We've been talking about and asking for ECPA reform for many, many years, and it might finally be moving forward. ECPA is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which details how the government can get access to your electronic communications. The law was written in the early 1980s, and as you've probably noticed, we live in a very different world these days as it pertains to electronic communications. One key example: the law says that messages left on a server for more than 180 days are considered abandoned and can be searched without a warrant. That may have made some sense (though, not really) in a client-server era, where everyone downloaded their messages leading to them being deleted from a server, but it makes no sense at all in an era of cloud computing.
The main foes against updating ECPA have been government agencies that have investigatory powers, but not the ability to get a warrant -- mainly the SEC and the IRS, with the SEC being the real stumbling block. The SEC really liked the fact that it could snoop through emails without a warrant. So, even with massive support in Congress, ECPA reform never went anywhere.
So it was a bit surprising to folks this week to see Rep. Bob Goodlatte announce that the Judiciary Committee will now markup the ECPA reform bill, meaning that the bill is moving forward again. It's not entirely clear why it's happening now, but at the very least, it sounds like the SEC's constant protests may no longer be an obstacle. Hopefully it does move forward, and whatever results from the process leads to much stronger privacy protections on electronic communications, such as actually requiring a warrant, like the 4th Amendment says should happen.
In the past, we've discussed the idea of "soft corruption" a few times -- which in some ways can be more nefarious than out and out corruption. In soft corruption, it's not what most people normally think of as corruption (i.e., cash for getting something from politicians), but merely something that presents the very strong appearance of influence buying. It involves situations where even if everything being done is legal and done for the right intentions, the mere appearance of the conflict reduces the public's trust in government. Earlier this week, we wrote about how the House Judiciary Committee, which claims to be working on a major copyright reform effort, held "listening tours" in both Silicon Valley and Los Angeles (unfortunately, reinforcing the idea that copyright is a "Hollywood v. Silicon Valley" concept). As we noted, however, we were pleasantly surprised at the Silicon Valley hearing, that the discussion seemed really positive. It was (a) focused on actual ideas that could be implemented and (b) the members of the Judiciary Committee really seemed open to lots of good ideas.
From reports I've heard, the LA listening tour was also pretty good, minus one silly, but expected, flareup involving someone accusing Google of being a criminal pirate enterprise. However, in a move that seems fairly sketchy, following the hearing, the Committee members who were there had dinner with the MPAA. And, in Politico's latest report it notes that the head of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, hung around an extra day in Southern California to put his name on and attend a fundraiser for his colleague Rep. Kevin McCarthy.... put on by the MPAA:
Rep. Bob Goodlatte didn't just bring lawmakers to Silicon Valley and Los Angeles this week to talk with tech companies and content creators about the future of copyright. The House Judiciary Committee chief also offered his name and support to a fundraiser for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and the National Republican Congressional Committee, hosted last night by the MPAA, according to an invite snagged by MT.
The event, a cocktail reception and dinner at the BOA Steakhouse in West Hollywood, asked for checks to be made out to the McCarthy Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee with the NRCC, according to a Goodlatte aide. But the Judiciary chairman, who was slated to attend, extended the help a day after he and other lawmakers visited Hollywood to talk tech policy and later dined with the MPAA. A spokeswoman for the congressman added it was Goodlatte's only fundraising event while out in California
And, yes, if he had done a similar thing up in Northern California with tech folks, it would be equally concerning. I know the cynical folks who read this won't accept this, but I actually do believe that Goodlatte is trying to come up with a reasonable plan for copyright reform that actually takes all the issues into account. While I don't always agree with him, I've found him to be a lot more open to understanding these issues than some of his colleagues. But... that said... this is the kind of thing that most people will see and reasonably think that it undermines Goodlatte's trustworthiness on issues like this. It certainly gives off the appearance of a pretty strong conflict of interest, and makes people more cynical and less trustworthy of the government that is supposed to represent them.
Of course, much of the real underlying problem here is the state of money in politics today, and the fact that, for most Congressional Reps. fundraising is nearly 50% of their job responsibilities. So, if you're going to Hollywood, why not tack on a fundraiser? But, again, what that does, in the public's eyes, is make the entire process appear corrupt in some fashion. Thus, even if everyone's goals and intentions are aboveboard, the American public has significantly less trust in the entire system.
Last year a decent, but not great, patent reform bill looked poised to pass... until it was killed off at the last minute, thanks mainly to trial lawyers afraid of fee shifting provisions. The common wisdom was that this year a similar reform bill would likely sail through Congress, since the Senate had shifted and the Democrats (who are more closely aligned with the trial lawyers) were no longer in power. The eventual bill was just so-so, but had a few good and useful provisions, taking people a step in the right direction.
After that, I had assumed that things would go along the usual course, and eventually this weak, but still marginally useful, patent reform bill would go through. However, a few weeks ago, someone involved in negotiations on the bill told me that the whole thing was potentially falling apart, as a concerted lobbying effort by those against patent reform -- combined with less than active support from those in favor of patent reform -- threatened to destroy the bill. And, now, it appears that's exactly what's happening. Judiciary Committee boss Rep. Bob Goodlatte has apparently caved on a few key issues, such that the bill has basically been watered down to nothing, and even those in favor of patent reform may just bail on it altogether.
The committee had been expected to approve the bill easily when it was introduced earlier this year by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the House Judiciary chairman. But under pressure from House leadership and opponents of the bill, new language was added last week that guts key parts of the legislation, according to its proponents.
Advocates of aggressive legislation are threatening to walk away from the bill if the old language isn't restored. For instance, one aspect of the bill would've made it harder for trolls to file suit in courts that have historically granted favorable decisions. Recent changes have weakened that provision too far, said one pro-reform advocate, who declined to be named because the talks are ongoing.
Even that's misleading. The legislation that was on the table was hardly "aggressive," but those who abuse the patent system, especially on the pharma side, are a powerful lobby, and apparently they're now killing the best chance we had at real patent reform. Yes, in the last few years the courts have been useful in chipping away at some of the worst abuses of the patent system, but a real legislative change was necessary as well -- and now that's likely to disappear. Once again, it looks like Congress can't get its act together to fix a major problem for the economy.
As you may recall, at the height of the SOPA fight fallout, MPAA boss Chris Dodd went on television and threatened to stop funding the politicians who didn't support the MPAA's copyright agenda:
"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."
Given that statement, this little tidbit from the Sony email archives is interesting. It's Chris Dodd more or less demanding that all of the member studios donate $40,000 to Rep. Bob Goodlatte's re-election campaign. As you may know, Goodlatte is the head of the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives, and copyright falls under that committee. Even more to the point, despite the fact that there's an "Intellectual Property Subcommittee" (headed by Rep. Darrell Issa), Goodlatte has made it clear that copyright reform remains under his own personal mandate. In this email, Dodd notes that Goodlatte is coming to LA and there's a fundraiser -- and he asks each of the member studios to see if they can put together $40,000 for Goodlatte's campaign:
Subject: Goodlatte Victory Committee
As you know, for a number of months we have been discussing the political event that Chairman Goodlatte has asked our industry to host in Los Angeles. The event has now been scheduled for November 22. A copy of the invitation is attached. The Goodlatte staff is currently securing a location and I will send that information as soon as it is confirmed.
The event will be in support of the Joint Committee established by the Congressman called the “Goodlatte Victory Committee.” This event is important and in the best interests of our industry.
A number of you have had an opportunity to speak directly with the Chairman in the past few months, and I know you share my view that he is a good man and we are fortunate to have him at the helm of the House Judiciary Committee for the foreseeable future.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE and it is now incumbent upon us to work together to make this event a success. I need each of you to commit to attending the event and I would request that each studio raise $40,000 for the Victory Committee at this event.
So, please confirm that you plan to attend on the 22nd in Los Angeles, and that you will meet the per studio target of $40,000. It is incredibly important, in my view, that this event be a success and that we have a broad representation of studio executives in attendance. I will reach out to you later this week, but look forward to hearing from you in the meantime.
Best,
Chris
Now, to be clear, this sort of thing happens all the time. It's more a function of how money in politics works today. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that plenty of other companies in other industries do the same sort of thing -- though, generally speaking, it would be done by the companies themselves, not at the direction of a trade organization. Still, it's a bit of insight into how the process works that I figured some of you might find rather revealing.
At the vanguard of this assault are ISP-loyal politicians, who intend to throw everything but the kitchen sink at the FCC over the next few months in the hopes of if not destroying the rules -- at least delaying them -- while publicly flogging the FCC for good measure. That apparently starts with FCC Commissioners Ajit Pai and Michael O'Rielly lagging on providing their dissenting edits so the rules can't be released, followed by a gauntlet of at least five potential hearings over the next month aimed at shaming the FCC for destroying the Internet.
A letter from the House Judiciary Committee Members (pdf) to FCC boss Tom Wheeler complains that the FCC is pursuing the "most oppressive and backward regulatory option possible," which is odd since a growing list of companies that actually sell broadband -- like Cablevision, Frontier, Sprint and Sonic -- all say the rules won't impact their businesses in the slightest, since most of the heavier utility-components of Title II won't be applied. So why is the House Judiciary Committee fighting the rules? Because they're just super worried about the health of the Internet:
"We will not stand by idly as the White House, using the FCC, attempts to advance rules that imperil the future of the Internet. We plan to support and urge our colleagues to pass a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving the “Open Internet” rules. Not only will such a resolution nullify the ‘Open Internet’ rules, the resolution will prevent the FCC from relying on Title II for any future net neutrality rules unless Congress explicitly instructs the FCC to take such action."
Of course any measure that makes its way to the President's desk will be vetoed -- and a Congressional Review Action still requires a presidential signature or enough votes to override a veto, both of which are extremely unlikely. The only real way to overturn the agency's new laws is either via lawsuit (which the FCC has gone to great length to avoid losing this time after the courts repeatedly told them they needed to classify ISPs as common carriers to be on solid footing) or through a party change (and therefore an FCC leadership shift) in 2016.
Until then, the House Judiciary Committee hopes to keep the hysteria momentum rolling by flinging around some now well-worn falsehoods, like claiming that the White House acted improperly when it publicly proclaimed it preferred Title II rules:
"We are also troubled by the manner in which the ‘Open Internet’ rules were formulated. On November 10, 2014, President Obama urged the FCC to impose Title II regulations on the Internet. Shortly thereafter, you began making statements in support of a Title II approach. Certainly, the timing of your support for Title II following the President’s recommendation calls into question the degree, if not the existence, of the FCC’s independence from the White House."
Yes, because the "timing" of things is enough to make them illegal, right? You'll note the letter falls well short of claiming the White House broke the law, because despite whatever disdain the White House has for the law on a wide variety of topics, they did nothing wrong here. As we've noted previously, it's perfectly routine and legal for the White House to express its policy desires to the FCC, and every President in the last thirty years has done so (like when George W. Bush pushed the FCC for weaker media consolidation rules, or Bill Clinton urged the FCC to ban hard liquor ads on TV).
Republicans were already planning a rewrite this year of the Communications Act, and you can be dead certain that effort will be rekindled with a keen and aggressive eye on making regulators as ill-equipped as possible when it comes to doing anything about the nation's stagnant telecom duopoly. You know, for the health of the Internet.
We already wrote about how Reps. Goodlatte and Ruppersberger misrepresented the milestone amendment put forth by Reps. Massie, Lofgren and Sensenbrenner to defund the NSA's backdoor searches and mandates to put (different kinds of) backdoors in technology. However, we'd heard that the House leadership was so desperate to block the amendment that they put a totally misleading description on it -- and it's true:
If you can't see that, it says:
Prohibits funds from being used to fully exploit lawfully collected foreign intelligence information collected under Sec. 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
This is, of course, nearly identical to the language that Goodlatte himself used on the floor to urge his colleagues to vote against it. And, of course, as it was when Goodlatte said it, it's tremendously misleading here. It presumes that the information is "lawfully" collected, and also leaves out the rather key point that the amendment was merely blocking the ability to search the communications of Americans collected in this manner without a warrant. In other words, it not only totally misrepresented the amendment, but it purposely painted it in a ridiculous light, pretending that it was about blocking the NSA from doing something perfectly legal.
Given just how laughably misleading the House's own description of the amendment is, it's that much more incredible that the House overwhelmingly voted for the amendment, 293 to 123. In the end, it's a small miracle that it still passed, and by such a large margin -- but it also shows that many more in the House are realizing just how misleading leadership and "NSA-friendly" Representatives are being about these programs.
We've already written about the surprising, but encouraging, vote late last night to defund backdoor searches by the NSA. But it's worth looking at some of the floor debate on the amendment last night -- in particular the push against the amendment from Reps. Goodlatte and Ruppersberger, who both appear to flat out admit that the NSA does warrantless spying on Americans' communications, in direct contrast to earlier claims. The reasons for these two to argue against the amendment are clear. Goodlatte was the guy who negotiated the "deal" with the White House and the House Intelligence Committee to completely water down the USA Freedom Act, and he knows that this amendment puts some of the substance that he stripped out right back in. Ruppersberger, of course, represents the district where the NSA is headquartered, and is the ranking member for the House Intelligence Committee. His loyalty to the NSA over the American public has always been clear. But to have them basically admit that the NSA does warrantless spying on Americans is quite impressive. Here are both of them arguing against the amendment:
Goodlatte kicks it off by whining about how this undoes the "carefully negotiated compromise" in the USA Freedom Act. He leaves out that "carefully negotiated" was what happened after the markup, completely changing the nature of the bill. However, in describing the "existing minimization procedures," he notes (correctly) that the NSA isn't supposed to do searches on Americans, but then puts in the all-important "except" which undermines the whole thing and shows that the NSA is (contrary to the law) spying on the communications (not metadata) of Americans:
HR 3361 [the USA Freedom Act] also prohibits the government from using communications to or from a United States person or a person who appears to be located in the United States EXCEPT where the communication relates to a target under Section 702 or to protect against an immediate threat to human life.
Yeah, that's a pretty big "except." Remember, the NSA is not supposed to ever look at communications by anyone inside the US or an American citizen abroad without a warrant. Yet, Goodlatte flat out admits that the NSA does exactly that if the communications (again, not just metadata) "relate to a target." Now, remember, in discussing this how we recently highlighted that "relate to a target" means any communication about a target? In other words, Goodlatte is more or less admitting that if you merely mention Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden in an email, the NSA has the right to read your email without a warrant. That's the backdoor search that so many people have been concerned about, which very clearly violates the 4th Amendment's requirement for a warrant. And here is Goodlatte pretending it's no big deal.
Goodlatte then notes that the NSA can't use Section 702 to "target" a US person, but that's misleading. Because the NSA can collect communications "to" "from" or "about" a target, it means that tons of communications (again, not just metadata) by US persons are being spied on by the NSA entirely without a warrant. And this gets bigger and bigger when the "target" is defined broadly.
Then Ruppersberger jumps in to add his "thoughts" on the amendment. He too flat out lies, and claims that the USA Freedom Act was a one-year process of "carefully considered negotiation and debate." That's not even remotely accurate. The original was left to sit and dangle until it appeared that there might be enough support for it, and then frantic negotiations took place to water it down before the markup. Then, after the markup, the White House stepped in and watered it down even further at the very last minute, so that most of those voting on it had no idea what was actually in it, and how it stripped out nearly every thing that "limited" the NSA. Then, he too, admits how it allows for warrantless spying on Americans, by spewing FUD about bomb threats in the US:
It makes our country less safe. It would prohibit the urgent search of lawfully collected information to thwart a bomb threat against a synagogue in Los Angeles, a church in Maryland or the New York Stock Exchange.
In other words, contrary to the claims before, Ruppersberger is directly admitting that it's used to spy on communications in the US. And, again, it wouldn't prohibit searches with a warrant, which are (contrary to what some claim) not that difficult to get.
Five minutes later, Goodlatte speaks again, and this time he's much angrier than before (perhaps having received some advanced warning that this amendment was going to pass overwhelmingly):
He kicks it off by saying that the USA Freedom Act "honors the 4th Amendment." But then goes on a FUD brigade, listing out a bunch of angry claims about terrorists in the middle east and how they want to attack us. Then there's the inevitable claims about how "the terrorism threat is growing" (which kind of undermines the claims that all this intelligence has been useful, no?), and ridiculously argues that this amendment "creates a blind spot" for the intelligence community. It does not. It just says that you need to have an actual warrant for spying on the communications of US persons, meaning that they can't just sweep up every email of every person who obliquely references "a target." Then, once again, he effectively admits that this is about spying on Americans:
[It would] create an impediment to the government's ability to locate threat information already in its possession.
This is misleading, but revealing. All the amendment did was say that the NSA can't do searches on the communications of US persons. The "impediment" is merely making sure that the NSA obeys the law which says it cannot spy on the communications of US persons without a warrant. By arguing that this creates an impediment to "threat information already in its possession," Goodlatte is admitting that the NSA is collecting communications of Americans without a warrant.
So, yeah, the next time someone argues that the NSA is either (a) not spying on Americans or (b) not spying on the actual content of communications, you might want to point them at these clips, in which two of the bigger NSA defenders have admitted that, in fact, that's exactly what the NSA does.
One of the more troubling aspects that we've seen in the past few years is that, despite SOPA failing to pass in Congress, thanks to widespread public outcry, various copyright interests have continued to look for ways to push forward ways to implement SOPA in practice, even if not in law. For example, we recently pointed to how the USTR praised Italy for implementing a plan even more draconian than SOPA, likely leading to a later attempt by the USTR to "harmonize" international laws by requiring the US to do the same in a future trade agreement or treaty. Similarly, the US government still continues to do questionable domain seizures that appear to be a clear First Amendment violation. Even more nefarious, however, may be the various attempts by politicians to push for questionable "voluntary agreements" that effectively implement SOPA anyway.
Recently, four members of Congress -- Reps. Bob Goodlatte and Adam Schiff, and Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Orrin Hatch -- sent an exceptionally questionable letter to various internet ad networks, asking them to start blacklisting "piracy sites." This was one of the requirements in SOPA. And, as we discussed years ago, there are serious problems with such plans. Back in 2011, ad giant GroupM tried to do the same sort of thing, asking Universal Music to provide it with a list of piracy sites, and that list included tons of legitimate sites -- including SoundCloud, Vimeo, the Internet Archive, BitTorrent's corporate page... and a bunch of hip hop blogs. It also included (Universal music artist) 50 Cent's personal website as a piracy site.
And these four members of Congress seem to have no problem with such censorship.
But this letter is even worse than that. Various ad networks have already set up "best practices" for not putting ads on "bad" sites -- but this letter says that's not enough:
We support these steps, but note that much remains to be done to operationalize the
commitments made and to make them effective in preventing the appearance of legitimate ads on
pirate sites, rather than simply responding once they are placed. Best practices are useful, but
greater specificity is needed around preventative measures that participants in the digital
advertising ecosystem can and should take to avoid the placement of ads on piracy sites, as
well as the development of metrics to measure the effectiveness of these steps. Only through
proactive efforts will the harms associated with ad-supported piracy be mitigated.
As the EFF notes, such intimidation by members of Congress raises a whole host of legal problems:
Letting commercial companies with their own competitive motivations decide which sites are "rogue" or "pirate" sites is a recipe for abuse. It means that site owners who comply with copyright law could still have their sources of revenue cut off when a company who might be a competitor asks for it. The legislators' letter doesn't define "online piracy sites," but most of the definitions we've seen lately focus on the number of takedown requests a site has received from copyright holders, or the number of requests sent to search engines about the site. Since just a few companies send out a large portion of the takedown requests, those companies would effectively have the power to control who gets deemed a "piracy site."
As a federal law, this scheme would have created serious First Amendment and due process problems. As a private agreement among competing ad networks, it could raise other legal problems. Under the Sherman Antitrust Act, companies that compete with each other aren't allowed to make a pact amongst themselves about who they will refuse to do business with, especially if the purpose of the pact is to squelch competition or punish a rival. It's called a "group boycott" or "concerted refusal to deal," and it can lead to big-money lawsuits and years of trouble. In some cases, groups of competitors sharing a list of companies that they deem to be bad actors, with a wink-wink understanding that no one in the group should do business with those companies, was deemed a violation of the Sherman Act1.
Claiming that an industry-wide refusal to deal is justified by "fighting piracy" doesn't necessarily avoid an antitrust jam. In 2003, the Motion Picture Association of America decided that its members, major movie studios who compete with one another, would no longer send pre-release "screener" copies of films to members of awards committees like the Motion Picture Academy. According to the MPAA, the group boycott of awards committees was needed to stop infringement of pre-release movies. But the group ban put smaller studios at a huge disadvantage in getting award nominations and votes. In just two months, a court decided that the MPAA's screener ban was likely illegal, and that loss may have precipitated MPAA head Jack Valenti's retirement a few months later.
Once again, we have lawmakers -- with an unfortunately long history of being the movie and recording industry's lapdogs in Congress -- making suggestions that would make those industries happy, but which almost certainly violate the law. And, even worse, they clearly go against the will of the American public, who vocally rejected such measures when they were put into SOPA and PIPA.
Could it be that Reps. Goodlatte and Schiff, and Senators Whitehouse and Hatch, have already forgotten what happened when they pushed for such a law? I can assure them that the American public hasn't forgotten.
On Monday, we noted that two different competing NSA reform bills had started lurching forward in Congress, though in looking through the Manager's Amendment of the "good" bill, it quickly became clear that it had been very watered down, such that it really wasn't that "good" any more. Late last night, there was a report coming out that the NSA's number one defender, Rep. Mike Rogers, was actually much happier with the USA Freedom Act. In other words, it had been watered down so much that even Mike Rogers was willing to say it was a good bill.
In a dramatic change of tone, Rep. Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, praised a bill in the House Judiciary Committee that would sharply curb the National Security Agency's surveillance powers. His remarks suggest that the powerful lawmaker may be more willing to vote for tougher reforms than previously anticipated.
Rogers and other national security hawks have spent weeks arguing that the USA Freedom Act, the most aggressive NSA reform bill under consideration in Congress, would remove tools that the government needs to track phone calls by foreign terrorists. Rogers, a staunch NSA supporter, is the sponsor of another bill that would codify many of the surveillance practices opposed by privacy advocates, such as the dragnet collection of records.
As we speak, the House markup on the bill is ongoing. However, in a twist, tomorrow's "competing" markup for the FISA Transparency and Modernization Act -- which is Rogers and Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger's "competing" bill -- has now added a markup of the USA Freedom Act to the agenda. That means that a deal has been made, and if Rogers is willing to add USA Freedom to his committee's schedule, it means that the "deal" is one that favors the NSA and not the public.
That is not to say that the USA Freedom Act does nothing. It actually does a few things to limit the NSA, but really does not tackle the largest problems. There was a lot of good stuff in the earlier version of the bill (which still didn't go far enough on its own) and now it's significantly weaker. So, rather than fixing the overall mess, the new USA Freedom Act makes some small fixes while leaving all sorts of problems.
One of the rules of public speaking is: know your audience. You can hold people's attention better and garner support by following this rule. This doesn't mean you need to prostrate yourself before them and give them exactly what they want, however. Once you do that, you're just preaching to the choir, like Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Robert Goodlatte did recently.
Here's the pitch:
Vice President Joe Biden told members of the tech and entertainment industry that intellectual property protections need to be bolstered to account for changing technologies and foreign threats.
That's a pretty delusional assumption on Biden's behalf. There's no indication that "bolstering" IP laws is the only route worth taking, especially when considering "changing technologies." Stronger IP protection isn't a panacea. It's little more than legislatively pleasuring overly-satiated incumbent industries.
But every choir needs a preacher, especially this one.
American creativity needs protections at home and abroad to thrive, he said, speaking at an event hosted by the Motion Picture Association of America and Microsoft.
Give the people what they want to hear. That's the real message Biden is sending. Lifetime plus 70 years still isn't enough protection. 20-year patents (plus extensions triggered by any number of variables) isn't enough protection. Trademark forever isn't enough protection. ICE partnering with the MPAA to play copyright cop isn't enough protection.
But enough about the domestic front. The other "obstacle" these industries face on their way to record sales numbers is "weak" protections abroad.
In addition to benefitting American creators, other countries would benefit from having stronger intellectual property protections, he continued.
“Until they clamp down on copyright infringement … those nations will remain second-rate powers, unable to nurture that environment that enables home grown innovation.”
Oh, sweet lord. Trust Daddy Yankee. The First World is the First World because copyright lasts well over 100 years in most cases. All of you "second-rate" countries need to lock IP the fuck down if you ever want to make something of yourselves. Look at all this condescension! Play by our rules if you want to succeed, Biden says, without offering anything in the way of evidence.
You can practically hear the "amens" from here. Of course Microsoft and the MPAA want to hear the US will shame, cajole, threaten or TPP every other country into compliance. Might = right, and the US wields the mightiest IP laws of all.
Ultimately, the U.S. needs to have laws and business models that protect intellectual property, Goodlatte continued.
“We’ve got to convince consumers that they’ve got a long term investment in paying something,” he said.
“If you don’t reward the creators, you’re not going to get the creativity.”
The US has "laws and business models that protect intellectual property." Does he actually believe the US doesn't? What Goodlatte envisions is some sort of IP utopia where nothing is ever stolen infringed and incumbents are allowed to return to their profit-margin heydays of physical goods and exorbitant profit margins. The MPAA simply isn't thrilled with the options that do exist, with the attendant irony being that it has had a hand in the creation of these suddenly inadequate laws.
But Goodlatte goes further and blames those who pay for content for not paying enough, or often enough. Stupid consumers, Goodlatte says, why don't you just make everyone rich(er)? If you're not going to buy DVDs for $20-25 and CDs for $15-20, then the whole creative system will just collapse. At some point. In the future. Presumably.
Napster killed everything off in 1999, according to RIAA lawyers, and since then, it's been a real struggle to find music being made or movies being produced or books being written, said no one outside of the incumbent industriesever. The world is full of creative works, which are being generated at a pace faster than any time in history. Technological advances have made every computer a recording studio/production studio/publishing platform, and yet somehow "technology" is pointed out as the entity that destroyed creativity.
The MPAA wants you to believe that without its help -- and its lobbied-for IP laws -- no one would make movies. Microsoft wants you to believe that other countries are destroying its business, while it retains lucrative contracts with government agencies and controls the most widely-used software in the business world. Won't someone step up and give these poor souls a hand in their fight against third-rate countries with lousy IP laws and even worse extradition policies?
And up come BIden and Goodlatte's free hands, signaling their intent to browbeat the rest of the world into deploying the same crappy IP laws that gut the public domain, block affordable generic drugs and generally make it that much harder for our "second-rate" brethren get a leg up in the international economy.
