White House Sets Up Echo Chamber For Complaints About Social Media Bias Against Conservatives

from the complainer-in-chief dept

After months of fact-free complaints about bias against conservatives on social media, the White House has finally decided to engage in a fact-finding mission. And by "fact-finding mission," I mean "knock together a shitty webform to collect complaints." Or build a mailing list for the 2020 election run. Who knows. But here it is in all of its "will this do" glory.

It opens with this statement before it starts harvesting personal info.

SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS should advance FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yet too many Americans have seen their accounts suspended, banned, or fraudulently reported for unclear “violations” of user policies.

No matter your views, if you suspect political bias caused such an action to be taken against you, share your story with President Trump.

From there, the form asks for first name, last name, citizenship, zip code, phone number (optional), and email address. If you're not a US citizen or resident, the White House's form says it can't help you. That's pretty weird considering this form does nothing more than harvest information, most of it personal. If non-US citizens want to share their personal information -- and their stories of social media bias -- with the administration, they should be able to. But that's how the White House set this up: Americans only.

After that, it's time to start detailing the bias. Pick a platform and start bitching. Start by giving the government the link to your social media account, describe the incident, and upload screenshots of the tweet/post removed for violating terms of use being conservative.

You also have the option of being added to the White House's newsletter email list. Then you have prove you're not a robot by typing in the year the Declaration of Independence was signed. Fortunately for the bots, the question and answer never change, so not much a bulwark against exploitation.

Finally, you have to agree to the White House's "user agreement," conveniently located at another site and hidden behind a shortened link.

At the White House's site, you'll learn that complaining about bias via this webform gives the government permission to:

...use, edit, display, publish, broadcast, transmit, post, or otherwise distribute all or part of the Content (including edited, composite, or derivative works made therefrom).

Forever.

The license you grant is irrevocable and valid in perpetuity, throughout the world, and in all forms of media.

And there's nothing you can do if the government decides to alter your tweet and turn it into the centerpiece of its next Congressional hearing.

You waive any right to inspect or approve any Content or edited, composite or derivative works made from Content (including those which may contain your Information) before use. You are not entitled to any prior notice before the U.S. Government uses Content or Information. You are not entitled to any compensation for Content.

And even though the government has taken irrevocable possession of your content, it's still your content where it matters most.

You solely bear all responsibility for all Content.

This isn't about political bias. This is about confirmation bias. The White House has asked people to complain about being blocked or banned. Only those with negative experiences are invited to participate and that slant guarantees a bunch of unreliable narratives. Everything fed into this ad hoc complaint box will be vetted by an administration already convinced the social media deck is stacked against conservatives.

This will allow the administration to cherry-pick what it needs to back up the claims it's been making for months and ignore everything else. It will give the President a stack of printed-out tweets to wave at social media company execs during the next closed door meeting. What it won't produce is much reliable evidence of bias. The lack of reliability won't matter to the administration or the man at the top.

The real question, though, is what the administration plans to do with this info. It seems the ultimate goal is to talk itself into believing the bias problem is bad enough the First Amendment and Section 230 immunity will need to be damaged to make it right.

But, for now, at least the government has given the public a platform to complain about beverage companies threatening to send their urine to journalists.

Filed Under: bias, campaigns, conservative bias, content moderation, echo chamber, social media, social media bias, white house
Companies: facebook, twitter, youtube

New Report Details Massive Mysterious Influence Campaign On Twitter

from the something's-happening dept

Over the weekend, the group Guardians.ai released a fascinating report detailing what appears to be a massive influence campaign taking shape on Twitter. By way of disclosure, one of the three key authors of the report, Brett Horvath, is also one of the key people behind the election simulation game that we helped create and run, though I have nothing to do with this new report. The report is fascinating, and if you don't feel like reading the whole thing, Bloomberg also has a write up.

The key to the report is that they have identified some truly fascinating patterns that they've spotted among a cluster of users on Twitter, who, at the very least appear to be acting in a manner that suggests some attempt to influence others. I should note that unlike other such reports that jump to conclusions, the authors of this report are very, very, very clear that they're not saying these are "bots." Nor are they saying these are Russian trolls. Nor are they saying that a single source is controlling them. Nor are they saying that everyone engaged in the activity they spotted is officially part of whatever is happening. They note it is entirely possible that some very real people are a part of what's happening and might not even know it.

However, what they uncovered does appear strange and notable. It certainly looks like coordinated behavior, at least in part, and it appears to be designed to boost certain messages. The report specifically looks at statements on Twitter about voter fraud using the hashtag #voterfraud, but it appears that this "network" is targeting much more than that. What made the report's authors take notice is that in analyzing instances of the use of the tag #voterfraud, they noticed that it appeared to have a "heartbeat." That is, it would spike up and down on a semi-regular basis, based on nothing in particular. There wasn't a specific news hook why this entire network would suddenly talk about #voterfraud, and they wouldn't talk about it all the time. But... every month or so there would suddenly be a spike.

From there, they started digging into the accounts involved in this particular activity. And they found a very noticeable pattern:

We wanted to know how these accounts were coming onto Twitter and gaining mentions at such a high velocity — what was leading accounts to gain influence, so quickly? So we took a sample set of accounts from a group of suspicious Voter Fraud accounts and started looking at their activity day-by-day, starting at day one. What we began to notice is a pattern for how the influence machine might be working, and how coordination could be happening.

Here's the consistent network pattern we saw:

• User signs up for an account.
• User starts replying to multiple accounts—some known verified Twitter users and many other accounts that are also on our list of actors, or that fit a similar profile.
• The replies tend to contain: text, memes, hashtags, and @mentions of other accounts, building on common themes.
• At some point the pattern shifts from being all replies to original tweets. Those original tweets contain the same types of content as their replies do.
• It appears that this pattern cycles and repeats when the next batch of new accounts come online. The next batch starts replying to the existing, newly influential accounts, and carry on with the same sequence of events for gaining influence.

The report highlights this pattern with a few example accounts, though the full study looked at (and continues to look at) many, many more. What you see over and over again are Twitter feeds of people who seem to do little other than constantly tweet pro-Trump memes and disinformation, and yet magically get thousands and tens of thousands of retweets, often coming out of nowhere. Here's one example:

The gray line at the bottom is the number of tweets. The black line is the number of mentions from others. Notice how it goes from nothing to around 10,000 in no time? Sometimes the accounts are more or less dormant for a while, before suddenly becoming massively popular for no clear reason at all:

Again, as the report makes clear, these aren't necessarily bots (though, they may be). They aren't necessarily even aware that they're a part of something. But the patterns seen over and over and over and over again are uncanny. And it certainly provides strong circumstantial evidence of some sort of influence operation -- and it's one that appears to continue to grow and grow.

As the report notes:

We don’t know why this activity is occurring, or who is behind it. However, the best we can do is look at the data around what’s actually happening. What we've discovered along the way is that there are overlapping patterns of behavior, demonstrating some form of coordination.

We think it's possible that some of these accounts don't realize that they're coordinating or part of a larger influence network. For example, one of these sample accounts might genuinely care about Voter Fraud. A bad actor, coordinating large numbers of accounts could find this person’s tweets useful, then amplify those tweets through thousands of @mentions and replies.

By focusing on the hard data around coordination, we can better understand how public conservations are being distorted and how it affects society. Whatever your views are on Voter Fraud, these accounts and the accounts that amplify them are rapidly accelerating their activity in the lead-up to Election Day.

Similarly, of course, it's not clear that this is actually having any impact on anyone's views. But it's at least worth looking at what happens when there is what appears to be massively coordinated activity, mostly focused around spreading disinformation regarding the election and more. The full methodology of the report is available on the site, as are the names of 200 of the accounts studied.

What's fascinating, of course, is the sheer size of what's happening, and the level of coordination necessary to make it happen. Twitter's response to the report (as noted in the Bloomberg article) is pretty much what you'd expect Twitter to say:

“While we prohibit coordinated malicious behavior, and enforce accordingly, we’ve also seen real people who share the same views organize using Twitter,” the company’s statement said. “This report effectively captures what often happens when hot button issues gain attention and traction in active groups.”

Indeed, that's part of what's so tricky here. Could this kind of thing happen organically? Well, certainly much of it can. Lots of people who share the same views on any particular subject often will see surges in conversations around those topics, including lots of retweets, mentions and replies. But the pattern here definitely looks different. When these things happen organically, they tend to have a fairly different rhythm, either a lot more sustained, or the spikes are much more spread out and explainable (e.g., there was some news event that tied to the topic). Similarly, it is hard to see how so many pseudononymous people, who no one else really knows, magically all jump up to thousands or tens of thousands of mentions with no clear explanation for their sudden and sustained fame.

But this is also why Twitter is put in an impossible position if it's expected to spot all of this. Even with so much evidence, it's still possible that what Guardians.ai spotted was organically formed. It may seem unlikely, but how can you tell? And you can bet that there are some with less than virtuous intent, who are actively figuring out ways to increasingly make all of this activity look organic. Expecting that Twitter, or any company, can always magically determine what is and what is not "authentic" behavior online, is an impossible task. And the very fact that it might sweep up some perfectly innocuous accounts in the process also makes it troubling to expect that the platform should be in charge of sorting out who's who and who's real in these kinds of situations. But, then again, if these kinds of disinformation campaigns truly are having an impact on influencing the public, that too should be a concern. Either way, as the report highlights, there is still much work to be done in analyzing how social networks are being used to influence the public.

Filed Under: bots, campaigns, coordination, influence, politics, social media
Companies: twitter

Pharrell Is Not At All Happy About Trump Using 'Happy' At His Rally... And He Might Actually Have A Case

from the didn't-see-that-coming dept

It happens basically every election cycle: at a political event or rally a politician that a musician dislikes uses one of that musician's songs to get the crowd excited. The musician gets upset and speaks out about it, and maybe even sends a legal threat letter. We've written about this many, many times before going back many years. And in most cases, the complaints are bullshit. Most event venues and and most competent campaigns have the appropriate blanket performance licenses from BMI and/or ASCAP, and that allows them to play whatever they want at the events, and the musicians really can't do much about it (other than complain publicly, which makes lots of news -- and which is why we're still amazed that campaigns don't first check to make sure they play music of musicians who support them).

But... there are some rare exceptions to this general rule, and not only have we found one, but it involves quite an impressive legal threat. It appears that on Saturday evening, just hours after 11 people were murdered in Pittsburgh, President Donald Trump decided to still hold a political rally, because when the choice is put in front of Trump between "appropriate silence" and "pointless spectacle that makes Trump feel worshiped" he will always choose the latter*. But at this highly inappropriate rally, Trump apparently played Pharrell Williams' incredibly upbeat earworm of a pop song "Happy."

* Hey, I get that some of you are going to be upset about this line, and will come up with all sorts of bullshit rationalizing and excuses for why the rally was appropriate, and all I will say to you is: make better life choices, and maybe, take a serious look at yourself in the mirror and ask "what the fuck happened to me?"

And, yes, such a song on such a day at such a stupid rally certainly feels inappropriate to anyone with even the slightest sense of decorum or empathy. But, for Williams, it went a bit further. Because, as reporter Eriq Gardner notes, unlike most popular musicians, Pharrell ditched ASCAP four years ago and moved all his music to Irving Azoff's "Global Music Rights" organization (GMR). GMR is kind of sketchy, and feels like a giant shakedown play for internet sites, but, ignoring that, what is known is that neither the venue nor the campaign have a license from GMR.

And that enabled Pharrell's lawyers to send quite the letter to President Trump. It doesn't just talk about the infringement, but the sheer insanity of playing such a song on such a day.

If you can't read that, it says:

Dear Mr. Trump:

We write you on behalf of our client, Pharrell Williams, composer and performer of the hit song "Happy." On the day of the mass murder of 11 human beings at the hands of a deranged "nationalist," you played his song "Happy" to a crowd at a political event in Indiana. There was nothing "happy" about the tragedy inflicted on our country on Saturday and no permission was granted for your use of this song for this purpose.

Pharrell Williams is the owner of the copyright in "Happy," with the exclusive right to exploit same. Pharrell has not, and will not, grant you permission to publicly perform or otherwise broadcast or disseminate any of his music. The use of "Happy" without permission constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501. This also violates Pharrell's trademark rights under the Lanham Act.

I guess it's possible that Trump could claim fair use in the use of the song, but I doubt that would fly. The trademark claim seems incredibly unlikely, but if the lawyers actually pursued the copyright claim, it seems like they'd have a chance to make it stick.

Filed Under: campaigns, copyright, donald trump, happy, music, performance license, pharrell williams, political rallies, rallies, trademark
Companies: global music rights, gmr

Congressional Rep Mike Honda Sues Challenger Ro Khanna For CFAA Violation Over Access To His Donor List

from the oh-boy dept

So, the CFAA strikes again, and this time right in the heart of a Silicon Valley political fight. If you live in or around the Silicon Valley tech industry, you probably know who Ro Khanna is. He's often been described as the "candidate for Congress that Silicon Valley prefers." It feels like he's been running for Congress against incumbent Rep. Mike Honda forever, but it's really just in the past two elections. Here's a big Bloomberg profile of him from 2013 when he first challenged Honda, losing narrowly to him in the 2014 election, despite having support from many Silicon Valley tech industry stars. This year, he's running again, and in the primary, Khanna narrowly beat Honda, suggesting good things in the general election in November (the top two candidates in the open primary move on to the general election, regardless of party).

Khanna is known for his pro-internet views, while Honda has a reputation for not really understanding or caring very much about the internet.

And now... Honda has sued Khanna under one of the most hated laws on the internet, the CFAA (Computer Fraud & Abuse Act). As we've discussed for many years, the CFAA was supposed to be an "anti-hacking law" that was created by politicians who were (literally, no joke) scared by the fictional movie War Games into writing an anti-hacking law in the 1980s. The law has many, many, many problems, but the biggest one, which comes up again and again in cases, is that it has a vague standard of "unauthorized access" or "exceeding authorized access."

Not surprisingly, that's the issue in this case as well. In short, Brian Parvizshahi was (until Thursday night) Khanna's campaign manager. Way back in 2012, Parvizshahi had briefly (as in, for just a few weeks) worked at Arum Group, an organization that helped Mike Honda with fundraising. After he left Arum Group, apparently no one at the company thought to turn off his access to the Dropbox where they stored all their info about donors. Now, to most people, you'd think that the issue here would be Arum Group's bad policies. But, under the CFAA some can argue that continuing to access that file is a form of "unauthorized access."

And that's the central claim here in the lawsuit. Honda claims that Parvizshahi continued to access that Dropbox folder that he was given access to four years ago and which Arum Group never shut down -- and thus he, and the whole Khanna campaign -- violated the CFAA. You can see the full filing here.

Now, we can say that Parvizshahi continually accessing this info -- especially after starting to work for Khanna -- was really, really dumb. Especially since his actions were clearly viewable in Dropbox -- including cases where he supposedly "edited" the files. From the lawsuit, here's just one of many, many images: It is worth noting, though, that some of the screenshots merely show Parvizshahi "adding" the document to his desktop, which might have happened automatically if he was syncing his Dropbox account to his computer, which is the way many people set things up.

One other sketchy thing here is that someone sent a copy of Honda's donor list to San Jose Inside magazine in late 2015 -- and apparently the file they got matched a file in the Dropbox folder that Parvizshahi had accessed.

So while it may have been dumb for him to do so, the real fault here would seem to lie with Arum Group for (1) giving Parvizshahi access on what appears to be his personal Dropbox account, rather than adding a professional account that it controlled and (2) failing to revoke his access after Parvizshahi left, and not even noticing it for years. That seems to be the really negligent move here.

But, with the way courts have been interpreting the CFAA, it does seem entirely possible (if ridiculous) that a California court could interpret this to be a CFAA violation for Parvizshahi at the very least. If that also applies to Khanna, that would seem doubly ridiculous. Either way, as far as I can tell, while Khanna has taken a position on a number of issues related to tech policy, I don't see anything about the CFAA. Perhaps this particular episode will change that.

Filed Under: brian parvizshahi, campaigns, cfaa, donor lists, hacking, mike honda, ro khanna

Democratic National Committee Punishes Bernie Sanders For Their Own Technical Mistake; Sanders Threatens To Sues

from the turmoil dept

There's a bizarre story about potential computer hackery this morning, involving the Democratic National Committee and the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton -- the two front runners on the Democratic side. Apparently, the DNC was doing some sort of upgrade to its computer systems, and in the process, there was a glitch that very briefly allowed a Sanders staffer, "data director" Josh Uretsky, to access confidential data from Hillary Clinton's campaign -- specifically confidential voter information gathered by Clinton's campaign. Uretsky realized he was able to access the data and did so -- and has apparently since been "fired." In response, the DNC has completely cut off all access to its systems to the Sanders' campaign, saying it won't allow the campaign back in "until it provides an explanation as well as assurances that all Clinton data has been destroyed."

And, now the Sanders campaign is threatening to sue the party, claiming that this move could undermine his entire political campaign.

Yes, accessing a competitor's data seems questionable, but again remember that the mistake here appears to be because of the DNC itself -- or, rather, its computer system vendor NGP VAN. If there's a problem, the DNC should take it up with NGP VAN who fucked up and made the data available across campaigns. That's a pretty big mistake, given the stakes. But to blame the Sanders campaign seems pretty questionable. Yet, the DNC apparently has decided to go full bore against the Sanders campaign instead of admitting to its own error:

DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz weighed in with a statement of her own.

"Once the DNC became aware that the Sanders campaign had inappropriately and systematically accessed Clinton campaign data, and in doing so violated the agreement that all the presidential campaigns have signed with the DNC, as the agreement provides, we directed NGP VAN to suspend the Sanders campaign's access to the system until the DNC is provided with a full accounting of whether or not this information was used and the way in which it was disposed," she said.

In a separate interview, Wasserman Schultz further attacked the Sanders campaign:

“The Sanders campaign doesn’t have anything other than bluster at the moment that they can put out there,” she told CNN on Friday. “It’s like if you found the front door of a house unlocked and someone decided to go into the house and take things that didn’t belong to them.”

To some extent, this sounds like the ridiculous legal fights over the CFAA, over what is and what is not "exceeds authorized access" (just wait until the DNC files CFAA claims against the Sanders campaign...). But separate from that, it really looks like the DNC is not just playing favorites with the Clinton campaign here, but so actively trying to blame its own technical failures on the Sanders campaign as to make itself look ridiculous.

Update: Well, that didn't take long. The Sanders campaign has sued the DNC alleging breach of contract (Sanders and the DNC have a contract allowing the campaign access to the system) as well as negligence for letting NGP VAN screw things up so badly.

Filed Under: access, bernie sanders, campaigns, cfaa, debbie wasserman schultz, hillary clinton, voter info
Companies: democratic national committee, dnc

Come See How Excited Everyone Is For The Latest UK Educational 'Don't Pirate' Campaign

from the sooooooo-excited dept

If you drop the search term "educational campaign" into the Techdirt search field, it's crazy how many story links pop up. When it comes to educating the public, particularly the youth, about how super-important copyright is and how goddamned terrible pirating is, the effort appears to have been going on for forty years or so. Given how every indication from our pro-copyright friends and the entertainment industries have been of the "sky is falling" variety, I would have thought that there would be some acknowledgment that the whole educational campaign thing didn't work. Or maybe that the lesson plan sucked. Some kind of recognition of failure.

If that's the case, you sure wouldn't know it hearing how pants-crappingly excited everyone over in the UK is for yet another round of educational nonsense coming from the entertainment industry.

The education programme will target 16-24 year-olds, their parents, those responsible for household internet connections, as well as others who influence young people’s attitudes to accessing content. To capture the attention of these audiences, public relations firm Weber Shandwick will lead an integrated consumer, corporate and social PR campaign, with activities scheduled to start later this summer. Creative Content UK is working with Atomic London on advertising creative. Media planning and buying will be directed by ZenithOptimedia.

The campaign is part of the Creative Content UK initiative, a ground-breaking partnership between content creators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs), together with an education campaign part-funded by the government, aimed at helping reduce online copyright infringement.

In other words, the public is footing part of the bill for letting the entertainment industries and ISPs tell them how great their products are and how horrible the bill-footing public is because piracy exists. And it will come from such organic methods like hiring PR and advertising firms. How could this possibly fail?

Well, probably the same way that the RIAA's educational campaign failed. And the one that was done in Sweden failed. And the USPTO's educational campaigns, too. They fail because they're almost universally inaccurate and misleading propaganda hits that fail to connect with children far too savvy to fall for scare-tactics. Meanwhile, innovation stalls because the entertainment industry is busy reaping failure with the K-12 crowd.

But, still, that excitement.

Janis Thomas, Education Project Manager, Creative Content UK, said: “We are delighted to have three highly-experienced agencies on board to help us create disruptive and engaging multi-media campaigns that will connect with the aspirations of young people. This behaviour change initiative is vital to the success of the sector and will ensure that we can continue innovating and taking risks on new artists and ideas. We aim to inspire individuals to make a personal commitment to the future of the UK creative industries and to the creation of music, film, games and other entertainment, which they love so much.”

You just have to beat the buzzwords off with a stick, don't you? Kids aren't going to fall for this crap any more than they fell for the over-the-top anti-marijuana videos they showed my parents. But, hey, keep beating that dead horse if you want. Just keep it down; some of us are innovating over here.

Filed Under: campaigns, copyright, education, piracy, uk

DailyDirt: Be Careful What You Ask For

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The internet can be a rather dangerous place to ask people for suggestions. This is especially true for big brands and pop singers (eg. Taylor Swift's promotional contest that voted for her to play at the Horace Mann school for the deaf) who have a significant number of haters just waiting for an opportunity to troll. Marketing folks have been trying out some experiments in gathering "user generated content" from the internet, and here are a few of cases that didn't go quite as well as planned.

• Coca Cola has apologized for its "Share A Coke" website in South Africa that apparently didn't limit user input to people's names. Filtering user input is a lesson that seems to be re-taught again and again. [url]
• McDonald's asked people to share stories of their favorite memories of the burger chain giant, but not everyone had cheerful, glowing things to say. The #McDStories hashtag was pulled from promotion after just a couple hours. "#McDStories: McDialysis? I'm loving it!" [url]
• Back in 2009, Skittles turned over their main website to anyone on Twitter who simply mentioned "skittles" in their tweets. Was that campaign a success or a failure? Tell us in the comments below.... [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: advertising, brands, campaigns, coke, crowdsourcing, marketing, share a coke, skittles, ugc, user generated content
Companies: coca cola, mcdonald's, twitter

Dianne Feinstein Receives Three Times More Cash From Intelligence Contractors Than Patrick Leahy

from the funny-how-that-works dept

While there are many bills that have been introduced in Congress in response to the revelations about the NSA (thank you, Ed Snowden), there really are only two that matter right now in terms of actually having a chance of moving forward. One is good, one is terrible. There is the USA FREEDOM Act, introduced in the Senate by Senator Patrick Leahy, which actually tries to rein in many of the abuses. It's not perfect, but it's a very good bill. Then there's the fake reform bill, introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein, officially dubbed the FISA Improvements Act, but which is really designed to legalize the NSA's abuses and open the door to making it even worse.

It's no secret that Feinstein is the abused spouse of the NSA, always defending her man, no matter how many times it lies and cheats on her, so I doubt it's much of a surprise to find that those who stand to benefit from a strong NSA have been contributing boatloads to Senator Feinstein.

The good folks over at MapLight, thought it might be interesting to see how Feinstein's contributions from intelligence contractors compared to those received by USA FREEDOM Act sponsor Pat Leahy. The answer will not surprise you. Feinstein received three times as much money as Leahy since 2007 (basically a single Senatorial term).

Dept. of Defense Intelligence Services Contractors	Contributions to Senator *Feinstein	Contributions to Senator Leahy
General Dynamics	$43,750	$13,300
Northrop Grumman	$29,800	$6,000
Lockheed Martin	$10,000	$11,000
Honeywell International	$10,000	$5,000
**L-3 Communications	$6,500	---
AECOM	$7,000	---
	$107,050	$35,300

*Not included in the chart is a $250 contribution to Senator Feinstein from Johns Hopkins University, #19 on the USASpending list 

**Totals for L-3 Communications Corporations, L-3 National Securities Solutions Inc. and L-3 Communications Holding Inc. were combined for this analysis.

Now, you could easily make the argument that these companies support the politicians most who already support them (i.e., the cause and effect are reversed). But, as Larry Lessig has pointed out time and time again, these kinds of situations are a form of soft corruption that clearly raise significant questions in the mind of the public about why politicians are supporting what they support. Is it because it's good policy -- or is it because of the money. This level of soft corruption has real consequences beyond just policy -- it destroys the trust and credibility of the government.

Filed Under: campaigns, contributions, dianne feinstein, fisa improvements act, lobbyists, nsa, nsa reform, pat leahy, usa freedom act

District Attorney And Major TV Network Sued Over Stupid Reality Show

from the campaigning-through-reality dept

The most tragically stupid decision was greenlighting a reality show about lawyers. No one cares about watching real-life lawyering. That’s why Nancy Grace exists — to boil salacious cases down to sound bites so viewers don’t have to watch real lawyers.

But almost as stupid was greenlighting a show about a district attorney on the eve of an election and not expecting to run afoul of campaign finance laws.

Imagine running against an incumbent armed with a glossy, major network reality show constantly hyping his effectiveness in office. In the context of a district attorney election, imagine having to run against Adam Schiff after everyone watched a Law & Order marathon.

If that seems unfair, one challenger agrees with you…

The Kings County D.A. election is coming up in September. Well, technically, the Democratic primary is coming up in September, but this is Brooklyn, so that’s really the only election that matters — the Democratic nominee got 99.98% of the vote in the general last time.

Incumbent Charles Hynes is set to star as a real-life Adam Schiff in the upcoming CBS reality show, “Brooklyn D.A.” Basically, watch Cops and then this show and you’ve made yourself a crass, exploitative, reality show version of Law & Order. Since half of the “stars” of this new reality show — based on the tip of Long Island — will be defendants facing time in the state pen, it brings new meaning to being “voted off the island.” It’s kind of “Survivor: Borough Hall”

The show is described in CBS press materials thusly:

“Created by veteran CBS News producer Patti Aronofsky, ‘Brooklyn D.A.’ follows the men and women of the Kings County District Attorney’s Office as they juggle more than 1,000 cases a week,” a press release states. “These hard-charging prosecutors have larger-than-life personalities both inside the courtroom and out. They’re eccentric and living right on the edge. They’re the people living the lives that Hollywood loves to write about.”

Well, that sounds gag-inducing. The promise of “larger-than-life personalities” is going to flop when the audience has to watch 40 minutes of jury selection.

Challenger Abe George does not like it one bit. He’s sued Hynes, the Hynes campaign committee, and CBS in New York County Supreme Court. Hynes is already preparing the “Abe George doesn’t even trust Kings County courts for his own lawsuits — how can we trust him as Kings County D.A.?” ad. George argues that the series is an improper gift to Hynes, granting him free advertising on a major network in advance of the election.

CBS countered:

CBS News spokeswoman Sonya McNair told Courthouse News that George should brush up on the Bill of Rights.

“We are surprised that this candidate would not know about the First Amendment,” McNair said in a statement. “This is obviously a publicity push by a politician.”

This is a poor PR move. The snarky tone and derisive statements about George as a candidate don’t do CBS any favors in a lawsuit where the network is trying to prove that they are NOT willing cheerleaders for the Hynes campaign.

Speaking of poor PR decisions, according to the complaint, Hynes described the impact of the show on the election to Reuters, saying, “if they couldn’t take me out then, boy, you’ll never take me out now.” *Facepalm*

CBS argues that the program is a news documentary and therefore escapes NY campaign finance laws that might apply if the program were a reality show produced for entertainment. And CBS has carefully marketed the show as a news program:

George claims that reply was disingenuous, given how CBS marketed the show on March 27.

“A new reality show will give us an inside look into the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office,” the press release stated, according to the complaint.

“CBS also expressly categorized its announcement on the website under ‘Entertainment.’ This website is still available as of the date of this complaint.

*Double facepalm*

CBS and Hynes may still be able to escape NY campaign finance laws based on Citizens United, which set the table for invalidating the journalistic exception in the new corporate free-for-all of electioneering. If drawing lines between media corporations and regular corporations violates equal protection, then CBS is free to campaign all it wants for Hynes.

And if that’s the case, might I suggest CBS can get started on a reality show following newly announced NYC mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner. They can call it, “Look At My Weiner.”

District Attorney Candidate Claims Incumbent’s ‘Reality Show’ Is a Gift [Courthouse News Service]
Campaigning as the Press: Citizens United and the Problem of Press Exemptions in Law [Nexus]

More stories from Above The Law

• How A Tech Giant Proposes To Charge You For Having Friends
• Which Supreme Court Justice Are You?
• Paranoid Attorneys Ask Prudence For Advice

Filed Under: campaigns, new york, reality tv

MPAA Sends Five Key Propaganda Points To Politicians

from the break-it-down dept

Deadline Hollywood has the story of the MPAA sending out a list of key "talking points" to the two major presidential candidates, though we've heard that the same letter is being distributed to folks in Congress as well. It's the expected fluff and bogus info, but since these talking points will undoubtedly get parroted by clueless politicians, we might as well take a moment to cut through some of the clutter and point out where the MPAA is being deceitful, dishonest or just marginally misleading.

The television and film industry is an important economic pillar of the US economy – and a major private sector employer. Film and TV production takes place in all 50 states across the country.

The American film and television industry is a massive contributor to the US economy, generating $42.1 billion in wages from direct industry jobs and distributing $37.4 billion in payments to nearly 278,000 businesses around the country in 2010. Making movies takes more than just stars – it takes a vast number of hardworking creators and makers whose work takes place behind the camera and beyond. In fact, the entertainment industry is a major private-sector employer, supporting 2.1 million jobs across the country in 2010. These jobs exist in every state, and boast average salaries 32% higher than the national average.

Whether or not the TV and film industry is an "important" economic pillar depends on how you define "important." But let's grant the premise, and then ask: what does that have to do with the government or copyright? Answer? It doesn't.

As for the specific numbers, it's worth noting that the TV and film business has been growing massively over the past decade -- even though (as the MPAA constantly reminds us) copyright has been getting less and less respect, and infringement has been spreading. An organization based in reality recognizes that perhaps the weakening of copyright laws is not a "problem" in such a situation. As for the specific numbers, those are complete bunk. 2.1 million jobs? No. The Congressional Research Service looked into the movie industry and found a grand total of 374,000 employees in 2010 -- which is a number that the MPAA tries to hide by pretending that all sorts of ancillary jobs, such as flowershops and laundromats that service film crews while shooting, count in this calculation.

Free expression and free speech are cornerstones of the entertainment industry.

Copyright law, which is enshrined in our constitution, protects those who create everything from books to movies, from songs to software. Copyright is not censorship. Rather, it incentivizes innovation and creativity; the Supreme Court has called copyright the “engine of free expression.” Free speech is vital to creators and innovators, and the movie business wouldn’t exist without freedom of speech and expression. In fact, the motion picture industry has fought aggressively for freedom of speech on behalf of its storytellers for over a hundred years.

An intellectually honest person admits that copyright has two conflicting impacts: it may encourage some increase in production by providing a limited monopoly, but it can also prevent expression. The real question is which side you think outweighs the other. But the MPAA document simply refuses to admit that copyright can be used for censorship, despite the fact that its own members are quite familiar with using copyright to take down legititimate content. The MPAA's extremist position here is clearly bogus on its face. Copyright can absolutely be used to censor. To claim that the two things are mutually exclusive means you're either lying or clueless.

As for the MPAA fighting for free speech, how about its close involvement with ICE and the DOJ in censoring websites? So far, ICE and the DOJ have had to admit that they totally screwed up two of those seizures, censoring blogs and forums for over a year -- and we fully expect to see ICE and the DOJ have to admit a few more, similar mistakes. However, one thing that ICE has also stated? That these seizures came about thanks to its close working relationship with the MPAA. In fact, the very first time ICE seized domains, it made the announcement from Disney's headquarters. Imagine if the federal government seized a news blog... and did so from the offices of the NY Times. People would point out that this doesn't seem right, but the feds have been able to get away with this blatant crony protectionism.

If the MPAA can't admit that it's been involved in blatant censorship, then it has little recognition of its own abuse of the law.

The motion picture and television industry is an industry of innovators.

Our companies embrace and harness the rapid development of technology. From IMAX to 3-D to shooting films at 48 frames per second, movie studios are on the cutting edge of entertainment technology. They are relentlessly innovating to bring audiences not only the latest in moviemaking, but also a seamless content experience that allows them to watch the shows and movies they love where and how they want. Hulu, HBO Go, Vudu, Crackle, UltraViolet, Epix, MUBI, Netflix, Amazon – and that just scratches the surface.

We've already addressed this one at length. Offering something is not the same thing as offering what people want. Furthermore, the MPAA had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept some of these offerings, and not because of the foresight of the movie industry, but because the tech innovators it now wants to shackle kept pushing and prodding until Hollywood came around. Netflix and Amazon came much more from the tech industry than Hollywood. Hulu may have come out of Hollywood, but it gave the team (with a tech background) pretty free rein in building out the service... and the second it started taking off, Hollywood sought to kill it. To present these as signs of innovation is like saying that I "innovated" in the food business because I ate a Korean taco. Having a tangential relationship with those who actually innovate is not innovation itself. And when Hollywood then seeks to kill off said innovation, it shows how they really view the world.

The entertainment community supports an internet that works for everyone.

It is critical to the entertainment community that we protect the free flow of information on the internet while also protecting the rights of artists and creators. The internet must be a place for investment, innovation and creativity – that’s critical not just for our industry, but for intellectual property-intensive industries around the world. In April, the U.S. Department of Commerce released a report that found that intellectual property-intensive industries – including film and television -- support at least 40 million jobs and contribute more than $5 trillion dollars to U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). That’s 34.8 percent of US GDP. Simply put, protecting American creativity from theft is critical the U.S. economy – and so is protecting the freedom to express creativity online.

Creators must have the freedom to innovate online, and they must also be secure in their ability to benefit from their creations. Copyright protection is critical to ensuring that. We can protect creative works while ensuring that the Internet works for everyone.

First of all, the infamous Commerce Department "study" was quickly proven to be complete bunk. The whole "IP intensive industries" metric is a joke -- highlighted by the fact that the report showed the number one employer in the "IP intensive industries" was... grocery stores. The report just lumped together copyright, patents and trademarks, and most of the "jobs" and GDP being talked about are in "trademark" intensive industries -- a definition is so stupidly broad as to include every single person who works at a grocery store. Yet under MPAA propaganda, the teen who checked you out when you bought your groceries is a symbol of why they need a new SOPA bill.

Second, any time someone says they want an internet that "works for everyone," what they really mean is that they're relying on a business model that has been disrupted by the internet, and the only way to make things fair is to break the internet where it challenges their old and obsolete way of doing business. The market decides what "works for everyone." Not the government. If the MPAA can't keep up, get out of the way and let real innovators step in.

The film and television industry has become one of this country’s most important and most consistent exports.

The movies and TV shows made here in the U.S. tell stories that resonate with people around the globe, and as a result, the film and television industry has become one of this country’s most important and most consistent exports. The entertainment industry boasted a positive services trade surplus of $11.9 billion in 2010, or 7% of the total U.S. private sector trade surplus in services. Maintaining that positive balance of trade is crucial to the continued growth of the U.S. entertainment industry and an important pillar of our national economy. Trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement aim to protect the hard work of American creators and makers around the world, while including important safeguards to protect the free flow of information on the internet.

I agree that the US makes films and TV shows that resonate around the world -- and then seeks to make it impossible to view them elsewhere thanks to ridiculous regional restrictions, release windows and DRM. Furthermore, the problem that the MPAA faces around the world won't be solved by ACTA or TPP. As has been studied in great detail, the international issues the industry faces are almost entirely business model issues, not enforcement issues. Yet, the industry refuses to even contemplate that this might be the case, preferring to support scorched earth campaigns for things like ACTA and TPP.

I recognize that this is how the MPAA has worked for half a century or so. It produces propaganda for politicians, and then tells them to write treaties and laws that support the propaganda. But, really, rolling out the same bogus and debunked stats that have long since been disproved, seems bizarre. It's as if the MPAA is so stuck in this rut of "we lie, you do what we say" that it can't get out of it. I'd love to see an MPAA that is willing to engage on issues, but instead we get one whose only mode of doing business is to lie consistently.

Filed Under: campaigns, copyright, movie industry, politicians, propaganda, talking points
Companies: mpaa