Techdirt. Stories filed under "lobbyists"

Lobbyists, Politicians And USTR Planning A 'Rally' To Show 'Strong Support' For TAFTA

Mike Masnick — Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:55:30 PDT

As the plans for the new TAFTA agreement are getting increasing heat and concern from the public, apparently the US Chamber of Commerce (a lobbying organization that has long favored these protectionist policies that seek to protect their members) along with the acting head of the USTR, Demetrios Marantis, and various "lawmakers," are planning to host a "rally" next week to pretend that there is "strong support" for such an agreement. Somehow, I doubt that this will bring out crowds of young people. Apparently this will be held on Capitol Hill and they'll be launching a "coalition" in support of "trans-atlantic trade." Sounds like a party.

Of course, this reeks of desperation on the part of the USTR and the Chamber of Commerce. The momentum against these kinds of agreements has been growing, and putting together a pretend rally where the only folks likely to show up are the representatives of big legacy businesses (apparently GE and IBM expect to attend) isn't going to mollify a concerned public.

I say this as someone who believes strongly in the value and importance of free trade. Trade barriers can create serious economic harm, especially for those they're supposedly designed to help. However, the reality is that these agreements are not really about free trade. They tend to be about helping out a few legacy businesses who don't want competition and don't want to deal with the impact of innovation. And, for reasons that are beyond me, the USTR thinks it's their job to help prop up those legacy businesses and to slow down the pace of innovation. I understand why the Chamber of Commerce does this (they're paid to), but it's pretty shameless for the USTR to be so obviously in the pocket of big business, rather than representing what is really in the best interests of trade policy across the board.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Recording Industry Lobbyists Accuse Pandora Of Deliberately Not Selling Ads To Plead Poverty To Congress

Mike Masnick — Fri, 5 Apr 2013 08:51:56 PDT

I'm always amazed at how copyright maximalists from the entertainment industry insist that no one can comment on their own businesses unless they're "in it" while freely commenting on other businesses they clearly know nothing about. Here's the latest example. The musicFIRST coalition, which is basically a lobbying operation set up by a few of the big legacy players in the recording industry (including the RIAA, A2IM and SoundExchange) in order to push for ever higher royalties for music, has been fighting hard against any effort to create royalties for internet companies that would allow those companies to survive. Like the Golden Goose, the labels have decided that if anyone online is making money, it's best to squeeze as much of it out of them as possible until they're dead, rather than allowing them to grow and to provide sustainable revenue back to the industry.

But their latest blog post really takes public cluelessness to new and impressive levels. It's a response to the news that Pandora's listener base has been growing. That should be celebrated, but, as Pandora has been pointing out for ages, thanks to the crazy high royalty rates that it has to pay SoundExchange (which are many times the rates of satellite radio and infinitely larger than terrestrial radio, since terrestrial radio has an exemption from performance royalties) it is close to impossible for Pandora to ever be profitable. Even worse (for musicians, the industry and the public) these crazy high rates means a lot less competition, fewer new authorized services and a smaller market overall. Pandora has been seeking more reasonable rates that would actually allow it to provide more services and to grow the overall pie even more by adding more value. However, so far, that's been cost-prohibitive given how much goes out the door to SoundExchange.

So, along comes MusicFIRST with the "solution" to all of Pandora's profitability problems: sell more ads. No, that's not a joke. They seriously seem to think that Pandora's problem is that it has chosen to take on less revenue and that all it has to do is turn the knob up and sell more ads:

As economist Jeff Eisenach testified last year regarding Pandora royalties, "the ratio of Pandora's content costs to its revenues is within Pandora's control: To raise its revenues, it need only choose to sell additional advertising" or find other ways to cash in on its popular and successful product.

Pandora is choosing to limit revenues for now by keeping advertising low and attracting customers to its free service tier.... It's no reason to plead poverty in the face of massive audience growth and "better than expected" earnings reports.

As someone who relies on advertising for a portion of my income, I wish musicFIRST had just told me all along that the fact that ad rates are so low and that fill rates are so dismal on advertising all across the internet is because I just wasn't trying enough and that I'd purposely been "limiting revenues." Why don't we just flip that one around? Perhaps the reason that the major labels and SoundExchange have been making so little money is that they're not selling enough. All they need to do is sell more and all their problems are solved. No need to go plead poverty to Congress and demand a jacking up of rates, since -- by their own logic -- they just need to sell more, and clearly, that's easy. If they're not selling more, it's because they've decided to limit revenue.

Stories like this make you wonder if anyone actually takes musicFIRST seriously.

Separately, musicFIRST trots out the lamest trope in the book in the attacks on Pandora: focusing on the value of the company and the equity its founders hold. Only someone who is deliberately misleading or completely clueless on basic financial issues would equate a company's valuation with revenue. The two are wholly different beasts. And yet, these lobbyists pretend that the equity that Pandora execs hold somehow is taken unfairly from artists. That, of course, makes no sense if you actually understand the difference between equity and revenue. Any artist could have had the same equity if they had built Pandora. They didn't, so they don't.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'

Mike Masnick — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:46:55 PDT

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." That is the purpose of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution, which is sometimes referred to as the "copyright clause" (or "the patent clause"), which enables both areas of law to be created via Congress. It's also the part that is most often ignored. As we've discussed, the whole purpose of this clause is to make it clear that the public are the sole stakeholders when it comes to proper policy making decisions regarding these laws. However, with this new push for comprehensive copyright reform, it appears that the copyright lobby is already working on ways to make sure that the public is marginalized in the discussion.

We've got two recent examples from the "Copyright Alliance," a DC-based lobbying shop put together by copyright maximalists (with the help of super right wing interests who normally don't link up with Hollywood on much), who are seeking to spin the debate in their favor with a lot of bluster and propaganda, often trying to demonize and/or marginalize the public's role in this debate. First up is an op-ed piece, in which the Copyright Alliance argues first that any new copyright reform must focus on maximalist principles, whether or not they make any sense. And then it digs in against the public, arguing that their voice shouldn't count for much because, apparently, they're so easily manipulated.

Those skeptical of copyright protection have expended a lot of energy to redefine its language and revise its history. Calls for lessening copyright protections are far too often accompanied by heated rhetoric. Appealing to emotions may be a great way to drum up signatures for online petitions, but has no place in policy discussions. Finally, it is not hard to find examples of those who propose dramatic changes without understanding the business realities of how creative individuals and industries operate.

Let's unpack that a bit. Each sentence is ridiculous in its own special way. If we are to look at the history of the copyright debate, one side and one side alone, has focused on "redefining its language and revising its history" and that would be the maximalists. In fact, there's an entire book that details exactly how the copyright maximalists have continually changed the language of copyright and revised its history. Copyright turned from a very narrowly focused concept, which was designed to encourage the spread of learning and knowledge, to something entirely different. A "limited monopoly" (as the framers called it) was turned into boundlessly vague "intellectual property." The act of "infringement" was turned into "theft and stealing." People who incidentally infringed on copyrights were describes as "pirates." The law was expanded and expanded because of moral panic after moral panic.

As for "heated rhetoric," we've been told over and over again that if we don't expand protections and kill of technologies, "the creative industries will die," despite no evidence to support that. Technologies which have helped to expand the industry, to create new ways to create, to promote, to distribute and to monetize were seen as the enemy because the powers-that-be did not control them. This is why the VCR was called "the Boston strangler of the movie industry" by the MPAA's Jack Valenti. I'm sorry, but the idea that those of us skeptical of today's copyright laws are the ones redefining the language or history is simply a laughably false claim.

But the really disturbing part is the next line. The claim that the public speaking out, such as via petitions or through various actions in which they contact politicians, should be ignored because it has "no place in policy discussions" is really just downright insulting. We know that, in the wake of SOPA, the copyright lobby has spent plenty of effort pretending that the public really didn't speak out, or that, if they did, it was only because they were stupid and deluded. But that should be seen for what it rightfully is: an insulting way of dismissing the public's interest in a law that is for the public's benefit.

The copyright lobby is scared to death that the public might actually speak up on its own behalf, because that would ruin the scam it's been running for quite some time.

In another piece by the same Copyright Alliance group, in response to the good ruling in the Kirtsaeng case, the alliance lashes out at public interest groups Public Knowledge and others for supposedly deluding the public:

Supporters of Kirtsaeng, including companies like eBay and groups such as Public Knowledge, have played an aggressive role in warping the public's understanding of the anti-arbitrage provisions of the Copyright Act and the benefits of market differentiation. Behind the veil of the Owners Rights Initiative, they perpetuated a series of falsehoods; these sweeping generalizations mischaracterize the impact of Kirtsaeng, generally attempting to recast a case limited in scope as an issue that will concern all individual resellers of goods.

The entire article is full of "redefinition" and "revising of history" -- to the ridiculous point of suggesting that the US hasn't recognized first sale rights on foreign goods for decades (a laughably false claim). But in the paragraph quoted here, you see its true contempt for the public. Apparently the public is simply too stupid to understand copyright law and is easily led astray by groups like Public Knowledge.

Taken together, you see both the fear and outright contempt that the copyright lobby has for the public. To them, the public are interfering with "the industry's rights" and are apparently stupid, gross and easily led astray and into mob behavior. I'm guessing that some of this is just PTSD following the lobbyists getting their clocks cleaned in the SOPA fight -- through cognitive dissonance, they've determined the only plausible explanation is that the public was duped.

But some of us believe that copyright law is supposed to be used in the public interest, and if that's the case, we should recognize that the public is the stakeholder who matters. To claim they should "have no place in policy discussions" isn't just wrong, but it's insulting. We should be welcoming the public into these discussions as much as possible -- not just because they are the key stakeholders here, but (more importantly) because if the Copyright Alliance actually wants a law the public respects, it might want to try including them in the process this time around. That its kneejerk reaction is to insult, demean and exclude the public gives a pretty clear indication where they would like this debate to go.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Dear Hollywood: Hire Better Shills

Mike Masnick — Tue, 5 Mar 2013 11:02:00 PST

The Wall Street Journal recently ran a puff piece showing just how much work it is for NBC Universal to keep fighting all those darn pirates. It's basically a propaganda piece starring Rick "Save the Corn Farmers!" Cotton, NBC's general counsel who fights piracy the way that Captain Ahab chases Moby Dick. There are all sorts of problems with the piece, including the fact that it appears to believe that just because NBC is sending a lot more takedowns, it means that the "problem" is growing. Of course, as we were just discussing last week, when you look at the actual data, it makes a pretty clear case for anti-piracy efforts doing nothing to stop piracy, but investment in lots of innovative startups providing consumers what they want being the path to success. But, that's not Cotton's style.

Anyway, Janko Roettgers, over at PaidContent, wrote a nice post debunking much of the story, which quickly got three comments that all sounded vaguely similar in their poor use of the English language -- all of which tried to spin the story into "proof" that greater enforcement, such as the six strikes effort, was needed. Two of them make the laughable claim that each infringement represents "lost revenue." That's not how it works. Here's one of the three comments:

I’m glad the author is pointing out what is pretty clear to people who browse the internet everyday, piracy is still widespread and is evolving every year. Not even taking into account the huge piracy issues overseas, each of these takedown requests represents lost revenue for both views and time spend tracking and reporting this illegal behavior. NBC will and should continue to do this because legal viewing of their content is vital for their business. But the better long term solution is to create a system where NBC isn’t playing a carnival game just to receive the proper copyright benefits for the content they invest so much in.

Of course, the real way to get to that "long term solution" is for NBC to stop playing the carnival game of takedowns -- which do nothing to reduce infringement -- and focus on making sure its content is more widely available from more legitimate sources.

Either way, Janko quickly pointed out that, in a surprise to no one, it was pretty clear that the comments were from DC-based hired shills for the entertainment industry:

Kelseliz, AlexB and SteveFeather, I’m glad you all enjoyed my story. However, I’m not too surprised you all share the same point of view. After all, the three of you commented from the same Washington D.C.-based IP address, and one of the email addresses you left points to a D.C. lobbying firm that gets paid by major labels, rights holder groups and movie studios… but I’m sure that’s all just one big coincidence.

I know that it's common in our comments for people to accuse others of being "shills." Frankly, people jump to the shill label way too fast. While it is clear that some of our commenters do work in the industry, there are very few indications that they are paid to be propaganda spreaders, and I try to give them the benefit of the doubt (similarly, I would urge our commenters to stop throwing around the "shill" term so readily -- unless there's actual evidence, don't leap to unsupported conclusions). That said, in this case it seems pretty blatant that some entertainment industry "friends" from a DC lobbying group are now out trying to spread a very poorly argued concept that we somehow "need" six strikes. I'd suggest that the RIAA, MPAA and others might find better ways to spend their money.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How Lobbyists' Changes To EU Data Protection Regulation Were Copied Word-For-Word Into Proposed Amendments

Glyn Moody — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:46:00 PST

Everyone knows that politicians are lobbied, sometimes massively. But it's rare to be able to track directly the detailed effects of that lobbying. That's why a new site called LobbyPlag is so interesting: it allows people to do precisely that in the case of the controversial data protection rules in the EU, which aim to regulate how personal information harvested from users of online services can be used. Naturally, many large Net companies -- mostly in the US -- are unhappy about these moves; some US diplomats are even talking of a possible "trade war" if the proposals go through in their current form. That's unlikely, not least because the lobbying is starting to pay off, as LobbyPlag's analysis makes clear.

The site takes two sets of publicly-available documents -- those prepared by companies or their lobbyists, and the amendments proposed for the Data Protection Regulation -- and compares them, showing the results in a highly visual way. It turns out that entire paragraphs have been copied word-for-word from the lobbyists' documents and put forward as suggested amendments. Similarly, some of the deletions that European politicians have proposed are precisely those asked for by various companies.

One amendment concerns what LobbyPlag terms "forum shopping":

This amendment allows companies to "designate" its main establishment. The previous version of the law would make the member state of the factual "main establishment" responsible. This amendment allows massive "forum shopping" -- companies can choose the member state with the weakest data protection authority or the littlest enforcement (e.g. UK or Ireland) while actually being situated in a totally different member state. Even Peter Fleischer (Google’s Privacy Officer) has recently criticized Microsoft for "forum shopping" in Luxemburg

Here's the original text from the European Commission (pdf), Article 4(13): 'main establishment' means as regards the controller , the place of its establishment in the Union where the main decisions as to the purposes, conditions and means of the processing of personal data are taken; if no decisions as to the purposes, conditions and means of the processing of personal data are taken in the Union, the main establishment is the place where the main processing activities in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller in the Union take place. As regards the processor, 'main establishment' means the place of its central administration in the Union;
Here's what Amazon (pdf) and eBay (Microsoft Word) wanted: 'main establishment' means the location as designated by the undertaking or group of undertakings, whether controller or processor, on the basis of, but not limited to, the following optional objective criteria: (1) the location of the European headquarters of a group of undertakings; (2) the location of the entity within a group of undertakings with delegated data protection responsibilities; (3) the location of the entity within the group which is best placed in terms of management functions and administrative responsibilities to deal with and enforce the rules as set out in this Regulation; or (4) the location where effective and real management activities are exercised determining the data processing through stable arrangements. The competent authority shall be informed by the undertaking or group of undertakings of the designation of the main establishment;
Here's what several MEPs proposed as an amended version: 'main establishment' means the location as designated by the undertaking or group of undertakings, whether controller or processor, on the basis of, but not limited to, the following optional objective criteria: (1) the location of the European headquarters of a group of undertakings; (2) the location of the entity within a group of undertakings with delegated data protection responsibilities; (3) the location of the entity within the group which is best placed in terms of management functions and administrative responsibilities to deal with and enforce the rules as set out in this Regulation; or (4) the location where effective and real management activities are exercised determining the data processing through stable arrangements. The competent authority shall be informed by the undertaking or group of undertakings of the designation of the main establishment;
As you can see, the last of these is identical with the companies' text. Of course, there's nothing wrong in using lobbyists' suggestions if they are valuable; and there's no reason why companies shouldn't come up with good ideas that could be used. But what's striking about the changes adopted by European politicians, as revealed by LobbyPlag, is that they seem to favor the companies, and to be detrimental to the European public -- not what you would hope for from the latter's representatives in the European Parliament, who should be protecting their interests, not attacking them.

Some have countered these accusations by pointing out that suggestions from civil groups moving things the other way have also been included; that may well be true, although I've not seen any proof that exactly the same wording has been adopted. But even if that were true, that doesn't represent balance of any kind: the money that companies like Amazon or eBay are able to put behind lobbying efforts in the European Union (and around the world) dwarf the very limited resources of cash-strapped citizen rights groups.

Given that lobbying will never disappear, perhaps the best we can hope for is what LobbyPlag provides us for the first time: real transparency. Using the powerful digital tools now available, we can easily compare huge numbers of documents to find similarities. That allows us as citizens to follow the threads that link lobbyists -- of all persuasions -- to the politicians that shape our laws. The hope has to be that by shining a light on those links, and letting politicians know that we are watching what they do and where they get their amendments from, the more blatant dependencies on external groups might be diminished, or at least made more subtle.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Former RIAA VP Named 2nd In Command Of Copyright Office

Mike Masnick — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:46:40 PST

We've talked in the past about how unfortunate it is that the US Copyright Office seems almost entirely beholden to the legacy copyright players, rather than to the stated purpose of copyright law. That is, instead of looking at how copyright can lead to the maximum benefit for the public ("promoting the progress of science") it seems to focus on what will make the big legacy players -- the RIAA and MPAA -- happy. Part of this, of course, is the somewhat continuous revolving door between industry and the Copyright Office. Just a few months ago we wrote about how the Copyright Office's General Counsel, David Carson, had jumped ship to go join the IFPI (the international version of the RIAA).

Last night the news came out that the US Copyright Office had now named Karyn Temple Claggett as the Associate Register of Copyright and Director of Policy & International Affairs. While Temple Claggett has actually been at the Copyright Office for a little while as Senior Counsel for Policy and International Affairs, not too long ago she was a hotshot litigator for... the RIAA. In fact, an old bio of hers, from when she was at the RIAA (as VP, Litigation and Legal Affairs), notes that she was instrumental in their ever-present legal campaign against pretty much any innovative technology that comes along:

While at the RIAA, Ms. Temple-Claggett has worked on some of the most high-profile copyright cases brought by copyright owners in recent years, including the Supreme Court Grokster litigation, as well as litigation against LimeWire, XM Satellite Radio and Usenet.com

I'm sure she's a fine person and a good litigator, but it's difficult to think that she'll be anything but a pure maximalist in favor of expanding copyrights and copyright enforcement, and against any innovation that challenges the status quo. It's hard not to be cynical when you see this kind of revolving door. And, of course, it's always entirely one-sided. Could you imagine the Copyright Office naming a top EFF litigator as second in command? Exactly the point. How is it possible to take the Copyright Office seriously as an advocate for what's best for the public, when the connections there are to industries who lean heavily on keeping out innovation and promoting an old business model through aggressive litigation and regulation?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform

Mike Masnick — Sat, 17 Nov 2012 16:59:26 PST

So, late Friday, we reported on how the Republican Study Committee (the conservative caucus of House Republicans) had put out a surprisingly awesome report about copyright reform. You can read that post to see the details. The report had been fully vetted and reviewed by the RSC before it was released. However, as soon as it was published, the MPAA and RIAA apparently went ballistic and hit the phones hard, demanding that the RSC take down the report. They succeeded. Even though the report had been fully vetted and approved by the RSC, executive director Paul S. Teller has now retracted it, sending out the following email to a wide list of folks this afternoon:

From: Teller, Paul
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 04:11 PM
Subject: RSC Copyright PB

We at the RSC take pride in providing informative analysis of major policy issues and pending legislation that accounts for the range of perspectives held by RSC Members and within the conservative community. Yesterday you received a Policy Brief on copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard. Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand. As the RSC’s Executive Director, I apologize and take full responsibility for this oversight. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and a meaningful Thanksgiving holiday....

Paul S. Teller
Executive Director
U.S. House Republican Study Committee
Paul.Teller@mail.house.gov
http://republicanstudycommittee.com

The idea that this was published "without adequate review" is silly. Stuff doesn't just randomly appear on the RSC website. Anything being posted there has gone through the same full review process. What happened, instead, was that the entertainment industry's lobbyists went crazy, and some in the GOP folded.

Frankly, if they wanted to win back the youth vote, this was exactly how not to do it. If you just look through the comments on our post on the original, or through the Twitter response to this report, there were tons of people -- many of whom were lifelong Democrats -- claiming that they would switch parties if the GOP stuck with this. Instead, they folded like a cheap card table in less than 24 hours.

In the long run, that's going to hurt the GOP, because the people who were suddenly interested in supporting the GOP will assume that any such effort is subject to a similar bait-and-switch. Meanwhile, this leaves open an opportunity for the Democrats as well. The Republicans just came close to becoming the party that actually listened to what was important to young people today -- and they quickly changed their mind. The Democrats can sweep in and take the issue since apparently it's there for the taking. All they have to do is be willing to tell some Hollywood lobbyists to pipe down.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Will Brazil's 'Anti-ACTA' Marco Civil Be Subverted By Copyright Lobbyists At The Last Moment?

Glyn Moody — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:01:39 PST

Just over a year ago Techdirt wrote about Brazil's Marco Civil -- essentially a civil-rights based framework for the Internet. At the time, we dubbed it an "anti-ACTA", since it seemed to protect many of the things that ACTA sought to attack. It all seemed a little too good to be true, and the post concluded by questioning whether it would survive in its present form.

Most of it has, remarkably, but a recent addition to one clause basically guts protection for ISPs and other online intermediaries. The EFF has a good explanation of the situation:

A concerning last-minute change has chipped away at the Bill's safe harbor provisions regarding copyright infringement. Article 15 of Marco Civil originally provided that ISPs are not responsible for infringing content by Third Parties unless they disobey a specific judicial order to take down said content. However, following a visit by the Minister of Culture to the legislator serving as rapporteur of Marco Civil, the rapporteur introduced a new paragraph into Article 15, saying that the article would not apply in cases of "copyright and neighborhood rights".

If passed, this exception would inevitably exert a chilling effect on all Internet activity, as Brazilian ISPs and Web sites removed content perceived to be even vaguely risky. It will come as no surprise to discover who is behind the move: As expected, this change is an unenlightened consequence of the content industry lobby. Guilherme Varella, lawyer for the Brazilian Institute for Consumer Defense [IDEC], commented on the changes in this recent law article. He stated that this is the result of a clumsy intervention by the Ministry of Culture following constant pressure by the entertainment industry lobby, especially the Brazilian Association of Reprographic Rights (ABDR), the Brazilian Association of Phonographic Producers (ABPD) and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Varella reports that the entertainment lobby has been camped outside the Ministry and the Congress for the past few weeks, pressuring the vote on the Bill to be postponed until they get what they want.
It's truly extraordinary how once again the copyright industries seem to think they are uniquely entitled to trample on basic rights. And it's particularly sad to see such a worthwhile effort to frame a basic level of protection for online users not just watered down but actively subverted in this way, precisely when it seemed on the point of coming to fruition.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

RIAA Apparently Forgot To Tell Six Strikes Coordinators That The 'Independent' Firm It Hired Used To Lobby For The RIAA

Mike Masnick — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 18:33:00 PDT

TorrentFreak broke an unsurprising, but amazing, story this week in uncovering that Stroz Friedberg, the supposedly "independent and impartial tech expert" that was brought on to assist the Center for Copyright Information (CCI) in making sure that the new "six strikes" program BitTorrent monitoring is accurate, used to lobby for the RIAA. Apparently this bit of news took folks at CCI completely by surprise, since the RIAA failed to mention that tidbit of info. Now, CCI is apparently scrambling to make things right -- either by finding someone new, or by "opening up" the review that Stroz Friedberg does for the public to review. Either way, it's pretty incredible that the RIAA thought that no one would notice that the "impartial and independent" expert just happened to be a biased party that lobbied directly for them in the past.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Hollywood Wines & Dines Kiwi Politicians To Get Them To Support Hollywood's Copyright Insanity In TPP

Mike Masnick — Tue, 9 Oct 2012 19:47:53 PDT

The whole Megaupload/Dotcom mess seems to have really woken up New Zealand to just how much damage an overzealous interpretation of copyright laws can do. New Zealand has already passed a ridiculous three strikes law that US diplomats offered to write for them -- but it seems that the whole Megaupload case has many in the country rethinking their government's support for Hollywood's interpretation of copyright.

And that actually represents a big problem for Hollywood, because New Zealand has been a key force in pushing back on Hollywood's plans for copyright expansionism in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations. But Hollywood (and the USTR) need New Zealand to come on board, so they've moved into aggressive lobbying mode. Prime Minister John Key, fresh off of apologizing to Kim Dotcom, showed up in Hollywood recently to be wined and dined by studio execs:

The movie industry's main motives for wining, dining and flattering the Prime Minister were not about Dotcom or subsidies, although it has an obvious interest in both.

The end-goal is to get Key's Government to drop its opposition to aggressive United States demands in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) negotiations. New Zealand will host the next round of TPPA talks in Auckland in early December.

And... at the same time he was being catered to by studio bosses, counterparts in New Zealand were aggressively lobbying other officials there:

While John Key was in Los Angeles, top US intellectual property negotiators were in Wellington lobbying for their latest proposals.

The article linked above, published in the New Zealand Herald, properly points out that what Hollywood is asking for of New Zealand "is too high a price" to pay, just to keep Hollywood happy, and to bring big movie productions to New Zealand. It will impact too many other businesses and "stifle the growing local industry." Hopefully, politicians in New Zealand understand that keeping Hollywood happy seems to result in pretty damaging situations for people in New Zealand and continues to push back against such overreach.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Hollywood Lobbyist Hasn't Seen The TPP Text, Cannot Read The TPP Text, But Knows What's In The TPP Text?

Mike Masnick — Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:31:00 PDT

The Daily Dot's Kevin Collier has a detailed article about his experience as a journalist at the latest TPP negotiating round. He talks mainly about the various "stakeholder" presentations, which are the only access concerned groups have to the negotiators. As we've already noted, the USTR made sure to limit access to the stakeholder presentations, giving them 8 to 10 minutes (reduced from a promised 15) and then scheduling a bunch to run concurrently -- and during a time when many negotiators would likely be out to lunch. From Collier's report, we also learn that the rooms where these presentations were held only had about 20 seats in them -- and there are more than 400 negotiators. He attended the EFF's presentation, but also noted that "Attendees from a nearby presentation exited their conference room and loudly spoke outside the open door to [the EFF's Carolina] Rossini’s room, drowning out her message."

But, perhaps more interesting was Collier's encounter with Michael Schlesinger, a lobbyist for the IIPA (the International Intellectual Property Alliance -- a sort of "super group" of lobbying organizations, including both the RIAA and the MPAA, among others). The IIPA presentation immediately followed the EFF presentation, and involved Schlesinger promising to debunk the "myths" being spread by folks like the EFF. Key among them? That TPP would mandate disconnecting people from the internet. Myth, myth and more myth, Schlesigner declared: there are "no mandates to kick legitimate users off the Internet." Note the weasel word "legitimate."

However, Collier wasn't born yesterday. So he went and found the leaked draft of the IP section that was revealed back in February of 2011. And he noted that it does seem to include mandates for kicking people offline, such as saying that "effective action against any act of copyright infringement" would include things like "removing or disabling access... [and] terminating specified accounts." So, Collier went and found Schlesigner to bring this up, and Schlesinger made a remarkable admission: he claims he hasn't seen the text:

I asked him whether he stood by his presentation's claim that "TPP will result in 'kicking people off the Internet'" was a myth.

"It is," he said.

I showed him a printed-out copy of the section of the TPP leak that referred to "terminating specified accounts" of copyright infringers.

He visibly stiffened. "I'm not commenting on a leaked draft," he told me. "From what I know, the TPP framework would not force anyone off the Internet. I don't know anything about the TPP draft."

Had Schlesinger actually read the TPP, either the leaked chapter or the current draft? I can't say for sure. Legally, he can't have read the latter, because he's a federally registered lobbyist, which would bar him from seeing the text.

Got that? (1) He's not allowed to see the text. (2) He gets upset when someone points him to the leaked text. (3) He... also insists he knows, absolutely, what will not be in the text. How is that even remotely credible?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Your Cynicism About Lobbyists Only Helps The Lobbyists Win

Mike Masnick — Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:25:43 PDT

Last month, I posted the letter I helped put together from a bunch of entrepreneurs to the US's Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, as a part of the open comment period on the most effective forms of copyright enforcement. One of the most frustrating responses I heard was "it doesn't matter, the law is bought and paid for already." I can understand why many people feel that way, and it's absolutely undeniable that the entrenched entertainment industry interests have a very successful lobbying program that has a long history of success in getting the laws they want. But such things are not set in stone, and can absolutely be overcome.

Earlier this year, when This American Life did an hourlong episode on lobbying, there was one message that has really stuck with me: yes, lobbying has tremendous power in terms of its impact on Congress and the White House, but votes will trump lobbying every single time. I can't remember which politician said it during the episode, but it was made clear: in the absence of the public speaking out on an issue, yes, the lobbyists will likely win. But if the public is interested, no matter how much money is spent, the public will win, because the votes matter more than the lobbyists. Always.

I'd been meaning to write about this in response to the defeatism I saw after that letter, but Public Knowledge's Sherwin Siy beat me to it (and did it much better, since he's got a hell of a lot more experience on this front), pointing out that the best way to fight big money politics is to speak out and take part. Yes, it may seem like the deck is stacked, and yes, the lobbyists have plenty of power -- but that power only works if the voting public stays quiet.

In other words: your cynicism only helps the lobbyists.

Trust me, I understand where that cynicism comes from, and there are significant problems with the way money works in politics today and just how corrupt the system often appears. But, as Siy notes, all that money is a means to an end, and the end is to get re-elected (or elected in the first place). And that means that votes -- and the people behind the votes -- can trump money in politics. The larger problem is that we can't do that for any and every issue. But saying that you shouldn't even bother to speak out at all is self-defeating. It's automatically handing victory to the lobbyists.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Why Does Copyright Last 70 Years After Death... But Licenses Expire At Death?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:15:00 PDT

Last week, we were among the group of folks who wrote about some articles highlighting the fact that, when you die, your library of digital goods likely dies with you, thanks to ridiculous licensing terms and DRM (and ignoring unauthorized copies). Over the weekend, there was a silly -- and quickly proven bogus -- story claiming that Bruce Willis was so incensed by this that he was going to file a lawsuit on the legality of passing down his digital content to his children. While that story appears to have been a work of fiction by the UK's Daily Mail, it did lead to a great observation by Kevin Marks who compared the lifetime of copyright to the lifetime of the licenses you get:

How is it that copyright lasts 70 years after death, but licenses expire at death?

The simplest answer is that the big legacy entertainment industry players have lobbyists. And their customers do not. So we've created a system that massively favors one side over the public -- despite the fact that, if we believe the US Constitution, copyright is supposed to be for the benefit of the public.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Revolving Door: US Copyright Office General Counsel Becomes IFPI Lobbyist

Mike Masnick — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:34:34 PDT

We've pointed out over and over again that the revolving door between the government and the big copyright maximalists represents a broken system -- and we're seeing it yet again. David Carson, the long time General Counsel of the US Copyright Office has announced that he's leaving that job... to become head of global legal policy for the IFPI (the international version of the RIAA). His role will be to "coordinate the recorded music industry's legal policy strategy worldwide." Think he'll have undue influence with the US Copyright Office? He's only been in General Counsel of the US Copyright Office for 15 years. Of course, the IP-Watch story linked above shows how the revolving door works both ways. In effect, Carson is replacing Shira Perlmutter, who left the IFPI role earlier this year... to become the chief policy advisor on IP issues for the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Elected Officials Get An Average 1,452% Salary Increase When They Take A Lobbying Job

Mike Masnick — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:26:00 PDT

A few months ago, in writing about a fascinating interview between Jack Abramoff and Larry Lessig, we talked about Abramoff's admission that the best way to "buy" a Congressional staffer was to merely let them know that they had a lobbying job waiting for them "whenever they wanted it." He noted that, after that, those staffers basically worked for Abramoff more than working for their own elected official. He did also note that it was often much more effective to do this with staffers rather than the elected officials themselves, but clearly it happens all the time with elected officials too.

Republic Report has looked up the details on some former elected officials who became lobbyists and noted that, on average, they got a boost in salaries of 1,452%. Also of note: they can negotiate these deals while still in office and don't have to tell anyone about them or even reveal what their salaries are. That can lead to clear conflicts of interest that are mostly ignored by the public and the press:

For example, former Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) spent his last year in office fighting reforms to bring greater transparency to the derivatives marketplace. Almost as soon as he left office, he joined the board of a derivatives trading company and became an "advisor" to Goldman Sachs. Risky derivative trading exacerbated the financial crisis of 2008, yet we’re stuck under the laws written in part by Gregg. How much has he made from the deal? Were his actions in office influenced by relationships with his future employers?

There's definitely a lot of fluctuation in how much these former Congressional Reps and Senators make as lobbyists, but it's clearly a lot more than they were making previously. Here are just a few examples (the article has many more), including our old buddy Chris Dodd:

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin (R-LA) made $19,359,927 as a lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies between 2006 and 2010. Tauzin retired from Congress in 2005, shortly after leading the passage of President Bush’s prescription drug expansion. He was recruited to lead PhRMA, a lobbying association for Pfizer, Bayer, and other top drug companies. During the health reform debate, the former congressman helped his association block a proposal to allow Medicare to negotiate for drug prices, a major concession that extended the policies enacted in Tauzin’s original Medicare drug-purchasing scheme. Tauzin left PhRMA in late 2010. He was paid over $11 million in his last year at the trade group. Comparing Tauzin’s salary during his last year as congressman and his last year as head of PhRMA, his salary went up 7110%.

Former Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) makes approximately $1.5 million a year as the chief lobbyist for the movie industry. Dodd, who retired from the Senate after 2010, was hired by the Motion Picture Association of America, the lobbying association that represents major studios like Warner Bros. and Universal Studios. Although the MPAA would not confirm with Republic Report Dodd’s exact salary, media accounts point to $1.5 million, a slightly higher figure than the previous MPAA head, former Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman. Dodd received about a 762% raise after moving from public office to lobbying.

Former Congressman Steve Largent (R-OK) has made at least $8,815,741 over the years as a lobbyist for a coalition of cell phone companies and related wireless industry interests. Republic Report analyzed disclosures from CTIA-The Wireless Association, the trade group Largent leads. CTIA counts wireless companies like AT&T, HTC, and Motorola as members. Largent left Congress in 2002, when his pay was about $150,000 as a public official. His move to the CTIA trade association, where he earns slightly more than $1.5 million a year according to the latest disclosure form, raised his salary by 912%.

And people wonder why the American public feels that Congress is impossibly corrupt.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Microsoft Hires Key Anti-Google FTC Lawyer To Be Its New Chief Anti-Google Lobbyist

Mike Masnick — Fri, 2 Mar 2012 13:25:57 PST

There's something a little... disturbing about how gleefully Microsoft seems to want to sic antitrust regulators on Google. Given that the company went through its own long antitrust battle, you'd think that it would know better than to continually invoke the government's antitrust legal beagles against others. Instead, it seems to have taken the position that if it had to go through the antitrust rollers for so long, why shouldn't other successful companies. We've noted in the past Microsoft's fingerprints showing up on bizarre and silly antitrust claims against Google -- which have so far gone nowhere -- but Microsoft seems really intent on saddling Google with a long and costly antitrust battle. I guess Microsoft thinks it's easier to fight Google that way than, you know, actually innovating and competing in the marketplace. It's pretty sad just how anti-innovation these efforts are.

Either way, Microsoft appears to be stepping up its "saddle Google with antitrust charges" battle by hiring Randall Long from the FTC. Long was the key "anti-Google" lawyer within the FTC, who led multiple antitrust investigations into Google, and recommended that the FTC block Google's acquisition of AdMob (something he was outvoted on). Microsoft doesn't even seem to want to hide the fact that his role will be to lobby politicians in DC to hit Google with antitrust charges. The WSJ's report on the hiring is pretty explicit:

As part of his new job, Mr. Long will likely continue those efforts before the FTC and other agencies, a person familiar with the matter said.

Of course, if Long actually follows the rules, he shouldn't be allowed to do anything concerning any FTC investigations into Google for quite some time. The ethics rules are pretty clear -- even barring "behind-the-scenes" help on such investigations:

Except as provided in this section, or otherwise specifically authorized by the Commission, no former member or employee (“former employee” or “employee”) of the Commission may communicate to or appear before the Commission, as attorney or counsel, or otherwise assist or advise behind-the-scenes, regarding a formal or informal proceeding or investigation...

That certainly suggests that Long cannot and should not "continue those efforts before the FTC" for some time. Either way, it's yet another example of the questionable revolving door between government and the private sector, where ex-government officials end up in roles that have a very close connection to their former government role (or vice versa). Even assuming that Long follows all the rules, as I'm sure he intends to do, this kind of thing just looks really bad.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Hollywood's Latest 'Conciliatory' Effort Towards Silicon Valley? Forcing Lobbyists To Drop Tech Companies As Clients

Mike Masnick — Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:59:51 PST

Remember how Hollywood keeps saying that they now want to have this "conversation" with Silicon Valley and not be so antagonistic? It seems that feeling does not extend to lobbyists. According to Politico, the folks in Hollywood have been putting pressure on lobbying shops not to work with the tech industry -- and Facebook in particular:

"They are doing everything they can to ensure that the tech industry and Facebook in particular doesn't have any talent to go up to the Hill," one tech lobbyist said of the content providers.

Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock, the Glover Park Group and TeleMedia Policy Group have all terminated their lobbying contracts with Facebook, according to sources familiar with the lobbying terminations.

This is interesting timing. And by "interesting" I mean "bad," for those lobby shops at least. Remember, Facebook, which is growing at an insane rate, just filed for a massive IPO and is going to be flush with cash. Meanwhile, the entertainment industry has actually been scaling back some of their lobbying efforts. Betting on the losing team isn't exactly a winning strategy. Of course, as the article correctly points out, this is Hollywood still thinking that the SOPA/PIPA fight was about lobbying, when it had little to do with that (not to say that lobbying wasn't done over the issue, but no amount of lobbying was going to win that fight -- it was the public activism that did it).

Either way, it's an odd choice to go after Facebook's lobbyists anyway, considering how little Facebook had to do with this fight at all. Of all the big internet companies, it actually seemed the least willing to even bother to do anything about SOPA/PIPA. Of course, Facebook has been ramping up its DC policy efforts on other fronts, so the lobbyists lose out, and this does nothing to benefit Hollywood. Kind of a weird move. Hollywood gets a few more lobbyists on its side... and it's unlikely to have a significant impact on how the public views these attempts by Hollywood to attack the internet, rather than adapt to market realities.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

USTR Claims TPP Has 'Unprecedented' Transparency, But It Won't Reveal The Details Unless You're A Big Industry Lobbyist

Mike Masnick — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 07:40:23 PST

You would think that after the response to SOPA as well as the ongoing (and growing) movement against ACTA, that the USTR would heed some of the warning signs, and stop pushing trade agreements negotiated in secret with the help of Hollywood. But, that's just not how the USTR works, apparently. When pressed to release a draft of the intellectual property sections of the new Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), the USTR apparently told a bunch of civil liberties/civil society groups that the current level of transparency on TPP was "unprecedented." And to prove it, they refused to let anyone see the draft document. At this point, it seems like the USTR simply thinks that lying to the public is its best course of action. We've already pointed out that the TPP negotiations are actually significantly more secret than even the already unprecedented levels of secrecy in ACTA.

So what could the USTR possibly mean in claiming that the TPP process has been transparent? Well, they like to talk about their "Industry Trade Advisory Committees" (ITACs), who get to see the documents and provide input. The USTR apparently insisted that "no one" on those boards were lobbyists. Yet, Jamie Love, over at KEI (who was present at this meeting) has listed out the members of these ITACs to show that, once again, the USTR is lying. Among the folks on the relevant ITACs are executives from a variety of lobbying groups, including the MPAA, the RIAA, the ESA, and PhRMA. In other words, all of the big corporate interests known for their desire to only expand IP law and enforcement to protect their own business models.

This is exactly the kind of thing that people have been protesting about SOPA and ACTA: crony capitalism with backroom deals involving old, slow and obsolete industry interests helping to write the laws that hold back innovation for the sake of keeping them from having to innovate. The USTR should be ashamed of itself. It should really open up the process. Release the drafts public, request open feedback, and stop just listening to one side of the story.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

MPAA Hires Four Ex-Federal Government Employees, Including One From ICE & Another From The White House

Mike Masnick — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:07:35 PST

It appears that the famed "revolving door" between government and the big entertainment industry lobbyists continues. The MPAA has announced four new hires -- all of whom come from roles within the government, and who raise significant questions about who they were working for when they were in their government positions.

Alex Swartsel, who has worked for several Democratic senators and campaigns, is the new director of global policy. Brian Cohen, who has worked in the Justice Department and for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is the new director for external state government affairs.

Lauren Pastarnack, who has worked on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is the new director of government affairs. And Kate Bedingfield, who joins the MPAA from the White House Communications Office, is the new director of strategic communications.

Two of these aren't huge surprises. The Pastarnack hire hit the news a few months ago, when people noticed that she jumped from being a point person on PIPA to working directly for the MPAA. Swartsel's name may also be familiar. We tangled with her last summer, when she bizarrely took to the MPAA's blog to attack reporter Janko Roettger for accurately predicting that bad economic news might lead people to seek out unauthorized sources of movies, rather than paying through the nose for authorized versions. Now, the MPAA's former boss had said the exact same thing, but according to Swartsel it's somehow "intellectually dishonest" to point out what might happen. Swartsel also was the one who flat out mocked the concerns of tech entrepreneurs concerning SOPA and PIPA. Turns out she did all this as a "consultant" to the MPAA -- and they thought she did such a bang up job that they've hired her full time as "director of global policy."

Given her former attacks on reporting the truth and concerns of the tech industry, it seems pretty clear that the MPAA is not moving in the direction of their promised open conversation with the tech industry and internet users concerning solutions to infringement. It sounds like they're moving in the other direction.

A further indication of that, of course, is the hiring of Cohen, direct from the MPAA's private police force... better known as ICE. Remember, when ICE launched Operation In Our Sites to illegally seize and censor websites, it did so directly from Disney's headquarters. The close relationship between ICE and the MPAA should worry everyone. The fact that there's a revolving door in employment between the two should be cause for an investigation concerning possible corruption. But, of course, that won't happen... when that kind of revolving door also includes someone like Bedingfield, coming straight out of the White House.

It's stories like this that make you realize why the MPAA is so powerful. It knows that it has a strong hold on government employees, because it's offering a bunch of them high paying jobs once they leave their government positions. And, as Jack Abramoff has explained, the best trick in a lobbyist's pocket is to tell a government employee that there's a job waiting for them any time in the future -- because they're technically working for the lobbyist from that moment forward.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

What Is ACTA And Why Is It A Problem?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:18:00 PST

Yesterday I noted that the anti-SOPA/PIPA crowd seemed to have just discovered ACTA. And while I'm pleased that they're taking interest in something as problematic as ACTA, there was a lot of misinformation flowing around, so I figured that, similar to my "definitive" explainer posts on why SOPA/PIPA were bad bills (and the followup for the amended versions), I thought I'd do a short post on ACTA to hopefully clarify some of what's been floating around.

First off, ACTA, unlike SOPA/PIPA, is not "a law." It's a trade agreement, in which a variety of countries agree to deal with intellectual property infringement in a similar fashion. It does have some similarities to SOPA/PIPA -- such as the conflation of counterfeiting physical goods with digital copyright infringement. This is a very common tactic for folks trying to pass massively draconian, expansionary, copyright laws. You lump them in with physical counterfeiting for two key reasons: (1) If you include physical counterfeiting, even thought it's a relatively small issue, you can talk about fake drugs and military equipment that kill people -- so you can create a moral panic. (2) You can then use the (questionable) large numbers about digital copyright infringement, and then lump those two things together, so you can claim both "big and a danger to health." Without counterfeiting, the "danger" part is missing. Without copyright, the "big" part is missing. The fact that these are two extremely different issues with extremely different possible solutions, becomes a minor fact that gets left on the side of the road.

Unfortunately, much of the information and fear-mongering about ACTA is extremely dated. People are asking me why the text of ACTA is hidden away as a state secret. Yes, during negotiations, there was an insane amount of secrecy -- much more than is standard. But the final text of ACTA has been public for quite some time now. We can complain about the process, but saying that the document is still secret is false.

Unfortunately, so much of the focus on ACTA was about the secrecy of the process, and the lack of actual stakeholders being involved (entertainment industry and pharma lobbyists had full access... everyone else? Not so much.), that the actual problems with the agreement have been clouded over. It is worth noting that the final ACTA text was very much improved from what was leaked out early on. In fact, it seems clear that, despite the attempts at secrecy, the fact that the document kept leaking really did help pressure negotiators to temper some of the "worst of the worst" in ACTA.

For example, ACTA initially tried to establish much stronger secondary liability for ISPs, including effectively requiring a "graduated response" or "three strikes" plan for ISPs, that would require them to kick people accused (not convicted) of infringement multiple times offline. One of the key problems with ACTA has been how broadly worded it is and how open to interpretation it is. For an agreement whose sole purpose is supposed to be to clarify processes, the fact that it's so wide open to interpretation (with some interpretations potentially causing significant legal problems) seems like a big issue. For example, while the original draft never directly required a three strikes program, it required some form of secondary liability measures, and the only example of a program that would mitigate such liability was... a three strikes program. To put it more simply, it basically said all signers need to do something to help out the entertainment industry, and one example is a three strikes program. No other examples are listed. Then they could pretend that it doesn't mandate such a program, but leaves little choice for signing countries other than to implement such a thing. However, thankfully, that provision was struck out from the final copy.

So why is ACTA problematic?

While it probably does not change US law (with some possible exceptions, especially in the realm of patents), it certainly does function to lock in US law, in a rapidly changing area of law, where specifics are far from settled. Supporters of ACTA continue to insist that not only does it not change US law, but that it cannot change US law, since it's an "executive agreement" rather than a treaty (more on that later). The reality, however, is that to be in compliance with this agreement, the US needs to retain certain parts of copyright law that many reformers believe should be changed. At the very least, it ties Congress' hands, if we want to be in compliance with our "international obligations."

An example of this is on the question of inducement theory for copyright law. Within copyright law there is direct infringement (you did the infringement) and indirect or secondary infringement (you had a hand in making someone else infringe). In general we should be wary of secondary liability issues, because they can create chilling effects for new innovations. It's why the Supreme Court allowed the VCR to exist, despite the fact that it enabled infringement. Contributory infringement (in which you're more actively involved) has been illegal, but there has been some question about inducing infringement (i.e., leading or pushing others into infringing). There was an attempt by Congress nearly a decade ago, under the INDUCE Act, to make inducement a violation of copyright law, but it failed to go anywhere in Congress. Of course, the Supreme Court then stepped in with its Grokster decision that made up (pretty much out of thin air) a standard for "inducement" to be a violation of the law.

Normally, if Congress decides the Supreme Court got something wrong, it can pass a law to clarify. However, under the terms of ACTA, countries need to consider inducement a violation of copyright law. There's no way to read this other than to tie Congress' hands on the question of inducement. That's a big issue because we're still sorting through the true impact of considering inducement as against the law. I know it's tough to believe Congress could ever push back on ever more draconian copyright law, but with the SOPA/PIPA backlash, there's at least a sliver of hope that some are aware that these issues impact innovation. Should Congress realize that greater liability through inducement is a mistake, under ACTA, their hands are mostly tied if they want to fix it. That's a problem.

Beyond just locking in parts of copyright law, ACTA also expands it. First, it takes things that would normally be considered non-commercial file sharing (which is potentially against the law), and turns it into commercial scale criminal infringement. Similarly, it appears to broaden the definitions around inducement/secondary liability to make what had been a civil (between two private parties) issue into criminal aiding and abetting. Basically, there are parts of ACTA that effectively seek to take what would normally be civil infringements, dealt with between two private parties, and allow the entertainment industry to offload the policing to government law enforcement (paid for by tax payers) and leading to a higher likelihood of jail time.

Copyright law is, by its very nature, a bundle of forces -- some that incentivize good behavior, and some that are bad. There should be no question that copyright has some good effects and some bad effects. The real question is in weighing the good and the bad and making sure that that the bad don't outweigh the good. Often, copyright law has used exceptions (fair use, public domain, de minimus use, first sale, etc.) to act as a "safety valve" in an attempt to make sure the bad doesn't outweigh the good.

However, ACTA pretends that copyright is only good and there's no need to minimize the bad effects. That is, it only talks about the enforcement side, and completely ignores the necessary exceptions to copyright law that make it function. Basically, it exports the punishments from the US, but leaves out the safety valves. That's pretty scary. It may be (well, not really) okay in the US where fair use is clearly established, but most other countries don't have fair use at all (if they have anything, it's a much weaker system known as "fair dealing"). Exporting strict enforcement without exceptions is dangerous and will lead to unnecessary limitations on creativity and speech.

There are serious health risks associated with ACTA, especially in the developing world. In this case, Europe pushed strongly to include patents under ACTA (something the US actually preferred to leave out). This has complicated matters for some countries. Under existing international agreements, countries can ignore pharmaceutical patents to deal with health emergencies. That is, if you have an outbreak and need a drug that pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to supply at a reasonable price, governments can break the patent and produce their own. That becomes much more difficult under ACTA, which could be a real threat to health around the globe.

Similarly, there are very reasonable concerns that ACTA will be used to crack down, not on actual counterfeit medicines, but on "grey market" drugs -- generic, but legal, copies of medicines. Some European nations, for example, already have a history of seizing shipments of perfectly legal generic drugs in passage to somewhere else. For example, say that a pharmaceutical company in India is shipping drugs to Brazil that are legal in both countries. However, those drugs violate a patent in Europe. If, during transit, those drugs pass through Europe, customs agents may seize them. That's already been happening, but the fear is that there's greater power to do so under ACTA.

ACTA presents certain requirements for border patrol agents in determining what is and what is not infringing. This is a big issue for a variety of reasons. First, as we've seen in the US, ICE/border patrol isn't very good at figuring out what is and what is not infringing. Traditionally, there are significant questions of fact to be explored in determining if something is infringing, but under ACTA, border patrol often will be in a position to make a snap decision. Believe it or not, Homeland Security itself was worried about ACTA, because of fears that it would actually make it more difficult to be effective on intellectual property issues -- and might require them to spend more time trying to figure out if something is infringing, rather than if there's a terrorist trying to get into the country.

Again, while ACTA supporters insist that it won't require changes to US law, there are a few parts of ACTA that are so vague that you can definitely see how they could be interpreted to require changes to US law. One key example is where certain kinds of patent infringement cases protect against either injunctions or damages... whereas ACTA would require one or the other.

Even the signing parties don't agree on the purpose, scope and nature of ACTA. This may be the scariest part. Part of the debate in the US is over the USTR and President Obama's claim that ACTA is not a binding treaty, but rather a sole executive agreement that doesn't need Congressional approval. Many believe that this is unconstitutional, and Senator Ron Wyden has asked the President to explain what certainly appears to be a violation of the Constitution. However, over in Europe, they're insisting that it is a binding treaty. The US, on the other hand, has already said that it can ignore anything it doesn't like in ACTA. If you think that's a recipe for an international problem, you get a gold star.

Finally, international trade agreements are a favorite tool of the copyright maximalist. You see it all the time. If they can't pass legislation they want, they resort to getting these things put into international trade agreements, which get significantly less scrutiny. This also allows for two tricks: the first is leapfrogging, where you get each country to implement the laws required by these agreements in slightly different ways, and then push other countries to match (or better yet, exceed) the rules in the other countries to stay in compliance. Then you use those agreements to demand the same thing from other countries to "harmonize" international laws. It's already been admitted that ACTA was done outside of existing structures for IP-related international agreements (like WIPO and the WTO) because a few countries wanted to negotiate it without input from Brazil, Russia, India and China... but the plan has always been to get ACTA approved, and then pressure those other countries to join.

The sneaky part is that once you have some of these "international obligations," it's almost impossible to get out of them. Copyright maximalists love to shout about how we must absolutely respect our "international obligations" on these kinds of treaties, to limit the government's ability to fix copyright law.

All that said, for folks who have just discovered ACTA, it's important to note that this is pretty much done. Many of the countries involved, including the US, have already signed on, and ACTA will go into effect soon (even if the other countries don't sign on). It's a bad agreement, but it's pretty late in the ball game to step in. If the EU can be convinced not to sign, that would be a big deal, but at this late stage, that seems unlikely.

In the meantime, for folks who are just getting up to speed on ACTA, you really should turn your attention to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP), which is basically ACTA on steroids. It's being kept even more secret than ACTA, and appears to have provisions that are significantly worse than ACTA -- in some cases, with ridiculous, purely protectionist ideas, that are quite dangerous.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Entertainment Industry Lobbyists Don't Want To Let Canada Into Secret TPP Negotiations Until Canada Passes More Bad Laws

Mike Masnick — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 07:32:13 PST

We've discussed, at length, the ridiculousness of the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- the international trade agreement that is the "son of ACTA" and seeks to push through (in secret, of course) plenty of the things that were cut out of ACTA. It's a horrible agreement, which is still being negotiated in secret. Apparently, Canada recently sought to join the conversation of the TPP... but the US legacy entertainment industry lobbyists are trying to deny Canada's entry into the discussions (even though most other participants welcome Canada), until Canada goes even further to pass draconian copyright laws, as prescribed by Hollywood.

The IIPA, which represents the major movie, music, and software lobby associations, points to copyright reform and new border measures as evidence of the need for Canadian reforms and states "we urge the U.S. government to use Canada’s expression of interest in the TPP negotiations as an opportunity to resolve these longstanding concerns about IPR standards and enforcement."

In other words, don't let Canada join, unless it passes these horrible laws we've been demanding for years, and which the Canadian public is clearly against. If I were in the Canadian government, it seems like this is a pretty good reason to say "good riddance"... or, hell, maybe even to cut back on ridiculous copyright laws to something more reasonable, just to show that it can be done... and then to watch the industry in Canada thrive.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Shockingly Unshocking: Two Congressional Staffers Who Helped Write SOPA/PIPA Become Entertainment Industry Lobbyists

Mike Masnick — Fri, 9 Dec 2011 10:33:52 PST

Two high level Congressional staffers who have been instrumental in creating or moving forward both PROTECT IP (PIPA) and SOPA have left their jobs on Capitol Hill and taken jobs with two of the biggest entertainment industry lobbyists, who are working very hard to convince Congress to pass the legislation they just helped write. And people wonder why the American public looks on DC as being corrupt.

Allison Halataei, former deputy chief of staff and parliamentarian to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and Lauren Pastarnack, a Republican who has served as a senior aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, worked on online piracy bills that would push Internet companies like Google, Yahoo and Facebook to shut down websites that offer illegal copies of blockbuster films and chart-topping songs.

Pastarnack went to the MPAA where she'll be "director of government relations" and Halataei to the NMPA (music publishers and songwriters) where she'll be "chief liaison to Capitol Hill." The Politico article linked above notes that this kind of "revolving door" is all too common. It may not be directly corrupt, but to the public it sure feels corrupt. It certainly gives off the appearance of "hey, write us the insane bill that we want, and then we'll reward you with a super cushy high paying job." At the very least, it should raise significant questions about whether or not these two bills were written with the public's interest in mind (I know, I know, don't laugh....) or their future employers'. Technically, neither of them can directly lobby the specific committees where they worked, but they can certainly assist in the process.

“They can provide invaluable insight to people on the outside — even in the consultation mode,” one tech industry lobbyist said, noting that Halataei had been Smith’s secondhand person and knows how the Texas Republican thinks and what would be an effective lobbying strategy.

Additionally, the Senate and House panels work closely together, and both Halataei and Pastarnack have ties to staffers in the chambers they didn’t serve in and aren’t banned from lobbying.

Also, as the Politico article notes, a year from now, you can bet there will still be fights about either this or similar legislation. American politics is a disaster.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Want To See Peak Copyright? Here's What To Do

Glyn Moody — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 05:35:53 PST

It's a curious fact that the term of copyright only ever gets longer. Since copyright is a government-backed monopoly, and monopolies are generally regarded as bad things, you might have expected some countervailing pressure against this continual extension, and that at some point Peak Copyright would have been reached. You might, if you were extremely optimistic, even expect copyright term to be reduced occasionally.

Of course, it doesn't work like that. Copyright term is like a ratchet, that only admits movement in one direction: upwards. We have become so inured to this that we rarely stop to ask why. But you only have to look at the way major treaties like ACTA are negotiated in secret to note that while industry groups are given privileged access to the negotiators, the public is not even allowed to see the draft versions of the treaty. There is simply no voice behind the closed doors which might object to the unremitting erosion of the public domain, or protest against the constant sharpening of copyright enforcement's instruments.

Here's an example of a similar state of affairs in the UK, where the detailed implementation of the Digital Economy Act – itself legislation that paid no heed to the concerns or cares of the public – is being debated. Using Freedom of Information requests, the UK's Open Rights Group (ORG) found out some details of "private" meetings that the Minister responsible, Ed Vaizey, held on the topic of the Act's new "streamlined" website blocking scheme.

As the list of participants shows, the main groups present were the copyright lobbying organizations - BPI, Publishers Association, MPAA, UK Music, UK Interactive Entertainment – some big Internet names (Google, Yahoo), several UK ISPs and a few government advisers. Judging by the minutes of that meeting, also obtained under an FOI request, Google actually expressed support for "an accelerated Court process to generate blocking orders" – thanks, a bunch, Google – while Yahoo worried about "the broader implications of site blocking on an international scale". The ISPs, as might be expected, focused on how they might be affected.

There was just one group that might vaguely be construed as representing the people – Consumer Focus. This organization describes itself as a "statutory consumer champion", "persuading businesses, public services and policy makers to put consumers at the heart of what they do." According to the minutes, Consumer Focus (CF):

emphasised that action against infringement needs to be effective and proportionate, pointing to the risk of over-blocking. The rights holder proposal paper goes further than the scope of Newzbin2. CF queried the feasibility of expediting the Court process. CF reiterated the importance of developing the legitimate market, as a preferable alternative to enforcement measures which may impact on consumers.

That's all good stuff, but it was clearly a voice crying in the wilderness since the copyright industries' groups had got together to prepare a joint seven-page "Proposal for Code of Practice Addressing Websites That Are Substantially Focused On Infringement", which they used to frame the discussions with Vaizey.

The meeting was clearly stacked in favor of the copyright industries against the public interest, with only a token voice speaking up for the consumer. Conspicuous by their absence were several other important stakeholders whose views should have been heard. For example, the UK human rights group Liberty would surely have had something to say about the proposed online censorship, as would ORG itself, which has fought on behalf of the general public in the area of digital rights for years.

In fact, when people found out about these "private" meetings that had excluded so many other organizations, ORG and some others were finally invited to another meeting with Vaizey, for an interesting reason:

The meeting was organized by Dominque Lazinksi of the Tax Payers Alliance after a Twitter storm following ORG and other group’s exclusion from the website blocking meetings.

The moral seems clear: if you want to break up the cozy club of industry insiders plotting even longer, harsher intellectual monopolies, you have to kick up a hell of a fuss.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Senate Lets Copyright Lobby Set Up Shop In Senate Building During PROTECT IP Debate

Mike Masnick — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:23:30 PDT

This is pretty ridiculous. Just as the Senate is debating the PROTECT IP bill, the Copyright Alliance, a lobbying group created and funded by a bunch of the big legacy copyright maximalist companies, apparently got to set up an "educational display" in the Senate Russell Building Rotunda. The Copyright Alliance has no shame about how it's using this "educational display" to influence the vote:

The exhibit is an opportunity to showcase for lawmakers and visitors to the U.S. Capitol Complex the importance of copyright to creators across America, by focusing on people behind the lens, sharing stories about the images, and helping viewers understand the investment and commitment made by photographers capturing our nation’s many stories.

I'm curious if the Senate allows such other totally biased parties to set up exhibits like that during debate on other bills. How about pharmaceutical lobbyists setting up an "educational" nursing station in the Senate, just to show the "importance" of protecting pharma. And I'm sure the banks would love to set up an "educational" bank vault in the rotunda during Wall Street reform hearings. How could anyone in the Senate see such a biased effort as being okay?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

If ACTA Is Approved In The US, It May Open The Door For The President To Regularly Ignore Congress On International Agreements

Mike Masnick — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 03:34:57 PDT

On of the sneakier parts of ACTA is that the White House has insisted from the beginning that the document is not a binding treaty. Instead, it insists that ACTA is merely an "executive agreement." Of course, the only real difference is that an executive agreement doesn't require the Senate to ratify it. Basically, the US is calling it an executive agreement so that the administration can sign on without any oversight or scrutiny on the treaty. The Europeans, in the meantime, never got the "ix-nay on the inding-bay eaty-tray" notice from the US folks, and have been happily declaring ACTA a binding treaty as it clearly is.

However, many legal experts have noted that this raises serious constitutional questions, as the Constitution simply does not allow this kind of agreement to be signed without Senate approval. Amusingly, Senator Biden -- back during the previous administration -- was one of the leading voices in trying to prevent President Bush from signing an "executive agreement" with Russia, without getting Senate approval. One wonders if he's magically changed his mind.

However, more and more people are getting concerned about this breach of the Constitution. James Love points us to a new paper at the American Society for International Law by Oona A. Hathaway and Amy Kapczynski, which worries about the precedent this will set if Obama signs it as an executive agreement and bypasses the Senate entirely.

No comparable agreement has been concluded in this way. Thus if concluded as a sole executive agreement, it would represent a significant expansion of the scope of such agreements. As a result, it could pave the way for more extensive use of sole executive agreements in the future. That, in turn, could have implications for the nature of democratic control over international legal agreements concluded by the United States, as well as the legitimacy of these agreements both at home and abroad.

Furthermore, the report notes that it does not seem Constitutional for the President to sign such a document as an executive agreement. The only things that can be signed as an executive agreement are things that are solely under the President's mandate. But intellectual property laws are clearly afforded to Congress and not the President under the Constitution -- meaning that he has no authority to sign this document without it first being approved by the Senate. The report notes that President Bush also tried to expand executive agreements, and ACTA would be a massive expansion in what could be covered under such agreements, taking away tremendous authority and oversight from Congress.

Setting a precedent for more expansive use of sole executive agreements has consequences not only for intellectual property law, but for any area in which an international agreement may be concluded—which is to say, nearly any area of law. International law now reaches into almost every aspect of our day-to-day lives. The possibility that such legal commitments could be made by the President without the input, much less approval, of Congress or the public raises serious questions about the potential of these agreements to undermine democratic lawmaking writ large

This is pretty troubling for a variety of different reasons, and it seems like Congress itself should be pretty concerned about this attempt to take away its oversight on international agreements.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story