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

from the yah,-ok dept

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

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

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

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

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

Filed Under: coica, hollywood, movies, protectionism

RIAA, Chamber Of Commerce: Censorship Via COICA Is Okay, Because Other Countries Censor Too

from the you-must-censor! dept

While the COICA bill introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy and Orin Hatch was initially designed to be rushed through Congress, after people pointed out that it pretty clearly violated due process and prohibitions against prior restraint, the Senators realized they needed to hold off for a bit. Everyone has expected that it will be back on the agenda after the midterm elections, and now a bunch of companies and organizations, including the RIAA and the Chamber of Commerce have asked Leahy to move forward with the bill, immediately following the elections.

But most amusing of all is how they brush off the concerns about First Amendment violations and blatant censorship by the US government, at the same time as the US government is putting political pressure on countries that censor the web:

"some foreign countries have engaged in political censorship long before this bill was introduced and they will continue to do so regardless of whether this legislation is enacted."

Say what?!? So it's okay for the US government to censor the web, because other countries censor as well? I recognize that their argument is that this won't change how other countries view censorship, but even that's wrong. The US is pressuring other countries not to censor the web by claiming a moral high ground. It seems particularly hypocritical to undermine that moral high ground by blatantly censoring the web as well, and then saying "but it's okay for us, because it's about protecting these companies." That just makes it easy for those other countries to respond, "well, then it's okay for us, because it's about protecting our government/way of life/etc."

Filed Under: censorship, coica
Companies: chamber of commerce, riaa

COICA Censorship Bill Shelved... For Now

from the but-like-a-zombie,-it'll-be-back dept

While there had been plans to move forward with a markup on the COICA censorship bill this week, it appears that those plans have been delayed, effectively shelving the bill for the time being. This should keep it off the agenda at least until after the elections, but you can expect it to come back before too long. From what's been discussed, it sounds as if those backing the bill really hoped to push it through before any opposition actually recognized what was in the bill and could mobilize protests -- but that didn't work. So, next time it comes around, those who feel pretty strongly that our gov't shouldn't be in the business of censoring websites without due process will be better prepared as well. It certainly doesn't mean that this fight is over. You can bet that supporters of the bill will put forth a much stronger media campaign as well. But, at least this dreadfully bad piece of legislation didn't just get rushed through.

Filed Under: coica, copyright

Even Without COICA, White House Asking Registrars To Voluntarily Censor 'Infringing' Sites

from the censorship-through-political-pressure? dept

While there's been increasing attention paid to the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (COICA), the proposed law that would allow the government to require ISPs and registrars to block access to websites deemed to be "dedicated to infringing activities," it looks like the White House (which we had thought was against censoring the internet) appears to be working on a backup plan in case COICA doesn't pass.

That is, while most folks have been focused on COICA, the White House's Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IP Czar) Victoria Espinel has apparently been holding meetings with ISPs, registrars, payment processors and others to get them to agree to voluntarily do what COICA would mandate. While the meeting is carefully focused on stopping websites that sell gray market pharmaceuticals, if registrars start agreeing to censoring websites at the behest of the government, it's as if we're halfway to a COICA-style censorship regime already. ICANN, who manages the internet domain name system was asked to attend the meeting, but felt that it "was not appropriate to attend" such a meeting.

While Espinel has certainly been a lot more open to talking with those of us concerned about the state of intellectual property laws (and has actually seemed quite willing to pay attention to what we're saying -- which I appreciate), these kinds of meetings appear quite troubling. I understand why the meetings are focused on so-called "illegal pharmacies," because then everyone supporting these actions can hide behind the claim of "protecting Americans from dangerous fake drugs." But the truth is that while some online pharmacies are quite questionable, many are simply "gray market" attempts to import drugs to the US from elsewhere where the identical drugs are sold for much less. In a global economy, that should be allowed. In fact, one could argue that keeping drugs artificially expensive in the US does a lot more harm to Americans than the chance of them getting a fake pill.

On top of that, it seems out of line for the US government to be involved in pressuring these companies, whether they're ISPs, domain registrars, payment processors or ICANN itself, to "voluntarily" block websites without a trial or due process. Yes, I can recognize that there can be legitimate health concerns with some of these websites, but those are better dealt with elsewhere. If a company is selling fake or harmful drugs, then laws within that country should be able to deal with it. If there are concerns about such drugs getting across the border, then it seems like a matter for border control. Asking internet companies to act as de facto "voluntary" censors seems like a big step too far.

And, of course, if it starts with such gray market pharmacies, you can only imagine how long it will take until the RIAA/MPAA/etc. come calling for the same sort of "voluntary cooperation" from the same companies for sites "dedicated to infringing activities," potentially killing off all sorts of innovation, before the market has a chance to adapt. When world wide web inventor Tim Berners-Lee and tons of other internet luminaries have come out against COICA, shouldn't the White House be a bit more careful before trying to get various internet players to voluntarily do the same thing with even less due process?

Filed Under: censorship, coica, pharmacies, registrars, victoria espinel

What Else Might COICA Be Used To Censor

from the it's-not-just-the-pirate-bay dept

Earlier this week, I put together a list of some of the technologies that a law like COICA might have banned in the past, noting that when they first came out, legacy industries condemned them as being "dedicated to infringing activities," which is the basis that the Justice Department would get to ban websites under COICA, in some cases with little or no due process. But some people have pointed out that it's worth pointing out some modern technologies that the entertainment industry is still trying to ban via lawsuit, which could potentially fit under the definitions in the law as well. For example:

• YouTube: While Viacom claims it's now okay with YouTube thanks to its ContentID system, if you read over Viacom's filings in the lawsuit, they make it clear that they believe YouTube was "dedicated to infringing activities." It's not hard to see that, if COICA had been around five years ago, there would be no YouTube today.
• Music lockers: As I mentioned recently, I've been playing around with a few music lockers, as a way of storing and backing up my (legal, authorized) music collection, and as a way to access it on the go. I can't see how it's infringing for me to make use of my own music in such a manner, but as we've seen with EMI's lawsuit against Michael Robertson and the MP3tunes locker, some record labels believe such things are "dedicated to infringing activities." Does it seem reasonable that the Justice Department can just block access to a site that lets me store my own music?
• Music search engines: Remember Seeqpod? It was a really useful search engine for music. It didn't store or transmit any music itself, but simply acted as Google. Warner Music and EMI both sued the company, forcing it to declare bankruptcy (and bizarrely, it was just bought by a DRM company). With a law like COICA, it would be even easier for the record labels and their former lawyers in the Justice Department to simply shut down really useful tools like Seeqpod.

And that's just the start. It's not difficult to think of all sorts of services that are coming out these days that are derided by anti-visionary industry lawyers as "dedicated to infringing activities." Do we really want to allow the federal government and a bunch of lawyers to kill off these technologies, without a lawsuit, and without a chance to demonstrate that they do a lot more than help people infringe?

Filed Under: censorship, coica, orrin hatch, patrick leahy, technologies

RIAA Claims That If COICA Isn't Passed, Americans Are 'Put At Risk'

from the um,-who-exactly? dept

With the Senate trying to rush through COICA, the online censorship bill that ignores history and appears to violate both the principles of the First Amendment and due process, a bunch of concerned citizens have been speaking out against the bill, and asking the Senate not to rush it through without at least holding hearings about the massive problems with the bill.

Considering the serious concerns raised by the bill, you would think that everyone would be fine with holding such hearings. But, of course, when you know damn well that the bill almost certainly isn't Consitutional and its sole purpose is to censor upstart competitors and technologies that threaten your business model, you probably are less thrilled about hearings. And, so, it should come as no surprise that, at the end of this National Journal article about the request for hearings, the RIAA makes one of its more ridiculous statements in a while (and that takes some doing):

"The answer from these self-styled public interest groups can't always be 'no.' Congressional and administration leaders have made it clear that doing nothing is no longer an option. If these groups have a better idea than the meaningful, bipartisan approach like the one put forward by Chairman Leahy, we welcome their ideas on how to insure that the Internet is a civilized medium instead of a lawless one where foreign sites that put Americans at risk are allowed to flourish."

Of course, the answer isn't always "no," but the answer absolutely can and should be "no," when the proposal involves censoring websites, removing due process, and favoring certain legacy industries over new technologies.

But the really ridiculous part is the claim that, without this law, "foreign sites that put Americans at risk are allowed to flourish." Just what are these sites, and which Americans are "at risk" from them? So, let's see if the RIAA can tell us which Americans are put at risk by which site -- and I'm sorry, but your inability to adapt your business model to a changing market does not put you "at risk." So, once again, it's time for the RIAA to answer a straight question: which sites are putting Americans at risk, and how will this law protect them?

Filed Under: coica, copyright, hyperbole
Companies: riaa

Tim Berners-Lee Comes Out Against COICA Censorship Bill; Shouldn't You?

from the speak-up dept

We've already discussed what a dreadful bill the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act," (COICA) bill would be. It's an effort to censor the internet without due process. As we recently discussed, similar laws in the past would have banned pretty much every new entertainment technology in the past century.

And yet... this bill has a lot of political clout behind it and it's moving fast (even as the bill's main sponsors are speaking out against censorship in other countries, they support it at home). Unfortunately, there really hasn't been that much open discussion about the bill. Supporters seem to think it's a foregone conclusion that it will pass, and it's moving quickly (it's schedule for a vote in committee this week). Senators who are supporting the bill have claimed that they've heard no objections to the bill, despite the widespread discussions online about how problematic it is.

As it moves forward, some people, who recognize the problems with it, are speaking out. The EFF, for example, is looking for techies who have been involved in building the original internet's infrastructure to sign onto a protest letter. Separately, as part of an effort to get people to sign a petition against COICA, World Wide Web creator Tim Berners-Lee has spoken out against COICA:

"We all use the web now for all kinds of parts our lives, some trivial, some critical to our life as part of a social world," says Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web. "In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that: No person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty. Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the Internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims."

I'm never sure how effective online petitions are, but no matter what, it's important to get the word out about this bill. We should not stand for censorship in the US. Apparently over 20,000 people signed the petition in the first day it was available, and it would be great to get a lot more involved. This is bad and supremely dangerous legislation that has been fast-tracked, much to the delight of those who don't realize how destructive it would be.

Filed Under: censorship, coica, free speech, tim berners-lee

A Look At The Technologies & Industries Senators Leahy & Hatch Would Have Banned In The Past

from the dedicated-to-infringing-activities dept

The more I look at the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act," (COICA) bill proposed by Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch (and co-sponsored by Sens. Herb Kohl, Arlen Specter, Charles Schumer, Dick Durbin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Amy Klobuchar, Evan Bayh and George Voinovich) the worse it looks. The idea behind the bill is to give the Justice Department the ability to avoid due process in shutting down or blocking access to sites deemed "dedicated to infringing activities."

With such a broad definition of offerings dedicated to infringing activities, I thought it might be worth running through a list of technologies that and services that were all deemed "dedicated to infringing activities" in their early days, to give you a sense of what these Senators would have banned in the past with such a law:

• Hollywood itself: The history of Hollywood is that it was set up on the west coast in order to avoid Thomas Edison's attempt to control the movie making business with various patents. Hollywood was very much an entire industry dedicated to infringing activities in its early years.
• The recording industry: The origins of modern copyright law in the US came out of fears by musicians that the concept of any kind of automatic playing or "recorded" music would destroy the market for real live musicians. The fear of the player piano was a big, big issue in the early days, with sheet music producers claiming that piano rolls were infringing. So, the early parts of the recording industry were very much "dedicated to infringing activities."
• Radio: When radio first came about, it too was "dedicated to infringing activities." That's because it played music on the radio without paying.
• Cable TV: The very early days of cable TV involved the cable companies offering network television without paying for -- and, even worse, they were charging customers for access to others' content. The very core of the original cable TV system was "dedicated to infringing activities." Charlton Heston denounced cable as "depriving actors of compensation."
• Photocopying machines: When the Xerox machine came on the scene in the late 1950s, it freaked out the publishing industry who denounced it as being dedicated to infringing activities. Just as the 1909 Copyright Act was mainly a response to misguided fears of the player piano, some say the 1976 Copyright Act was in response to the Xerox machine. Some of the modern concepts around fair use came about due to lawsuits from publishers claiming that the photocopier was, in fact, dedicated to infringing activities.
• The VCR: By this point, you should know the famous Jack Valenti quote: "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone." Yup. Dedicated to infringing activity.
• Cassette tapes: "Home taping is killing music." Need I say more?
• The MP3 player: Remember the RIAA's lawsuit against the Diamond Rio? They declared that such a device "stymies the market for . . . works and frustrates the development of legitimate digitally downloadable music." So, that iPod? Yes, it, too, was dedicated to infringing activity.
• The DVR: In 2001, a bunch of TV companies sued, claiming that the Replay TV DVR was an "unlawful scheme" that "attacks the fundamental economic underpinnings of free television and basic nonbroadcast services"

Notice a pattern yet? All sorts of new technologies tend to be berated and condemned as "dedicated to infringing activity," by legacy content industries when those new offerings first come along. It's only later on, when the industry learns to use those new tools of creating, recording, reproducing, performing, distributing, sharing and promoting that they realize those tools turned out to be quite useful in expanding, rather than shrinking, the industry.

Yet, here we are, with the list of Senators above, effectively looking to not allow that evolution to happen at all. They won't even give these new tools a fair trial (which, at the very least, was afforded to many of the tools in this list). Instead, they want to let the Justice Department (which, again, employs many former lawyers of the legacy industries) to simply put together a list of tools they believe infringe and to avoid due process in getting those tools effectively banned. The people making this list are not visionaries. They don't see how these tools can be quite useful to content creators. They're anti-visionaries. They only see how the new tools change the rules for the legacy industry. Do we really want anti-visionaries outlawing the next movie industry? Or the next VCR? Or the next iPod?

Filed Under: coica, copyright, orrin hatch, patrick leahy

Obama Comes Out Against Censoring The Internet; Will He Veto Leahy/Hatch Censorship Bill?

from the questions,-questions dept

On Thursday, President Obama gave a speech to the United Nations that (not surprisingly) covered a lot of ground. But the bit that caught my eye concerned his commitment to a free and open internet without censorship:

We will promote new tools of communication so people are empowered to connect with one another and, in repressive societies, to do so with security. We will support a free and open Internet, so individuals have the information to make up their own minds. And it is time to embrace and effectively monitor norms that advance the rights of civil society and guarantee its expansion within and across borders.

Sounds good.

Around the same time Commerce Secretary Gary Locke was giving a speech at Georgetown University where he talked about some very similar points:

Today, I am announcing the official launch of an additional Task Force project -- one focused on preserving the global, Free Flow of Information on the Internet.

It's likely that many of you saw a recent cover story in The Economist alluding to "the Web's new walls."

The theme of the article is that the openness of the Internet is in jeopardy.

As the Internet has grown, and as it's become more central to the lives of people and to economies, we are seeing an increasing number of government policies around the world that restrict the free flow of information on the Web.

Many of these policy efforts, in particular those centered on censorship, have deep human rights implications.

Later on in the speech, he again worries about governments censoring the internet:

In recent years, however, we have seen a significant up-tick in threats to the free flow of information on the Internet.

Censorship continues to be a significant problem in too many countries, and a range of new Internet-related regulations, or other actions by governments around the world, are springing up as speed bumps on the information superhighway.

At one level, we are dealing with questions that concern national sovereignty. We recognize that enhanced efforts to combat cyber-crimes and to protect a nation's national security needs are necessary.

But there seems to be the growing risk that idiosyncratic regulations are implemented not to protect a state's legitimate interests, but rather to undermine fair competition or create market share for preferred businesses.

Again, all of this sounds good... but it makes me wonder how the administration feels about the new "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" from Senators Leahy and Hatch, which set up a system that avoids due process to censor websites in a clear attempt to "undermine fair competition and create market share for preferred businesses."

Unfortunately, it seems likely that Obama and Locke are all for this kind of censorship. That's because the "preferred businesses" that are helped by the COICA are the ones who support Obama and Locke. After all, it was just a few weeks ago that Locke gave a speech where he completely sided with the entertainment industry on various copyright issues, highlighting bogus data and ignoring tons of evidence that contradicted the statements he was making.

Chances are we're going to see more hypocrisy in the government -- claiming to be against censorship designed to protect businesses in other countries, but all for it at home, when those businesses are the ones contributing campaign funds.

Filed Under: barack obama, censorship, coica, gary locke, orrin hatch, patrick leahy

My Challenge To Jim Urie Of Universal Music: Instead Of 'Drowning Out' Those You Disagree With, Let's Come Up With Solutions

from the right-and-wrong dept

Back in June, we wrote about a ridiculous major label astroturfing campaign, spearheaded by Jim Urie, the CEO of Universal Music Group Distribution, involving a faux "grass roots" group called MusicRightsNow, which is just a major label front group, connected to Music United -- also a major label front group. Well, he's back. As a few of you have sent over, Urie appears to be claiming that the letter he sent out back then is responsible for the new pro-censorship Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. The new letter urges people to click a link to send emails to elected officials supporting the bill. Amusingly (but not surprisingly), the link in the email (which I'm not providing here), does not allow people to edit the letter. It shows you what you're sending, but the only text input is your name and address. Oh, and you can change the closing. It suggests "Sincerely" but you can change that. That's it. The text of the actual letter includes blatantly false and debunked statements like the following:

The theft of copyrighted works like music, movies, books, software and games is a devastating problem. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates such theft costs our nation's economy roughly $58 billion in total output every year; more than 370,000 domestic jobs; $16.3 billion in earnings; and $2.6 billion in tax revenue for state, local, and federal governments.

Every one of those numbers has been debunked. It's so sad that the major record labels are so hung up on looking backwards that they can't at least admit that they're relying on bogus numbers.

As for Urie's new letter, the really ridiculous part is the following:

Each and every one of us needs to act NOW if we expect the legislation to gain momentum. Our community has never matched the noise created by those on the "copyleft" -- we need to be louder than ever to drown out those who don't care about our art, our jobs and the difference between right and wrong.

How incredibly insulting and how incredibly wrong. The people that Urie is lying about here care very much about art and the difference between right and wrong. It's why we focus on new ways for artists to make money. It's why we look at what the actual evidence shows, including the fact that artists are making more money today than in the past -- in part, by getting out from behind gatekeepers like the major record labels. And this makes us happy, because we do care about art and we do care about the ability of musicians to make a living and to keep doing what they love doing.

Honestly, this is what bugs me the most. Plenty of us are working hard to help musicians make more money, and to create real win-win solutions that make artists and consumers better off. Yet, in response, those who have relied on artificial government subsidies for years, and pretend to represent artists when they really spend much of their time working to keep money away from artists, go out and claim that we're the ones trying to harm artists.

Rather than talking about "drowning out" those of us who are actually helping artists, I have an open request to Jim Urie: why not meet up and let's have a public discussion about how everyone can work together to create a better world for both artists and consumers, rather than going around falsely portraying some of the biggest music fans around as "not caring" about music.

Filed Under: coica, copyleft, jim urie
Companies: universal music