MPAA Points To Its Roster Of Crappy Online Services And Asks What We're Complaining About

from the nice-try dept

In response to Jimmy Wales reiterating the fact that Hollywood's own failings online are a major cause of infringement, the MPAA has hit back by saying: that's crazy! After all, the studios do Hulu and Netflix, so how can anyone complain?

Wales had used everyone's favorite example these days: the difficulty in finding a legitimate way to pay for Game of Thrones online...

Wales also argued that the entertainment industry needs to continue adjusting its business model so it offers people the content they want. Citing a personal example, Wales noted how he can’t watch HBO’s “Game of Thrones” series at home in London even though he’s willing to pay for it.

“I think that he media industry needs to say, 'Look, why don’t we sell people what they want to buy,’ and I think that will take care a huge proportion of the problem,” he said.

A smart and consumer-focused MPAA might note that they're trying their best but they realize there are still gaps and they hope to continue to improve. But, you know, that's not how the MPAA rolls. Instead, they send out spokesperson Kate Bedingfield -- who just recently joined the MPAA from the White House -- to insist that Wales was crazy for suggesting they need to make more efforts to please customers. You see, in the mind of the MPAA, as long as they've done something, they've clearly done enough.

“Our studios are constantly partnering and innovating new ways for audiences to watch the movies and TV shows they love: Hulu, HBO Go, Vudu, Crackle, UltraViolet, Epix, MUBI – and that just barely scratches the surface,” said Kate Bedingfield, a spokeswoman at the MPAA. “There are more legitimate avenues available today to watch movies and TV shows online than ever before, and our studios are continuing to innovate every day to bring audiences even more options.”

“At the end of the day, stealing shows and movies out of convenience still harms the people who work hard to make them,” Bedingfield added.

In other words, don't actually address what Wales said. Don't respond to his specific complaint. Insist that because you're doing something, even if it doesn't solve the problem he noted, you're clearly doing enough... and then revert back to talking point numero uno: oh, poor us, we're harmed! So harmed. Harmed into our best years ever at the box office... (oh wait, they leave that last part out).

Seriously, the MPAA needs to hire communications people who actually deal with consumers, rather than politically-focused ones. They seem to have absolutely zero sense of how to respond to the public on anything without making themselves look worse. The last two decades of RIAA/MPAA communications have been a long-term case study in exactly how to do everything wrong.

Filed Under: game of thrones, hollywood, jimmy wales, piracy, ultraviolet
Companies: hbo, hulu, mpaa

Multiple Hollywood Studios Making Movies About Julian Assange; How Many Will Pay Him For His Story?

from the just-wondering... dept

We've all heard the refrain from the MPAA a million times: profiting off of someone else's work is "theft" and we need new laws to stop that kind of thing. So, it struck me as interesting to see an article in the Wall Street Journal, claiming that multiple Hollywood studios are planning movies about Julian Assange and Wikileaks:

Among the studios with WikiLeaks movies in development are Time Warner Inc.'s HBO Films, DreamWorks Studios, Comcast Corp.'s Universal Pictures and Annapurna Pictures, the company run by Megan Ellison, daughter of Oracle Chief Executive Larry Ellison.

Most of the article talks about the difficulty of creating a movie based on a true story that's still very much in progress. However, they just barely touch on the question of paying for the story. After all, the story of Assange is based on "his work," right? There had been one project that sought to buy an option on Assange's own memoirs, which were due to be published by Random House, but apparently Assange failed to deliver and the deal fell through. Other projects did option different versions of the Assange story -- but not from Assange himself. One optioned the book from former WikiLeaks spokesman, turned Wikileaks critic, Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Another optioned a profile of Assange that was done in the New Yorker.

However, all of the actual stories focus on Assange and his work in building up Wikileaks. If Hollywood really believes so strongly in not "profiting off the works of others" without fairly compensating them, why aren't they lining up to pay Assange?

Filed Under: daniel domscheit-berg, hollywood, julian assange, licensing
Companies: annapurna pictures, comcast, dreamworks, hbo, the new yorker, time warner, universal pictures, wikileaks

Poll Shows Only 9% Of UK Public Think Richard O'Dwyer Should Be Extradited

from the will-of-the-people dept

A poll conducted in the UK has found that only 9% of those surveyed agreed that student Richard O'Dwyer should be extradited to face criminal charges in the US for creating TVShack, a site that let people link to videos hosted elsewhere. So far, the government has been ignoring public cries not to allow the extradition, but this poll really seems to suggest that the public is not too keen on shipping O'Dwyer overseas.

Only 9% of the British public believe he should face trial in the US for his actions, according to the YouGov research. The largest group, 46%, said O'Dwyer should not be prosecuted at all, while 26% felt he should be tried in the UK.

At some point, something has to give. The UK Home Office can't keep pretending that this is a minor issue that it can brush under the rug to keep the American government (and Hollywood) happy.

Filed Under: extradition, hollywood, richard o'dwyer, uk
Companies: tvshack

Will The Failures Of SOPA & ACTA Highlight The End Of The MPAA & RIAA's Disproportionate Influence On Policy?

from the this-isn't-industry-vs.-the-public dept

Following the rejection of ACTA and the surprising USTR recognition of copyright exceptions and limitations, Harold Feld has a really worthwhile postgame analysis that highlights why pretty much every other industry (and the US government) should be pissed off at the MPAA and the RIAA. Basically, he points out that there were aspects of reasonableness in those efforts: some of the parts focused on real counterfeiting. But because the MPAA and RIAA decided to use an incredibly heavy-handed approach to get the US government to include totally unrelated copyright issues among them, both proposals completely flopped. If those efforts had just focused on the issue of real harm -- true counterfeit products that are confusing people and even putting lives at risk -- no one would be opposed. But due to this ongoing desire to conflate copyright infringement with counterfeit drugs, they overplayed their hand -- and all of that effort is now wasted.

Keep in mind that the majority of people working for USTR don’t like to waste effort any more than the rest of us, and the realization that a significant portion of the rest of the world may reject whatever final deal negotiators agree to if it goes too far on copyright is no doubt causing many to rethink their positions. In addition, USTR has many other industries it services besides Hollywood. They need trade agreements — and USTR is required to negotiate these. The Hollywood crazy train on intellectual property enforcement now very visibly threatens the ability to get future trade agreements ratified by Congress or by foreign governments. The manufacturing sector, the retail sector, and others that have until now tolerated Hollywood’s demands in the interest of maintaining a united industry front will not sacrifice their own international trade interests for the Entertainment industry — and will push USTR to negotiate agreements that actually have a chance at ratification.

This, obviously, seems like a good thing. As he notes, the USTR now has a lot of incentives to actually be more open and to listen to those who helped kill off SOPA and ACTA. If they actually want to have their proposals mean something, they might as well start talking to those who have the influence to do something meaningful. And that's less and less the RIAA and the MPAA.

Of course, this goes even further than that. While Feld talks up the increasing importance of activists in the conversation, I'd argue that it should also lead to most other industries pushing back on the RIAA/MPAA's crazy demands as well. Perhaps the US Chamber of Commerce will start to reconsider pushing the RIAA/MPAA point of view when it's clearly harmful to the interests of most other industries.

Filed Under: acta, hollywood, pipa, sopa, ustr
Companies: chamber of commerce, mpaa, riaa

US Gov't And Hollywood Have Turned Kim Dotcom Into A Beloved Cult Hero

from the incredible dept

Kim Dotcom is not a sympathetic individual. Anyone who's followed his career over the years (even from well before Megaupload) has known that. He's loud, obnoxious, ostentatious and seems to have little shame about his past efforts to be on the wrong side of the law. If there's anyone out there who could easily be framed as "Dr. Evil," it is Dotcom. So, it's really quite stunning to realize that the US government and Hollywood have taken perhaps the easiest person to demonize around... and turned him into a lovable "cult hero." Over the past six months, it appears that the US's massive overreaction to Megaupload, at the urging of a typically clueless Hollywood, has done the exact opposite of what they hoped. Whereas they figured the prosecution of Megaupload and Dotcom was a slam dunk, and that it would act as a clear "education campaign" for others, the truth seems to be the exact opposite. People are realizing that the government and Hollywood overreacted, and it's almost entirely rehabilitated Dotcom's image.

Gavin Ellis, a senior political studies lecturer at the University of Auckland, said that over time the public had become less supportive of the police operation.

“Initially there was a sort of a ‘gee, whiz’ reaction. ‘Wow, look what the police have done, they’ve got this alleged master criminal,”’ Mr. Ellis said. “But then, as the media perception of him and the media portrayal of him changed, looking backward those things started to look heavy-handed.”

While Mr. Dotcom’s lawyers were making steady progress in court, Mr. Dotcom was gaining the public’s favor. A headline on the news Web site Stuff.co.nz in May read, “Dotcom’s straight talk wins over Kiwis.”

“There’s been a clear shift in the characterization of him, from this assumed criminality or alleged criminality, to a cult hero,” Mr. Ellis said.

The amazing thing to me, is that Hollywood and the US government should have known this was going to happen. They more or less did the same thing with the Pirate Bay years ago. Having the US government completely overreact and bring the power of the government down on almost anyone can make them look sympathetic. But even I doubted it would happen when it came to Dotcom, who was so over-the-top that he's very, very easy to dislike. He must have seemed like a perfect target to US and Hollywood officials. To think that within just a few months he's become this "cult hero" is pretty stunning and shows just how clueless both Hollywood and the feds are about the public's reaction to their campaign.

Filed Under: doj, gavin ellis, hollywood, kim dotcom

Jimmy Wales Confident That UK Gov't Won't Ignore 200,000+ Signatures Against O'Dwyer Extradition

from the public-will-be-damned dept

We mentioned, recently, that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales had started a petition to try to stop the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer, the UK student who set up a site for users to point others to online sources for TV shows (some of which were legit, some of which were infringing) -- and is now facing extradition and criminal charges in the US for daring to help people find video online. Since then the petition has received well over 200,000 signatures, including UK politicians from all three parties. You might think that the UK government would take notice.

Not yet, it seems.

The UK Home Office is apparently ignoring the petition and sticking with the party (i.e., Hollywood lobbyist) line. The site V3 (linked in the last sentence) reached out to the Home Office who said that they were aware of the petition, but didn't seem to care:

"Richard O'Dwyer is wanted in the US for offences related to copyright infringement," a Home Office spokesman told V3.

"The UK courts found there were no statutory bars to his surrender under the Extradition Act 2003 and on 9 March the Home Secretary, having carefully considered all relevant matters, signed an order for his extradition to the US."

That said, Jimmy Wales insists that the "low level" spokesperson "is wrong" and he fully expects that the Home Office will, in fact, respond after meeting with him about this issue. Let's hope that's true. Given the large public outcries about other related copyright issues (SOPA, ACTA...) you would think that the UK government would at least be paying attention when a rather large group of the public speaks out on an issue related to copyright. Hopefully, the answer given to V3 was just a spokesperson stalling until the Home Office is ready to officially address the matter.

Filed Under: acta, extradition, hollywood, jimmy wales, richard o'dwyer, sopa, uk
Companies: wikipedia

Nearly 50,000 People Ask Why The Government Is Seizing Their Digital Files

from the speak-out dept

The folks at Demand Progress today filed a brief in one part of the ongoing Megaupload case: the fight over users being able to get their files back. The DOJ is trying to block this, while also wanting the evidence destroyed. The MPAA says it is okay with data being returned... if there is a 100% guarantee that no infringing works are accessed (an impossibly high standard). The Demand Progress filing points out that this whole thing flies in the face of being innocent until proven guilty, and argues that users who are non-parties to the lawsuit should have access to their files.

Related to this, Demand Progress has also put together a petition, asking people to sign on to support a user's right to his or her own files -- and against the government just magically taking files out of the cloud:

One day after the Internet staged a massive blackout to protest Congress's Internet censorship legislation (SOPA/PIPA), the United States responded by seizing millions of ordinary user files hosted on the popular website Megaupload.com.

With an aim of shutting down Megaupload and other Cloud-based hosting services (like Dropbox, YouTube or even your email provider), the government is trying to claim website operators should face decades in prison for the misdeeds of some of their users. But while they pursue trumped up criminal charges against the companies' founders, they are shutting down dozens of websites, and leaving ordinary Internet users without any way of retrieving their files.

Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak called the case against Megaupload a "threat to innovation." Wozniak likened the Megaupload site to a highway and those who shared pirated movies and songs to speeding motorists. "You don't just shut down the whole street because somebody is speeding," he said.

Numerous laws on the books already give copyright holders plenty of avenues to stop actual infringement, but that's not enough to satisfy Hollywood's lawyers and lobbyists. The prosecutor in the case, Neil MacBride, previously served as the Anti-Piracy Vice President of the Business Software Alliance, where he represented the intellectual property interests of countless multinational corporations.

Now Hollywood's lobbyists, represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, want him to make it nearly impossible for ordinary Internet users to get their property back.

As I write this, the petition appears to have just short of 50,000 signatures, and the number is increasing rapidly... The Internet vs. Hollywood

Filed Under: congress, data, doj, hollywood, petition, pipa, sopa
Companies: megaupload, mpaa

US Copyright Office, MPAA Celebrate Handing Hollywood Stars Their Own Special Copyright Monopoly Powers

from the oh,-phew,-the-mpaa-was-on-hand-to-help dept

So remember how we were just talking about WIPO passing a totally unnecessary new form of monopoly protection for Hollywood movie stars? The negotiations concluded with everyone -- including the US -- already "signing" the agreement, and now countries just need to ratify it. In a rather sickening display of cluelessness, the US Copyright Office put out an announcement about just how awesome it was that they were able to lock down some more culture to make a few Hollywood stars happy and able to block anyone from creating mashups or remixes of their work.

Copyright Office boss, Maria Pallante, who incorrectly believes that copyright is "for the author first and the nation second," was overjoyed at being able to give Hollywood actors more power to lock up content they performed in, over which they have no copyright interest:

“The Beijing Treaty is an important step forward in protecting the performances of television and film actors throughout the world," said Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante.

But, um, why do they need this? No one ever answers that question, because the answer is they don't need this. At all. It's just a way to lock up culture some more. It's sickening.

Not surprisingly, the Copyright Office's announcement plays up the fact that the MPAA was in Beijing to help the US negotiate. And, of course, Chris Dodd is just thrilled at how awesome this treaty is, and how it shows how "substantive" treaties can be created. Yeah, there's no regulatory capture going on here... none at all. And, um, who was there to represent the public's interest? Who was there to make sure that our culture wasn't locked up and that free speech and technology weren't stifled? No one. Pallante then says that:

"There was a renewed atmosphere of cooperation and collaboration among all of the delegations in attendance...."

Well, you know, that's what happens when you only invite your friends, and leave the public and the public interest out in the cold. She might as well have just been more honest and said what the truth is: "For the Hollywood stars first, and screw the nation."

And I thought after the SOPA/PIPA and ACTA debacles, Hollywood and the US government has promised no more backroom deals signed just to support Hollywood...

Filed Under: chris dodd, copyright office, hollywood, maria pallante, performer's rights, wipo
Companies: mpaa

Hollywood & The RIAA Won't Let Tech Save Them

from the fighting-the-wrong-fight dept

We've discussed in the past how ridiculous it is to claim that there's a fight between "Hollywood and Silicon Valley." After all, the tech industry keeps creating the tools for Hollywood to succeed and broaden its market... and every time they do so, Hollywood responds by attacking those providing the tools. Every innovation that created a vast new market from which to profit from has been attacked. The gramophone. Radio. TV. Cable TV. The VCR. The MP3 player. YouTube. The DVR. In the end, all of these created great new opportunities, but were attacked. As we've said, it's a very strange war where one side (tech) is building all the weapons for the other side... only to see them point those new weapons at their own feet.

Of course, it's actually even worse than that. Because, not only does Hollywood point these new weapons at their own feet... they then try to sue and blame the tech industry for creating these same weapons. It's a pretty hostile environment.

And this is a massive problem for Hollywood. Because, throughout history, it has been shown that the only solution that actually helps solve the "issue" of "piracy" is the creation of new and useful legitimate services. And the entertainment industry is doing its best to scare everyone off from doing that by attacking each of those new services as it comes about. Entrepreneur Tyler Crowley has a great analogy explaining how the entertainment industry is driving the very innovators it needs help from away. He talks about how entrepreneurs look at markets as "islands of opportunity." He lists out a few, such as the Facebook island and the Apple island.

For tech folks, from the 35,000' view, there are islands of opportunity. There's Apple Island, Facebook Island, Microsoft Island, among many others and yes there's Music Biz Island. Now, we as tech folks have many friends who have sailed to Apple Island and we know that it's $99/year to doc your boat and if you build anything Apple Island will tax you at 30%. Many of our friends are partying their asses off on Apple Island while making millions (and in some recent cases billions) and that sure sounds like a nice place to build a business.

He talks about a few other of these "islands of opportunity" (and does a nice job breaking them down). But then he gets to the "music biz island" (which I'd argue is actually the "legacy entertainment biz island") and notes the hostile reception:

Now, we also know of Music Biz Island which is where the natives start firing cannons as you approach, and if not stuck at sea, one must negotiate with the chiefs for 9 months before given permission to dock. Those who do go ashore are slowly eaten alive by the native cannibals. As a result, all the tugboats and lighthouses (investors, advisors) warn to stay far away from Music Biz Island, as nobody has ever gotten off alive. If that wasn't bad enough, while Apple and Facebook Island are built with sea walls to protect from the rising oceans, Music Biz Island is already 5 ft under and the educated locals are fleeing for Topspin Island.

In other words, the good entrepreneurs, who actually can help the entertainment industry (some of whom tried in the past) are actively pushed away from helping. And then the entertainment industry whines that no one wants to help them. Perhaps they should look at being just a bit more welcoming...

On a side note: Crowley's writeup was actually in response to a dinner gathering at some super super swank LA eatery that tried to bring together the heads of the major labels with some LA entrepreneurs. That's actually encouraging, though, again, meeting in backrooms is still missing the point. Why is it so hard for the industry to have a discussion in public?

Filed Under: dvr, hollywood, mp3, riaa, technology, vcr

WIPO Is Quietly Signing An Agreement To Give Hollywood Stars Their Own Special Version Of Copyright

from the why? dept

We've mentioned that the copyright maximalists of the world never stop in their ongoing efforts around the globe to expand government granted monopoly privileges. Back in April we warned about an upcoming negotiation on an "audiovisual right" that would create an entirely new -- and entirely unnecessary -- form of "copyright" for performers themselves. Copyright, of course, goes to whoever "fixes" the work. So, for movies, the studio producing it gets the copyright. But this treaty goes above and beyond that and would grant the actors in video works entirely separate rights, allowing them to control how their images are used around the globe.

And, of course, while everyone's been paying attention to things like the ACTA vote in the EU, this treaty has moved forward and may be signed as soon as today from the sound of things. I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for this, other than "gee, actors would really like it if we gave them monopoly rights." Reuters quotes WIPO's maximalist-in-chief, Francis Gurry insisting that "it's a real problem" but never actually defining how it's a problem:

They also have no rights in many countries if their work is manipulated in any way that may harm their reputation.

"It's a real problem - it's not an artificial problem," Francis Gurry, the World Intellectual Property Organization's director general, told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday.

"The actors are the ones, in the international framework, who have not been catered for."

Wait. So this is all about some actors being upset that someone "manipulated" their work? We're creating an entirely new monopoly right for actors because they're all upset about someone creating a little mashup or parody? And this is "a real problem"? Are they insane? This isn't a problem at all. This is catering to a population of people (Hollywood actors) who already have skins too thin, who will now be able to try to stifle all sorts of protected speech, parodies, mashups, commentary and the like, just because they might not like it.

That's no reason to create new monopoly rights.

The negotiations for this agreement have been taking place in Beijing, leading Gurry to talk about why that's the perfect place for such negotiations due to China's cultural history:

The Director General said it is particularly appropriate that the event is taking place in Beijing because of the depth of China’s historical association with the performing arts, as well as the vitality and dynamism of its contemporary theatre, cinema and television. “Theatre, acting and performance in China date back to the Shang Dynasty and enjoy an unbroken historical continuity of development and adaptation, leading to the blossoming contemporary culture that saw China produce over 500 feature films in 2010 and the largest number of television series of any country in the world,” he said.

Er... isn't it worth pointing out that this "vitality and dynamism" of culture in China was built up almost entirely without intellectual property laws, since the country only introduced copyright in 1991? Why is Gurry pretending that China needs these new monopoly rights when we've already seen that culture their flourished without it? Amusingly, a Chinese official at the meetings announced that: "Respecting IP is ... a mark of our civilization," which appears to be an out and out fabrication.

The full proposal (also embedded below) is really broad, and appears to mimic many of the rights established by copyright law. Performers -- mainly actors, but also musicians -- even if they're not the copyright holders will get an exclusive right to prevent others from reproducing, distributing or performing the works. In some cases, the rights appear to be even broader than current copyright law, such as an explicit "making available right." Under copyright law there's been some dispute if merely "making available" violates the "distribution" right, or if someone actually has to download it to violate that right. However, this treaty explicitly defines a "making available" right -- showing, once again, how IP laws only seem to expand outwards. Furthermore, it establishes "moral rights" for performers -- an idea that the US has repeatedly rejected for everyone outside of a very small group of artists (such as painters). It seems troubling that we'd suddenly agree to a massive moral rights regime without any public discussion in the US.

On top of that, Article 15 of the agreement appears to include an exceptionally broad anti-circumvention provision -- something we've already found to be disastrous under the DMCA. Why would we possibly want to expand that such that performers can go after anyone for breaking DRM even if for perfectly legal purposes. This makes no sense.

And while it might sound nice that performers would get their own rights outside of the copyright, that's not how it's going to play out. One of the "differences" this time around from the last time it was discussed a dozen years ago, is that this version will allow for the transfer of such rights to producers... meaning that actors in Hollywood movies will be forced to hand these rights over to the studios anyway -- meaning more excessive monopoly rights that the MPAA and RIAA will be able to assert to shut down legitimate content.

This thing has disaster written all over it... and it appears to be passing without most people noticing.

Filed Under: acta, china, dmca, drm, hollywood, performance rights, wipo