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

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:12:22 PST</pubDate>
<title>One Year Later, SOPA/PIPA Supporters Still Completely Ignore The Public</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08174321725/one-year-later-sopapipa-supporters-still-completely-ignore-public.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08174321725/one-year-later-sopapipa-supporters-still-completely-ignore-public.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ On this <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130117/15210821719/infographic-celebrating-internet-freedom-day-anniversary-sopapipa-protests.shtml">Internet Freedom Day</a>, Declan McCullagh has a great post in which he reached out to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57564637-38/after-a-year-in-the-grave-can-sopa-and-protect-ip-return/" target="_blank">the key politicians and lobbyists who supported SOPA and PIPA last year</a> to see what they had to say one year later.  The quotes are really incredible in their tone deafness to what happened.  All of them -- smartly -- are about looking forward, rather than looking back, but <b>none</b> of them mention the public or doing what's best for the public.  A bunch of them set up the false dichotomy of "Hollywood" vs. "Silicon Valley" as if this was all a giant commercial dispute.  The others all speak of it in commercial terms.  Incredibly, despite millions of <i>individuals</i> speaking up for our rights, not a single person interviewed by McCullagh seems to even think it's worth mentioning.
<br /><br />
Let's take a look at some of the statements.
<blockquote><i>
The problem of Internet piracy and the sale of counterfeit products online has not gone away. Senator Leahy continues to monitor law enforcement actions, significant developments in the courts and voluntary industry practices, and all those pieces will help determine what next steps are appropriate.<br />
&#8212; spokeswoman for Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee and author of the Protect IP Act
</i></blockquote>
Well, first problem: the continued conflation of internet copyright infringement with the sale of counterfeit products.  These are two very, very different issues with very different causes that require very different approaches to dealing with them.  Yet, Leahy and others have used this conflation to dangerous ends with bills like PIPA.  What they do is take the widespread nature of copyright infringement and mix it with the very very very small, but still real, possibility of serious harm from some very specific cases of product counterfeiting (i.e., drugs and military equipment) -- and then try to create broad "solutions" that have <i>massive</i> unintended consequences impacting individual freedoms like freedom of speech.  If both of those things are "problems" then lets have real discussions about them individually.  The second you mix them together, you know that something bad will come out of it.
<blockquote><i>
We can all agree about the importance of protecting American innovation from foreign thieves, but I think it is critical that all parties have a seat at the table and work together to solve important policy issues. As chairman of the Judiciary committee, I look forward to working with both the technology and content communities to find ways to protect America's competitive advantage while promoting internet freedom and growth.<br />
&#8212; Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia), chairman of the House Judiciary committee and original sponsor of SOPA
</i></blockquote>
First of all, you don't "steal" innovation.  Innovation is a process.  But, even beyond that, when he talks about "all parties" having "a seat at the table" and working together, notice that he doesn't mention the public at all. It's just "technology and content communities."  That was a big part of the problem in the first place and it's disappointing that Goodlatte is still pushing this silly line.  This was never "tech vs. content."  This was about the public and forward-looking organizations who want to keep the internet free and open -- and legacy players (in <em>both</em> the content and tech industries, by the way) who were looking to lock down and control new systems in a weak attempt to protect increasingly obsolete business models.  Bringing "tech" and "content" to the table and thinking those are the two sides in this fight isn't just mistaken, it gets the whole basis of this dispute wrong and will inevitably lead to more problems.  Out of that comes bogus "solutions" like the six strikes agreements, which again completely left the public out in the cold.
<br /><br />
Goodlatte is now the head of the House Judiciary Committee.  He's always presented himself as a friend to Silicon Valley (and reminds us over and over and over again that his son works at Facebook).  If he wants to do a better job than his predecessor, he needs to get past the artificial divides like "tech" vs. "content" and start looking at the real issues: the public and innovators vs. legacy players.  Those cut across both lines.  There are legacy tech players looking to hold back innovation, just as there are innovative, public-embracing content players.
<blockquote><i>
Hollywood and Silicon Valley have more in common than most people realize. We share a commitment to innovation, to our consumers, and are working together to develop new platforms to make that content easily and legally accessible. Like the tech industry, the well-being of the film community is dependent on a vibrant First Amendment and we would never support any legislation that limits this fundamental right. We can all agree no one wins if everyone loses. Preserving freedom of speech and protecting intellectual property rights are not mutually exclusive efforts. Intellectual property protection is essential to creators and makers in both industries and we need to discuss it rationally. Let's use this anniversary to forge a path toward the future where the creative content and technology industries work together to develop meaningful solutions that ensure an Internet that works for everyone.<br />
&#8212; Michael O'Leary, senior executive vice president for global policy and external affairs at the Motion Picture Association of America
</i></blockquote>
We agree on the first half, but as is so often the case, O'Leary states the first half to basically try to avoid the obvious criticism of the second half.  He states that the MPAA would never support legislation that limits the First Amendment, but he's done exactly that.  Preserving freedom of speech and protecting "intellectual property" may not be mutually exclusive, but they absolutely <i>can</i> conflict, and frequently <i>do</i> conflict.  The MPAA has refused to even acknowledge this possibility.
<br /><br />
From there, the statement gets more and more problematic.  We've seen over and over again that, while many creators and tech companies do use copyright, patents and trademarks, they are hardly "essential".  Again, by simplifying this to "tech" vs. "content" it's easy for O'Leary to point to legacy tech companies who lean hard on copyright or patents, and then suggest that both "sides" want greater protectionism.  But that's misleading. As discussed above, much of this is really about legacy players trying to block innovators who are looking to benefit the public.  You can easily line up a bunch of legacy players on both the tech and content sides who will agree until the end of time about the values of protectionism -- just as you could line up true innovators in both areas who say that patents, copyright and trademark are of little value and are mostly a distraction.
<blockquote><i>
It's a new day for a new music business and for the RIAA. For the better part of the last year, we have focused on being an evangelist for the dynamic, exciting legal online marketplace that now exists for fans. That will continue to be our priority in 2013. We earn more than half of our revenues from digital services and platforms. Not many creative industries can say that. Music helps drive social media trends and device sales. In fact, in 2012, the two top Google searches were music-related. Currently, 19 of the top 20 YouTube videos are music videos. And according to Twitter, seven of the top 10 Twitter accounts are held by artists.
<br /><br />
What does this all tell us? Music is at the center of cultural and commercial phenomena. We are not stuck in the past but looking ahead at a promising, bright future teeming with new music options. Which is why we created, along with our online retailer partner NARM, WhyMusicMatters.com, a one-stop educational guide for digital music so fans can know where to get their favorite music in a variety of different ways. And we expect that this bright future will offer access to music in ways currently unimaginable but will perhaps seem commonplace a year from now.
<br /><br />
Yes, piracy still continues to plague us and is a continuing threat to our business. But instead of looking to Congress for help, we are tuned in to the marketplace and actively seeking out voluntary partnerships with intermediaries like ISPs and advertisers to help curtail illegal downloading. Moving forward, we want to simplify music licensing to make it easier to develop music business models. We know that music models continue to evolve - access and listening models are becoming more prevalent and it's imperative we derive a fair market return for the music that is the foundation of those businesses. And as always, we'll continue to find new ways to promote the dynamic music marketplace.<br />
&#8212; Mitch Glazier, senior executive vice president at the Recording Industry Association of America.
</i></blockquote>
In typical Glazier fashion, those first two paragraphs are simply misdirection.  Yes, of course music is important and a part of the cultural fabric.  Duh.  But notice that he's not actually concerned about ways to increase that through the better spreading of music, the ability to share and experience culture.  No, he's solely focused on one thing: getting paid directly for each use of the song.  And that's because the companies he represents -- the music labels -- were mostly built on that as a sole revenue stream.  He's not talking about neat things like Kickstarter or Bandcamp that have allowed artists to "go direct" to fans, because that kind of stuff gets in the way.
<br /><br />
It's good to see him committed to fixing licensing, because it's a massive problem, but I'll note that the RIAA was heavily involved in trying to block a bill last year that would have made music licensing more reasonable and affordable so that there would be new ways to distribute music legally.
<br /><br />
Finally, the whole "voluntary" agreements thing is a bit of a red herring as well, as it seems as though the MPAA and RIAA are really focused on using these "voluntary" agreements to more or less get what they wanted in SOPA in the first place -- and that often means less due process and fewer fundamental rights and abilities for the public.
<blockquote><i>
Protection of intellectual property and Internet freedom are critically important. The Chamber will work with members on both sides of the aisle to find an effective and commercially reasonable solution to address this ongoing problem.<br />
&#8212; U.S. Chamber of Commerce spokeswoman
</i></blockquote>
Not much to say on that, other than the US Chamber of Commerce was the leading lobbyist pushing for SOPA/PIPA last year.  Their interpretation of "commercially reasonable solution" is highly suspect.  Oh yeah, as is their interpretation of the "ongoing problem."  The last time <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111130/02093116930/step-step-debunking-us-chamber-commerces-dishonest-stats-about-rogue-sites.shtml">we looked</a>, the US Chamber of Commerce was using flat-out bogus numbers and claims to support their description of "the problem."  If you define "the problem" incorrectly, the "solution" is probably going to be an even bigger problem.
<blockquote><i>
If you had asked me how I felt on January 18, 2012, about the prospects for protecting the creative work of artists and innovative businesses in the wake of the internet revolt against the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act, my response might have involved some muttering under my breath and a request for a stiff drink. In the coming week, many who seek to exploit the work of creators without their consent will be looking backwards and celebrating last year's defeat of those bills. So one might expect advocates for artists and creators to be in a dour mood again, but there is ample cause for optimism among members of the creative community...<br /><br />
At least some of the goals of the legislation have been achieved through increased private and government action since the introduction of the first version of the bills in 2010:
<ul>
<li> More credit card companies are engaging in best practices. In June 2011, major credit card companies and online payment processors (American Express, Discover, MasterCard, PayPal and Visa) reached an agreement on voluntary best practices to reduce sales of counterfeit and pirated goods by cutting off sites that distribute infringing goods from conducting financial transactions through these processors.
</li><li> More advertisers are engaging in best practices. On May 3, 2012, the Association of National Advertisers and the American Association of Advertising Agencies issued a statement of best practices to address online piracy and counterfeiting.
</li><li> Internet service providers, movie studios and record labels are collaborating on a Copyright Alert System. Under this system ISPs have agreed to notify users when their accounts appear to be used for illegal downloading activity and to impose real consequences on users who refuse to stop after receiving multiple notices.
</li><li> Google finally started considering whether sites are rogue websites when doing search rankings. In August 2012, Google announced a change in its search algorithm that takes into account the number of "valid copyright removal notices" when determining the ranking of search results. In its announcement, Google indicated the goal was to help its users find legitimate sources of content more easily...
</li></ul>
As more artists and creators stand with their peers and highlight what is really happening on the Internet, more people will listen and think twice. If there is a silver lining to the blackout, it has been the people who we have met this year: artists, reformed 'pirates' academics and lawmakers who want to begin meaningful conversations about promoting creativity and ensuring it finds a place in all of our lives.
<br />&#8212; Sandra Aistars, executive director of the Copyright Alliance
</i></blockquote>
This picks up on Mitch Glazier and Senator Leahy's comments on "voluntary" solutions and shows something important.  Note that all of those bullet points in the "voluntary" category are the kinds of things that SOPA/PIPA sought to make mandatory. As incredibly vital as the fight against SOPA/PIPA was last year, it's also important to see that the industry (sometimes with government help) has continued to browbeat companies into more or less implementing the rules <i>anyway</i>.  When those "voluntary" rules conflict with individual freedoms -- as is the case with certain gatekeepers (e.g., limited number of payment processors) -- we should be worried.
<br /><br />
All in all, these comments show a consistent pattern.  SOPA and PIPA might not come back as new legislation... but the issues are still very  much with us.  Those in power still don't understand the core issues, believing it's a commercial dispute between two mis-defined industries, while the focus on "voluntary" solutions seems to be attacking individual rights without people noticing.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08174321725/one-year-later-sopapipa-supporters-still-completely-ignore-public.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08174321725/one-year-later-sopapipa-supporters-still-completely-ignore-public.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130118/08174321725/one-year-later-sopapipa-supporters-still-completely-ignore-public.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>incredible</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130118/08174321725</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 09:11:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Did Hollywood Not Use Available DMCA Tools Just To Pretend It Needed SOPA?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/04473019075/did-hollywood-not-use-available-dmca-tools-just-to-pretend-it-needed-sopa.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/04473019075/did-hollywood-not-use-available-dmca-tools-just-to-pretend-it-needed-sopa.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The more you dig into Google's new <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120523/17520119054/google-lifts-veil-copyright-takedowns-reveals-detailed-data-who-requests-link-removals.shtml">copyright transparency reports</a> the more eye-catching info you find.  Julian Sanchez, for example, has <a href="https://twitter.com/normative/statuses/205793937749839872" target="_blank">noticed</a> the rather interesting timing of massive explosions in Hollywood studios using Google's DMCA takedown system for search... in correlation with key elements of the fight to get SOPA passed.  For example, there's a really <i>big</i> spike in DMCA takedowns for search the week of November 14th.  
<br /><br />
Hmmm... what happened that week?  Oh, that's right: the House Judiciary Committee hearings about SOPA, where part of the "evidence" for why SOPA was needed was the MPAA's anti-piracy boss Michael O'Leary insisting that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/13243616795/thoughts-house-judiciary-committees-hearings-sopa.shtml">doing Google searches on certain movies</a> led you to links to pages where you could download unauthorized copies.  He was wrong, actually -- as our own tests showed, they took you to legal versions.  But isn't it interesting to see that, for example, the very first search takedown that Lionsgate sent to Google <a href="http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/requests/98335/" target="_blank">happened <i>on November 15th</i></a>?  Similarly, it's interesting to see that right after the SOPA blackouts made it clear that SOPA was going to die... there's another new "burst" of takedown filings.    Twentieth Century Fox appears not to have used the system at all <a href="http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/owners/4443/" target="_blank">until January 30th of this year</a> -- or a week or so after SOPA was officially declared dead.  How <a href="http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/owners/5122/" target="_blank">about Paramount Pictures</a>, one of the more vocal supporters of SOPA? It filed just one search takedown prior to the whole SOPA debate.  But about a month after SOPA was declared dead, suddenly Paramount started using the tool.  NBC Universal certainly had been a regular user of the system all along -- but right after SOPA died, its usage clearly trended upwards -- whereas prior to that, its usage looked pretty flat.
<br /><br />
In other words, you could certainly make a reasonable case that the studios went to Congress to complain about how they couldn't get rid of search results they don't like from Google... when they <i>hadn't even tried to use the tools available</i> which appear to do the job they wanted.
<br /><br />
 There certainly may be other factors, but it's possible that the studios had been holding back on using the tools as a way of providing extra "evidence" of a problem that had to be addressed by law.  Again, as <a href="https://twitter.com/normative/statuses/205794257926238209" target="_blank">Sanchez points out</a>:
<blockquote><i>
How about before you break the Internet, you try USING THE F***ING TOOLS YOU ALREADY HAVE?
</i></blockquote>
A reasonable question, but don't expect a reasonable answer.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/04473019075/did-hollywood-not-use-available-dmca-tools-just-to-pretend-it-needed-sopa.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/04473019075/did-hollywood-not-use-available-dmca-tools-just-to-pretend-it-needed-sopa.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120525/04473019075/did-hollywood-not-use-available-dmca-tools-just-to-pretend-it-needed-sopa.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>transparency's-a-bitch</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120525/04473019075</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 07:16:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Why Hollywood Is Doomed: It Takes Sensible Advice Like 'Make Good Movies' And Turns It Into A Screed About Piracy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120521/01542518984/why-hollywood-is-doomed-it-takes-sensible-advice-like-make-good-movies-turns-it-into-screed-about-piracy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120521/01542518984/why-hollywood-is-doomed-it-takes-sensible-advice-like-make-good-movies-turns-it-into-screed-about-piracy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last week, Rob 'Cmdrtaco' Malda (and, can I just say that I think it's awesome the Washington Post allows Rob to keep "Cmdrtaco" in his byline?) wrote a perfectly reasonable (perhaps even tame) column with the admittedly inflammatory title <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-innovations/why-hollywood-is-doomed/2012/05/15/gIQAAL3YRU_print.html" target="_blank"><i>Why Hollywood is doomed</i></a>.  But if you read the actual article, it basically argues that the answer to Hollywood's problems is not to focus on passing bad laws in a quixotic and pointless attempt to "stop" piracy, but rather do what they should be best at: making good movies.  He also suggests a much bigger threat to Hollywood than any amount of piracy is (*gasp!*) bad word of mouth:
<blockquote><i>
While Hollywood blames piracy, at least for now, I put the blame squarely on texts and tweets. These days, a month-long $100 million marketing campaign culminates in a 24-hour social network frenzy. The first $10 million-worth of ticket purchasers influence the potential $90 million-worth with knee-jerk reviews broadcast via their smartphones. These viewers determine if the movie will make a profit.
<br /><br />
Ultimately, Hollywood, here&#8217;s the secret: <b>Make good movies</b>. &#8220;The Avengers&#8221; is simply fantastic. It&#8217;s no surprise, since the film&#8217;s director, Joss Whedon (of Buffy and Firefly-fame), is known for making cult, ensemble TV action. His most recent film, prior to &#8220;The Avengers&#8221;, is &#8220;The Cabin in the Woods&#8221; -- still the most fun movie of 2012.
</i></blockquote>
This is perfectly reasonable advice.  If Hollywood actually focuses on making top notch movies, it seems pretty clear that people have no problem paying.  The success of the Avengers is hardly the only data point to show this. 
<br /><br />
So how do the folks at the MPAA react to such reasonable advice?  They start whining all over again.  In fact, they sent out their "big guns," starting with Michael O'Leary (basically Chris Dodd's righthand man) to attack Malda by <a href="http://blog.mpaa.org/BlogOS/post/2012/05/17/Protecting-American-Industry-by-Protecting-American-Consumers-.aspx" target="_blank">totally misreading his column</a>:
<blockquote><i>
The Washington Post&#8217;s Rob Malda&#8217;s recent blog post appears to argue that the success of a particular film at the box office somehow means that concerns about widespread piracy are misplaced.  This is a bit like condoning shoplifting if it&#8217;s done at a successful store.  Of course, we shouldn&#8217;t.  And it overlooks the economic damage &#8211; and the damage to consumers -- of turning a blind eye to such forms of theft. 
</i></blockquote>
Except that's not what Malda said at all.  He said the concerns were misplaced because good movies can still get tons of people to pay -- far more than <i>ever</i> did in the past.  This isn't saying that shoplifting is okay from a successful store.  It's saying that there's <b>little to no evidence</b> that such infringement actually has a negative impact, because it seems pretty damn clear that people are still quite willing to pay to go see a <b>good</b> movie.
<br /><br />
From there, O'Leary goes on to misrepresent the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120412/01530018462/ridiculous-white-house-report-pretends-getting-copyrights-patents-trademarks-means-you-benefit-them.shtml">already ridiculous</a> White House report that tallies up jobs in "IP-intensive" industries, but ignores the fact that very few of those jobs exist because of <i>IP laws</i>.  In fact, an awful lot of those jobs come from industries (tech) that have fought the hardest <i>against</i> the expansion of IP laws, and have worked hard to reform them.  On top of that, the report clearly states that it's not intended to be used for policy purposes, but that hasn't stopped the MPAA and all its friends from mentioning it every chance they get:
<blockquote><i>
According to a recent Department of Commerce report, IP-intensive industries such as film and television support 40 million jobs and add $5 trillion dollars to U.S. gross domestic product annually &#8211; nearly 35 percent of America&#8217;s economic output.  2.2 million American jobs depend on the film industry and television industry alone. 
<br /><br />
We think that the hard work of those people should be protected.  But the reality is that rampant online theft undermines the ability of IP-intensive industries like ours to invest in new ideas and new products if it&#8217;s simply accepted fact that they will be stolen &#8211; often before they even have a chance to hit the marketplace.  Copyright protections are critical to keeping the creative industries vibrant so they can continue to employ millions of Americans and produce the films and other creative content that have become such a vital part of our cultural fabric.
</i></blockquote>
O'Leary conveniently leaves out that this same report noted that these "IP-intensive industries" are currently growing faster than other industries and pay people more than other industries.  I guess that doesn't fit with "the story" that the sky is falling and they need special protections.
<br /><br />
As for those protections, last I checked, we were <i>supposed</i> to live in a capitalist free market economy, where even the most basic economics student learns that you don't "protect" industries, you let them compete.  And if they fail, they fail.  The fact that O'Leary wants the government to be protectionist for his industry, rather than letting it compete in a free market pretty much makes clear what he thinks his own industry's chances of survival are.
<br /><br />
And he's mostly right... because it goes right back to what Rob said.  For the most part, they don't seem to make that many good movies these days.  They've focused on crappy, formulaic, derivative flicks.  Every so often a good film gets out, but Hollywood has become afraid to make good movies most of the time.  Perhaps if it spent more time focusing on that, and less on whining about how it needs to be protected, it wouldn't have so many problems.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120521/01542518984/why-hollywood-is-doomed-it-takes-sensible-advice-like-make-good-movies-turns-it-into-screed-about-piracy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120521/01542518984/why-hollywood-is-doomed-it-takes-sensible-advice-like-make-good-movies-turns-it-into-screed-about-piracy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120521/01542518984/why-hollywood-is-doomed-it-takes-sensible-advice-like-make-good-movies-turns-it-into-screed-about-piracy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120521/01542518984</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:50:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>MPAA Exec Admits: 'We're Not Comfortable With The Internet'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120127/10005717568/mpaa-exec-admits-were-not-comfortable-with-internet.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120127/10005717568/mpaa-exec-admits-were-not-comfortable-with-internet.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There have been a ton of post mortems about the whole SOPA/PIPA fight, with many trying to figure out where and how the MPAA "went wrong."  After all, this is a group that is very used to getting its way inside DC.  And it got slaughtered.  We've already discussed our thoughts on <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120119/21092917484/why-chris-dodd-failed-with-his-sopapipa-strategy.shtml">why the MPAA failed</a>, but what stuns me is how every time someone from the MPAA opens their mouth, they seem to make the situation worse by demonstrating just how tone deaf they are to the online community and what their concerns were.  Whether it's just <a hrf="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120124/10084517526/movie-theaters-top-lobbyist-resorts-to-making-up-facts-concerning-sopapipa.shtml">blaming Google</a> or thinking that the solution is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120123/04014617509/major-media-owning-sopapipa-supporters-whine-that-they-had-no-way-to-have-their-message-heard.shtml">more backroom dealing</a>, each response just sounds like a group of people who are playing a different game, and still don't realize the rules have changed.
<br /><br />
The Hollywood Reporter's <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sopa-jeffrey-katzenberg-chris-dodd-piracy-battle-284869" target="_blank">version of the postmortem</a> is a good read, even though it covers much the same ground as many other such recaps.  Still, it's worth reading to get a good feel for Hollywood's view of the world.  But the really stunning part is the quote from Michael O'Leary, the MPAA's number two guy, who makes what may be the most tone-deaf statement we've seen to date in this fight:
<blockquote><i>
The MPAA's O'Leary concedes that the industry was out-manned and outgunned in cyberspace. He says the MPAA "is [undergoing] a process of education, a process of getting a much, much greater presence in the online environment. This was a fight on a platform we're not at this point comfortable with, and we were going up against an opponent that controls that platform."
</i></blockquote>
Yes, even when he tries to say that they're trying to learn about that confounded internet thingy, he sounds ridiculous and dismissive.  But the real point is his inadvertent admission within that statement: the MPAA (and the rest of "old" Hollywood) simply "is not comfortable with" the internet.  And that's really what SOPA and PIPA were about.  Rather than trying to understand this new platform, and learn from the <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">many entertainers</a> who do get the internet, they did what the MPAA does and simply tried to regulate that which they don't understand and fear.
<br /><br />
Furthermore, even more ridiculous is the end of that sentence: "an opponent that controls that platform."  As the article makes clear, he means Google.  Which shows that he still doesn't get it.  First, Google didn't lead the protests.  It came late to the game, after the grassroots had already taken off with this stuff and run with it.  But, more to the point, contrary to what O'Leary and the MPAA seem to believe: <i>Google does not control the internet</i>.  No one does.
<br /><br />
This, of course, explains why the MPAA wants to "negotiate" with Google these days.  But that's not going to work.  The folks on the internet don't want a backroom deal, whether it's negotiated by Google or someone else.  Either way, this suggests that the MPAA is desperately in need of new leadership.  They need leaders who don't try to regulate that which they admit they don't understand.  They need leaders who aren't so clueless as to think that Google controls the internet (or that Google is somehow "the enemy").  And, really, most important, they need leaders who recognize and understand that the internet is their future too -- and any leadership needs to not fear the internet, but understand it and learn to embrace it.  Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that the MPAA is going to find such leadership any time soon.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120127/10005717568/mpaa-exec-admits-were-not-comfortable-with-internet.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120127/10005717568/mpaa-exec-admits-were-not-comfortable-with-internet.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120127/10005717568/mpaa-exec-admits-were-not-comfortable-with-internet.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-it-shows</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120127/10005717568</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:36:52 PST</pubDate>
<title>MPAA Pretends To Capitulate On SOPA, Will Offer Changes For 'Legitimate Concerns'</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111130/17193116936/mpaa-pretends-to-capitulate-sopa-will-offer-changes-legitimate-concerns.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111130/17193116936/mpaa-pretends-to-capitulate-sopa-will-offer-changes-legitimate-concerns.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This is barely even worth mentioning, but it's making some news, so we'll point it out.  The MPAA's point man on SOPA/PIPA, Michael O'Leary, told the press today that <a href="http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/expect-some-toning-down-of-antipiracy-bills-says-movie-industry-supporter/?partner=rss&#038;emc=rss" target="_blank">they're willing to "tone down" the legislation</a> in response to the "legitimate concerns" raised:
<blockquote><i>
&ldquo;We will come forward with language that will address some of the legitimate concerns&rdquo; of technology companies that have opposed the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, and a similar Protect I.P. Act in the Senate, Mr. O&rsquo;Leary said.
</i></blockquote>
First of all, this is nothing new.  Rep. Lamar Smith, the official sponsor of the bill had already been on record using that exact same phrase: "legitimate concerns."  The thing is, what they consider to be "legitimate concerns" are basically none of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111122/04254316872/definitive-post-why-sopa-protect-ip-are-bad-bad-ideas.shtml">the concerns</a> that many people have raised.
<br /><br />
The more telling point in all of this is the outright admission that the MPAA is the one writing the bill.  We've seen some reports making the rounds where defenders of the bill keep insisting "this bill isn't being written by Hollywood," but in the quote above, you can see that O'Leary is confirming that the MPAA is providing the language.  The NYTimes report makes this point even clearer:
<blockquote><i>
He said those who were pushing the far-reaching antipiracy legislation have been huddling with Congressional staff members from both parties and both the House and Senate in the last few days, in an effort to answer some objections raised by Google, Yahoo and others who say the bills reach too far.
</i></blockquote>
Notice who's not included in those discussions?  That's right.  Everyone who raised objections.  How the hell do you address concerns if you don't actually include the people who are concerned?  The answer is you don't, and the whole thing is a sham. O'Leary also points out that most of the tech folks still won't be satisfied, which basically is an admission that he doesn't actually care about the concerns.  From there he starts making stuff up:
<blockquote><i>
&ldquo;It&rsquo;s all rhetoric and there are no proposals,&rdquo; he said of the position staked out by the opponents to the bills. &ldquo;From where I sit, it&rsquo;s hard to see that as anything but a pretext for running out the clock and preserving the status quo.&rdquo;
</i></blockquote>
The thing is, O'Leary <i>knows</i> that's untrue.  He knows damn well that plenty of folks have presented or are working on alternative proposals.  It's just that when they're not allowed in the discussion at all, it's kinda difficult to have those proposals heard.  Meanwhile, as we noted earlier, Senator Wyden <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111130/05175116932/keith-olbermann-no-longer-afraid-corporate-parent-interference-willing-to-talk-air-about-pipasopa.shtml">has already said</a> he's working on an alternative bill.  Pretending otherwise is simply false.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111130/17193116936/mpaa-pretends-to-capitulate-sopa-will-offer-changes-legitimate-concerns.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111130/17193116936/mpaa-pretends-to-capitulate-sopa-will-offer-changes-legitimate-concerns.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111130/17193116936/mpaa-pretends-to-capitulate-sopa-will-offer-changes-legitimate-concerns.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>yeah,-ok</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111130/17193116936</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:55:52 PST</pubDate>
<title>A Look At The Testimony Given At Today's SOPA Lovefest Congressional Hearings... With A Surprise From MasterCard</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/00035716786/look-testimony-given-todays-sopa-lovefest-congressional-hearings-with-surprise-mastercard.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/00035716786/look-testimony-given-todays-sopa-lovefest-congressional-hearings-with-surprise-mastercard.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We already know that today's SOPA hearings for the House Judiciary Committee are <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111114/23145216770/house-judiciary-committee-sopa-hearings-stacked-5-to-1-favor-censoring-internet.shtml">totally stacked</a> in favor of the bill.  But with the hearings getting underway, we wanted to dive in and look at what's about to be said.  Most of the testimony leaked out yesterday, allowing us to spend some time going through it -- it's all embedded below.  However, here's a taste of what's going to be said... with some additional commentary (of course).
<br /><br />
First up, the most troubling of all: Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights (aka, Head of the US Copyright Office).  She <i>should</i> be here to defend <i>the public</i> and to make sure that massive regulatory capture by a couple of stagnant industries doesn't happen.  But, that's not how the Copyright Office rolls.  Instead, her testimony is basically the US Chamber of Commerce's key talking points (perhaps not a surprise, since the main lobbyist at the US Chamber who's in charge of shepherding this bill into law only recently <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100707/16572710115.shtml">worked at the US Copyright Office</a>).  If you had hoped for some reasoned argument about pushing back on the massive excesses of SOPA and the broad definitions, you're not going to get it from Pallante.
<blockquote><i>
It is my view that if Congress does not continue to provide serious responses to online piracy, the U.S. copyright system will ultimately fail. The premise of copyright law is that the author of a creative work owns and can license to others certain exclusive rights &ndash; a premise that has served the nation well since 1790. Congress has repeatedly acted to improve enforcement provisions in copyright law over the years, including in the online environment. SOPA is the next step in ensuring that our law keeps pace with infringers....
<br /><br />
[....]
<br /><br />
The response provided by SOPA is serious and comprehensive. It requires all key members of the online ecosystem, including service providers, search engines, payment processors, and advertising networks, to play a role in protecting copyright interests &ndash; an approach I endorse. Combating online infringement requires focus and commitment. It should be obvious that we cannot have intermediaries working at cross-purposes.
</i></blockquote>
In other words, the successful tech industry should be hindered and shackled because my friends in Hollywood are too clueless to adjust their business models.  Really?
<blockquote><i>
SOPA is also measured. It appropriately provides much broader tools and flexibility to the Attorney General than it provides to copyright owners. This is a sound policy choice at this time. The Department of Justice has experience fighting online infringers, will use resources carefully, must exercise prosecutorial discretion in bringing actions, and must plead its case to the court and obtain a court-issued order before proceeding. Put another way, while the copyright industries are extremely important (and certainly a point of pride with respect to the U.S. economy), SOPA recognizes that many sectors rely on, invest in, and contribute to the success of the Internet.
</i></blockquote>
Almost none of that is accurate.  It is not measured.  It is vague, broad and dangerous.  The Justice Department's "experience" going after infringers has been to take down websites with no notice based on false info from copyright holders... and then to threaten those who seek to appeal with criminal charges.  This is not "using resources carefully," it's government sponsored censorship.
<blockquote><i>
It is for this reason that SOPA puts only limited tools in the hands of copyright owners, and provides the Attorney General with the sole authority to seek orders against search engines and Internet service providers. This is not to say that we should not continue to assess Internet piracy and the impact of SOPA or whether additional measures or adjustments may be needed. Indeed, SOPA assigns ongoing studies to the Copyright Office and the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator for these very purposes. But I do think SOPA provides the right calibration at this time.
</i></blockquote>
First off, the "limited tools" include the ability to completely cut off funding to any website based solely on accusations.  Perhaps I learned a different language from Pallante, but that's hardly "limited."
<br /><br />
Furthermore, how the hell can she say that this is "the right calibration," when even she admits this issue has not been studied yet?  The bill is completely "shoot first, measure later," with no details on how it's effectiveness -- or harmfulness -- will be measured.
<blockquote><i>
As with any legislation, SOPA deserves and can only benefit from a robust discussion. As the Committee works to further improve and refine the bill, I know it will fully consider a variety of perspectives and suggestions, including from my fellow witnesses. This said, I believe that Congress has a responsibility to protect the exclusive rights of copyright owners, and I urge the Committee to move forward with this in mind.
</i></blockquote>
Yes, a robust discussion that leaves out nearly everyone opposed to the bill, and only allows a single party -- one easily dismissed -- to speak about concerns on the bill.  A robust discussion that leaves out public interest groups, despite Copyright's entire purpose being for the benefit of the public.  This is a shameful bit of testimony from the Head of the Copyright Office, and one that guarantees her a tarnished legacy in her role.
<br /><br />
From there, she goes on to defend the US blacklist of sites the Attorney General decides are dedicated to infringement by (1) repeating the US Chamber's debunked talking points, (2) praising ICE's highly questionable domain seizures, which are currently being litigated (a fact she conveniently ignores) and (3) quoting (of course) Floyd Abrams, leaving out that he was paid by the MPAA to give that opinion.  Even worse, she quotes the really questionable part of his claim:
<blockquote><i>
It also bears repeating that injunctions are not at odds with the First Amendment. As noted First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams has observed, they are "a longstanding, constitutionally sanctioned way to remedy and prevent copyright violations."
</i></blockquote>
This is true, but <b>highly</b> misleading.  Injunctions are allowed <i>against those infringing</i>.  But that's not what SOPA is about.  SOPA is about issuing injunctions on innocent third parties.  That's what we're concerned about.  And for Pallante to ignore that point is really unfortunate.
<br /><br />
She then goes on to defend the private right of action to kill off websites based on a single accusation.  She claims, laughably, that because the private right of action only leads to injunctions, rather than monetary rewards, there's little incentive to abuse.  Wait.  Is Ms. Pallante totally ignorant of the past decade plus of the DMCA?  The DMCA takedown process also is basically about blocking content and not about monetary relief, and yet it's <i>widely</i> abused, with some estimates suggesting that over 30% of DMCA takedowns are questionable.  The problem with SOPA (totally ignored again) is that unlike the DMCA -- which targets the specific content -- SOPA will kill off entire sites.
<br /><br />
Even more stunning: rather than suggesting that such abuses may come from copyright holders sending bogus takedowns, she worries instead that payment processors and ad networks may ignore such takedowns -- and hints that if anything, the bill may need refinement on that front.  Whoa.  It's like an alternative universe where everything is mirrored.  Again, we know what happens.  We have the less draconian DMCA already and see how widely it's abused.  And we see that those who receive takedowns generally abide by them.  
<br /><br />
Speaking of the DMCA, she pretends -- totally against the text of the actual bill -- that nothing in SOPA will impact the DMCA.  This is hilarious.  Why would anyone use the DMCA to take down a specific piece of content when they can now kill off an entire site using SOPA?  Amusingly, she points to the fact that payment providers and ad networks face no monetary liability under SOPA... but ignores that just two paragraphs above, she was hinting that perhaps the law should be changed to include such liability to make sure they comply.  This is the ultimate in cynical, obnoxious politics.  Put in that one clause that makes you able to pretend something is reasonable (no monetary punishment!) and then be ready to remove that the second the bill is in place.
<br /><br />
Finally, she talks about how "pleased" she is that SOPA turns streaming into a felony.  Apparently Pallante would prefer people no longer stream videos any more.  Has she even used the internet?  Amusingly, she cites YouTube as an example of a legal source for streaming... ignoring the fact that under SOPA,  YouTube likely wouldn't have even existed.  It's as if she doesn't even understand the bill she's supporting and what it will do to the technology world. 
<br /><br />
And people wonder why so many Americans think copyright law is a joke?  Perhaps they should look at the Copyright boss.
<br /><br />
Next, we've got MPAA VP Michael O'Leary.  His testimony is really worthy of having been written in Hollywood, seeing as it kicks off with a tearjerker of a story about the poor, poor stunt coordinator, "who depends on the residual payments he earns to help support his wife and three children between productions."  Of course, the rest of the world doesn't get to sit back and get a check for work they did in the past, but actually has to keep working to support their families.  Of course, how much do random key grips, stunt coordinators and boom mic operators (the favorites for these multi-millionaires to exploit in this kind of way) really make from residuals?  It's a lot less than these kinds of testimonies suggest.
<br /><br />
O'Leary continues to pull at heart strings, by trying to rope all sorts of other businesses into the movie and TV industry including (I'm not joking) the dry cleaners that serve the cast and crew on location.  Apparently, without movies, dry cleaners go out of business.  Think of the poor dry cleaners!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/00035716786/look-testimony-given-todays-sopa-lovefest-congressional-hearings-with-surprise-mastercard.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/00035716786/look-testimony-given-todays-sopa-lovefest-congressional-hearings-with-surprise-mastercard.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111116/00035716786/look-testimony-given-todays-sopa-lovefest-congressional-hearings-with-surprise-mastercard.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>they-said-what-now?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111116/00035716786</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:02:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>MPAA Shuffles The Deck Chairs</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/16543116017/mpaa-shuffles-deck-chairs.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/16543116017/mpaa-shuffles-deck-chairs.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Just a month or so after the RIAA <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110808/15525115440/out-with-old-with-older-riaa.shtml">reshuffled management</a>, and promoted the folks who had driven the recording industry off a cliff to give them even more power, it looks like the MPAA is doing the same.  Chris Dodd, who waited mere weeks before <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110221/14490613193/chris-dodd-breaking-promise-not-to-become-lobbyist-just-weeks-after-leaving-senate-joining-mpaa-as-top-lobbyist.shtml">breaking his promise</a> not to become a lobbyist after leaving the Senate and joining the MPAA (welcome to Hollywood, where giving your word on something is entirely meaningless), has <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/personnel-notes/181791-mpaa-announces-new-leadership-team?utm_campaign=HilliconValley&#038;utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">lined up his new leadership team</a>... and it's more of the same.  The same people making the same bad decisions, taking the MPAA down the same disastrous road as the RIAA before it.
<br /><br />
The key player here is Michael O'Leary, who was already a VP, but will take on an expanded role.  You may recall O'Leary from his laughable attempt to pretend that censoring the internet via PROTECT IP is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110407/06461813815/mpaa-real-patriots-dont-share.shtml">part of the American way</a>. 
<br /><br />
What's really sad is that if either of these organizations actually brought in folks with a tiny bit of insight into where the opportunities are actually happening in their world today, we might actually see some progress, rather than the tactic of pretending that you can break the internet to save the business models of a few legacy companies who don't want to bother innovating.  I have to admit that I have trouble understanding the minds of people who seek to hold back progress and prop up dead business models, but apparently it pays well for the time being.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/16543116017/mpaa-shuffles-deck-chairs.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/16543116017/mpaa-shuffles-deck-chairs.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110919/16543116017/mpaa-shuffles-deck-chairs.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>same-faces,-same-disastrous-policies</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110919/16543116017</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>