Dear Ari Emanuel: We're All Meeting On The Internet, Come Join Us

from the and-living-and-working-here-too dept

We recently posted about Hollywood super agent Ari Emanuel's ridiculous demands that Google somehow find the magic "stop piracy" button. That story is turning into something much more interesting. The next day, at the same conference, a Google exec, Susan Wojcicki, pointed out the obvious: that Emanuel doesn't know what he's talking about (she used a more diplomatic phrase, noting that he was "misinformed").

Emanuel has since shot back that he's not at all misinformed about the need for the geeks in Northern California to solve his problems:

I am misinformed about a lot — just ask my wife — but I’m not misinformed about this: One of our last remaining dominant American exports is our creativity, no matter how you define it, either as a story or as an algorithm. There is equal genius behind companies like Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Google as there is behind artists who create stories that resonate around the world. We need to protect America’s intellectual property and Hollywood can’t do it on its own. I understand that the onus is not entirely Google’s, but let’s stop talking at each other and get in a room with all parties to figure this out. To be clear, I don’t want to rehash SOPA as we can all agree that was a reflection of Southern California’s arrogance, and let’s also not pretend that we’re working together on this issue because we have Youtube channels together. This is a larger conversation. It’s time for Hollywood, our government and Silicon Valley to step up and collectively resolve this problem. Let me know where and when and I’ll be there.

Ari

The problem, of course, is that his very premise is wrong. He's taking the position that we need to "protect" first, rather than just fix our business models. This is a very mercantilist viewpoint: where protectionism beats innovation. But we've got centuries of economic proof that that's not how you evolve and it's not how you innovate and compete. What you do is you figure out ways to add value and to embrace new business models. Any effort that starts from the default position that what we need is more "protection" rather than greater innovation is doomed to fail -- because that innovation is an unstoppable train, and the "protection" aspect doesn't work. So if you don't focus on the innovation, then someone else will, and you'll have wasted all your time, effort and money on a "solution" that simply drives your business somewhere else. To the place that has focused on innovation.

But, even worse, is his arrogance in thinking that this is a problem that requires "Hollywood, our government and Silicon Valley to step up and collectively resolve this problem." This is the same thing we've been hearing for months out of Chris Dodd and the Hollywood crew: it's time to get back into the backroom and craft "a deal." That's how they think, but it completely misses the point. This isn't about crafting a backroom deal, it's about recognizing the power of the internet, and the importance of the internet to people.

Every time a Chris Dodd or an Ari Emaneuel suggests a backroom deal between Hollywood, Silicon Valley and the government, he leaves out the people who actually matter: all of us, out here, on the internet.

And, to that point, if he wants to know "where" this larger conversation is happening: it's right here. On the internet. It's on news sites and social media sites. It's on Reddit and Twitter and Facebook. It's here on Techdirt and lots of other blogs. We live on the internet and this conversation has been happening for a decade. Ari and his buddies have always been welcome to join, so it's a bit disingenuous for him to suggest that he'll "be there" when we tell him where "the meeting" is. It's here. It's going on all around you and you've always been welcome to join. But you don't. And, no, I won't even get into the irony of him demanding a "meeting" when Hollywood did absolutely everything to keep the rest of the world out of the backroom meetings that led to SOPA.

Joshua Topolsky, the editor in chief of The Verge -- who challenged Emanuel, and was rudely told to "go sit down" and had Emanuel ask "where do you work?" -- has written his own response, in which he tells Emanuel he works on the internet:

What Ari seems to forget, and what maybe politicians and the film and TV industry seem to forget is the last time piracy was a flashpoint between the entertainment and tech industries, the problem was not solved by sledgehammer legislation. Or takedowns. Or yelling. It was solved by the music industry accepting that their old model was broken, and technologists figuring out a new way to do business. And that gets to the core of this problem for Ari. We didn't go back to the way things were after the RIAA sued college students — the industry changed.

He doesn't want to change his business model, and he will do anything he can to protect it — including altering the basic functionality of the internet. Pirating and Apple's resulting rise in the music business changed that business forever... and diminished its financial footprint. Entrenched companies that owned every part of the food chain suddenly discovered they were just another cog in a big wheel.

Ari doesn't want that anymore than the music industry wanted it, or traditional media wanted it. Ned Ludd and his machine wreckers didn't like change either.

But there is one simple truth that I really believe in, in life or in business: adapt or die.

You want to know where I work Ari? I work on the internet. Welcome aboard.

I'd argue it goes even further than that. We don't just work on the internet. We live and breathe the internet. It is our identity. Emanuel looks at the internet, and he doesn't get it. To him, it's just a version of television that doesn't pay as well, so that's not interesting. In his talk, he repeatedly demanded a business model that pays as well as TV. That's not how this works. Disruptive innovation doesn't wait until you go back and provide the legacy players with a business model that pays just as well as the old business model. That's not disruption. Disruption works because the legacy players are too shortsighted to see the trend lines, and so infatuated with their fat profits that they don't recognize the potential of the new mediums, and only seek to regulate against them becoming too pesky. The train companies pushed for legislation requiring all automobiles be preceded by a person walking on the road waving red flags.

Emanuel is asking for everyone to come up with the next version of red flag laws for the internet. That's not how this works.

If he wanted a real conversation, it wouldn't be focused on the parameters of how do we set up protectionist, mercantilist barriers. It would be on how do we create more value and then monetize that value. And those conversations are happening all the time, all over the internet. He's welcome to join. He's always been welcome to join. But it requires doing a little actual working and living on the internet.

Filed Under: ari emanuel, copyright, innovation, internet, piracy, protection
Companies: google, william morris

UK Law Enforcement Demanding Guardian's Sources On News Of The World Hacking Scandal [Updated]

from the journalist-shields? dept

There's been a growing attack on the right of journalists to keep their sources secret. In the US, we've seen attempts to expose newspaper sources using the Espionage Act, and it appears that over in the UK something similar is happening. Scotland Yard is apparently demanding that The Guardian reveal its sources for its thorough and widespread reporting on the News of the World phone hacking scandal. This would be the same UK law enforcement folks who were alerted to the phone hacking and chose to ignore it... while The Guardian pushed on doing the reporting to expose it. To then pressure The Guardian to give up its sources certainly has the feeling of attacking the guys who exposed Scotland Yard's failures in investigating News of the World earlier... Update: Looks like the press attention to this story has caused Scotland Yard to back down. Still, it seems like this could create serious chilling effects for UK press.

Filed Under: journalism, news of the world, protection, rupert murdoch, scotland yard, shield
Companies: news corp.

OECD Supports Making ISPs Copyright Cops

from the oecd-fail dept

On the whole, the OECD has been pretty good about recognizing both the importance of freedom and openness of communications online and how certain industries have sought to use questionable claims and stats to push for protectionism. So, earlier this week, when the OECD put together a statement on "principles for internet policy-making," people hoped that it would follow along with the UN in focusing on protecting civil rights of individuals... not protecting outdated business models of certain companies.

And yet... it quickly came out that the OECD was considering dangerous language in the principles, seeking to cut back on important safe harbors to protect against misguided third party liability. When the draft language came out, nearly all of the "civil society" (i.e., consumer rights) groups that were a part of the discussion stated publicly that they could not endorse the language.

Tragically, the final document (pdf) did, in fact, keep the dangerous language.

To be sure, there are plenty of good things in the principles -- and even many of the "titles" for the principles sound reasonable. For example, among the principles are things like:

• Promote and protect the global free flow of information
• Promote the open, distributed and interconnected nature of the Internet
• Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and services
• Promote and Enable the Cross-Border Delivery of Services
• Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into the policy-making process
• Ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability
• Strengthen consistency and effectiveness in privacy protection at a global level
• Maximise individual empowerment
• Promote Creativity and Innovation

It's tough to argue with most of those. But the devil is in the details. As KEI points out:

The Internet has actually demonstrated how much creativity is fostered without intellectual property, in fact despite IPR. Intellectual property is not a "driving" tool of the Internet. The Internet was NOT created by patents or copyright or trademark. Why would intellectual property be such a central theme for such a document? We concede that the Internet must not be a lawless "place" but this document where words such as "fair use, limitation and exception for users (it is "fixed" for the ISPs?), open source, free software, public domain, etc never appear, is wrong in tone and in its focus.

For example, just take a look at the very first item on the list: "Promote and protect the global free flow of information." Sounds good. But nearly half of the paragraph to back that up isn't about the global free flow of information, but about making sure there are ways to block the free flow of information:

While promoting the free flow of information, it is also essential for governments to work towards better protection of personal data, children online, consumers, intellectual property rights, and to address cybersecurity. In promoting the free flow of information governments should also respect fundamental rights.

Of course, countries that are blatantly censoring the internet, from China to Australia all claim that they're working towards "better protection of children online" etc. Such a statement basically undermines the entire point of the principle. The document goes on in this nature, inserting "intellectual property" in all sorts of places it doesn't belong. Perhaps most troubling is that there's a section officially on limiting third party liability, which has a whopper in the middle. Basically it talks up the importance of limiting liability to service providers to encourage innovation... and then puts a huge "but not in the case of IP" in there:

Within this context governments may choose to... identify the appropriate circumstances under which Internet intermediaries could take steps to educate users, assist rights holders in enforcing their rights or reduce illegal content....

In other words, this document is a joke, which is why civil society deserted it. It seems clear that it presents some nice principles upfront, but then undermines them in the fine print.

Filed Under: copyright, freedom, internet, oecd, principles, protection

Russia's 'Crime Of The Century' Highlights Importance Of Anonymous, Public Whistleblowing

from the corruption-runs-deep dept

About a month ago, a few people sent in this horrifying story from Foreign Policy magazine, written by lawyer Jamison Firestone, concerning how one of the partners in his Moscow-based law firm helped uncover a massive crime by government officials -- who stole approximately $230 million and dumped it into real estate around the world -- and was then arrested, tortured, blamed for the theft and murdered in jail for attempting to alert government officials of the corruption and crime. It's a horrific story for anyone who believes in the rule of law. Barron's has a similar story that focuses more on crime itself, and additional evidence that implicates Russian officials -- even as Russian officials continued to blame the whistleblower who had actually alerted authorities to the suspicious behavior before the full theft had even taken place. That article also mentions that many of the same government officials were apparently involved in a similar heist of $107 million a couple years earlier.

While some may chalk this sort of thing up to the level of corruption found in Russia today -- which is known to be extensive -- it seems that this story also highlights the importance of the ability to blow the whistle on corruption through anonymous means that will make such findings public -- such as Wikileaks. Wikileaks certainly may have its own problems, and hopefully newer platforms will improve upon its lead, but the ability to expose such crimes without then being tortured, murdered and blamed for the crimes seems like an important thing.

Similarly, in our discussions on Bradley Manning -- who is accused of sending info to Wikileaks (though, according to many, the information Manning had access to was also available to over one million others, meaning that plenty of people may have passed it along to Wikileaks or others) -- we've had people insist that if he found wrongdoing, he should have just reported it to his superiors. The lesson from the story in Russia is that you have to actually trust the superiors to make that reasonable. Manning did not, perhaps for very good reasons. That's not to say that the level of corruption in the US government is on par with the level of corruption in Russia. I don't think anyone believes that. But, it does highlight why someone might reasonably feel that reporting illegal acts by their own government to their own government may not always be the best course of action if the goal is stopping such activities.

Filed Under: free speech, jamison firestone, protection, russia, whistleblowing

Protection

from the racket dept

Filed Under: lawyers, protection

HarperCollins Wants To Limit Library Ebook Lending To 'Protect' Authors From Libraries

from the can-i-check-out-a-clue? dept

Colin was the first of a bunch of you to send in the news that publisher HarperCollins has bizarrely decided to cripple the ebooks they let libraries lend by adding a clause in their contract that says books can only be lent out 26 times before the license "expires." Why? Because they can, apparently, and don't realize how this will simply piss off people. Also, once again, I do wonder how supporters of a move like this can still claim that a digital copy of content is "just like" a physical copy. HarperCollins could never make such a claim with a physical book.

Where it gets really ridiculous is HarperCollins' "defense" of the move:

HarperCollins is committed to the library channel. We believe this change balances the value libraries get from our titles with the need to protect our authors and ensure a presence in public libraries and the communities they serve for years to come.

Yes, seriously. They think they need to protect authors from libraries. That's -- to put it frankly -- insane. It seriously makes me question whether authors should be comfortable with HarperCollins as a publisher, when it seems to be making moves that clearly go against an author's best interest. The article does note that two of the big publishers -- Macmillan and Simon & Schuster -- don't allow any lending of ebooks, which is unquestionably worse. However, this kind of move doesn't make HarperCollins look good or like it has any recognition of the digital world. It should be a major turn off to authors who do recognize where the market is headed.

Filed Under: ebooks, libraries, protection
Companies: harpercollins

There's An Entire Conference About Trying To 'Protect' Content?

from the you're-doing-it-wrong dept

It's been sort of amusing over the past few years to watch the entertainment and media worlds focus increasingly on the idea that they need to "protect" content in some way, as if (a) that's possible or (b) desirable. It is neither. At this point, it should be clear that there is no realistic way to "protect" content. The debunking of DRM has gone on for many years, and I don't think we need to contribute any further to that discussion. But, more importantly, even if it were possible, I would argue that it is not a good idea. The opportunities for smart business models going forward are in enabling people to do more with your content. That is, it's in using the content to create greater and greater value -- and then setting up business models that allow you to capture some of that increased value.

So, I find it rather amusing to see (via Sheri Candler) that there's an entire conference that's been created called The Content Protection Summit. To me, that reads something like the "Rotary Phone Preservation Society" or the "Committee To Restore Butter Churns." It's a historical anachronism that is no longer needed.

Thankfully, the Summit organizers claim that the event will not discuss policy/lobbying efforts, but instead will be a working session to "establish a 'framework'" for the industry. A framework for what? The organizers are vague in a way that suggests even they're not sure. Note the massive overuse of "quotation marks" around everything (the organizers might want to check out the "blog" of "unnecessary" quotation marks for guidance):

• This is not a "singular event", but rather the establishment of a "framework" through which industry leaders can identify top issues facing the industry, discuss them from all angles and aspects, and work collaboratively on ways to resolve or otherwise reduce/mitigate them through topic-based "working teams".
• Most conferences focus on facilitating two things: "issue awareness" and "social networking". This summit instead focuses specifically on creating the framework to WORK and RESOLVE these issues. As top leaders in the industry with far too much to do, we do not need yet "another conference", but instead need a forum for actually working and resolving the top issues facing us.
• Recognizes the common issues facing the entire "Entertainment Industry (movies + tv + music + games + software + publishing) versus individual industry segments or elements.
• Fills an industry "gap", as there is no continual working forum for these issues. There are individual conferences or parts of events, but nothing that is industry-wide with a singular purpose.

Since they're so big on quotation marks, I'll admit that reading this list makes it sound suspiciously like the event is about "collusion," as each set of quotations marks makes me assume that the word or phrase is a euphemism of sorts, and the only one that seems to fit is collusion. Of course, the industry has tried to work together on DRM in the past and it's failed time and time again, so I'm not sure how getting folks together for another shot at a really bad business model does anything other than get the hopes up for those who haven't realized that they're chasing an obsolete dream, rather than embracing new opportunities.

Filed Under: business models, conferences, protection

No, You Don't Have To File Patent Lawsuits

from the bogus-reasons dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in the news of Xerox's patent lawsuit against Google and Yahoo over search technology, and I'd debated posting it at all. It's the same old story. A company widely considered a has-been goes searching through its patents, on technology it did nothing at all with, and sues other companies who had the same idea and actually went forward and implemented it successfully. Yet another case of "those who can't innovate, litigate."

But what caught my attention was Xerox's given reason for pursuing the lawsuit:

"We believe we have no option but to file suit to properly protect our intellectual property."

Sorry, but that's no reason to file a lawsuit. It's a common cliche in patent lawsuits, but it's totally bogus. Of course you have other options. There is no rule that you have to file a lawsuit to "protect" the patent. There is no "protecting" that needs to be done. This is just a blatant attempt to squeeze money out of companies who actually implemented a product where Xerox failed. That's not protecting, it's shaking down.

Filed Under: patents, protection, search
Companies: google, xerox, yahoo

Disney CEO: I Can't Figure Out Ways To Adapt My Business, So I Need Government Protection

from the well,-that's-compelling dept

We had high hopes for Robert Iger when he took over Disney from Michael Eisner (whose views on intellectual property were positively wacky). Iger surprised a lot of people by taking a very progressive view towards digital and online content, as well as recognizing the need for new business models, rather than attacking your fans and customers. In 2006, he noted that the recording industry had screwed up and he intended to respond differently:

"The bottom line is they were not in tune with what their customers wanted and what the world was demanding of them and I think it hurt them significantly."

So we were disappointed last year when Iger came out strongly in support of rules to force ISPs to kick customers off the internet based on a "three strikes" plan, where accusations, not convictions, are all that matter.

It seems that he's not giving up. Chris points out that, at President Obama's recent "Jobs Summit" Iger gave a speech where much of it was focused on the need for stronger intellectual property protection from the government, and no talk about all of the innovative business models that others are creating without relying on governments to prop up their business model. In discussing his talk, he noted:

So when you hear about "stealing intellectual property," a term that may have little meaning to you, think about it as a means of contributing to unemployment and harming our economy.

Of course, there's no indication that this is actually true. Even if people are saving money by not spending on Disney content, they are spending that money elsewhere, contributing to jobs in those sectors. If you want to use Iger's logic, you could just as easily claim that copyright laws allow them to charge monopoly rents on products, thus depriving many other industries of money and jobs. Thus -- again, using Iger's own logic -- copyright contributes to unemployment and the harming of our economy. Not sure he really wants to go there.

Filed Under: employment, intellectual property, jobs, piracy, protection, robert iger

Details On The FTC's DRM Workshop

from the don't-miss-it dept

At the beginning of January we noted -- with some amount of surprise -- that it appeared that the FTC was preparing a workshop on DRM. When I was in Washington, DC recently, I had the chance to meet some of the folks putting that workshop together, and now they've sent over a more detailed list of topics up for discussion at the session, and it does seem like a pretty good list -- covering pretty much the entire range of questions concerning DRM, specifically from a consumer perspective. It's definitely an encouraging sign that folks at the FTC are recognizing that DRM can be used to do harm, rather than just (as the industry would have you believe) to "open up new business models."

Filed Under: drm, ftc, protection
Companies: ftc