MPAA Targets New Anti-Piracy Ads... At People Who Already Paid To Go See Movies

from the strategery! dept

There's that old joke that you've probably heard (in part because we've mentioned it in other contexts), about the drunk man searching for his keys under a streetlight, while admitting that he lost them further down the street. When asked why he's looking over by the light instead, he says "because that's where the light is." People even refer to this as the streetlight effect. And you can see it in all sorts of odd places.

Here, for example, is the MPAA, the guardian of Hollywood's old way of doing business, launching a big new "anti-piracy ad campaign" by... advertising to the people who already paid to see movies in the theater:

The “I Make Movies” videos, which will run in 300 AMC theater locations and a handful of regional chains, spotlights the movie workers behind-the-scenes: a costume illustrator, seamstress, picture car coordinator, carpenter, and set designer.

These spots will be showing in theaters across the country, because that's exactly what people who just paid huge sums of money to watch a movie want to see: an extra commercial before the film they paid to see telling them them to stop being dirty pirates, with the usual claptrap about all of the poor workers that piracy impacts (leaving aside that those people aren't paid based on movie revenue...).

It's the streetlight effect all over again. The incompetent and ineffective Chris Dodd-run MPAA feels the need to do something, so they fall back on the same old game plan:

"Hey, let's advertise to try to make people feel guilty!"

"That's never worked before despite us trying for decades."

"This time it will work! It must work! Because they must all feel guilty! And once they see how guilty they should really feel, they'll stop pirating! Because I have no other ideas!"

"Okay, but where will we best place these advertisements to reach the right people?"

"I've got that one all planned out! We'll get them in the best possible spot: in the movie theaters! The theaters will show those ads for free and we've got a real captive audience!"

"But it's a captive audience who has already shown that they're willing to pay. Why should we advertise to them?"

"Didn't you hear me!?!? It's a captive audience and the theaters will let us do it for free! Piracy is solved!"

Good luck, guys. Once again, if you're looking for better ideas, maybe fire the content protection team, and hire some folks who actually get the internet.

Filed Under: advertisements, anti-piracy, theaters
Companies: mpaa

Florida Legislators Introduce Bill That Would Strip Certain Site Owners Of Their Anonymity

from the baby-SOPA dept

A few Florida legislators are looking to do some serious damage to both free speech and the internet.

This week, the Florida state legislature is considering a bill that would make it illegal to run any website or service anonymously, if the site fits a vague category of “disseminat[ing]” “commercial” recordings or videos—even the site owner’s own work. Outlawing anonymous speech raises a serious First Amendment problem, and laws like this one have been abused by police and the entertainment industry.

The bill (Senate and House versions) seems to be catering directly to the entertainment industry and could give local law enforcement City of London Police-esque powers to act as de facto copyright cops. And its potential stripping of anonymity not only requires disclosure to law enforcement, but everyone else on the web.

A person who owns or operates a website or online service dealing in substantial part in the electronic dissemination of commercial recordings or audiovisual works, directly or indirectly, to consumers in this state shall clearly and conspicuously disclose his or her true and correct name, physical address, and telephone number or e-mail address on his or her website or online service in a location readily accessible to a consumer using or visiting the website or online service.

Do-it-yourself doxxing! What could possibly go wrong? Handing over your personal information to complete strangers always works out so well. The bill seems only concerned with giving rights holders easier access to potential infringers (still problematic), completely ignoring the unintended consequences of forcing certain site owners to hand out their personal information proactively, rather than only by law enforcement subpoena or court order.

On top of that, there's the vagueness of the language. "Directly or indirectly" can mean a lot of things -- like links to alleged infringement elsewhere on the web. And it would potentially force any number of site owners worldwide to give up their anonymity. The bill isn't limited to sites/site owners residing in Florida. All it says is "electronic dissemination… to consumers in this state." If a website can be accessed from Florida, it conceivably falls under the jurisdiction of this proposed law.

This would give the Grady "Showboat" Judds of Florida law enforcement all the reason they need to send ad hoc anti-piracy task forces all over the US to shut down infringing sites. Even if the damage was solely confined to Florida, it would still be a bad idea.

Similar “true name and address” laws in other states have been used to justify police raids on music studios. In 2007, a Georgia police SWAT team (with RIAA employees in tow) raided the studio of DJ Drama and DJ Cannon, makers of influential “mixtapes” that record labels used to promote their artists. The police arrested the DJs and confiscated their CDs and equipment. Their justification wasn’t copyright law (which is a federal law) but a more limited version of the same law Florida is considering, one that applies only to physical goods. If Florida expands on Georgia’s law by including websites, we could see similar police raids against music blogs or other avenues of online speech. And the works on the site might even be in the public domain, as long as some “owner, assignee, authorized agent, or licensee”—perhaps a broadcaster—complains.

If there is a bright side to this proposed law, it's that it doesn't gut Section 230 protections and contains the smallest of nods towards Fair Use. But that's it. Otherwise, it's a mess -- a bill designed to expedite the pursuit of infringers at the expense of free speech and online anonymity.

Filed Under: anonymity, anti-piracy, audio, copyright, florida, free speech, videos

The MPAA Isn't About Helping Hollywood. It's About Preserving Its Own Need To Exist.

from the shirky-principle dept

In the past we've discussed the Shirky Principle, named after a statement by Clay Shirky that:

"Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution."

In some ways that's a corollary to Upton Sinclair's famous quote:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

I've long believed that the MPAA has this problem in spades. The group, which is supposed to be about helping the big Hollywood studios, has long taken a very different positions. Five years ago, we wrote about how bizarre it was that the MPAA had an entire "Content Protection" division. As we noted at the time, the organization not only had a Chief Content Protection Officer, but also an Executive VP of Content Protection, a Senior VP of Content Protection and a regular VP of Content Protection, and probably a handful of Content Protection Minions or whatever they call their non-VP worker bees.

And yet, there didn't seem to be anyone at the MPAA who had a title along the lines of "Chief Open Internet Evangelist" or "Chief Digital Business Model Strategist" or something along those lines, who could have been working with Hollywood to help transition the organization into the digital age. No, instead that transition has come in fits and starts with the MPAA itself fighting against most of the key moves and doing little to help forward thinking filmmakers and studios. In fact, if you talk to many of the up-and-coming filmmakers these days, they're just as angry about the MPAA's stance as open internet supporters -- because they realize just how counterproductive a "protection" regime is, rather than a "embrace the opportunity" regime would be.

Eli Dourado has written up a fantastic discussion of this very idea, by focusing on two key things that came out of the Sony Hack that, together, more or less highlight the point above: that the MPAA is not pro-Hollywood at all, but rather seems entirely focused on "giving itself a reason to exist, rather than solving the film industry's" challenges. Specifically he highlights these two things:

1. Leaked emails revealed the Motion Picture Association of America’s ongoing plans to censor the Internet to reduce digital film piracy.
2. The hack prompted a surprise, online Christmas Eve release of The Interview that let us observe the effect of a new distribution model on film revenue.

We have, of course, covered both of these, but Dourado puts them together nicely in context, showing how the MPAA's site-blocking/filtering/censorship strategy is one focused on destroying many of the opportunities of the internet, while the digital release of The Interview showed how embracing digital can actually be quite useful for Hollywood -- not that the MPAA wants anything to do with that at all.

When put together, these vignettes raise important questions about the future of the film industry and its lobbying efforts. Is the MPAA really representing Hollywood’s long-term interests in Washington, or is it trying to fight old battles over and over in an attempt to justify its own existence?

Dourado goes through the detailed history -- revealed by the Sony Hack -- of how, post-SOPA, the MPAA has regrouped to focus on ways to bring back site-blocking and censorship online, while simultaneously attacking Google at every turn (even when Google did exactly what the MPAA asked for and demoted sites the MPAA dislikes). As Dourado notes:

But the more striking point is what this strategy reveals about the MPAA: the organization still deeply believes in site blocking as more or less the solution to online piracy. It continues to position itself as an enemy of the open Internet.

From there, he discusses the success of the online release of The Interview, pointing out how well it did. Of course, some of that may have been because of all the (somewhat questionable) news about the supposed threat from North Korea, leading some to choose to watch it for patriotic reasons. Still, Dourado notes that, while there was piracy of the film as well, much of it came outside the US, because Sony initially limited the release to US only online. And the movie did make a fair bit of money online and, perhaps more importantly, got people to pay attention to its online efforts:

There is additional evidence that the online release was a win for Sony: its YouTube channel gained 243,000 new subscribers in the aftermath of the Interview release. As YouTube entrepreneurs like Michelle Phan would note, subscribers are as good as cash, a ready source of revenue for future online movie releases, if Sony decides to do more of them.

The Interview episode shows that the Internet need not be viewed only as a source of piracy. With a modest change in business model, it can also be the film industry’s next great distribution platform.

And then you get to the divergence question: which strategy is best for Hollywood and the film industry... and which strategy is best for the MPAA? Take a wild guess:

What is the best strategy for the film industry going forward? Should it continue to fight the open Internet, as it did with SOPA, and as it has continued to do through state AG investigations and lobbying the ITC? Or should it embrace the Internet as a potentially profitable distribution platform that is in any case here to stay?

It’s clear which strategy the MPAA, the lobbying organization, prefers. If the studios were to truly embrace the Internet, the MPAA would have a much diminished reason for existence. There is no one you need to lobby in order to release films online. Many employees, such as chairman Chris Dodd and general counsel Steven Fabrizio, would have little to do. The organization would have to go back to administering its film ratings system and asking states for ridiculous film tax credits.

He goes even further, pointing out that this stupid focus on "content protection" has been shown time and time again not to work, whereas embracing the internet seems much more likely to work. But, of course, it would leave the MPAA with less things to do. And thus, to me, it goes all the way back around to the Shirky Principle. The MPAA has to keep focusing on "the piracy problem" because it has set itself up as "the solution" to that problem, perhaps knowing full well that it's a solution that can never be solved. Yet, because of this, it guarantees a large role for itself, convincing gullible studio bosses to keep forking money over to the MPAA, so that its leadership can keep earning multi-million dollar salaries.

The real issue here is that, as younger, more internet-savvy filmmakers continue to bubble up throughout Hollywood, sooner or later more of them are going to realize what a farce the MPAA has become. And just like the MPAA's "content protection" strategy has totally failed Hollywood, eventually it's going to totally fail itself as well. That's what you get for fighting the future, rather than embracing it.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, content protection, hollywood, innovation, lobbying
Companies: mpaa

Canadian Anti-Piracy Company Caught Using Unattributed And Paywalled Articles To Fill Its Blog

from the putting-lipstick-on-a-scraper dept

Canipre, one of Canada's foremost anti-piracy enforcers, has a bit of a problem on its hands. Like others that zealously guard against piracy, the company expects everyone else to fully respect the IP rights of the entities it acts for. And like others in the same field, it seemingly can't be bothered to make sure it properly respects other entities' IP rights. (See also: BREIN, the BSA, the City of New York, the list goes on and on…)

Michael Geist points to Canipre's latest press release, touting the use of its evidence in a Voltage Pictures lawsuit, as well as its intent to fully take advantage of Canada's new infringement notification system. Then he points to this:

Yet what Canipre does not say is that a blog associated with the company may have been engaged in copyright infringement for many months. The blog – copyrightenforcement.ca – is run by Barry Logan, the company’s Managing Director, Operations (I received an email from Mr. Logan last year that listed the site as his blog address). In addition to posting releases from Canipre and information about the TekSavvy case, the site has posted dozens of full-text articles from media organizations around the world.

For example, last week it posted the full text of a 1200 word article on TV piracy from the Wire Report, an Ottawa-based telecom publication. The article resides behind a paywall limited to subscribers and is listed as “exclusive content.” In fact, reposting full-text articles from other sources is a regular occurrence on the site. Posts in December feature articles from the Huffington Post Canada, Business Insider, and CNET. Earlier posts include full-text articles from the Hollywood Reporter, StreamDaily, Reuters, the Canadian Press, Global News, Vancouver Sun, and the National Post. Some of the posts include articles that strip out reference to the author (Chronicle Herald, CBC) and others include no attribution whatsoever. The site also uses photos from the articles, often without attribution.

Hey, fair dealing and all that, some might say. Sure, but let's not get carried away. Posting up plain text versions of paywalled articles -- in full, without additional commentary or criticism -- isn't exactly fair dealing. And it's not as if Canipre has any respect for the fair dealing of others. It's an anti-piracy firm and its vision of the world's use of IP is solidly black and white. Either you've paid for it, or you're an infringer.

And, as Geist notes, there's plenty of stuff in there that goes further than what could even be the outer reaches of fair dealing. The blog has stripped attribution/authorial references -- maybe out of cluelessness, maybe in a desire to obscure its origins -- which is no one's idea of fair dealing.

This isn't Canipre's first hypocritical dance with the IP devil. Back in 2013, it was caught tarting up its dark and dramatic website with photos belonging to other people, all without even making the slightest attempt to credit the actual creators. Barry Logan was the man behind that debacle as well, who contributed nothing to the discussion of the company's hypocrisy other than some buck-passing to the third party site designer.

Even if some of this could be considered fair dealing, the company using the creations of others without permission frowns deeply and legally on those who would do the same to its protected content. Michael Geist's headline puts it beautifully: Canipre certainly has a beautiful glass house. Shame it can't seem to kick its rock-throwing habit.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, blog, canada, copyright
Companies: canipre

Court Ruling: EA's Anti-Piracy Software Is Patent Infringing

from the live-by-IP,-die-by-IP dept

Between the company's general disposition and the incredible failure of the SimCity launch, Electronic Arts is becoming a name associated directly with digital rights management. The most infamous DRM platform the company has used is probably SecuROM, which was noteworthy for being equal parts mega-annoying to paying customers, as well as being so massively ineffective that games employing SecuROM later became amongst the most pirated video games of all time. But, results aside, EA would tell you that it needed to use DRM to protect the company from piracy. Even if SecuROM failed, the company had to at least try, or else the freeloaders that live the highlife getting around intellectual property laws would win. Violating IP laws is wrong, damn it, and EA was going to do everything in its power to right that wrong.

Including violating a notorious patent troll's intellectual property to do so, apparently -- at least, according to an East Texas court, which awarded Uniloc nearly $5 million after determining that EA violated the patent troll's patent with the SecuROM platform.

Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. sued in 2013, claiming EA's SecuROM video game activation system infringes on U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216. The system allows EA customers to activate and register their video games and is aimed at reducing piracy and "casual copying," Uniloc alleged. SecuROM restricts the number of devices a customer can simultaneously activate a game on with the same key. EA games that use the system include "Alice: Madness Returns," "Dragon Age II" and "Darkspore: Limited Edition," the complaint stated. Uniloc asked the court to for compensatory damages and "a reasonable, on-going, post judgment royalty." A federal jury agreed with Uniloc and awarded over $4.86 million in compensatory damages on Friday.

I have to admit, I feel a bit like the characters at the end of the original Jurassic Park movie, who were being attacked by velociraptors only to be saved at the last moment by the tyrannosaurus rex that had nearly murdered them all earlier. You don't really root for either side; you can only pray they tear each other apart. That said, schadenfreude is one of my failings, and enjoying it with the healthy dose of irony that comes along with EA infringing on a patent with its anti-piracy software is so good, it's likely fattening.

But, hey, live the IP sword, die by the IP sword, right?

Filed Under: anti-piracy, drm, patents, securom
Companies: ea

Former Head Of Australian Music Industry's Anti-Piracy Efforts Calls For An Infringement Small Claims Court

from the ask-yourself-who-benefits-most...-and-who's-pushing-for-it dept

An interesting but mostly bad idea has reared its head again: a small claims court for copyright infringement. This time, it's an anti-piracy investigator (and former policeman) pushing the idea, springboarding off the ridiculous 33-month sentence meted out to Phillip Danks. (h/t to Techdirt reader jtomic)

Michael Speck, an independent Australian anti-piracy investigator and former policeman, said the sentence was fair but added the case showed that Australia needed a separate, specialised court that would make it less costly to prosecute those who downloaded or distributed copyright infringing material.

"It's high time that a specialist small claims tribunal be established to deal with low-level criminal and civil [copyright] infringements [in Australia]," Mr Speck, who was once the head of ARIA's music industry piracy investigations unit, said.

"The vast majority of victims of copyright infringement can't afford to go before a court in this country. It's incredibly expensive to prosecute a case and it's very easy to stifle a civil or criminal prosecution," he added.

It's always suspect when someone who makes their money fighting infringement calls for a small claims court to handle infringement. (You know, rather than the artists themselves...) While some creators would welcome the idea and find the lower barrier to entry (so to speak) better than the current system, the real reason for Speck to be pushing this is the increased number of infringement cases that could be processed. Win-win for those in the anti-piracy business, but of little real use to anyone else.

For one thing, the notion of a small claims court undermines the argument that statutory damages are necessary to deter infringement. By definition, a small claims court wouldn't (or shouldn't) take on cases where these damages are being pursued. If faster, smaller cases can take a bite out infringement, then it's clear statutory damages vastly overvalue the copyrighted creations.

Second, proving infringement isn't nearly as simple as pursuing debt or making your neighbor pay for damage done to your vehicle when the tree he tried to cut down fell in your driveway. (Actually, the latter case is probably extremely complicated.) What it would encourage, however, is the filing of multiple suits in hopes of obtaining easy default judgements. There's also the question of how small, independent rights holders are going to determine guilty parties, something even well-heeled studios and labels have trouble doing.

This idea is seductive because it appears to offer quick, cheap resolutions in copyright owners' favor. But the reality will be far different. Because of what's required to unmask infringers, this system will end up being just another tool for major players to sue minor infringers. The artists at the bottom -- those who might see this as a panacea -- will still face an uphill battle when attempting to target infringers.

Speck points out that it's very easy to "stifle a civil or criminal prosecution." What makes him think that this will be less likely in small claims court? The only reason he would see this as a solution is if he feels it will be easier to push dubious cases past judges in these courts. If so, then small claims court will become a copyright troll haven, something that does very little to deter infringement and contributes greatly to the public's disenchantment with IP enforcement. If Speck is looking to see more grandmothers and 14-year-olds paying out for alleged infringement, small claims court is the way to go.

There are positives to this approach, but they hinge on the limitation (or removal) of statutory damages and built-in safeguards for the accused. Otherwise, this system will simply steamroll the unsuspecting along with the truly guilty.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, australia, copyright, michael speck, small claims

City Of London Police Inserting 'This Website Has Been Reported To Police' Banner Ads On Websites With No Legal Review

from the that-seems...-dangerous dept

The City of London police have continued to take their bull-in-a-china-shop approach to "stopping piracy" (generally based on a near total misunderstanding of the internet) to it's next level of ridiculousness. The police (which, yes, no need to remind us, represent a square mile in the middle of wider London, though, yes, it covers many big London businesses and financial firms) appear to have bought into Hollywood's fable about "piracy" being the equivalent of "theft" and not being even remotely concerned about the possibility of collateral damage. Back in April, we noted that the City of London Police had been creating a "blacklist" for advertisers of "bad" sites. And, now it's been revealed that advertisers are supposed to insert a ridiculous City of London advertisement on those websites in place of other ads. Like so many poorly thought out "anti-piracy" campaigns, this one seems to be based on two faulty premises. First, that it's somehow easy to determine what is a legitimate site and what is a "pirate" site. Second, that the thing standing between someone using such a site to get their content and going to an authorized site is just a bit of "education." The "education" story has been floating around for decades and there's basically no evidence to support it whatsoever. The idea that someone is going to go to one of these sites, see this ad, and then think "oh man, I had no idea, let me go to this other site recommended by the police instead" is just laughable. Even the idea that they'd read "this website has been reported to the police" and not laugh is kind of ridiculous. Hell, just the idea that the sorts of folks frequenting these sites even look at banner ads is kind of laughable.

In fact, some of us are so conditioned to ad blindness that it actually took a bit of an effort to get me consciously focus on the City of London Police banner ads in that picture -- and I didn't even notice the top banner until I was proofreading this post. Can't imagine that's particularly productive.

But the bigger problem is the one we brought up when it first came out that they were putting together this list in the first place. A totally non-transparent, one-sided system by which these technologically clueless police designate a site to be a "pirate" site seems ripe for abuse and harming perfectly legitimate sites. Remember, of course, the last time the legacy entertainment and online ad industry teamed up on such a list? It included tons of legitimate sites, including the Internet Archive, Soundcloud, Vimeo and BitTorrent's corporate website. It also included a bunch of popular hip hop blogs and 50 Cent's personal website.

One hopes that this new list will be put together with a bit more care, but you never really know. The industry has a way of declaring certain sites "rogue" despite them being perfectly fine. Remember, this is the same industry that tried to outlaw the VCR, the DVR and the MP3 player. It's also the same industry that insisted that both Youtube and Veoh were "pirate" sites, though both sites won in court (not before Veoh went out of business though).

So what happens when the City of London Police put these banner ads on the next YouTube? Does that site have any recourse from this opaque and totally one-sided process? Do they get to sue the police for defamation? And, really, in what world do the City of London Police think they have any jurisdiction outside of a single square mile of land?

Filed Under: advertising, anti-piracy, city of london police, copyright, education

The MPAA's Plan To Piss Off Young Moviegoers And Make Them Less Interested In Going To Theaters

from the do-these-guys-never-think-anything-through? dept

Given how important teenagers and those in their 20s are to the movie industry, you'd think one day they'd learn to stop being complete assholes to that demographic. For example, you'd think that they'd realize that young folks today really, really like their smartphones, and one of the main things they do with those smartphones is snap pictures or videos of just about anything and everything and share it with their friends via whichever platform they prefer, be it SnapChat, WhatsApp, Instagram, Vine, Facebook, Twitter or whatever else they might be using. It's just what they do -- and they seem to be doing it more and more often. Yet, the MPAA wants to make sure that if kids do this, theaters should call the police to have them arrested as quickly as possible.

The thing is, the MPAA should know that this is a recipe for disaster. In 2007, Jhannet Sejas went to see Transformers, and filmed 20-seconds to send to her brother to get him excited to go see the movie. The result? Police were called, she was arrested and threatened with jailtime. She was eventually pressured into pleading guilty to avoid jailtime. Samantha Tumpach wasn't quite so lucky. She, along with her sister and her friends, went out to the movies in 2009 to celebrate her sister's birthday. Since they were all having fun, she decided to film some of the group while they were watching the movie. Once again, police were called and she was arrested and spent two nights in jail. After widespread public outcry, prosecutors dropped the charges.

Given those high profile cases, combined with the fact that smartphones have become more ubiquitous, and the pastime of taking photos and videos has become ever more popular, you'd think that maybe, just maybe, someone at the MPAA would think to teach theater owners to be a bit more lenient about the kid just taking a photo or filming a couple seconds of a video. But that's not how the MPAA operates. Its goal in life seems to be to think up ways of how it must have been wronged, and its weird and stupid obsession with movies captured by people filming in the theaters is really quite ridiculous.

The MPAA has now released its latest "best practices" for theaters, and it's basically exactly what you should do if you want to piss off the demographic of folks who actually go to theaters. You can see the whole thing here if you want to see exactly what not to do.

And the MPAA is Obnoxious The MPAA recommends theaters institute a "zero tolerance" policy, which appears to mean calling in the police if anyone so much as raises a smartphone. Here are a few snippets:

The MPAA recommends that theaters adopt a Zero Tolerance policy that prohibits the video or audio recording and the taking of photographs of any portion of a movie.

Theater managers should immediately alert law enforcement authorities whenever they suspect prohibited activity is taking place. Do not assume that a cell phone or digital camera is being used to take still photographs and not a full-length video recording. Let the proper authorities determine what laws may have been violated and what enforcement action should be taken.

Theater management should determine whether a theater employee or any other competent authority is empowered to confiscate recording devices, interrupt or interfere with the camcording, and/or ask the patron to leave the auditorium.

Even better, the MPAA reminds theaters that they should tell employees about their "TAKE ACTION! REWARD," in which employees who capture an evil pirate in action get a whopping $500. In order to get the award, one of the requirements is "immediate notification to the police." The theaters have to have posters, like the one above, on display if they want their employees to get the cash, so expect to see that kind of crap in theaters everywhere. And expect that employees seeking to cash in on that TAKE ACTION! REWARD to be calling the cops all the freaking time, because some kid raises his iPhone to take a quick picture of his buddies or something cool on screen.

Could the MPAA really be so out of touch and so completely oblivious that they think this is a good idea? Do they not employ anyone who has spent any time around teens and folks in their 20s? Do they honestly think that most police officers don't have better things to do than rush to the local theater every 15 minutes because some employee is trying to get his $500 and the way to do that is to turn in the kids having fun and trying to share the experience (not the movie itself)? And, most importantly, does no one at the MPAA think that maybe, just maybe, turning theater employees into complete assholes will make fewer people want to go see movies?

Of course they don't. That's because the MPAA is made up of lawyers, like this guy, who are obsessed with one thing, and one thing only: "evil pirates who must be stopped." It really seems like when the movie industry does well, it's in spite of the MPAA. What a disastrous organization, working against the industry's actual interests.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, best practices, camcording, mpaa, theaters
Companies: mpaa

Former White House IP Czar Immediately Jumps Ship To Microsoft-Driven Anti-Piracy Lobbying Group BSA

from the shameful dept

This was rumored for weeks before the former White House IP czar (technically "Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator") even had announced that she was stepping down from her job, but now it's been confirmed: just weeks after leaving the White House, Victoria Espinel will take over as the head of the Business Software Alliance, a group with a shameful past of overaggressive anti-piracy and pro-software patent positions, driven in large part by legacy software companies long past their innovation stage, and well into their "litigation" against innovators stage. The organization tends to take its orders mainly from Microsoft and Autodesk, two proponents of very strong copyright and patent enforcement, because it helps those legacy companies ward of competitors and disruptive innovators.

As you may recall, every year the BSA puts out a laughably ridiculous "global piracy study" that argues every infringing copy should count as a "lost sale." The BSA has a long history of using those reports to mislead the public and policy makers. The BSA also has a long history of raiding companies, tying them up in ridiculous "audits" where if you can't find the specific paperwork for the software you licensed years ago, you may be forced to pay huge sums. The organization has been widely criticized for the practices which often push small businesses to the edge of bankruptcy just because they can't find the right paperwork. The program also relies on bribing employees and former employees to rat out their companies based on completely bogus promises of payouts of "up to $1 million," when they almost never pay out more than $5,000. We once promised to pay out "up to $1 million" if anyone could prove a BSA $1 million payout. We never had to pay out a dime.

The BSA also, of course, was a strong supporter of SOPA until Microsoft realized that its users were angry and that SOPA might cause tremendous problems for the internet... and magically, the BSA suddenly changed its mind. The BSA has always had a close relationship with the federal government, of course. For years, its "anti-piracy" efforts were run by Neil MacBride who, like Espinel, once worked for Joe Biden. MacBride left the BSA after President Obama was elected to become the a top Justice Department official, later switching to become the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virgnia, where he's been involved in a number of high profile cases, including those involving copyright enforcement -- such as the case against Kim Dotcom and Megaupload. Just last week MacBride announced he was stepping down.

It is worth noting that, while I often disagreed with the position of the administration and Espinel on IP enforcement issues, she was much more willing to actually listen to complaints and have pretty open and wide ranging discussions on the issues. In the time she was in office, she was more than willing to reach out and discuss concerns and complaints that I and others had raised about the administration's positions, and some of her more recent efforts showed that she was certainly willing to take such constructive criticism into account. I hope that she will be willing to do the same in this new position, but I have concerns, since the role is not about pushing for the most effective policy position, but the one that benefits a few giant legacy companies the most. And the BSA is so tainted on that front, it would take a pretty miraculous shift to make the organization a "good" player on these issues.

Of larger concern: Espinel was intimately involved in a number of the discussions on "voluntary" agreements between various industries over how to deal with copyright infringement, meaning that she knows quite well the positions and plans of those whom she now may be fighting against in her new role, where she obviously has strong connections to those still in the government. Considering the massive concern about the "revolving door" between IP maximalist organizations and the government, the risk of bad results here seems quite high. Espinel was quite successful in bringing in a variety of viewpoints and trying to find common ground. Unfortunately, that's not what her new position likely calls for.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, copyright, ip czar, lobbying, patents, revolving door, victoria espinel
Companies: autodesk, bsa, microsoft

Leading Italian Film Producer Calls For $16 Billion Lawsuit Against Italian State For Alleged Inaction Against Piracy

from the good-luck-with-that dept

Last year we wrote about EMI suing the Irish government for having the temerity not to pass a SOPA-Like censorship law. That truly extraordinary sense of entitlement seemed to be a one-off, but The Hollywood Reporter now brings us another (via @LifeinSicily):

Italian producer Aurelio De Laurentiis has proposed a €12.5 billion ($16 billion) class action lawsuit against the Italian state for lost revenue he says movie producers have sustained because the state has done too little to combat piracy.

The justification for that rather significant sum is the following:

"The problem of piracy is very important, and I say we should ask for €12.5 billion in order to obtain at least €2.5 billion [$3.2 billion], the amount we lose each year because of piracy," De Laurentiis said.

There was no explanation of where that €2.5 billion figure came from. According to estimates quoted in Techdirt's "The Sky is Rising 2", gross box office sales for the Italian film industry were €700 million in 2011, so it seems highly unlikely that it is "losing" €2.5 billion each year. It may be significant that De Laurentiis is part of a dynasty of famous Italian film producers who can be justifiably proud of helping to create some of the greatest masterpieces of 20th-century Italian cinema. Perhaps he is still hankering for those good old days when people flocked to see the latest productions from his father and uncle.

But that was then, this is now: the Internet is having a massively disruptive effect on the film industry, just as it is on many others. That doesn't give film producers any entitlement to handouts from the Italian state for sales they claim they might have made. And notice, too, that De Laurentiis is calling for compensation for allegedly lost sales, not lost profits, which might have been minimal.

It's sad that so many in the copyright world apply their creativity to thinking up reasons why they should be protected by governments from the massive changes underway throughout the world, rather than applying that creativity to coming up with new ways of making money. They could do worse than listen to Riccardo Tozzi, president of Italy's audiovisual association, who was the co-host with De Laurentiis of the film industry symposium where the latter made his call for legal action:

Tozzi suggested a different tact: making it easier for people to legally download films, for a fee. "We should balance the threat of illegal downloads with a legal supply of films," he said. "It can be too difficult to download films legally, so there's no good alternative" to piracy.

Sounds easier than suing the Italian government....

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: anti-piracy, aurelio de laurentiis, copyright, italy, lawsuits, piracy