<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;astroturfing&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 1 Feb 2012 13:08:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>CreativeAmerica Literally Resorts To Buying Signatures</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/23275917606/creativeamerica-literally-resorts-to-buying-signatures.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/23275917606/creativeamerica-literally-resorts-to-buying-signatures.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember CreativeAmerica?  This is the slickly produced operation that claims to be a "grassroots" organization in favor of SOPA and PIPA... but which is actually <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111021/10564516449/creativeamerica-when-major-hollywood-studios-set-up-bogus-grassroots-campaigns.shtml">funded</a> by the major studios, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120121/01515617498/creative-america-restocks-hires-former-dhsice-spokesperson.shtml">staffed by former MPAA</a> employees, and has had all the major studios directly <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111102/23363116605/warner-bros-right-after-announcing-record-profits-pleads-poverty-asking-people-to-support-grassroots-campaign-e-parasite-act.shtml">pushing</a> employees and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111128/10175516914/nbc-universal-threatens-partners-that-they-need-to-sign-grassroots-support-sopapipa-it-might-have-to-drop-them.shtml">partners</a> to sign up for the program -- even to the point of threatening to take away business if they don't sign.
<br /><br />
This is also the group that was caught <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120110/10592617366/creativeamerica-copies-content-to-support-anti-copying-bills.shtml">copying</a> an anti-SOPA activism letter, and using the exact same words as if it was written by themselves (I guess they're fine with plagiarism).  It's also been caught using <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111101/22565216586/hollywood-front-group-rounds-up-4000-letters-sent-to-congress-pretending-its-100000.shtml">funny math</a> to pump up its tiny number of supporters.
<br /><br />
In December, we joked that CreativeAmerica had resorted to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/03011717005/entertainment-industry-still-cant-get-grassroots-support-sopapipa-resorts-to-trying-to-buy-support.shtml" target="_blank">buying support</a>, after it released a big (and expensive) advertising campaign all over TV and on some big screens in Times Square.  Not exactly a "grass roots" operation.
<br /><br />
Either way, it appears the group has gone more direct now: to the point that it's literally paying people for signatures.  I've received very credible evidence, that a consulting firm hired by CreativeAmerica is now <i>offering to pay people</i> to get signatures on CreativeAmerica's petition.  The following email was forwarded to me, with some details redacted to protect privacy:
<blockquote><i>
the organization I am doing work for is Creative America, which is a grassroots organization that is working to stop foreign rogue websites from illegally distributing American content such as books, music, films, etc....  These specific websites costs the U.S. and the 2.2 million middle class industry workers $5.5 billion in wages and hundreds of thousands of jobs.  Your job would be just collecting signatures from whoever is interested in signing up for updates.  A newsletter may come once a month and anyone can unsubscribe if they don&#8217;t want it.  <b>We don&#8217;t care if they do; all I care about is getting initial signups.</b>
<br /><br />
The hours are flexible and we will pay you $1/signature, so if you collect 100 signatures a week, we would pay you $100/week.   We will also pay for you to go to local film festivals in the area (SXSW, Austin Film Festival, etc.).  We are also taking as many people as possible, so if you have some friends who are interested in doing it we can take them as well.  Let me know your thoughts....
</i></blockquote>
This raises even more questions about the already anemic number of people supporting CreativeAmerica and its pro-SOPA, pro-PIPA, MPAA-driven agenda.  As the email makes clear, they're willing to pay as many people as possible to get signatures to make the group look larger than it is.  That's pretty crazy.  I think we can be pretty sure that the <i>millions</i> of people who spoke out against SOPA/PIPA did so without someone paying them $1 per call or email.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/23275917606/creativeamerica-literally-resorts-to-buying-signatures.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/23275917606/creativeamerica-literally-resorts-to-buying-signatures.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120131/23275917606/creativeamerica-literally-resorts-to-buying-signatures.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>grassroots!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120131/23275917606</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:28:06 PST</pubDate>
<title>Hollywood Astroturf Group Releases Ad Saying It Needs SOPA To Shut Down Megaupload... Five Days After Megaupload Is Shut Down</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120125/03500717535/hollywood-astroturf-group-releases-ad-saying-it-needs-sopa-to-shut-down-megaupload-five-days-after-megaupload-is-shut-down.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120125/03500717535/hollywood-astroturf-group-releases-ad-saying-it-needs-sopa-to-shut-down-megaupload-five-days-after-megaupload-is-shut-down.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ CreativeAmerica, the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111021/10564516449/creativeamerica-when-major-hollywood-studios-set-up-bogus-grassroots-campaigns.shtml">astroturfing group</a> that pretends it's a "grassroots" operation -- but which is funded by the major Hollywood studios and run by <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120121/01515617498/creative-america-restocks-hires-former-dhsice-spokesperson.shtml">former studio/MPAA execs</a> -- is amazingly inept at communicating with the public, especially considering these guys are supposed to be communications experts.  Remember, this is the same group who, while fighting for stronger laws against copying, flat out <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120110/10592617366/creativeamerica-copies-content-to-support-anti-copying-bills.shtml">copied</a> the email of anti-SOPA activists, and changed a few words to push their own pro-SOPA message.
<br /><br />
Their latest move is even more bizarre.  The group is touting its latest <a href="https://www.facebook.com/creativeamerica/posts/137466389705168" target="_blank">slickly produced propaganda film</a>, insisting that SOPA/PIPA are needed for a variety of reasons -- almost none of which are true.  It throws out the bogus claim of jobs being at risk, even though the evidence <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111213/18060117071/actually-jobs-making-movies-are-rise-not-falling.shtml">shows otherwise</a>.  But where it gets totally ridiculous is that the video focuses mostly on Megaupload and Kim Dotcom/Schmitz.  The point of focusing on Megaupload?  To claim that <i>it can't be reached under existing law</i>.  Seriously.  It talks about Megaupload for a while (claiming that it brings in $300 million per year -- which turns out to be 10x the actual number, by the way) and then says:
<blockquote><i>
US law enforcement is only permitted to shut down US-based IP addresses.  Overseas sites, like Megaupload and Megavideo, and the Swedish-based Pirate Bay, are out of reach.
</i></blockquote>
Yes.  And they're releasing this video five whole days after the US government showed that existing laws actually <i>do</i> allow them to reach Megaupload and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120119/13052817473/doj-gives-its-opinion-sopa-unilaterally-shutting-down-foreign-rogue-site-megaupload-without-sopapipa.shtml">shut it down</a>.  So, um, why do we need these new laws again?
<br /><br />
Seriously, the video shows the level of lies that CreativeAmerica and the MPAA will spread to try to pass new, even broader laws.  What's stunning is how blatant they are about it, releasing this video even after events from a week ago already proved it wrong.
<br /><br />
Furthermore, almost everything else in that sentence is wrong, beyond just the idea that Megaupload was supposedly out of reach of US law enforcement.  Current law enforcement can seize US <i>domains</i>, which are different from IP addresses.  And, even more ridiculously, in the video, right before they claim that US law enforcement can't reach foreign sites... they show a clip of TVShack.net -- a UK-based site that the government seized and shut down (and is now trying to extradite its founder, student Richard O'Dwyer).
<br /><br />
Why must CreativeAmerica lie?  Perhaps because the facts just aren't on its side.
<br /><br />
The video has a number of other problems.  It relies heavily on Erik Barnett, Deputy Director for ICE, regularly seen in various press releases about ICE's program of illegally censoring websites.  It really makes you wonder why a government official is appearing in a video for a lobbying group trying to pass new laws.  Perhaps it's not illegal, but it certainly raises serious questions about the cozy relationship between ICE and the MPAA. Barnett has a history of being less than truthful about ICE activities.  Last summer, you may remember, he <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110608/20310614626/ice-wants-european-countries-to-join-domain-seizure-party.shtml">flat out lied</a>, in claiming that none of the sites seized by ICE were challenging the seizures, when he knew that a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110612/21573514664/list-sites-challenging-domain-seizures.shtml">bunch of sites</a> had already brought up challenges.
<br /><br />
Now Barnett is claiming that this program of seizing domains without any due process is a huge success because they seized "the nine most popular content theft sites out there."  Even ignoring the misuse of the word "theft" (shouldn't law enforcement know how to use the word properly?), this is laughable.  I mean, elsewhere in the video, they claim that TPB and Megaupload are the two most popular, but they weren't seized when the video was made.  Instead, what ICE seized was a bunch of hip hop blogs (that weren't even <i>that</i> big), including one that it held for a year before the Justice Department was forced to effectively admit that ICE totally screwed up and the domain had to be returned.  Other domains are still being held in this manner as well.  The fact that Barnett would flat out lie and pretend that this program of blatant censorship is some sort of big success... in an industry propaganda film, certainly raises some significant questions about ICE and how it's run these days.
<br /><br />
The video has some other laughable moments... such as talking to Bruce Leddy, the writer/director of the film <i>Wedding Weekend</i> (originally called "Sing Now Or Forever Hold Your Peace" or "Shut Up And Sing"), who freaks out over the fact that his movie was available online, and is decrying all of the "losses."  A couple problems with this.  Wedding Weekend was apparently a terrible movie.  The movie made a grand total of $15,998 on its opening weekend on 11 screens, and was out of theaters a week later, grossing a grand total of $20,903.  And it wasn't because of infringement.  It was because most people thought it was awful.  Most of the <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475390/externalreviews" target="_blank">professional reviews</a> make it sound pretty bad, using words and phrases  like <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/2007-04-17/film/sing-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/" target="_blank">"uneven,"</a> <a href="http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/movies/27sing.html">"less tolerable,"</a> <a href="http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/sing-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace/2850" target="_blank">"clunky narration," "one-trait characterizations,"</a> <a href="http://www.avclub.com/articles/sing-now-or-forever-hold-your-peace,3495/" target="_blank">"the title is the least of the film's problems,"</a> etc.  User reviews are more harsh.  Over at Rotten Tomatoes one user <a href="http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wedding_weekend/reviews/?type=user" target="_blank">notes</a>:
<blockquote><i>
This film is horrible. It has no redeeming features what so ever. I could criticise every single aspect of this film but I can't be bothered, it would be quicker for me to tell you about what is good about it. So here it goes, the only good thing about this film is that it has damaged the careers of everyone who worked on it. Hopefully. Never have I wanted to punch every single person on screen....
</i></blockquote>
Somehow, I get the feeling that its availability online was the least of its problems.  I'd be surprised if it actually got that many downloads at all.  Meanwhile, we keep hearing stories of smart filmmakers embracing the internet, and giving people reasons to buy (starting with a better quality movie).  He claims, "there's no recourse," but that's ridiculous.  One only needs to look at the experiences of Louis CK to know that, even if your videos end up on torrent sites, if you handle it properly, you can <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111222/12435717172/louis-ck-over-1-million-sales-just-12-days-drm-free-download.shtml">still cash in</a>.  Leddy's failure to make a good movie and his subsequent failure to put in place a good business model is no excuse for passing a bad law with massive unintended consequences.
<br /><br />
Still, this really shows the incredible desperation of the MPAA, though.  The astroturf group it has created is really reaching in its efforts to come up with some sort of justification for SOPA/PIPA...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120125/03500717535/hollywood-astroturf-group-releases-ad-saying-it-needs-sopa-to-shut-down-megaupload-five-days-after-megaupload-is-shut-down.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120125/03500717535/hollywood-astroturf-group-releases-ad-saying-it-needs-sopa-to-shut-down-megaupload-five-days-after-megaupload-is-shut-down.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120125/03500717535/hollywood-astroturf-group-releases-ad-saying-it-needs-sopa-to-shut-down-megaupload-five-days-after-megaupload-is-shut-down.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-guys-make-me-laugh</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120125/03500717535</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:52:05 PST</pubDate>
<title>CreativeAmerica Denies Copying; Inadvertently Shows Why SOPA/PIPA Are Dangerous</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120111/17552517380/creativeamerica-denies-copying-inadvertently-shows-why-sopapipa-are-dangerous.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120111/17552517380/creativeamerica-denies-copying-inadvertently-shows-why-sopapipa-are-dangerous.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember how CreativeAmerica flat out <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120110/10592617366/creativeamerica-copies-content-to-support-anti-copying-bills.shtml">copied</a> an anti-PIPA organizing email from Public Knowledge, and "remixed" it to make it a pro-PIPA organizing email from this MPAA-set up astroturf group.  It was <i>obviously</i> directly copied text.  The style and the text were so close, there was no way that it was developed independently.  And yet... <a href="http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/01/did-the-copying-opponents-copy.php" target="_blank">CreativeAmerica is now insisting it did it on its own</a> and is pretending that people are complaining about <i>the idea</i> of the email:
<blockquote><i>
But that's not the case, said Craig Hoffman, a Creative America spokesman. He said Creative America did not copy Public Knowledge's email but was just encouraging supporters to get in touch with their senators, a common strategy.
<br /><br />
"It's a standard organizing technique," Hoffman said.
</i></blockquote>
Either Hoffman didn't understand what happened or he's being purposely misleading (neither of which makes CreativeAmerica look very competent).  No one is complaining about them sending out an email urging supporters to contact Senators.  What they're complaining about is that the text is <i>almost identical</i>, and uses the same three bullet points that folks at Public Knowledge admit they "over-edited" internally, including a long discussion that turned what had formerly been a paragraph into three separate bullet points.
<br /><br />
But, ironically, Creative America's insistence that it didn't copy the email demonstrates one of the many <i>problems</i> with SOPA and PIPA.  It's that reasonable people might disagree over whether or not something is infringing.  I'm pretty damn sure that CreativeAmerica copied PK's email.  But they say they didn't.  Now, under SOPA/PIPA, with its "shoot first, admit you shot the wrong dead guy later" approach to censorship... that would be a problem for CreativeAmerica.  Isn't it a better situation when you guarantee that everyone gets to make their case before we cut sites off...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120111/17552517380/creativeamerica-denies-copying-inadvertently-shows-why-sopapipa-are-dangerous.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120111/17552517380/creativeamerica-denies-copying-inadvertently-shows-why-sopapipa-are-dangerous.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120111/17552517380/creativeamerica-denies-copying-inadvertently-shows-why-sopapipa-are-dangerous.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>private-right-of-action?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120111/17552517380</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 8 Dec 2011 16:07:36 PST</pubDate>
<title>Entertainment Industry Still Can't Get Grassroots Support For SOPA/PIPA, Resorts To Trying To Buy Support</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/03011717005/entertainment-industry-still-cant-get-grassroots-support-sopapipa-resorts-to-trying-to-buy-support.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/03011717005/entertainment-industry-still-cant-get-grassroots-support-sopapipa-resorts-to-trying-to-buy-support.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've written about CreativeAmerica a few times.  This is the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111021/10564516449/creativeamerica-when-major-hollywood-studios-set-up-bogus-grassroots-campaigns.shtml">astroturfing operation</a> set up by the major Hollywood studios, pretending to be "grassroots."  Of course, as we've noted, they can't seem to find <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111128/10175516914/nbc-universal-threatens-partners-that-they-need-to-sign-grassroots-support-sopapipa-it-might-have-to-drop-them.shtml">very many supporters</a> at all.  In the entire month of November, when there was a ton of news about these issues, it appears that a grand total of 161 new people signed up for its letter-to-Congress offering.   In contrast to that, folks protesting SOPA were able to get <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/00002616879/why-public-is-willing-to-rally-against-sopapipa-not-it.shtml">over a million emails sent</a> to Congress and over 87,000 phone calls <i>in just one day</i>.  And how did that happen?  Because those of us opposed to SOPA and PROTECT IP <i>just asked our communities, and they did so</i>.
<br /><br />
The major Hollywood Studios do the same... and they get 161 new supporters over an entire month.  It's kinda pitiful, but it really shows how little the public supports Hollywood in this campaign to censor the internet.
<br /><br />
Either way, it appears that Hollywood is now trying to do what it does best: buy support.  Since its efforts to just rally the troops directly has failed miserably, it's <a href="http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118047148" target="_blank">kicking off a big ad campaign, <b>buying</b> TV commercial spots</a> on both broadcast and cable TV.  The commercial itself is incredibly misleading and repeats a bunch of the standard myths:
<center>
<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/33248176?title=0&#038;byline=0&#038;portrait=0" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>
</center>
It also goes with the standard scare tactics of "evil content theft."  It's amazing that the industry bigwigs still haven't figured out that no one believes that claim (well, other than some folks in Congress).  Either way, it's yet another example of the stark contrast in how the public views this bill.  Those in favor have to buy their support, while those opposed just talk to people and tons of people speak out.  One of these days, perhaps folks in Congress will realize that <i>these people vote.
</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/03011717005/entertainment-industry-still-cant-get-grassroots-support-sopapipa-resorts-to-trying-to-buy-support.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/03011717005/entertainment-industry-still-cant-get-grassroots-support-sopapipa-resorts-to-trying-to-buy-support.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/03011717005/entertainment-industry-still-cant-get-grassroots-support-sopapipa-resorts-to-trying-to-buy-support.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>buying-support-is-all-they-know</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111208/03011717005</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 2 Nov 2011 08:17:15 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Hollywood Front Group Rounds Up 4,000 Letters Sent To Congress, Pretending It's 100,000</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111101/22565216586/hollywood-front-group-rounds-up-4000-letters-sent-to-congress-pretending-its-100000.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111101/22565216586/hollywood-front-group-rounds-up-4000-letters-sent-to-congress-pretending-its-100000.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's no secret that the Hollywood studios have a reputation for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml">highly questionable accounting practices</a>, and apparently that carries over into their attempts to show "support" for censoring the internet via PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE.  A few weeks ago, we wrote about the totally bogus group CreativeAmerica, which is an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111021/10564516449/creativeamerica-when-major-hollywood-studios-set-up-bogus-grassroots-campaigns.shtml">astroturfing group set up by the major Hollywood studios</a>, pretending to be a "grassroots" group.  Dig a little, and you'll find that CreativeAmerica was actually set up by Disney, Warnber Bros., NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox and Sony Pictures.  "Grassroots" that is not.  It's made even more obvious by the fact that the folks at CreativeAmerica don't even hide it.  If this were really an upstart grassroots campaign, would NBC Universal <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=165819113510508&#038;set=a.117306955028391.23305.104933662932387&#038;type=1&#038;theater" target="_blank">hand out its mugs</a> to employees, and if it were really an upstarts grassroots campaign, would 20th Century Fox put up a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=162893597136393&#038;set=a.117306955028391.23305.104933662932387&#038;type=1">giant banner</a> on its studio lot for the group?
<br /><br />
The answer is no.  Anyone who takes a few seconds to investigate recognizes that this is a slick studio-run operation... from the same studios that use creative math to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/13500315912/hollywood-accounting-darth-vader-not-getting-paid-because-return-jedi-still-isnt-profitable.shtml">never pay royalties</a> to actors in even some of the most successful movies of all time.
<br /><br />
So is it really any surprise that they're playing fast and loose with the facts when it comes to puffing up their support.  Yesterday, CreativeAmerica (and the MPAA) hyped up on Twitter that members had <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/creativeamerica/status/131445792102825984">sent over 100,000 letters to Congress</a> in support of PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE.  Of course, if you actually went to CreativeAmerica's website, where the letter generator existed (and, again, unlike all of the letter generators for those against these bills, on CreativeAmerica's site, no creativity is allowed -- you can only send their exact message) you see the following:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/45bdP"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/45bdP.png" width=560 /></a>
</center>
I'm pretty sure I can count.  And, um, 4,191 appears to be <i>just a bit</i> short of 100,000.  Well, it actually appears to be 95,809 short.  And while it might be okay to round up if you were actually getting close, I don't think rounding up from 4,000 to 100,000 is particularly honest.  Two of our regular contributors challenged the studio-run CreativeAmerica on this, and they were both told that CreativeAmerica was <i>also</i> counting the people who <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/creativeamerica/status/131519219803242498">signed a Change.org petition</a>.  First of all, a petition is not a letter.  They're two separate things. So that seems a bit misleading.  But, okay, in the spirit of giving Hollywood a fighting chance here, even if we grant them the petition signatures, a look at the actual petition shows the following:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/LwDRR"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/LwDRR.png" /></a>
</center>
Okay, that's 33,000 more signatures.  Even if we take all of these at face value, we're at just about 37,500 signatures.  Again, even at that point you can't round up to 100,000.  Well, I mean, you <i>can</i>, but it makes you a blatantly intellectually dishonest liar.  CreativeAmerica: creative about numbers, apparently.
<br /><br />
Oh, and let's just take a look at the "reasons why people signed" the petition that CreativeAmerica is so proud of.  It looks like almost half of the people who chose to leave a message are asking how to "unsign" the petition, because they didn't realize that the group was an astroturf group looking to go against the best interests of actual artists.  Here are a few examples:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/1BqHV"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/1BqHV.png" /></a>
<br /><br />
<a href="http://imgur.com/4HIKs"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/4HIKs.png" width=560 /></a>
<br /><br />
<a href="http://imgur.com/Gv5av"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/Gv5av.png" width=560/></a>
</center>
So, it seems like a bunch of the folks who "signed" the petition are now asking to back out.  Just for the sake of comparison, I spoke to the folks at Demand Progress to find out how many letters they had sent... and the answer is 100,000 <i>in the last week alone</i>, and they have the stats to prove it.  On top of that, the Fight for the Future guys have been able to get over 80,000 people to sign petitions.  So if we just look at that (and note that the CreativeAmerica campaign has been going on for much more than a week), it seems like CreativeAmerica is taking after its corporate masters on PROTECT IP/E-PARASITE: ignore what the data actually says and lie, lie, lie... all the way up to Capitol Hill.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111101/22565216586/hollywood-front-group-rounds-up-4000-letters-sent-to-congress-pretending-its-100000.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111101/22565216586/hollywood-front-group-rounds-up-4000-letters-sent-to-congress-pretending-its-100000.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111101/22565216586/hollywood-front-group-rounds-up-4000-letters-sent-to-congress-pretending-its-100000.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hollywood-math</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111101/22565216586</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:55:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Some Actual Backlash For Groups That Unthinkingly Sign Their Name In Support Of Telco Positions</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/02534914784/some-actual-backlash-groups-that-unthinkingly-sign-their-name-support-telco-positions.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/02534914784/some-actual-backlash-groups-that-unthinkingly-sign-their-name-support-telco-positions.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years, we've covered how slimy DC-insiders and secretive "lobbying" firms <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080611/1735371380.shtml">have a list of "interest groups"</a> that they "fund" in order to use them to support various initiatives they don't really care about.  The telling quote from someone involved in these astroturfing efforts:
<blockquote><i>
"You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"
</i></blockquote>
AT&#038;T has been working overtime on this front, and we've seen <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110415/02005713906/att-wheel-lobbying-astroturf-fortune-lands-latinos.shtml">random groups</a> who really are unlikely to have any interest in the AT&#038;T/T-Mobile merger come out in favor of it, culminating in the ultimate in ridiculous arguments, from a rural education group, that the merger would <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110613/01564514667/dumb-arguments-att---t-mobile-merger-would-be-good-children.shtml">help kids do better in school</a> (yes, seriously).
<br /><br />
Of course, this still goes on because there's almost no downside.  We can call it out every time it happens, and most people just don't seem to care very much.  But, every so often, actual members of these groups recognize the problems with such things, and they speak up.  Broadband Reports has the news of how GLAAD's boss <a href="http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/GLAAD-Leaders-Pay-Price-For-Shilling-For-ATT-114795" target="_blank">has been pressured into resigning</a> after membership grew quite concerned about GLAAD's sudden endorsement of the merger -- and some connections between the company and the organization are suddenly being scrutinized.  Whether or not you agree with the merger, it seems pretty sleazy to line up random interest groups in support of or against it.
<br /><br />
It's tragic that this is the way of DC.  It's not about doing what's right, or focusing on the best argument possible.  It's a purely cynical land grab about who can do whatever it takes to get certain things rammed through.  It's nice that, just once, there are repercussions for some of the organizations that let themselves be flat-out used in this manner.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/02534914784/some-actual-backlash-groups-that-unthinkingly-sign-their-name-support-telco-positions.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/02534914784/some-actual-backlash-groups-that-unthinkingly-sign-their-name-support-telco-positions.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110621/02534914784/some-actual-backlash-groups-that-unthinkingly-sign-their-name-support-telco-positions.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>policy-backlash</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110621/02534914784</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 1 Jul 2010 05:54:56 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Supposed 'Grass Roots' Site Pushing For Canadian DMCA Admits That It's Funded By The Recording Industry</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100701/00390210034.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100701/00390210034.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It didn't take long for people to see through the bogus <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100616/1037569855.shtml">astroturfing</a> site, BalancedCopyrightForCanada.ca, designed to look like a grass roots site in support of the new Canadian DMCA law, Bill C-32.  Pretty quickly, people suggested that the site was obviously a front for the big record labels who have been behind the push for a Canadian DMCA for years.  The site started hiding some information, but now <a href="http://twitter.com/michaelgeist/statuses/17456799444" target="_blank">Michael Geist</a> points out that the site has finally <a href="http://balancedcopyrightforcanada.ca/about" target="_blank">'fessed up to the fact that it was funded by the CRIA</a>, which is really just the RIAA in Canadian clothing.  How very grassroots.  It also seems noteworthy that on the <a href="http://balancedcopyrightforcanada.ca/board" target="_blank">advisory board</a> for the site is Richard Owens, the copyright lawyer who, just before the new bill was introduced, got some media attention for his ridiculous attempt to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/2228169126.shtml">smear the public</a> for their input during last year's public consultation on copyright reform.  Of course, those consultations showed an <i>overwhelming majority</i> of those who took part were against a ridiculous digital locks/anti-circumvention policy, which is found in the law.  It seems downright laughable that a group pretending to be a "grassroots" group would put on its board a guy who went out of his way to mock and discount an actual grassroots effort.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100701/00390210034.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100701/00390210034.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100701/00390210034.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>well,-look-at-that</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100701/00390210034</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:53:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Major Labels Begin Major Astroturfing Campaign To Get 3 Strikes In The US</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100622/0118339912.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100622/0118339912.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A friend just forwarded me an email "from" the CEO of Universal Music (really from an email marketing campaign system if you look at the headers) that encourages him to push for new laws in the US to kick people offline for file sharing.  To date, the RIAA and others in the recording industry have known better than to seriously push for a three strikes-type legislation in the US, knowing that it is a battle that they very well might lose.  They had hoped, quite strongly, that various ISPs would come to simply <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081219/0225073172.shtml">agree</a> to implement a three strikes plan to kick people offline after three accusations (not convictions) of copyright infringement. But it's been nearly a year and a half since the RIAA believed those deals were close, and there's still <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091223/1125567490.shtml">nothing to show</a> for it.  Nothing.
<br /><br />
So, it looks like the industry is going to plan B: which is going back to trying to ram through legislation that will require ISPs to take the draconian step of protecting one industry's broken business model.  And to get this going, it looks like the industry has set up a neat little set of astroturfing groups and "consumer" campaigns that try to hide the specifics, but clearly are designed to get similar three strikes legislation (similar to the Digital Economy Act in the UK) put in place in the US.
<br /><br />
The letter starts out by making it sound like a populist sort of deal:
<blockquote><i>
I've received hundreds of e-mails enthusiastically reacting to my "call to action" at the National Association of Recording Merchandisers convention last month.  The music business is facing huge challenges from piracy and theft. Never before in American history has an entire industry been so decimated by illegal behavior.  Yet the government has not responded in a meaningful way to help us address this crisis.  My call to action is for all of us to become more aggressive in lobbying our government, more outspoken in drawing attention to the problems caused by piracy and more actively engaged.  We cannot win this fight alone. 
</i></blockquote>
Note the choice of language.  "Hundreds of emails" is his way of suggesting that there's a groundswell of public support.  But, for what kind of "call to action"?  Ah, the one where we ask the government to protect Universal Music's business model.  Amusingly enough, at <i>last year's</i> NARM, I gave a presentation on all sorts of ways that the industry <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090621/1626125300.shtml">could thrive</a> through adopting new business models.  I was told that two RIAA members specifically asked the conference not to let me speak, and while I do not believe anyone from Universal Music attended my speech, they did have incredibly scantily clad models standing outside the door inviting people to go to a party.  Perhaps instead of partying and lobbying the government, you could have looked at what's actually working, instead of complaining that nothing will work.
<blockquote><i>
Governments outside the U.S. are legislating, regulating and playing a prominent role in discussions with ISPs (Internet Service Providers).  Sales have dramatically improved in these countries.  How is it that the U.S. - with the most successful music community in the world - is not keeping up with places like South Korea, France, the UK and New Zealand?
</i></blockquote>
And here we go.  Note that the four countries named all put in place forms of "three strikes" legislation recently to kick file sharers off the internet based on accusations, not convictions.  By naming those four countries, the letter is implicitly calling for support for three strikes legislation requiring ISPs to try to prop up Universal's failing business model.
<blockquote><i>
As I said in my speech, I hope that the industry can negotiate a voluntary deal with the ISPs. We need our government representatives to encourage this.  But whether or not we reach a deal with the ISPs, our government needs to know that we've got a piracy problem and we need real solutions.  To accomplish this, our government needs to hear from all of us, so they know that their constituents are out here.  Join me in calling on our elected officials to fight piracy.  Please help by forwarding this email to your colleagues, friends- everyone who loves music.  And consider enlisting your entire company to help in this fight.  Then by clicking on the link below a message will be sent to your representatives in Washington.  Help us launch a viral campaign to cut off access to the online sites that are used to steal our music, our property and our jobs.  In only takes a second but it can make a tremendous impact.
</i></blockquote>
And here we go.  The call to make this into a "viral" campaign.  Well, let's look at the details.  While Universal uses some nasty "spy on your clickthrough" HTML attempts to hide the actual sites it's sending you to, it's not difficult to figure out more details on this campaign.  The first place they want you to go is to a website for <a href="http://www.musicrightsnow.org" target="_blank">MusicRightsNow.org</a>, which automatically forwards you to a Facebook page.  Facebook page?  Why that looks all grassrootsy and made by "the people" right?  Not a recording industry front at all!  It even includes a neat little inclusive manifesto claiming to represent everyone:
<blockquote><i>
"Music rights now" is a community of individuals who believe music has value and is worthy of protection from online theft. We are songwriters, artists, musicians, recording studio engineers, managers, retailers, record company employees, publishers, performing rights organization employees, music producers, truck drivers, lawyers, stylists, music video directors, laborers, photographers, graphic designers, DJs, radio employees, music fans -- and countless others' who have joined together to fight for the survival of artistry and the music industry. 
</i></blockquote>
Except, of course, infringement is not "theft" and a grassroots group of folks getting together to "fight for the survival of artistry and the music industry" don't get the CEO of Universal Music to announce their coming out party.  As for the "survival of artistry and the music industry," as we were just pointing out, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100621/0933449895.shtml">both are doing <i>fantastic</i></a>.  More music is being created and consumed than ever before.  More money is being spent and made on the music industry than ever before.  In fact, it really seems like the only people who are suffering happen to work at a few companies that have refused to adapt with the times... like the major record labels.  So, can we cancel this campaign?  It looks like the actual <i>music industry</i> is doing great.
<br /><br />
But, let's explore further.
<br /><br />
So who's actually behind "Music Rights Now"?  Well, the Facebook breadcrumbs lead to <a href="http://www.musicunited.org/" target="_blank">Music United</a> -- a long term recording industry front group that was <a href="http://whatever.scalzi.com/2002/09/26/musicunitedorg/" target="_blank">mocked mercilessly</a> nearly a decade ago, for its incredibly lame attempts to "speak the language of kids today" to teach them that file sharing is bad.  It doesn't look like things have improved much.  The front page points to a widely debunked study (which it refers to as "credible") claiming that file sharing has cost $12.5 <i>billion</i> dollars to the US economy and has killed 70,000 jobs.  Then there's this fun bit of misleading propaganda:
<blockquote><i>
The unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted music is JUST AS ILLEGAL AS SHOPLIFTING A CD. Sharing music on peer-to-peer networks like Ares, BitTorrent, Gnutella, Limewire, and Morpheus is against the law. The rules are very simple. Unless you own the copyright, it's not yours to distribute.
</i></blockquote>
A bit out of date there on the list of file sharing networks, of course.  Also, "just as illegal" is a bit misleading.  Both are, in fact, illegal, but under very, very different laws.  But the key point is that they're wrong.  Making a blanket statement that "sharing music on peer-to-peer networks... is against the law," is flat out wrong.  It would be news to all of the musicians we know who encourage their work be shared online.  The web page also claims that "Digital theft is killing the music business."  Again, the evidence we just pointed to yesterday shows that music is doing better than ever.
<br /><br />
Of course, in the fine print, we get the list of who's behind this.  It includes all the usual suspects: the RIAA, the NMPA, ASCAP, SESAC, SoundExchange, the SGA, A2IM, BMI, AFTRA and a variety of other smaller organizations that represent labels and publishers.  Consumer groups?  Nope.  Of course not.  This is not, after all, a consumer driven effort.  It's just designed to look like one.
<br /><br />
Either way, it seems clear that the industry is realizing that ISPs aren't going to agree to kick people offline based on accusations, so it's kicking off a well-coordinated campaign to get the government to help, and pressure it to put in place the same sort of overly draconian protectionist measures that don't actually help musicians or the music industry -- but clearly try to prop up the failed and dying business model of a few middlemen.  Not surprisingly, this seems well-timed to go with the expected release this week of the report from the White House's IP Enforcement Coordinator (IP Czar), Victoria Espinel.... How much do people want to bet her report also fits in with propping up those businesses?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100622/0118339912.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100622/0118339912.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100622/0118339912.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>begin-astroturfing-now...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100622/0118339912</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:24:45 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Why Are Supporters Of Canadian DMCA Against Original Thought In Writing In Support Of The Bill?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100618/1135199878.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100618/1135199878.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You may recall that, earlier this year, as part of the entertainment industry's media campaign leading up to the introduction of the new Canadian DMCA, a report was put out that tried to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100420/2228169126.shtml">discredit</a> the massive public outcry against any sort of DMCA-like legislation.  Part of that report mocked the fact that many of the submissions came via an online system with suggested text that was editable.  It also mocked the fact that the system could be gamed (though, the details showed that gaming that system actually wasn't that easy).  Of course, now that the industry is trying to drum up some appearance of public support for the bill... it seems that they're going even further than what they accused the other side of doing.
<br /><br />
Michael Geist notes that the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100616/1037569855.shtml">fake, RIAA-backed</a> "grassroots" site called <a href="http://BalancedCopyrightforCanada.ca/">BalancedCopyrightforCanada.ca</a> now has its own letter-generating system, and unlike the one that the industry folks mocked, this one <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5132/125/" target="_blank">doesn't even let you edit it</a>.  You have to send the letter exactly as it's written by the industry folks behind the site.
<br /><br />
This is pretty ironic: this is a site supposedly in favor of encouraging greater creativity through copyright, and yet it allows no creativity or original thought at all in writing to your elected official about the law.  On top of that, similar to the claims that the original letter writing campaign could have been "gamed" by Americans or others, Geist notes that "the site has already been subject to gaming from non-Canadians as a random search of members turned up at least one U.S. based record company executive with Warner Music."  So apparently for all the "complaints" the recording industry folks had against the way actual citizens responded to requests for comments on copyright law in Canada, they'll set up the same systems taken to an even greater extreme.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100618/1135199878.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100618/1135199878.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100618/1135199878.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-copyright!</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100618/1135199878</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:00:06 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Retired Telco PR Exec Who Sent XYZ Corp. Letter To FCC Insists He Wrote It</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1732156683.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1732156683.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've already written about how a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091024/1547326664.shtml">former PR exec</a> from what became AT&#038;T has been outed as the guy who sent a letter to the FCC where he forgot to take out the boilerplate <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/1204566640.shtml">XYZ Organization</a> that was almost certainly left there by the AT&#038;T lobbyists who wrote the letter for him.  However, one of our <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20091024/1547326664#c157">commenters</a> noted that MediaPost spoke to the guy, Bob Sells, who <a href="http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&#038;art_aid=116046&#038;passFuseAction=PublicationsSearch.showSearchReslts&#038;art_searched=&#038;page_number=0" target="_blank">insists that he wrote the letter with the XYZ part included</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Sells, a 77-year-old retired public relations executive in Little Rock, tells MediaPost that he often writes letters with placeholders and fills in the correct text later, but overlooked the reference to XYZ in this case. 
</i></blockquote>
Really?  I'm really trying to give this guy the benefit of the doubt, but I can't come up with a single explanation for why he would write "XYZ Organization" when writing a letter himself from a group of people he supposedly represents.  If you're the one writing the letter, on behalf of your supposed organization, why would you include "XYZ Organization"?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1732156683.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1732156683.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091026/1732156683.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>uh-huh...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091026/1732156683</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:18:31 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Guy Who Signed 'XYZ Corp.' Astroturf Letter... Worked As Telco PR Person For Nearly 3 Decades?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091024/1547326664.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091024/1547326664.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ So, remember last week when we wrote about how anti-net neutrality lobbyists from AT&#038;T had crafted astroturf letters for various "special interest groups" to sign -- but someone forgot to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/1204566640.shtml">remove the boilerplate</a> "XYZ Organization" in the first paragraph?  We also noted that there was little evidence that the group -- the Arkansas Retired Seniors -- actually existed.  However, Matt Cutts did a bit of <a href="http://techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20091022/1204566640#c176">digging</a> and found that the name of the guy who signed the letter -- Bob Sells -- appears to have <a href="http://www.journalism.missouri.edu/news/2007/05-01-reunion-rally.html" target="_blank">worked in PR for Southwestern Bell for 28 years</a> (there appears to be only one Bob Sells or Robert Sells in Little Rock).  Southwestern Bell, of course, became better known as SBC.  SBC, of course, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050131/026223.shtml">became AT&#038;T</a> after it bought the old AT&#038;T and took on its name.  So, if you're an AT&#038;T lobbyist and you want to convince the FCC that "seniors" are against net neutrality -- and you don't want it to appear to come from <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091020/1054406603.shtml">AT&#038;T employees</a> -- who better to go to than an ex-employee?  Still, next time you get a former employee to shill for you, remember to replace the bogus XYZ Organization you left for him in the text of the letter you sent him.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091024/1547326664.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091024/1547326664.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091024/1547326664.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>funny-how-that-works...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091024/1547326664</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 06:28:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Dear Lobbyists: When Crafting Astroturf Letters, Remember To Do A Search &#038; Replace On XYZ Corp.</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/1204566640.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/1204566640.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We were just talking about how one of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091021/1749026628.shtml">worst tricks</a> of DC lobbyists is to get various special interest groups to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080611/1735371380.shtml">send letters</a> on your behalf, even though those are really written by the lobbyists themselves.  The quote in that <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9965555-38.html" target="_blank">original article</a> that highlights the practice shows how it works:
<blockquote><i>
"You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"
</i></blockquote>
Indeed.  Well, it looks like in the process of faxing and telling a senior citizen's group what they were in favor of, AT&#038;T's anti-net neutrality lobbyists forgot to do a bit of searching and replacing.  <a href="http://twitter.com/KarlBode/status/5074928354" target="_blank">Karl Bode</a> points us to a hilarious <a href="http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&#038;id_document=7020141732" target="_blank">letter filed with the FCC about net neutrality</a> (pdf), officially on behalf of the Arkansas Retired Seniors Coalition -- the exact type of group often used in these astroturfing campaigns -- which suggests that someone didn't proofread the letter first:
<center>
<embed src="http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=21456455&#038;access_key=key-1xf94v7eupibi3bqjauv&#038;page=1&#038;version=1&#038;viewMode=list" quality="high" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" play="true" loop="true" scale="showall" wmode="opaque" devicefont="false" bgcolor="#ffffff" name="doc_371880615333355_object" menu="true" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" salign="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" align="middle" mode="list" height="500" width="450"></embed>
</center>
Right in the first paragraph, it looks like the Arkansas Retired Seniors (or perhaps the lobbyist directly) forgot to change out the boilerplate statement: "XYZ organization shares this concern."  XYZ organization, huh?  Here's an editing tip for AT&#038;T's lobbyists: when crafting such letters with boilerplate language that's supposed to get changed at a later date <b>before</b> being sent off to the FCC, you should highlight that text in a different color.  Saves embarrassing mistakes like this one.
<br /><br />
In researching this further, Karl also <a href="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/105109">can't find any other evidence</a> that the Arkansas Retired Seniors exist.  Separately, he found another mistake by the lobbyists when it sent a different <a href="http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&#038;id_document=7020142098" target="_blank">anti-net neutrality letter from Grumman Shipbuilding</a> (ship builders against neutrality?).  This one wasn't as egregious, but the lobbyists forgot to remove the header info that says "Governor/PUC Letters to FCC on Net Neutrality" with the neat little classification system the lobbyists use: "Letter 2: Specific to Investment and Employment."  Wonder what the original header for XYZ organization was?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/1204566640.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/1204566640.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091022/1204566640.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>just-a-suggestion</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091022/1204566640</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:02:04 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Tech Lobbying/PR Firm Outed For Faked Op-Eds</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080815/0254121989.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080815/0254121989.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We get tons of PR spam here at Techdirt, most of which is simply an attempt to get us to write about this or that startup or product launch.  It pretty much all gets trashed.  Occasionally we hear from various tech lobbyists as well, pushing an angle on a story that supports the angle they're pushing.  But one of the oddest experiences we've had was with a firm called LawMedia Group, which we wrote about <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080611/1735371380.shtml">earlier this year</a> when Declan McCullagh outed the group as having allegedly composed a letter from a group of corn farmers somehow opposed to Google and Yahoo working together.  Why corn farmers would be interested in such things isn't clear -- but McCullagh pulled back some of the curtain on the way these sorts of lobbyist groups act, picking a somewhat random "group" and then writing these sorts of letters and simply placing the group's name on the top -- even if (as in the corn farmers/internet advertising situation) the group has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
<br /><br />
In our case, as mentioned, the folks at LawMedia Group started out by acting as if we were close friends, and then insisting that they had some really secret info that was damaging to FCC boss Kevin Martin.  It's no surprise why they would approach us on the subject -- as we've written critically about Martin for years.  After ignoring repeated requests for a phone call during which this info would be "revealed," I finally said that if they had anything they wanted me to see, just send it over.  And so they sent a bunch of stuff that basically confirmed what was well known: Kevin Martin has friends who work at AT&#038;T.  Shocking, right, that a telco regulator might have friends at a telco?  But, of course, it was positioned in a way to make it look really secretive, even to the point of suggesting that Martin really worked <i>for</i> AT&#038;T.  In other words, it was totally bogus.  I told the guy at LMG that the info seemed pretty pointless, and never spoke to him again -- though he and other colleagues keep emailing stories that might make Martin look bad.
<br /><br />
Now Declan is back with more stories of <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10016960-38.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_new">questionable activities by LawMedia Group</a>, including what would appear to be a series of op-ed pieces published in newspapers using the names of people who don't even agree with what's in the op-ed, but, from the sound of it, may have effectively rented their name out to LMG to use in the op-ed.  Most of the article focuses on a guy in Boston who is in favor of net neutrality, but had an op-ed published under his name that strongly argues against net neutrality.  The guy admitted that LMG had something to do with it, but refused to provide details.  However, when asked his opinion on net neutrality, proceeded to stay stuff in direct contradiction with what was in the op-ed under his name.
<br /><br />
While somewhat sleazy tactics like this may be every day business in Washington DC, it's good to see it exposed, especially when it's being done so egregiously.  At the very least, maybe it'll get LMG to stop bothering me with bogus conspiracy theories about Kevin Martin.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080815/0254121989.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080815/0254121989.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080815/0254121989.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what-will-the-corn-farmers-do?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080815/0254121989</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:08:12 PST</pubDate>
<title>NAB Spams FCC Over XM-Sirius Merger; Uses People Who Claim They Had Nothing To Do With It</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071126/014231.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071126/014231.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) has been pulling out all the stops in fighting the proposed merger between XM and Sirius.  What's most amusing is that the NAB's active involvement in the campaign against the merger weakens its own argument.  After all, if XM and Sirius really would represent a monopoly, then doesn't that mean that the terrestrial broadcasters the NAB represents don't compete with XM and Sirius and therefore shouldn't care about the merger?  Yet, the NAB keeps on fighting despite this rather <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070228/160543.shtml">obvious problem</a> with its position.  It seems as though the NAB can't resist pulling out just about every dirty trick in the playbook.  It set up <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070329/174833.shtml">astroturf groups</a> to create a pretend grassroots campaign against the merger.  It also paid for a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070403/120446.shtml">"independent" report</a> from a research firm who had <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070404/095805.shtml">previously</a> claimed that terrestrial radio and satellite radio competed -- but quickly changed its tune when the NAB was funding a study.
<br /><br />
The latest is that, in the tradition of many <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070101/221258.shtml">other</a> astroturfing campaigns, it bombarded the FCC with letters from "real people" against the merger.  There's just one big problem.  It would appear that many of those people have no idea they wrote the FCC, and some even claim they're in favor of the merger.  That's what a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112102149_pf.html">Washington Post investigation found</a> when it tried to track down the people who supposedly used the NAB's spam-o-matic website to protest the merger.  Most of the people couldn't even be reached at all, suggesting that they might not even exist.  Of those who were actually reached, nine out of ten claimed they had nothing to do with contacting the FCC and the 10th says she remembered reading something about the merger but doesn't remember protesting it to the FCC.  
<br /><br />
The NAB insists that its program is perfectly legitimate, and that the emailers all meant to protest the merger.  An NAB spokesperson claimed: "It was a fairly rigorous process."  How rigorous?  Take a look at some of the quotes from folks who the NAB claims are absolutely against the merger and then let us know just how "rigorous" the process was:
<ul>
<li>"How did they get my name?  I don't want someone using my name for something I don't even know about."</li>
<li>"No sir, I never sent any notes to Washington.  This call is the first time I've heard of this."</li>
<li>"I never sent an e-mail.  I don't even know about the issue."</li>
<li>"I don't know what the merger is about and I don't care. I have no idea what you're talking about."</li>
<li>"Where did they get my name?  If anything, I'd be for [the merger]."</li>
</ul>
Quite rigorous over there at the NAB, huh?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071126/014231.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071126/014231.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071126/014231.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sleazy-tactics</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071126/014231</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:12:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Will 'Women Involved In Farm Economics' Tip The Balance In XM/Sirius Debate?</title>
<dc:creator>Joseph Weisenthal</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070709/121632.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070709/121632.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Reasonable people could disagree about when it's best to disallow a given merger on antitrust grounds, but our current system seems both arbitrary and open to manipulation by interested parties.  Standing athwart XM and Sirius' attempt to merge is the National Association of Broadcasters, which has tried to make the claim that the merger would eliminate any competition for the companies, a point which is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070423/142807.shtml">undermined by the NAB's own interest in the outcome</a>.  It's obvious why the NAB is interested: It's not that it has some lofty ideals about competition, but rather it fears for the future of its own members, should the companies be allowed to merge.  In addition to making its arguments directly, the NAB has also <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070329/174833.shtml">turned to the practice of astoturfing</a>, the establishment of phony grassroots organizations that are in fact nothing more than shill groups.  Blatantly self-interested lobbying isn't just limited to the NAB, however.  Lobbyists representing the satellite radio firms have cobbled together an <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2007/07/09/the-xm-sirius-farm-team/">odd coalition of supporters</a>, including Southern Baptists, businesswomen, rural voters and Hispanic chambers of commerce.  A representative of one group, Women Involved in Farm Economics (WIFE), tells The Wall Street Journal that her group supports the merger because it could allow for expanded radio coverage in rural areas.  She also makes the good point that the government seems to have multiple standards depending on the industry, noting that little has been done to prevent consolidation in the meatpacking market (which directly affects WIFE's constituents).  Her points are valid, but it's still disturbing that these issues are decided, in large part, by which side can marshal the necessary lobbying firepower, rather than some standard for what's a legitimate level of consolidation within an industry.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070709/121632.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070709/121632.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070709/121632.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>or-maybe-the-hispanic-chamber-of-commerce</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070709/121632</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>