<?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;grassroots&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 04:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Copyright Lobby Tries To 'Hire' Demonstrators, Since The Public Refuses To Rally In Support Of ACTA</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/00275118661/copyright-lobby-tries-to-hire-demonstrators-since-public-refuses-to-rally-support-acta.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/00275118661/copyright-lobby-tries-to-hire-demonstrators-since-public-refuses-to-rally-support-acta.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I recently gave a talk at the Innovate/Activate conference, where I discussed where the copyright lobby had been super successful, and where it seemed some of their weaknesses were.  One thing I pointed out was that they had completely lost the hearts and minds of the public -- and no matter how hard they tried, they were unable to muster up any kind of public or grassroots support.  As an example, I showed a photo of the massive street protests against ACTA in Poland, and questioned what a pro-ACTA demonstration might look like.  Well, bizarrely, it appears that some in the Copyright Lobby had decided to try to put on a pro-ACTA demonstration... but <a href="http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-lobby-hires-pro-acta-demonstators-120424/" target="_blank">they needed to <b><i>hire people</i></b></a> to act as ACTA supporters.  Of course, when you seem to think -- as the industry often appears to -- that the only motivating factor possible in the world is monetary exchange, perhaps this isn't that surprising.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/00275118661/copyright-lobby-tries-to-hire-demonstrators-since-public-refuses-to-rally-support-acta.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/00275118661/copyright-lobby-tries-to-hire-demonstrators-since-public-refuses-to-rally-support-acta.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/00275118661/copyright-lobby-tries-to-hire-demonstrators-since-public-refuses-to-rally-support-acta.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>funny-stuff</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120426/00275118661</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<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>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:41:07 PST</pubDate>
<title>Creative America Restocks... Hires Former DHS/ICE Spokesperson</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120121/01515617498/creative-america-restocks-hires-former-dhsice-spokesperson.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120121/01515617498/creative-america-restocks-hires-former-dhsice-spokesperson.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked plenty of times about CreativeAmerica, the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111021/10564516449/creativeamerica-when-major-hollywood-studios-set-up-bogus-grassroots-campaigns.shtml">astroturf</a> group that keeps pretending that it's a "grassroots" group.  It was setup mainly to push for SOPA/PIPA in an attempt to pretend that "normal people" rather than just Hollywood fatcats supports SOPA/PIPA.  Just one problem: it was so obviously run by Hollywood fatcats that no one ever took it seriously.  It was slickly produced, was backed by the big studios, and all the big movie studios promoted it directly as well.  Its executive director, Mike Nugent, came directly from Disney, where he was the company's Senior VP of anti-piracy.  Meanwhile, its "communications director," Craig Hoffman came straight from... you guessed it... the MPAA.  And before that he worked at Warner Bros.  Grassroots!
<br /><br />
Well, it seems they knew they were missing out on one key ingredient to prove just how "grassroots" they were... so they went over the law enforcement side of things, <a href="http://www.politico.com/morningtech/" target="_blank">snapping up one Chris Ortman from Homeland Security</a>.  Yes, the same Homeland Security responsible for abusing copyright laws to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml">illegally seize and censor websites</a> for over a year under no legal basis.
<br /><br />
Yes, that's right folks, the group that is pretending to be grassroots, but is really an astroturf organization -- which has bent over backwards to insist that SOPA/PIPA were not about censorship at all -- has hired someone from the very US government agency that has been using similar copyright laws to seize and censor websites.  Perhaps his nickname is "grassroots"?
<br /><br />
And the group wonders why actual artists aren't buying what they're selling.  Perhaps rather than staffing it with former studio execs, MPAA lackeys and law enforcement censors... why not try actual content creators next time?  Oh, perhaps it's because lots of actual content creators <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/20581217426/andy-samberg-neil-gaiman-trent-reznor-aziz-ansari-adam-savage-more-tell-congress-dont-pass-pipa-sopa-our-names.shtml">know that SOPA/PIPA are bad ideas</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120121/01515617498/creative-america-restocks-hires-former-dhsice-spokesperson.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120121/01515617498/creative-america-restocks-hires-former-dhsice-spokesperson.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120121/01515617498/creative-america-restocks-hires-former-dhsice-spokesperson.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>joe-grassroots?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120121/01515617498</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>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 10:28:04 PST</pubDate>
<title>NBC Universal Threatens Partners That They Need To Sign 'Grassroots' Support Of SOPA/PIPA Or It Might Have To Drop Them</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>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</link>
<guid>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</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked about 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> set up by the major Hollywood studios, pretending to be a "grassroots effort" in favor of SOPA &#038; PIPA.  A month ago, we <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111101/22565216586/hollywood-front-group-rounds-up-4000-letters-sent-to-congress-pretending-its-100000.shtml">challenged</a> the group's claim that it had "sent 100,000 letters to Congress."  Turns out that wasn't true.  They had sent 4,191, and then about 33,000 people had "signed a petition" that the group had set up.  The math by CreativeAmerica is that each thing sent out three letters: one to your Congressional Representative and one to each of your two Senators.  Of course, petitions are mostly ignored.  Letters have only slightly more weight -- and based on Creative America's own math, they really only had about 1,400 people sign their letter.
<br /><br />
Either way, it seemed somewhat amusing to discover that some of the top execs at NBC Universal have been <a href="https://plus.google.com/118146622799388835070/posts/XWbZdxmBJUs" target="_blank"><i><b>threatening</b></i> all NBC Universal suppliers to sign the letter that CreativeAmerica put together</a> or NBC might no longer be able to do business with them:
<blockquote><i>
We are writing to ask you for help on an issue that is one our top business priorities &ndash; content theft on the Internet, which is a major threat to the strength of our business. Our major guilds and unions are joining us in the fight to keep our businesses strong so that the tidal wave of content theft does not kill jobs. But if the current trend continues, <b>it&rsquo;s not too strong to say that this threat could adversely affect our business relationship with you.</b>
</i></blockquote>
Grassroots effort?  When NBC Universal's General Counsel, Rick Cotton -- who famously once claimed that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070621/004352.shtml">piracy was destroying the lowly corn farmer</a>, since people who watch pirated movies don't eat popcorn (or something) -- is <b>threatening</b> suppliers who don't sign on?  That's not grassroots.  That's just insane.  Now, it's true that Cotton wrote this carefully such that you can read it to suggest it means that if this law doesn't pass, NBC Universal's business will be in so much trouble that it has to shut down or cut off deals with suppliers.  But it seems pretty clear that the obvious implication is: sign this or we may no longer do business with you.
<br /><br />
But, given that "the big guns" at NBC Universal are pushing all their suppliers to directly sign (or else!) the letter found at CreativeAmerica's site, you might think that a lot more people would have signed on.  Especially over the last month, with SOPA making so much news.  So we went and checked. 
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/qBFYQ"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/qBFYQ.png" width=560 /></a>
</center>
It appears that 4,673 letters have been sent.  A month ago it was 4,191. That's a grand total of <i>482</i> new letters sent since we last checked almost a month ago.  That means in a month, with this story making major news every which way... and the major studios putting a lot of marketing muscle behind it and even <b>threatening</b> partners to sign on, they only rustled up 482 more signatures.  And, since CreativeAmerica claims that each person who signs really sends 3 letters, we should divide that by three.
<br /><br />
That gives us 161 new signatures (actually 160.666666 etc -- which makes me wonder what happened to that extra third of a person).  161.  In a month.
<br /><br />
Meanwhile, a <i>real</i> grassroots campaign turned out <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/00002616879/why-public-is-willing-to-rally-against-sopapipa-not-it.shtml">one million emails to Congress</a> and 87,834 calls <b>in one day</b>.  It should be clear at this point that the public clearly does not support SOPA/PIPA, and no amount of "faking it" is driving any public support.<br /><br /><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">Permalink</a> | <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#comments">Comments</a> | <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?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-is-getting-sad</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111128/10175516914</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:48:39 PST</pubDate>
<title>SOPA Gets Taiwanese News Animation Treatment</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111128/10330916915/sopa-gets-taiwanese-news-animation-treatment.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111128/10330916915/sopa-gets-taiwanese-news-animation-treatment.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Want to know when a bit of news has <i>really</i> hit the mainstream?  It's when the Taiwanese company Next Media Animation does a computer generated animation of the story.  These videos have become <a href="http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/mf_appledaily/all/1" target="_blank">a media sensation</a>.  Guess what they just took on?  Yup, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?&#038;v=jJZaajaGI9U" target="_blank">the battle over SOPA</a>, which they animate by showing Hollywood lobbyists seeking to attack the internet, and showing not only how tech companies teamed up to fight this, but that internet users are pushing back.  Amusingly, they make use of the imagery from the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111120/23335116848/protest-age-youtube-long-term-consequences-focusing-enforcement-to-deal-with-moral-panics.shtml">UC Davis pepper spray incident</a> to show how Hollywood and the government can "knock out" sites under SOPA.
<center>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jJZaajaGI9U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111128/10330916915/sopa-gets-taiwanese-news-animation-treatment.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111128/10330916915/sopa-gets-taiwanese-news-animation-treatment.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111128/10330916915/sopa-gets-taiwanese-news-animation-treatment.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hitting-the-big-time</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111128/10330916915</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 09:58:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Why The Public Is Willing To Rally Against SOPA/PIPA, But Not For It</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/00002616879/why-public-is-willing-to-rally-against-sopapipa-not-it.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/00002616879/why-public-is-willing-to-rally-against-sopapipa-not-it.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The really big story that came out of last week's House Judiciary Committee meetings <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/13243616795/thoughts-house-judiciary-committees-hearings-sopa.shtml">on SOPA</a> wasn't so much what was said at the hearings themselves, but the rather massive grassroots support that came out to protest the bill.  We had mentioned <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/13302516796/now-back-to-your-regularly-scheduled-posts-not-just-sopa.shtml">some of that</a>, but the <a href="http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2011/11/dontbreaktheinternet-how-the-web-became-a-political-force-vs-sopa322.html" target="_blank">final numbers and level of support really was staggering</a>.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/BQ3Dk"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/BQ3Dk.png" width=560 /></a>
</center>
Those numbers are pretty incredible.  Remember how proud the astroturf group set up by the movie studios was that it got <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111101/22565216586/hollywood-front-group-rounds-up-4000-letters-sent-to-congress-pretending-its-100000.shtml">100,000 "letters" to Congress</a> in support of these bills?  That took <i>months</i>, and the vast majority weren't letters, but signatures on an open petition -- and, as we noted at the time, lots of people seemed to want to take back their signature after finding out the details of the bill.  However, in this case over <b>one million </b>emails were sent (and unlike Creative America, users were able to edit the emails to add their own thoughts) <b>in just one day</b>.
<br /><br />
The Tumblr involvement is really amazing too.  The company decided to hack together their phone call system in just a day or two, and then were able to deliver such a <i>massive</i> phone campaign to Congress.  87,834 actual phone calls in the course of a day, reaching 3.6 per second at some points.  <i>1,293 hours</i> spent talking.  And Tumblr users alerted others as well:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/zvFiU"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/zvFiU.png" /></a>
</center>
This was an issue that much of the internet didn't know about before last Wednesday.  And now <i>huge</i> populations online are aware of the bill and its consequences.  And, they are willing to speak up to Congress about it.
<br /><br />
Supporters of SOPA/PIPA like to claim that the public is behind them.  Actual <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111115/00240216771/new-study-shows-majority-americans-against-sopa-believe-extreme-copyright-enforcement-is-unreasonable.shtml">data</a> suggests otherwise, but it got me wondering why people were so much more willing to speak out on this issue -- on a topic that rarely gets this kind of vocal grassroots support.  Sure, people like the internet sites they use -- Tumblr, Reddit, FourSquare, Kickstater, and various other sites that spoke out against the bill.  But, people also like music and movies from the big entertainment industry players.  So why are they not buying the message from old Hollywood that they need SOPA/PIPA?
<br /><br />
Part of it, I think, has to do with simple reality.  People can look at <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111122/04254316872/definitive-post-why-sopa-protect-ip-are-bad-bad-ideas.shtml">the details of these bills</a> and recognize why they're <i>so bad</i>, and go way beyond their stated purpose.  But a larger issue, it seems, is the changing way in which companies interact with people these days.  The big Hollywood studios and major record labels have spent the past decade <i>treating their fans as if they were criminals</i>.  The assumption, at every turn, was that these people had the worst of intentions and only wanted to rip them off (despite plenty of evidence to the contrary).  Thus, they focused on making life worse for users, with lots of collateral damage.  Things like DRM and suing kids.
<br /><br />
On the flip side, internet companies recognize that their users are everything.  They build <i>communities</i>, they <i>connect</i> and they <i>give those community members a voice</i> -- rather than just assuming the relationship is one way (and only exists after you give them money).  This is what Brad Burnham <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/02561516788/yes-sopa-breaks-internet-breaking-belief-trust-sharing-that-is-internet.shtml">meant</a> recently when talking about the "trust" that built the internet.
<br /><br />
In some ways, it's just the other side of the coin of our discussions on the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/01281116105/no-internet-doesnt-do-away-with-middlemen-it-just-changes-their-role.shtml">difference between gatekeepers and enablers</a>.  People <i>tolerate</i> gatekeepers grudgingly, because they're necessary, but often cruel.  However they <i>love</i> enablers, because they allow them to do things that simply weren't possible otherwise... and let them retain control in doing so.  That's much more powerful than people realize -- and it doesn't seem that the old line entertainment industry or many elected officials recognize that yet.
<br /><br />
In fact, many in both of those camps are betting (heavily) that last week's outpouring of public opposition was a <i>fluke</i>, and not sustainable.  I would take the other side on this bet.  Last week's awakening of the internet was done on the fly with very little advanced planning and still turned out massive numbers.  Beyond Tumblr setting up its phone system in about a day, much of the entire <a href="http://americancensorship.org/" target="_blank">American Censorship Day</a> effort was produced in just a little over a week by what's basically a brand new organization almost no one has heard of, <a href="http://fightforthefuture.org/" target="_blank">Fight for the Future</a>.  Imagine what they, and others, can do with more time to plan and build on this initial success.
<br /><br />
There's no doubt that the backers of this bill are <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68448_Page4.html" target="_blank">outspending the opposition on lobbying by about 10x</a>.  And, as we know, money tends to speak in DC.  But... all the campaign contributions in the world won't get you re-elected if the public <i>won't vote</i> for you.  And the uprising here threatens to make SOPA/PIPA into an <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111117/09495716804/sopa-becoming-election-issue-challengers-highlighting-reps-who-want-to-censor-internet.shtml">election issue</a>, and the results above suggest that those who underestimate the public's dislike of any plan to censor the internet, even for the sake of copyright, may do so at their own peril.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/00002616879/why-public-is-willing-to-rally-against-sopapipa-not-it.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/00002616879/why-public-is-willing-to-rally-against-sopapipa-not-it.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/00002616879/why-public-is-willing-to-rally-against-sopapipa-not-it.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>these-are-the-sites-they-use</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111123/00002616879</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 03:20:41 PST</pubDate>
<title>Senator Wyden Promises To Read Out The Names Of Those Who Oppose PROTECT IP</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111121/12033216865/senator-wyden-promises-to-read-out-names-those-who-oppose-protect-ip.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111121/12033216865/senator-wyden-promises-to-read-out-names-those-who-oppose-protect-ip.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As stories begin to circulate that the Senate is about to make a big push to get PROTECT IP (aka PIPA) through while everyone's been focused on SOPA over in the House, Senator Ron Wyden has reiterated his commitment to being against the bill, and promising to actually use his allotted time to filibuster on the bill if he has to.  Too often these days, Senators have been able to get away with a sort of fake filibustering, where they say they will and everyone just assumes it's as if they did stand up and talk for days on end.  However, Senator Wyden has said that he'll really filibuster if the Senate really does try to move forward by standing on the floor and talking.  While, in the past, the "standard" is to do something like read names from the phonebook, Wyden is <a href="http://stopcensorship.org/" target="_blank">promising to read the names of people who signed petitions against PIPA</a>.  So if you'd like your name to go into <i>the</i> official record of the US Senate as being against PIPA, here's your chance... You can sign at that link.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111121/12033216865/senator-wyden-promises-to-read-out-names-those-who-oppose-protect-ip.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111121/12033216865/senator-wyden-promises-to-read-out-names-those-who-oppose-protect-ip.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111121/12033216865/senator-wyden-promises-to-read-out-names-those-who-oppose-protect-ip.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sign-up-now</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111121/12033216865</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 Nov 2011 11:01:25 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Warner Bros., Right After Announcing Record Profits, Pleads Poverty In Asking People To Support 'Grassroots' Campaign For E-PARASITE Act</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>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</link>
<guid>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</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It appears that the big Hollywood studios/MPAA have <i>absolutely no shame</i>.  Thankfully, employees at some of those companies recognize just how ridiculous their employers look and have been passing along some details.  On Wednesday, Warner Bros. announced <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/11/time-warner-warner-bros-third-quarter.html" target="_blank">third quarter <i>profits</i> (not revenue) of $822 million</a>, representing a 57% increase on last year.  Revenues were $7.07 billion, 11% higher than last year.  The company sent out an email to employees talking about how it was "another record" quarter for the company.  Then, very soon after that email went out, another email went out, telling employees about how difficult life was at Warner Bros. these days due to the scourge of "content theft," and urging people to support the astroturfing group CreativeAmerica.
<blockquote><i>
In July, we informed you about the creation of and Warner Bros.&rsquo; involvement with Creative America, a grassroots coalition uniting the entertainment community and others against one of the biggest threats we face as an industry:  content theft.  Thank you to those of you who have already joined and supported Creative America. This is an important first step, but there&rsquo;s still more we can do.
<br /><br />
Thieves in the U.S. and abroad continue to make millions of dollars off our work, talents and creativity.  For instance, &ldquo;The Big Bang Theory&rdquo; is one of the most popular targets of digital content thieves, with more than 600,000 illegal digital downloads thus far in 2011.  Meanwhile, &ldquo;The Hangover Part II&rdquo; was illegally downloaded some 700,000 times in the first five months since its theatrical release.
<br /><br />
Content theft doesn&rsquo;t just affect a single show or film or even studio. It affects residual benefits, pension funds and health plans as well as jobs that our industry supports&mdash;whether directly or in ancillary markets and businesses. Therefore, it&rsquo;s in all of our interests to stand behind Creative America. 
</i></blockquote>
I dunno.  WB, if you've just made $822 million in <i>profits</i> alone, perhaps you could donate some of that to residuals?  Ha Ha, who am I kidding? Movie studios never pay residuals.  Remember, this is Warner Bros.  And part of the reason it was so profitable this quarter was the latest Harry Potter movie.  But last year, we got to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml">analyze the accounting</a> on an earlier Harry Potter movie, showing how Warner Bros. played with the numbers to take a movie that brought in $938 million and still let Warner Bros. claim a $167 million "loss," through highly questionable accounting, designed almost entirely to avoid paying royalties.  The trick, of course, is to set up each movie as its own "corporation" that has to pay the parent studio "fees" for certain "services."  You keep ratcheting up those fees, and the studio makes a ton, but the "company" that is the movie can always claim a loss to avoid paying royalties.
<br /><br />
Honestly, if you know anything about the numbers, you'd know that Warner Bros. is a <i>much</i> larger threat to residuals and other things like health plans and jobs, than any file sharing by some kids who'd never pay to see the movie anyway.  SOPA/E-PARASITE isn't going to help people in the business get paid.  Execs, sure.  But not everyone else.  Not by a long shot.<br /><br /><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">Permalink</a> | <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#comments">Comments</a> | <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?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-chutzpah</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111102/23363116605</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:06:31 PDT</pubDate>
<title>CreativeAmerica: When Major Hollywood Studios Set Up Bogus 'Grassroots' Campaigns</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111021/10564516449/creativeamerica-when-major-hollywood-studios-set-up-bogus-grassroots-campaigns.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111021/10564516449/creativeamerica-when-major-hollywood-studios-set-up-bogus-grassroots-campaigns.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For a little over a week now, we've been receiving emails from various actors and musicians, telling us that they've been getting emails from various entertainment industry giants, telling them to join a new "grassroots" coalition called <a href="http://www.creativeamerica.org/" rel="nofollow">CreativeAmerica</a>, whose main purpose is to advocate for passing the PROTECT IP censorship bill.  The whole thing is clearly an astroturf campaign.  It was registered via domains-by-proxy to hide who really bought the domain name.  It highlights the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110603/02385514537/why-is-federal-government-running-ads-secretly-created-owned-nbc-universal.shtml">video that was secretly created and owned by NBC Universal</a>.  It includes the totally false claim that "there's no such thing as a free movie."
<br /><br />
If you dig into the website to figure out who's really behind it, it <i>claims</i> that it's a "grassroots organization," but fails to name a single creative individual who was behind putting the group together.  Instead, it lists out the following companies and organizations who really put the site together (amusingly, they even block you from cutting and pasting this part, so I just retyped it -- meaning I circumvented their DRM... come at me, entertainment industry):
<blockquote><i>
CBS Corporation, NBC Universal, the Screen Actors Guild, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox, Viacom, the Walt Disney Company and Warner Bros. Entertainment
</i></blockquote>
Well, well.  That's not a grassroots effort, folks.  Now, the site also includes various unions, including the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, the Directors Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild and IATSE (stage hands, etc.).  But these are the old school, out of touch unions that who have done little to nothing to help their members adapt to the times (often doing the opposite).  Do we see any of the <i>actually</i> creative folks who have embraced new technologies, new methods of distribution and new business models?  Nope.
<br /><br />
In the meantime, how can the website seriously claim that it's a grassroots effort when it has every single major Hollywood Studio behind it.  Do they think that people are stupid?  And should we remind people that these are the same studios who have all sorts of scammy tricks for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100708/02510310122.shtml">"Hollywood accounting"</a> to make sure even the most successful films are never seen as profitable, allowing them to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/13500315912/hollywood-accounting-darth-vader-not-getting-paid-because-return-jedi-still-isnt-profitable.shtml">avoid paying royalties</a> to the <i>actual</i> creative folks.
<br /><br />
Next, if you dig into the website, they have a "send a letter to your elected officials" thing.  And the real evidence that it's not a real grassroots effort?  Just like <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110521/15512514376/universal-music-we-need-protect-ip-because-musicians-are-dying.shtml">other faux grassroots efforts</a>, those agreeing to send the letter have <i>no option to edit</i> the letter.  When groups like <a href="http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/pipa_letter/" target="_blank">Demand Progress</a> and <a href="https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8173">EFF</a> let you send letters about PROTECT IP, they let you edit them to your liking -- trusting people to express themselves.  
<br /><br />
But, this "Creative America" apparently <b>does not trust its own members to be creative</b>.  The letter is 100% locked down.  You can only send their text.  Honestly, if a group supposedly representing creators won't even let its own members express themselves freely, you know that it's not actually about protecting "creative" America.
<br /><br />
This is not a grassroots effort.  This is not about protecting "Creative America."  This is about protecting a few megacorporations who are scared of new innovations, afraid of their dwindling monopoly rents, and trying to force the rest of the world to go back to the way things used to be.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111021/10564516449/creativeamerica-when-major-hollywood-studios-set-up-bogus-grassroots-campaigns.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111021/10564516449/creativeamerica-when-major-hollywood-studios-set-up-bogus-grassroots-campaigns.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111021/10564516449/creativeamerica-when-major-hollywood-studios-set-up-bogus-grassroots-campaigns.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>don't-make-me-laugh</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111021/10564516449</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>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 14:08:13 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Evidence Suggests RIAA Labels Behind 'Grassroots Citizen's Group' Supporting Canadian DMCA</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100616/1037569855.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100616/1037569855.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, this should come as little surprise, but as people have started to look into a so-called "grassroots citizen's group" in favor of Canada's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100602/1442409661.shtml">version of the DMCA</a>, they've realized that <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5123/125/" target="_blank">it appears to be an astroturf site set up by the major US record labels</a>:
<blockquote><i>
The copyright lobby, almost certainly led by the Canadian Recording Industry Association, has launched a <a href="http://balancedcopyrightforcanada.ca/">major astroturf campaign</a> in which it hopes to enlist company employees to register their support for Bill C-32 and to criticize articles or comments that take issue with elements of the proposed legislation. The effort, which even includes <a href="http://twitter.com/CopyrightCanada/status/16270971043">paid placement</a> of headlines on Bourque.com, is still shrouded in some <a href="http://twitter.com/JesseBrown/status/16183783257">secrecy</a>.&nbsp; A member list, which featured <a href="http://twitter.com/JesseBrown/status/16183491059">many record company executives</a>, has now disappeared from public view.&nbsp; Requests to identify who is behind the site have been stonewalled thus far, with both ACTRA and AFM Canada explicitly <a href="http://twitter.com/ACTRAnat/status/16234183972">stating</a> they are not part of the site (this is no surprise since most creator groups have been critical of C-32).<br /> <br /> The heart of the site (which requires full registration) is a daily action item page that encourages users to "make a difference, everyday."&nbsp; Today's list of 10 items is a mix of suggested tweets, blog comments, and newspaper article feedback.&nbsp; Each items includes instructions for what should be done and quick link to the target site.&nbsp; For example, users are asked to respond on Twitter to re-tweets of an <a href="http://www.themarknews.com/articles/1667-how-balanced-is-bill-c-32">op-ed by Dalhousie law professor Graham Reynolds</a>.&nbsp; The suggested response is "As an employee in entertainment, this Bill will protect your livelihood" or "The discussion around DRMs is largely fear mongering." Other suggested twitter activity includes twittering in support of James Moore and his comment that the Chamber of Commerce represents the best interests of consumers or to start following MPs on Twitter (in the hope they will follow back and later see astroturfed tweets).
</i></blockquote>
I especially like how after someone noticed that all its "members" were execs at big record labels, the membership list disappeared.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100616/1037569855.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100616/1037569855.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100616/1037569855.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>surprise-surprise</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100616/1037569855</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:30:19 PDT</pubDate>
<title>If You're Going To Put Up Fake Grassroots Videos On YouTube, Shouldn't You At Least Pretend To Be Real People?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080425/162736952.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080425/162736952.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A political reporter for the Star Telegram in Texas noticed something rather interesting after a Republican National Committee spokesperson sent over some YouTube videos, combining some news clips with snippets of comments from presidential candidates: none of the videos said who they were made by and all of them were put up under odd usernames that looked like someone had just typed randomly on a keyboard -- and all of which only had a single video uploaded.  Usernames like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/skdfjhfjhse">skdjhfjhse</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/asdlkfjasdlk">asdlkfjasdlk</a> and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/skfhsdfsd">skfhsdfsd</a> don't exactly look like real people posting user-generated content -- and they're not.  When asked about it, the RNC admitted that  <a href="http://startelegram.typepad.com/politex/2008/04/republicans-usi.html" target="_new">it had made the videos itself and posted them online</a>.  Why not post them under the RNC's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/rnc">official YouTube channel</a>?  Well, the RNC claims that it's because these weren't television ads, which is also the excuse it gives for not including a "the RNC is responsible for this ad" disclaimer in the videos.  However, it seems pretty clear that the idea was to get these videos up for more viral purposes, suggesting something of a "grassroots" support to the production.  However, if you're going to do some astroturfing, you might as well at least have the fake "grassroots" supporters look real.  Merely typing in a bunch of characters from the central row of your keyboard is a pretty immediate tipoff that these aren't real people.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080425/162736952.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080425/162736952.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080425/162736952.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>just-a-thought</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080425/162736952</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>