Hollywood Front Group Rounds Up 4,000 Letters Sent To Congress, Pretending It's 100,000

from the hollywood-math dept

It's no secret that the Hollywood studios have a reputation for highly questionable accounting practices, and apparently that carries over into their attempts to show "support" for censoring the internet via PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE. A few weeks ago, we wrote about the totally bogus group CreativeAmerica, which is an astroturfing group set up by the major Hollywood studios, pretending to be a "grassroots" group. Dig a little, and you'll find that CreativeAmerica was actually set up by Disney, Warnber Bros., NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox and Sony Pictures. "Grassroots" that is not. It's made even more obvious by the fact that the folks at CreativeAmerica don't even hide it. If this were really an upstart grassroots campaign, would NBC Universal hand out its mugs to employees, and if it were really an upstarts grassroots campaign, would 20th Century Fox put up a giant banner on its studio lot for the group?

The answer is no. Anyone who takes a few seconds to investigate recognizes that this is a slick studio-run operation... from the same studios that use creative math to never pay royalties to actors in even some of the most successful movies of all time.

So is it really any surprise that they're playing fast and loose with the facts when it comes to puffing up their support. Yesterday, CreativeAmerica (and the MPAA) hyped up on Twitter that members had sent over 100,000 letters to Congress in support of PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE. Of course, if you actually went to CreativeAmerica's website, where the letter generator existed (and, again, unlike all of the letter generators for those against these bills, on CreativeAmerica's site, no creativity is allowed -- you can only send their exact message) you see the following: I'm pretty sure I can count. And, um, 4,191 appears to be just a bit short of 100,000. Well, it actually appears to be 95,809 short. And while it might be okay to round up if you were actually getting close, I don't think rounding up from 4,000 to 100,000 is particularly honest. Two of our regular contributors challenged the studio-run CreativeAmerica on this, and they were both told that CreativeAmerica was also counting the people who signed a Change.org petition. First of all, a petition is not a letter. They're two separate things. So that seems a bit misleading. But, okay, in the spirit of giving Hollywood a fighting chance here, even if we grant them the petition signatures, a look at the actual petition shows the following: Okay, that's 33,000 more signatures. Even if we take all of these at face value, we're at just about 37,500 signatures. Again, even at that point you can't round up to 100,000. Well, I mean, you can, but it makes you a blatantly intellectually dishonest liar. CreativeAmerica: creative about numbers, apparently.

Oh, and let's just take a look at the "reasons why people signed" the petition that CreativeAmerica is so proud of. It looks like almost half of the people who chose to leave a message are asking how to "unsign" the petition, because they didn't realize that the group was an astroturf group looking to go against the best interests of actual artists. Here are a few examples:



So, it seems like a bunch of the folks who "signed" the petition are now asking to back out. Just for the sake of comparison, I spoke to the folks at Demand Progress to find out how many letters they had sent... and the answer is 100,000 in the last week alone, and they have the stats to prove it. On top of that, the Fight for the Future guys have been able to get over 80,000 people to sign petitions. So if we just look at that (and note that the CreativeAmerica campaign has been going on for much more than a week), it seems like CreativeAmerica is taking after its corporate masters on PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE: ignore what the data actually says and lie, lie, lie... all the way up to Capitol Hill.

Filed Under: astroturfing, front groups, protect ip, sopa
Companies: creativeamerica

Some Actual Backlash For Groups That Unthinkingly Sign Their Name In Support Of Telco Positions

from the policy-backlash dept

For years, we've covered how slimy DC-insiders and secretive "lobbying" firms have a list of "interest groups" that they "fund" in order to use them to support various initiatives they don't really care about. The telling quote from someone involved in these astroturfing efforts:

"You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"

AT&T has been working overtime on this front, and we've seen random groups who really are unlikely to have any interest in the AT&T/T-Mobile merger come out in favor of it, culminating in the ultimate in ridiculous arguments, from a rural education group, that the merger would help kids do better in school (yes, seriously).

Of course, this still goes on because there's almost no downside. We can call it out every time it happens, and most people just don't seem to care very much. But, every so often, actual members of these groups recognize the problems with such things, and they speak up. Broadband Reports has the news of how GLAAD's boss has been pressured into resigning after membership grew quite concerned about GLAAD's sudden endorsement of the merger -- and some connections between the company and the organization are suddenly being scrutinized. Whether or not you agree with the merger, it seems pretty sleazy to line up random interest groups in support of or against it.

It's tragic that this is the way of DC. It's not about doing what's right, or focusing on the best argument possible. It's a purely cynical land grab about who can do whatever it takes to get certain things rammed through. It's nice that, just once, there are repercussions for some of the organizations that let themselves be flat-out used in this manner.

Filed Under: astroturfing, backlash, lobbying
Companies: at&t, glaad, t-mobile

Supposed 'Grass Roots' Site Pushing For Canadian DMCA Admits That It's Funded By The Recording Industry

from the well,-look-at-that dept

It didn't take long for people to see through the bogus astroturfing site, BalancedCopyrightForCanada.ca, designed to look like a grass roots site in support of the new Canadian DMCA law, Bill C-32. Pretty quickly, people suggested that the site was obviously a front for the big record labels who have been behind the push for a Canadian DMCA for years. The site started hiding some information, but now Michael Geist points out that the site has finally 'fessed up to the fact that it was funded by the CRIA, which is really just the RIAA in Canadian clothing. How very grassroots. It also seems noteworthy that on the advisory board for the site is Richard Owens, the copyright lawyer who, just before the new bill was introduced, got some media attention for his ridiculous attempt to smear the public for their input during last year's public consultation on copyright reform. Of course, those consultations showed an overwhelming majority of those who took part were against a ridiculous digital locks/anti-circumvention policy, which is found in the law. It seems downright laughable that a group pretending to be a "grassroots" group would put on its board a guy who went out of his way to mock and discount an actual grassroots effort.

Filed Under: astroturfing, canada, copyright, dmca
Companies: balanced copyright, cria, riaa

Major Labels Begin Major Astroturfing Campaign To Get 3 Strikes In The US

from the begin-astroturfing-now... dept

A friend just forwarded me an email "from" the CEO of Universal Music (really from an email marketing campaign system if you look at the headers) that encourages him to push for new laws in the US to kick people offline for file sharing. To date, the RIAA and others in the recording industry have known better than to seriously push for a three strikes-type legislation in the US, knowing that it is a battle that they very well might lose. They had hoped, quite strongly, that various ISPs would come to simply agree to implement a three strikes plan to kick people offline after three accusations (not convictions) of copyright infringement. But it's been nearly a year and a half since the RIAA believed those deals were close, and there's still nothing to show for it. Nothing.

So, it looks like the industry is going to plan B: which is going back to trying to ram through legislation that will require ISPs to take the draconian step of protecting one industry's broken business model. And to get this going, it looks like the industry has set up a neat little set of astroturfing groups and "consumer" campaigns that try to hide the specifics, but clearly are designed to get similar three strikes legislation (similar to the Digital Economy Act in the UK) put in place in the US.

The letter starts out by making it sound like a populist sort of deal:

I've received hundreds of e-mails enthusiastically reacting to my "call to action" at the National Association of Recording Merchandisers convention last month. The music business is facing huge challenges from piracy and theft. Never before in American history has an entire industry been so decimated by illegal behavior. Yet the government has not responded in a meaningful way to help us address this crisis. My call to action is for all of us to become more aggressive in lobbying our government, more outspoken in drawing attention to the problems caused by piracy and more actively engaged. We cannot win this fight alone.

Note the choice of language. "Hundreds of emails" is his way of suggesting that there's a groundswell of public support. But, for what kind of "call to action"? Ah, the one where we ask the government to protect Universal Music's business model. Amusingly enough, at last year's NARM, I gave a presentation on all sorts of ways that the industry could thrive through adopting new business models. I was told that two RIAA members specifically asked the conference not to let me speak, and while I do not believe anyone from Universal Music attended my speech, they did have incredibly scantily clad models standing outside the door inviting people to go to a party. Perhaps instead of partying and lobbying the government, you could have looked at what's actually working, instead of complaining that nothing will work.

Governments outside the U.S. are legislating, regulating and playing a prominent role in discussions with ISPs (Internet Service Providers). Sales have dramatically improved in these countries. How is it that the U.S. - with the most successful music community in the world - is not keeping up with places like South Korea, France, the UK and New Zealand?

And here we go. Note that the four countries named all put in place forms of "three strikes" legislation recently to kick file sharers off the internet based on accusations, not convictions. By naming those four countries, the letter is implicitly calling for support for three strikes legislation requiring ISPs to try to prop up Universal's failing business model.

As I said in my speech, I hope that the industry can negotiate a voluntary deal with the ISPs. We need our government representatives to encourage this. But whether or not we reach a deal with the ISPs, our government needs to know that we've got a piracy problem and we need real solutions. To accomplish this, our government needs to hear from all of us, so they know that their constituents are out here. Join me in calling on our elected officials to fight piracy. Please help by forwarding this email to your colleagues, friends- everyone who loves music. And consider enlisting your entire company to help in this fight. Then by clicking on the link below a message will be sent to your representatives in Washington. Help us launch a viral campaign to cut off access to the online sites that are used to steal our music, our property and our jobs. In only takes a second but it can make a tremendous impact.

And here we go. The call to make this into a "viral" campaign. Well, let's look at the details. While Universal uses some nasty "spy on your clickthrough" HTML attempts to hide the actual sites it's sending you to, it's not difficult to figure out more details on this campaign. The first place they want you to go is to a website for MusicRightsNow.org, which automatically forwards you to a Facebook page. Facebook page? Why that looks all grassrootsy and made by "the people" right? Not a recording industry front at all! It even includes a neat little inclusive manifesto claiming to represent everyone:

"Music rights now" is a community of individuals who believe music has value and is worthy of protection from online theft. We are songwriters, artists, musicians, recording studio engineers, managers, retailers, record company employees, publishers, performing rights organization employees, music producers, truck drivers, lawyers, stylists, music video directors, laborers, photographers, graphic designers, DJs, radio employees, music fans -- and countless others' who have joined together to fight for the survival of artistry and the music industry.

Except, of course, infringement is not "theft" and a grassroots group of folks getting together to "fight for the survival of artistry and the music industry" don't get the CEO of Universal Music to announce their coming out party. As for the "survival of artistry and the music industry," as we were just pointing out, both are doing fantastic. More music is being created and consumed than ever before. More money is being spent and made on the music industry than ever before. In fact, it really seems like the only people who are suffering happen to work at a few companies that have refused to adapt with the times... like the major record labels. So, can we cancel this campaign? It looks like the actual music industry is doing great.

But, let's explore further.

So who's actually behind "Music Rights Now"? Well, the Facebook breadcrumbs lead to Music United -- a long term recording industry front group that was mocked mercilessly nearly a decade ago, for its incredibly lame attempts to "speak the language of kids today" to teach them that file sharing is bad. It doesn't look like things have improved much. The front page points to a widely debunked study (which it refers to as "credible") claiming that file sharing has cost $12.5 billion dollars to the US economy and has killed 70,000 jobs. Then there's this fun bit of misleading propaganda:

The unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted music is JUST AS ILLEGAL AS SHOPLIFTING A CD. Sharing music on peer-to-peer networks like Ares, BitTorrent, Gnutella, Limewire, and Morpheus is against the law. The rules are very simple. Unless you own the copyright, it's not yours to distribute.

A bit out of date there on the list of file sharing networks, of course. Also, "just as illegal" is a bit misleading. Both are, in fact, illegal, but under very, very different laws. But the key point is that they're wrong. Making a blanket statement that "sharing music on peer-to-peer networks... is against the law," is flat out wrong. It would be news to all of the musicians we know who encourage their work be shared online. The web page also claims that "Digital theft is killing the music business." Again, the evidence we just pointed to yesterday shows that music is doing better than ever.

Of course, in the fine print, we get the list of who's behind this. It includes all the usual suspects: the RIAA, the NMPA, ASCAP, SESAC, SoundExchange, the SGA, A2IM, BMI, AFTRA and a variety of other smaller organizations that represent labels and publishers. Consumer groups? Nope. Of course not. This is not, after all, a consumer driven effort. It's just designed to look like one.

Either way, it seems clear that the industry is realizing that ISPs aren't going to agree to kick people offline based on accusations, so it's kicking off a well-coordinated campaign to get the government to help, and pressure it to put in place the same sort of overly draconian protectionist measures that don't actually help musicians or the music industry -- but clearly try to prop up the failed and dying business model of a few middlemen. Not surprisingly, this seems well-timed to go with the expected release this week of the report from the White House's IP Enforcement Coordinator (IP Czar), Victoria Espinel.... How much do people want to bet her report also fits in with propping up those businesses?

Filed Under: astroturfing, copyright, grassroots, three strikes
Companies: riaa, universal music

Why Are Supporters Of Canadian DMCA Against Original Thought In Writing In Support Of The Bill?

from the that's-copyright! dept

You may recall that, earlier this year, as part of the entertainment industry's media campaign leading up to the introduction of the new Canadian DMCA, a report was put out that tried to discredit the massive public outcry against any sort of DMCA-like legislation. Part of that report mocked the fact that many of the submissions came via an online system with suggested text that was editable. It also mocked the fact that the system could be gamed (though, the details showed that gaming that system actually wasn't that easy). Of course, now that the industry is trying to drum up some appearance of public support for the bill... it seems that they're going even further than what they accused the other side of doing.

Michael Geist notes that the fake, RIAA-backed "grassroots" site called BalancedCopyrightforCanada.ca now has its own letter-generating system, and unlike the one that the industry folks mocked, this one doesn't even let you edit it. You have to send the letter exactly as it's written by the industry folks behind the site.

This is pretty ironic: this is a site supposedly in favor of encouraging greater creativity through copyright, and yet it allows no creativity or original thought at all in writing to your elected official about the law. On top of that, similar to the claims that the original letter writing campaign could have been "gamed" by Americans or others, Geist notes that "the site has already been subject to gaming from non-Canadians as a random search of members turned up at least one U.S. based record company executive with Warner Music." So apparently for all the "complaints" the recording industry folks had against the way actual citizens responded to requests for comments on copyright law in Canada, they'll set up the same systems taken to an even greater extreme.

Filed Under: astroturfing, canada, copyright, dmca

Retired Telco PR Exec Who Sent XYZ Corp. Letter To FCC Insists He Wrote It

from the uh-huh... dept

We've already written about how a former PR exec from what became AT&T has been outed as the guy who sent a letter to the FCC where he forgot to take out the boilerplate XYZ Organization that was almost certainly left there by the AT&T lobbyists who wrote the letter for him. However, one of our commenters noted that MediaPost spoke to the guy, Bob Sells, who insists that he wrote the letter with the XYZ part included:

Sells, a 77-year-old retired public relations executive in Little Rock, tells MediaPost that he often writes letters with placeholders and fills in the correct text later, but overlooked the reference to XYZ in this case.

Really? I'm really trying to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, but I can't come up with a single explanation for why he would write "XYZ Organization" when writing a letter himself from a group of people he supposedly represents. If you're the one writing the letter, on behalf of your supposed organization, why would you include "XYZ Organization"?

Filed Under: astroturfing, bob sells, cut and paste, lobbying, net neutrality
Companies: at&t

Guy Who Signed 'XYZ Corp.' Astroturf Letter... Worked As Telco PR Person For Nearly 3 Decades?

from the funny-how-that-works... dept

So, remember last week when we wrote about how anti-net neutrality lobbyists from AT&T had crafted astroturf letters for various "special interest groups" to sign -- but someone forgot to remove the boilerplate "XYZ Organization" in the first paragraph? We also noted that there was little evidence that the group -- the Arkansas Retired Seniors -- actually existed. However, Matt Cutts did a bit of digging and found that the name of the guy who signed the letter -- Bob Sells -- appears to have worked in PR for Southwestern Bell for 28 years (there appears to be only one Bob Sells or Robert Sells in Little Rock). Southwestern Bell, of course, became better known as SBC. SBC, of course, became AT&T after it bought the old AT&T and took on its name. So, if you're an AT&T lobbyist and you want to convince the FCC that "seniors" are against net neutrality -- and you don't want it to appear to come from AT&T employees -- who better to go to than an ex-employee? Still, next time you get a former employee to shill for you, remember to replace the bogus XYZ Organization you left for him in the text of the letter you sent him.

Filed Under: astroturfing, bob sells, cut and paste, lobbying, net neutrality
Companies: at&t, sbc, southwestern bell

Dear Lobbyists: When Crafting Astroturf Letters, Remember To Do A Search & Replace On XYZ Corp.

from the just-a-suggestion dept

We were just talking about how one of the worst tricks of DC lobbyists is to get various special interest groups to send letters on your behalf, even though those are really written by the lobbyists themselves. The quote in that original article that highlights the practice shows how it works:

"You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"

Indeed. Well, it looks like in the process of faxing and telling a senior citizen's group what they were in favor of, AT&T's anti-net neutrality lobbyists forgot to do a bit of searching and replacing. Karl Bode points us to a hilarious letter filed with the FCC about net neutrality (pdf), officially on behalf of the Arkansas Retired Seniors Coalition -- the exact type of group often used in these astroturfing campaigns -- which suggests that someone didn't proofread the letter first: Right in the first paragraph, it looks like the Arkansas Retired Seniors (or perhaps the lobbyist directly) forgot to change out the boilerplate statement: "XYZ organization shares this concern." XYZ organization, huh? Here's an editing tip for AT&T's lobbyists: when crafting such letters with boilerplate language that's supposed to get changed at a later date before being sent off to the FCC, you should highlight that text in a different color. Saves embarrassing mistakes like this one.

In researching this further, Karl also can't find any other evidence that the Arkansas Retired Seniors exist. Separately, he found another mistake by the lobbyists when it sent a different anti-net neutrality letter from Grumman Shipbuilding (ship builders against neutrality?). This one wasn't as egregious, but the lobbyists forgot to remove the header info that says "Governor/PUC Letters to FCC on Net Neutrality" with the neat little classification system the lobbyists use: "Letter 2: Specific to Investment and Employment." Wonder what the original header for XYZ organization was?

Filed Under: astroturfing, cut and paste, lobbying

Tech Lobbying/PR Firm Outed For Faked Op-Eds

from the what-will-the-corn-farmers-do? dept

We get tons of PR spam here at Techdirt, most of which is simply an attempt to get us to write about this or that startup or product launch. It pretty much all gets trashed. Occasionally we hear from various tech lobbyists as well, pushing an angle on a story that supports the angle they're pushing. But one of the oddest experiences we've had was with a firm called LawMedia Group, which we wrote about earlier this year when Declan McCullagh outed the group as having allegedly composed a letter from a group of corn farmers somehow opposed to Google and Yahoo working together. Why corn farmers would be interested in such things isn't clear -- but McCullagh pulled back some of the curtain on the way these sorts of lobbyist groups act, picking a somewhat random "group" and then writing these sorts of letters and simply placing the group's name on the top -- even if (as in the corn farmers/internet advertising situation) the group has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

In our case, as mentioned, the folks at LawMedia Group started out by acting as if we were close friends, and then insisting that they had some really secret info that was damaging to FCC boss Kevin Martin. It's no surprise why they would approach us on the subject -- as we've written critically about Martin for years. After ignoring repeated requests for a phone call during which this info would be "revealed," I finally said that if they had anything they wanted me to see, just send it over. And so they sent a bunch of stuff that basically confirmed what was well known: Kevin Martin has friends who work at AT&T. Shocking, right, that a telco regulator might have friends at a telco? But, of course, it was positioned in a way to make it look really secretive, even to the point of suggesting that Martin really worked for AT&T. In other words, it was totally bogus. I told the guy at LMG that the info seemed pretty pointless, and never spoke to him again -- though he and other colleagues keep emailing stories that might make Martin look bad.

Now Declan is back with more stories of questionable activities by LawMedia Group, including what would appear to be a series of op-ed pieces published in newspapers using the names of people who don't even agree with what's in the op-ed, but, from the sound of it, may have effectively rented their name out to LMG to use in the op-ed. Most of the article focuses on a guy in Boston who is in favor of net neutrality, but had an op-ed published under his name that strongly argues against net neutrality. The guy admitted that LMG had something to do with it, but refused to provide details. However, when asked his opinion on net neutrality, proceeded to stay stuff in direct contradiction with what was in the op-ed under his name.

While somewhat sleazy tactics like this may be every day business in Washington DC, it's good to see it exposed, especially when it's being done so egregiously. At the very least, maybe it'll get LMG to stop bothering me with bogus conspiracy theories about Kevin Martin.

Filed Under: astroturfing, fcc, lobbyists, telecom policy
Companies: law media group

NAB Spams FCC Over XM-Sirius Merger; Uses People Who Claim They Had Nothing To Do With It

from the sleazy-tactics dept

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has been pulling out all the stops in fighting the proposed merger between XM and Sirius. What's most amusing is that the NAB's active involvement in the campaign against the merger weakens its own argument. After all, if XM and Sirius really would represent a monopoly, then doesn't that mean that the terrestrial broadcasters the NAB represents don't compete with XM and Sirius and therefore shouldn't care about the merger? Yet, the NAB keeps on fighting despite this rather obvious problem with its position. It seems as though the NAB can't resist pulling out just about every dirty trick in the playbook. It set up astroturf groups to create a pretend grassroots campaign against the merger. It also paid for a "independent" report from a research firm who had previously claimed that terrestrial radio and satellite radio competed -- but quickly changed its tune when the NAB was funding a study.

The latest is that, in the tradition of many other astroturfing campaigns, it bombarded the FCC with letters from "real people" against the merger. There's just one big problem. It would appear that many of those people have no idea they wrote the FCC, and some even claim they're in favor of the merger. That's what a Washington Post investigation found when it tried to track down the people who supposedly used the NAB's spam-o-matic website to protest the merger. Most of the people couldn't even be reached at all, suggesting that they might not even exist. Of those who were actually reached, nine out of ten claimed they had nothing to do with contacting the FCC and the 10th says she remembered reading something about the merger but doesn't remember protesting it to the FCC.

The NAB insists that its program is perfectly legitimate, and that the emailers all meant to protest the merger. An NAB spokesperson claimed: "It was a fairly rigorous process." How rigorous? Take a look at some of the quotes from folks who the NAB claims are absolutely against the merger and then let us know just how "rigorous" the process was:

• "How did they get my name? I don't want someone using my name for something I don't even know about."
• "No sir, I never sent any notes to Washington. This call is the first time I've heard of this."
• "I never sent an e-mail. I don't even know about the issue."
• "I don't know what the merger is about and I don't care. I have no idea what you're talking about."
• "Where did they get my name? If anything, I'd be for [the merger]."

Quite rigorous over there at the NAB, huh?

Filed Under: astroturfing, lobbyist spamming, mergers, nab
Companies: nab, sirius, xm