Music Industry Copies Language Of Copyright Reformers In Pushing For Three Strikes

from the oh-come-on dept

It's really funny to watch the entertainment industry lobbyists use a popular trick among disingenuous debaters: it tries to flip the arguments being used towards themselves against their opponents. For example, we've seen copyright maximalists argue against those of us who question the need for gov't intervention in issues like copyright claim that copyright represents a true free market, and weakening copyright law is somehow unfair gov't meddling in the free market. The latest trick is particularly neat. Plenty of people argue that all of the attempted changes that the entertainment industry has been pushing for around the world are unnecessary attempts by this industry to prop up an obsolete business model. Would you believe that the entertainment industry is now using the same language in favor of its proposals?

Indeed. As lots of people are pushing back on dangerous plans to "kick people off the internet," ISPs have pointed out how costly such a three strikes policy would be for ISPs who are suddenly drafted to be copyright police. In response, the head of BPI, the major UK music lobbyist group, responded by charging that ISPs were relying on an obsolete business model. Seriously:

"BT is clinging on to an old business model which is supported by illegal downloading. That's not only unfair to artists and creators, but penalises BT's many customers who use the internet legally,"

This implies -- incorrectly -- that file sharing is somehow a massive boon to ISPs. The very same ISPs who keep claiming they need to use traffic shaping to prevent any network from being overloaded by file sharing. It's pretty ridiculous to claim that ISPs are relying on file sharing as any sort of business model at all. A huge percentage of people have internet access, not because of file sharing, but because these days it's hard to get through life without an internet connection. Suggesting that they make their money because of file sharing is patently ridiculous. It's the sort of thing that a reporter should push back on, when an industry rep spews such nonsense.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Want Healthcare Reform That Works? Get Rid Of Patents

from the and-watch-innovation-flow dept

Economist David Levine (author of the book Against Intellectual Monopoly) has a column up at the Huffington Post, where he explains why abolishing pharma patents would be a great way to reform healthcare. He runs through many of the arguments against such a move, and explains why they don't make much sense:

But, perhaps, without all those extra monopoly profits we wouldn't have such great new products? The fact is there aren't so many great new products - a well known fact among health economists is that while big pharma's spending has soared the last decade, as patent control has tightened, drug discovery has plummeted. Pharmaceutical innovation is not lower in Europe, despite of big pharma's lower monopoly profits. While the market for pharmaceuticals is now largely a global one, so local rules may not be so important, this was less true in the past. Historically, before pharmaceutical patents were introduced in Italy in 1978, that country accounted for about 8% of new pharmaceutical discoveries worldwide. After the industry was strangled by patents, that percentage dropped to practically zero. Switzerland, a powerhouse in the world drug industry, introduced pharmaceutical patents at about the same time. While Switzerland's fall has not been as dramatic as Italy's, it too is much less of a powerhouse today than it was before 1977.

Patents do not seem to lead to the innovation their proponents claim. The list of examples goes on and on: the discovery of the one-dose HIV cocktail that replaced the complicated multi-pill regime? That took place in India a country that at that time did not allow pharmaceutical patents. Of the fifteen great medical milestones recently identified by the British Medical Journal - only two were patented or could be attributed to the "incentive" that patents supposedly provide. Numerous technical studies by economists of the effect of stronger patents on innovation have failed to find any consistent increase. Put it plainly: while the social gains from abolishing patents on drugs are obvious and computable, the losses are dubious and, on the basis of empirical evidence, probably nil.

Pharmaceutical patents and the resulting monopolies have many other corrosive effects, over and above raising the prices of prescription drugs. Pharmaceutical companies spend far more money promoting their products than on R&D. Some of the giants spend as much as four times on marketing as they do on research and development. How do these companies market their products? Most of the money goes to "scientifically convincing" the medical profession to prescribe patented products. How? Well, for example, by inviting doctors and their families to week-long conferences in exclusive resorts, where two hours are for a marketing presentation (the "medical symposium") and the rest for (all-included) leisure. A spectacular - but hardly unique - example of the level of corruption is the conviction of Pfizer for encouraging doctors to bill the government for drugs they were provided for free. These practices not only raise the cost of drugs, but corrode trust in the medical profession.

He also goes on to suggest some other ways to lower the costs of "drug development," as well. There's probably not much new in there if you've read his book, but it's a good, straightforward description of the problem with pharma patents. While the writing is a bit flippant, if you go through the related chapter in Levine's book, and then start reading some of the other source material and studies, it's all backed up quite strongly. There's almost no evidence that patents do anything to promote more drug discovery -- and plenty to suggest it makes medicines significantly more expensive. Ditching pharma patents would make a much more efficient market in drugs that would end up saving a lot of lives.

183 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Canadian Recording Industry Puts Out Copyright Law FAQ... Which Gets Almost Everything Wrong

from the that's-what-we-call-propaganda dept

The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) -- which is basically just a front for the RIAA -- has been pushing hard for increasingly strict copyright laws in Canada, for no good reason (or, rather, entirely made up reasons). To date, the group has had trouble getting the laws passed, as the public has been quick to speak up in defense of user rights -- something that few politicians seem interested in protecting. However, Michael Geist points out that the CRIA isn't stopping, and has put out a copyright reform FAQ. However, what's amazing is that almost every "answer" in the FAQ appears to be wrong. In talking about what copyright is, it only talks about the rights of the content creator, and not the user, nor the fact that copyright law has always been designed to "balance" both sets of rights. It also claims (incorrectly again) that "piracy" (loaded word) is no different than shoplifting, despite the fact that any ounce of logic would tell you the two are quite different -- even if both may break the law.

But, perhaps the most stunning claim is the one where the CRIA actually claims that it's "piracy" that has caused record stores to shut down, rather than the shift to buying (legally) things online:

Q: Does copyright piracy put your job at risk? A: Yes. Canadians who work in the copyright-related industries have seen numerous job losses - from the artists who create music to truck drivers who deliver CDs and DVDs to retailers. Since the advent of widespread P2P file sharing 10 years ago, retail sales of music have declined by more than half; this has forced ongoing job reductions and slashed funds available for Canadian artist development.

Does the CRIA actually think anyone believes that P2P file sharing is the reason for this? I don't do any file sharing at all, but haven't set foot in a physical "record store" in years -- because I buy all my CDs online (and, yes, I still buy CDs). To claim that the end of physical retailing can be blamed on file sharing is simply ridiculous.

You can read through the link above to see the other "questions and answers" including, Geist's refuting nearly every single one. What's sad, though, is that some in the press, and many politicians, will start using these as talking points as if they're factual.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Did Canadian Politicans Give In To Hollywood's Demands On Copyright Reform?

from the the-hollywood-lobby-works dept

It looks like the Canadian battle over camcording in movie theaters was merely a prelude to the main show concerning copyright reform. If you don't remember, Hollywood lobbyists made a strong show earlier this year trying to convince Canadian politicians that camcording movies was a huge problem in Canada demanding much stricter laws. The problem was that the numbers that the lobbyists were tossing out (and which many in the press repeated without question) simply weren't true. Both the threat and the current condition of Canadian laws were exaggerated. Yet, it worked. Canada did, indeed, pass a much stricter law concerning camcording in theaters, despite little evidence that it would make the slightest difference or that it was even needed.

However, the bigger prize is a broad copyright reform act in Canada -- and having successfully walked politicians down the road before, it appears those same lobbyists may have done so again. Michael Geist reports that Canada is about to announce its latest copyright reform bill and it's a dreamlist of everything that the entertainment industry desires: DMCA-like anti-circumvention laws, retaining the private copying levy, no flexible fair use/fair dealing rules, no parody exception, no time-shifting exception (out, out, damn TiVo) and many others. The details aren't out yet, so it may be a bit premature to discuss this. However, Geist tends to have good sources on these things, and he's worried that this Hollywood dream bill will get fast tracked with little opportunity for people to speak up and complain that their rights are being taken away in favor of a number of big corporations and that the types of things that encourage new innovation and content creation are actually stifled by these types of draconian laws. Therefore, it makes sense for people to at least start making some noise now to get others aware of what is possibly in this bill and make it clear to the politicians that they won't stand for such a one-sided law.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Patent Battles Now More About Lobbying Than What's Best For Innovation

from the funny-how-that-works dept

Patents are supposed to be about promoting innovation. But these days it's clear that the original purpose of patents has long since been disconnected from the program. In fact, if you want to see how bad it's become, here are two separate stories that highlight how decisions over patents are increasingly all about lobbyists, rather than actually figuring out what's best for innovation (though, I guess you could say that for all politics these days). However, read this Washington Post article on the silly Qualcomm/Broadcom patent fight, that we've covered before, where apparently both sides knew that the whole fight was about hiring lobbyists to get Congressional Representatives to support its side. Nowhere in that discussion do they bring up what's actually right and what's best for the country (in fact, the article notes that Broadcom's win will probably mean new mobile phones are about to get more expensive), but it's all about whose lobbyists were more effective. Meanwhile, we ignored the story last week about the House passing the latest patent reform attempt, because it's meaningless until it gets Senate approval as well -- and as for whether or not the Senate approves it... well, once again, that seems to be up to the various lobbyists who are now scrambling. Again, it's amusing to see either side on this debate argue that it's "big companies" against "little guys." It's big companies on one side against big companies on the other -- and the real question being bandied about is who is going to be able to better exploit the system -- not what's best for innovation.

2 Comments | Leave a Comment..