Techdirt. Stories filed under "tech"

One Year Later, SOPA/PIPA Supporters Still Completely Ignore The Public

Mike Masnick — Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:12:22 PST

On this Internet Freedom Day, Declan McCullagh has a great post in which he reached out to the key politicians and lobbyists who supported SOPA and PIPA last year 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 none 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 individuals speaking up for our rights, not a single person interviewed by McCullagh seems to even think it's worth mentioning.

Let's take a look at some of the statements.

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.
— spokeswoman for Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee and author of the Protect IP Act

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 massive 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.

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.
— Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia), chairman of the House Judiciary committee and original sponsor of SOPA

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 both 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.

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.

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.
— Michael O'Leary, senior executive vice president for global policy and external affairs at the Motion Picture Association of America

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 can conflict, and frequently do conflict. The MPAA has refused to even acknowledge this possibility.

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.

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.

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.

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.
— Mitch Glazier, senior executive vice president at the Recording Industry Association of America.

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.

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.

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.

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.
— U.S. Chamber of Commerce spokeswoman

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 we looked, 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.

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...

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:

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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
— Sandra Aistars, executive director of the Copyright Alliance

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 anyway. 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.

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.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Entertainment Industy Back To Demanding That Search Engines Censor The Web... Through 'Voluntary' Measures

Mike Masnick — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:50:00 PST

We've pointed out before that the short-term troubles of some legacy media players appears to have more to do with their own mistakes, rather than piracy. But they just keep on lobbying for more laws (none of which have actually worked). We've also pointed out that while defeating SOPA/PIPA was a good thing, the supporters of the bill, undoubtedly, were already hard at work trying to get similar efforts through elsewhere -- however possible. TorrentFreak has news of the IFPI submitting a list of proposals for search engines on how they should run their business -- which includes all sorts of extra efforts designed to help the entertainment industry by magically making it more difficult to find infringing content. I always find the hubris of such demands odd. It's really not proper for the entertainment industry to insist that search engines need to run their businesses in any particular way. In what other business does an entire industry demand a different industry protect them from having to adapt?

The recommendations & data themselves don't make much sense. The report claims that search engines send lots of traffic to infringing sites, but we've looked at the data pretty closely and there's no support for what they claim. The data showed that search engines definitely sent some traffic to infringing sites, but it was a very small percentage of their business. It's difficult to accidentally find infringing music to download these days. I realize that the industry claims otherwise, but the methodology there is suspect. They're claiming that if you search on the names of certain songs, unauthorized sites show up relatively high in Google searches. But there isn't evidence that that necessarily leads people to click on those infringing files. As the click-through evidence we saw showed, it's a relatively small percentage of people who do that.

While the industry has some good ideas for ways to improve business, blaming the tech industry (or insisting that all of their users act like criminals) has become an all too common refrain around here. It's counterproductive. The tech industry is providing all sorts of useful tools and services for the entertainment industry to thrive. I'm still at a loss as to how blaming the tech industry helps anyone. Punishing them just makes them less willing to design the next iTunes, the next Netflix or the next Spotify.

It's time for the industry to start focusing on real business model opportunities... not whining about everyone who it feels the need to punish.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Facebook, Twitter, eBay & Other Big Internet Companies Come Out Against SOPA

Mike Masnick — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:44:00 PST

While Google has been pretty vocal about its complaints concerning PROTECT IP and SOPA, and Yahoo, LinkedIn and Zynga have expressed concerns elsewhere, the silence of large companies like Facebook, Twitter, eBay, Mozilla and AOL had been unfortunate. That appears to be changing. As a group, they have now all sent a letter to the key sponsors of both bills, arguing that the approach here is the exact wrong approach, and will do significant damage to the parts of the economy that are innovating and creating jobs today:

We are very concerned that the bills as written would seriously undermine the effective mechanism Congress enacted in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) to provide a safe harbor for Internet companies that act in good faith to remove infringing content from their sites. Since their enactment in 1998, the DMCA's safe harbor provisions for online service providers have been a cornerstone of the U.S. Internet and technology industry's growth and success. While we work together to find additional ways to target foreign "rogue" sites, we should not jeopardize a foundational structure that has worked for content owners and Internet companies alike and provides certainty to innovators with new ideas for how people create, find, discuss, and share information lawfully online.

We are proud to be a part of an industry that has been crucial to U.S. economic growth and job creation. A recent McKinsey Global Institute report found that the Internet accounts for 3.4% of GDP in the 13 countries that McKinsey studied, and, in the U.S., the Internet's contribution to GDP is even larger. If Internet consumption and expenditure were a sector, its contribution to GDP would be greater than energy, agriculture, communication, mining, or utilities. In addition, the Internet industry has increased productivity for small and medium-sized businesses by 10%. We urge you not to risk either this success or the tremendous benefits the Internet has brought to hundreds of millions of Americans and people around the world.

Can't wait to see the usual commenters stop by to insist that basically every big company on the internet is only saying this because they're dedicated to infringement. But the real question is: at what point does Congress realize that there's real opposition to this bill from one of the few industries out there that's actually doing well these days?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Tech Titans Shift And Change: Worrying About Dominance Is A Fool's Game

Mike Masnick — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 03:56:04 PDT

I've lived in Silicon Valley for a little over thirteen years now, and the one thing I've learned is that nothing is permanent. When I moved out here, the "big fight" over who was going to dominate the tech landscape was supposed to be between Netscape, Microsoft and AOL. No one had heard of eBay (and people thought that "OnSale" -- an online auction house -- had a better business model). Amazon was around but was "never going to be profitable." Google didn't exist. The search engine of choice was AltaVista or Lycos. Social networking was a site called "SixDegrees." Seriously. It was a big hit the summer of 1998 when everyone was connecting with their friends.

Just a few years ago, it was decided that the battle for the internet was between the "big three" of Google, Yahoo & Microsoft -- better known as GYM. Those three dominated the tech space and there was nobody else "big" worth mentioning.

So, it's a bit funny to see a new report declaring that, today, there's a "Gang of Four" who are fighting to dominate the tech world: Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook. GAAF? AGAF? As in the past, the article seems to think that this battle is the permanent state of the world, with those four being the only players. It talks about how this battle is raising antitrust concerns and worries about less openness.

However, I'm with Adam Thierer in thinking this is totally overhyped "chicken little-ism."

Isn’t it funny how all the recent hand-wringing about the supposed dominance of today’s big four fails to mention Microsoft, Intel, AltaVista, AOL, Yahoo!, BlackBerry, or the old telcos? It would have been impossible to pen anything about technology “dominance” in past years and not mention those companies. Today, they rarely get a mention, except perhaps to highlight their rapid fall from the upper echelons of Tech Titan-dom.

This week’s big news was Google’s bid for Motorola, which positions the search giant better for battle in the smartphone and tablet wars with Apple. Think about it: A company that didn’t even exist 15 years ago and got started in a garage is now making telecom giants sweat. Meanwhile, Facebook, a company started in a college dorm, made News Corporation’s $580 million bet on MySpace turn out to be a mega-turkey. Meanwhile, Apple had what former CEO John Sculley called a “near-death experience” just 15 years ago only to experience a Lazarus-like rebirth and revolutionize the computing, online music, and mobile device sectors. Finally, Amazon.com, along with Apple, has upended media distribution methods and forced mass media giants to rethink how content is priced, bringing prices down in the process.

This is capitalism at its finest, not the catastrophe the tech pessimists preach about.

Five years from now, you can pretty much bet we'll be discussing a very different set of companies aiming for tech dominance. Their may be some crossovers, but it's likely that at least one company on the list is one that you've either barely heard of today or you haven't heard of at all. The tech industry is ruthless and ever changing. It's tough to stay on top for very long, and any effort to totally close things off will be seen by smart entrepreneurs as an opportunity to jump in and compete, with openness.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Music Industry Is Desperate For A Few Good Technologists

Mike Masnick — Tue, 10 May 2011 16:20:33 PDT

Earlier this week I attended the latest version of the always excellent SF Music Tech conference, that always tries to bridge the gap between the music industry and the tech industry. The two sides are often seen at odds, even though I think that's a simplistic (and often just incorrect) assessment of the situation. Whenever I attend events like this, I try to wait until the end of the day to see if there were any particular themes that became clear over the course of the event. This time, what struck me, is how much technologists are in demand from the music industry folks. On one of the early panels, someone spoke of the need for better communication between techies and music folks (and someone else mentioned the general culture clash, and the inability to understand each other). However, where it really became clear was in the various meetings and one-on-one conversations I had throughout the course of the day. It was really stunning. I've never had so many "music" related companies all ask me (variations on) the same question: "Do you know any good technology people who might want to come work for us." By the end of the day I was laughing every time someone asked me that question. It seems clear, these music startups are all desperate for tech help.

I'm curious as to why this was so pronounced. It could be that (as always!) good techies are hard to find. These days, there's tremendous demand, and the magnetic pull of jobs at Google, Facebook and Twitter often feels like it's sucking dry available technologists for startups. But, at the same time, I also wonder if the music industry's history in the tech world is impacting things as well. The history of music-related startups is littered with companies sued by record labels or crushed by overly burdensome rules. I would bet that a lot of smart techies recognize this, and don't want to touch anything that might involve having to go up against (or even "partner") with the legacy music industry. There's plenty of interest in music, but working in music innovation just seems like a hassle that's probably not worth it for many technologists who have other options.

It seems like yet another unfortunate legacy of the industry's decision to treat the changing marketplace as an "us vs. them" sort of thing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Stop Thinking That Tech & Content Are Fighting Each Other

Martin Th�rnkvist — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:17:00 PST

The following is a guest post from Martin Thornkvist, who both runs a Swedish indie record label, and works for Media Evolution -- an organization designed to help its various members learn about and embrace new media innovation opportunities. This is cross-posted from his blog at Media Evolution, and raises a really good point. Too often people talk about technology and content as if the two are at war with each other, rather than recognizing how it's a complementary relationship.

The first quarter 2011 Apple made a profit of ~~$26.74 billion~~ $6 billion. An impressive 17% of that is from their latest product, the iPad. Having followed Apple's reports for some years it struck me just how unimportant content distribution is for them. In economic terms at least.

The iTunes store counts for only 5% of Apple's overall profit. In light of that fact, I have a hard time understanding why they are upsetting content providers by increasing the areas where they take a cut of the revenue.

It's obvious that Apple, and other tech companies, are using content to sell hardware. And damn, they are good at making us buy new products each and every year.

Hook and bait

It's obvious that the main objective of dealing with content for Apple, and tech companies in general, is to boost hardware sales. These days you can't hear a mobile executive talk without mentioning the importance of building an ecosystem for content to sell handsets.

The fisherman needs both a hook and bait to catch a fish. The fish is too smart to go for a hook without bait, like customers with tech products. And the bait without a hook is a fiesta for the fish rather than the fisherman, kind of like being a fish in a bay of pirates.

When looking at the media landscape we can see that everybody wants to be the hook. The hooks are owning the customer and the ecosystem in which they interact. That means they can control price, pace of releases and the right to set the rules of the game.

The media industries were used to being the hooks. That changed many years ago. Now, it's just about creating those alternative hooks of income streams yourself.

To many the question of being a hook or a bait is emotional. Everybody sees their work as the center of the media landscape and wants the rest to obey to their wills.

Stop making life hard for each other

Even though content distribution represents a small percentage of Apple's overall profit, they are making life hard for content producers by changing the rules of the game. Most recently they announced that for publishing companies to sell their subscriptions inside applications, they will take a 30% cut. It's still uncertain whether that counts for music apps like Spotify as well.

The content side is making it equally hard for tech companies that want to develop new media platforms. Music labels, film studios and book publishers can arguably be said to make it a nightmare to license their products. This is instead of acknowledging developers and engineers to be their best buddies to create new ways of providing content to customers, and eventually help them make money they badly need.

Interdependent relationship

We need to understand that technology is nothing without content and content would be nothing without technology. Technology and content for sure has an interdependent relationship.

For a long time the content producers had the upper hand. Right now the technology providers act like they have it. But in the long run they both need to cooperate to keep prospering.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Is It Too Much To Expect Judges In Tech Related Cases To Understand Tech?

Mike Masnick — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:48:00 PDT

Eric Goldman highlights yet another case where basic technology illiteracy leads a judge to make very questionable statements. In this particular case, a judge declared that because a specific phrase ("spoiled brats") was not found in the metatags of a website, someone who searched on that phrase "would likely not encounter" the page in question. Yes, the actual terms did appear on the page itself -- just not in the metatags. As Goldman notes:

What??? Putting aside the fact that the metatags were ignored by many of the search engines even at the relevant time (back in the late 1990s), this is a backwards way of assessing site visibility for the search term "Spoiled Brats." So what if the term Spoiled Brats wasn't in the metatags if the term was on the page?

Once again, this raises questions about how those who are technically illiterate on specific subjects are able to make rulings where a basic understanding of how the tech works could make a pretty big difference on how a judgment comes out.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Tech Companies Worried About Unions

Mike Masnick — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:16:00 PDT

It never fails. As the economy collapses, someone thinks that the answer is greater unionization. It happened back in 2000 when the tech bubble collapsed, and it's happening again today, in part due to recently proposed legislation that would make it easier to unionize. Apparently, the tech industry is especially worried about this -- and they should be. I'm very much a student of the economics of unions (I do have a degree in labor relations, after all, which included more classes than I'd care to remember on both labor history and labor economics) and while I recognize the tremendous value that collective bargaining provided a century ago to workers who were helpless to fight back against abusive management, that's not the situation we're in today. Unionizing the tech industry would be a disaster for the economy and innovation.

Collective bargaining is one thing, but unions tend to be more focused on protectionism, rather than just getting workers together to bargain a deal. And much of our innovative environment is encouraged by a dynamic workforce with increased job mobility, allowing for a cross-pollination of ideas, as opposed to a stagnant and limited workforce. Unionization takes away the necessary flexibility of both workers and employers, greatly slowing down the pace of innovation. It could make sense in a static, totally mature environment, but it's difficult to think of many of those. These days, almost every industry needs to be innovating, and you don't do that with a unionized structure. Just the very nature of building a structure that encourages an antagonistic relationship between "workers" and "management" misses the point, these days. A friend mentioned the other day that workers today are more likely to be shareholders than union members, so perhaps they'll recognize this and not go down a bad path that leads to fewer jobs, less innovation and more economic toil. Unions are the last thing that the tech industry needs right now.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story