Veoh Still Perfectly Legal... But Also Still Dead Due To Bogus Copyright Lawsuit

from the why-SOPA-will-be-abused dept

In what should be a clear warning of the problems with laws like SOPA, we have a new ruling in the UMG v. Veoh case -- and how copyright holders will miss no opportunity to kill off perfectly legal services with bogus copyright claims. As you may recall, Veoh was a YouTube-like site, that was sued by Universal Music because some users had uploaded videos with UMG copyrighted music in them (technically Veoh sued for declaratory judgment first, but only in response to a threat letter from UMG, who followed up with an actual suit of its own). Veoh -- in part funded by former Disney CEO Michael Eisner -- had always been very careful to follow the DMCA notice-and-takedown process. However, in the minds of Hollywood, that's simply never enough. As in the Viacom-YouTube suit, UMG seemed to want to claim that Veoh had to wave a magic wand and figure out what was infringing and make it disappear. Thankfully, a court recognized that Veoh was legal under the DMCA. Still, UMG couldn't resist trying to bury the company in legal costs, not just suing the company, but by also suing the company's investors, in some twisted theory of secondary liability.

Either way, despite being declared perfectly legal, the costs of defending against such a ridiculous lawsuit was too much for a startup like Veoh, and it was forced to shut down, living on solely to keep the case going, so that someone was able to defend against UMG's appeal.

Today we get the excellent news that the 9th Circuit has affirmed the lower court's ruling and noted that Veoh, indeed, was perfectly legal. The ruling is pretty thorough and comprehensive and dismisses some of the ridiculous claims we've see here at times. First, it notes that Veoh is clearly protected by the DMCA. Some (including UMG) have argued repeatedly that because Veoh (and others) don't just "store" the content, but process it for display/performance, that this goes beyond the DMCA protections. The court notes that, if this interpretation is accurate, it makes much of the rest of Section 512(c) of the DMCA totally meaningless -- and that doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, it points out that it would be kind of silly to suggest the DMCA only protects storage but never access:

By its terms, § 512(c) presupposes that service providers will provide access to users’ stored material, and we would thus contravene the statute if we held that such access disqualified Veoh from the safe harbor. Section 512(c) codifies a detailed notice and takedown procedure by which copyright holders inform service providers of infringing material accessible through their sites, and service providers then “disable access to” such materials. 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A)(iii), (c)(1)(C) & (c)(3)(A)(iii) (emphasis added). This carefully considered protocol, and the statute’s attendant references to “disabl[ing] access” to infringing materials, see id., would be superfluous if we accepted UMG’s constrained reading of the statute. See Greenwood v. CompuCredit Corp., 615 F.3d 1204, 1209 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We must, if possible, interpret a statute such that all its language is given effect, and none of it is rendered superfluous.” (citing TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001))). Indeed, it is not clear how copyright holders could even discover infringing materials on service providers’ sites to notify them as the protocol dictates if § 512(c) did not contemplate that there would be access to the materials.

We do not find persuasive UMG’s effort to reconcile the internal contradictions its reading of the statute creates by positing that Congress must have meant § 512(c) to protect only “web hosting” services. Web hosts “host” websites on their servers, thereby “mak[ing] storage resources available to website operators.” The thrust of UMG’s argument seems to be that web hosts do not undertake the sorts of accessibility facilitating functions that Veoh does, and thus the services they perform “fit within the ordinary meaning of ‘storage,’ ” and thereby “harmoniz[e]” with the notice and takedown procedures. UMG’s theory fails to account for the reality that web hosts, like Veoh, also store user-submitted materials in order to make those materials accessible to other Internet users. The reason one has a website is so that others may view it. As amici note, these access activities define web hosting -- if the web host only stored information for a single user, it would be more aptly described as an online back-up service...

Next up is the question of whether or not Veoh fell afoul of the DMCA's "red flag" knowledge provisions -- the part that's the key to the Viacom/YouTube lawsuit. The problem here is that, as with Viacom/YouTube, UMG completely fails because Veoh clearly took down any content as soon as it became aware that the specific content was infringing. Of course, part of the problem here is that UMG never sent a takedown (oops). It just let the RIAA send some notices instead. UMG tries to get around this by arguing that because Veoh had a "music category" it must have known it had infringing material (seriously). The court is not impressed and educated UMG to the fact that, you know, not all music online is infringing:

As an initial matter, contrary to UMG’s contentions, there are many music videos that could in fact legally appear on Veoh. “Among the types of videos subject to copyright protection but lawfully available on Veoh’s system were videos with music created by users and videos that Veoh provided pursuant to arrangements it reached with major copyright holders, such as SonyBMG

Then the court points out that Congress' expressed purpose behind the DMCA was to "facilitate making available quickly and conveniently via the Internet . . . movies, music, software, and literary works" and that's "precisely the service Veoh provides." You can almost hear the sarcasm in the ruling in response to UMG's preposterous suggestion that anyone hosting music online must know it's infringing. The court furthermore goes back to the Betamax ruling:

Cases analyzing knowledge in the secondary copyright infringement context also counsel against UMG’s general knowledge approach. In Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), the Supreme Court held that there was “no precedent in the law of copyright for the imposition of” liability based on the theory that the defendant had “sold equipment with constructive knowledge of the fact that their customers may use that equipment to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted material.” Id. at 439. So long as the product was “capable of substantial noninfringing uses,” the Court refused to impute knowledge of infringement....

Requiring specific knowledge of particular infringing activity makes good sense in the context of the DMCA, which Congress enacted to foster cooperation among copyright holders and service providers in dealing with infringement on the Internet...

From there, the court makes a key point that we've discussed plenty of times: the only one who really knows if the material is infringing is the copyright holder:

Copyright holders know precisely what materials they own, and are thus better able to efficiently identify infringing copies than service providers like Veoh, who cannot readily ascertain what material is copyrighted and what is not.

I feel like that quote needs to be stamped on the foreheads of copyright holders who keep trying to make everyone else become copyright cops for them. No one else knows if the work is authorized or not.

The court goes on to note that this was Congress' clear intent. Otherwise it wouldn't have made it clear that bogus DMCA notices can be ignored. That is, notices that don't provide the specific info don't make service providers liable. UMG (and Viacom) seek to flip that on its head, by arguing that if you know that something somewhere on your site may be infringing, you lose safe harbors and are suddenly liable. That's crazy and makes no sense... as the court clearly understands.

Congress made a considered policy determination that the “DMCA notification procedures [would] place the burden of policing copyright infringement — identifying the potentially infringing material and adequately documenting infringement — squarely on the owners." of the copyright.

The court notes that it sees "no principled basis" for changing Congress' intent here.

We therefore hold that merely hosting a category of copyrightable content, such as music videos, with the general knowledge that one’s services could be used to share infringing material, is insufficient to meet the actual knowledge requirement

The court goes on to remind UMG that it also doesn't own all rights to every artist signed to the label. UMG had argued that because Veoh ads popped up on searches for UMG artists, that Veoh knew it was infringing. But the court notes that's crazy.

UMG argues that Veoh’s purchase of certain search terms through the Google AdWords program demonstrates knowledge of infringing activity because some of the terms purchased, such as “50 Cent,” “Avril Lavigne” and “Britney Spears,” are the names of UMG artists. However, artists are not always in exclusive relationships with recording companies, so just because UMG owns the copyrights for some Britney Spears songs does not mean it owns the copyright for all Britney Spears songs. Indeed, 50 Cent, Avril Lavigne and Britney Spears are also affiliated with Sony- BMG, which gave Veoh permission to stream its videos by these artists. Furthermore, even if Veoh had not had such permission, we recognize that companies sometimes purchase search terms they believe will lead potential customers to their websites even if the terms do not describe goods or services the company actually provides. For example, a sunglass company might buy the search terms “sunscreen” or “vacation” because it believed that people interested in such searches would often also be interested in sunglasses. Accordingly, Veoh’s search term purchases do little to demonstrate that it knew it hosted infringing material.

From there, the court quickly dispatched each of UMG's nuttier attempts to show "red flag" knowledge (an email from a Disney CEO complaining to Eisner, some news articles mentioning that infringing content is on the site and a user complaining that Veoh wouldn't let him upload infringing content by noting that he's seen lots of other infringing content). None of those rise to the level under the DMCA that would show Veoh had red flag knowledge of specific infringing content that would remove safe harbors.

In fact, the court states again that specific (not general) knowledge of infringement is necessary, and that was clearly what Congress intended.

First, Congress explicitly stated in three different reports that the DMCA was intended to “protect qualifying service providers from liability for all monetary relief for direct, vicarious and contributory infringement.” .... Under UMG’s interpretation, however, every service provider subject to vicarious liability would be automatically excluded from safe harbor protection. Second, Congress made clear that it intended to provide safe harbor protection not by altering the common law vicarious liability standards, but rather by carving out permanent safe harbors to that liability for Internet service providers even while the common law standards continue to evolve.

Finally, the court also soundly rejects UMG's attempt to bring Veoh's investors into the lawsuit for vicarious and contributory infringement, as well as inducement. The problem here is that since Veoh was protected by the DMCA there was no infringement that its investors could be guilty of secondarily helping to proceed:

It is well-established that “[s]econdary liability for copyright infringement does not exist in the absence of direct infringement . . . .”

Finally, Veoh itself had appealed the rejection of its request for attorneys fees. Here, Veoh wins a partial victory as the court says that the lower court needs to go back and review some (though not all) of that part of the ruling.

Either way, this should be a huge warning sign for why SOPA/PIPA would be a disaster. Just look at the status of Veoh today. It's out of business due to a totally bogus DMCA claim that forced it into court. At least under the DMCA, it was able to keep its site up. SOPA/PIPA set up a system whereby sites don't just have to defend themselves in court after they've already been shut down, but they can't even keep their business going at all while the process is ongoing. Given situations like Veoh and the Dajaz1 takedown, it should be quite obvious that copyright holders have a long history of killing off perfectly legal services by abusing copyright law. Giving them more ability to do so should insult basic common sense.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, pipa, protect ip, red flag, safe harbors, sopa
Companies: universal music, veoh, viacom, youtube

China Ramps Up Online Censorship Efforts As US Congress Gives Them Perfect Cover

from the this-is-what-we're-allowing dept

As the US seeks to set up its own "Great Firewall" by copying Chinese censorship techniques in the twin bills SOPA and PROTECT IP (PIPA), it appears that China is doing exactly as you would expect when you give a government the tools to censor the internet: it keeps ramping up the censorship. Specifically, it's requiring anyone who uses the local equivalents of Twitter, like Sina Weibo, to register with their real names, which then have to be verified by the government. Then, they're banning the posting of anything the government deems to be "harmful information."

Now, I know that every time we compare SOPA/PIPA to the Great Firewall, the defenders of those bills twist themselves into contortions to explain why it's totally different because US censorship is about "intellectual property" and Chinese censorship is about "political repression." Yeah. Ok. But if you look at what China says, of course they don't say it's about political repression -- they say it's about "harmful information." Kinda like SOPA/PIPA's focus on "rogue sites," right? It's all in how you define it, but the fact is that they're both forms of censorship, and when you open the door to that in the US, you don't want to see where it ends.

And, of course, the State Department -- despite all its rhetoric about "Internet Freedom" -- can't do a damn thing, because the second they say anything to the Chinese, the Chinese point to SOPA/PIPA and say: "Look, you consider copyright infringement to be harmful to the US. We consider people disrespecting our leaders as harmful to China. What's the difference?" And, honestly, the State Department has no credible response. This is why we've been hearing from multiple sources that many people within the State Department are quite upset about SOPA/PIPA. Not only do they undermine online security, but they undermine a multi-year effort to push for more internet freedom abroad.

Filed Under: censorship, china, free speech, pipa, protect ip, real names, sopa

Reuters Media Columnist Explains That SOPA/PIPA Are A 'Cure Worse Than The Disease'

from the of-course-they-are dept

In the continuing mainstream news realization that SOPA and PIPA are dreadful bills that won't stop infringement, but will have massive negative consequences for the internet, we've got Reuters' (formerly Slate's) celebrated media columnist, Jack Shafer, explaining how "Hollywood's pirate cure is worse than the disease." If you've been following Techdirt for a while, there's nothing really new here, but it is a nice summary. I especially like the part where he responds to a Fox exec claiming that Hollywood's "mistake" was allowing people to call infringement "piracy" (no, really, Tom Rothman, co-CEO of Fox Filmed Entertainment actually said that):

...resorting to this sort of hyperbole is just the Hollywood way of winning an argument. In 1982, Jack Valenti, then head of the movie business’s trade association, told Congress in 1982 that the VCR was “to the American film producer and the American public what the Boston Strangler is to the American woman at home alone.” The happy Hollywood ending to that copyright Armageddon? The VCR made the movie industry ridiculously wealthy by creating a new sales channel.

Pirates and the “intellectual-property defense industry” ([Adrian] Johns’s delightful phrase) have been clashing at least once a century since the end of the Middle Ages. Sometimes cultural changes spur the fight, as in the Enlightenment era when the first modern copyright and patent systems took hold, he writes. But leaps in technology drive the conflict, too, as the histories of inexpensive movable type, the piano roll, the Victrola, the VCR, the personal computer, and the Internet prove. The faster that technology moves, the more vicious the fight. In recent decades, the piracy debate has moved to those new industries that have persuaded the government to expand the IP rights to their plant seeds and genes. (And, yes, the agriculture and pharmaceutical industries have allied themselves with the entertainment complex in this current political battle.)

In the end, Shafer notes that even as he makes his living creating "intellectual property," he can't support such awful bills.

As someone who creates "intellectual property" (I shudder at the phrase) for a living and works for a huge company that owns slews of it, I have a vested interest in this fight. But SOPA or PIP would do excess damage to free speech, free association, free commerce, and innovation in the name of scuttling the Internet’s scurvy pirates. As the character Ramon Miguel “Mike” Vargas says in Orson Welles’s Touch of Evil, “A policeman’s job is only easy in a police state.”

Filed Under: hollywood, jack shafer, pipa, protect ip, sopa

New Anti-SOPA Song & Crowdsourced Video From Dan Bull

from the sopa-can-ban-ya dept

We've written about UK singer Dan Bull a bunch of times, highlighting his various songs that often cover copyright issues. His latest is an anti-SOPA song and video, called SOPA Cabana (take a wild guess what that's a reference to). Check out the video here first, and read on below about the video and why it's interesting (beyond the music/lyrics): First of all, what strikes me as most interesting about this is that Dan's not in the US, but the UK. But he recognizes how this law being debated in the US can have a significant and dangerous impact around the world. In talking about his reasons for doing a song about SOPA, Dan noted that "SOPA is abhorrent on three fronts:"

Firstly, it threatens the future of the internet, which is something far more valuable both commercially and socially than the entertainment industry ever has been, or ever will be.

Secondly, creativity is all about interpreting and re-imagining what you see and hear around you. The idea that creativity exists in some kind of vacuum, and that you're not a real artist unless you can make something "completely original" is not only stupid, it contradicts the most fundamental axioms of how the universe works. Everything is influenced by something else. If we want a richer cultural landscape, we should embrace remixes, embrace mashups, and embrace sharing, not cling to ideas as pieces of property.

Thirdly, the internet is an amazing new forum for free speech and holding those in power us to account. The idea that governments and even private corporations can police the internet and decide what people on a global scale are allowed to say and hear is tyrannical.

Perhaps even more interesting, however, is how the song and video came together. After deciding he wanted to write a song about SOPA, he reached out to his followers on Twitter, asking for "help with themes and lyrics." After getting a bunch of ideas, and realizing he should do something different for the video, he went on Facebook and asked for volunteers to take photos of themselves holding up signs with the various lyrics... and tons and tons of people jumped at the chance. The whole video was put together over the last few hours, and the whole effort is pretty impressive.

Dan Bull is a musician. The entertainment industry and the lobbyists supporting SOPA insist that they're doing this to protect people like Dan Bull -- but Dan is quite reasonably scared of what this law will do to his ability to succeed online. Dan Bull is as well known as he is because of the internet, and his ability to share his works wherever and however he likes. SOPA would make that a lot more difficult. It doesn't "protect" Dan Bull. It helps destroy the careers of folks like Dan Bull by limiting their ability to create, promote, distribute and communicate.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, dan bull, pipa, protect ip, sopa, sopa cabana

Opinion Piece On CBS Says Chris Dodd Should Be Fired For His 'Intransigent' Position On SOPA/PIPA

from the working-together? dept

Over the last few months, MPAA boss Chris Dodd has been promoting SOPA and PIPA by repeating the refrain that Hollywood and Silicon Valley shouldn't be fighting each other, and they need to work together. However, the reality is something entirely different. By "working together" he seems to mean "the tech community should just agree to everything Hollywood wants, no matter how counterproductive." He's missed no opportunity to exclude the input of the tech industry (and even the wider content industry). This isn't a huge surprise. Dodd has a history of playing fast and loose with the facts, as well as flip-flopping when politically convenient. This includes his promise not to work as a lobbyist just a short while before taking over the MPAA -- a lobbying organization.

But it's nice to see that some have finally had enough of Chris Dodd's claims here -- and even from within his supposed "supporters." CBS has been a supporter of SOPA/PIPA, but CBS News has an opinion piece by Brad Chase, about how the tech world and Hollywood need to work more closely together, and the first key point they make is that Chris Dodd has been obstructionist on this point and needs to go:

Like the American Civil War, a polarizing figure is at the heart of the rift between North and South. Whereas Abraham Lincoln recognized the inherent need for a united house, MPAA chairman Chris Dodd has no such noble intent or practical understanding. The intransigent former senator - no stranger to putting self-interest above the cause from his days pandering to the banking industry - has done everything possible to widen the rift between Hollywood and Silicon Valley. He's made a huge mistake systematically shutting the tech industry out of the conversation and trying to unilaterally push through new regulation. The 21st century merging of content and delivery platforms creates a natural partnership in this fight, but Dodd stands in the way. It's time the MPAA gives Dodd a one-way ticket back to Washington.

Filed Under: censorship, china, chris dodd, pipa, principles, protect ip, sopa, us
Companies: mpaa

The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US

from the um,-really? dept

As we continue the fight over SOPA and PROTECT IP (PIPA), the MPAA and the politicians supporting these bills are ratcheting up the ridiculousness. You may recall that we recently highlighted the absolutely ridiculous paper by Daniel Castro for the shill shop ITIF, supposedly responding to SOPA/PIPA critics, but really showing just how weak and ridiculous the arguments on the pro-censorship side are. One of the points Castro raises is that DNS filtering "works." How does he know? Because, he points out, thirteen countries already do DNS filtering and research from Harvard suggests not too many people try to get around the filters.

Of course, Castro doesn't happen to name those thirteen countries, so you have to go digging for them, which is how you come up with the following list:

• China
• Iran
• United Arab Emirates
• Armenia
• Ethiopia
• Saudi Arabia
• Yemen
• Bahrain
• Burma (Myanmar)
• Syria
• Turkmenistan
• Uzbekistan
• Vietnam

Yes, it's a sort of a who's who of the most repressive regimes on the planet. I think the only reason North Korea didn't make the list is because no one has internet access there. So this raises two key points. Perhaps the reason the filtering has worked in those countries, and not too many people try to get around the filters, is because they know if they're caught, they might get locked up or killed.

But, more to the point: is this really the list of countries that Lamar Smith, Patrick Leahy, the MPAA and Daniel Castro think that the US ought to go about emulating? Really?

Filed Under: censorship, china, copyright, countries, daniel castro, examples, iran, pipa, protect ip, sopa

How SOPA Will Be (Ab)Used

from the in-case-you-were-wondering dept

Proponents of the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) and its Senate counterpart PROTECT-IP often affect incredulity that anyone would "defend piracy" by describing their valiant attempts to stamp out "rogue sites" as a threat to free speech or innovation. Recording Industry Association of America head Cary Sherman, for instance, recently insisted to The New York Times that the bills are "specifically designed to focus on the worst of the worst sites whose model is predicated on theft." This would be more convincing if the content industries weren't so clearly continuing their long, proud tradition of making aggressive and overbroad copyright claims that would impede speech and innovation.

In the 80s, Universal Studios famously sued Sony to block the sale of Betamax VCRs, which could be used to "facilitate" the infringement of copyrights in shows and movies aired on broadcast television. Blocking VCR sales, of course, might also have strengthened the market position of the DiscoVision laserdisc system being developed by MCA, Universal's parent company. The Supreme Court eventually vindicated Sony, but Universal did manage to persuade one lower court to rule in their favor. If SOPA's blocking provisions could be implemented in the physical world, every VCR (and maybe every Sony product) would have stopped working after that first favorable ruling, until Sony could meet the burden of proving its innocence in a U.S. court. Of course, under a rule like that, consumers might have been wary of buying a VCR in the first place.

And today? It's the Universal Music Group heading to court, after using a dubious copyright claim to take down an embarrassing video in which pop stars sing the praises of the site Megaupload. Megaupload, you see, is a file locker site, and the recording industry has made it crystal clear that it's at the top of the industry's list of "rogue sites" that should be targeted under SOPA. Indeed, when the content industries talk about why SOPA is needed, they invariably cite file lockers generally as the very epitome of a "rogue site." It is, therefore, a little awkward to have their own artists pointing out the obvious: File lockers can be used by pirates to share infringing files, but also host an enormous amount of perfectly legitimate content, uploaded by users who would be effectively silenced (and cut off from their own files) if the entire site were blocked. Similarly, the recording industry thinks copyright gives it the power to veto cloud-based music storage services, which serve as a kind of virtual hard drive from which users can remotely access and play their own legally purchased and uploaded music. It's a great convenience for consumers—but the labels think they can use copyright to stop it unless they're paid a cut.

We might also look to some of the seizures of U.S.-registered sites by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The sports site Rojadirecta—registered in the U.S. but based in Spain—was seized on the theory that linking to infringing video of sporting events hosted elsewhere on the Internet is enough to trigger forfeiture, even though Spanish courts have repeatedly ruled that such conduct (however shady it might seem) is legal in Spain. As lawyers for the government argued, invoking the very same statute that would provide the basis for SOPA censorship:

"[A]ny property used ... in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of an offense [such as criminal copyright infringement]" is subject to forfeiture.... Moreover, it is "[i]rrelevant whether the property's role in the crime is integral, essential or indispensable,"... and a single incident of facilitating criminal activity is sufficient to trigger forfeiture.

The government further notes that they're not directly charging Rojadirecta with criminal infringement (nor indeed do they ever have to bring such charges), which means no need to meet that pesky "beyond reasonable doubt" standard—or even "probable cause". All the government needs for forfeiture, they assert, is a "reasonable belief" that a domain is being used to "facilitate" criminal infringement. This despite the fact that, in the context of obscenity laws, the Supreme Court has held that "Mere probable cause to believe a violation has transpired is not adequate to remove books or film from circulation." Now, Rojadirecta's business model is certainly shady, and maybe they're even guilty of criminal infringement. But are we really comfortable with an entire domain, including vibrant discussion forums that clearly enable protected, non-infringing speech, being blocked pursuant to a "reasonable belief" standard, forcing the company to hire U.S. lawyers and prove their innocence to win the right to speak to U.S. users?

Then there's the case of Dajaz1.com, a hip hop blog seized for over a year by the government for hosting infringing music files. Except it turned out that those files had actually been provided by PR firms, working for the music labels, who hoped blogs like Dajaz1 would circulate them to create buzz for up-and-coming artists. Oops!

As legal scholar Jason Mazzone has amply documented, the use of dubious copyright claims to chill legitimate speech is depressingly common. The voting machine manufacturer Diebold has tried to use copyright to shut down whistleblower sites that published internal e-mails highlighting security vulnerabilities in software that could determine the outcome of elections. The Church of Scientology has similarly invoked copyright to stifle criticism. In Russia, political opposition groups are routinely raided under the pretext of searching for copyrighted software. Research suggests that most copyright takedown claims to search engines like Google are issued by companies targeting their competitors, and that nearly a third of takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act lack a clear basis.

I could easily fill a dozen long blog posts with examples, but let's cut to the chase. Major movie studios and music labels draw a lot of water in D.C.: the fact that a bill as massively unpopular as SOPA is even being seriously considered, let alone likely to pass, is proof of that. They will effectively control which foreign domains the Justice Department chooses to block directly, and shop around for friendly judges amenable to rubber-stamping orders in civil litigation that require payment providers and ad networks to cut off disfavored sites. The likely targets are their competitors, whether the copyright claims are valid or not. Sites like YouTube that provide entertaining user-generated videos are one less reason to pony up for the next lackluster Adam Sandler movie. Sites that give musicians a way to gain exposure to fans and market their albums without giving a cut to the increasingly redundant middleman threaten to make the labels obsolete. And if open platforms invariably end up hosting some infringing content uploaded by users? Well, that's as good a pretext as any for shutting down the competition.

Why do critics of SOPA worry that the bill will threaten legitimate speech and innovation? Because its supporters have spent three decades providing overwhelming justification for that fear at every opportunity. If I may end by making a bit of "fair use" of the genius of former Smiths' front-man Morrisey:

He was a sweet and tender hooligan, hooligan

He said that he'd never, never do it again

And of course he won't, oh, not until the next time

Empowered with the ability to threaten blocking of entire domains, I'd rather not see what the copyright hooligans do "next time."

Filed Under: abuse, censorship, copyright, history, pipa, protect ip, sopa

Senator Harry Reid Moves To Approve PROTECT IP And Begin Censoring The Internet

from the people-vs.-hollywood dept

Apparently ignoring the widespread protests about both SOPA and PROTECT IP (PIPA) from the last few months (and the momentum growing against both bills), it was announced over the weekend that Harry Reid is seeking to override the hold on PIPA put forth by Senator Ron Wyden (along with Senators Jerry Moran, Maria Cantwell and Rand Paul) by seeking cloture. This isn't a huge surprise. Last week Senator Reid had informed other Democratic Senators that he intended PROTECT IP to be the first bill he brought to the floor when the Senate returns for business in January. So, now the cloture vote will happen January 24th, 2012 just as the Senate comes back into session. That means there's a little over a month where Hollywood is going to make every effort it can to get Senators over to its side. They need 60 Senators to betray the Constitution and to undermine a decade and a half's work on online security for a plan that won't actually help Hollywood at all. But, with Hollywood flinging money around DC like they're making record revenues at the box office (which... um... they are), they've already got 40 Senators signed on. That means there's a month to make sure 20 other Senators don't betray their country, their economy and the internet.

The really disappointing part in all of this is that these Senators appear to remain totally out of touch to the public opinion on these bills. They simply look at Hollywood, the US Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO and see dollar signs. These groups fund campaigns, and 2012 is an election season. So, might as well try to make them happy. Public will be damned. Of course, the one way to defeat dollars is with voters. The more constituents who reach out and call their Senators, or (better yet) go and visit them and explain how this bill is a disaster that undermines everything America stands for, the better. So, start calling...

Filed Under: copyright, free speech, harry reid, pipa, protect ip, senate, sopa

Cable News Finally Realizing That SOPA And PROTECT IP Are Bad News

from the here-it-comes... dept

Well, well, well. We've noted in the past that while the serious concerns about SOPA and PROTECT IP (PIPA) have been all over the web and newspapers, they've mostly been mostly been absent from cable news... companies that are owned by the biggest supporters of these bills (the one "exception" was Colbert). But can cable news really continue to ignore the story while so many people are speaking out about it? Looks like the tide may be shifting. On Friday, Fox Business Channel had on Jim Harper from the Cato Institute to explain why these are terrible ideas and how Congress is trying to rush it through despite so many concerns: Similarly, it sounds like MSNBC is planning something as well. Will Congress really still be able to pretend that people don't care about these bills?

Filed Under: cable news, copyright, jim harper, pipa, protect ip, sopa

Senator Dianne Feinstein: So Out Of Touch, She Doesn't Realize Tech Companies Are Vehemently Against PROTECT IP

from the wake-up dept

In the debates over SOPA and PROTECT IP (PIPA), one thing that has been clear is that neither California Senator has been any help at all. When asked about this, I've been told, multiple times, that despite both being from Northern California, as long-term politicians they're completely ignorant of technology issues, and "follow the money" down to Southern California. We've already written about Zach Carter's excellent behind the scenes report on the politicking behind SOPA and PROTECT IP, but there's one ridiculous tidbit that was worth highlighting to show just how incredibly out of touch Senator Dianne Feinstein is. When asked about this issue, Feinstein appeared totally clueless, believing that the tech industry was fine with the bills:

When HuffPost asked Feinstein, a Protect IP co-sponsor, if it was difficult for her to navigate the bill with Silicon Valley and Hollywood on opposite sides, she responded: "I don't believe that they are. I thought we had reconciled the issues. The bill's been passed out of committee." The response seems incredible given the outcry from Silicon Valley, and Google in particular, but the complexity of the legislation has left many lawmakers vulnerable to K Street spin.

Apparently Feinstein is completely blind to the very vocal outrage from some of the largest tech companies around, including Google, Yahoo, eBay, Twitter, Facebook, Mozilla, Wikipedia and more. This is not someone listening to the people. It's someone following the money.

Filed Under: california, clueless, copyright, dianne feinstein, protect ip, silicon valley, sopa