Swedish Officials Complained To US That Hollywood-Pushed IPRED 'Anti-Piracy' Law Did More Harm Than Good

from the nicely-done,-us dept

Back in May, we had reported that Swedish police were complaining about the IPRED "anti-piracy" law, noting that all it had really done was driven up the use of encryption, which had made their job more difficult. Separate from that, of course, have been numerous studies showing that the amount of file sharing in Sweden, after an initial dip, quickly surpassed what it had been before and continued to rise. Of course, this was all pretty predictable before IPRED went into effect, but thanks to Wikileaks, not only do we know that the US was heavily involved in pushing efforts like IPRED through, but that Swedish officials made these concerns known to the US, and it appears that the US didn't really care. The specific cable highlighted the concerns of Swedish officials:

Swedish Police Enforcement officials are complaining that implementation of the IPRED has made it more difficult to solve crimes. Swedish Internet Service Providers are saving user information related to IP-numbers for a shorter period of time following the IPRED legislation.

Also, as previously reported (Ref A) the IPRED legislation might be doing little to stop the problem of illegal file-sharing as internet users now are using services which allow them to hide their IP-addresses.

That same cable, by the way, also mentions how Larry Lessig spoke to the Swedish Parliament, and also reported on the latest (at the time) of the Pirate Bay trial.

Separately, I just realized that the cable comes from the US Ambassador to Sweden, Matthew Barzun, who actually probably has a decent grasp on many of these issues, as before he became a diplomat, he worked for many years as an executive at CNET. That said, it's still somewhat disappointing that the US did seem so instrumental in pushing these laws, that even the Swedes don't seem to like, which aren't helping, and are having other unintended consequences. What's really troubling is that the US still seems to support these types of laws elsewhere, even though they're likely to have the same results. Is keeping Hollywood happy really so important?

Filed Under: copyright, encryption, hollywood, ipred, law enforcement, sweden

Spanish Legislature Rejects Hollywood-Backed Copyright Law Changes

from the nice-try dept

We've discussed in the past how Spain actually has somewhat more reasonable copyright laws than other parts of the world. It says that personal, non-commercial copying is not against the law and also says that third parties should not be liable for copyright infringement done by their users. This seems perfectly reasonable but, of course, Hollywood hates it. For a while, they've pushed a media campaign claiming that Spain's copyright laws were destroying the entertainment industry. From a personal level, this is kind of amusing, because I think I bought (yes, bought) more music from new Spanish bands in the last year than from any other country outside of the US. And, of course, soon after the media campaign, suddenly Spain introduced a copyright reform package that seemed like a checklist of the entertainment industry's wishes. It surprised absolutely no one when one of the recent Wikileaks diplomatic cable leaks showed that US diplomats played a large role in pressuring the Spanish government to make these changes, at the behest of movie industry lobbyists.

But... it appears that with all this attention, some backlash has come about as well, and the Spanish legislative body surprised a lot of people and rejected the proposed changes(Google translation from the original Spanish). It was a narrow vote, but it sounds like this issue is dead until at least next year. Of course, in the interim, expect more ridiculous and unsubstantiated bellyaching about how entertainment in Spain is dying.

Filed Under: copyright, hollywood, spain

Wikileaks Leak Suggests Hollywood Is Better At Preventing Terrorism Than The TSA

from the winning-the-hearts-and-minds dept

While it seems like US politicians keep insisting that Wikileaks' release of State Department cables has put people in harm's way -- despite a lack of evidence to support that -- some are pointing out that at least some of the cables actually show that some of what the US is doing in the Middle East has been quite effective. Prashanth points us to the news that one of the leaks showed that American TV and movies in Saudi Arabia are actually "are doing more to dissuade young Muslims from becoming jihadists than virtually anything else." As the cable noted: "Saudis are now very interested in the outside world and everybody wants to study in the US if they can. They are fascinated by US culture in a way they never were before."

Of course, the same politicians blasting Wikileaks as a "terrorist" organization can't admit that some of the leaks are actually showing that some of what the US is doing is working quite well. As Prasanth notes in his own blog post, if US politicians were smart, they'd use cables like this to play up evidence that they're doing some things well:

I feel like this is along the lines of winning the people's "hearts and minds". The reason why this works is because as opposed to state-sponsored propaganda (which is pretty obvious when shown), this more subtly shows what's so great about the US.

Finally, I think this report is a great send-up of all the politicians who are equating Wikileaks with terrorism. Quite the contrary: while a lot of what it shows is what we've done wrong (and of course these politicians will hypocritically call for press freedom in other countries yet repress it here), it also shows a lot of what we've done right. Why not publicize that more?

Filed Under: entertainment, hearts and minds, hollywood, saudi arabia, terrorism, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Hollywood's Strategy For The Future: Pretending The Government Can Save Them

from the yah,-ok dept

We were reasonably troubled, earlier this year, when the ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] division of Homeland Security started acting as Hollywood's private police force -- not just seizing the domains of a bunch of sites it accused of being "pirate sites," but announcing this at Disney's headquarters. It's difficult to understand why the US government -- and Homeland Security specifically -- is helping protect a single industry's obsolete business model. It's even more troubling when it's doing so in such close association with that industry, and proudly noting that it's now a priority of Homeland Security to protect Hollywood's obsolete business model. Imagine if the FTC announced antitrust actions against Google from, say, AT&T's headquarters. People would call that into question, as there's a clear conflict of interest. Yet, somehow, Homeland Security and ICE get a free pass on this.

A few weeks back, I went to Hollywood to appear on a panel for the Filmmaker Forum event, all about "piracy." You can see a short clip of the panel here. One of the panelists was Kevin Suh, who has the title "VP of Content Protection" at the MPAA. Of course, just the fact that the MPAA has a position that involves "content protection" suggests that there's a pretty big problem with how the MPAA views where the market is heading (hint: protectionism is not going to get you very far). Kevin was extremely nice -- and we had quite a pleasant conversation prior to the panel. But, at one point, he made some assertions (not in the video) that seemed odd to me. First, he went on and on about how much money these new "digital locker" sites make, and then in the very next sentence said that Hollywood couldn't offer a competing service because it would make no money.

At one point, I challenged him on the idea that taking down these sites was effective, and he insisted that the sites that were taken down had stayed down, and no others had stepped up to take their place. While I don't follow these sites all that closely, I'd already seen that this wasn't true, as lots of our users like to send in tips about new sites popping up (or where those "downed" sites reappeared). And, in fact, the press is noting that at least one of the sites taken down went right back up days later.

But what's really troubling about the article that has that info, is that it focuses in on how the US government has pledged to continue to be Hollywood's copyright cops, based on questionable legal authority (this, by the way, is one reason why the government is so keen to pass COICA, which would give the feds some authority that they're lacking here). But the simple fact is that this is a huge waste of taxpayer money, trying to stop the unstoppable and protect the unprotectable. There are all sorts of great opportunities for better, smarter business models for the industry, and yet rather than explore those, we have VPs of protectionism, running to the government and getting them to run crazy, legally dubious domain name seizures that do little, if anything to help.

About the only good thing that I can think of is that more and more filmmakers are realizing this. Following the panel, I was (quite pleasantly) surprised by just how many filmmakers spoke to me about how ridiculous the MPAA's position on all of this is, and saying that it's time for the industry to actually compete. Unfortunately, the industry hasn't had to compete in so long, thanks in part to lobbying efforts by the MPAA, that the legacy players don't seem to know how to do so. That's why it's going to be the up and coming filmmakers that figure it out.

Filed Under: coica, hollywood, movies, protectionism

LA Times' Propaganda Piece Claims Piracy Hurts Filmmakers Without Any Actual Evidence

from the oh-come-on dept

Reader jjmsan was the first of a few of you to send over this silly piece in the LA Times claiming that independent filmmakers are being hurt by unauthorized file sharing, but it's completely devoid of any actual evidence. It kicks off with the story of one indie film director who released a movie and insists that he's been harmed. But what's the evidence? Well, a lot of people have downloaded his film. Ok. So? When other movie makers saw that, they put in place smart business models to encourage people to buy something, and they did quite well because of it. By embracing file sharing and combining it with smart business models, tons of filmmakers who never would have been able to do anything with their film have now been able to build an audience and make a living.

The filmmaker in the story, Greg Carter, doesn't seem to have done any of that. He appears to have just complained about people who wanted to see his movie, rather than giving them something to buy. And while he insists that he's "lost $100,000 in revenue," he never seems to recognize that there was a good chance a lot fewer people would have cared to watch his film in the first place if it weren't for file sharing. The fact is that he failed to put in place a business model that embraced how people wanted to view the film. It's not "piracy" that's to blame, it's Greg Carter not putting in place a smart business model like a bunch of other filmmakers have done.

The article also highlights a filmmaker, Ellen Seidler, who complains about spending hours a day sending emails to file sharing sites, demanding they take down her film. Just think how much better she could be doing if she spent that same time connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy.

What a waste of space by the LA Times, who shouldn't be misleading people like this with bogus articles. It's articles that portray these people as victims, due to their own lack of business initiative, that does real harm to filmmakers. If, instead, the LA Times focused on smart filmmakers who are in the same situation as Carter and Seidler, but instead embraced it and are making real money because of it, they'd be helping. Instead, they're just making more of a mess.

Filed Under: business models, films, hollywood, indie filmmakers, piracy

Hollywood Trying To Get A Special Anti-Party Crashing Law

from the party-poopers dept

Apparently, the movie studio execs in Hollywood who brought you such classic films as The Wedding Crashers only likes to glorify the idea of crashing parties when it's not their parties. They've evidently convinced politicians representing the state of California that rather than fixing some of the massive problems with the bankrupt state, they should create a special new form of trespassing law to stop party crashers. Essentially, the movie studios are upset that people kept sneaking into their big awards shows and related events, and they don't feel that existing trespassing laws are enough, so they want to throw such party crashers in jail for six months. Nice to know that Hollywood, and the politicians who work for Hollywood, have their priorities straight.

Filed Under: california, hollywood, party crashing, trespassing

Best Hollywood Set Locations Represent A Trade Secret?

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

THResq has a post about a lawsuit involving two companies who are focused on the business of finding the right set location for Hollywood films and movies. Apparently, it's a huge business. Universal Locations is upset that two of its employees went to a competitor called Site to Site Locations, and so they're suing, saying that the employees took trade secrets with them. The thing is, it appears that Universal Locations is trying to get past longstanding and well-established California laws barring non-compete agreements, because the state, reasonably, finds it ridiculous that you could ever be barred from making a living because you're too good at your job. Claiming "trade secrets" seems like an attempt to avoid that, but hopefully the court knocks that down pretty quickly by arguing against a ruling that would take away the ability of these two individuals to work in their field of expertise. Of course, it should come as no surprise that it's some movie industry companies making this argument. In a world where IP is highly overrated, no wonder they would think that they could effectively put DRM on former employees to keep them from competing in the same field.

Filed Under: hollywood, locations, noncompetes, sets, trade secrets

As Hollywood Sues Over Copyright Infringement, Hollywood Celebrates Copyright Infringement In Glee

from the mixed-messages dept

Sage Ross points us to an interesting writeup by Christina Mulligan at the Yale Law School's Information Society Project, noting the somewhat mixed messages Hollywood gives people on derivative creativity. Specifically, she talks about the TV show Glee, which I have to confess to never having watched (nor even knowing anything about the show other than that it exists, and people talk about it). Apparently, however, it's about a fictional high school chorus, and while the show takes on all sorts of meaty social issues, it also displays regular acts of remixing and other forms of derivative works, many of which might get folks sued in the real world, but which never mention copyright issues:

...a video of Sue dancing to Olivia Newton-John's 1981 hit Physical is posted online (damages for recording the entirety of Physical on Sue's camcorder: up to $300,000). And let's not forget the glee club's many mash-ups -- songs created by mixing together two other musical pieces. Each mash-up is a "preparation of a derivative work" of the original two songs' compositions -- an action for which there is no compulsory license available, meaning (in plain English) that if the Glee kids were a real group of teenagers, they could not feasibly ask for -- or hope to get -- the copyright permissions they would need to make their songs, and their actions, legal under copyright law. Punishment for making each mash-up? Up to another $150,000 -- times two.

So here we are with a hit TV program, showing off how kids are doing all sorts of almost certainly infringing derivative works... at the same time we're told (by the same Hollywood folks) that such works are illegal. And, this isn't some random "well, they could sue but they don't" situation:

You might be tempted to assume that this tension isn't a big deal because copyright holders won't go after creative kids or amateurs. But they do: In the 1990s, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) asked members of the American Camping Association, including Girl Scout troops, to pay royalties for singing copyrighted songs at camp. In 2004, the Beatles' copyright holders tried to prevent the release of The Grey Album -- a mash-up of Jay-Z's Black Album and the Beatles' White Album -- and only gave up after massive civil disobedience resulted in the album's widespread distribution. Copyright holders even routinely demand that YouTube remove videos of kids dancing to popular music. While few copyright cases go to trial, copyright holders like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) don't hesitate to seek stratospheric damage awards when they do, as in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset filesharing case.

As the article notes, these mixed messages may be confusing, but in the end, most people know which side actually makes sense, and it's not the side that the law is on right now:

These worlds don't match. Both Glee and the RIAA can't be right. It's hard to imagine glee club coach Will Schuester giving his students a tough speech on how they can't do mash-ups anymore because of copyright law (but if he did, it might make people rethink the law). Instead, copyright violations are rewarded in Glee -- after Sue's Physical video goes viral, Olivia Newton-John contacts Sue so they can film a new, improved video together.

So what should you do in real life if you and your friends, inspired by Glee, want to make a mash-up, or a new music video for a popular song? Should you just leave this creativity to the professionals, or should you become dirty, rotten copyright violators?

Current law favors copyright holders. But morally, there's nothing wrong with singing your heart out. Remixing isn't stealing, and copyright isn't property. Copyright is a privilege -- actually six specific privileges -- granted by the government. Back in 1834, the Supreme Court decided in Wheaton v. Peters that copyrights weren't "property" in the traditional sense of the word, but rather entitlements the government chose to create for instrumental reasons. The scope and nature of copyright protection are policy choices -- choices that have grown to favor the interests of established, rent-seeking businesses instead of the public in general.

The Constitution allows Congress to pass copyright laws to "promote the progress of science" -- a word often used in the 18th century to mean "knowledge". The stated purpose of the original 1790 copyright statute was to encourage learning. So you tell me -- what promotes knowledge and learning: letting people rearrange music and learn to use a video camera, or threatening new artists with $150,000 fines?

It's a good post and well worth reading the whole thing. But what I find interesting is that Mulligan doesn't even touch on the fact that these mixed messages are coming from the same place. The same folks who produce, distribute and broadcast Glee are the folks who insist copyright is property and that the current laws are just and good. But, even they must know, conceptually, that there's a mismatch between what the law says today and what people actually do.

Filed Under: copyright, glee, hollywood, mashups, mixed messages

Warner Bros. So Distraught Over Losing Superman Rights, It Personally Sues The Lawyer Who Won

from the getting-a-bit-personal dept

We've covered the ongoing fight over copyright termination rights lately, as it's quickly becoming a big deal. While the whole concept shows part of how messed up copyright law has become, one element included to help artists (rather than just big companies) when copyright terms were extended, were opportunities for the original artists or their estates to "terminate" the assignment of copyright to a company. The details are highly technical and a bit of a mess, and the entertainment industry has worked hard for years to try to bury termination rights (most famously when the RIAA had a Congressional staffer -- who was hired just months later to a high-paying RIAA job -- slip some text into a bill in the middle of the night that took termination rights away from musicians, until musicians freaked out and Congress backtracked). Even so, the big entertainment industry companies have been fighting against every attempt at artists or their estates reclaiming their copyrights for years. The most famous case was the case over Superman's rights -- which concluded last year with the estate of Jerry Siegel winning back certain rights (while letting Warner retain other Superman-related rights).

The lawyer who represented the Siegel estate, Marc Toberoff, has been pushing content creators and their estates to understand (and make use of) termination rights for a long time. And it's no surprise that we're now seeing new efforts under way from musicians and others, including comic book artist Jack Kirby. Kirby, not surprisingly, is also represented by Toberoff, who isn't just representing these artists in helping them get back their copyrights, but he's apparently set up his own production studio to help make use of those copyrights once he helps the artists get them back.

Apparently, Warner Bros. (a frequent target of Toberoff) has had enough and has decided to sue Toberoff personally, claiming that... well... basically that he's a jerk and a savvy business person, which I didn't quite realize was illegal. Specifically, they seem to be claiming that Toberoff "manipulated" the creators of Superman, having them hand over a large percentage of the rights to the character if he was able to successfully manage the termination. Part of Warner's complaint is that Siegel and Shuster had apparently signed agreements promising not to exercise their termination rights, but as I'm sure Warner's lawyers know (they must know this, right?), you cannot contractually give up your termination rights, or all entertainment industry companies would require that in their standard contract.

Frankly, reading through the complaint -- which you can read below -- it looks like Warner is attempting to retry the Superman termination rights case that it already lost: While I still think there are all sorts of problems with termination rights in copyright law, and have no doubt that Toberoff had plenty of reasons beyond helping artists get back their copyrights in agreeing to represent these artists, it is somewhat amusing to see Hollywood flail around so desperately to try to keep absolutely monopolistic control over these rights. Of course, if the copyright law that was in place when Superman was created was still in place, the character of Superman would no longer be covered by copyright at all today, but would, instead, be in the public domain. So, forgive me for feeling little sympathy for anyone involved in this tug of war over who gets to exploit the creation for more money.

Filed Under: copyright, hollywood, marc toberoff, movies, superman, termination rights
Companies: warner bros.

Remember How Hollywood Promised Lots Of New Content If It Could Break Your TV/DVR? Yeah, That's Not Happening...

from the well-that-was-useful dept

With Hollywood getting the right to break your TV and DVR thanks to the FCC's granting of a waiver to let them use selectable output control to stop DVRs from recording certain movies, the MPAA insisted that this was a huge win for consumers. Why? Because it meant that the Hollywood studios would rush to put movies on TV earlier than ever before. Except... apparently, that's not actually the case. Despite the victory, no studios have stepped up to make use of the new ability to stop your DVR from recording, because they're scared about how the movie theaters will react to greater competition. Of course, the theaters are notoriously unwilling to allow any threat of actual competition from home viewership to encroach on their turf, even if it could actually help theaters.

But, uh, the whole argument that supposedly convinced the FCC to give the Hollywood studios this waiver was that they would make use of it to give consumers more access. Quoting from the FCC's decision:

This offering will allow the homebound, parents with young children, and others who simply want to stay in for the night to choose a new entertainment option that they may value highly....

[On] balance, grant of MPAA's waiver request will provide a benefit to those who have the appropriate equipment and would like to view movies in their homes in an early release window that outweighs the limited impact on consumers with legacy devices....

So, a large part of the basis of the FCC approval was that it would increase content availability to homes. But that's not happening. Does that mean the FCC will admit that the entire basis for the approval was wrong?

Oh, and my favorite part is how the MPAA is playing this. Acting MPAA boss Bob Pisano put out the following statement when the FCC's announcement was made on May 17th:

"This action is an important victory for consumers who will now have far greater access to see recent high definition movies in their homes. And it is a major step forward in the development of new business models by the motion picture industry to respond to growing consumer demand..." (emphasis added)

So, gee, what does Pisano have to say, just a few days later when it turns out that none of that is true?

When asked about the studios' plans late last week, Bob Pisano, the president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said, "I can't tell you that, because I don't know." To comply with antitrust law, he added, "we stay out of business-model decisions."

Uh huh. So, let me get this straight. He argued -- successfully -- to the FCC, that granting this waiver to break people's TVs and DVRs would certainly create new business models and allow much more content to be available earlier. But, when it comes to actually supporting that, he claims that the MPAA "stays out" of business model decisions? So, how could he possibly have promised such "new business models" to the FCC in the first place?

Filed Under: dvr, hollywood, movies, selectable output control, soc
Companies: mpaa