Senators Leahy & Tillis To Team Up To Suggest Destroying The Internet For Hollywood’s Sake

from the this-is-not-how-the-internet-should-work dept

I guess ten years is long enough that Senator Pat Leahy thought everyone had forgotten about the SOPA/PIPA disaster that he was a leading reason for. Senator Leahy is on his way out of the Senate, and apparently has at least one last gift in store for Hollywood lobbyists (which includes his daughter) who make sure that Leahy gets a role in every Batman film. The latest from Leahy (and Senator Tom Tillis, who seems to clearly want to take over Leahy’s role as Hollywood’s favorite senator), is to introduce a bill to effectively require filters on every website.

The bill, going by the Orwellian name “Strengthening Measures to Advance Rights Technologies Copyright Act of 2022” (shortened to the SMART Copyright Act of 2022) is extraordinarily problematic. But it’s also been expected for a while. Just last month, the Copyright Office held a giant roundtable on this topic — after being ordered to do so by the same tag team of Tillis and Leahy. As we pointed out both in our submission to the Copyright Office and further at the roundtable, “technical measures” (i.e., filters) have serious 1st Amendment implications that need serious consideration.

But, rather than do anything to respond to these concerns (and lots of other concerns raised by participants at the roundtable), Leahy and Tillis rushed out this bill, which was clearly ready long before the roundtable even existed. Leahy and Tillis and the supporters of this bill like to claim that it’s just “clarifying” and improving on Section 512(i) of the DMCA, which mentions “standard technical measures,” but make no mistake, this is yet another attempt by Hollywood to control an internet they’ve always hated.

Everything about this bill is garbage. It starts out by basically mimicking the much maligned DMCA 1201 triennial review process. As you may recall, DMCA 1201 is the part about “anticircumvention” of technological protection measures, but everyone realized that making any kind of circumvention of DRM automatically copyright infringing would lead to all sorts of nonsense. But, rather than fix the law so it didn’t create nonsense, Congress came up with this completely ridiculous circus, where every three years people like documentary filmmakers, security researchers, and people who just want to repair their own devices, have to come groveling to the Copyright Office and Librarian of Congress, begging for a grant of dispensation, so they can actually do things that everyone recognizes should be perfectly legal.

In this new bill, this nuisance model is repeated, but flipped around. Basically, every three years, the copyright industry would ask the (very, very welcoming) Copyright Office (currently run by a former top copyright industry lobbyist) to designate certain “technical measures” as blessed from on high. Then “covered” service providers would effectively be required to use these “technical measures” or face stringent statutory damages.

It’s not difficult to see where this is going. For quite some time now, the copyright industry has demanded that every upload first be filtered for infringement, against a database that it expects internet companies to develop themselves (far be it from the copyright industry to develop its own database of copyright-protected content, because that might be used to show how frequently the industry doesn’t actually pay its artists). Over in the EU, they got this through via what’s now known as Article 17 (originally Article 13). We’re already seeing how the implementation of those upload filters is creating a huge mess in the EU, and things will likely be much much worse in the US.

Of course, this bill is sneaky, because it doesn’t directly call for filters, so Leahy and Tillis can shrug their shoulders and say that the bill says nothing at all about filters. Indeed, in the ridiculous “myths vs. facts” document they released with the bill, they give away the game.

MYTH: This is a filtering mandate that will chill free speech and harm users.

FACT: The SMART Copyright Act creates an open process for all stakeholders, including the public, to identify copyright-related technological measures that should be broadly available to all. Some measures, like the International Press Telecommunications Council (IPTC) photo metadata standard, or a Creative Commons license, can help users know whether and how they can use content while also respecting creators’ rights. Other technological measures, including “filtering” technologies, are used to stop infringing content at scale, or make content available for licensing. The bill ensures that any designation of existing measures requires input from all stakeholders and assessment of public interest considerations. This process is also an opportunity for users to provide technological solutions to these concerns. The Copyright Office’s particular expertise in the area of copyright and its exceptions—like fair use—can assist with ensuring the right balance is struck between curbing infringement that undermines authors’ constitutional rights and promoting online availability of materials.

Got that? The bill doesn’t mandate filters. It just lets Hollywood demand filters be mandated from the Copyright Office (lead by one of their top lobbyists), but the public (i.e., you suckers) can send in letters complaining about this, which will likely be ignored because Hollywood’s lobbyists know how to play this game better than you do.

Also, seriously, the authors of this bill are particularly nefarious, putting something like Creative Commons licenses as an example before filters. Is anyone from Creative Commons demanding this? Fuck no. They didn’t weigh in at the roundtable, which you’d think they would if this were so important.

Make no mistake, this bill is a way to try to force the internet to use filters. Because that’s what the copyright industries have always wanted, and they figure that this is the sneaky way to get their wish in the US. Never mind the fact that every single research effort to look at the impact of these things shows that filters massively overblock content and lead to significantly less speech online. Never mind the fact that filters cannot determine “fair use.” Never mind the fact that filters are expensive and would only be affordable by the largest internet companies.

This is a garbage bill designed, once again, to turn the internet into Hollywood’s vision of the internet: a place to promote and charge people for their content, rather than what it actually is, an open platform for communication. When your communications are “filtered” then it’s no longer a communications platform. It’s just another form of TV, which is exactly what Hollywood wants.

I guess, then, we’ll all just spend our time watching Pat Leahy’s cameos in the latest Batman flick, because what else will we have to do?

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

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 “Senators Leahy & Tillis To Team Up To Suggest Destroying The Internet For Hollywood’s Sake”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
54 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Never mind the fact that every single research effort to look at the impact of these things shows that filters massively overblock content and lead to significantly less speech online. Never mind the fact that filters cannot determine “fair use.” Never mind the fact that filters are expensive and would only be affordable by the largest internet companies.

Hollywood shills and stooges: Okay, but what are the downsides?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rico R. (profile) says:

A proposal

Can we instead call this bill the “Content ID Enshrinement Act“? Just like we called the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act“, that nickname better fits the nature and scope of the bill. Plus, it also derides the proposal and gives the bill’s opponents more ammunition to push against it!

Anonymous Coward says:

i cant believe it’s took all this time for what is actually going on to be said! surely it’s been known for years that everything possible is being done to help the entertainment industries, not just Hollywood, take over the Internet and just about every security service, every court and every judge are adding their weight to bringing this to fruition, hasn’t it? the entertainment indutries made an even bigger fuck up over the Internet than they did over in-home video recorders and mp3s and have been clawing back at it ever since. what cunts like these senators dont seem to understand is that once the Internet has been destroyed by these fucking industries, it will be gone forever! it isn’t just their information that will be removed but almost all information will be decimated forever! this wasn’t what the Internet was meant for, it was meant for everyone to do everything on, some things are better than others but they should all be available, all be free and all be freely available, not limited to what the entertainment indurtries say can be seen, can be found, can be downloaded and uploaded! y6es, the Internet is the best media and information service invented/discovered so far but it shouldn’t be limited to what some short-sighted idiots decide can be available!!

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

Re:

i cant believe it’s took all this time for what is actually going on to be said! surely it’s been known for years that everything possible is being done to help the entertainment industries, not just Hollywood, take over the Internet

As self publishing produces more content that the copyright controlling middlemen, of course they want a bill like this, so that they get to control most of the entertainment available to people. Also, though most won’t directly admit it, politicians hate the Internet because it reduces their power, and the more power they would wield, the more the Internet threatens them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

100% vriska, both sides want this, the only possible opposition is Ron Wyden and he wont be enough, tillis will sneak this in the the typical must pass spending bill. If someone mentions how sopa/pipa was rejected by Obama I’ll say because he had re-election coming up and wanted the youth vote.

jojo_36 (profile) says:

Re:

Hard to tell, especially when the bill has just been introduced last week. So far, it has one cosponsor, unfortunately it’s a powerful one. Leahy is the Senate Pro Tempore, which, long story short, is the most influential member only second to the senate majority leader. There is a silver lining in that Leahy is retiring this year. So right now, due to how jam-packed this season is, I’m doubtful that it’ll pass… in 2022.

This is a theory, but since Tillis isn’t up for re-election, passing SMART won’t be the priority, but releasing it earlier so that he could potentially reintroduce it in the future and have a greater chance to pass it thanks to clout. We’ve seen it with EARN-IT with it gaining seven extra cosponsors. But keep in mind, a better chance of passing doesn’t mean that it’ll automatically pass by default. So in other words, it won’t pass now, but potentially in the near future.

Anonymous Coward says:

Sounds like sopa version 2, and many small websites that have short audio and video clips would close down because only Google fakebook apple large tech company’s could afford to build a database of all video and audio released not to mention theres 1000s of hours of new video released every week
But it seems if you can pay off, donate to certain Politicans you can get any bill proposed even if
It’s a direct attack on free speech and the concept of the open Internet
Let’s turn the Web into cable TV owned or controlled by a few big media corporations

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Photo and video filters are bad. Changes so small that a human could never notice them often make the photo/video completely different to algorithms designed to identify similar photos/videos.

This was highlighted after Apple announced the CSAM Scanner – researchers on the cutting edge of identifying the content of visual mediums had to highlight they have been trying to get this to work for years, had tried these ideas years ago, had failed, and nothing has changed on the tech front. The moment Apple had to show its work, suddenly it was going back to the drawing board to rework things.

Audio frankly isn’t much better, which is how bird song and white noise get claims.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

The problems with audio filters has nothing to do with the accuracy of matching, but rather issues like registering a work is only extended to companies, and claimed copyrights are presumed accurate, resulting in accidental, or deliberate inclusion of non copyrightable material, or the works of individuals. I.e., a new programs uses a video clip made by an individual, and claims copyright on the whole program, resulting in the creator of the clip being hit by a take down.

The problem with all these laws is that they are written as if only corporate owned copyrights are important.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re:

For every SOPA, dozens of bad bills pass because the entire internet didn’t shut down to protest it. the metas and googles and amazons don’t care, they want this to pass to entrench themselves. We won’t see a blackout over this. And its copyright, so there is a much more powerful player than the evangelical lobby at work.

Gary Page says:

Yes it will pass

Already Senator Merkley and Senator Schumer are saying they will support this bill and want to sneak it into a must pass Ukraine Russia military bill and to push section 230 to have legal authority to ban Russian websites. Senator Blackburn of Tennessee is getting big money from Netflix to pass this bill

They want to pass this bill in early summer and Rep Buck and Rep Nadler is planning next week to introduce the house version. So yes this time this bill WILL PASS. Watch

benjamin (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re: ’s impossible to say what it would look like if the smart copyright act pass is it true ?

i have read on this site :
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2022/03/21/understanding-the-smart-copyright-act/
that It’s impossible to say what it would look like if the smart copyright act bill should pass. The reason is that the bill setups a process for determining what STMs should be used and by whom, but says nothing about what measures could or should be implemented.

In short, all that we know is that, if this bill becomes law, there will be a new rulemaking process on this issue and what that process will entail. We do not know what technological measures will be adopted, who they will apply to, or what kinds of content they will be required to block.

That is deeply frustrating but also unavoidable. The bill recognizes that technology evolves and advances. Tools that were once industry standards fall behind while new ones emerge. Any system that is going to require online service providers to block infringing uploads needs to be flexible.

This was understood with Section 1201 of the DMCA, which is why that rulemaking process was created. This bill simply takes that idea, and applies it to the technological measures to prevent infringing content from being uploaded.

While it’s impossible to predict how the U.S. Copyright Office would implement this, the Section 1201 process has shown that they do tend to be conservative with their use of their powers, reserving it for issues where there is limited dispute. That would likely carry over here.

Still, the uncertainty that this bill creates is understandable and there is simply no way to know for certain what the Copyright Office might carve out if given the chance do you agree with this?

and finally The law makes it clear that such DTMs must be available on nondiscriminatory terms and either royalty-free or on a “reasonable royalty basis.” The goal is to ensure that providers are not overly burdened by this process do you agree with that reasoning ? thanks for your answer guys.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Thing is the article itself says the prospects for this bill passing are, in general, seen as not good. According to an article on Politco, not only has there been no similar legislation introduced in the House of Representatives, but the bill faces an uphill climb against both the tech industry and other legislative priorities.

Is its not very likely to pass atleast yet?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

vriska, you’ve been doing this song and dance for years, asking the same question “How likely the bill to pass?” instead of learning why this shit happens.

congress is going to pass it, this is disney’s workaround to public opposition since one of their own leads the copyright office and steamboat willie is two years away from joining the public domain.

I will contact my senators and reps but considering that FOSTA passed, the CASE act passed, that felony streaming thing passed do you actually believe we can stop the mpaa’s biggest push? Better off learning how to bypass copyright instead of submitting to it.

Anonymous Coward says:

There are too many small independent creative video producers, lets pass laws that mean only a few big corporations or old media companys will be the only gatekeepers of film,tv, audio production,
like in the 80s when a few big music companys could control what music got released ,you had to sign a contract to be allowed to release music .
And the whole purpose of copyright is suppossed to be to encourage creativity artists writers and composers .Not to give control to hollywood to of all online media production

valery98@live.fr says:

Who iS your source Gary page and could you tell me more about the section 230 push to Ban russian website ?

How do you know that merkley and Schummer support that bill and Want to sneak it into a military bill could you tell me your where issource because what have you said IS worrying me a lot and could you tell me more about the section 230 push to have thé autorité to Ban russian sites ? Thanks for your answers Gary .

valery98@live.fr (user link) says:

Who iS your source Gary page and could you tell me more about the section 230 push to Ban russian website ?

Gary i,m worried about what you have said about the section 230 push could you tell me more about that ? And about the smart copyright act how did you know that Merkley and Schummer support that bill and Want to sneak it into a military bill ? and about Buck and nadler how do you know they will introduce the house next week ? Thanks for this answers .

Anonymous Coward (user link) says:

Re: Does not seem to have good prospects.

Reading other articles saying that the prospects for this bill are, in general, seen as not good. According to an article on Politco not only has there been no similar legislation introduced in the House of Representatives yet, but the bill faces an uphill climb against both the tech industry and other legislative priorities.

valery98@live.fr says:

Re: Re: politico

i have read also on politico
that Tillis spokesperson Adam Webb said the senator “intends to work with Senator Leahy, [Senate Judiciary] Chair [Dick] Durbin (D-Ill.), and Senate leadership to ensure the SMART Copyright Act is enacted into law this Congress there are no mention of the ukrainian military bill . and that schummer support the smart act. gary so tell us your source. are you working in the senate or the house ?

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Coward Cancel reply

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

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...