So we recently had a bit of a debunking of writer Ewan Morrison's nearly 100% factually incorrect discussion of what the failure of ACTA in Europe means. Morrison made a few responses on his Twitter feed -- bizarrely claiming (for example) that I'm wrong about the DMCA and that it wasn't celebrated by the entertainment industry and decried by the tech industry. There's no way to respond to that other than to laugh. It's not hard to find historical accounts that show techies were protesting against the DMCA and trying to fight it in court. Morrison is flat out wrong on this one.

But what's more, is that he goes on to raise a very common trope we've heard from copyright maximalists: claiming that this is all about people not wanting to support artists they like, and that this is because they're jealous of artists. As Ewan stated in a series of tweets:

What amazes me is the vehemence towards the idea that there might be people who make a living out of their art.

A lot has to be said for the theory that this is based on jealousy and resentment. Do consumers actually despise artists?

While, perhaps, there are some people who are jealous of artists, it's hard to see any truth to those claims on a widespread basis. In fact, as we've detailed over the years, fans seem to be absolutely ecstatic when they find out that artists they really love are successful. Let's take two recent examples. First up, Louis CK and his direct to fan offering that involved him being really cool to his fans and connecting with them -- and then asking them, politely, to pay for his video special (which was inexpensive and had no DRM). And it worked. Less than two weeks later and he'd made $1 million... and his fans loved it. They weren't jealous. They didn't have any resentment towards him making a living (and a super comfortable one at that). They were thrilled.

Next up. Amanda Palmer and her Kickstarter campaign. She sought to raise $100,000 for her latest album release... and ended up with $1.2 million. And once again, her fans were thrilled about how much money she made. There wasn't jealousy or resentment. Instead, they celebrated both online and off (there was a big party in Brooklyn, and it appears that party is continuing over into her current tour).

Those are just two datapoints, obviously, but we're actually seeing it more and more. Jonathan Coulton making a ton of money. Trent Reznor making a ton of money. Mathew Ebel making a living. Corey Smith making millions. Jill Sobule doing an early version of fan funding. Kevin Smith bucking the traditional way of doing things and making lots of money elsewhere. Erin McKeown crowdfunding her new album. Joe Konrath making lots of money by shifting to self-publishing. Paulo Coehlo watching his sales jump massively every time he "pirated" his own works.

Over and over and over again we see the same pattern. Fans don't resent artists they love making money. In fact, they quite often are so invested in the success of those artists, that they get vicarious joy from the success of those artists. I've seen no evidence that true fans are jealous of artists or that fans get upset at the idea of artists making a living. Quite the opposite. They seem to celebrate such success stories, because it's really awesome.

So where's the disconnect? If you start going through folks like the ones listed above, and how they relate to their fans, you find a pretty common pattern. These are artists that really truly connect with their fans. As Amanda Palmer told us, you have to build an army of supporters, day by day, connecting one by one. This is hard work. But go through the list above and look at some of the things they do to reach out to fans and connect with them. Look at the levels they go to in order to be truly open, human and awesome for their fans.

And you begin to see the pattern.

The artists who truly connect... their fans support them as far as they possibly can. There's no jealousy about their success. There's no one who wants to somehow deny them a living. It's the exact opposite.

The problem, then, is that for some artists who fail at this, it's difficult for them to understand why. They think their content is good. They think they're nice to their fans. And maybe they're right. But, for whatever reason (and sometimes it's just something that's in the air), that connection didn't stick. People don't support them. It's not because they are jealous. It's not because they want to deny them a living. In many ways, it's worse and much harder for those artists to come to grips with: it's because people just don't care that much about the artist. Not because of "piracy." Not because of some moral failings. The artist just failed to "build an army." Sometimes it's because the artist just isn't that good. Sometimes it's because the artist doesn't treat fans right (and "blaming" fans or calling them "criminals" or calling them "unethical" and wrapping stuff up with DRM is a pretty good way to not treat fans right). Yes, in some cases, the failure can be self-induced, but it seems in those cases we see the most vocal lashing out by the artists who simply refuse to do any sort of self-reflection.

So, can we finally dispense with this myth that the great masses out there don't want to support artists? Or that they're jealous of their success? If that was the case, we wouldn't see the examples we see above. We wouldn't see people exclaiming all over Twitter how much they love people like Louis CK and Amanda Palmer, and how freaking thrilled they are when they see the stories of the massive success of their fan-friendly approaches. But we do see that with those artists and many more, because they learned the secret: connect at a really deep level with fans, and those fans won't be jealous. They'll support you wherever you want to go. Happily. And they will shout it from the mountains for others to hear. Treat your fans right, and they give it right back to you.

As you probably know, last year, the big ISPs agreed to a six strikes plan (really five strikes), after the White House pressured the ISPs to cave to Hollywood's interests. What many of us noticed, of course, is that this backroom deal left the public out of the equation, which was obvious from the fact that it actually takes away some of the public's rights -- for example, by curtailing the definition of the public domain.

Earlier this year, the RIAA said that the program would finally kick off in July. There were some rumors of delays, and then a bunch of sites (including us) got confused about the actual start date. There have been multiple reports now saying that it will actually roll out later in the fall.

Of course, this has a lot of people wondering just what the delay is about. There might be a clue in a piece over at The Daily Dot, where they say that the director of the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), Jill Lesser, has hinted strongly that the ISPs disagree with some RIAA/MPAA demands:

Jill Lesser, Executive Director of the Center for Copyright Information, told the Daily Dot that the repeated delays were because the coalition wanted an independent review from the American Arbitration Association.

She hinted that disagreement between the ISPs or the lobbying groups might have held up the process. Responding to a question about the delay, she wrote “members are all very involved in internal planning and review of the alert system, which has been and will continue to be a collaborative process.”

Of course, there's one big thing that happened between when the agreement was made and now: the huge public reaction to SOPA. After that, the EFF rightly called for scrapping the backroom deal and starting a new negotiation that actually involved the public. That recommendation was ignored by Hollywood, of course, but the news of some internal fighting hopefully means that the ISPs are asserting themselves a bit more strongly against excessive RIAA/MPAA demands. Of course, once again, this is why it would be nicer if this debate were in public, rather than hidden behind closed doors.

Techdirt often writes about the benefits of openness and sharing. One area that is increasingly coming to the fore is open data -- for example, for some time both the US and UK have had major projects aimed at opening up the stores of data held by their respective governments, and other countries are rapidly joining the club. But amidst all the enthusiasm for such projects, it's easy to get swept away, and to accept the idea of open data uncritically. That's what makes this fascinating blog post entitled "Seeing Like a Geek" from Tom Slee so valuable, because he calls out what he sees as a serious problem with open data initiatives:

The point of this post is to draw attention to this open government data doppelgänger -- the shadow of commercial interests that follow civic hackers wherever they go; the new markets that spring up inevitably from the ruins of the old -- and to its dangers. I am suspicious of this doppelgänger: more so than most open data proponents, who tend to use the language of entrepreneurship and innovation when discussing companies who work with open data, and who contrast the new firms with the aging business models they seek to replace, and they often present commercial use as a complement to civic use.

His post gives some examples, such as the rich and powerful property developers using newly-digitized records to evict the poor from lands the latter had lived on for many years. More generally, he sees open data projects undermining traditional knowledge held in the memories of local people. Ultimately, he fears that open data may simply empower the empowered.

It's an important post, because it challenges many of the unacknowledged assumptions about open data and its worth. But as David Eaves points out in an equally insightful post written in response, Slee concentrates unduly on the negative aspects of open data, and omits mention of the problems of closed data:

There is, I would like to note, however no discussion about the cost of closed data -- or the powerful interests that mirror the open data free market doppelgänger's - that like to keep it that way. No acknowledgement for the enormous inequalities embedded in the status quo where government data is controlled by government agents -- and more often than not -- sold to those who can pay for it. I have no doubt that open data will create new winners and losers -- but let's not pretend like the status quo doesn't support many winners and create big losers either. Our starting point is not neutral.

The key point here is not that open data can't be abused by the unscrupulous, but that it is still better overall than what we have had until now, which is an entire system based on the exploitation of information asymmetries. Slee's concern that open data enthusiasts can be somewhat starry-eyed at times is a valid one, but Eaves is surely right that we must look at the broader context in order to understand the true value of openness and sharing.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Lots of people seem to have an unhealthy obsession with hamburgers. So much so, that they're willing to pay incredible sums of cash for a single meal that includes cooked ground meat between two pieces of bread. Spending hundreds -- or thousands -- of dollars on a burger might not sound like a very happy meal to everyone, but there are more than a few places willing to serve up some expensive burgers for paying customers. Here are just a few examples.

• The first burger grown in a lab probably won't taste all that good, but it'll cost about $330,000 to create a synthetic hamburger from cow stem cells. The first lab-grown burger should be ready to eat sometime in October, and the project is being funded by an anonymous donor. [url]
• If you hit the jackpot in Vegas, there's a ton of ways to spend too much money on food out there -- and one option is a $5,000 burger at Fleur de Lys. In addition to Kobe beef, foie gras and truffles, you'll also get some wine and the bragging rights. [url]
• The Guinness Book of World Records named 'Le Burger Extravagant' from Serendipity 3 in NYC as the world's most expensive burger, priced at $295. Apparently, the folks at Guinness have never been to Vegas (or they abide by the "stays in Vegas" rule very strictly), but they also seem to have missed the $666 Douche Burger sold out of a food truck in NYC, too. [url]

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

As expected, Russia has passed a law that will allow Web sites to be blacklisted, ostensibly to "protect children". According to this AFP report, the very vague "harmful information" category has been narrowed somewhat, but future threats remain:

Russian newspapers said Wednesday the final version has specified a previously broad term of "harmful information", saying only child pornography, suicide how-to instructions and drugs propaganda can lead to website closure without a trial.

However, an expert on Russia's security services, Andrei Soldatov, said the bill would lead to creation of a mechanism for blocking foreign sites for the first time by forcing Internet providers to install special equipment.

As the UK experience shows, once the technology is in place to block child pornography, say, the calls to deploy it for things like alleged copyright infringement become more insistent.

China, of course, already exercises pretty tight control over all forms of media, but it seems it wants to lock down online activity even more:

China's broadcasting and Internet regulators have told Internet video providers that they must prescreen all programs before making them available, tightening state censorship of increasingly popular online drama series and mini-movies.

Prescreening all uploaded videos might seem a tall order, but it's already going on with some services:

A woman working in the public relations office for Youku, China's most popular online video provider, said Wednesday the new decree had little impact on the company because Youku already has hundreds of prescreeners who examine all content uploaded to the site.

You can probably guess what justification China's State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) is using for this move:

SARFT said this week in a statement on its website that the rule is in response to the rapid growth in online video programs, some of which it said contain vulgar content, excessive violence or pornography. It said the rule would protect younger people and promote high-quality online programs.

It's so nice to know that governments everywhere are united by this desire to protect children; pity they seem equally united in not caring about the erosion of people's rights through the ever-deepening censorship they apply as a result.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Yesterday we wrote about rapper Lord Finesse suing fellow rapper Mac Miller because Miller released a free song that used the same beat that Finesse used (which was itself based on a sample from jazz musician Oscar Peterson). Miller, of course, has become a phenom, being the first indie artist to top the charts with a new release in over a decade. The song in question, Kool Aid & Frozen Pizza, wasn't on Miller's album, but was just released for free online, and uses the same beat from Finesse's 90's era hit Hip 2 Da Game. And now Finesse is suing for $10 million.

In our post on the subject, we pointed to a song that Dan Bull put together, using the same beat, but as commentary/parody of this legal fight. The song highlights how hip-hop has a long history of building on the works of others, and does a nice job laying out the history with Oscar Peterson's sample being used first. And... this morning Dan Bull logged into his YouTube account to discover that Finesse's lawyers had issued a takedown on his song. This is a clear abuse of copyright law to stifle criticism of his lawsuit. First of all, it's not at all difficult to find a lot of other songs that use the same beat with people rapping their own lyrics over them... and they all have been left up (and have been up for a while). Here are just a couple examples -- both of which have been up for over a year. And, oh yeah, even Mac Miller's own version is still up on YouTube. So basically, either Finesse and his lawyers just so happened to take down the one video that is critical of the lawsuit... or they're using copyright to stifle criticism and free speech.

Furthermore, it seems like there's as pretty strong argument for fair use (or fair dealing in the UK) for Dan's video. It's clearly using the music to comment on the lawsuit and the fact that it involves this beat. It's difficult to discuss the nature of the beat without actually being able to use the beat, as Dan did. In many ways this seems like a classic case of what fair use/fair dealing was designed for. The beat is integral to the criticism and commentary that is the whole point of the song, and is used out of necessity.

Of course, even more amusing is that the entire point of Bull's song was to tell Finesse just how bad legal action like his lawsuit against Miller really looks -- and instead of getting the message, it appears that Finesse and his lawyers want to look even worse, using the same sort of "copyright as censorship" effort that made Bull call them out in the first place.

For years, we've highlighted the overaggressive nature of the Olympics in over-protecting their intellectual property -- even to the level of getting host countries to pass special IP laws that only apply to the Olympics. But this sense of ultimate entitlement seems to pervade everything that the Olympics does. It was recently noted that the terms of use for the London 2012 website include a restriction on how you can link to the site:

Links to the Site. You may create your own link to the Site, provided that your link is in a text-only format. You may not use any link to the Site as a method of creating an unauthorised association between an organisation, business, goods or services and London 2012, and agree that no such link shall portray us or any other official London 2012 organisations (or our or their activities, products or services) in a false, misleading, derogatory or otherwise objectionable manner. The use of our logo or any other Olympic or London 2012 Mark(s) as a link to the Site is not permitted. View our guidelines on Use of the Games’ Marks.

There are other insane statements in the terms, including that you automatically agree to be "legally bound" by the terms simply by using the site. That's not how a contract works, guys.

Either way, this claim that you can't link to their site in a "derogatory or otherwise objectionable manner" has inspired the creativity of the internet, it appears. Specifically, lots of folks have taken to Twitter to share their own derogatory or otherwise objectionable statements along with links to the website. Asher Wolf and Meredith Patterson have done a really nice job curating some of the insults that are currently raining down on the Olympics for their linking policy. We've included a couple of screenshots (below the fold).

I recognize that there are some other sites who have used this kind of language in the past, and that some overcharging lawyer was probably just trying to set up a "cover their ass" policy for the Olympics, but it's amazing that any competent individual lets those kinds of things out into the world these days without realizing that it's clearly going to create the exact opposite incentives.

And, hell, just for fun, check out this link to an obnoxious organization that loves censorship and doesn't respect free speech. And I say that in a derogatory and objectionable manner.

Yesterday, we wrote about Viacom's reactionary strategy of holding its fans hostage by shutting down online streams of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report after DirecTV advised its customers (who just lost access to Viacom shows) to watch them online. It was a childish move that punished a whole lot of fans (not only DirecTV users) just to gain leverage in a contract dispute, and a textbook example of how big media's shortsightedness drives people to piracy. Nobody was impressed.

So today it's interesting to hear about a network taking the exact opposite tack. AMC, home of a bunch of popular shows cast somewhat in the HBO mold, was recently dropped from the basic package for Dish satellite subscribers. AMC says that unlike the Viacom/DirecTV situation, they were not asking for more money and this was not a negotiation issue, but rather Dish trying to "gain leverage in an unrelated lawsuit."

So what is AMC's response? Well, the much-anticipated fifth-season premier of Breaking Bad, one of their flagship shows, is airing on Sunday—and they've decided to set up a special online stream just for Dish subscribers, so they can watch it for free. Meanwhile, they point out that virtually every other satellite and cable provider includes AMC in its basic package, and that several are now offering special sale prices for customers switching from Dish. They even have a toll-free line at 1-855-2DROP-DISH offering more information. For Dish, this is what you call a "PR nightmare".

But -- and here's where it gets even more interesting -- Dish claims they dropped AMC because the company insists they also carry some other less-popular networks bundled with it. That's why DirecTV says it dropped Viacom, too. It's a bit of an our-word-against-theirs situation as to the real cause of the conflict, and it's likely that neither company is entirely blameless. But AMC's first move was to go straight to the fans with a special offer to give them what they want. Viacom's first move was to... petulantly punish not only the fans involved in the dispute, but all of their fans.

Both Dish and DirecTV are experiencing backlash—even though some people support DirecTV in the bigger picture, most fans are just reacting to their favorite shows suddenly disappearing, and understandably getting annoyed with their service provider. But while AMC has leveraged the situation as a way to get good PR by offering fans something special, Viacom managed to extract its own dose of negative backlash by further depriving them.

Much like the MPAA, it seems Viacom needs a lesson in communications.

We've mentioned before that Spotify shows how providing consumers what they want can really have a much stronger impact on "piracy" than any enforcement initiative. Both Spotify and The Pirate Bay started in Sweden, and both got tremendous penetration in the Swedish market. But as various studies have shown, infringement of music dropped drastically in Sweden as the service became more popular. A new report looks at the Swedish recorded music market, and found that it's up an astounding 30.1% in the first half of this year, due almost entirely to Spotify. Digital music now accounts for 63.5% of all music sales, and streaming services (mainly Spotify) represent 89% of all digital music sales. MusicAlly notes that streaming may be cannibalizing downloads, but the massive growth in streaming is more than outweighing the decrease in downloads.

This even has the labels (who, yes, have an equity position in Spotify -- more on that in a bit) talking about how they're making more money than they have in a long, long time, thanks to Spotify:

“We’re back to the same revenue levels as during 2004, and if the development continues in the same way we’ll be back on turnover similar to those during the “golden days” of the CD in just a few years,” says Universal Music Sweden’s MD Per Sundin.

“We’ve seen massive change in music consumption, where music fans are now listening to more music than ever, in an entirely legal environment. This means that revenues are increasing all the time, and artists get paid every time their music is played. Our artists get significant revenues from Spotify, which is our biggest income source for Sweden. A positive side effect is that we’re investing a lot in new talent.”

Mark Dennis, CEO of Sony Music Sweden, makes the same point: “One of the most gratifying consequences of this is that it gives us the opportunity to sign more artists, and record more new Swedish music than ever. In fact, for most of our artists, streaming music now represents the majority of the revenue.”

Now, I've learned to take any claims from the major labels with a grain of salt, and there are some clear issues with Spotify. People have complained that the deals favor the majors so they get a larger cut than the indies. That's definitely a problem. Others insist that Spotify doesn't pay enough -- but multiple studies keep finding that, on a per listen basis, Spotify actually pays quite nicely. There may still be significant issues with how the labels pass that money on to artists, however.

The point of this isn't to say that "Spotify" is the answer. There are, clearly, some questions about that particular service. But it certainly shows that there are solutions that very effectively compete with free, and as they grow, they can certainly help make significant money for the copyright holders. Spotify, of course, had a head start in Sweden, and the adoption rates there are incredible. However, the point is pretty clear: let new services like Spotify grow and thrive and effectively compete with free, and they will do so -- and the business issues seem to pretty quickly sort themselves out. Obviously having even more competition would be a good thing as well, as competitors will keep trying to offer something even better (and put pressure on Spotify to advance as well).

In the end, though, Spotify is a classic case of giving the public what they want, rather than what the industry wants them to have. And yet, in doing so, it's also now providing massive revenues for the industry -- even as people continue to insist that such a result is impossible.

We keep hearing US government officials tell us fanciful stories about why we need cybersecurity legislation that paves the way for the government to get access to private information, but the arguments never make much sense. There are vague claims of threats that really seem more like garden variety hackers, and then there are the completely made up threats that are pulled right from Hollywood scripts -- like the claims that an online attack will lead to planes colliding.

A new survey suggests that the public just isn't buying it. 63% of those polled worried about the impact on privacy and civil liberties if we provided greater information sharing with the government. So for all the talk about how there's "bipartisan" support for doing something here, it's not clear that there's really American public support for this kind of thing.

A common feature of democracies is that new laws are scrutinized and debated by representatives of the people before they are passed -- the hope being that bad proposals can be amended or discarded. Laws giving governments the power to change other laws with only minimal oversight are therefore generally regarded as a Bad Thing. But that's exactly what the UK government plans to introduce, as this article on the Out-Law.com site explains:

The Government has outlined proposals to change UK copyright law to allow the Business Secretary to draw up any future laws affecting exceptions to copyright and rights in performances in the form of new regulations. The regulations would be contained in a statutory instrument, a draft of which would need to be "laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament" before it could come into force.

However, that "approval by resolution" can be pretty minimal compared to the process required for passing new laws:

Acts of Parliament must be read, subject to further scrutiny and debate and approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords before they can come into law. However, new regulations in the form of statutory instruments can often be introduced without the same level of scrutiny or debate.

This power to change laws without Parliamentary approval is known as a "Henry VIII clause", since that monarch also availed himself of their convenience.

Such a meta-law that allows other laws to be changed without full scrutiny is potentially a dangerous thing, but it does cut both ways. It's true that it would permit the UK government to make copyright law even more unbalanced, but it might also allow it to move in the other direction, something already raised during discussions about this new power:

representatives from the creative industries had expressed "real concern" about plans to further liberalise the use of copyrighted material.

Their evident fear is that the UK government might bring in new exceptions to copyright pretty much without debate, and therefore in a way that they could not so easily fight using traditional lobbying techniques.

Although that would be a welcome result in terms of updating copyright, its benefit is probably outweighed by the long-term risk of such a Henry VIII clause being used by a future UK government to make copyright worse. On balance, it's preferable to have laws discussed and debated in the normal democratic way, rather than simply trusting governments to use their absolute powers wisely.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

We've covered the story of copyright troll lawyer Evan Stone for a while now. He was one of a group of lawyers who jumped into the copyright trolling business a few years ago, figuring it was easy money to get info on people based on IP addresses, and then demand they pay up to avoid lawsuits. While these cases have been littered with highly questionable behavior by various trolling lawyers, Stone took it to new levels. In one of Stone's cases, the judge -- already suspicious of the whole scheme -- appointed both Public Citizen and EFF to defend the (still anonymous) accused Does against being revealed. While this was going on, Stone was told not to subpoena identifying info. So, Public Citizen and EFF were somewhat shocked when they heard from some of the accused, claiming that Stone had, in fact, subpoenaed their info. After confronting him, Stone tried to get out of the case by dismissing it. Of course, while doing so, he directly insulted the judge and attacked Public Citizen and EFF, claiming he was dropping the case due to the delay in time it was taking (ignoring the serious ethical violations).

Public Citizen and EFF reasonably sought sanctions against Stone for such egregious behavior. Sanctions are pretty extreme, and rarely sought and even more rarely granted. You generally have to do something completely over the top and unethical to have sanctions imposed. The court realized that Stone's actions were not just over the line by were barely in the same time zone as the line, and granted sanctions. The court was pretty clear and direct in slamming Stone, noting that it "rarely has encountered a more textbook example of conduct deserving of sanctions."

Stone appealed, but was found in contempt by the district court for failing to obey the sanctions, and ordered to pay legal fees. Stone, once again, appealed the whole thing -- and in a new ruling, the appeals court not only details the litany of both ethical and procedural misdeeds by Stone (including completely failing to follow the basic process of appealing such a decision), but reaffirms the sanctions against Stone. Basically, everything Stone does makes things worse. He now owes even more money and there's an appeals court ruling that highlights his basic failings even in handling the appeal itself. Here's just a snippet.

On appeal, Stone argues that the sanctions cannot be justified under Rules 26 and 45 or under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 or the inherent power of the district court. He also contends that the attorneys ad litem lacked standing to bring the sanctions motion and are not the proper recipients of the attorneys’ fees awarded by the district court. Stone raises this last argument for the first time on appeal and raised the other arguments for the first time in his untimely motion in the district court to stay sanctions pending appeal, which was filed after this appeal was initiated. None of these arguments, thus, was preserved for purposes of appeal, nor does Stone contend they were. Accordingly, all the issues Stone raises on appeal have been waived....

Nonetheless, Stone asserted, at oral argument and for the first time, that this court can consider his arguments because his appeal is one of “extraordinary circumstances,” involving only “pure question[s] of law [in which] a miscarriage of justice would result from our failure to consider [them].” .... We conclude, however, that no miscarriage of justice will result from the sanctions imposed as a result of Stone’s flagrant violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the district court’s orders. Stone committed those violations as an attempt to repeat his strategy of suing anonymous internet users for allegedly downloading pornography illegally, using the powers of the court to find their identity, then shaming or intimidating them into settling for thousands of dollars--a tactic that he has employed all across the state and that has been replicated by others across the country.

Time to stop digging.

In response to Jimmy Wales reiterating the fact that Hollywood's own failings online are a major cause of infringement, the MPAA has hit back by saying: that's crazy! After all, the studios do Hulu and Netflix, so how can anyone complain?

Wales had used everyone's favorite example these days: the difficulty in finding a legitimate way to pay for Game of Thrones online...

Wales also argued that the entertainment industry needs to continue adjusting its business model so it offers people the content they want. Citing a personal example, Wales noted how he can’t watch HBO’s “Game of Thrones” series at home in London even though he’s willing to pay for it.

“I think that he media industry needs to say, 'Look, why don’t we sell people what they want to buy,’ and I think that will take care a huge proportion of the problem,” he said.

A smart and consumer-focused MPAA might note that they're trying their best but they realize there are still gaps and they hope to continue to improve. But, you know, that's not how the MPAA rolls. Instead, they send out spokesperson Kate Bedingfield -- who just recently joined the MPAA from the White House -- to insist that Wales was crazy for suggesting they need to make more efforts to please customers. You see, in the mind of the MPAA, as long as they've done something, they've clearly done enough.

“Our studios are constantly partnering and innovating new ways for audiences to watch the movies and TV shows they love: Hulu, HBO Go, Vudu, Crackle, UltraViolet, Epix, MUBI – and that just barely scratches the surface,” said Kate Bedingfield, a spokeswoman at the MPAA. “There are more legitimate avenues available today to watch movies and TV shows online than ever before, and our studios are continuing to innovate every day to bring audiences even more options.”

“At the end of the day, stealing shows and movies out of convenience still harms the people who work hard to make them,” Bedingfield added.

In other words, don't actually address what Wales said. Don't respond to his specific complaint. Insist that because you're doing something, even if it doesn't solve the problem he noted, you're clearly doing enough... and then revert back to talking point numero uno: oh, poor us, we're harmed! So harmed. Harmed into our best years ever at the box office... (oh wait, they leave that last part out).

Seriously, the MPAA needs to hire communications people who actually deal with consumers, rather than politically-focused ones. They seem to have absolutely zero sense of how to respond to the public on anything without making themselves look worse. The last two decades of RIAA/MPAA communications have been a long-term case study in exactly how to do everything wrong.

Music collection societies often figure in Techdirt thanks to their attempts to wring licensing payments from people on absurd grounds, like trying to make them pay for playing music to horses, or for singing old folk songs. But in Europe, there's another issue. Because each country has its own music collection society, digital music startups wishing to operate across Europe must negotiate not one, but dozens of separate licenses – a major obstacle to overcome.

Even the European Commission has noticed that this is a problem, and has proposed bringing in a new directive to tackle it:

New digital technologies are opening up great opportunities for creators, consumers and businesses alike. Increased demand for online access to cultural content (e.g. music, films, books) does not recognise borders or national restrictions. Neither do the online services used to access them. This is where collecting societies come into play, in particular in the music sector, where they collectively manage the licensing of copyright-protected music tracks for online use on behalf of composers and lyricists and collect and redistribute to them corresponding royalties.

However, some collecting societies struggle to adapt to the requirements of the management of rights for online use of musical works, in particular in a cross-border context. As a result of today’s proposal, those collecting societies willing to engage in the multi-territorial licensing of their repertoire would therefore have to comply with European standards. This would make it easier for service providers to obtain the necessary licences for music to be distributed online across the EU and to ensure that revenue is correctly collected and fairly distributed to composers and lyricists.

That reference to collecting societies that "struggle to adapt to the requirements of the management of rights for online use of musical works" is a pretty obvious dig at organizations like GEMA, which has been extremely inflexible when it comes to online licensing of music in Germany. So we can probably expect vociferous resistance to any change from many of the collecting societies that have enjoyed milking their legal monopolies to the full. Surprisingly, though, some artists don't seem too enthusiastic either:

A proposed EU law to give musicians more rights over their royalties has angered bands like Radiohead and Pink Floyd, who accused the European Commission of breaking promises to tackle the problem of musicians' missing pay.

The issue here seems to be that collection societies have a tendency to hold on to money that they should be distributing to artists, also referred to by the European Commission. The fact that musicians have already gone on the attack suggests that we are going to see some fierce lobbying coming from multiple directions. However, it may be that this directive is doomed to fail for quite another reason.

Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission, and certainly one of the most rational/radical members there, has written an extremely interesting blog post about the new proposals. She begins:

Last week’s vote on ACTA -- although hardly a surprise for those who’ve been following – was a reminder about the big debate currently going on, about how to balance intellectual property rights with Internet freedoms

For me it’s about making it easier for artists to promote their work widely, and make a living from it: without constraining the immense innovation of the online world. And, for me, the current copyright system achieves all of those objectives poorly.

That’s why I’m convinced we need to reform copyright for the digital age. For me, merely making enforcement more and more heavy-handed is not the solution -- especially if it results in draconian measures like cutting off internet access.

But a good start – and I hope a principle on which everybody could agree – is that we should make it easier to legally access the content you love.

That's a very welcome statement, coming as it does from one of the most senior EU politicians. Significantly, she also has some words for the European Parliament regarding the proposed directive on music licensing:

our proposal needs to be agreed by the European Parliament and Council. Some previous attempts by us to modernise copyright rules -- like our relatively modest proposal on orphan works -- were significantly watered down by the legislator. This time I hope the Parliament and Council are more aware of the views citizens have expressed: that people love the openness of the Internet, and want easier access to more content.

That "modest proposal on orphan works" was gutted by the relevant European Parliament committee, as a previous Techdirt post explained. One key reason why the final form of the directive turned out so badly is that its rapporteur (the EU parliamentarian with overall responsibility for the legislation) was the copyright maximalist Marielle Gallo, who was not only one of the few to vote in favor of ACTA, but went so far as to brand ACTA dissent as a "soft form of terrorism".

Unfortunately, it seems that Gallo will also be the rapporteur on this new music licensing proposal. Assuming she gets her way, that pretty much guarantees that any directive that emerges from the long process of political wrangling won't do much to address the deep underlying problems with music licensing. It may even make them worse, judging by what happened with the hostage works directive under her guidance.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+