New Study On Effects Of Manga Piracy Show Piracy's Effects Are More Nuanced Than Good Or Bad

from the comicly-nuanced dept

In all of our years and years of discussions on piracy and copyright infringement, one sweeping issue with the public discourse on the topic is how bereft of nuance it is. It's as though the world has been confronted with a massively complicated topic, the internet and digital piracy and their effects on content makers, and decided to make the conversation binary. Piracy is fine. Piracy is horrible.

It should be immediately apparent how absurd that type of thinking is. Complicated issues require complicated analysis that often times has complicated outcomes. Serving as an example of this, a recent study out of Japan on the effects of piracy for the manga industry shows exactly these kind of mixed and complicated results.

Newly published research by Professor Tatsuo Tanaka of the Faculty of Economics at Keio University suggests that both sides have a point.

The findings come from a natural experiment that uses a massive takedown campaign conducted by anti-piracy group CODA in 2015. This campaign reduced the availability of pirated comics on various download sites, which allowed Professor Tanaka to analyze how this affected sales of 3,360 comic book volumes.

The results, recently published in the article titled “The Effects of Internet Book Piracy: Case of Comics,” show that the effect of piracy differs between ongoing and completed series. In other words, the effect of piracy is heterogeneous.

Interestingly, if a manga series is a completed finished product with no more issues being produced, antipiracy efforts show positive sales effects for that series. On the other hand, for ongoing series, antipiracy efforts actually reduce future sales of that series. And, if you think about this for five seconds, that makes all the sense in the world. Illicit copies of an ongoing work will attract new potential readers of the work as the cost barrier to trying out the new series is null. Once a reader is gained illicitly, some percentage of those readers will go on to begin paying for the product. This happens either because of the way people use piracy as a no-risk method for trying out a new product or because of a more easy or convenient method to buy the product instead of pirating it.

What it absolutely does not show, however, is that content makers should be uniformly against piracy in every situation, full stop.

“If the effect of piracy is heterogeneous, it is not the best solution to shut down the piracy sites uniformly but to delete harmful piracy files selectively if possible. In this case, deleting piracy files of ongoing comics only is the first best strategy for publishers regardless of whether the total effect is positive or negative, because the availability of piracy files of completed comics is beneficial to both publishers and consumers.”

Nuance. Selective enforcement. These are not the hallmarks of the entertainment industries, unfortunately, but it has been demonstrated that they would be useful tools to those industries if they were applied. Is piracy good? No. Is piracy bad? No. It's all much more complicated than that and it would be nice if our public discourse reflected that.

Filed Under: copyright, impact, manga, piracy

Rep. Ro Khanna To Introduce Bill To Study Impact Of FOSTA On Sex Workers

from the well,-look-at-that dept

FOSTA was sold to Congress and the public as a way to "protect women," who (we were told) were being sex trafficked because of a "loophole" in the law. As we warned over and over again at the time, FOSTA would actually put women at even greater risk, and that has been supported by nearly all of the evidence we've seen to date. Beyond the fact that the number of women who are actually victims of sex trafficking has been greatly exaggerated or completely made up to the point of ridiculousness, so far there have been multiple reports showing that the actual impact of FOSTA was to increase sex trafficking by putting sex workers at much greater risk, driving them into the greedy arms of traffickers who promise protection. This has resulted in more women dead and even police admitting that the law has made it more difficult for them to catch traffickers.

That's pretty much exactly what many of us predicted before the law was passed, but Congress likes to pass laws and then forget about ever bothering to check whether or not the law did what it promised. So it's interesting to note that Rep. Ro Khanna is apparently planning to introduce a bill to study the actual impact of FOSTA, specifically on sex workers. This was buried in an article about Kate D'Adamo, a lobbyist representing the interests of sex workers on Capitol Hill.

“She is one of the most vocal and effective advocates on this issue,” said Rep. Ro Khanna of California’s Silicon Valley, who plans to introduce the bill in the next several weeks to study SESTA-FOSTA’s impacts after being approached by D’Adamo and her fellow activists.

“She’s really, I think, driving the conversation about the humanity of sex workers and the vulnerability of sex workers,” he said.

The measure, which has yet to be finalized, would call on the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health to study the fallout of SESTA-FOSTA.

[....]

The extent to which SESTA-FOSTA succeeded in its stated goal of shutting down sex traffickers is unclear, but Khanna said anecdotes have flooded in that the measure has forced sex workers to walk strolls to meet clients, causing “more violence, more harm to the public.”

“It was a wrong vote,” said Khanna, who was one of just 12 Democrats to oppose SESTA-FOSTA. “We need to now study it and understand the consequences, which I don’t think Congress fully considered. I can’t see any reason for opposing the collection of data.

The article notes that, even as many in the public now support decriminalizing sex work, most politicians are scared of even revisiting FOSTA, afraid that it will be spun that they're interested in decrminalizing sex work -- even as FOSTA has often resulted in more sex workers on the streets in their districts.

In his meeting with D’Adamo, the aide explained that since SESTA-FOSTA passed, there’s been an uptick of sex work on the district’s streets, leading to more 911 calls from constituents. “That’s not to say that the Congress member wouldn’t vote in favor of this on the floor,” he explained. “The people in our district are just very religious. Because of the taboo behind sex work, the Congress member doesn’t want to scare away supporters.”

What really gets me about all of this is: where are all the vocal supporters of FOSTA who insisted it was necessary to protect women? Where are they now that so far the evidence suggests it's put more women at risk? Why have they all gone silent? Why aren't they vocally supporting Khanna's effort to study the impact of the law? It's almost as if (as we noted) this was never actually about protecting women at all.

Filed Under: congress, fosta, impact, intermediary liability, ro khanna, section 230, sex workers

More Copyright Policy Should Be As Boring As This Supreme Court Decision

from the make-copyright-boring-again dept

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously last Monday in Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com, a copyright case that hinged on whether the "registration" of a work—which, by statute, must precede most kinds of infringement lawsuits—happens when the author sends in their application, or whether it happens when the Copyright Office makes a determination and sends back a certificate. There was a circuit split on the issue, in which some courts had gone with the "application approach," and others had gone with the "registration approach," and legal experts were divided on the question.

As of last Monday it is resolved. The Supreme Court went with the "registration approach" and said that unless you're subject to one of the handful of statutory carve-outs you must wait until the Copyright Office does its thing before you can sue.

The Supreme Court decided correctly, for what it's worth -- as Mike wrote about earlier. But, as even a dedicated copyright nerd like your humble author must admit, it's a pretty boring question. Copyright law is a field where small changes can have profound effects on people's lives, where de facto speech policies can be shaped, and where new technologies and media can be formally blessed or condemned to utter oblivion. But it's also a field of industrial regulation, cobbled together in large part by technocrats with domain expertise figuring out what works for all the parties in the room. To its credit, Fourth Estate is a case that limits its impact largely to that latter area.

But the fact that one body of law must do both things is the source of a lot of headache and heartache. Writing effective policy is hard, even when you're not trying to write a single rule that governs both billion dollar studio contracts and comments on a blog. The consequences can be extreme, as Cory Doctorow once explained: "A funny thing happened on the way to the 21st century: copyright policy ceased to exist. Because every copyright policy that we make has a seismic effect on the Internet, and because you can’t regulate copying without regulating the Internet." And of course, "as we make the transition from a world where everything we do includes an online component to a world where everything we do requires an online component, it’s becoming the case that there’s no such thing as 'Internet policy' – there’s just policy."

But it's neither inevitable nor accidental that copyright touches every part of our lives. It's helpful to really break it down here: copyright is an enumerated bundle of restrictions that apply to things called "works."

Doctorow's argument is about the first half of that expression. He elaborated in another column: because everything we do with computers (and especially networked computers) involves observable acts of making copies, copyright touches nearly every use of a work. Uses that once went unregulated are now swept up in the bundle of rights because they involve a copy. There are big commercial examples of this, like how video rental used to be an act of moving a cartridge or a disc from place to place and now it's a licensed act of making copies. But there are also a million little examples of this we encounter every day, from checking out books at the library to sharing a funny picture with friends to listening to our favorite music.

So that's how the first half of the expression went awry; what was once a limited set of exclusive rights is now a mechanism to regulate all sorts of uses of things called "works." That would be bad enough. But the real problem lies in the second half, in terms of what gets called a "work."

That too used to be an enumerated list. The first U.S. copyright law covered maps, charts, and books. Over the years more and more categories were added, but the real shift was more fundamental. It happened, at least in the U.S., in 1976, when the overhauled law changed copyright from a system that was opt-in to one where participation was mandatory. Works were previously only subject to copyright restrictions if the author went through "formalities,"—namely, putting a copyright notice on the work and sending in a registration to the Copyright Office. The 1976 Act removed that hurdle. Overnight, that changed the character of copyright from a regulatory system that applied to a handful of professionals consciously participating in it, to one that controlled nearly every utterance and scribble that got fixed in a tangible medium.

That's the one-two punch. First, through law: applying copyright coverage to basically everything. Then, through technology: expanding the regulated uses to basically all of them.

It's a bad situation, and it's that part that motivates people like Doctorow to take pursue a life of activism. With few exceptions, most people passionate about copyright reform care most about the consequences of copyright as an everything policy, and less so about the nitty-gritty of copyright as industrial regulation.

Which is part of the reason why, to bring it back to Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com, the Supreme Court decision is both correct and (mostly) boring. Correct, in part, because actual litigation is something that does not and should not apply to most human beings interacting with copyrighted works, and so it's good for that to be conditioned on opt-in registration. Boring, in part, because it is (mostly) not about the side of copyright that affects blog comments, but instead the side that underpins billion dollar contracts.

Copyright policy has, for decades now, labored under the fiction that there’s no distinction between the boring parts and the scary parts of the law. It’s a good thing to remember there’s a difference.

Filed Under: boring, copyright, impact, innovation, policy, registration, scotus, supreme court
Companies: fourth estate, wall-street.com

My Talk At Wikimedia: Copyright Impacts Everything

from the it-does dept

Last week, I mentioned that I was giving a talk at the Wikimedia Foundation about copyright. It was a fun time, and the video from the talk is now online. Unfortunately, the audio and the video are... not entirely great. I'd complain about the terrible microphone, but that sounds like a certain presidential candidate. The video is okay, but the colors are off, so my presentation looks a little weird. Either way, you should still be able to get the basics. There's an introduction from Jan Gerlach at the Wikimedia Foundation, talking about all the important policy work they do, then my talk that runs about half an hour, followed by a Q&A with the audience that runs another half hour or so. It was a fun time, with a really great group of folks, and the conversation continued on after the official session ended for quite a while. Check it out:

Filed Under: 1201, censorship, copyright, dmca, free speech, impact
Companies: wikimedia

Telco Analyst Compares Google Fiber To Ebola... Completely Misses The Point

from the making-duopolists-sweat dept

As we've noted more than a few times, the broadband industry was in dire need of a swift kick in the posterior, and Google Fiber has done a wonderful job highlighting this fact on a daily basis. The company's decision to jump into the broadband market and offer symmetrical 1 Gbps connections for $70 a month (with no obnoxious fees) quickly resulted in thousands of cities all over the country falling over themselves to get Google's attention. In the process, Google was able to not only highlight the overall lack of broadband competition, but also other notably less-sexy (and therefore overlooked) issues like state protectionist community broadband bans. The free marketing in every paper nationwide is of course just an added perk for Google.

Of course, not everybody's so easily impressed. Telecom industry analyst Craig Moffett, who has made a name for himself being rather wrong about things (whether that's predicting the collapse of the wireless industry or pretending cord cutters don't exist), this week poured cold water on Google's efforts by highlighting just how few subscribers Google actually has. In a research note, Moffett notes that Google Fiber has just 30,000 subscribers, and this is somehow proof positive that Google Fiber isn't a big deal. Like, you know....Ebola:

"To Cable & Satellite investors, Google Fiber is a bit like ebola: very scary and something to be taken seriously," telecom industry analyst Craig Moffett wrote in a research note to investors this week. "But the numbers are very small, it gets more press attention than it deserves, and it ultimately doesn't pose much of a risk (here in the US at least)."

The unfortunate tasteless use of a bad metaphor aside, Moffett's not really seeing the big picture when it comes to Google Fiber's impact. As we've noted previously, Google Fiber isn't just about deploying faster, cheaper broadband connections (though Google has made it clear it wants a sustainable business). Google Fiber's been largely about highlighting a lack of competition and lighting a fire under all-too-comfortable duopolists. As the project has expanded, Google has made a point of offering cities a checklist (pdf) helping to make deployment easier, whether it's Google or somebody else doing the building.

Moffett looked to the U.S. Copyright Office to get the total subscriber counts (it tracks video subscribers because of compulsory license fee requirements). It's worth noting however that the USCO doesn't track broadband subscriber totals, and most Google Fiber customers are likely to be skipping traditional video and embracing over-the-top video services, so the actual numbers are likely higher. It's also worth noting that Google's on the cusp of a major new expansion into Raleigh/Durham, Charlotte, Atlanta, and Nashville, with potential Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Antonio and San Jose launch announcements later this year. It's a slow drum beat, but it's a steady one.

In other words, while it's true Google Fiber has probably seen some overhype and most incumbent ISPs don't face an immediate competitive threat, looking at subscriber totals and declaring it a non-starter for the telecom industry is pretty narrow thinking. Google Fiber not only shines a spotlight on the lack of meaningful broadband competition, it has sparked the public's imagination and fueled a national conversation about how we can do broadband better.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, craig moffett, google fiber, impact, wall street
Companies: google

New NSA Boss Says The Sky Is Not Falling Because Of Snowden Revelations

from the because-it's-not dept

While former NSA boss General Keith Alexander continues to run around insisting that the damage from the Snowden revelations has been catastrophic and has put us all in great danger, his successor in office, Admiral Mike Rogers (again, no relation to chief NSA defender and head of the House Intelligence Committee Rep. Mike Rogers), has actually been a hell of a lot more reserved in his own claims. In his latest interview, with the NY Times, he specifically notes that the sky is not falling from the Snowden revelations.

He repeated past warnings that the agency had overheard terrorist groups “specifically referencing data detailed” by Mr. Snowden’s revelations. “I have seen groups not only talk about making changes, I have seen them make changes,” he said.

But he then added: “You have not heard me as the director say, ‘Oh, my God, the sky is falling.’ I am trying to be very specific and very measured in my characterizations.”

Rogers also didn't spew the usual FUD about how we'd all be at risk if the bulk phone record collection was shut down, though, of course he said he still wanted access to the data in a reasonable amount of time, if necessary.

Admiral Rogers indicated that system, so long resisted by the security agency, was workable. “I am not going to jump up and down and say, ‘I have to have access to that data in minutes and hours,’ ” he said. “The flip side is that I don’t want to take weeks and months to get to the data.”

While it's doubtful that there will be any significant change in the NSA under Rogers, at the very least it's nice to see it have a leader who doesn't immediately jump to the usual FUD about how it absolutely needs every possible ability to spy on everyone or we'll all be put at risk.

Filed Under: admiral mike rogers, ed snowden, impact, nsa, surveillance

USTR's Special 301 List Of 'Naughty' Countries Without Strong Enough Patent And Copyright Laws Is A Complete Joke

from the as-if-we-didn't-know-that dept

We've talked plenty of times about what a complete joke the USTR's Special 301 report is. It's supposedly a "listing" of "naughty" countries who don't protect intellectual property enough for the US's tastes. However, as we've noted, there is no methodology behind it: a bunch of industry lobbyists submit lists of what countries they don't like to the USTR, the USTR talks to various diplomats, basically rewrites the list to "shame" certain countries, and releases the list. Canada, which has been put on the list for years despite having stricter copyright laws than the US, has officially stated that it simply does not accept the Special 301 findings as legitimate. Chile did the same thing a year ago. As I've mentioned before, at a conference a few years ago, I even saw the then head of the US Copyright Office mock the Special 301 report as a widely recognized joke.

Unfortunately, however, for countries who are heavily reliant on good relations with the United States, being on "the naughty" list is often an effective way to force them to jump through hoops to make Big Pharma or Hollywood happy. As we've discussed, Spain has been pressured into changing its copyright laws via the 301 list multiple times.

George Washington PhD student Gabriel Michael has decided to dig deep into the Special 301 Report and its history to determine if there's any point to it at all, and his initial results suggest that the process is even more of a joke than initially suspected. He notes that there's no real "enforcement" mechanism (at least not one that the US seems willing to use). He also notes that the US is incredibly hypocritical about it. While the Special 301 report mostly complains that other countries don't have enough intellectual property protection, at other times it goes the other way, like when it's the kind of IP that the US government doesn't like (geographical indicators or GI).

...by any reasonably objective standard, the European Union offers very high levels of IP protection. Yet as recently as 2006, Special 301 listed the European Union on its watch list, citing “concerns” about the EU’s geographical indication (GI) regime. Given that GIs are a form of intellectual property, USTR essentially placed the EU on its watch list for offering too much IP—or, if you prefer, the wrong kind of IP. Interestingly, this is a tacit admission by the U.S. that at least some kinds of IP can act as trade barriers.

In researching the effectiveness of the Special 301, Michael notes that supporters of the effort point to a study done in the International Trade Journal called "Special 301 and Royalty Receipts from U.S. Trade Partners" by David Riker, which argued that the Special 301 is effective, because there's a pretty big increase ($5.4 billion annually) in US royalty receipts from countries after being placed on the list. Michael sets out to replicate Riker's results and discovers very, very different results, in part because Riker made some notable errors (claiming Hong Kong was on the priority list, when it wasn't). Riker also only looked at some of the countries in the Special 301 Report. Michael looked at what happened when you viewed all of them, and he also had two more years of data to research. In the end, Michael finds that Riker's conclusions are simply not supported by the data.

To summarize, while I was able to replicate Riker’s results, simply including additional years of data causes his findings of significance to disappear. Likewise, even in his original dataset and models, if Watch List designations are included, the findings of significance disappear.

Ultimately, these results lead me to conclude that Riker’s 2012 article is both theoretically and empirically flawed. It cannot support the conclusion that Special 301 designations are correlated with increased IP royalties from designated countries in subsequent years.

In another post, Michael points out the obvious: the Special 301 list is never actually about intellectual property protections, but about political considerations. He notes that countries that are considered to have stronger IP protection (using the Park-Ginarte Index) are often listed on the Special 301 Report, while others with less protection are not. He even looks at the average of countries on the list and off, and finds that those on the list have higher protection than those off the list: Given that, Michael looked at the leaked Wikileaks State Department cables, where there are a bunch discussing the Special 301, and quickly notes that it's pretty clear that political considerations were much more important than actual concerns about intellectual property conditions. In short, the Special 301 is just a way to diplomatically slap a country with whom we're having other political issues, in order to give the US leverage on some political point. He quotes State Department cables concerning Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Bolivia and Norway showing how it's much more about politics.

At some point, it needs to be asked why we have the Special 301 setup at all. It seems designed mainly to piss off other countries, while making Hollywood and Big Pharma feel good. It doesn't seem to do anything beneficial at all.

Filed Under: copyright, diplomacy, evidence, impact, intellectual property, patents, politics, special 301, ustr

DailyDirt: What Will Humanity's Legacy Be?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Humans have obviously had a significant impact on the Earth. We've killed off various species and built stuff that may long outlast our grandchildren (e.g., the pyramids, the Long Now clock, nuclear waste facilities, etc.). At some point, we might want to think about what we'll leave behind after we're gone ourselves. Here are just a few links on planning for the future for our world.

• A professor of water management looked at humanity's overall environmental footprint -- and concluded our behavior is unsustainable. It's not such a big surprise, but the report also points out that technology alone probably won't bring us back to sustainable levels if we don't alter our consumption habits. [url]
• Economically, though, maybe you shouldn't worry too much -- and just consume as much as you can when you're young and able to enjoy it. If you're not planning to live too long, it doesn't make much sense to save for the future or work long hours hoping that you'll be able to enjoy retirement someday. [url]
• Humanity's new, long-lasting techno-fossils might be plastiglomerates -- a new type of rock made up of plastics, volcanic sediment and various other kinds of beach debris. These plastic rocks might not last as long as other kinds of geological materials, but their traces could become a distinguishing feature of the Anthropocene era. [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: anthropocene, environment, footprint, global climate change, impact, long now, plastic, plastiglomerates, rocks, sustainability

Data On 'Six Strikes' Suggests Little Real Impact

from the because-of-course dept

Academic research has already shown pretty clearly that so called "graduated response" programs, in which ISPs send out notices concerning alleged infringement under a varying number of "strikes," don't actually work, but a failure to be effective has never stopped the legacy entertainment industry from pursuing useless policies and programs. Earlier this week, the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), which administers the Copyright Alert System (CAS), better known as the "six strikes" program, finally released some data about the program. While CCI quickly declared it a success, a quick look at the data suggests a rather dismal failure in terms of actually mitigating any behavior.

The proponents of the program insist that mere notices (i.e., "education") would lead people to suddenly stop their unauthorized usage ways, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all. While, yes, that shows a decreasing slope, there's always going to be a decreasing slope due to the nature of time between alerts. And, really, if "education" was effective, you'd expect to see a much more massive decrease. As TorrentFreak notes:

...the repeat warning percentage of 30% is quite high, especially when one takes into account that people who received their first alert during the last month had little time to generate a second one. In addition, the detection rate is relatively low, not to mention subscribers’ use of anonymizing tools.

It appears that U.S. pirates are relatively persistent. In France, for example, only 9% of all the warned copyright infringers received two warnings, and that was after two full years. Also, only 0.029% of the French got a third strike.

While these “strikes” programs have their differences, the high number of second warnings in the U.S. stands out.

In other words, the data certainly suggests the deterrent effect of the program isn't particularly powerful. Furthermore, it appears that there's a rather significant error rate. After the 3rd and 4th alert, people can challenge the claims, and there were 47 successful challenges (out of 265 total challenges). Most of the successful challenges involved people claiming that others were using their account, but it certainly highlights the problem with these programs, when you are declared guilty first, and can then "pay" to challenge, you'd hope there wouldn't be so many "errors" in the program. Either way, given the fact that these programs really appear to have little overall impact on the end user, it's not surprising that so few challenge them in the first place.

Filed Under: cas, cci, copyright, copyright alert system, impact, six strikes
Companies: cci, center for copyright infringement