Why Is A Congressional Staffer Teaming Up With A Hollywood Lobbyist To Celebrate Expansion Of Criminal Copyright Laws?

from the this-just-seems-blatantly-corrupt dept

Late last year, we wrote about how bizarre it was that Senator Thom Tillis was trying to force through a felony streaming bill by attaching it to an end-of-the-year appropriations bill. There were so so many problems with this both in terms of what the bill would do, and in the procedural way it was done. First, Tillis got it attached to the “must pass” appropriations bill before he’d even introduced it. That meant that there was no debate and no direct votes on his bill.

You can kinda maybe (but not really?) see where that might make sense for uncontroversial bills, but the felony streaming bill… was not that. Long time readers of Techdirt will know that Hollywood has been pushing for a felony streaming bill for over a decade, and it was originally set to be attached to the infamous SOPA/PIPA bill until the internet rose up and made it clear that it would not accept Congress passing such a dangerous bill. Given that, you’d think that any one who had an honest reason for pushing such a bill would open it up to debate, rather than hide it away in a giant bill. That should give you one giant hint as to why Tillis pushed it the way that he did.

Second, there have been multiple reports about just how much Hollywood has invested in Senator Tillis. And we’ve heard from multiple people now that Tillis bristles at the idea that he’s somehow owned and operated by Hollywood lobbyists. Of course, it would help if he didn’t repeat their talking points at every turn, and turn around and introduce massive copyright reform that was basically an early Christmas gift for Hollywood.

But if Tillis wants to claim that he’s not just doing Hollywood’s billing, you’d think he would not have allowed this to happen. His chief staffer working on these copyright bills, Brad Watts, teamed up with Fox’s chief DC lobbyist, Gail Slater, to write an article patting each other on the back for getting the felony streaming bill passed.

I’ve spoken to multiple DC policy folks both inside and outside of Congress and literally none can think of any other example when a Congressional staffer and a top corporate lobbyist teamed up to write an op-ed together. It’s literally unprecedented. More than one person I spoke to expressed complete bewilderment that this op-ed even came to be. “How did no one in Tillis’ office not realize that this was a bad idea?” was the quote a staffer in another Senate office told me. “It’s shocking.”

But even worse than this out-and-out admission that Tillis does what Hollywood asks him to do, is the content of this article, which is not just revisionist history, but actually celebrates the sneaky way in which Watts (and apparently Slater!) helped sneak this bill through.

Some public policy issues are solutions in search of a problem, but unlawful streaming of copyrighted content is emphatically not one of those issues. U.S. Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Patrick Leahy?s (D-Vt.) Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020 (PLSA) became law in December 2020 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. The importance of this law cannot be overstated. Not only did the PLSA modernize criminal copyright law in a long-overdue and positive direction, but it may also signal a new model for legislating digital copyright law going forward.

First of all, I call bullshit that this was “long overdue,” or that “the importance cannot be overstated.” The article notes, rightly, that legal streaming has become more common, but takes it on faith that “illegal streaming” somehow “costs the U.S. economy nearly $30 billion per year.” Their support for that is… a link to a CNN article quoting Tillis. So, Tillis’s staffer, who is in charge of all of his copyright efforts, is quoting his boss giving a citation that this same staffer almost certainly told his boss to say in the first place. Nifty.

The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated the harm from unlawful streaming as worldwide lockdowns led to a surge in online streaming. Not surprisingly, this surge in streaming included an aggressive uptick in unlawful streaming. According to analytics firm Muso, the unlawful streaming of films alone increased by 33 percent globally during lockdowns. The rise was even higher in the United States at an eye-popping 41 percent increase in unlawful streaming during lockdowns.

I mean, I don’t want to make too many assumptions here, but maybe (just maybe) the reason for the uptick in illegal streaming was because millions of people lost their jobs, had no money because Senator Thom Tillis tried to block stimulus packages, and are stuck at home because there’s a global freaking pandemic going on. So, maybe it’s not like those people have the spare cash to sign up for authorized streaming services at this moment, and it’s not exactly a priority given everything else going on.

The article goes on to falsely claim that streaming not being a felony was “a loophole.” It was not. As was discussed when this first came up a decade ago, there were legitimate reasons why Congress chose not to make infringing streaming a felony offense. Indeed, there are strong arguments that copyright should solely be a civil offense, and never a criminal one. Making it criminal basically is making US law enforcement the private tort enforcer for Hollywood, which represents a massive subsidy to those industries, such that they no longer have to get their own hands dirty (or spend their own money) on taking infringers to court.

Then, the article engages in some incredibly historical revisionism regarding the original attempt at making streaming a felony, and what happened with SOPA/PIPA.

Despite careful crafting by the legislation?s sponsors, PIPA and SOPA were met with opposition from a range of legitimate stakeholders representing internet and consumer equities. Their advocacy against PIPA/SOPA culminated in over 5 thousand petitions per minute to the U.S. Congress, about 4 million tweets on the legislation, and petitions submitted to Congress containing 8 million signatures.

Concerns about the felony streaming provisions in PIPA/SOPA centered on the perception that, as drafted, it could lead to criminal prosecution of individual artists who regularly used platforms such as YouTube to upload their performances.

Ultimately, the sheer intensity of the opposition to PIPA/SOPA culminated in the legislation being withdrawn from consideration. This opposition took creative content industries and legislators by surprise and resulted in an unwillingness, for many years, to address what was perceived as such a controversial, complicated, and even unfixable issue. 

I mean, just the very idea that SOPA/PIPA were crafted “carefully” is laughable for anyone who knows the real story, in which Lamar Smith did a Leroy Jenkins move, yanking the bill away from Rep. Bob Goodlatte (who had tried to write a more carefully constructed bill) and lit it up like a Tillis-style Christmas tree for Hollywood.

Then there’s this fun bit of nonsense:

So, What Changed? Why Now? In the years since PIPA/SOPA, the entire internet and digital copyright ecosystem has changed. Simultaneously, traditional lines dividing content creator industries and tech-heavy startups have blurred, creating more shared interests and equities. Several internet platforms have evolved their business models and are now original content creators themselves.

No, what changed this time was that you refused to introduce it through the normal process, kept it hidden until after it was already lumped into the must pass appropriations bill that was being debated contentiously for other reasons between Congress and a lame duck President in the middle of a pandemic (and an insane propaganda campaign to undermine the results of an election). That’s what changed.

Senator Tillis and Leahy?s bill evaded the criticisms that the felony streaming provision in PIPA/SOPA received and does not capture individual internet users or legitimate businesses and content creators, including, likely to some people?s disappointment, Justin Bieber.

Members of Congress and copyright stakeholders across the board were invited to the negotiating table on an equal footing. Negotiations proceeded in good faith and no stone was left unturned as stakeholders gamed out the real-world implications of the draft legislative text.

No, this is not what happened. At all. I spoke to stakeholders from consumer rights groups and internet platforms, and they said that they were just as blindsided by this bill as we were. Again, if this was all about getting all the stakeholders together and coming up with a workable bill for everyone why didn’t Tillis just release it as normal? Why did he get it stuffed into the appropriations bill, and not even release the text of the bill until it was clear that there would never be an up-and-down vote on the bill itself?

And that’s also why this bill “evaded criticism.” Because it was done in a way and at a time when so much other stuff was going on.

That’s only underlined by the fact that Tillis’ top copyright staffer felt he could reveal “the sausage making process” in combination with one of Hollywood’s top lobbyists, without anyone blinking an eye. The fix was in, and that fix sure looks corrupt. At the very least, this is the kind of “soft corruption” that we’ve talked about before. Even if everything was legitimate, just the fact that Watts and Slater know they can co-author an article about how they got this controversial bill approved gives the public the impression of corruption, and supports the idea that Tillis is completely in the tank for Hollywood.

It damages public trust in government, as it underlines the idea that Senators like Tillis are there to serve the desires of their funders, and not the public he was elected to represent.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,
Companies: fox

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Why Is A Congressional Staffer Teaming Up With A Hollywood Lobbyist To Celebrate Expansion Of Criminal Copyright Laws?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

How likely is the felony streaming bill and CASE act will be taken to court and possibly be found unconstitutional?

Felony streaming is likely constitutional, just dumb. Not sure I see any argument against its constitutionality.

CASE Act has some flaws that could make it unconstitutional, but will highly depend on the judges reviewing the challenge.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Gee if only they still had ethics & would punish lawmakers who are obviously this bought off, but then they all might have to go.

I mean when Hollywood tried to block vaccines IP being made available, it should have highlighted they don’t care about people.

Citizens got no help, but big handouts to corporations. I guess they feel that no matter what they do they can just claim the otherside will hurt you more… just ignore our current bodycount.

Now we have a bill trying to make streaming the worst possible crime possible because of 30 imaginary billions, to an industry that apparently has never made a cent, I mean look at those blockbuster movies raking in money around the globe… it comes home and they can’t even to afford to pay for having made it.

Perhaps if they were paying the government $7,200,000,000 (tax rate 24%) in taxes on those profits maybe they could complain but their tax returns show they make nothing… pretty sure that isn’t the fault of pirates. I mean if a major corporation was hemorrhaging 30 billion a year it would have failed long ago, yet they have plenty of money to purchase insane laws even in the middle of a global pandemic where no one should have given a single shit about what they wanted.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

At least take the price-tags off before whining...

And we’ve heard from multiple people now that Tillis bristles at the idea that he’s somehow owned and operated by Hollywood lobbyists.

‘How dare you imply that I’ve been bought out!’ screamed the man who might as well have SOLD tattooed on his forehead.

To argue that he’s not owned by Hollywood he’d basically have to argue that it’s a complete and total coincidence that the bills and arguments he puts forth(and lies about) are exactly what Hollywood desires and says, that both them and he just so happen to hold the exact same positions, and that it’s completely unrelated how one of his staffers just co-wrote an op-ed filled to the brim with lies and attempted history revisionism regarding his act of gross dishonesty sneaking in one of their biggest desires and bypassing any opportunity to discuss and toss it like an honest person would have.

If he doesn’t like people accusing him of being a stooge then he should stop acting like one, until then people will accurately keep pointing out that he might as well have a ‘Property of Hollywood’ patch on every one of his suits.

ECA (profile) says:

How much money

Would Hollywood make if Every person in the USA WENT and watched a First release at a theater, for EVERY movie they put out.
Do understnad, the last time I looked, there are around 400 moivies released Per year. Many are direct to DVD. Many are Past movies Finally being released, Then release’s. There are a good amount of Off Hollywood, and others. But Just to get Paid by every person in the USA, is asking to be ESPN on Cable(everyone pays $8 per month even if they dont watch ESPN).
How much? $7-10 Each per New movie?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

The little guy says:


Big allegations come with great responsibility, Mike. Corruption? Hiding in plain sight? It’s an odd way to characterize an open process. Seems also to trigger defamation since neither is a public figure. There is a price to be paid for defending criminal conduct on your corporate paymaster Google’s behalf, one supposes.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Hmmmm

Big allegations come with great responsibility, Mike. Corruption?

I explained what I meant. Soft corruption as defined by Larry Lessig. That is the kind of deal in which even if it’s "legal" it appears corrupt to anyone watching and removes trust in the system.

It’s an odd way to characterize an open process.

An open process is not tacked on to an appropriations bill before the language has even been released, and which did not go through committee or full floor vote on its own.

Seems also to trigger defamation since neither is a public figure

Lol. That’s not how defamation works.

There is a price to be paid for defending criminal conduct

I have done no such thing. Indeed, if you claim that my characterization was defamatory, since what you say here is blatantly untrue, what does that make this?

your corporate paymaster Google’s behalf, one supposes.

Google is not my corporate paymaster and never has been. This is another lie from someone who claims what I said was defamatory? Lol.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re: Hmmmm

If you want to go down that logical rabbit-hole, go ahead. But be prepared to be ridiculed.

Btw, did Mike say something that upset you? Is this your snowflake reaction? It certainly seems so, because all you have are innuendos. Or is someone, like a congress staffer or a lobbyist, perhaps paying you to come here posting these innuendos?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...