ASCAP Continues Propaganda Campaign With Laughably Bad Video [Updated]

from the but-you're-giving-it-away-for-free dept

While ASCAP is apparently too busy to debate Larry Lessig, they aren't too busy to produce silly and ridiculous propaganda. ASCAP member Damian Sol notes that he recently received an email from ASCAP asking him to "spread the word" about ASCAP's new propaganda video that compares getting songwriters paid for music to getting chickens and cows paid for their eggs and milk. Seriously. I'd embed it here, but the technologically savvy folks at ASCAP are apparently too clueless to figure out how to include an embed on a video they claim they want people to "share." Update: Aha. While they don't make it clear on the page, the video has also been uploaded to YouTube, where it is embeddable:

Anyway, since ASCAP believes that every public performance needs to be paid for, and the idea of "free promotion" is a myth, I do have to ask: is ASCAP paying Peter Himmelman, the guy who made the video, each time it's played?

Update 2: Also, as many in the comments have noted, they've also produced a second video, which is just ridiculously misleading. You can watch it here: Two major problems with the video. The first is that ASCAP continues to falsely portray "open source" believers as being somehow against compensation. It includes a guy in a t-shirt that says "open source dude," which morphs into "fair payment man" in the video.

The bigger problem is that it sets up a total strawman to knocks down, in saying that people don't think music is "as valuable" as a variety of tangible goods because you can hold/eat/watch those goods "and because people made them." The conclusion of the video? Music is valuable because "people made it." Uh, ok. Except that the debate isn't over the value of music. It's about the price of music, and it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that value and price are the same thing. And while some people might actually find a TV set or a pair of shoes more valuable than music, it's not because one is tangible and the other is not. It's because they simply value one more than the other. What people are actually arguing -- a point that ASCAP won't address because it can't -- is that setting up a bureaucracy that gets a government granted ability to demand money from venues promoting musicians music can actually do serious harm to musicians by making it that much more difficult to find venues that can promote their music.

Filed Under: composers, copyright, propaganda, songwriters
Companies: ascap

Anti-Piracy Campaign Shows You 'Killing' Look Alike Pop Stars

from the that's-convincing dept

There have been some really ridiculous "anti-piracy" campaigns out there, but this one is really quite impressive. TorrentFreak has the details on a site, called FreemusicHK.com, that pretends to be a site for downloading unauthorized music. However, when you actually do go to download it, instead you get to play a little flash game where you get to "kill" look alike pop stars on the cover of their albums. Of course, the pop-stars aren't just lookalikes, but name-alikes, too. So, it's Any Winehouse, instead of Amy. It's Madownload, instead of Madonna. It's Biur, instead of Blur. Copy Play instead of Cold Play Moby's "Play" album... etc. If this really is some sort of anti-piracy campaign, they're doing it wrong. As multiple people are pointing out, they've made the whole thing so silly and ridiculous that's it's kind of fun to play. It's really quite incredible how tone deaf various "anti-piracy" campaigns have been to what consumers are actually thinking.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, education campaign, propaganda

Universal Music Funds Yet Another 'Educational' Propaganda Campaign Against File Sharing

from the economics-matter dept

Back in January, we noted that Chris Morrison, the manager of Damon Albarn's bands, Blur and Gorillaz, stated at a conference that "piracy can be stopped," while also suggesting he wanted to personally beat up anyone who shared Albarn's music (oddly, this was right after he had admitted how much wonderful free publicity Albarn had gotten from a leak of the Gorillaz album). Now it looks like Morrison and a former partner of his are involved in a silly and amusing new propaganda campaign, funded by Universal Music, to try to equate file sharing to drunk driving in some cases and racism in other cases. Seriously.

Comparisons were made at the launch in London on Wednesday to anti-drink driving campaigns which have gradually changed attitudes....

Chris Morrison of CMO Management agreed that the problem is generational.

But he continued: ''You can educate that out of people ... Racial prejudice was rife when I was a child ... the public attitude towards it has changed radically.

''You educate, it's generational ... It may take five, 10 years, but you need to start in schools.''

Of course, we've been hearing the same thing for about ten years now, back when the recording industry kicked off their various "educational campaigns." It's already been more than those five, 10 years, and they did start in schools... and the school kids laughed at them. That's because school kids understand that these are business model issues, not inherent unfair or dangerous situations. With racism and drunk driving it's easy to see how those lead to inherently unfair outcomes. With the music industry, it doesn't take long for kids to recognize that the issue isn't that file sharing is inherently bad. They see lots of bands that are doing quite well by embracing it. So they quickly realize that it's just those dinosaurs who refuse to adapt who start pushing this kind of propaganda. What's amusing is how often these kinds of campaigns have been tried and failed, and yet the industry somehow magically thinks it will work this time. Isn't there a word for doing the same thing over and over and over again, but expecting different results?

Filed Under: copyright, education, file sharing, music, music matters, propaganda, uk
Companies: universal music

School District Considers 'Anti-Piracy' Education Campaign Based On Anti-Drug Education Campaigns

from the just-say-buy? dept

Forget "just say no," and say hello to "just say buy." Copycense points out that some Scottish schools seem to think that unauthorized sharing of music and movies is analogous to using drugs, and deserves a similar sort of education plan. Of course, the entertainment industry would be more than happy to provide any one of its numerous propaganda educational curricula for the task. The problem, of course, is that if you are at all familiar with the subject, you would realize that unauthorized file sharing is not a societal problem like "drug use," but is a business model issue. Of course, given how (un)successful the "war on drugs" has been, perhaps it's silly to worry about an equally ridiculous "war on piracy."

Filed Under: copyright, drugs, education, propaganda, schools, scotland

MPAA Tells The FCC: If We Don't Stop Piracy, The Internet Will Die

from the moral-panic dept

Never let it be said that the folks in Hollywood aren't good at coming up with a totally fictional horror story. I just have a problem when they use it not to entertain, but to create a moral panic to push the government to pass laws in their favor. In discussing the recent 60 Minutes piece that was really nothing more than an MPAA scare tactic, some suggested that it was really just a first step in the process of getting the government to make sure net neutrality rules had a special Hollywood exception. So, it's interesting to note that just before that 60 Minutes episode aired (and just before Halloween), the MPAA sent a "scary" filing to the FCC warning it how the US would always be a broadband laggard if it didn't stomp out piracy. The full filing (warning:pdf) claims, repeatedly, that piracy is sucking up all our bandwidth and getting rid of that would somehow make it cheaper to install faster internet connections.

The Commission has projected that it could cost $350 billion to ubiquitously deploy broadband networks capable of delivering 100 Mbps, which is rapidly becoming the international standard. The Commission, however, should not ignore that illegal content accounts for a vast amount of online traffic. Thus, it could generate substantial savings in this tremendous build-out cost -- to be borne by both government and private sector investment -- by encouraging construction of networks that are designed not on the basis of accommodating capacity-hogging transmissions of unlawful content but rather with the goal of providing consumers a rich broadband experience.

And, of course, it pushes for kicking file sharers off the internet (it hides this by calling it "graduated response," of course, rather than the more common term "three strikes"). The filing also goes on about how the MPAA is just so sure that ISPs can stamp out piracy, and because of that, it thinks the government should force them to get on it.

The MPAA wastes little time mocking those who disagree with its position, and suggesting that the FCC "pay no heed" to consumer concerns:

[The] Commission should pay no heed to assertions by some members of the advocacy community that the problem of content theft can be ignored because some amount of legitimate e-commerce already occurs through vendors such as iTunes.... The same holds true for the preposterous notion that the law should be ignored unless a property owner can demonstrate that a thief, in the absence of stealing, otherwise would have legitimately purchased a stolen product. A shoplifter who steals a DVD from a store in a mall is not immune from security intervention, let alone prosecution, simply because he might not have planned to buy the product that he attempted to steal.

Except, of course, there's a huge difference there. If someone steals a DVD it's no longer there for someone else to buy. If someone who never would have purchased the movie views it online there's no loss. it's difficult to see how the MPAA can simply ignore this while assuming that FCC commissioners are too stupid to grasp this rather simple economic concept.

But where the filing really comes into its own in being laughably funny is where it tries to claim that if the FCC doesn't do this, the internet will effectively die. How does it get there? Well, first, it claims that the reason people use the internet is to view content from Hollywood. And, if file sharing keeps up, there won't be any of that content left, and then why would anyone use the internet? Think that's an exaggeration? How else do you interpret this:

Quite clearly, it is the promise of access to the content flowing over the Internet's network architecture that motivates Americans to adopt broadband. The Internet without content would be nothing more than a collection of hardware; a series of computer links and protocols with great capacity to communicate but nothing to say. Television once was unfairly derided as little more than a toaster with pictures. In the absence of compelling content, the Internet would offer consumers even less value than that proverbial toaster. It is the content that flows over and through the Internet that makes the breakthrough technology so potentially powerful.

Yes, because even though the internet existed for decades before the folks at the movie studios had even heard of it, they had nothing to say, at all, until people could start sharing the latest camcorded blockbuster. Do they really think people are this stupid? Sorry, Hollywood, but it's not "the content" that you're thinking about that makes the internet so powerful. It's the ability to communicate. Sure, the content is a nice-to-have, but the internet grew and grew because it let people talk to each other, not because it was another broadcast medium. This fantasy story by the MPAA also leaves out the fact that more content than ever before is being produced today, even as "piracy" numbers have gone up. And, oh yes, once again, the movie business is hitting record highs at the box office. Funny that the MPAA seems to spend so much time insisting that its industry is dying, while leaving out the record revenue bit. Instead, it just keeps jumping out and yelling that piracy will kill the movie business...

And then it gets into rewriting history, by insisting that every new technology is only successful if the big media companies support it:

Throughout history, whenever transformative communications technologies have captured the imagination of consumers, compelling content has been the vehicle for forward progress.

Apparently, the MPAA is unfamiliar with the telephone. Hopefully, the FCC is a bit more familiar with that particular technology.

The filing goes on and on like this, designed to "scare" the folks at the FCC with a bit of a moral panic, but only inducing laughter (good show, Hollywood) from anyone with any actual understanding of technology, history and copyright. Another favorite tidbit is the MPAA's demand that the FCC not pay attention to how incredibly screwed up every single attempt at using technological measures to stop piracy has been in the past:

MPAA does not want the Commission's consideration of the important overarching issue of unlawful online conduct to be derailed by backward-looking debates about the pros and cons of any given technology, particularly those that already have been surpassed by new innovations. MPAA firmly believes that future developments will yield an entirely new generation of ever-more-sophisticated online protection technologies.

In other words, please ignore how badly we've screwed up in the past. Don't worry about things like rootkits and security vulnerabilities we've created. Also, ignore the fact that DRM doesn't work and only punishes our legitimate customers while driving more people to piracy. That would be a waste of time. Really.

And finally, I leave you with the most stunning statement of all, along those lines. One that I'm amazed the MPAA lawyers let go through in this filing, because it absolutely has to come back to haunt the MPAA in the future. In responding to concerns from lots of different people, including consumer advocates and consumer electronics firms that the various technological protection measures the MPAA wants to force on ISPs will harm, the MPAA states:

That a tool intended to stop unlawful conduct could be put to ill use, however, is not an argument for prohibiting the use of the tool....

Wait... isn't that exactly the argument that the MPAA has used for years against every new file sharing technology out there? Wasn't it the crux of the Grokster lawsuits? That because the tool could be put to ill use, it needed to be prohibited? Yet, now, suddenly it doesn't want its own technologies prohibited just because they can be put to "ill use." Double standard, much?

This is nothing but a typical moral panic from Hollywood. They are storytellers out there, and they know how to craft a horror story. Hopefully, though, the FCC reviewers of this particular fantasy will give it the thumbs down for simply being totally unbelievable.

Filed Under: broadband policy, copyright, fcc filing, moral panic, movies, propaganda
Companies: fcc, mpaa

Pro-Stronger Copyright Propaganda Shows Up In Canadian Press

from the no-quotes-from-anyone-on-the-other-side? dept

Rob Hyndman points us to a column in Toronto's Globe & Mail by Barrie McKenna that is basically all of the recording industry's talking points on copyright, without even a nod to the views of the other side. It appears that most of the info is (surprise, surprise) based on a recording industry lawyer. It starts with a nice little moral panic about how file sharing sites are rushing to base themselves in Canada due to the country's supposedly lax copyright laws. Of course, that's ridiculous. Canada has very strong copyright laws already. What they don't have is a DMCA. That's what the industry wants. McKenna tries to bolster his claim that Canada has weak copyright laws with the following:

Earlier this year, the Obama administration put Canada on its blacklist of shame - a "priority watch list" of intellectual property laggards, joining the likes of China, Russia and Venezuela.

Sounds nice, but incredibly misleading. The "blacklist of shame" that McKenna mentions, but does not explain, is actually the US Trade Rep's special "301 Report." Mention it to just about any policy maker (excluding those pushing for protectionist policies for a specific industry, of course), and you get an eye roll. It's not so much "the Obama administration" but industries with wishlists attempting to restrain trade in foreign countries by putting forth scary stories about what's happening in those countries. The USTR basically takes those industry-submitted reports and wraps them up into the 301 report. It's a joke. Most of the complaints in the report concern countries that actually are in perfect compliance with international treaties -- but which the industry still wants to go further.

Of course, given that McKenna's source is an industry lawyer, perhaps it's not surprising that such info wasn't shared. But, the next claims go from the just uninformed to the unbelievable:

Canada, which has repeatedly promised but so far failed to deliver on copyright reform, isn't just out of step with the United States, but with much of the Western world.

This is simply untrue. Canada's copyright law is actually quite in line with most of the Western world, no matter what the entertainment industry suggests (and, you might think that McKenna would ask someone other than the person representing the industry that benefits from this). Furthermore, the line that Canada has "so far failed to deliver on copyright reform" is either blatantly misleading or simply ignorant of rather recent history. Canadian politicians have tried to push forth copyright reform, but due to a massive public outcry from people who actually understand how things like the DMCA cause all sorts of problems -- especially concerning free speech and consumer rights -- those politicians were forced to back down.

That's called informed democracy in action.

Oh, McKenna also claims that the last time the Canadian government tried copyright reform was in 2007. According to his bio, McKenna is based in DC, not Canada, but even down here in the States plenty of us were aware that Jim Prentice introduced copyright reform in 2008.

So, McKenna makes it out like Canada has no strong copyright laws (false), that it's laws are different from most of the western world (false) and that it hasn't tried to add more draconian copyright laws (false again). From there, he comes up with this bizarre justification for more draconian copyright law:

The world has gone digital. And there's now an explosion of legitimate download sites in the U.S. and Europe, including ground-breaking music sites Pandora.com and Lala.com. But you can't use them in Canada.

These and other businesses are choosing to bypass the market entirely, in part because of licensing problems.

And the creative industries that produce music, software and the like - industries that contribute significantly more to the economy than BitTorrent sites - may also shun Canada if nothing is done.

Actually, you have Canadian record labels like Nettwerk, that are doing quite well, even as its CEO has declared that copyright is obsolete and should be done away with entirely within a decade. And the reason that those services can't be used in Canada isn't because the law is too lax, but because the laws are too strict, in terms of figuring out special licensing setups in each country. It's such a pain to get them licensed in a single country that the services have been forced -- against their will in many cases -- to block access in other countries like Canada.

Meanwhile, it's telling to note some of the things that McKenna conveniently left out. Like how about the private copying levy system up in Canada, which has made blank media ridiculously expensive, and which is supposed to be paying for all that "piracy." We don't have that in the US at all. Or what about the weak fair use/fair dealing laws in Canada? What about an understanding of the value of the public domain or the value of fan promotions? What about new business models that have shown that copyright isn't necessary to make money in the industry? What about the studies that have shown that file sharers tend to buy more music? All of that seems relevant... but when your only source is a representative of the industry looking to get laws passed in its own interest, is it any wonder they get left out?

Barrie McKenna got taken for a ride here by the recording industry. His writeup included multiple factual errors, significant errors of omission, and a gross misunderstanding of what's actually happening in the music industry these days.

Filed Under: 301 report, canada, copyright, propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Industry Anti-Piracy Propaganda: Former EMI Anti-Piracy Boss Launches 'Educational' Program

from the 2+2=? dept

With the school year having only recently started up, we had already covered the RIAA's silly propaganda campaign masked as an "educational resource." Of course, that's not the only such program. The MPAA has offered up its own "copyright education" as has The Copyright Alliance -- an operation whose entire purpose appears to be to push entertainment industry nonsense and propaganda without any factual support or basis. It looks like there's another such program coming out of the UK as well. Torrentfreak alerts us to the news that EMI's former anti-piracy boss just happened to have "left" EMI in time to create her own "educational campaign" about copyright for school children as young as five. The good news, though, is that the reporter from The Daily Mail wasn't buying any of it, raising questions about why five year olds should be learning about copyright from industry supplied sources. The article also questions the claim that this campaign was financed independently from the recording industry, calling out the fact that the woman's own LinkedIn profile indicated otherwise, until she changed it right after being interviewed (funny, that...).

Filed Under: copyright, educational campaigns, propaganda, uk
Companies: emi

Entertainment Industry Propaganda Organization Kicks Off Hilarious Astroturf Letter Writing Campaign

from the good-luck-with-that,-pat dept

The "Copyright Alliance" is a propaganda organization put together by the entertainment industry, pretending to focus on "the rights of creators," but which has always been focused on strengthening the monopolies of the middlemen (the same folks who quite frequently screw over the creators). Recently, the Copyright Alliance came out with its latest astroturfing attempt, with an automatic letter generator that will pop out cloned letters that the Copyright Alliance itself will send to President Obama and Vice President Biden. The tone of the letter is rather silly, as it seems to suggest that Obama and Biden haven't been supporting the entertainment industry's position all along -- and that there's some huge legislative movement afoot to wipe out artists' rights. It is, as William Patry notes, yet another attempt by the entertainment industry to create a folk devil and a moral panic in an attempt to further prop up its business model. Patry, not surprisingly, takes little time ripping the letter to shreds:

It is very hard not to laugh in the face of such ugliness and to wonder where the reason is in such dysfunctional nonsense, but what came to my mind was Helen Reddy's 1972 anthem, which began: "I am woman, hear me roar/In numbers too big to ignore." The moral panic in the Alliance's letter is that the very essence of what makes America America is threatened by evil forces that supposedly have launched an assault demanding that Helen Reddy and her 11 million colleagues give their works away for free, that the evil doers be permitted to have their way with the vestal virgins of America's copyright sweethearts. This is of course complete baloney. Name one piece of pending legislation that would accomplish what the Alliance claims. Name one lawsuit currently pending that would accomplish what the Alliance claims. There are none.

Indeed. At first, I had considered setting up our own "letter generator" in response, highlighting the problems of stricter copyright law, the vast and ever growing evidence of how copyright law is misused by the very organizations that back the Copyright Alliance to prop up obsolete business models rather than innovate. On top of that, such a letter would highlight all of the creative content creators who have been embracing new technologies for creating, promoting and distributing content along with embracing new business models and finding that they work better than the old models.

But, honestly, I'd like to believe that our President and Vice President aren't swayed by a bunch of form letters from an industry propagandist, and that, instead, people would be inspired to write their own letters highlighting the creativity that new technology has allowed -- and how some legacy industries have repeatedly abused copyright law to stifle such innovation and creativity many times over. Luckily, Jonathan Melber has a nice prototype of just such an open letter, where he highlights our cultural heritage, and how content creators regularly build on the works of others in creating something new and wonderful -- but how that tradition is often blocked by an industry that doesn't like outsiders trying to route around its control.

Separately, the Copyright Alliance should be ashamed of itself for blatantly lying with statistics. It tries to claim the right to speak for $1.52 trillion of the nation's GDP. This is pure farce. It's based on a study done by (you guessed it) the industry itself in the form of the International Intellectual Property Alliance, which is yet another propaganda/lobbying organization made up of the other lobbying/propaganda groups representing different industries: including the MPAA, the RIAA, the BSA and the ESA among others. In other words, hardly an unbiased source.

The methodology of the study is pretty laughable. It's based on WIPO's stated methodology, which is basically "count absolutely everything that even remotely touches on copyright" and then assume that every bit of that revenue is because of strong copyright laws. Hell, by the methodology used in the report, all of the revenue we earn here -- despite all the content on this site being public domain -- gets credited to "the copyright industry." It's such a typical DC-insider move: use totally bogus stats to bolster a weak argument. But that's the game that the Copyright Alliance has played since its inception. Just defining all those industries as "copyright industries" is misleading, because it implies that their revenue is due to copyright. But it's much worse than that. Companies that make furniture or jewelry are specifically listed as being a part of "the copyright industry" for purposes of this calculation. Yes, because without copyright, no one would be making furniture, right?

Even more amusing -- that same report shows continued and strong growth in what it defines as the copyright industries. So much for that massive attack destroying American society, huh? And this highlights the intellectual dishonesty of the Copyright Alliance and its backers. For the sake of making themselves look "big" they have to throw everything and the kitchen sink into their estimates and show that it's "growing." But for the sake of demonizing anyone who might seek to stop abuse of copyright laws, they have to claim that those industries are under constant attack, even as they grow to record levels. Propaganda at its finest.

Filed Under: copyright, propaganda
Companies: copyright alliance

Wait, Was That An RIAA Education Campaign... Or Is It About Turning Schoolkids Into Unpaid Shills?

from the why-is-this-in-our-schools? dept

We recently took a look at the many problems with the RIAA's "educational materials" that it's pushing on schools. The EFF (who has its own -- much more accurate -- curriculum for schools) has noticed one other significant problem with the RIAA's propaganda material. They include an exercise that involves having schoolkids pitch local newspapers and TV stations to present propaganda:

Imagine that you are in the music industry... With your team of fellow music industry employees, plan an information campaign that lets others know why it's important to get their music the right way... You'll want to convince your classmates that your teams' plan is the one that will become the class project!

Challenge: Take your campaign a step further by contacting the editor of your community newspaper or the director of your community cable television station to see if you can submit an article or video about your campaign.

Of course, since we were suggesting more reasonable responses to the RIAA's proposals, why not have those same kids do a class project where they talk about artists who have embraced what their fans want, and have showed that it's possible to do quite well with models that don't involve going to war with your best fans. In the meantime, we're still wondering why any school would use obviously biased materials from an industry association, rather than impartial materials that are actually accurate? Does anyone know of any schools that use the RIAA's materials? We'd love to speak to some teachers who do...

Filed Under: copyright, education, fair use, music, propaganda, schools, songlifting
Companies: eff, riaa