, Spark Capital
Heather Gold, artist/creator
Dennis Yang, Infochimps
Derek Dukes, Dipity (and new stealth startup)
David Ulevitch, OpenDNS
Josh Mendelsohn, Hattery Labs
And the other entrepreneurs, creators, innovators, artists and investors who came to DC last week to express our concerns about SOPA/PIPA.

Filed Under: chris dodd, e-parasite, hollywood, innovation, protect ip, silicon valley, sopa
Companies: mpaa

MPAA Kills More Innovation; Zediva Shut Down Permanently

from the what-you-have-to-look-forward-to-under-e-parasite dept

Keith alerts us to the unfortunate and premature death of Zediva, an innovative startup that sought to make it easier for people to rent movies and make money for Hollywood. But in true Hollywood fashion, they killed it -- just like they wanted to kill the VCR a couple decades ago. Zediva, if you don't recall, let people rent movies remotely. It would load them up in a DVD player that you could log into. It legitimately bought the DVDs and used them just as you would at home if you rented a DVD and brought it home. The only real difference here was that the DVD player was at a central location, rather than your home. In a very weird ruling, a court determined that the length of the cord determines if something is infringing.

Such a totally nonsensical ruling should be ripe for appeal... but appeals cost money, and who's going to invest in a company shut down by a court? So, Zediva has capitulated and "settled." MPAA gets to hang another destroyed innovation on its mantle.

If you want to get a sense of the future under E-PARASITE/SOPA: this is it. Except it's even worse. Chris Dodd and the MPAA won't even need to go to court, they can just send a single notice to the payment processor for Zediva, and the plug would be pulled. Dead. Basically, the law would let the luddites at the MPAA simply kill off any new service they don't like or don't understand. And unless those companies have a dozen lawyers at their disposal, they're going to stay dead. Just like Zediva. Another bit of innovation killed by the MPAA. What a legacy the MPAA is leaving behind.

Filed Under: e-parasite, innovation
Companies: mpaa, zediva

UK Court Upholds Its First Web Censorship Order: BT Has 14 Days To Block Access To Newzbin2 & Gets To Pay For The Privelege

from the that's-one-slippery-slope dept

Back in July, we noted that a UK court ordered ISP BT to begin censoring the web, beginning with a blockade of Newzbin2, which the MPAA has been trying to destroy. After a user petitioned the court to seek alternatives to censorship, the court rejected that request and has issued a ruling giving BT just 14 days to figure out how to block users from accessing Newzbin. Not surprisingly, the entertainment industry is thrilled. Any new opportunity to put the entire burden on ISPs is one that it celebrates. Why should the entertainment industry have to adapt to a changing world when it can run to court, and have the court force tech companies to pretend that new technologies don't exist.

A few scary specifics in the full ruling, starting with this: the expense to implement the blocking is entirely dumped on BT. The judge seems to say that since BT is a commercial enterprise, and profits from people using its services to infringe, it must pay. That's ridiculous. Just because people use BT's service to break the law, shouldn't make BT responsible for the costs of stopping user activities.

Next up, rather than just block URLs, BT has to block the URLs using intrusive, privacy-destroying deep packet inspecting... and "re-route" IP addresses. The studios and the MPAA are apparently allowed to just keep submitting any URLs or IP addresses it finds that lead to Newzbin, and get them easily added to the blocklist. And, at Hollywood's urging, the judge left that expansive, such that even if a URL or IP address point to other legal content, along with Newzbin, those URLs and IPs can be censored.

Finally, and most amazingly, the judge seems to admit the court's technological cluelessness in admitting that it did not realize that a full on IP block (rather than re-routing) might lead to overblocking of innocent sites. And yet it still went forward, despite this rather blatant admission of ignorance.

And with this, the UK goes one step closer to more blatant web censorship.

Filed Under: censorship, free speech, newzbin, uk
Companies: bt, mpaa

Worst Kept Secret Now Confirmed: Government Was Very Involved Helping RIAA/MPAA Negotiate Six Strikes

from the well,-duh dept

From the moment the so-called "voluntary" six strikes agreement between the RIAA/MPAA and various ISPs came out, it was obvious that the Obama administration, in the form of VP Joe Biden's office and IP Czar Victoria Espinel, were involved. We had even discussed that. Now some more details have come out, as Christopher Soghoian received a response to his Freedom of Information Act request, seeking emails from government officials concerning the deal -- and, of course, it shows that Biden's office and Espinel were heavily, heavily involved... and almost exclusively on the side of the RIAA and MPAA. Both of those organizations were regularly in touch with the administration, including planning about how the deal was going to be announced. Amusingly, Biden's office apparently freaked out when Greg Sandoval at CNET broke the story a few weeks before the deal was official.

The emails note that Espinel did make sure to "involve" two groups who represent consumer interests -- CDT and Public Knowledge -- but it's quite clear from the nature of the interactions that those organizations were not really involved in the negotiations, but were shown the details towards the end, to avoid them feeling "taken by surprise" when the deal was announced. None of this is particularly surprising, but it's pretty silly for everyone to pretend that this was a "voluntary agreement between private entities." It was clear from the beginning that the White House was heavily involved, and was very much backing the entertainment industry's viewpoint. In theory, the government should be representing the people, but the cozy nature of the relationship suggests it was exactly the opposite. The government was representing industry against the public interest.

Filed Under: joe biden, lobbying, politics, six strikes, victoria espinel
Companies: mpaa, riaa