Biden Convenes 'Piracy Summit' That Appears To Be Entirely One-Sided

from the of-course dept

Vice President Joe Biden has long been known to be a supporter of Hollywood when it comes to making copyright laws more draconian (and, not surprisingly, Hollywood has been a strong monetary supporter of Biden campaigns). He doesn't even try to hide that he's willing to do Hollywood's bidding on copyright law. And, I don't believe I've ever heard Biden ever publicly recognize concepts like fair use or the rights of individuals. Unfortunately, it looks like the Obama White House has given Biden control over IP issues, which is why a bunch of former "anti-piracy" lawyers -- including a former Biden staffer -- are now in the Justice Department. So, I guess it should come as no surprise that Biden is convening a "piracy summit" at the White House (via Michael Geist) and the guest list appears to be entirely one-sided:

Among those expected are Sony's Michael Lynton, Warner Bros.' Barry Meyer, Viacom's Philippe Dauman, NBC Universal's Jeffrey Zucker, Warner Music Group's Edgar Bronfman, Harper Collins CEO Brian Murray, Universal Music Group's Zachary Horowitz, the MPAA's Dan Glickman, the RIAA's Mitch Bainwol, IATSE's international president Matthew Leob, AFTRA'S Kim Roberts Hedgepeth, DGA president Taylor Hackford, DGA exec director Jay Roth and SAG's David White.

Notice that there aren't any consumer rights representatives. No one from technology companies. No one representing a viewpoint from outside of these industries of how they might be abusing claims of "piracy" to prop up obsolete business models. Instead, it's just the echo chamber. The same folks who have been misleading politicians for ages. And, of course, whenever you get a summit like this, expect some sort of misguided "action" to follow. Update: Public Knowledge has put out a statement, noting how one-sided this gathering is, and questioning why politicians are attending what appears to be an industry gathering on how to prop up a business model. Update 2: In the press release (pdf) about this, Biden's office has the gall to claim this "will bring together all of the stakeholders." Ha! It's 100% entertainment industry interests. No tech. No consumer advocates. No ISPs. This is a complete joke. Update 3: This just gets more and more ridiculous. Reporter Ryan Reilly was covering the "summit," posting the seating chart and quoting Biden as saying that "piracy" is "flat unadulterated theft" but it looks like Reilly has now been kicked out of the summit. Openness and transparency apparently doesn't apply when it involves propping up one small industry's obsolete business model.

Filed Under: copyright, entertainment industry, joseph biden, piracy, summit

Woman Arrested For Filming Snippets Of 'New Moon' May Sue Theater

from the but-probably-won't-win dept

The latest in the saga of the young woman, Samantha Tumpach, who was arrested and jailed for two nights because her attempt to film some of her sister's birthday party at the movies happened to catch a few snippets of the film New Moon, is that Tumpach is now considering suing the theater, even though the charges against her have been dropped. Unfortunately, thanks to the draconian anti-camera laws pushed by the MPAA to punish people for these sorts of things, she might not get very far with such a lawsuit. As Copycense points out, the Illinois law in question basically lets the theater do exactly what it did, even if the circumstances are ridiculous. So, any lawsuit is unlikely to last, though it should lead us to questioning why legislators around the globe have passed similar laws at the behest of the movie industry. There are already perfectly good copyright laws to be used against anyone actually filming a movie for "piracy" purposes. These anti-camcorder laws go above and beyond that, and lead to ridiculous scenarios like this one.

Filed Under: copyright, felony, movies, new moon, piracy, samantha tumpach

Russian Publishers Taking A More Progressive View On Book 'Piracy'

from the there-are-better-ways-to-deal-with-this dept

Martin sent over an article from a Swedish publication about how some Russian book publishers are dealing with "piracy" (translated via Google from the original). While some do seem upset about the issue, others are actually figuring out ways to deal with it, including offering their own vastly cheaper ebook versions quickly (and with no DRM), or even working out deals with "pirate" sites to share some of the ad revenue. The one publisher that the article focuses on, Sergei Parchomenko, says that they're not losing money from pirate sites, but the responsibility is on him to come up with a workable business model. It's nice to see someone realizing that they need to react to the market, rather than freak out about things.

Filed Under: competing, ebooks, piracy, russia

Prosecutors Come To Their Senses; Drop Charges Against Girl Arrested For Incidental 'New Moon' Filming

from the took-'em-long-enough dept

There has been a ton of publicity about the young woman who was jailed and facing felony charges, because she caught snippets of the film New Moon while filming parts of her sister's birthday party. The outrage over this has been loud and widespread -- causing backlash against the movie theater and the movie studio that put out the movie. Even the director of the movie was complaining about the arrest and prosecution. Realizing that this was a bad situation all around, it looks like prosecutors have come to their senses and dropped the charges against the young woman, though we still have the same ridiculous law in place that made this situation possible. Shouldn't we also be looking to change that right about now?

Filed Under: felony, new moon, piracy

Creating Living Books: A Defense Against 'Piracy'?

from the there's-an-idea dept

Michael Scott points us to an interesting essay on piracy in the ebook space, written by Mike Shatzkin. He talks about setting up the program for the upcoming Digital Book World event, where he didn't even think that "piracy" was a topic worth discussing -- but various publishers told him that it's a big issue to them. Unfortunately, it seems that the reason it's a big issue is not because they're learning to use such things to their advantage, but because they have taken the exact wrong lessons from the music industry and have decided they need technological measures to "fight" piracy. Good luck with that.

Shatzkin, however, lays out a much more reasonable approach, picking up on what O'Reilly does with its books: no DRM, but give people a real reason to buy (there's that concept again). In this case, it's regular updates to any book you buy. So, rather than thinking about it as buying the content of the book, you can think about it as paying for a regular update on a particular topic. It becomes an ongoing service, which provides a scarce good, rather than a single transaction for content. As such, "piracy" becomes less and less of an issue, because the content you get may be quite out of date, and give you reason to pay up for real to make sure you are regularly up-to-date.

But, of course, O'Reilly publishes (wonderful and useful) technology books, where there's an obvious advantage to keeping current and up-to-date for readers of those books. The question is whether or not similar things can be done for other types of books, and Shatzkin has some ideas that are intriguing. First he quotes Tim O'Reilly in suggesting that piracy might really only impact large well-known authors who don't need the "marketing" aspect of free books (as opposed to less well-known authors, for whom "obscurity is a bigger threat than piracy"). But, then he notes that perhaps those big name authors can create a "service" of sorts that competes nicely with unauthorized file sharing as well:

But those authors are also the ones who have the biggest personal followings. They are the most capable of adding material: notes about what they're working on, correspondence with fans or critics, even observations about other people's books, that would add some value for many of the readers of their stories. In fact, a regular "update to my readers" from a top-flight author that is available only in their ebooks, or to purchasers of their ebooks, would be an attraction to many and could serve as a constant reminder that downloading their books from illegitimate sources is cheating them.

It's an interesting idea, and I like the proactive thinking on ways to compete by allowing something that isn't really possible in the paper book format. Though, I'm not sure if this method works precisely. After all, we already have the example of Paulo Coehlo, one of the best-selling authors of all time, who purposely "pirated" his own book and saw his sales increase tremendously. On top of that, he is already doing many of the things that Shatzkin suggests, but for free on his own website -- and it's working wonders. It's building up a much more loyal following for Coelho, and is allowing him to run interesting experiments like having his fans make a movie out of one of his books. All of this has only opened up more opportunities for Coelho to make money by both building his overall audience while also making his fans ever more loyal and ever more interested in supporting him.

Filed Under: books, living books, piracy

EA CEO Continues To Appeal To Pirates, Rather Than Attack Them

from the smart-move dept

After last year's Spore DRM fiasco, EA and its CEO John Riccitiello seem to have learned that the stick approach to dealing with pirates backfired badly, and it was time to try out the carrot. It started, earlier this year with Riccitiello talking about how they were trying to view pirated software as a really good demo product, with the impetus then being on them to convert those users into paying customers. Later, they started actively embracing the claim that their pirated software could lead to additional sales of in-game content and offerings. The latest, as sent in by william, again has Riccitiello in an interview saying that he now sees "pirates" as a new marketplace, again with the emphasis being on how it's EA's responsibility to give those users something to buy. He still says that he wants people to buy the legit versions of the game, and he thinks it's very wrong to make an unauthorized copy, but he says that reality dictates that they should embrace those users, rather than attack them, and look for ways to make money off of them:

"There's a sizable pirate market and a sizable second sale market and we want to try to generate revenue in that marketplace."

Furthermore, he notes that this approach seems a lot more reasonable than the music industry's approach of just trying to punish people:

He said the music industry erred in "demonizing" its consumers rather than reacting to them. He believes that EA has an obligation to make it enticing for people to play games legitimately. And he hopes that services such as EA Sports' community hub or the BioWare social site that hooks into Dragon Age will make it so alluring that it will be "increasingly less likely that people will pirate because there is so much value on the other side of the door."

None of this necessarily addresses some of EA's past sins relating to aggressive use of DRM, but it does suggest that Riccitiello (or at least his savvy PR staff) have recognized that giving people a reason to buy is a better way forward than trying to attack those who use unauthorized copies of the games.

Filed Under: business models, john riccitiello, piracy, video games
Companies: ea

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

The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle

from the is-this-useful-or-not? dept

I've discussed in the past why I'm not thrilled about the use of the word "piracy," even as it has become rather standard for describing unauthorized file sharing. It's inaccurate, and is used by the entertainment industry to paint a picture of pure evil, where a more nuanced and accurate view might help. At the same time, with the rise of "The Pirate Party" in various countries, a group of folks have tried to take the word back -- but I still wonder if the name limits the party's upside, even as it may have enabled some of the initial attention (and vote-getting ability).

That said, Nancy Baym points us to an interesting analysis of piracy in the context of "language of spectacle", by Gabriella Coleman, and how that can help drive political messages and involvement:

But what keeps me interested in the politics of piracy is how it can speak the language of spectacle, which can be a powerful tactic and technique for broadcasting a political message. Here I'm just paraphrasing and cribbing the work of Stephen Duncombe, who has argued, I think quite persuasively, that we cannot rely solely on reasoned debate for building political programs. Duncombe does not argue that we must toss out rationality and truth seeking (these are absolutely necessary) but notes how on their own or if not clothed in some other cloak, they may not be enough to convey and compel, especially in this day of total media saturation. Or to put a but more poetically by him "Reality needs fantasy to render it desirable, just as fantasy needs reality to make it believable."

Much (though not all) of contemporary digital piracy follows the logic of spectacle. It builds and conveys a fantastical drama of right and wrong, of new possibilities, of freedom from the noose of the law; it signals and speaks to the thrill and fun in twisting, even breaking, existing structures and constraints; and provides a window into another way of acting/behaving. In many cases what it provides is a commons (and I will be exploring it in depth in my class next semester on the commons) and many folks, I imagine, turn to piracy simply for the free stuff, and a number of them come out of the other side transformed into copy fighters willing to engage in a politics beyond sharing stuff and waving the pirate flag.

It's an interesting thought, and it gets me thinking. Folks like Bill Patry make compelling arguments that the use of moral panics and folk devils with words like "piracy" distort the debate in negative ways, but Coleman suggests that by embracing that term, people may be able to build a stronger case on this particular issue. Which seems more compelling? Or is it a combination of both?

Filed Under: language, piracy, politics, spectacle

Is Streaming Infringing Content Still Considered Piracy?

from the just-wondering... dept

There's been some buzz about a recent research report claiming that streaming services are popular. There have been a few such reports, and there's not much surprising in them. They basically point out that if people can stream certain content, that's often easier than firing up a non-user-friendly file sharing service to get the same content. But, does that necessarily lead to the conclusion pushed by many in the industry and the press that "streaming kills piracy"? Not at all. As the folks at Freakbits note, this particular study didn't even bother to separate out authorized streaming services and unauthorized streaming services -- and includes YouTube in the calculations, which (as Hollywood keeps trying to let us know) often has a fair amount of unauthorized content. So, perhaps, people are suggesting that if the content is just "streamed" it doesn't count as "piracy." And, as someone who doesn't like the term "piracy" in the first place, perhaps that makes sense. But it does not appear that this is what's being argued. Instead, people are just assuming that all streaming is authorized, when that's hardly the case.

Filed Under: piracy, streaming

Piracy Harming African Culture... Because Some Professor Says So

from the evidence-please? dept

Shocklee points us to an odd, totally unsubstantiated article by a University of Southern Illinois professor insisting that "piracy" is creating tremendous harm to West African content industries. This goes against numerous studies, including those by the WTO on how developing nations often should have less stringent intellectual property laws while they're developing. The article is based on some simple conjectures: that even with low budgets, films made in Nigeria are having trouble making money and it's all the fault of piracy -- first from lost sales, but also because people are pirating high budget American films as well. Basically, the argument is that if people can get those high budget films at the same "pirated" cost as local films, of course they'll go for the high budget films, and thus destroy the local film industry.

Of course, that assumes that in the absence of "piracy" prices to see foreign films or to buy their DVDs scale relative to their budget. That's simply not true. Movie tickets and DVD prices do not scale based on the budget of the movie. The professor doesn't seem to mention the fact that most films (especially the low budget kind) struggle to make money in the first place. He just assumes that it's because of piracy. He neglects to mention that there are plenty of business models beyond selling DVDs. He does mention that people seem to prefer local content, but then ignores that in his very next sentence, saying that local content "can't compete." Even though he just said that the market demands local content.

Filed Under: africa, culture, movies, music, piracy