Chris Dodd Memorizing Bogus MPAA Talking Points; Says File Sharing Ruins Community Bonding

from the say-what-now? dept

Well, it's been a little over a week since Chris Dodd embraced the fact that he was a liar concerning his post-Senate career, and embraced this by misrepresenting the biggest issues facing the movie industry. In that week, he's apparently been reading from the MPAA "book of propaganda" and is getting better at it. In a speech to theater owners, he's tied together so many falsehoods that someone might actually believe some of them! I've embedded the whole speech below -- it's really a piece of work -- but let's dig into a few sections.

Let’s begin with perhaps the single biggest threat we face as an industry: movie theft. At the outset, I want you to know that I recognize and appreciate that NATO members are on the front lines every day when it comes to preventing camcording. Further, I want you to know that the member studios of the MPAA deeply appreciate the efforts you make every day to stop the hemorrhaging of movie theft in your theaters.

Let's begin with perhaps the single biggest lie: that copyright infringement is "theft." It's not. Stop saying it is. It makes you look like a dishonest fool, who is in no way capable of actually helping the movie industry adapt to the changing marketplace. As for the "camcording" threat, the MPAA still loves to talk this up, but still ignores the fact that the real issue is industry insiders leaking movies themselves...

Nearly 2.5 million people work in our film industry. The success of the movie and TV business doesn’t just benefit the names on theater marquees. It also affects all the names in the closing credits and so many more –middle class folks, working hard behind the scenes to provide for their families, saving for college and retirement. And since movies and TV shows are now being made in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, movie theft harms middle class families and small businesses all across the country.

Those who steal movies and TV shows, or who knowingly support those who do, don’t see the faces of the camera assistant, seamstresses, electricians, construction workers, drivers, and small business owners and their employees who are among the thousands essential to movie making. They don’t see the teenager working their first job taking tickets at the local theater, or the video rental store employees working hard to support their families.

Yeah, this has become a favorite trope of the industry lately. About all those poor key grips suffering from movie infringement. Of course, this is also a lie. File sharing has no direct impact on those people at all. They don't make any royalties on films. They were paid (not particularly well by the MPAA studios, mind you) for the job that they did, and move on to the next job. Where they suffer is when the MPAA and its member studios fail to embrace smarter business models, such that they have trouble financing new movies. But, as we've seen, the box office continues to do well, and indie filmmakers who are embracing new models are doing increasingly well. Perhaps the issue is that the MPAA should be helping filmmakers understand and embrace new models.

But I guess that's just outside of Dodd's realm of expertise.

We must continue to work together, pushing for stronger laws to protect intellectual property and more meaningful enforcement of those laws. We must also educate parents and students and everyone else about the real world impact of movie theft on jobs and on local tax revenues, and on our ability to make the kinds of movies and TV shows people wish to see.

Fascinating that he claims this in the weeks after two separate, well respected research organizations both pointed to tons of evidence that stronger enforcement doesn't work. Nice work, Chris, you're parroting the failed policies of your predecessors, rather than showing any form of leadership.

After three decades in Congress, I have some idea how to attract the attention of a Congressman or Senator. When you return to your states, invite your local governor, state legislator, congressman and senator to your theater and fill it with those who work with you along with video store employees and their families. Tell them about the importance of these issues to you and to your communities. If you become that educator, you will leave a lasting and indelible impression on those who will make decisions about your future.

In other words, show them a good time, since the logic behind our positions makes no sense at all. However, if we entertain them for free, perhaps they'll feel indebted to give us protectionist, anti-competitive, anti-innovation policies that will help us wring a few extra dollars out of consumers, rather than innovating to add more value.

What I’m about to say isn’t quantifiable in economic terms. I can’t put a dollar figure on it for you. I can’t give you an unemployment number or some other gripping statistic – but as I stand before you this morning one week into this job, I want you to know that it is as important as all data you will have thrown at you during CinemaCon. Our lives are getting more and more complicated. We are increasingly connected to the world by the power of emerging technologies, but at the same time we seem to be increasingly disconnected from each other by the same technology and stream of information and distractions.

And yet, in the midst of all of this, if you drop by a movie theater in America or anywhere around the world on a Friday or Saturday night you will see neighborhoods coming together. You will see people turning off their phones and BlackBerrys. You will see families and friends settling in for two hours in a darkened theater. And even though everyone’s eyes are on the screen, it is somehow still a communal experience – unlike any other. The value of that shared experience crosses economic, political and even generational boundaries.

Going to the movies together as a community has stitched together the fabric of American society in a way that few other institutions ever have or could, providing a nation of incredible diversity with a common cultural vocabulary and a common understanding of ourselves. What’s at stake as we face these challenges is nothing short of the preservation and renewal of this quintessentially American communal tradition.

If I'm reading this correctly, he's basically debunking the entire first part of his speech. The thing is, that "shared experience" is the same thing we've been talking about on Techdirt for ages. It's why the movie industry shouldn't fear file sharing. It should be working towards improving and enhancing that shared experience, because that kind of shared experience can't be pirated.

I find it hilarious that Dodd appears to be suggesting that if the MPAA doesn't get stricter enforcement laws, people will suddenly stop wanting to come together as a community to share such experiences. Does anyone take this kind of thing seriously?

Filed Under: chris dodd, infringement, lobbying, movies
Companies: mpaa

Inauspicious Start For Chris Dodd At MPAA; Starts Off With 'Infringement No Different Than Theft' Claim

from the they-pay-you-$1.5-million-to-lie dept

No surprise, really, but former Senator Chris "I won't become a lobbyist" Dodd has begun his new tenure as a lobbyist for the MPAA on an inauspicious note -- by falsely claiming that infringement is no different than "looting."

"You know if you walk down main street people would arrest you if you walk into a retail store and stole items," Dodd said. "It's called looting in some cases. That's exactly what is happening with intellectual property. It's being looted and that needs to stop."

So, it looks like more of the same from the MPAA: more focusing on the wrong problem. More blaming everyone else for their own failures to adapt. More playing the victim. And, for that, they're "only" paying Dodd $1.5 million, an increase from the $1.2 million they paid predecessor Dan Glickman. The entire MPAA budget is about $100 million per year, and they spend almost none of that money on actually helping the industry adapt, but throw tons of money away lobbying for laws that won't help (and that trample the rights of others). Can't we just skip ahead to the inevitable failures and try something different?

Filed Under: chris dodd, lobbying
Companies: mpaa

Confirmed: Chris Dodd Lies, Takes Top Lobbying Job, Promises To Trample Consumer Rights

from the nice-'retirement' dept

As was expected, former Senator Chris Dodd has now confirmed that he is a blatant liar and willing to sell out his principles for about a million bucks a year. Just months ago, he announced that he would not, under any condition, take a lobbying job. And here it is, just a month or so after he left the Senate and he's confirmed that he's taken the top job at the MPAA, an organization, who just a week ago admitted its number one priority was lobbying the government. Of course, Dodd is also using a loophole to get around the laws that forbid Senators from jumping to lobbying jobs so quickly after leaving the Senate. On top of that, in announcing this, he also talked up the importance of increasing our already draconian copyright laws, with views that appear to contrast to what he said back when he was a Senator and claimed he supported internet freedom. I guess that million dollar plus per year salary eases the conscience.

Filed Under: chris dodd, consumers, copyright, lobbying, movies
Companies: mpaa

Once Again, As The MPAA Whines About 'Piracy,' It Had Record Results At The Box Office

from the oh-look-at-that dept

There were reports late last year that the box office take for the movie industry was finally set to decline after years of records. It appeared that there just weren't that many big blockbuster hits last year, that many thought really hurt the industry. However, now that the numbers are out, it appears that, once again, the box office take has set a new record. And yet the MPAA still claims that its number one priority is "fighting piracy"? Why?

Obviously, some will point out that the DVD business isn't as strong as it once was, though it's unclear how much of that may be a result of new business models like Netflix and Redbox, as compared to file sharing. That said, I laugh any time the movie industry folks point to the DVD market as the reason they have to fight piracy. I mean, it was just 25 years ago that Jack Valenti was declaring the VCR was going to be "the Boston Strangler" to Hollywood. And yet, now, the home video market is its lifeline? Sorry, but hasn't the industry cried wolf a few too many times?

The simple fact is that there are all sorts of business model opportunities for the movie industry. Theater showings (the seats and the social experience are great scarcities that sell well) is one such model. Services like Netflix where you're paying for "access" and "convenience" rather than content, is another. There are plenty of others as well, for those who wish to explore them. Shouldn't the MPAA's "number one priority" be to help the industry figure out these opportunities, rather than worrying about "piracy"?

Filed Under: box office, movies, piracy
Companies: mpaa

Why Is The MPAA's Top Priority 'Fighting Piracy' Rather Than Helping The Film Industry Thrive?

from the misplaced-priorities dept

We've already written about the news that ex-Senator Chris Dodd has gone back on his promises and his principles to take the top lobbying job at the MPAA, but this recent article in Hillicon Valley, talking with interim MPAA boss Bob Pisano, is bizarre in that it shows how incredibly misguided the MPAA's entire strategy is. We've seen that the MPAA has an entire "content protection" staff, but doesn't appear to have a staff of folks dedicated to actually helping filmmakers to adapt and to succeed in the modern era. But it strikes me as ridiculously short-sighted that the MPAA admits that its number one priority is getting the government to "fight piracy."

Interim CEO and president Bob Pisano told Hillicon Valley earlier this month that the media's fixation on who would succeed former chairman Dan Flickman hadn't changed his organization's unwavering focus on its top priority, which is increasing the federal government's efforts to stop online film piracy.

And, yes, the amusing misspelling of Dan Glickman's name is in the original. But, more to the point, why is getting the government to fight piracy the MPAA's "top priority," when study after study has shown that piracy, alone, is not damaging the industry. It's the failure to compete and to come up with smarter business models that is causing trouble for filmmakers. Even if you got rid of piracy, it's not like it would suddenly drive people to start buying again. Perhaps the real problem is that Pisano (a lawyer, of course) is so clueless when it comes to business, he doesn't realize what business the movie industry is even in:

"I don't care how much you talk about it you can't compete with free," Pisano said.

And, that, right there, is why the MPAA should fire him and hire someone who actually understands business (which is not Chris Dodd). Of course, you can compete with free. Lots of businesses do it all the time and plenty of movie makers have successfully done it for years. Why would Pisano flat-out lie?

It's almost not worth mentioning that Pisano also talks up the importance of COICA and how happy he is that Homeland Security has been seizing domains in violation of the First Amendment and basic due process, even taking down tens of thousands of perfectly innocent sites. These are the people who run Hollywood now? Censorship-loving folks who can't understand basic business principles? No wonder they're so worried about failing. They have no clue what they're doing.

Filed Under: bob pisano, chris dodd, movies, piracy, priorities
Companies: mpaa

Chris Dodd Breaking Promise Not To Become A Lobbyist Just Weeks After Leaving Senate; Joining MPAA As Top Lobbyist

from the ah,-the-lies-of-politicians-and-hollywood dept

One of the worst kept secrets in DC and Hollywood over the last month or so is the news that former Connecticut Senator and failed Presidential candidate Chris Dodd is set to become the MPAA's new boss (salary: $1.2 million per year). This came after a failed attempt to get former Senator (and failed presidential candidate) Bob Kerrey to take the role last year.

Assuming Dodd takes the role, he's already proving himself to be perfect for a Hollywood job, because it makes him a blatant liar. Last summer, Dodd insisted that he would not become a lobbyist. He made this abundantly clear. When asked what he would do, he was explicit: "No lobbying, no lobbying." Yeah, apparently a million dollar plus salary makes you a liar barely a month after leaving the job. Of course, technically, Dodd is also barred from becoming a lobbyist for two years after leaving the Senate, but there's a kind of *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* trick that Dodd and others use to technically claim they're not lobbyists while merely running one of the bigger and most high profile lobbying organizations around.

Of course, it'll also be interesting to see if Dodd sells his soul and changes some of his professed principles. For example, he was a big supporter of "net neutrality." But the MPAA has come out against net neutrality, claiming it would hamper its efforts to "fight piracy." He was also against ISP data retention, which the MPAA has supported (again as a way to fight piracy). On copyright he was somewhat non-committal, but did talk about how fair use rights are important. I imagine that will disappear once he takes the role formerly filled by Jack Valenti -- the man who once declared that fair use doesn't exist.

Anyway, I guess it shouldn't surprise us that a politician lied and went back on his basic principles in favor of a huge check from industry. It happens all the time. The real question is why anyone would take Chris Dodd seriously in this role going forward after proving that he's in it for nothing more than the check.

Filed Under: chris dodd, copyright, lobbying, mpaa
Companies: mpaa

Google Finally Gets Involved In Torrent Search Engine Lawsuit... But Just To Reject 'Red Flag' DMCA Violations

from the but-of-course dept

TorrentFreak is noting that Google has, perhaps for the first time, waded into any of the lawsuits concerning torrent search engines, filing an amicus brief in the ongoing IsoHunt appeal. In the past, other torrent search engines have been somewhat upset that Google has stayed quiet, noting that many of the arguments used against them could equally apply to Google. Google, of course, has stayed away because it goes to great lengths these days to avoid any appearance of "supporting piracy."

While TorrentFreak (and IsoHunt) seems surprised or disappointed by Google's actual amicus brief in the IsoHunt case, it's really not surprising. Google's participation here is entirely about the YouTube/Viacom lawsuit and appeal. What was really notable about the original IsoHunt ruling, was that it was the only real legal ruling that said that you could violate the DMCA even in absence of takedown notices. That is, it highlighted the idea of "red flag" awareness of infringement. This was the key issue in the YouTube/Viacom lawsuit. Google argues that as long as YouTube took down any content it received a takedown notice on, it was in compliance and protected by safe harbors. Viacom leaned heavily on the IsoHunt ruling, to claim that the DMCA doesn't just cover takedown notice responses, but also requires a response to "red flag" infringement.

However, Google knows that the IsoHunt ruling is basically the only legal precedent out there that reads the DMCA in this manner. So, from Google's perspective, dumping that reasoning is key. So its amicus brief still argues that IsoHunt is guilty of contributory infringement, a la the Grokster standard, but not because of red flag infringement. So, I don't find it that "unexpected" that Google got involved, or filed the brief that it did. It's focused entirely on its own lawsuit here, and hoping that the appeals court will take away the one serious case that Viacom has in its pocket for the YouTube appeal.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, red flags, torrents
Companies: google, isohunt, mpaa, viacom, youtube

Cable And Hollywood Fight Having Their Gatekeeper Status Taken Away

from the inevitable-is-coming dept

Matthew Lasar has a nice writeup about how the big cable lobbyists, NCTA, and movie studio lobbyists, MPAA, are fighting as hard as possible to stop an FCC proposal to create a standard, called AllVid, that would allow any consumer electronics maker to tap into their content (legally, and for those actually subscribed), and display it via the device. Right now, of course, if you get cable TV, you're limited to the hardware they give you, which means if they don't want to let some other manufacturer come in with a more innovative system, you're stuck. Google -- who is pushing its Google TV product, and Sony, who has a variety of plans for set-top boxes, would prefer a standard so that they can sell you the boxes, and you can access the TV content you're already subscribed to, along with wider content from the internet.

But, if there's one thing that's become clear over the years, it's that gatekeepers will go to amazing lengths to keep those gates in place. So while the FCC seems very interested in moving forward on such a standard, NCTA has announced that it will pretty much destroy all of civilization:

Sony/Google are asking the Commission to ignore copyright, patent, trademark, contract privity, licensing, and other legal rights and limitations that have been thoroughly documented.

Of course, almost none of that is actually true, but boy does it sound impressive. Sony and Google aren't asking for any of those things. They're simply asking for a way that they can provide devices that can tap into an account holder's legally authorized content, and add additional services around it. Think of it like a Carterphone for cable TV -- meaning that you no longer have to get your phone from AT&T, but can buy a third party phone.

But, of course, even the MPAA is against that, as it's siding with the NCTA with a "but... but... piracy!" argument that also makes no sense:

"legitimate MVPD and online content sources will be presented in user interfaces alongside illegitimate sources (such as sites featuring pirated content)," MPAA warns. "In essence, this 'shopping mall' approach could enable the purveyor of counterfeit goods to set up shop alongside respected brand-name retailers, causing consumer confusion."

Yes, think about what you're reading for a second, and then shake your head at the level of confusion coming out of the MPAA. They want to block an FCC plan to make it easier to access authorized and legitimate content, because it's also easy to access pirated content. In the MPAA's twisted view of the world, it's better to leave just the pirated content as easy to access, because if the authorized content was just as easy to access, people might think it's legit. Are they really serious over there?

Who knows where all of this will lead, but the key thing that becomes clear in all of this is that cable does not want to give up its gatekeeper status. Even though a system that would better integrate cable content with additional internet content would clearly be a benefit to consumers, it would also mean a loss of gates, and we're dealing with yet another industry that incorrectly thinks it needs gates to survive. So, rather than add value to the consumer experience, it's actively fighting against it.

Filed Under: cable, gatekeepers
Companies: mpaa, ncta

MPAA Files Surprisingly Weak Billion Dollar Lawsuit Against Hotfile

from the you'd-think-there'd-be-a-bit-more-'there'-there dept

Hotfile, one of a number of cyberlockers out there, has been in the news increasingly lately, as various entertainment industry firms have been attacking it as one of the more popular cyberlockers. It appears that the MPAA and its whole content protection staff finally decided to go beyond complaining and actually sue Hotfile, asking (of course) for the maximum $150,000 in statutory damages for each infringing file it found on Hotfile.

The full lawsuit is embedded below, but what shocks me is how weak the case appears to be. Nearly the entire lawsuit is based on innuendo and insistence that perfectly reasonable practices couldn't possibly have legitimate purposes. Hotfile acts as a cyberlocker -- a service that has perfectly legitimate purposes for sharing large files. The MPAA tries to spin the fact that Hotfile charges subscription fees for premium services as nefarious, but that's ridiculous. Hotfile -- like other cyberlockers -- is offering a service in which it pays for all of the bandwidth and storage costs upfront. Offering premium accounts for faster/better service is the very basis of the whole "freemium" model. It does not automatically imply, as the lawsuit suggests, that the company is inducing infringement. The MPAA also tries to make it sound nefarious that Hotfile encourages people to upload stuff that is downloaded more widely, but again that's the whole point of the service. No one ever said that cyberlockers are for personal backup, but they're designed to act as a service for distributing content. And, of course, encouraging people to use it in a way that gets more attention makes perfect sense, but does not automatically imply inducement to infringe.

The most ridiculous section, of course, is where the MPAA lists out all the things that Hotfile could do to reduce infringement -- such as only letting people with accounts download. But the MPAA ignores how that would defeat the legitimate purpose of a service that allows anyone to distribute legal content quickly and easily. It also notes that Hotfile does not use any copyright filters, but there is no law requiring that it has to.

And that's really the biggest problem with the lawsuit. Basically, the MPAA and the big studios it represents have decided they don't like the fact that Hotfile isn't protecting their business model and have decided that, therefore, it must be illegal. But that's not how the law works. It's entirely possible that a court will get blinded by the "but... but... piracy" aspect of this lawsuit. But looking through the details, I'm really shocked at the lack of any actual evidence for direct or contributory infringement. Instead, the crux of the entire lawsuit seems to be: (a) Hotfile makes money (b) people use Hotfile for infringement (c) Hotfile doesn't do the things we want it to do to stop infringement. What the MPAA glosses over is the fact that it appears that Hotfile does, in fact, respond to DMCA takedowns and removes the files in question.

Frankly, I'm surprised. I knew that the entertainment industry would get around to filing lawsuits against cyberlockers, at some point, but I figured they'd have at least something more compelling than "but... but... piracy."

Filed Under: copyright, cyberlockers, filesharing, hollywood
Companies: hotfile, mpaa

MPAA Threatens To Have Google Disconnected From The Internet Over File Sharing?

from the ah,-the-power-of-false-threats dept

While Homeland Security insists that Google is different than the sites whose domain names its seized lately, its agents haven't done a very good job of explaining why (beyond "in our minds, it's different.") However, at least according to the automated script the MPAA uses to warn ISPs of file sharing, perhaps Google isn't all that different. The MPAA -- who, it should be noted -- was a major driver for the domain name seizures -- sends out form letters warning people they could lose their internet access over file sharing, and over at TorrentFreak, they've noticed that Google's been on the receiving end of a bunch of these threats lately. Mostly at issue are situations where people are using Google's free WiFi that's provided mainly in Mountain View, but in some cases it appears to involve employees working from Google's headquarters. Of course, the chances of Google losing internet access over such threats is less than nil, but it's amusing to see the MPAA still include the baseless threat.

Filed Under: copyright, disconnection, file sharing, mpaa
Companies: google, mpaa