Trumpist Republicans Latest Freakout A Total Self-Own, As They Reveal They Don't Read What They Tweet

from the how-are-you-this-fucking-dumb? dept

I know, I know: Trumpists have decided that part of the culture war they need to create for the election is that "big tech" is somehow "censoring conservatives." The narrative is complete bullshit, but the Trump cultists are so deeply bought into it that they'll make themselves look absolutely ridiculous to further it. The latest is that a bunch of Republican officials apparently don't understand Twitter and, in trying to continue this anti-tech culture war, instead demonstrated to the world that they can't read.

The issue: a few weeks back Twitter introduced a new feature, popping up a little warning if you go to retweet an article before actually clicking through on it. They had been testing this for a few months, but finally rolled it out widely a few weeks ago. The idea is to try to get people to read through what it is they're retweeting, rather than blindly retweeting it without reading. It's an experiment to try to slow the spread of disinformation and to get people more engaged. I don't know how well it will work, but the logic behind it makes some amount of sense.

Except... on Wednesday, prominent Republicans discovered this feature, and incorrectly thought that it was (1) blocking retweets (2) blocking access to links it was actually telling people to click on and (3) only applying this to content that Trumpists liked.

The Twitter account for the House Judiciary Committee Republicans tweeted a screenshot claiming that Twitter "put a warning label" on a Sean Hannity link. Of course, in their very screenshot (which it appears they did not read) it clearly says: "Headlines don't tell the full story. You can read the article on Twitter before Retweeting." And then it has a link to "Learn more" which tells people about the policy.

So, to be clear: this is not a warning label. It is not applied selectively to Republican content. If they had actually clicked through to the underlying article they wouldn't have seen it. If they had read the label that they screenshotted it clearly explains it. If they had any confusion they could have clicked on the link to get even more information about what's happening.

But, no, these geniuses immediately insisted it was a Twitter plot against "conservatives."

And the thing is, their idiot followers are buying it. There are tons of replies to the tweet about how Congress needs to take away Section 230 or shut down Twitter because of this... effort to encourage people to read before they tweet.

But, of course, it spread quickly. The President's son Don Jr. retweeted someone else showing a screenshot and added three sirens:

He also tweeted out a somewhat infamous internet troll claiming that Twitter only does it for the Republican fundraising site WinRed, but not for the Democratic fundraising site ActBlue. This is wrong. All it means is that the troll clicked through to an ActBlue page before trying to retweet, but not the WinRed page. And yet, the troll's supporters are incorrectly claiming this is "election interference."

Then we have Rep. Doug Collins from Georgia, currently running to be Senator in Georgia (against Kelly Loeffler, so there are no good choices), who got the same message FOUR TIMES and apparently read it zero times because he took screenshots and retweeted all four times, even though it says quite clearly that all it's asking you to do is to READ a link before you retweet it. And Collins is apparently too stupid to realize that this is happening on any article you have first clicked on. Finally, it's NOT "censorship" in any sense of the word to nudge you towards actually reading the article. It's like the reverse of censorship. It's encouraging you to read the content.

I'd really like to believe that there are some competent, level-headed politicians within Congress, but right now the Republicans there seem to be embracing the "we're so fucking stupid that we'll tweet out examples of how we can't read" as a strategic culture war play.

Filed Under: donald trump jr. house republicans, doug collins, gop, judiciary committee, reading, reading comprehension
Companies: twitter

Congress Might Actually Be Moving Forward On Fixing Outdated Email Privacy Law!

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

We've been talking about and asking for ECPA reform for many, many years, and it might finally be moving forward. ECPA is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which details how the government can get access to your electronic communications. The law was written in the early 1980s, and as you've probably noticed, we live in a very different world these days as it pertains to electronic communications. One key example: the law says that messages left on a server for more than 180 days are considered abandoned and can be searched without a warrant. That may have made some sense (though, not really) in a client-server era, where everyone downloaded their messages leading to them being deleted from a server, but it makes no sense at all in an era of cloud computing.

The main foes against updating ECPA have been government agencies that have investigatory powers, but not the ability to get a warrant -- mainly the SEC and the IRS, with the SEC being the real stumbling block. The SEC really liked the fact that it could snoop through emails without a warrant. So, even with massive support in Congress, ECPA reform never went anywhere.

So it was a bit surprising to folks this week to see Rep. Bob Goodlatte announce that the Judiciary Committee will now markup the ECPA reform bill, meaning that the bill is moving forward again. It's not entirely clear why it's happening now, but at the very least, it sounds like the SEC's constant protests may no longer be an obstacle. Hopefully it does move forward, and whatever results from the process leads to much stronger privacy protections on electronic communications, such as actually requiring a warrant, like the 4th Amendment says should happen.

Filed Under: bob goodlatte, ecpa, ecpa reform, electronic communications, email, irs, judiciary committee, markup, sec, surveillance

Think Tank Who Proposed SOPA Now Argues That US Should Encourage Countries To Censor The Pirate Bay

from the censorship dept

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on what sounds like a boring topic: "International Data Flows: Promoting Digital Trade in the 21st Century." However, as we've discussed, this seemingly boring topic can have a profound impact on how the internet functions, and whether it remains a global platform for free expression -- or becomes a fragmented system used for widespread censorship, surveillance and control. In other words this is important.

The hearing was mostly pretty bland (as Congressional hearings tend to be), but at one point, Robert Atkinson, the President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) argued that the US should be encouraging global censorship if it's for sites like The Pirate Bay. You can watch the portion of the video below (it should start at the right moment, but if not, jump to 1 hour, 27 minutes and 40 seconds): It starts with Rep. Jerry Nadler reading a question someone else clearly prepared for him, directed at Atkinson about how to handle situations in which different countries have different laws regarding free speech and content, and what that should mean for "data flows" across borders. In short, this is a question about "what should we do with countries who want to censor the internet -- and should we allow that sort of thing." Atkinson's answer is a bit rambling, but he basically starts off by saying that we'll never agree with some other countries on free speech and such... but then says no matter what, one thing we should all agree on is that it's good to censor sites like the Pirate Bay and the US should encourage such blatant censorship worldwide:

I think it's an untenable project that we would end up with "global harmony" on every single rule with regard to the internet. We're not going to be able to do that. And we're certainly not going to be able to do that with free speech. There are certain countries, particularly more traditional, religious countries that find pornography objectionable. We don't with our... or at least we have free speech, we may find it objectionable, but we allow it. We're not going to agree on that. And for certain things like that, countries are going to do that and I think we just have to be okay with that.

Another example is in Germany, you're not allowed to download a copy of Mein Kampf. In the US, we can. Again, we're not going to change the German view. I don't know if they're right or wrong. It doesn't make any difference.

Where we can and should, though, take action, is there are some things that are clearly illegal under the WTO framework for intellectual property, for example piracy and intellectual property theft can be prosecuted. So when countries engage in steps, for example, to block certain websites that are clear piracy sites -- like, for example, a web or a domain called "the pirate bay" that should be quite... you know we should be encouraging that. That's quite different than blocking, say, Facebook or something like that, or blocking some site just because you don't want competition.

Where to start? Well, how about I let Atkinson debunk Atkinson. In the question immediately preceding this one about blocking websites, Nadler had asked Atkinson about backdooring encryption. And there, Atkinson gave a much better answer, noting that it was a terrible idea (he's right!), but then notes:

If they try to mandate that, they're setting a dangerous precedent, for example, by letting the Chinese government do the exact same thing.

Uh. Yeah. And having the US government "encourage" censoring websites also sets a dangerous precedent by letting the Chinese government (and lots of other governments) point to the US as doing the same thing they do. But, as Atkinson and other copyright system supporters will undoubtedly scream, "that's different -- this is about copyright, not censorship." Yeah, well, you're not paying attention if you don't recognize how copyright is used for political censorship as well. Remember how Russia was using copyright law to intimidate its critics? What you might not remember is that when China first set up its massive online censorship system, known as the Great Firewall of China, one of its key justifications to the outside world was that it would be used to stop piracy online. And, of course, during the big SOPA/PIPA fight, the Chinese were laughing at those of us in America who whined about their Great Firewall, while we were debating a proposal to set up an identical system.

Of course, it's no surprise that Atkinson is making this argument. The organization he runs, ITIF, is frequently credited with first proposing the ideas behind SOPA in a white paper that came out right before the SOPA push. And ITIF famously argued in favor of SOPA by pointing to authoritarian countries who censor the internet as proof that SOPA wasn't that harmful. Yes, Atkinson's own firm suggested that the US should emulate China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and a number of other countries in censoring the internet. But, you know, "just for copyright."

And this doesn't even get to the issue of Atkinson's assured statement that certain sites are "clear piracy sites." Except, as we've noted over and over again, almost every great innovation around content delivery was decried as a "tool for piracy" originally. Radio, TV, cable TV, the photocopier, the VCR, the DVR, the mp3 player and YouTube and similar sites were all attacked as piracy tools originally. And yet every one of them actually opened up new and important arenas for content creation, distribution and monetization. What looks like a piracy tool in the early days often becomes a massive and legitimate business opportunity soon after (again: it was just four years after the MPAA's Jack Valenti declared VCR's the "Boston Strangler" to the film industry that home video revenues surpassed box office revenues).

Either way, what Atkinson was saying here is both shocking and dangerous. He's outright advocating a censorship regime based on his belief of what is and is not appropriate -- and suggesting that the US should "encourage" other countries to censor the web without legal due process, without consideration for innovation, because he has decided which sites are bad. At the end he says that blocking The Pirate Bay is not like blocking Facebook. Yet, there are many people who argue that Facebook is, similarly, a giant piracy site. Whose definition is right in that context? And the same question can be asked about YouTube. Viacom sued YouTube claiming that it was just as bad as the Pirate Bay. Would Atkinson support countries blocking all access to YouTube "under the WTO"?

There is a rather astounding level of cognitive dissonance that some people, such as Atkinson have, around issues related to copyright and censorship. They assume, incorrectly, that copyright is some magical fairy tale world where it's never used for censorship, and thus it's fine to block "bad sites" where people like Atkinson get to decide what is and what is not bad. But all he's doing is encouraging internet censorship, and giving massive amounts of cover to authoritarian regimes who want to censor the internet for all sorts of reasons. They can easily take Atkinson's claims that we must encourage censorship over copyright and either abuse copyright for that purpose, or even just twist it slightly to note "well, blocking infringement is important to the US, and we feel the same way about political unrest."

Atkinson's ITIF lost its battle for SOPA nearly four years ago. It shouldn't try to reintroduce the idea of a global platform for internet censorship today.

Filed Under: censorship, congress, copyright, data flows, digita trade, free flow of information, free speech, judiciary committee, jurisdiction, robert atkinson, safe harbor, sopa
Companies: itif

RIAA Whines To Congress That It Doesn't Like Google's Search Results

from the also,-it-doesn't-play-nice-in-the-sandbox dept

We already noted that the first "punch" of the legacy entertainment industry's new attacks on Google was a silly and self-contradictory study from the MPAA blaming Google for leading susceptible people straight to infringing content. Of course, the details of the study didn't really support the inferences the MPAA is throwing out there, but, you know, that's the MPAA. The second "punch" also is pretty weak, and comes in the form of RIAA boss Cary Sherman testifying before the House Judiciary Committee's IP subcommittee. The hearing is supposed to be about "voluntary agreements," and much of Sherman's piece talks up various "voluntary" (and I use the term loosely, since nearly all were "coordinated" by the White House, and many came with the implied threat of legislation if an agreement wasn't made) agreements like the "six strikes" agreement, which studies have shown is unlikely to help the legacy entertainment industry players.

But then he turns to the "what's missing?" section, and front and center is... Google.

If ISPs can be considered the gateway by users to rogue sites online, search engines may be considered the roadmaps or, more directly, the turn-by-turn directions and door-to-door service to these sites. There can be no doubt that search engines play a considerable role in leading users to illicit services and can be a key part of addressing infringing activity online.

Actually, there can be tremendous doubt. Because as we've shown (and the MPAA's own study confirms), search engines are very rarely used to find infringing materials. Furthermore, there has yet to be any evidence that search engine blocking actually helps "address infringing activity online." In fact, as with the MPAA report, the RIAA first claims that changing search results can help, but on the very next page admits that Google did change its search results, and it didn't help. The RIAA, of course, relies on its own "report card" for Google, which has already been shown to be laughably flawed.

The problem is a basic one. The RIAA and MPAA would like sites they like to be listed higher in Google's search. Most companies that want that learn how to optimize their sites for search. It's called Search Engine Optimization (SEO). Only the legacy entertainment industry would think that, rather than doing what every other website does, they get to go to Google (and Congress) and demand that Google change its algorithm to pump up their preferred sites.

The RIAA also has an astoundingly dangerous idea for how to "fix" Google:

We believe it would be useful to see voluntary initiatives by search engines that take into account whether or not a site is authorized to provide the content at issue in determining search result rankings for searches to consume that content. This could take into account not only the absolute number of copyright removal requests sent about a site to trigger demotion of that site, but also whether the site is authorized to provide the content to trigger a higher search rank for that site.

This idea clearly comes from people who don't even have the slightest clue how search works, or what the unintended consequences of such a change would be. Let's take a basic example. If I do a basic search on the title of a movie, it doesn't necessarily mean I want to watch the movie online right away (either via authorized or unauthorized means). I might just want to know who acted in it, when it was released or whether it had good reviews. But, under the RIAA's proposed "solution," Google should demote all the perfectly legitimate websites that provide that kind of information, and instead push sites that have licensed the movies to the top. That's not going to help. It's going to piss off information seekers.

Furthermore, this doesn't take into account how things change, and how sites/technologies that are initially attacked by the industry later turn out to be important. We've talked plenty of times about the MPAA's well covered attacks on the "Boston strangler to the movie industry" that was the VCR. Of course, it was just four years after Jack Valenti made those comments that Hollywood was making more money from home video than from the box office. So, along comes the next VCR... and the RIAA and MPAA get to whine about how it's "not authorized" and pushes down the search results. Suddenly this tool that could be a tremendous boon to the industry can't get the attention necessary to grow and succeed. It's not far fetched. Viacom is still suing YouTube, even as basically the entire legacy entertainment industry relies on YouTube as a tremendous marketing and distribution tool. Imagine if the RIAA's plan was in place in YouTube's early days?

Google has announced that it intends to develop and deploy technology to eradicate links to child pornography images from the web. Certainly similar technology can be used to remove links to other illegal content.

The legacy players have trotted out this line for years, and it's no less ridiculous than it's been every time in the past. There is no "fair use" for child porn. There is fair use for copyright-covered content, and the ability to build up tools (like YouTube) that take advantage of fair use is shown to have a tremendous impact on creating useful and innovative new tools and services for the industry and the public alike. The RIAA's belief that Google can magically stamp out infringement shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how copyright works -- or (more likely) a general condescending attitude towards fair use.

Also, Google has tools in its Chrome browser to warn users if they are going to sites that may be malicious. Shouldn’t that technology be used to warn users of rogue sites?

Except there's a major difference. People don't want to go to malicious sites. Google is doing its users a favor there. When users want to go to access unauthorized content, putting up a warning page goes against their wishes and pisses off users. I recognize that the RIAA has spent decades believing that pissing off users is a viable strategy, but that might also be why they've shrunk so much, while companies that respect their users have grown.

Or better yet, can Google use similar technology to highlight or identify sites that are authorized? Imagine if links to content on legitimate sites were labeled – directly in the search result –with a certification mark indicating that the site is licensed and actually pays royalties to creators. That educational message could have a profound and positive impact on user behavior.

Again, not the problems above concerning perfectly legitimate search results that are not about getting access to the actual content. They would get punished under such a system. Furthermore, this assumes that the problem is "education." That people just don't know where to go to get authorized content. There's little indicating this is true.

Finally, beyond the issue of annoying clutter on Google's interface at the behest of a single industry, you have to wonder where heading down that path lies. If the record labels and movie studios get it, what about luxury brands? I'm sure Louis Vuitton would love to be able to get a special mark on search results it likes. Or, how about the Associated Press? Perhaps it wants a special mark on news publications it "approves." Suddenly lots of other legitimate sites are left out in the cold.

Either way, we've been running around seeing the RIAA and MPAA do the same damn thing for a decade and a half now. It's always about blaming others for their own failures to give consumers what they want. Yet, when they finally do give consumers what they want, infringement tends to go down. Magic. Perhaps instead of continually looking around at who else they can blame for their own failings, they should spend a bit more time trying to innovate.

Filed Under: cary sherman, judiciary committee, search engines, search results, secondary liability
Companies: google, riaa

Wait, I Thought The Next Congressional Copyright Hearing Was Supposed To Be About Hearing From Creators?

from the what-happened-to-that dept

We already pointed out that it appears that the IP Subcommittee in the House Judiciary Committee is taking the exact wrong approach with its next two hearings, in which they are trying to set up a bogus framework of "creators" vs. "technologists" when it comes to copyright reform. The idea was to have one hearing where "creators" talk about how wonderful copyright is and another for technologists to talk about how wonderful innovation is (though that one's not yet scheduled). As we explained, that's a ridiculous dichotomy, because it's not "one side vs the other" here. It's about what sort of copyright policy benefits the public the most. And content creators and technologists shouldn't be opposite each other on that front. Great new innovations in technology tend to help content creators, and an overbearing copyright policy can hurt content creators. The right way to do this isn't to set it up as one vs. the other, but to bring together actual stakeholders and figure out what's the best overall policy.

But, even given this false dichotomy, it seems like Congress is still doing it wrong. They've now released the names of those testifying at the first hearing, the one that's supposed to represent creators, and I'm baffled because there are almost no actual creators -- and there's no one who appears to have any significant experience with using modern technology to enhance creativity. Rather there are only representatives of legacy content industries.

Of the listed speakers, Eurgene Mopsik is an actual photographer. William Sherak, Tor Hansen and John Lapham all work for or own companies that help creators -- a movie production house, a record label/distributor and a stock image company -- but that's different from being a content creator themselves. In fact, you could just as easily include tech company representatives here. If you have movie studios, why not someone from YouTube? If you have a record label, why not someone from Kickstarter or TopSpin? And, finally, you have Sandra Aistars, who is a lobbyist for the Copyright Alliance (a front group for the RIAA and MPAA) which was set up by anti-union lobbyists (hardly the sort of organization that is actually interested in creators).

So, I'm confused. Why isn't the hearing including real creators? It could include folks like Zoe Keating, Jonathan Coulton, Alex Day or many, many other massively successful new artists who recognize that their ability to have a career in music today exists because of the internet. It could include content creators who have lived in both the old world and the new: filmmakers like Ed Burns, musicians like Hank Shocklee, authors like Barry Eisler. Hell, they could even have included a few more content creators who insist that copyright is the most important thing in their lives -- and it would still at least be about actual content creators.

But, as it's set up now, nearly all the people on the panel represent businesses that were set up solely to exploit existing copyright law, rather than to seek out the best ways to promote the progress and to create new content. Why not get actual content creators whose businesses were built up in the last few years under the reality of the internet, rather than these folks who built up businesses, not as content creators themselves, but in funding and managing other content creators under the older rules, and who are now seeking to keep those rules in place, rather than try to adapt to the modern market?

Filed Under: congress, content creators, hearings, ip subcommittee, judiciary committee, legacy industries, lobbyists, sandra aistars
Companies: copyright alliance, getty images, stereo d

Why Did Congress Abdicate Its Power To Make Copyright Policy?

from the this-is-broken dept

Earlier today, we wrote about today's Congressional hearings about legalizing the unlocking of mobile phones. That post fretted about the unwillingness of Congress to take on the actual issue. The only reason that mobile phone unlocking is illegal today is because of a broken copyright law, specifically section 1201 of the DMCA, which isn't about copyright per se, but rather a bizarre, indirect way that entertainment industry lawyers think protects copyright by making technology illegal, and effectively gives those legacy industries veto power over technologies they don't like. So when Congress realizes how this is abused for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting copyrights, they should respond by fixing section 1201. But that's not what they're doing.

What I hadn't seen when I wrote the earlier post is the way in which the IP subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee framed the hearing today. However, the official memo from the committee outlining the hearing is actually an incredible statement, in which the committee basically claims (falsely!) that Congress does not have the power to fix section 1201! How could that be? They claim that our "international obligations" forbid this. Specifically, they point to the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty as binding their hands in fixing 1201.

The WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty require countries that have acceded to the Treaties to “provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures.”1 Enacted in 1998 as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 1201 (a)(1) of Title 17 implements these treaty obligations in the U.S. by prohibiting circumvention of a technological protection measure (TPM) that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work subject to one key exception. Every three years, the Register of Copyrights is directed by statute to conduct a rulemaking in which advocates for specific exemptions may petition for exemptions to the anticircumvention provisions for noninfringing uses subject to five factors.

Since the enactment of this provision into U.S. law, the U.S. has entered into several Free Trade Agreements that require signatories (the U.S. and the particular country or region) to enact anti-circumvention provisions and set requirements on how exceptions to them can be created. Most such FTAs limit the duration of such exemptions to a three or four year period and require that they be administratively or legislatively created based upon a record of evidence.

If you're even remotely aware of the history of the DMCA and the WIPO Copyright Treaty, you would know that this is first, an incredible rewriting of history, and second, a ridiculous and false direct claim from Congress that it has abdicated its sole authority in establishing copyright policy to the administration.

First, a bit of history: In the early/mid 90s, the entertainment industry, fearing new internet technology, sought to pass the DMCA, with a specific focus on anti-circumvention rules, in the mistaken belief that strong DRM would protect their increasingly obsolete business models. However, Congress wouldn't pass such a law. So what did they do? They went to Geneva, and used the "international trade" venue to create a treaty that would then require the US to pass the DMCA if it wanted to sign onto the treaty. The key architect of the DMCA and this entire plan, Bruce Lehman, has admitted outright that he went to Geneva as a direct "end run around Congress" because they wouldn't pass the law the entertainment industry interests wanted. Just a few months ago, at a 15-year anniversary conference for the DMCA, Lehman had no problem directly admitting that he absolutely went to Geneva to deal with Congress' failure to pass the law.

Now, we've pointed out that really fixing phone unlocking would likely violate international agreements. But, the point should really be that Congress should re-assess its sole authority over copyright policy. The Constitution gives Congress the power to set copyright policy, not the administration, which negotiates treaties. So it's not even clear if the USTR (a part of the administration) has the power to negotiate international copyright policy. But it's crazy to then think that this stops Congress from fixing a broken system.

To have Congress itself say that it can't fix a clearly broken system, because of trade agreements that it did not negotiate or set is an incredible admission. It's fundamentally incorrect. Congress alone has the power to set copyright policy, and if that "violates" international agreements, that's a problem for the administration, not Congress.

However, the fact that Congress is now claiming that it has given up its power, and clearly admits that it feels its hands are tied in actually fixing a very real problem that so many people are concerned about, because a few representatives of the Clinton administration, who have admitted directly that they were creating policy by routing around Congress to support their friends in the entertainment industry, should give everyone -- especially in Congress -- serious pause about supporting things like "intellectual property chapters" in new international agreements like the TPP and TAFTA.

Both of those agreements will be setting significant aspects of copyright (and patent and trademark) policy -- without any input from the public, because they're being negotiated entirely in secret. However, the entertainment industry has full access to the documents. And here we have Congress saying -- incorrectly -- that whatever comes out of that process will bind their hands.

That's crazy.

Whether or not you think Congress should be taking on mobile phone unlocking or copyright reform or anything along those lines, I would hope that most people can agree that there's something wrong about a process in which corporate interests get to drive US policy in international agreements without any transparency or feedback from the public, and then Congress claims it can't fix the problems that those agreements create.

Filed Under: congress, copyright, dmca, judiciary committee, mobile phones, tpp, unlocking, ustr, wipo

Surprise: Register Of Copyrights Expected To Call For Reduction In Copyright Term

from the legal-scrum-about-to-begin dept

For a long time now, the idea of an overhaul of copyright law in the US has mostly been seen as a pipedream. However, it appears that the Register of Copyright, Maria Pallante, may actually be angling for a major bit of copyright reform. Coming up next Wednesday, she's going to be testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on her supposed "Call for Updates to U.S. Copyright Law." Apparently, on March 4th, she gave a talk at Columbia University which has remained amazingly under the radar until now, in which she proposed a long list of possible copyright reforms, which are likely to headline the hearings next week. It's fairly impressive, given how much attention copyright law has been getting lately, that she could present a surprising call for massive changes to the law, and not have a single person report on it immediately after the event ended. However, that is the case.

Having spoken to a few people who were either there or who spoke to people who were there, it appears that Pallante is proposing changes touching on nearly every part of copyright law, and as you might expect, it's a very mixed bag, though I'll withhold final judgment until we see the full details. However, the big one would be a change in copyright term length, to effectively "roll back" the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act with one caveat. That is, she's proposing switching us back to a life plus fifty year copyright, but with the ability to renew for that additional 20 years for the tiny percentage of works that makes sense for. While, in the grand scheme of things, life + 50 is still ridiculously too long for copyright, this would be the first major reduction in copyright terms in the history of the US. That's notable.

There are a number of other issues that she apparently is suggesting, including expanding collective licensing, "reforming" the DMCA exemptions process that has generated so much controversy lately over phone unlocking, a change to the DMCA's safe harbors, some sort of effort around dealing with the orphan works issue (something the Copyright Office has been trying for for a while), and a "review" of statutory damages. This could get very interesting -- though it's unclear if it will be interesting in a good way or bad way. Once you open up the law, you have to realize that things could go in either direction. At the very least, a lot of lobbyists on all sides of copyright are about to be very busy for quite some time.

As we get more details, we'll be writing more about this, I'm sure. And, of course, we'll do our best to cover the hearing on Wednesday.

Filed Under: congress, copyright reform, copyright term, dmca exemptions, judiciary committee, maria pallante, register of copyright, safe harbors

Revolving Door: Sixteen Former Judiciary Committee Staff Are Lobbying Congress Concerning SOPA

from the feeling-of-corruption dept

We recently wrote about two Congressional staffers who were very active in the SOPA/PIPA debate leaving Congress to work as lobbyists for the entertainment industry, helping to get those bills passed. This is a well-trodden path. The Sunlight foundation highlights how there are sixteen former Judiciary Committee staffers currently lobbying over copyright issues, and the vast, vast majority of them are working for groups in favor of these bills. There are just two working for those opposed to the bills. This kind of revolving door between Congress and lobbyists remains quite troubling. At the very least, it raises questions about who the staffers are really working for when they're in Congress: the people... or their future employers?

Filed Under: copyright, judiciary committee, lobbying, pipa, protect ip, sopa

Thoughts On The House Judiciary Committee's Hearings On SOPA

from the some-good-some-bad dept

As some of you know, I spent three plus hours this morning watching the House's SOPA hearings, with the deck stacked against anyone who pointed out concerns about the broad overreach of these bills. I "live tweeted" my thoughts, and apparently did so so much that, at one point, Twitter cut me off for having "exceeded my limit"! I had no idea such a thing was possible. The other technological issue of the day was that the video stream from the House was terrible for the first half of the hearings. It was choppy, at times it would stop, speed up, slow down or cut out entirely. The fact that they were using crappy streaming products really says something about the House's knowledge of technology. Seriously. BitTorrent just released a new streaming video product designed to handle high volume events... but, of course, the House won't bother with something like that. There's definitely a joke in there somewhere about how those who set up these hearings, on a bill that would make unauthorized streaming a felony, were unable to handle the technology for streaming.

Below, I've embedded a bunch of my tweets, along with those of a few others who were covering the hearing, which you can also see over at Storify. I'll list out a few thoughts, however:

• I was slightly surprised at the number of Representatives who expressed clear concerns over different aspects of SOPA. Reps. Lofgren and Issa were expected to come out against it, but it wasn't clear who else would do so. Among those who expressed significant concerns were Reps. Lungren, Jackson Lee, Waters, Cohen and Johnson. Their concerns may have been different, but all had significant concerns. Lungren worried about the problems with breaking DNSSEC. Jackson Lee, Waters and Johnson worried about the impact on entrepreneurs. Johnson worried about how China and Iran would view this law. Cohen, similarly, worried that the entertainment industry had expressed concerns about Russian and Chinese search engines, and if Google were forced to block them, that it might lead to diplomatic issues, and Russia and China deciding to retaliate against Google.
• Both Lofgren and Issa were extremely well informed and able to drill down on issues that others ignored. Issa, in particular, pointed out a key point: that we already have the ITC to deal with foreign patent issues, so why not let the well-known proven ITC process deal with copyright issues as well? He's apparently introducing legislation to that effect. While I have some concerns about how the ITC process works for patents (mainly in that it gives "two bites at the apple" in some patent cases), this actually is a much more compelling idea that should be explored further.
• The lack of any technology expert on the panel was glaring and made the Judiciary Committee look bad. Rep. Lungren made that clear by asking every panelist to respond to former DHS official Stewart Baker's concerns over DNS blocking... and got back blank stares and admissions that no one on the panel had any particular knowledge about that issue. This seems like a huge indictment of how the panel was constructed -- without any interest in dealing with the significant problems of the bill.
• The MPAA and some of its supporters on the Committee repeatedly claimed that you could just go to Google and put in the names of movies and find pirated versions. The two examples they used were "J. Edgar" and "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas." If you actually Google either of those, you don't actually get pirated versions, but official sites, reviews, news, etc.
  One of the Representatives (I forget who) countered by noting that he did the J. Edgar search on YouTube, including "free" after the name, and found full length versions for free. So I just did that search, and while there are a few videos that claim, "watch full length J. Edgar free," those videos are all 2 or 3 minutes long. In other words, they're not the full videos, contrary to the claims, and they're just trying to trick people into watching them.
• The MPAA's Michael O'Leary showed support for regimes that censor the internet, by saying that "the internet isn't broken" in places like China and Iran... He really should spend some time there speaking to those who have been censored.
• There were numerous questionable statements from different Representatives about how musicians and filmmakers need this. Yet, as we've seen (on this very site), many such musicians and filmmakers think that having a working internet, with cool and useful services, is more useful and important than propping up the big studios and labels who haven't adapted, and never had the artists' best interests in mind anyway. Rep. Deutsch said that the next Drake might not make music because of piracy. That's kind of funny since Drake has said he doesn't mind piracy and actually scolded Universal Music for issuing takedowns on music he purposely leaked.
• Along those lines, the really amazing thing is how few people pointed out that the real problem here is the industry's failure to adapt. Rep. Quayle worried that the only business model available to people, if piracy were allowed, is an ad-based business model, and fretted that this would cut off business models based on paying for content. Yet... some of the most popular services online today are pay for content services, including Netflix, iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, etc.
• Some other bizarre statements included Rep. Ross mocking Google for suggesting that it was okay when Google chose sites to block, but somehow if the government got involved, that was a First Amendment issue. Except, there's nothing mock-worthy there. That's actually the law. Google can choose what sites to block, but the government telling them what to block is censorship. Kind of strange that Rep. Ross found that to be a crazy suggestion. Rep. Poe had a "stealin' is stealin'" comment. That's nice, but "infringement" ain't "stealin'"
• Lots of complaints from Reps. about how the tech industry didn't suggest anything better than SOPA. This is a lie. Tons of folks in the tech industry offered up ideas, drafts, suggestions, etc. Plenty of folks in the tech industry offered to sit down, meet, discuss. And all of that was rejected by the authors of the bill.
• Google was clearly the pinata. As we expected, they were chosen to present because some felt they were easy to dismiss. Rep. Amodei, after admitting he doesn't understand technology, called Google execs "pansies." Rep. Smith used Google's trouble over online pharmacy ads to suggest this issue was the same thing -- where somehow the company is getting rich off of "piracy." Lots of others attacked as well. None of it made much sense.
• That said, I was disappointed by Google throwing Wikileaks under the bus, by using the example of how MasterCard, Visa and Paypal starved Wikileaks for cash, leading that site to shut down. Defining Wikileaks as a rogue site certainly raises some questions. I understand why it may have served as a useful example, but...
• Once again, disappointed that Maria Pallante, Register of Copyrights, seems so out of touch on this issue. She kept insisting that there was no problem with the bill, no liability issue, no change to the DMCA, etc. That's clearly not true. It's a shame. She should be better on this.
• And... that's about it. Nothing too surprising came out of the hearing, but it was interesting... And it certainly has driven a lot of new interest in the bill and its consequences.

Filed Under: copyright, darrell issa, hearing, judiciary committee, sopa, zoe lofgren
Companies: google, mpaa