Anti-File Sharing Propaganda Back To Focusing On That Horrible Malware You'll Get

from the unprotected-file-sharing-is-bad dept

The thing that you sort of need to admire about the copyright maximalist lobby is that they attack the problem from so many different directions on such a constant basis. It's almost impossible to keep up -- though, you do begin to notice some patterns. A particularly popular move is to alternate between the moral argument against copyright infringement (stealing! bad!) and the idea that file sharing is going to destroy your computer (we're just looking out for your safety!). It looks like the industry is back on that latter kick, as two recent stories indicate.

First, the BSA has its widely debunked "piracy" numbers -- but it's now getting news for focusing instead on how you're going to get malware if you file share. Since it can't actually back up its bogus numbers, instead it's hoping that most people don't know that correlation doesn't mean a causal relationship -- but at least we know that most of our readers know better. The report notes that there's a correlation between higher piracy rates and higher malware infections, but seems to totally ignore exceptions to that rule (the US) or delve into other variables that may explain either the piracy rate (already questionable) or the malware rate (education levels? poverty? shared computers? etc.). Even more amusing, they claim (with no actual evidence) that those who get malware have to spend more to repair their computers than it would have cost to get the legitimate software in the first place. I have no doubt that there are risks for those who file share, but this report does nothing to show the actual risks and is yet another in a long line of weak propaganda from the BSA, that despite being called on it for years, never seems to do anything to back up its reports with facts.

Then, we have the story of the MPAA apparently sending a bunch of anti-piracy comic books to New Zealand, home of one of many different fights on how to change copyright law. The comic book, like the BSA report, involves plenty of ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims about how file sharing will unleash nasty malware and viruses all over your computers -- but drawn in nice comic book form. Can we send those kids who got the MPAA comic book a copy of the Tales from The Public Domain comic books as well? There are free digital downloads for anyone who wants to hand them out in exchange for the bogus MPAA ones....

Filed Under: comics, file sharing, propaganda, security
Companies: bsa, mpaa

Cable Lobbyists Side With MPAA On Getting Permission To Break Your TV

from the not-really-a-surprise dept

As Hollywood keeps asking for permission from the FCC to break your TV with Selectable Output Control, it's picked up an unsurprising ally. Cable companies. NCTA, the lobbying group that represents the cable industry has come out in favor of the request, claiming that it will let them offer movies earlier. This is a myth that they want regulators to believe. The MPAA and cable companies could offer up movies whenever they want. They just don't want people to record them, because they want to introduce yet another annoying window. So, they declare that they need to break your TV and DVR from recording. Hopefully, the FCC knows better than to break TVs and piss off so many people just because Hollywood is upset some people will want to record movies.

Filed Under: cable companies, drm, dvr, mpaa, selectable output control, soc
Companies: mpaa, ncta

The Propaganda The Copyright Industry Teaches Our Children

from the omission,-overstatement,-conflation dept

Last week, I spent some time highlighting some of the more ridiculous claims found in the RIAA's "classroom materials" which it hopes teachers will use to brainwash students. In the comments, someone pointed out that Tarleton Gillespie wrote up a paper last year examining such "educational materials" from the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, ASCAP and others, and found them to be quite lacking. Rather than actually teaching the ins and outs of copyright, most were focused on normative statements of a world those industries want to exist, as well as seriously questionable descriptions of what copyright is supposed to do and how those industries work. None of the materials seem to recognize that technology has also changed the production, promotion and distribution of new works, and none seem to recognize that content creation can come from those outside of the big corporate entities who paid for these materials in the first place. Again, it's worth asking: why does any educational institution or education professional use such obviously biased (and at times misleading) educational materials?

Filed Under: copyright, educational campaigns, propaganda, tarleton gillespie
Companies: bsa, mpaa, riaa

UK IP Minister Defends Kicking People Off The Internet, As Rockstars Come Out Against It

from the who-is-this-protecting-again? dept

Despite the UK gov't insisting recently that a policy of kicking file sharers off the internet was off the table, a nice dinner between UK Business Secretary Peter Mandelson and Hollywood bigshot David Geffen created a sudden new interest in the subject, which quickly turned into it being right back on the table -- creating massive complaints from just about everyone not associated with the RIAA or MPAA. Mandelson has tried to defend the idea, but his reasoning came up short, and demonstrated that he got his talking points direct from Hollywood and that he hasn't actually spent much time actually understanding the issue at all.

But, it's not just Mandelson in the gov't pushing this now. The UK's Intellectual Property Minister, David Lammy, got to hang around with the MPAA and gave a speech "defending" kicking people off of the internet. Now doesn't that seem strange? It's the MPAA that's among those pushing for such a plan in the first place. So, Lammy is preaching to the choir. Why not "defend" the plan in front of actual consumers or ISPs or musicians who are up in arms about this idea? You don't "defend" the idea to the people who already want it and who were already wining and dining you to get it back on the table after you'd taken it off.

And, yes, I said musicians who are up in arms about this -- and not just small indie musicians either. Michael Geist notes that folks like Paul McCartney and Elton John have come out against the proposal as well. So, ISPs think it's terrible. Music fans think it's terrible. Musicians think it's terrible. Who's left? Oh, just some dying industries who have done everything possible not to innovate for a decade. But they sure do spend money on lobbyists.

Filed Under: david lammy, elton john, paul mccartney, peter mandelson, three strikes, uk
Companies: mpaa

Hollywood Asks FCC For Permission To Break Your DVR Again

from the because-pissing-off-consumers-is-always-a-good-strategy dept

Every few months for the past year and a half or so, the MPAA has basically begged the FCC to let it make use of "selectable output control" on televisions to block DVRs from recording stuff shown on TV. The MPAA claims this is necessary to release certain movies on TV, but that's hogwash. Rather than focusing on what consumers want, the movie studios are simply trying to add in yet another "window" to try to squeeze more money out of people. And, of course, like any DRM system, it won't do a damn thing to stop file sharing of the content (all anyone needs is one copy, and by the time any movie is broadcast on TV, it's too late, the content is out there). All this would do is piss off legitimate viewers, who are pissed off because their TiVos didn't record some movie, despite it being on TV.

In the MPAA's most recent attempt, it's back to begging the FCC, but Matthew Lasar notes that the MPAA is finally admitting that if it gets its way, it may actually require some people to buy new equipment. So, not only will the plan functionally break lots of DVRs by not letting them do the one thing they're designed to do (record what's on TV), but they may break other parts of the process as well, such that people will need to buy new equipment.

And all for what? It won't stop or even slow down file sharing. But it will piss off a lot of people. The MPAA insists that it physically cannot release movies on TV prior to its DVD release unless it gets this DRM enabled. But that's ridiculous. If the studios wanted to they could absolutely release the movies for TV viewing prior to the DVD release. It won't change a thing. But they really, really, really want to believe the myth that somehow file sharing magically goes away, and no legitimate customers get annoyed, when they try to lock up their content.

Filed Under: drm, dvr, mpaa, selectable output control, soc
Companies: mpaa

Judge In IsoHunt Case Tells MPAA It Needs To Actually Prove Infringement By US Residents

from the well,-that's-a-first dept

This is a first. In the trial that the movie studios have brought against torrent search engine Isohunt, the judge has pushed back on the MPAA's claims, noting that it has failed to show any evidence of actual infringement by US users. In the past, groups like the MPAA and the RIAA have been able to get by without ever proving real infringement, but just by suggesting it must be happening. So this is quite a surprise. It makes the Isohunt case one to watch more seriously. The company may still lose the lawsuit, but at least the judge seems to want to see actual evidence, rather than having Hollywood execs insisting that these sites are killing their business just because they say so.

Filed Under: bittorrent, copyright, file sharing, infringement, proof
Companies: isohunt, mpaa

Hollywood Says Due Process Is Too Damn Slow

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

Apparently, a New Zealand anti-copyright group controlled by the Hollywood movie studios is upset that a new three strikes proposal includes the ability to have a tribunal review a case from a user who feels wrongly accused. The Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) is worried that everyone accused of infringing will file for such a review, and it will clog up the system. Yes, due process is apparently too messy for the Hollywood studios. It would prefer a system where arbiters are able to process review requests in bulk. Because nothing says a fair and full hearing of your rights like a guy rushing to get through a batch of such complaints in a single process... I'm amazed that the studios haven't picked up on the French plan of giving judges only five minutes to review any such appeal.

Filed Under: copyright, due process, new zealand, three strikes
Companies: fact, mpaa

As Expected, Judge Still Bans Real From Selling RealDVD

from the no-surprise dept

This will come as absolutely no surprise to folks who have followed Hollywood's self-defeating battle against Real Network's RealDVD offering. If you don't recall, Real announced a product that would let users back up a DVD in their possession. Now, it's important to understand a few basic facts: under copyright law, you are allowed to make a personal backup of something like a CD or software. That's been found to be perfectly legal fair use. So, what's the problem? Well, one of the worst aspects of the DMCA is that it includes a totally unnecessary (and constitutionally questionable) anti-circumvention clause. Basically, the DMCA says that if you circumvent (or offer tools to circumvent) any kind of DRM, you've broken the law (and here's the ridiculous part) even if the actual copying you then do is perfectly legal. Yes, it's like saying that breaking into your own house is illegal. It makes no sense at all.

Real tried to get around this issue in a clever way. It figured that if you really were limited only to being able to make a backup copy (rather than an unencrypted copy that could be passed around), then a court would have a hard time finding it illegal. And, in fact, it had some legal precedent on its side. Two years ago, a court found that Kaleidescape, makers of a super high-end DVD jukebox, was perfectly legal, since the device was clearly only designed to make personal backups, and couldn't be used to distribute content.

Unfortunately, it appears that judge Marilyn Patel (who was also the judge who killed the original Napster) disagrees. She's issued yet another injunction blocking Real from selling RealDVD, saying that it violates copyright law. Again, this isn't a surprise. She had issued an initial injunction last year, and seemed quite skeptical of Real's arguments earlier this years, declaring:

"They have the copyright. That's the issue here right? They have the copyright. They have the right to exclude."

This is only partially true. They have some rights to exclude, but those rights are limited. The question is whether or not Real's actions fall outside that limit. But Judge Patel seems to disagree entirely with the Kaleidescape ruling, on that point.

Of course, the real issue here is how pointless a move this is for Hollywood, anyway. There are tons of DVD ripping software offerings out there -- which don't even have the limitations that RealDVD does. I can't fathom who would buy Real's product in the first place, knowing that there are much better, non-limiting products out there. Yet, here was a product that was doing everything it possibly could to play within the rules to make DVDs more valuable by letting people make use of their legal right to back up a DVD they had purchased, and Hollywood wants to crack down on it? The only thing that will do is drive more people to use the other versions of DVD ripping software out there. So, congrats, Hollywood, on pushing more people -- people who wanted to be good, legal, customers of your DVDs -- to go around the law to back up their DVDs, leaving them more open to file sharing.

It's difficult to fathom how anyone could think this was a smart move by Hollywood, or even how this is a "victory" for Hollywood.

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, copyright, dmca, dvd copying, marilyn patel, realdvd
Companies: mpaa, realnetworks

Australian Press Prints Movie Industry Myths About Piracy Funding Terrorism

from the does-skepticism-exist-down-under? dept

Isn't the press supposed to actually investigate claims handed to them by industry lobbyists? Apparently not. A bunch of folks have sent in the fact that the Sydney Morning Herald has published a totally one-side and unsubstantiated article claiming that "movie pirates fund terrorism." There are just a few problems with this -- including the fact that the so-called evidence for this is weak or non-existent, and the only evidence that is provided comes directly from the movie industry itself, who has every incentive to push this ridiculous story, despite the fact that the movie business continues to have record breaking years at the box office, and attendance is way up this year so far -- despite a massive worldwide recession.

None of that makes it into this article, by two supposedly professional reporters.

Instead, we're told that "piracy" costs the Australian movie industry $233 million per year and "affects at least 50,000 workers." Affects how? That we're not told. As for the $233 million number, that comes from AFACT -- the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft, hardly an unbiased party, though the gullible reporters seem to take its spokesperson's words as gospel that cannot be questioned. About the only thing that said spokesperson, Neil Gane, can show as someone being impacted is that "the people who own the local DVD shop who are having to lay off staff." Uh huh. And the people who own the local CD shop are doing so also -- but it's not because of "piracy" but because of competition. You know who's staffing up, though? Apple stores and video game retailers... Hmmm... Why is it that AFACT doesn't count their job growth in its numbers? I wonder...

Then there's the claim from the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance's director, Simon Whipp, claiming that all this piracy is impacting the least well paid people in the industry: "We're talking about a group of people who earn an average wage of about $15,000 a year." Honestly, all I can think is that (1) why is the industry paying people such crappy wages and (2) they're probably a lot better off in other jobs then, where they might earn a bit more. I don't see that as a problem of piracy. It seems like the movie studios aren't paying those employees enough to keep them in their jobs.

From there, the article moves on to the absolutely ridiculous, promising to "show how movie piracy is being used to fund terrorist groups including Hezbollah and Jemaah Islamiah, responsible for the Bali bombings in 2002." That would, indeed, be quite interesting, but the article fails to even come close. Instead, it talks about a guy in Sydney who camcorded some films and uploaded them to one of many online groups. What the article doesn't mention is that the same films were almost certainly uploaded by numerous other people, and there's a good chance that most of those films pretty quickly had official (non-camcorded) versions leaked online by industry insiders. But, wait, we're supposed to be learning how this one guy's movies are connected to terrorists.

But, we don't. Instead, we find out that the movies he recorded (but no mention as to whether it's specifically his recordings) showed up in Britain, the United States, Mexico, Spain, Malaysia and the Philippines. We're told that the movies are manufactured and sold in the streets. That's great, but it ignores the fact that, thanks to all this "online movie piracy" the whole "counterfeit DVD" business has been going downhill. In fact, if you must connect the sale of counterfeit DVDs to terrorists, then you should be happy for online piracy taking away that market.

Is any of this suggested in the article? Of course not.

But wait, weren't we supposed to be finding the elusive missing link between movie downloading and terrorism? We were following the camcorded movie recorded by the one guy in Sydney, which showed up in other places... but there the trail ends cold. Instead, we're told to just trust the experts. Ganes (quoted earlier) shows up again to claim: "It has been recognised by governments... that there is a link between movie piracy and terrorist funding." Oh really? It has been recognized by whom? Only by a study funded by the MPAA which didn't really talk about online piracy, but about counterfeiting, and which had numerous methodological problems. At least the article admits that the study was funded by the MPAA, but never considers that it may be biased because of this.

The article quotes the authors of the study, claiming: "If you buy pirated DVDs, there is a good chance that at least part of the money will go to organised crime." Of course, organized crime is not the same as terrorists, but does the article mention that? Nope. It wants you to assume they're the same thing. It also doesn't discuss the declining sales of counterfeit DVDs.

But it does jump back to the Philippines, where local actor Eduardo Manzano has the definitive proof of the link to terrorists. It's because he says so! "In this country, we have the triad, and we have terrorist organisations which are being suspected now of using profits derived from DVDs for possible terrorist activities." Then, in dramatic fashion, the reporters discuss a raid on counterfeit DVDs, and from there we're told that the guy who camcorded movies in Sydney didn't get a big enough sentence.

Got it? With some gullible reporters, a lack of fact checking, questionable information, a lack of context, a total dearth of anyone who might question the bogus information put forth in the article, we have an article promising to show the link between piracy and terrorism that does nothing of the sort. Now who's out there complaining again about how these professional reporters need to have special protection since they actually do real investigative reporting?

Filed Under: australia, journalism, movies, piracy, terrorism
Companies: afact, mpaa

Could The RIAA Stop Piracy By Coming Up With A More Compelling Story?

from the maybe-that-and-a-memory-eraser-ray dept

GregSJ points us to an analysis of a recent paper on "the rhetoric of copyright policy." The original paper is actually called Meh. The Irrelevance of Copyright in the Public Mind. The original is a worthwhile read (as is the analysis), but the basic point is that people continue to ignore copyright law because they simply don't "believe" the story of "harm" that the copyright holders are spinning. This actually echoes Rep. Robert Wexler's recent remarks to the World Copyright Summit, where it's all about "the story."

The paper argues that some of the fault is with the media who has portrayed these battles over copyright "as a land grab that benefited only copyright holders." Hmm. Perhaps that's because it's, I don't know... true? Also, it's worth pointing out that it isn't completely true that the media portrays the copyright battles in this manner. The media has often been quite supportive of copyright expansionist policies -- after all, many of the media's current business models rely somewhat on copyright as well.

Still, even if it is true, the paper argues that the RIAA/MPAA/BSA just needs to come up with a good story (which doesn't need to be true!) to convince people of the harm of unauthorized downloading. As a part of that, they suggest that copyright maximalists have to become trustworthy. Try to read the following without cracking up (I couldn't):

To be successful, copyright holders and legislators must consider the construction of ethos and credibility. This is done not only through the reputation that one gains, but also through the discourse itself. Legislators and copyright holders must portray themselves as trustworthy. More specifically, the recording industry must appear to be treating artists and fans fairly, and legislators must appear to be acting in the public interest.... Legislators and copyright holders must maintain a stance that encourages the public to obey copyright laws. When legislators consider altering copyright terms, the public domain is necessarily affected, and great consideration must be given to how the public will react to the proposed action. When the public sees little incentive to honor the ostensibly limited protection granted under copyright law, copyright law will increasingly become unenforceable. However, if the public is provided with compelling reasons why term limits are in the public interest, they may be more likely to support these terms. Likewise, copyright holders must make more compelling arguments concerning why the public should obey copyright law. If the people have a compelling narrative to follow, they will do so--whether it is true or not. The challenge, then, is not to craft better law; the challenge is to craft better rhetoric.

The problem, of course, is that this doesn't pass the laugh test. It's pretty difficult to find anyone who believes that the copyright holders and legislators are doing anything in the public interest. And, I guess if it were possible to come up with rhetoric that made the opposite case, then perhaps people would change their actions. I just question how they could come up with such a story when all of the evidence points to the contrary.

Beyond that, let's face it, the RIAA actually has controlled the "story" for ages. It has convinced people it represents artists' interests, even though it does not. It's convinced people that potential copyright infringement is "stealing" or "piracy" when it's quite a different beast altogether. They've convinced people that copyright is the only way to make money off of content. The problem is that when anyone scratches the surface, they realize quite quickly, that none of this makes any sense at all.

Filed Under: copyright, piracy, rhetoric, story
Companies: bsa, mpaa, riaa