Would Obama Veto SOPA? Extremely Doubtful

from the too-much-money dept

I usually like the work of Arik Hesseldahl, who's pretty sharp in his reporting, but it appears he may have waded into a subject where he doesn't have much knowledge, in arguing that Obama would likely veto SOPA should it pass out of Congress and land on his desk. Arik's summary is that Obama "likes the internet," so he'd probably veto such an anti-internet bill. No offense to Arik, who perhaps just wanted a quick holiday post on the subject, but that shows little understanding of the history of Obama on intellectual property issues, or the many, many signals that the administration has been giving over the bill. In fact, the signals suggest pretty strongly that if the bill landed on his desk today, President Obama would sign it into law with little hesitation -- and declare it a victory for the economy and American jobs.

No doubt: there is a significant split inside the administration from everything we've heard. Much of the State Department is strenuously opposed to the bill, knowing darn well that it would do significant harm to their efforts to push internet freedom and openness around the globe. SOPA supporters love to point to the letter that Hillary Clinton sent to Rep. Howard Berman about how there's no conflict about protecting intellectual property and working for internet freedom. But they're significantly overplaying the letter, which was written before SOPA came out and didn't mention SOPA at all. In fact, it would be a hilariously bad breach of standard protocol for Clinton to take a position on a bill before the White House made its official position clear, and everyone involved in the debate knows that, even if they pretend otherwise. Either way, multiple sources within the State Department have made it abundantly clear that State has been putting tremendous pressure on people to either fix SOPA or kill it altogether. They're not happy. Ditto for many in the Commerce Department, who see how bad it would be for the economy to have a bill like SOPA in place. The feelings there aren't quite as strong as at State, but they definitely appear to lean towards opposed (or, at the very least, neutral).

There are also voices in both Homeland Security and the Defense Department who are worried about the online security aspects as a part of the DNS blocking features of the bill. Of course, those voices are likely outweighed by those who like the ability to shut down domains -- such as ICE, who would gladly support SOPA. The Justice Department, also, appears to be a huge, huge, huge supporter of SOPA, seeing as it would give them much greater powers to shut down websites.

Then, of course, there's the White House itself. And, again, there appears to be a bit of a mix of feelings there, but the leaning definitely appears to be towards supporting the bill. Throughout his administration, the President has left almost all intellectual property issues up to Vice President Joe Biden, who has been about as big a copyright maximalist as can be. He's the guy who claimed that the heads of the biggest entertainment companies represented "all the stake holders" (public be damned) in a roundtable about intellectual property that he convened two years ago -- from which the ideas behind SOPA and PIPA came. It's safe to assume that he's totally on board with the bills, and since Obama defers to him on these issues, you can expect this issue is pretty much decided. There are a few others in the White House who may weigh in on the subject, including IP Czar Victoria Espinel. Again, the likely guess is that she's in favor, having supported the plan to seize domains which is related to SOPA & PIPA. Others in the White House include the CTO, Aneesh Chopra, who hasn't given much of an indication of where he'd fall on the issue, but has supported open internet initiatives in the past. If I had to guess, I'd say he's mildly against the plans, but not enough to make a big deal about it. If anything, he'd probably prefer that the bill be adjusted to make it slightly more palatable and then have it pass and be signed.

Finally, there's Obama himself. Heading into what may be a difficult election year, and dependent on money from Hollywood and unions (the big Democratic funders), this is an easy call. He'd sign it in a heartbeat. Any bill that has the support of the MPAA and the AFL-CIO is red meat for him when it comes to fundraising. The whole "loves the internet" thing is great... if the internet donates. The internet was certainly useful to Obama in the primaries last time around, but when it comes to the big fight, he needs the big guns. So he's looking for the big cats, and those still support the bill in a big, bad way. If you want a blueprint for how this works, just look at how he signed the patent reform bill a few months ago, despite widespread complaints among the tech industry about how the patent system was totally broken and the bill didn't help at all. He still signed it and declared (incorrectly) that it would stimulate new jobs. He'd do the exact same thing here. Sign it, point to the AFL-CIO and US Chamber of Commerce support and talk about how this was a "jobs bill" that would "help the economy" by "protecting American jobs." The internet? Meh. No one cares about the internet when Hollywood and the unions have checkbooks open.

The only way that changes is if SOPA and PIPA become so toxic that any support is seen as career suicide -- and if that's the case, then the bill itself probably doesn't get out of Congress to get on his desk in the first place. Getting GoDaddy to switch positions is one thing. Getting these bills to the toxic level is a whole different ballgame, and we're certainly not there yet. For those celebrating the "victory" over GoDaddy last week, this fight is far, far, far from over, and the MPAA and the other supporters of SOPA don't give up easily. Both SOPA and PIPA are dangerous in the extreme, and still have a decent chance of passing, if people don't speak up directly to the politicians who continue to support these bills.

Filed Under: joe biden, pipa, president obama, protect ip, sopa, veto, white house

VP Joe Biden Explains Why SOPA & PROTECT IP Are Anti-American & A Bad Idea

from the good-for-him dept

A couple of weeks ago, Joe Biden gave a perfect, if unintended, explanation for why SOPA and PROTECT IP are such terrible ideas. Since his speech included a bunch of other things, we thought it would be good to highlight Biden's specific arguments that explain why SOPA and PROTECT IP are bad, and to give him kudos for making such statements, since they contradict the statements from Hollywood on this bill. Unfortunately, even with Biden's clear and incontestable statements that show the massive harm that SOPA and PROTECT IP would cause for innovation in the US, this bill still has tremendous momentum in DC, thanks to a strong lobbying push from the legacy entertainment industry. In fact, don't be surprised if Biden totally contradicts himself in a few weeks and pretends that he's all for censoring the internet, harming innovation, and "fixing" what isn't broken on the internet. That's why we're urging folks to support American Censorship Day tomorrow, as the House holds its first hearings ever on how best to censor the internet. Biden's clear explanation of why SOPA & PROTECT IP are so bad should give pause to anyone supporting it -- and will certainly raise serious eyebrows if/when Biden (and the White House) later change positions on these bills. Oh, and if Biden does change positions, let's hold him to it, and make it clear that the American public doesn't appreciate flip flopping politicians, who completely contradict themselves, based on who's supporting what legislation.

Filed Under: copyright, innovation, internet freedom, joe biden, protect ip, sopa

Joe Biden On The Internet: 'If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It... Unless Hollywood Asks You To'

from the conflict-of-interests dept

This following story would be pretty funny if it didn't have such a wide impact. It's pretty much assured that VP Joe Biden is in favor of PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE/SOPA. Since the start of this administration, President Obama has delegated most copyright issues to Biden, and Biden's general view on copyright seems to be "whatever makes Hollywood happier must be fantastic." How else do you describe his continued support of ever more draconian copyright law, contrary to the evidence suggesting that it only makes things worse? How else do you explain his claim that he got "all the stakeholders" concerning copyright into a summit meeting, when it only involved government officials and the big labels and studios (no consumer advocates, no artists, no technologists, no entrepreneurs, etc.)?

At the same time, issues of "internet freedom" have been handed off to the State Department, where Hillary Clinton and her team have actually been doing a pretty good job. The Wikilkeaks response was a bit of a hiccup, but on the whole... they've taken a really strong position on the importance of internet freedom, and they deserve kudos for that. Of course, as we've noted, these two issues appear to come into conflict over copyright policy, and bills like PROTECT IP/SOPA/E-PARASITE. Those kinds of bills make Biden happy, clearly, but seriously upset people in the State Department, who recognize that it completely undermines their message on internet freedom, being against censorship and allowing the free flow of information online.

So, at the very least, keep an eye out for the growing conflict between Biden and Clinton on this particular issue. What it'll come down to is whether or not Obama recognizes that PROTECT IP/SOPA/E-PARASITE isn't just a copyright issue, but one of regulating the internet.

Either way, use that as background to understand the awkwardness of what follows. Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak earlier this week at the London Conference on Cyberspace (LCC), in which she was expected to give a speech on the importance of freedom in cyberspace. At the last minute, however, she had to pull out due to her mother falling ill. So, Joe Biden stepped in instead, and gave what looks like a variation on what Clinton's speech was supposed to be... talking up the importance of freedom on the internet and not regulating the internet: You could take a lot of what he says as a clear argument against PROTECT IP/SOPA/E-PARASITE:

We know that it will take many years and patient and persistent engagement with people around the world to build a consensus around cyberspace, but there are no shortcuts because what citizens do online should not, as some have suggested, be decreed solely by groups of governments making decisions for them somewhere on high. No citizen of any country should be subject to a repressive global code when they send an email or post a comment to a news article. They should not be prevented from sharing their innovations with global consumers simply because they live across a national frontier. That's not how the Internet should ever work in our view -- not if we want it to remain the space where economic, political and social exchanges can flourish.

Indeed. So can we chalk up Biden's support for getting rid of the Great Firewall of America approach found in SOPA? Can we chalk up Biden's support for not doing DNS (and more!) blocking so that people in the US cannot reach certain websites that the rest of the world can reach, based solely on a repressive government code? And, under SOPA, innovators would clearly be hindered from sharing their innovations with global consumers, due to massive liabilities put on them under the law.

Now, there are some who have a different view, as you all know. They seek an international legal instrument that would lead to exclusive government control over Internet resources, institutions and content and national barriers on the free flow of information online. But this, in our view, would lead to a fragmented Internet, one that does not connect people but divides them; a stagnant cyberspace, not an innovative one, and ultimately a less secure cyberspace with less trust among nations.

Again, can we now assume that Biden is coming out against DNS/IP blocking, as found in SOPA? After all, it has been widely established that that, too, would "lead to a fragmented Internet, one that does not connect people but divides them; a stagnant cyberspace, not an innovative one, and ultimately a less secure cyberspace with less trust." Nice to see him say that, though I wonder if he'll ignore all of that when the same arguments are put forth over SOPA.

We have an expression in our country: If it ain’t broke, don't fix it. It would be misguided, in our view, to break with the system that has worked so well for so long.

Indeed. And yet, SOPA clearly tries to break a regulatory and technical framework for the internet that has been in existence for quite some time, and which is likely responsible for the amazing growth and success of the internet industry within the US.

Those countries that try to have it both ways by making the Internet closed to free expression but open for business will find that this is no easy task. They may try to build walls between these different activities, but there isn’t a separate economic Internet, political Internet and social Internet. They are all one. It’s simply the Internet.

The same search engines that help customers find local businesses also point them to websites of bloggers and civil society groups. Social networking sites allow friends to share not only home videos, but also views about the political and social issues within their country.

Trying to build and maintain barriers in cyberspace entails a variety of cost, not just the cost of paying thousands of censors and Internet police to work around the clock, but also the opportunity costs to a nation’s future. And I believe all nations will ultimately determine this. The digital marketplace of ideas that welcomes every blog and tweet is the same one that inspires the next generation of innovators to fuel our economies. And when businesses consider investing in a country with a poor record on Internet freedom, and they know that their website could be shut down suddenly, their transactions monitored, their staffs harassed, they’ll look for opportunities elsewhere.

Yes, yes and yes again. These are wonderful statements, and every one of them -- direct from Biden's mouth -- are clear arguments against SOPA. Last week, when we met with folks in DC about this issue, the fear of many of the entrepreneurs and venture capitalists in our group was that if we put up the Great Firewall of America, as designated in SOPA, leading companies to recognize "that their website could be shut down suddenly, their transactions monitored, their staffs harassed," that they will most certainly "look for opportunities elsewhere." Or, worse yet, they wouldn't start at all.

Honestly, Biden's speech really was an excellent one, and I applaud it. I am just wondering if everything he claimed in that speech will be ignored when it comes to SOPA, which seems to go against nearly every point he made in that speech. And to come out in favor of supporting the Great Firewall of America soon after making a speech like that one... well, that's going to certainly undermine a tremendous amount of credibility on the part of the vice president, while equally making life hard on Secretary Clinton in actually going out to these other countries and pressuring them to keep their internet open, while we lock it up at home.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, hillary clinton, internet freedom, joe biden

Worst Kept Secret Now Confirmed: Government Was Very Involved Helping RIAA/MPAA Negotiate Six Strikes

from the well,-duh dept

From the moment the so-called "voluntary" six strikes agreement between the RIAA/MPAA and various ISPs came out, it was obvious that the Obama administration, in the form of VP Joe Biden's office and IP Czar Victoria Espinel, were involved. We had even discussed that. Now some more details have come out, as Christopher Soghoian received a response to his Freedom of Information Act request, seeking emails from government officials concerning the deal -- and, of course, it shows that Biden's office and Espinel were heavily, heavily involved... and almost exclusively on the side of the RIAA and MPAA. Both of those organizations were regularly in touch with the administration, including planning about how the deal was going to be announced. Amusingly, Biden's office apparently freaked out when Greg Sandoval at CNET broke the story a few weeks before the deal was official.

The emails note that Espinel did make sure to "involve" two groups who represent consumer interests -- CDT and Public Knowledge -- but it's quite clear from the nature of the interactions that those organizations were not really involved in the negotiations, but were shown the details towards the end, to avoid them feeling "taken by surprise" when the deal was announced. None of this is particularly surprising, but it's pretty silly for everyone to pretend that this was a "voluntary agreement between private entities." It was clear from the beginning that the White House was heavily involved, and was very much backing the entertainment industry's viewpoint. In theory, the government should be representing the people, but the cozy nature of the relationship suggests it was exactly the opposite. The government was representing industry against the public interest.

Filed Under: joe biden, lobbying, politics, six strikes, victoria espinel
Companies: mpaa, riaa

MPAA Directly Lobbies Law Enforcement To Be Its Own Private Police Force

from the and-that's-what-you-get dept

For years, we've discussed how questionable it is that federal law enforcement, including the Justice Department and Homeland Security, often acts as the private police force of the entertainment industry. At times there's been a bit of a revolving door, with the RIAA/MPAA hiring former federal law enforcement officials to head up their "anti-piracy" efforts, and the existing federal groups sometimes seem to return the favor by taking on cases that clearly should be civil matters between the private companies in the entertainment business and those it feels infringed on their rights.

Over the last few years, the fact that the feds have effectively been working as the entertainment industry's private police force has grown more and more obvious. No one from Homeland Security seems willing to explain (and trust me, I've asked multiple times) why it is that when ICE did its domain seizures, it relied solely on claims from the industry and (even more ridiculous) announced the first round of seizures from Disney headquarters. Can you imagine how people would react if the FTC announced it was filing antitrust charges against Google... from Microsoft's offices? Or if the FCC announced it was blocking the AT&T-T-Mobile merger from Sprint's offices? Such scenarios seem preposterous, but ICE doesn't seem to recognize the clear conflict of interest in acting as the private police force for an industry, rather than actually doing its job.

Perhaps part of that is because the entertainment industry is spending a ton of money lobbying law enforcement agencies directly. Most of the time when you think about lobbying activities, you think about talking to politicians to try to get them to pass certain laws, or talking to regulators to have them adjust or change certain rules and regulations. You don't tend to think of lobbying law enforcement directly in order to convince them to do your private bidding. But, the MPAA does.

According to a disclosure report, the MPAA spent $400,000 lobbying a wide range of US government departments in the first quarter of 2011 including the FBI, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, ICE and the Vice President’s Office. Issues on the table include so-called “rogue sites” including RapidShare, streaming, graduated response (3 strikes) and domain seizures.

There are no real surprises in the content covered. It's the same stuff the MPAA has been pushing for a while now. But the fact that they're directly lobbying the FBI, the Justice Department, Homeland Security and ICE should raise some eyebrows. Law enforcement should not be influenced by the desires of private companies -- especially ones with a long history of failing to adapt to changing technologies and trying to get those technologies declared illegal. Imagine if, rather than a civil lawsuit, when the VCR was introduced, the movie industry could have just had the FBI declare the things illegal?

Filed Under: copyright, criminal, doj, fbi, homeland security, ice, joe biden, law enforcement, lobbying
Companies: mpaa

The Copyright Industry Is Not A Stakeholder In Copyright Policy, It's A Beneficiary

from the indeed dept

In discussions on copyright policy, you almost always hear politicians talk about the importance of hearing from the "stakeholders," in which the only "stakeholders" they talk to are the copyright industry which benefits from copyright law. In fact, a little over a year ago, when VP Joe Biden convened a "piracy summit", he claimed that the idea was to "bring together all the stakeholders" -- except that everyone in the room was a copyright industry executive or a politician. There was no public representation at all. Similarly, in the recently leaked State Department cables concerning US embassy efforts to pressure Canada into changing its copyright laws, the US ambassador refers to Canadian copyright industry representatives as the stakeholders it's talking to.

This is wrong.

Some might argue that copyright holders are a stakeholder, but I think Rick Falkvinge has it exactly right when he notes that the copyright industry is not a stakeholder at all, but a beneficiary of copyright law. The article should be mandatory, required remedial reading for anyone who ever refers to the copyright industry as a "stakeholder" in any policy discussions on copyright law:

The copyright monopoly legislation is a balance between the public’s interest of having access to culture, and the same public’s interest of having new culture created.

That’s it. Those are the two values that go into determining the wording of the copyright monopoly.

The copyright industry always demands to be regarded as a stakeholder in this monopoly. But to give them that status would be to royally confuse the means of the copyright monopoly with its end.

I'd argue that it's not that the copyright industry demands to be considered a stakeholder, it demands to be considered the only staskeholder. But as Falkvinge points out, copyright is entirely about the public. The industry is not a stakeholder but a beneficiary. He provides an analogy that is so instructive that it should be used more often:

Blackwater Security benefits from United States foreign policy. Does that mean that Blackwater is a stakeholder in the US foreign policy, and should get a seat at the drafting table? Of course it doesn’t. The notion would be horrifying, with quite predictable outcomes. Yet, we accept this horrendous construction in the case of the copyright monopoly, with just the outcomes predicted.

In the past, I've pointed out that you don't ask the guy who owns the sugar monopoly to be a part of the policy team in determining who gets the sugar monopoly, but why do politicians continually do this with copyright? Why do the highest levels of government (yes, such as Joe Biden) insist that the beneficiaries are the only real stakeholders? And what will it take for him to realize that he's not just wrong, but that he's harming the actual stakeholders?

Filed Under: copyright, joe biden, stakeholders

Joe Biden: There's No Reason To Treat Intellectual Property Any Different Than Tangible Property

from the really-now? dept

Ah, Joe Biden. Is there nothing about intellectual property that he can't get wrong? Variety has an interview with the Vice President on intellectual property issues, and while there's nothing new, it's like a compendium of wrong or misleading statements. It's no wonder the entertainment industry so loves him. There's no lie or misrepresentation he won't repeat. It starts out with a doozy. Nearly every thing he says in the following paragraph is wrong or a misrepresentation:

"Look, piracy is outright theft," Biden said. "People are out there blatantly stealing from Americans -- stealing their ideas and robbing us of America's creative energies. There's no reason why we should treat intellectual property any different than tangible property."

First, "piracy" is not "outright theft." Infringement and theft are two different things. You would think that someone in Biden's position would know the basics. Second, "ideas" are not protectable under US intellectual property law. Expression can be copyrighted and inventions can be patented. Ideas cannot be. That Biden thinks they can be... is immensely troubling. Third, how do you "rob" one of energy? I'm beginning to think that Biden doesn't know what the word "steal" means. Fourth, if this was "robbing us of America's creative energies," wouldn't we be seeing significantly less output and significantly less revenue? Instead, we're seeing both greater output and greater revenue. True, a few legacy companies within the wider industry are struggling to adapt, but that's not the same thing. Fifth, there are tons of reasons why copyrights and patents should and are treated differently than tangible property. Is Biden really suggesting that we should have infinite copyright and patents that do not expire and do not go into the public domain? Because that appears to be what he's saying, and that's blatantly unconstitutional. The Constitution says "for limited times" for a reason. Does Biden not know this?

He is quick to say that he considers it more than a problem of just the entertainment industry. "When our military is sold counterfeit equipment that is faulty, it affects our national security. And when cancer patients are sold fake cancer drugs that contain no medicine, it affects public health. These are serious issues for the American people."

Biden may be even worse than John Morton at this conflation game. Yes, we agree that counterfeit military equipment and fake drugs are dangerous. No one denies that. The problem, which everyone keeps pointing out and which neither Biden nor Morton seem to want to respond to, is that they're using those small and specific problems to then justify massive legal changes that have nothing to do with those legitimate problems.

"Virtually every American company that manufactures something is getting killed by counterfeiters: clothing, software, jewelry, tires," Biden said. "If an American company has been successful at developing an idea, it's likely getting stolen."

Getting killed? Really? Hyperbole much, Joe? First of all, counterfeiting is a separate issue than copyright or patents, and isn't really an "intellectual property" issue, but a fraud issue. Anyway, when you look at the actual statistics (not the made up ones by the industry) you learn that counterfeiting really isn't nearly as big a problem as people make it out to be, and it's certainly not "killing" most American businesses. Yes, it is impacting a few businesses at the margin, but multiple studies have shown that people who buy counterfeits are not taking business away from the original company, but are doing it aspirationally, with the intention of buying the real product when they can.

Besides, if we're really saying that copying ideas and passing them off as your own is "theft" and should be punished the same as "theft" of tangible goods, shouldn't Joe Biden be in jail? After all, he's a notorious plagiarist, who didn't just copy the words of another politician, but copied his life story, claiming things that happened to this other politician happened to him, when they had not. So, if anyone knows "stealing ideas" and "counterfeits," it should be Biden.

Biden then moves on to what he believes is part of the solution:

"I think the entertainment industry would agree that they have done a poor job in making their case and need to do better," Biden said. "I mean, they have some of the brightest and most creative people working for them."

"They should be able to come up with an intelligent, original and effective public education campaign targeting this issue. To be honest, I am not certain they have dedicated the appropriate resources to this, and I hope they will."

Or, perhaps, it's just that multiple studies have shown that this is not an education issue, and the more propaganda that the industry puts out, the less people respect copyright laws. I mean, we're talking about Hollywood. Does anyone really believe that they don't have the ability to create compelling content? The problem is not the content, it's the underlying idea which people just aren't buying. You can create propaganda all you want. You just can't make people believe it if they know, deeply, that it's false.

"Kids are taught that it is not right to steal a lollipop from the corner store," he said. "They also need to understand that it is equally wrong to knowingly steal a movie or a song from the Internet."

Yeah, the industry has been making that a part of the "education campaign" for decades. How's that been going? The problem is that children aren't stupid. And they can recognize that there's a pretty big difference in stealing a lollipop from the corner store (in which case the store no longer has a lollipop to sell) and in sharing a song or a movie with a friend, in which everyone gets greater enjoyment.

Biden doesn't buy the idea that Hollywood's effort to increase enforcement is merely to protect dying businesses.

"The fact is, media companies have already taken significant steps to adapt their business models to keep up with changes in how we watch movies and listen to music," Biden said. "Content is being offered to consumers in a variety of different ways that make it easy and cost-effective for people to access legal material. Anyone who does not understand this should simply talk with one of my grandkids."

Oh come on! The media companies' "significant steps" all came kicking and screaming, often with lawsuits and attempts to use pliant politicians like Biden to pass laws to outlaw the innovations they eventually come to rely on. This is the same industry that tried to outlaw the VCR and the MP3 player. Significant steps? Yeah, only after being pushed by innovators and consumers. In fact, many of those significant steps were taken because of infringement, which showed what consumers really wanted.

Biden said he sees a shift in China, where piracy is rampant and where Hollywood has long struggled to gain cooperation from the government to address the problem. He said South Korea's strengthened intellectual property laws have led to the "Korean Wave" in entertainment across Asia, and "China's leaders understand this."

And here, Biden is simply lying. The Korean Wave of entertainment across Asia started way before the US (at the entertainment industry's behest) pressured Korea into implementing draconian new copyright laws in 2009. Creative labels like JYP had sprung up years earlier, and the company's founder, JY Park, has stated in interviews that it was, in part, the widespread infringement online that drove him to push his artists into alternative business models that took them across Asia, where they make a ton of money. The idea that it was these laws is simply a lie, and is clear from the timing. Korean artists like Rain and Wonder Girls were known across Asia long before those changes were made. In fact, even the term "Korean Wave" which Biden refers to, was given to Korean cultural exports in 1999, a full ten years before Korea put in place new copyright laws. And, during those intervening 10 years, South Korea had the highest rate of broadband penetration, and some of the highest rates of copyright infringement online as well. And yet, the Korean Wave still happened.

Shouldn't the "reporters" at Variety point some of this stuff out in response? Or do they just parrot the Hollywood line and ignore facts? Either way, why is Biden allowed to blatantly lie or misrepresent all of these things?

Filed Under: copyright, counterfeits, intellectual property, joe biden, patents, property, trademark

Our Elected Officials Never Learn: Ask Biden To Get Russia To Increase Censorship Via Copyright

from the not-understanding dept

Vice President Biden went to Russia this week, and though I'm sure he needs no urging whatsoever to present Hollywood's misguided message on intellectual property, a group of our elected officials in Congress -- including Senators Orrin Hatch and Sheldon Whitehouse, along with Congressional Reps. Bob Goodlatte and Adam Schiff (from the LA area, of course) -- have sent him a letter asking him to push Russia to pick up the pace on its "anti-piracy" efforts. It's really quite stunning how shortsighted this request is. After all, we've seen over and over again that when the US pushes other countries to increase their anti-piracy activities, it inevitably results in them using greater "enforcement" against US interests. And Russia is a particularly interesting case. After all, the Kremlin has just indicated it wants to increase internet censorship, and the government also has a long history of using "anti-piracy" claims to censor political critics.

I'm sure Russian politicians are having a good chuckle over this. Basically, these US politicians are giving them all the tools they need to censor anyone they don't like. They just get to call it "anti-piracy" and they can even brag about it and have the US government cheer them on.

In the meantime, is anyone a constituent of any of those four elected officials, who apparently make up the "Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus" (don't laugh -- perhaps they're just uninformed)? If so, can you please send them a copy of the new research report on piracy in emerging economies from the Social Science Research Council? We can hope that maybe (just maybe) they'll realize they're not helping.

Filed Under: copyright, joe biden, russia

The Only Way To Get Joe Biden To Rethink His Position On Copyright Is To Give Him Money?

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

It's no secret that Vice President Joe Biden is no friend to Silicon Valley. The Veep has long been a big believer in anything Hollywood tells him, leading him to make ridiculously wrong statements about intellectual property and to believe that when discussing such things "all the stakeholders" means only folks from Hollywood. It's really reached the point that it seems like most in Silicon Valley consider him a lost cause. However, some are suggesting that it's time for Silicon Valley leaders to step up and pay up to get a word in edgewise with Biden (who's about to swing by Silicon Valley) to convince him he's wrong on these issues:

Obviously, the more tech people who show up to send the message, the better. And the more unified and simple the message, the better and more effective it will be. This is not a time for nuance. Nor do you "waste" your one shot by repeating what the tech CEO in front of you said and trying to introduce something else. This is a straightforward application of the "Alice's Restaurant Rule of Public Policy." If one person says it, it's an outlier and you ignore it. If two people say it, it's special interest so ignore it. If 50 people say it, it's a bloody national trend.

Which is why tech folks who care about reigning in the power of Hollywood to impose tech mandates need to show up on July 8 to prove to Boxer and Biden they exist and that the Hollywood view of the world that pits noble entertainment companies against evil pirates and terrorists needs some amending. You need to walk up to them, sing a bar of the tech policy version of Alice's Restaurant, and walk out. In this case, the refrain goes like this: "Carly at least has tech experience. You seem Hell bent on destroying the tech industry with over-enforcement and crap like ACTA in the name of stopping piracy. I create jobs, I'm not a pirate, and unless my concerns get  respected, I'm voting Republican."

Fifty tech execs walking in, singing a bar of that song, and walking out, will make a difference. Oh, it won't turn things around overnight -- especially with Biden scheduled to make a trip with Boxer down to Los Angeles the next day for another fundraiser where the entertainment industry will trot out the star power. But it will be the first step in getting Biden and others who buy into the Hollywood's pirate story to start asking whether real life is really like that.

Jim Harper, who pointed this story out to me, notes how problematic this seems by summarizing the logic as "Joe Biden is no friend to tech, so tech should give to Joe Biden," followed by noting the similarities between politics and extortion. This isn't to damn the original post, because it's probably right that this might be the only way to actually speak to Biden, but somehow I doubt that even 50 people saying something like the line above would make even the slightest dent.

Filed Under: copyright, joe biden, lobbying, politics

Entertainment Industry Get Their Own 'Piracy Police' In The Justice Department

from the thank-you,-joe-biden dept

Remember back in December when Vice President Joe Biden hosted a one-sided "piracy summit", ridiculously declaring that "all of the stakeholders" were present (despite there not being a single representative from the technology industry, nor anyone representing consumer interests or ISPs). The "stakeholders" were entirely the entertainment industry. And, even better, despite promises of openness and transparency, the press was kicked out so top execs from most of the major entertainment industry companies could collude talk directly with many of the top administration officials, including Joe Biden, Attorney General Eric Holder, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and others. You knew that this wasn't just a random meet and greet and that something would come out of it.

And, indeed, less than two months later, we have Eric Holder announcing a special "IP task force" within the Justice Department designed to take on "the rise in intellectual property crime." Given how many former RIAA/MPAA lawyers ended up at the Justice Department, perhaps this is no surprise. But given that it now appears that the entertainment industry was able to create their own private enforcement division within the Justice Department without a single ounce of public discussion or transparency, and no input from those concerned about consumer rights or technology innovation, shouldn't someone be asking why the Justice Department is now functioning as a private police force to prop up the business models of a group of companies who refuse to adapt, even as plenty of upstarts have figured out how to make new business models work?

Filed Under: copyright cops, eric holder, joe biden, justice deparatment