Leaked TPP IP Chapter Would Lead To Much Greater Online Surveillance... Because Hollywood Still Hates The Internet

from the shameful dept

We already wrote a big piece about the latest leaked copy of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement text. However, there were a few additional areas in the leaked text that deserve further scrutiny, so we'll be having a few more posts. One significant concern is how the TPP is likely to lead to much greater surveillance by ISPs on your online surfing habits -- all in the name of "copyright" of course:

Draft rules under negotiation would impose on Internet service providers a legal obligation to fight against online copyright infringement. This obligation is embodied in several provisions, which would require, for example, ISPs to communicate to their users any supposed infringement committed through their accounts, take down from the Internet information that supposedly infringes on copyright, and collect information that allows identification of users that supposedly have infringed the law.

While the text of the actual agreement sounds like it's just internationalizing the DMCA (already problematic), it's actually worse. Subtle language choices make a big, big difference.

First, the TPP includes provisions that would extend spying obligations not only to entities that provide Internet services, but to “any person,” thus, not only Internet-related companies would be required to enforce the law, but “any person,” whether human or otherwise. Rights holders would likely interpret this obligation as applying to the manager of a free-wifi zone at Starbucks or your favorite neighborhood cafe, to public libraries and schools, as well as to that neighbor of yours who shares her wifi by keeping it accessible and open.

Second, TPP provisions do not seem to limit this spying to the Internet. Instead they refer to online providers, which may extend the scope of the law to other digital networks, such as intranets and private networks. What does this mean? It means that not only ISPs would be spying on you by collecting user data to protect Hollywood’s copyrights, but also other providers of online services, like the private network you use at your workplace, at your university, or even at your kid’s school, even if those networks do not provide actual access to or from the Internet.

Although the TPP states that Internet service providers would not be required by law to “monitor” users, it encourages this practice. Therefore, the TPP would leave open the door for private agreements between copyright holders (such as the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America) and Internet companies for enforcing the law against Internet users (for example, see the Center for Copyright Information). This raises concerns about powerful content industry players working together to promote abusive practices to enforce their interests against supposed infringers, since, in order to prevent any liability, online service providers may collaborate with rights holders to enforce copyrights beyond what is required by the law.

It's that last part that is the most troubling. Over the last few years, after Hollywood lost the SOPA fight and realized that legislation was more difficult, it's now seeking these so-called "voluntary" agreements -- even when they're really done by the government with the threat of regulations if an agreement isn't reached. These kinds of campaigns are hardly "voluntary" in reality, and are generally designed to get Hollywood everything it wants without having to through any sort of democratic process. Kind of like trade agreements.

Is it any wonder why the USTR has been so adamant about keeping the details of this agreement a secret?

Filed Under: copyright, infringement, internet, liability, networks, surveillance, tpp, ustr, voluntary agreements

CBS Loses Lawsuit Brought By Podcast Patent Troll, But It's Not Over Yet

from the not-over-yet dept

For a while now, we've been following the saga of Personal Audio, the patent troll who argues that patent 8,112,504 covers podcasting and all other "episodic" content delivered over the internet. There are all sorts of problems with this claim, not the least of which is how Personal Audio was able to make "changes" to the patent long after podcasting had become popular in order to make it look more like the patent covered the concept. While Personal Audio agreed to drop its lawsuits against individual podcasters, it kept its case going against the big broadcasters: CBS, NBC and Fox.

The trial (in East Texas, of course) for CBS came first and the jury sided with Personal Audio, because that's how East Texas patent juries typically roll. In a moment of semi-kindness, the jury awarded Personal Audio $1.3 million, rather than the nearly $8 million they supposedly requested. This story is really just a stepping stone, however. CBS has made it clear that it will appeal the case to CAFC, and given how software/business method patents are getting tossed out left and right these days, the company has a decent chance of prevailing. Meanwhile, the EFF reminds us that it's still working hard to invalidate the patent at the Patent Office, which would help accelerate the process of killing off these bogus lawsuits. Also, while chances are the jury verdicts for NBC and Fox won't be that different, perhaps an East Texas jury will actually get a clue one of these days...

Filed Under: episodic content, networks, patent troll, patents, podcasts
Companies: cbs, personal audio

As Expected, Aereo Pleads Its Case For Survival

from the cable-company dept

Aereo is back in a district court trying its "okay, fine, you say we look like a duck, we'll act like a duck" explanation so that it can stay in business and pay the statutory rates for a cable company. As you hopefully know by now, this is in response to the Supreme Court's "you're a cable company!" ruling. The broadcasters, of course, just want Aereo to die, so they claim that even if the Supreme Court declared it a cable company, the company still can't pay statutory rates. Aereo tried to skip the district court and go straight to the appeals court, but that attempt was (probably rightfully) rejected recently, so now it's back at the district court, once again making the case for it being a cable company.

Its key argument is, basically that, during oral arguments, Justice Sotomayor more or less said if the Court finds Aereo to be a cable company, then it could just pay Section 111 statutory fees and be legal.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: . . . But I look at the definition of a cable company, and it seems to fit. . . . [Aereo] [m]akes secondary transmissions by wires, cables, or other communication channels. It seems to me that a little antenna with a dime fits that definition. To subscribing members of the public who pay for such service. I mean, I read it and I say, why aren't they a cable company?

MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Sotomayor, a couple of things. First of all, I mean, I think if you're—if you’re already at that point, you’ve probably understood that just like a cable company, they’re public—they’re publicly performing and maybe they qualify as a cable company and maybe they could qualify for the compulsory license that's available to cable companies under Section 111 of the statute.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But it just gets it mixed up. Do we have to go to all of those other questions if we find that they’re a cable company? We say they’re a c[]able company, they get the compulsory license.

At the time, most folks kinda wondered why Sotomayor was going off on this tangent, rather than on the key issues related to the case, concerning the public performance right. What people didn't expect was that the Court would come up with its wacky "looks like a duck" test. But since it did, it certainly seemed to imply that Aereo could just get the compulsory license -- which it's now seeking to do. The company further argues that Justice Breyer, who authored the majority decision, fretted during oral arguments that it would be problematic if Aereo were not allowed to get a compulsory license:

JUSTICE BREYER: Once you take them out of the compulsory licensing system, they're going to have to find copyright owners, who owns James Agee's pictures? Who owns something that was written by—like a French silent film in 1915? I mean, the problem is that they might want to have perfectly good things that people want to watch and they can't find out how to get permission. That is a problem that worries me and it worries me again once you kick them out of the other systems.

Aereo also counters the broadcasters argument that the ivi ruling says that online streaming services can't qualify as cable companies for statutory rates doesn't apply here. Earlier, Aereo argued that the Supreme Court ruling effectively overturned the ivi ruling -- an argument that makes a lot of sense. But here, Aereo goes even further, noting some key differences between ivi and Aereo, including a pretty big one: ivi was "geographically unbounded." That was a key part of why ivi lost, and Aereo notes that its service is different, in that it offered a geographically-specific service.

First, the technology at issue in ivi involved geographically unbounded transmissions, which the Second Circuit noted was “vastly different” from the technology in Fortnightly and Teleprompter.... By contrast, the Supreme Court found that, with respect to “Watch Now,” Aereo is “overwhelming[ly] like[]” and “highly similar” to the technology in Fortnightly and Teleprompter.... As a result, this case is factually distinguishable from ivi on the very point that drove the Second Circuit’s decision. Indeed, the unrestricted nature of ivi’s transmissions was the determinative fact for the Second Circuit, which noted that Section 111’s compulsory license scheme was intended to support local market—rather than national market—systems.... As a result, the court found that ivi’s nationwide retransmission did not seek to address the important issues of availability of local over-the-air television signals, and it was therefore not the type of service Congress intended the compulsory license to cover.... Because Aereo’s “Watch Now” technology does not give its subscribers access to broadcasts outside of their home DMA, and instead gives only geographically-restricted access (with and through corresponding local physical antenna facilities), and because (as the Supreme Court found) the technology is “virtually identical” to the technology Congress addressed in the 1976 Amendments, Aereo’s “Watch Now” technology is not governed by ivi.

Aereo makes another interesting argument for survival as well. Even if it doesn't qualify for Section 111 compulsory rates, it should still be allowed to keep its "Watch Now" feature working, because of the DMCA. Basically, it's saying that even if the DVR functionality is deemed infringing, it has a stronger argument around the live streaming, based on the DMCA. All the parenthetical quotes supporting this are from the Supreme Court's ruling...

If the Court concludes that Aereo is not entitled to a Section 111 license, a preliminary injunction should still not enter because Aereo is entitled to the 17 U.S.C. § 512(a) [DMCA] safe harbor because its “Watch Now” function is a “transitory digital network communication.” Each of the Section 512(a) elements is satisfied and undisputed. First, the transmissions of the material are initiated by or at the direction of a person other than Aereo.... (“Aereo’s system remains inert until a subscriber indicates that she wants to watch a program.”). Second, the transmission, routing, and storage of material are carried out through an automatic process, without selection of the material by Aereo.... (“in automatic response to the subscriber’s request”); ... (agreeing with dissent that Aereo does not “select” the content). Third, Aereo does not select the recipients of the material, except as an automated response to the user.... (“When an Aereo subscriber selects a program to watch, Aereo streams the program over the Internet to that subscriber.”). Fourth, no copy of the material transmitted is made accessible to anyone but the user who made it, and no “Watch Now” copy is kept for a longer period than is reasonably necessary.... (“It streams the content of the copy to the same subscriber and to no one else.”); ... (“If the user does not press ‘Record’ before the program ends, the copy of the program created for and used to transmit the program to the user is automatically deleted when it has finished playing.”);... (“The file saved to the hard disk using the ‘Watch [Now]’ function is not automatically retained unless the user clicks ‘Record’ while the show is still open on the user’s web browser.”). Fifth, the material is transmitted without modification of its content....

As a result of satisfying this safe harbor provision, Aereo cannot be liable for the claimed “public performance” of Plaintiffs’ claimed copyrighted works. And, Plaintiffs’ requested preliminary injunction cannot be entered because it is outside the scope of a permitted injunction under the DMCA.

That could lead to some interesting legal questions going forward.

Finally, Aereo argues that no injunction is necessary, because there's no evidence of "irreparable harm." Here it probably hurts that CBS and other networks more or less admitted that even if Aereo had won the "harm" would be minimal.

The Section 111 arguments about whether or not it's a cable company will continue to make the headlines, but the DMCA argument here may be the most interesting one of all (and one that the broadcasters will most freak out about).

Filed Under: broadcast tv, cable company, copyright, dmca, dvr, networks, section 111, streaming
Companies: abc, aereo, cbs

Fox Loses Yet Again Against Dish Autohopper; Appeals Court Ignores Silly Aereo Argument

from the innovation-allowed dept

Some good news on the innovation front. Following on Fox's big initial loss in trying to stop Dish's Autohopper DVR feature, an appeals court has upheld the ruling. The main issue? Fox completely failed to show how an injunction is necessary to stop "irreparable harm." The court is pretty sure that any "harm" would be quite "reparable." There isn't much analysis -- the court just clearly is not convinced. Beyond saying that the district court didn't make any legal errors in issuing the original ruling, the appeals court notes that the service has been available for a while already, kinda disproving the whole "irreparable harm" argument.

Here, the district court found that Fox’s lack of evidence that the complained-of technology, available for several years, had yet caused Fox’s business any harm weighed against Fox’s argument that it would be irreparably harmed absent a preliminary injunction. In so finding, the district court did not hold Fox’s evidence to a more rigorous standard than our law requires and so did not abuse its discretion.

Perhaps more importantly, the court totally and completely ignored Fox's ridiculous attempt to argue that the Aereo ruling supports its position. That was a crazy argument from the very beginning, and clearly attempted to stretch the whole "looks like a duck" test beyond the breaking point. As Dish had pointed out in its response, Aereo lost because it didn't have licenses. Dish has licenses, so it's not even close to being relevant. The court appears to have treated it with the amount of respect Fox's argument deserved: none.

Filed Under: autohopper, dvr, networks, place shifting, primetime any time
Companies: aereo, dish, fox

Was Level 3 The Weak Link That Gave The Feds A Way To Hack Into Google's Network?

from the no-comment dept

The NY Times has an interesting and informative story building on yesterday's bombshell about the NSA and GCHQ infiltrating Google and Yahoo's network links between datacenters. Much of the NYT report covers the same ground as the original Washington Post article, but adds a few key details. The key part? That the network cables that connect the various Google datacenters are apparently provided by telco infrastructure giant Level 3 -- and when asked about it, Level 3 seemed to hint strongly that the government may have gotten access via it, but that it was legally gagged from talking about it:

In a statement, Level 3 said: “We comply with the laws in each country where we operate. In general, governments that seek assistance in law enforcement or security investigations prohibit disclosure of the assistance provided.”

That's not a definite confirmation, but you can see how it would raise eyebrows. As the NYT report notes, in an earlier story, concerning claims that Level 3 had helped the intelligence community spy on Germans, the company had denied the report. The fact that it's not denying it here, but rather pointing out that if it had helped there would be a gag order, certainly suggests the potential way in for the NSA. If so, Google might want to look rather closely at its agreement with Level 3.

Filed Under: datacenters, infiltration, networks, nsa, nsa surveillance
Companies: google, level 3, yahoo

NSA Issues Non-Denial Denial Of Infiltrating Google & Yahoo's Networks

from the here-we-go dept

While NSA boss Keith Alexander issued a misleading denial of this morning's report of how the NSA has infiltrated Yahoo and Google's networks by hacking into their private network connections between datacenters, the NSA has now come out with its official statement which is yet another typical non-denial denial. They deny things that weren't quite said while refusing to address the actual point:

NSA has multiple authorities that it uses to accomplish its mission, which is centered on defending the nation. The Washington Post's assertion that we use Executive Order 12333 collection to get around the limitations imposed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and FAA 702 is not true.

The assertion that we collect vast quantities of US persons' data from this type of collection is also not true. NSA applies attorney general-approved processes to protect the privacy of US persons – minimizing the likelihood of their information in our targeting, collection, processing, exploitation, retention, and dissemination.

NSA is a foreign intelligence agency. And we're focused on discovering and developing intelligence about valid foreign intelligence targets only.

Note what is missing from all of this. They do not deny hacking into the data center connection lines outside of the US. They do not deny getting access to all that data, especially on non-US persons. As for the claim that they're protecting the privacy of US persons, previous statements from Robert Litt, the general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, have already made it clear that if they collect info on Americans, they're going to use this loophole to search them:

"If we're validly targeting foreigners and we happen to collect communications of Americans, we don't have to close our eyes to that," Litt said. "I'm not aware of other situations where once we have lawfully collected information, we have to go back and get a warrant to look at the information we've already collected."

So, for all the claims that this kind of information will be "minimized," it certainly looks like they've already admitted they don't do that.

Meanwhile, that Guardian article that has the NSA's response also has responses from the 3 other players in this drama. There's the UK's GCHQ, who apparently has partnered with the NSA in breaking into Google and Yahoo. It didn't want to say a damn thing:

"We are aware of the story but we don't have any comment."

Google, however, was reasonably furious about this story.

In a statement, Google's chief legal officer, David Drummond, said the company was "outraged" by the latest revelations.

"We have long been concerned about the possibility of this kind of snooping, which is why we have continued to extend encryption across more and more Google services and links, especially the links in the slide," he said.

"We do not provide any government, including the US government, with access to our systems. We are outraged at the lengths to which the government seems to have gone to intercept data from our private fiber networks, and it underscores the need for urgent reform."

Yahoo's response, unfortunately, was a lot more restrained and not particularly on point.

"We have strict controls in place to protect the security of our data centers, and we have not given access to our data centers to the NSA or to any other government agency."

Yeah, but the story is how the NSA got around your security. Yahoo should be a lot angrier about this. One hopes that once the technical people talk to management, the company will realize just how bad this situation is.

Hopefully, this means that Google and Yahoo will stop just focusing on getting more "transparency" out of the government concerning NSA surveillance, and will start taking a much more active role. This includes: (1) pushing back hard against government surveillance, including going to court to stop it and (2) building much more secure systems that cannot be easily compromised by the NSA.

Filed Under: executive order 12333, gchq, infiltrate, keith alexander, networks, nsa, nsa surveillance, section 702
Companies: google, yahoo

DailyDirt: Is There A Better Word For Wireless?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Wired communications are obviously a more reliable connection than any wireless technology (when a wired connection is actually possible or practical), so wirelines aren't going away any time soon. (Well, unless you live on an island off the coast of New Jersey.) But wireless technologies offer some pretty clear advantages, too. Maybe we'll discover some way to make wireless connections just as solid as wired ones, but until then, here are just a few advances for transmitting information without a wire or cable.

• If you're really paranoid about someone intercepting your home WiFi network, maybe someday you can set up a wireless network that transmits via visible wavelengths (so a wall would effectively block out would-be eavesdroppers). It might be annoying to set up a wireless network like this for more than one room, though. [url]
• Cheap, high-bandwidth transmitters for satellite communications in the 42-25 GHz range might be nice to have in a smartphone. A couple DARPA teams have demonstrated the feasibility of millimeter-wave power amplifiers on silicon chips for the first time. [url]
• T-rays (aka terahertz rays) have been shown to break the 3 Gbps barrier -- but a T-ray based WiFi network would probably only achieve 100 Gbps and have a range of about 10 meters. FYI: T-rays are part of the unregulated spectrum, and they can penetrate some materials (but not metals or water). [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: bandwidth, communication, networks, satellite, t-ray, technology, unregulated spectrum, wifi, wireless
Companies: darpa

Brazil's New Political Party: Green With A Shade Of Pirate

from the new-new-thing,-or-old-new-thing? dept

Techdirt has been following the rapid rise and current problems of the various Pirate Parties in Europe for some time. Both their success and difficulties flow in part from the fact that they do not fit neatly into the traditional political categories. This makes them attractive to those who are disenchanted with established parties, but also makes it hard for Pirate Parties to devise a coherent political program that they can seek to implement, for example through alliances with others.

An interesting question is whether the Pirate Party is a one-off, or part of a larger movement away from traditional party lines towards a different kind of politics -- specifically one that recognizes the central importance of the Internet in modern life. That's just been answered by the appearance of a new party in Brazil, as reported by Global Voices:

A former Brazilian presidential candidate and famous environmentalist is leading the charge for the creation of a new political party in the country, one that seeks to use the Internet as a tool for action on sustainability issues.

Former Brazilian Environment Minister Marina Silva officially launched her Sustainability Network in the capital Brasilia on 16 February, 2013, to a crowd of around 1,700 people, including supporters, founders and ideologues. The network aims to collect the required 500,000 signatures by September 2013 to become legally recognised as a political party.

What's interesting here is that the new party seems to draw on both traditional Green policies, with their emphasis on sustainability, and key ideas of the Net-based Pirate Party. For example, the idea of a network is central to the new party, as its name -- "Sustainability Network" -- makes clear. The party's manifesto (original pdf in Portuguese) expands on this aspect:

We believe that networks, as a means of aggregation and organization, are an invention of the present that bridges to a better future. The concept of a network is based on a democratic and egalitarian operation that seeks convergences in diversity. It is an instrument against the power of hierarchies that capture democratic institutions and, ironically, makes them their instrument of domination. For it is networked with society that we want to build a new political force, with alliances underpinned by an Ethics of Urgency, having as its aim the construction of a new model of development: sustainable, inclusive, egalitarian and diverse.

As the Global Voices article explains, like the Pirate Party in Europe, the new Sustainability Network is already coming under fire for its unusual platform. It will be interesting to see whether it can use the Internet to collect the signatures it needs in order to become a formal party -- and what happens afterwards.

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

Filed Under: brazil, marina silva, networks, pirate party, politics, sustainability network

Network TV Execs Discover What Pirates Always Knew: Making Stuff Available Online Is Good Marketing

from the wait,-what? dept

Want to understand just how tone deaf and clueless the legacy entertainment industry players are these days? It appears that network TV execs have just discovered the brilliant idea of using the internet to pre-release TV shows in an effort to build up buzz and an audience who will watch the full series. The stunning thing here is that these are the very same companies who go absolutely ballistic if their works get "leaked" early online -- and insist that criminal penalties are needed to stop this kind of action. It's really quite amazing how these execs are coming to the same conclusion that pretty much every internet user came to years ago: just make the damn stuff available. Instead, they're acting like it's some big revelation:

The networks have embraced the idea — originally hatched by cable networks — of introducing initial episodes of their shows through other distribution outlets like YouTube before they have their premiere on their own schedules.

Yes, the same YouTube that Viacom is still trying to sue out of existence. The same YouTube that supporters of PIPA and SOPA still insist is really a den of "piracy" from which Google unfairly profits.

So, here's a simple question: How much are these networks paying YouTube/Google for the use of YouTube's software, bandwidth and audience? Nothing? Damn those TV networks... just wanting all that stuff for free. But, more to the point, if laws like PIPA and SOPA were put in place a few years ago, the networks wouldn't even have a YouTube to do this. This is what's most stunning about all of this. They seem to think that they've come up with something brilliant and new here, when this is all that "pirates" were doing earlier: putting stuff online to make it accessible. When "pirates" do it, it's theft? And when companies do it, it's some brilliant marketing scheme? How's that work?

Filed Under: free, marketing, networks, online, piracy, streaming, tv

Study Confirms: News Networks Owned By SOPA Supporters... Are Ignoring SOPA/PIPA

from the but,-of-course dept

While the debates about SOPA/PIPA have been raging all over the internet, and appearing regularly in all sorts of mainstream newspapers, they still have been almost entirely absent from TV news. We've discussed this in the past, noting that the major TV news players are all owned by media conglomerates who have been major backers of SOPA/PIPA. There was some indication that cable news was starting to pay attention... but things have gone quiet since then (perhaps upper management sent out a memo...).

The folks over at Media Matters decided to check in on this and have confirmed that the big TV news players have almost entirely ignored it, despite the widespread controversy found elsewhere in the mainstream press:

As the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) makes its way through Congress, most major television news outlets -- MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, and NBC -- have ignored the bill during their evening broadcasts. One network, CNN, devoted a single evening segment to it.

The report does note that there have been articles online... but very few TV segments. It also discusses how much attention SOPA/PIPA is getting, concerning all the companies who have come out against it, the media coverage in the NY Times among other places, and the big GoDaddy flip-flop -- to highlight that this is a big story making waves.

Despite all of this, the response from American television news outlets has been to almost completely ignore the story during their evening programming. The lone exception was a segment on CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer in December, during which CNN parent company Time Warner's support for the legislation was not disclosed. (Though Fox News Channel has apparently not touched the story during evening programming, conservative/libertarian host Andrew Napolitano has run several segments vocally opposing SOPA on his program, which runs on the separate Fox Business Network.)

It's postulated that perhaps the issue is the fact that SOPA/PIPA don't fall along easily scripted left vs. right lines:

The fight over SOPA does not fit into the usual left vs. right narrative that occupies so much of the political horserace coverage with which TV news outlets fill their schedules. The cosponsors of SOPA come from both sides of the aisle. Likewise, the most vocal opponents of SOPA in Congress are an ideologically diverse bunch, including Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Darrel Issa (R-CA).

Either that... or the corporate folks upstairs don't want to allow this to become an even bigger story.

Of course, as I was writing this up, Tim Cushing was writing up the same story (coordination, people, coordination!), with an alternate theory -- which makes sense too. So, everything below the line is his read on the situation:

---

Tim Cushing's analysis: Gray areas seldom make compelling news, especially when there's no political angle to take. Beyond that, I think the mainstream media silence is also explained by the outdated thought process that still believes that the Internet Is Not Real.

First and foremost, the evening news is generally a broad overview of the days' happenings. Not only do they not have the time to delve into an issue that mainly affects an "ethereal" service like the web, but they also (ignoring any corporate bias for the sake of argument) have no interest in doing so. The cliche that "if it bleeds, it leads" likely eliminates a war that involves a bloodless dismantling of the internet. The internet is generally trotted out only as an example of how things are bad (online bullying, etc.) or how things are cute/weird (any crossover meme that can be easily brought up, discussed and dismissed forever in less than 60 seconds).

Even though many news teams invite you to follow them on Twitter or Facebook, the connection seems to go no further than that. The percentage of the population that still relies on the evening news to get them caught up on the world is unlikely to care about legislation that affects the internet.

In essence, the internet is still treated like some sort of fad infested with tech-y nerds and thus can be safely ignored when dealing with Real Issues on the nightly news. This attitude is pervasive, both within content companies and among our representatives. The gatekeepers pushing the legislation need the internet as much as it claims it needs them, but they want their own internet, one closer in spirit to The Village than the Wild West.

Our legislators are still amused by their own lack of internet prowess, indicating that they still believe the web to be some sort of "outlier" whose opinions can be easily dismissed. It's a cognitive gap, but it explains why the mainstream TV news so willingly ignores SOPA and the building momentum of its opposition: it's just the internet. It can be either humored or feared, but never respected.

Filed Under: copyright, coverage, journalism, networks, pipa, protect ip, sopa, tv