Chris Dodd Says The MPAA Loves Helping The Blind; It's Just Not Going To Weaken Copyright Protection To Do It
from the good-guy-MPAA-wants-to-help-but-doesn't-want-to-make-any-real-effort dept
It looks as if the MPAA might be a bit sensitive about its new “enemy of the blind” status, a title it picked up during its lobbyists’ recent visit to the White House. Chris Dodd has penned a slightly defensive op-ed for the Huffington Post defending the MPAA’s undying support for the opening access to the blind lobbying to keep the status completely quo. Here’s what Dodd is defending (and insisting we’re all misunderstanding):
[L]obbyists for the MPAA and publishers have been all over the White House, demanding a retreat from compromises made in February, and demanding that the Obama Administration push new global standards for technical protection measures, strip the treaty text of any reference to fair use and fair dealing, and impose new financial liabilities on libraries that serve blind people…
To be fair, Chris Dodd doesn’t actually defend these actions. In fact, his very short piece doesn’t refer to the lobbyists’ actions at all. Instead, he claims the MPAA has been a friend to the blind all along, and one of the first to support “accessible-format copies” in “participating countries.”
The MPAA doesn’t have it in for the blind, Dodd says. It’s just a bunch of (unnamed) “groups” falsely painting his upstanding organization as the villain.
Unfortunately, however, some groups have sought to use this meaningful treaty as a vehicle to weaken copyright and ultimately undermine the global marketplace WIPO is charged with strengthening. Such groups have advocated for the inclusion of certain provisions that would establish lower thresholds for copyright protection and weaken certain means used for protecting copyright works. When content owners voiced their concerns with these provisions, these groups attempted to inaccurately portray content owners as being opposed to the treaty.
“Inaccurately,” eh? Well, if they weren’t opposed to this treaty, you’d think something would have been passed by now. The administration took a stand against making exceptions for the blind all the way back in 2009 and ever since then has withheld its approval thanks to pressure from publishers and other content owners. So, while we could say “the administration” is opposed to the treaty, the reality is it’s the content industries making the push.
Dodd says this:
We believe that access for the blind to books and other publications is a cause worth promoting.
But follows it up with this.
We also believe in the fundamental principles of copyright that empower creators and encourage creativity around the world.
“Fundamental principles” obviously don’t include fair use (of which the MPAA is a fair-weather friend) or DMCA exceptions. Then, he drops this disingenuous sentence.
Unlike those who seek to weaken copyright protection, we believe these two objectives are not mutually exclusive.
Nice try, Dodd. These groups you refuse to name don’t believe these two objectives are mutually exclusive, either. Providing access to the blind doesn’t mean destroying copyright, but to certain content owners, any perceived “weakening” is treated as a full-scale assault. The MPAA may state publicly, as Dodd does here, that access for the blind is a “cause worth promoting,” but it (along with major publishers) has shown very little interest in actually following through on this empathetic statement.
Strong copyright laws also benefit consumers by promoting free markets and incentivizing innovation, both of which are hallmarks of a healthy global economy.
“Strong copyright laws” do not promote free markets and actually stifle innovation, so they do not “benefit consumers” (and, obviously, not the blind). If Chris Dodd really wants to do something for the blind, he should use some of that lobbyist power he has at his disposal to lean on the more reluctant members of the copyright industries, rather than join them in defending copyright from all comers — even the blind.
Filed Under: chris dodd
Companies: mpaa
Comments on “Chris Dodd Says The MPAA Loves Helping The Blind; It's Just Not Going To Weaken Copyright Protection To Do It”
There's none so blind as those who will not see.
Or maybe:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Re: There's none so blind as those who will not see.
Chris Todd is a liar, a corrupt POS, and an example of a slimy business man.
Suck my dog’s butt Mr. Dodd !!!
Re: There's none so blind as those who will not see.
You just explained Techdirt completely.
Re: Re: There's none so blind as those who will not see.
That would explain why you’re on it, horseshit with no name.
Gotta love Dodd’s Orwellian use of the term “free market”
Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
then more or less existing copyright is the ONLY system under which creations will be produced. No one is going to expend efforts if anyone can take the product and use it as theirs. You can’t compete with free.
But now the UK is going to try doing away with copyright! For more on this line see:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
‘Copyright “reformers” of course rarely like to talk about such unpleasant matters – and will steer the conversation away from economic consequences as rapidly as possible. Indeed, the they generally talk using Orwellian euphemisms – like “liberalising” or “rebalancing” copyright. It’s rarely presented as an individual’s ability to go to market being removed. This is what “copyright reform” looks like in practice.
“It’s corporate capitalism,” says Ellis. “Ideally you want to empower individuals to trade, and keep the proceeds of their trade. The UK has just lost that.”‘
It’s just that here the minion is using the old sympathy ploy to try and destroy income streams for the creators.
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
then more or less existing copyright is the ONLY system under which creations will be produced. No one is going to expend efforts if anyone can take the product and use it as theirs. You can’t compete with free.
First Rihanna and Chris Borwn get back together, now this! It’s like 2008 all over again!!
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
Except works have been produced under weaker and no copyright so you’re blatently wrong
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
It does not surprise me you link to an inaccurate, sensationalist and really badly written article on the topic of that law. I have issues with that law but not with what it is trying to, open up work to use that otherwise would remain lost due to the automatic way we assign copyright.
My favorite part is the outright lie about copyright being a basic human right. That’s was fun.
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
“then more or less existing copyright is the ONLY system under which creations will be produced. No one is going to expend efforts if anyone can take the product and use it as theirs. You can’t compete with free.”
This is such utter bullshit and has been PROVEN over and over to NOT be true. You look like a fool trotting this out.
By the way, TV and Radio are free. Large chunks of the internet are free. THIS VERY SITE YOU ARE POSTING YOUR LIES ON IS FREE.
You might want to consider that when you come charging in with your “Copyright is ALL!” garbage. If you truly believe that, then why don’t we see you swinging in here SUPPORTING Mike and the site so he can make a living against the so-called “freeloaders?” Oh thats right. Mike is able to make a living by a) not being a failure like you and b) creating stuff people want in SPITE of, and not because of, copyright.
Re: Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
It’s because OOTB is a hypocrite.
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
“You can’t compete with free.”
Have you ever heard of bottled water?
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
“No one is going to expend efforts if anyone can take the product and use it as theirs.”
Unfortunately the ENTIRETY of human history disagrees with that statement.
Re: Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
Well obviously not the ENTIRETY of humanity as humanity includes him… unless your point is that he is a sub-human entity then… nice… carry on.
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
then more or less existing copyright is the ONLY system under which creations will be produced. No one is going to expend efforts if anyone can take the product and use it as theirs. You can’t compete with free.
Well, copyright didn’t exist anywhere in the world before 1710, was only in England until the late 18th century, and didn’t become widespread until the 19th and 20th centuries. But many creative works were created and published back then. Clearly, copyright isn’t necessary. It may be useful, depending on how it’s implemented, but that doesn’t make it obligatory.
But now the UK is going to try doing away with copyright!
The UK is in no way doing away with copyright. But kudos to them for getting an orphan works bill through! It’s a small step, but this represents real progress!
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
you are wrong in several points
*then more or less existing copyright is the ONLY system under which creations will be produced
this is false there had been others systems also i must say the copyright used to be the best but now is obsolete and is running contrary to its purpose
so we are hoping for a new better system
* No one is going to expend efforts if anyone can take the product and use it as theirs. You can’t compete with free.
so the spriters that put their sprites in rpg maker forums and deviantart arent doing an effort? what about collaborative stories they are sharing and they dont say this is mine you cant use it
*But now the UK is going to try doing away with copyright! For more on this line see:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/29/err_act_landgrab/
biased bad written and atagonistic so lets disregard it
*’Copyright “reformers” of course rarely like to talk about such unpleasant matters – and will steer the conversation away from economic consequences as rapidly as possible. Indeed, the they generally talk using Orwellian euphemisms – like “liberalising” or “rebalancing” copyright. It’s rarely presented as an individual’s ability to go to market being removed. This is what “copyright reform” looks like in practice.
this i will grant have a small point but the thing they shy away as any economic consequences of removing copyright are especulative
also one tend to speak of the negative in the hopes it will be fixed and i must say right now copyright law is broken and is in a need of a fix or replacement
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
You apparently don’t realize that the works of Shakespeare were written before Copyright.
I guess someone forgot to tell him that he can’t compete with free.
Oh, and since a lot of his ‘original work’ was based on older works and stories, he might not have gotten away with writing his second play if Copyright existed in it’s current form when he was writing.
Re: Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
He would have just written more original works!
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
Re: Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
How about fanfiction.net? Must be a few MILLION works there (albeit stories about pre-existing works, but stories nonetheless). The writers there do not get paid at all, but yet expend great effort. I read fanfiction all the time, there are some truly great gems buried among all the crap – just like “regular” stories.
Re: Re: Re: It gets even better.
OOTB is 50 Shades of Wrong
Re: Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
I don’t think he gets out much.
Arduino is open source hardware anybody can go there and take their work and sell it, and still it makes millions each and every year.
Red Hat, Open Stack, MariaDB and many others all give their efforts for free since they are all open source and still those companies manage to be profitable.
If you want to attract customers to your store today you have to given them more than just something, you have to show them how they could use it and why it would be useful to them in some way, so you need to give away that knowledge.
If you are a grocery stores, one could start teaching customers how to make groceries and start selling the ingredients because it takes time and effort to produce things, people know that and so most people will just buy the ready made even though they can be copied and replicated by others.
Most people can sing or play, some even can build their own instruments but they would pay somebody else to sing, play or produce those things for them.
Also Leibniz, Tesla, Kelvin and others probably didn’t do what they did to own it.
In the real world copying is of no consequence to anybody, in the real world only monopolists get hurt mostly by others copying anything, for most people it opens opportunities that are far better and robust than a granted monopoly will ever be.
Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
Saying “You can’t compete with free” is saying you can’t compete, period. The problem isn’t content being freely shared online. The problem is people like you giving up because it’s more fun to complain about things than to fix them.
Re: Re: Until you clowns devise some other suite to protect efforts,
It’s not more fun to complain. It’ easier to complain and fixing them means giving up the power position you have held for the past several decades.
Re:
Quote:
Red Hat, Arduino and so many others do, why can’t you?
I know you are not Leibniz or Archimedes but lesser minds still can make it.
Carpenters survive without “protection”, fashion is made without “protection”, comedians and magicians have no “protections”, what makes you believe you need “protection”?
And if you don’t want to produce anything, fine that is your choice, but forcing everyone to endure a granted monopoly that inflict so much pain on society is not going to make you a lot of friends where it counts and that is the public eye.
“Chris Dodd Says The MPAA Loves Helping The Blind”
So how much money has he donated to help them? What has he personally sacrificed to help him?
Grandstanding words don’t count.
Re: Re:
“So how much money has he donated to help them? What has he personally sacrificed to help him?”
How much have you donated, boy?
Re: Re: Re:
He’s not the one doing the grandstanding.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“He’s not the one doing the grandstanding.”
You obviously haven’t seen many of that brainless AC’s posts, have you?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
No, it’s a legitimate question. If the MPAA insists that it loves helping the blind some concrete examples to support its case would be nice. Not expecting any, but it would be nice.
Oh, and “We accept money paid by blind people just as we accept money from non-blind people” doesn’t count.
Re: Re: Re:2 It's my stuff now.
My “support of the blind” manifests as advocating for fair use. People should be able to treat creative works that they have purchased as personal property. That includes transforming those works in new and useful ways that Media Moguls might not want.
Interesting tech should not be suppressed by dinosaurs engaging in artistic megalomania.
Re: Re:
If the MPAA was doing all it could to help the blind, the nobody would be in Washington demanding exceptions for the blind.
In re the title of this post: Copyright protection?
What copyright protection?
I dare anyone to show even once anthing the MPAA has done to benefit consumers.
Re: Re:
They remind us that piracy is better than their product by not having DRM on it?
Re: Re:
They abandoned the Hays Code. Of course, they also adopted the Hays Code in the first place, and the current rating system isn’t great.
Re: Re:
They provide links to Chilling Effects so that consumers can more easily find pirated content. 😉
Re: Re:
The MPAA only harmed everybody so far. The companies behind it did generate cultural output. But I’m inclined to believe their cultural contribution is greatly outweighed by the harm their pressure towards a distorted copyright law is doing.
Fixed
I fixed the headline for you.
Chris Dodd Says The MPAA HATES The Blind; It’s Not Going To Weaken Copyright Protection To Help Them
Re: Fixed
To be accurate, it should be…
Chris Dodd doesn’t give a shit about the blind despite what he says which is less important because unless you are a politician taking the MPAA’s money you aren’t listening to anything he says anyway.
no wonder Dodd was given the job he has now. he has all the necessary qualifications, honed to perfection in his former position as a politician. let’s face it, without the years in that role, he would never have been considered by the MPAA. he learned as a politician how to live in a fantasy world which put him in good stead for leader of a movie organisation. it also helped immensely when he perfected the art of lying. the only downside he had was that people learned also when he was lying, ie, every time they saw his lips moving, they knew there was another pile of crap going to be tipped out! i find it so amazing that people like him can say, hand on heart, that they fully support a section of disabled people, adding that they would do anything needed to help as long as it didn’t interfere with profits or stop those disabled people from paying full amounts for movies they cant even see! i would like him and his like to be in the same position to find out how they liked it!!
It’s interesting…this whole thing reminds me of what Harry G Frankfurt referred to in his book “on bullshit.”
He basically says that “bullshitting”, particularly the kind done by politicians, is different and much more effective than lying because the person truly believes, to an extent, in what they’re saying.
Dodd is a perfect example of this with his background in politics.
comments disabled
Interesting that comments are disabled for that post. I checked other blog posts and they all had commenting enabled. I’m a bit disappointed in HuffPo for doing that, I suspect that was a precondition of him writing the piece.
Re: comments disabled
At the MPAA, information flows one way.
Re: Re: comments disabled
With the MPAA information gets the people.
Information flows one way unless you recognise 1984’s “Double Speak” as the peoples information being processed.
Re: Re: comments disabled
With the MPAA WORDS flow one way. There isn’t any information in them.
Re: comments disabled
If I ran a blog, I wouldn’t run any guest posts if they came with a “no comments” precondition.
You know, in my experience, I’ve discovered the best way to tell when someone is actually trying to help someone is when the actually describe/outline what they are doing to help, not describe outline what they aren’t doing to hurt them.
People: This man has two broken legs, what can you do to help him walk?
MPAA: We can assure you, we have no desire to amputate this gentleman’s legs.
People: Awesome, but what can you do to help him walk?
MPAA: We aren’t really against the disabled you know, we think it would be highly inappropriate to prevent his ability to access a walker.
People: Great, but what the %^&*%$ can you do to help him to walk?
MPAA: I fail to understand your point.
Re: Re:
The MPAA seems to be really good at failing to understand other people’s points. Perhaps it could be that the fact that they have their fingers in their ears and are yelling at the top of their lungs “La! La! La! I can’t hear you!” while they simultaneously have their heads shoved so far up their own collective asses that they resemble a M. C. Escher drawing.
Re: Re: Re:
“The MPAA seems to be really good at failing”
There, FTFY
Re: Re: Re: Re:
True.
Congratulations on ignoring pretty much all of human history in this 20th century effort to rewrite that history. Several have already given you examples of well known names whose works have survived centuries that did just that. But it isn’t just those we know the names of. All through humanities existence have been dances, song, music, storytelling, none of which was ever copyrighted until stole by the likes of Disney and the rest of the hateful gang to turn a buck.
As usual, OoTB has missed the target with his BS by miles. If anything ever spoke of just how important turning a profit was over humanity, this is one glaring example of how low and inhuman the copyright industry can be. You don’t have to hunt to find examples, they come up and slap you in the face with outright outrageous behavior that then needs a spin master to try and make it look better when it is very obvious on the face of it, that it is just what it looks like.
Greed above all else.
Every time Dodd opens his mouth the only growth I see is not economic is the nose growing.
These people have no shame at all.
These talks and actions acts don’t seem to add up to what Dodd is saying about them. Any ‘strengthening’ that includes victims like the blind people’s cultural network of resources built up over the years despite such a handicap risks harming a fragile community. Copyright law is at the level of out of control already.
Chris Dodd is proposing to destroy good culture. Many blind people have joined society and lead valuable lives using and benefiting from the blind community’s support. Careless legislation eliminates and destroys opportunities presently enjoyed and used.
The phrase ?not one shred of human decency or kindness? seems to be applicable here. Commercial exploitation does have limits that are measured by a society’s determination to keep a strong hold over such attempts to take away, by legislation, valuable parts of those lives.
First off we have a presently horrific copymight system that doesn’t help create new works, hinders new work in technology and innovation, stifles culture and chokes society in ways that more resemble communist dictatorships than just a law or act. For a senator to think that such a system needs strengthening? Definitely he took the, plug me into the matrix, blue pill.
Metaphorically speaking. The shinigami grim reaper copyright cultural death scythe wielding salespersons are definitely busy buzzing around capitol hill plying their ruinous societal and culturally lethal copyright wares. They use only the best well honed cigarette augments money and lawyers can buy. (You’ll love it! Just do It’ll feel goooooood. what we Need a loan? say)
?[L]obbyists for the MPAA and publishers? The MPAA would sponsor ill advised legislation that makes 90% of Americans criminals just to collect a few pennies. (already have done so?) How low is that on the stupid legislation list? Copyright now rivals the drug criminalization laws of government intrusion into the lifestyles and culture of citizens. Just for Dodd to mention that he listens to these groups brings up many doubts on his ability to lead.
This sort of self perpetuated hype is to be ignored. What difference does is make when the proponents of legislation themselves note that they are proponents. For Dodd to pompously worried about ‘nothing much’ is on the lame side. It does bring one to wonder how well this legislator has been spooked by these very special interest groups. Nothing good can come from listening to the media lobbyists who are obviously not worried about stepping on blind peoples lives.
Its just grandstanding in ways to hopefully generate an artificial viral-ness. Usually these groups are clever and avoid an obvious gaff like hitting on defenseless social groups.
It strains all belief when anyone says that the MPAA (or any media special interest group?) is or has been friendly to the blind. Such attitudes devalue the institution of congress to such a level. In the MPAA’s mind a small donation to any blind group might, to them, satisfy the destruction of a meticulously and lovingly created support network. (Books for the Blind)
Its never a good sign when personal action does not meet the tale. Tall tales are meant for drunken parties and other events where fiction is the venue. The fiction spouted by Chris Dodd about the benefits of copyright to the blind might allow his nose look somewhat over extended.
Reactionary.
Much is washed about both strengthening and reducing copyright law. Law is supposed to make sense in terms of the everyday lives of its citizens. They are not supposed to be intrusive nor overly strong most notably if there are civil solutions they should be used first.
Copyright reform goes both ways. What is also universally important is the effects on the populations culture and society. Any argument for or against copyright must include discussion about these. Without law/legislation put in to context with the very way we live and want to live (culture and society) then such talk is meaningless. Baseless arguments (like the above Chris Dodd spat) only.
Of course its worth mentioning the unfair way ‘exceptions’ are treated over time as loop holes. Fair Use clauses are similarly marginalized. What good is Fair Use without the Rights added to it? Fair Use and Public Domains need to be fully enshrined as rights.
Its so easy to forget what we need to defend.
If there was no copyright tomorrow so what? Books will be sold. Authors will be paid for new works. Newspapers will be read. Eventually some clamber might rise up to propose a new original works protection scheme with expectant short term lifespan and fair use elevated to Fair Use Rights status (not some silly exemption shmemption weak assed terminology).
The issue is not and never has been the “blind”. It has been about others trying to create an exception, using the blind, that is so broad it would subsume the general rule.
Re: Re:
The issue is about controlling what people do with what they have already legally purchased. The issue with the blind is just an example of where it is harmful to a distinct section of the public that is already disadvantaged.