MPAA Tells The FCC: If We Don't Stop Piracy, The Internet Will Die

from the moral-panic dept

Never let it be said that the folks in Hollywood aren't good at coming up with a totally fictional horror story. I just have a problem when they use it not to entertain, but to create a moral panic to push the government to pass laws in their favor. In discussing the recent 60 Minutes piece that was really nothing more than an MPAA scare tactic, some suggested that it was really just a first step in the process of getting the government to make sure net neutrality rules had a special Hollywood exception. So, it's interesting to note that just before that 60 Minutes episode aired (and just before Halloween), the MPAA sent a "scary" filing to the FCC warning it how the US would always be a broadband laggard if it didn't stomp out piracy. The full filing (warning:pdf) claims, repeatedly, that piracy is sucking up all our bandwidth and getting rid of that would somehow make it cheaper to install faster internet connections.

The Commission has projected that it could cost $350 billion to ubiquitously deploy broadband networks capable of delivering 100 Mbps, which is rapidly becoming the international standard. The Commission, however, should not ignore that illegal content accounts for a vast amount of online traffic. Thus, it could generate substantial savings in this tremendous build-out cost -- to be borne by both government and private sector investment -- by encouraging construction of networks that are designed not on the basis of accommodating capacity-hogging transmissions of unlawful content but rather with the goal of providing consumers a rich broadband experience.

And, of course, it pushes for kicking file sharers off the internet (it hides this by calling it "graduated response," of course, rather than the more common term "three strikes"). The filing also goes on about how the MPAA is just so sure that ISPs can stamp out piracy, and because of that, it thinks the government should force them to get on it.

The MPAA wastes little time mocking those who disagree with its position, and suggesting that the FCC "pay no heed" to consumer concerns:

[The] Commission should pay no heed to assertions by some members of the advocacy community that the problem of content theft can be ignored because some amount of legitimate e-commerce already occurs through vendors such as iTunes.... The same holds true for the preposterous notion that the law should be ignored unless a property owner can demonstrate that a thief, in the absence of stealing, otherwise would have legitimately purchased a stolen product. A shoplifter who steals a DVD from a store in a mall is not immune from security intervention, let alone prosecution, simply because he might not have planned to buy the product that he attempted to steal.

Except, of course, there's a huge difference there. If someone steals a DVD it's no longer there for someone else to buy. If someone who never would have purchased the movie views it online there's no loss. it's difficult to see how the MPAA can simply ignore this while assuming that FCC commissioners are too stupid to grasp this rather simple economic concept.

But where the filing really comes into its own in being laughably funny is where it tries to claim that if the FCC doesn't do this, the internet will effectively die. How does it get there? Well, first, it claims that the reason people use the internet is to view content from Hollywood. And, if file sharing keeps up, there won't be any of that content left, and then why would anyone use the internet? Think that's an exaggeration? How else do you interpret this:

Quite clearly, it is the promise of access to the content flowing over the Internet's network architecture that motivates Americans to adopt broadband. The Internet without content would be nothing more than a collection of hardware; a series of computer links and protocols with great capacity to communicate but nothing to say. Television once was unfairly derided as little more than a toaster with pictures. In the absence of compelling content, the Internet would offer consumers even less value than that proverbial toaster. It is the content that flows over and through the Internet that makes the breakthrough technology so potentially powerful.

Yes, because even though the internet existed for decades before the folks at the movie studios had even heard of it, they had nothing to say, at all, until people could start sharing the latest camcorded blockbuster. Do they really think people are this stupid? Sorry, Hollywood, but it's not "the content" that you're thinking about that makes the internet so powerful. It's the ability to communicate. Sure, the content is a nice-to-have, but the internet grew and grew because it let people talk to each other, not because it was another broadcast medium. This fantasy story by the MPAA also leaves out the fact that more content than ever before is being produced today, even as "piracy" numbers have gone up. And, oh yes, once again, the movie business is hitting record highs at the box office. Funny that the MPAA seems to spend so much time insisting that its industry is dying, while leaving out the record revenue bit. Instead, it just keeps jumping out and yelling that piracy will kill the movie business...

And then it gets into rewriting history, by insisting that every new technology is only successful if the big media companies support it:

Throughout history, whenever transformative communications technologies have captured the imagination of consumers, compelling content has been the vehicle for forward progress.

Apparently, the MPAA is unfamiliar with the telephone. Hopefully, the FCC is a bit more familiar with that particular technology.

The filing goes on and on like this, designed to "scare" the folks at the FCC with a bit of a moral panic, but only inducing laughter (good show, Hollywood) from anyone with any actual understanding of technology, history and copyright. Another favorite tidbit is the MPAA's demand that the FCC not pay attention to how incredibly screwed up every single attempt at using technological measures to stop piracy has been in the past:

MPAA does not want the Commission's consideration of the important overarching issue of unlawful online conduct to be derailed by backward-looking debates about the pros and cons of any given technology, particularly those that already have been surpassed by new innovations. MPAA firmly believes that future developments will yield an entirely new generation of ever-more-sophisticated online protection technologies.

In other words, please ignore how badly we've screwed up in the past. Don't worry about things like rootkits and security vulnerabilities we've created. Also, ignore the fact that DRM doesn't work and only punishes our legitimate customers while driving more people to piracy. That would be a waste of time. Really.

And finally, I leave you with the most stunning statement of all, along those lines. One that I'm amazed the MPAA lawyers let go through in this filing, because it absolutely has to come back to haunt the MPAA in the future. In responding to concerns from lots of different people, including consumer advocates and consumer electronics firms that the various technological protection measures the MPAA wants to force on ISPs will harm, the MPAA states:

That a tool intended to stop unlawful conduct could be put to ill use, however, is not an argument for prohibiting the use of the tool....

Wait... isn't that exactly the argument that the MPAA has used for years against every new file sharing technology out there? Wasn't it the crux of the Grokster lawsuits? That because the tool could be put to ill use, it needed to be prohibited? Yet, now, suddenly it doesn't want its own technologies prohibited just because they can be put to "ill use." Double standard, much?

This is nothing but a typical moral panic from Hollywood. They are storytellers out there, and they know how to craft a horror story. Hopefully, though, the FCC reviewers of this particular fantasy will give it the thumbs down for simply being totally unbelievable.

Leave a Comment..

Gershwin Heirs Fight Over Copyright Royalties

from the oh-please,-make-it-stop dept

The heirs of George and Ira Gershwin (the famous songwriting brothers) were leaders (right alongside Disney) in the fight for copyright extension a decade ago. They insisted that it wasn't about the money, but about making sure that their work wasn't presented in a way of which they disapproved ("Someone could turn 'Porgy and Bess' into rap music" was the complaint from Mark Gershwin, conveniently ignoring that much of the Gershwin's work pulled concepts from African American music). Yet, if it's not about money, why are the Gershwin heirs suddenly involved in legal battles all about who gets the money?

Copycense points us to the news of a variety of legal battles from the heirs on different sides of the family squabbling over who gets what rights to foreign royalties. Of course, they're fighting over who still gets to make money on songs that were all written prior to 1937 (when George died). When those songs were written, the "promise" copyright gave them would have already put all those songs in the public domain by now. One would think these heirs (none of them actually direct descendants of either George or Ira -- since neither had children) would be thrilled that the government went back on the promise it made to the public and granted them even more monopoly rents for a few more decades and kept quiet. But, apparently, that's not the way these things go.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Guy Who Helped Mod Cable Modems Arrested By The FBI

from the freedom-to-tinker? dept

What a world we live in: if you tinker too much with the electronic equipment you buy, you might get charged with a crime. That seems to be what happened to a guy in Oregon who helps mod cable modems. Now, clearly, some people can and do use modded cable modems to access cable service that they haven't paid for, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons to hack your own hardware or to buy modded hardware. Just like unlocking a mobile phone should be perfectly legal, the same is true of unlocking a legally purchased cable modem. As the article linked above explains, most of the indictment seems to focus on the actions of others in this guy's forums, which should lead to an easy Section 230 dismissal (as he shouldn't be responsible for their actions). The only "questionable" issue for the guy is a request for certain information that could potentially have been used to gain unauthorized access -- but that's not evidence that he actually did so. All in all, this seems like an attempt to crack down on anyone interfering with artificial locks put on legally purchased hardware by the cable companies. And, if that's the case, why is the FBI involved at all? Shouldn't this just be a civil issue involving the cable companies?

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Chicago Tribune Tries An Experiment: Life Without The AP

from the who-needs-it? dept

Via Jeff Sonderman we find out that the Tribune Company wants to experiment next week and see how far it can get without content from the Associated Press. Last year, we noted that various newspapers were beginning to drop their AP membership as they were concerned about a new pricing structure, as well as the fact that the AP seemed unable to keep up with the modern world, and seemed increasingly less relevant. Worst of all, some of its moves actually appeared to position the non-profit organization as a competitor to its own member newspapers.

The Tribune was one of the larger publishers to indicate that it was sick of the AP, giving the organization two years notice (as required) that it didn't plan to renew its contract at the end of October, 2010. For this experiment, the Tribune wants to see how far it can get without AP material (though it will use it if there's nothing else). Still, the newspaper giant notes that it has plenty of other wire options: "Reuters, the Washington Post, New York Times, Agence France Presse, Cable News Network, Global Post, Bloomberg and McClatchy newspapers." Some of those are "new," but should make it clear to the AP that it doesn't quite have the monopoly it seems to think it has.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Judge Lets Gene Patent Lawsuit Move Forward

from the free-speech dept

A few months back, we noted that (finally!) someone was challenging the ridiculous and dangerous practice of patenting genes. The company being sued, Myriad Genetics, tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, claiming that the parties (the ACLU and some cancer patients) have no standing, but the judge was not convinced and is allowing the case to move forward, noting that there is a legitimate First Amendment issue to consider here. While just a preliminary step, this is definitely a step in the right direction.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Gimmicky Augmented Reality Videos Popping Up In Music Videos And Magazines

from the not-quite-there-yet dept

If you haven't been paying attention, over the last couple of months, the "buzz" over "augmented reality" has been building. It seems likely that it's going to be one of those topics you hear a lot about in 2010, so get ready for it now. The basic concept is that you'll be able to overlay digital information on the real world, and conceptually, it could be really cool. If you had heads-up displays or a contact lens, it could actually be quite useful. The concept itself isn't new. This video from five years ago shows that people have been working on the concept for quite some time:

Yet, in the last few months, it's reached new levels of buzz, in part due to the fact that new augmented reality apps for mobile phones have started showing up. Some of these are cool, some are gimmicky -- but all are pretty early in development. It's going to take some time before they're really useful.

But that isn't stopping some folks from trying to get ahead of the curve in jumping on the augmented reality bandwagon. Unfortunately, the end result seems kinda gimmicky and useless -- more for show, rather than to do anything useful. Last week, all the buzz was about singer John Mayer releasing an augmented reality video, but if you watch the following video, you might wonder what the point is: Beyond being complicated (you need to either print out an image on a piece of paper, or have the image show up on your iPhone, and then you need to turn on your webcam and line up the image on the paper/iPhone with one on the screen), it's not clear what value the augmented reality adds, other than the fact that you can rotate the video in 3D as it's playing.

And, now, Esquire magazine is trying to do the same thing. An image in the magazine, when held up to a computer webcam and lined up correctly, and Robert Downey Jr. will apparently show up on your screen and say stuff. I give Esquire some credit for trying, and making the paper magazine have something different that might attract some buyers, but it doesn't seem like they're using the augmented reality for anything useful.

My guess is that we'll be seeing a lot more of these useless augmented reality experiments, combined with lots of press coverage and hype -- and most people won't even bother, because it's not that useful. Perhaps, then, the hype can die down and some really useful augmented reality apps can start to show up.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Case Appealed Because Jurors Were Allowed To Use Prosecutor's Laptop

from the that-doesn't-seem-very-smart dept

We've been seeing all sorts of odd issues in the courtroom as the court system comes to grips with modern technology like mobile phones and the internet, which introduces some new challenges. However, this one is really strange. Michael Scott points us to a story of a trial where the defendant appealed because the jury was allowed to use the prosecutor's laptop to review evidence without supervision, leading to questions of whether or not the jury was able to view other material that had not been entered as evidence in the case. The case itself involved a fight at a gas station, and the evidence on the laptop was the surveillance camera video taken of the fight. In an odd exchange, the prosecutor said he was fine with having the jury look over the laptop, he admits it's actually his son's laptop and probably didn't have anything else on it, other than his son's political science notes. For that reason, the appeal didn't get far, since the original court and the prosecutor had established on the record that there was nothing else related to the case on the laptop, but it still makes you wonder why the jury was allowed to use the prosecutor's laptop without supervision. Why not get another laptop? Also odd, is that I don't quite understand what the prosecutor means when he says he can't just take the CD with the video out of his laptop:

Your Honor, the CD is in my laptop. If they want to watch it, I don't have any problem with the CD they can't obviously watch anything without the CD. My concern if I take it out, shut down the computer I am not here there is no one to gather it back up. So I would suggest we leave it here in the event they want to look at it they come back and look at it.

Why couldn't they take the CD out and put it into another laptop?

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Live Nation Working To Turn Website Into More Of A Platform

from the this-could-be-interesting dept

Live Nation gets a bit of a bad reputation for some of the way it handles large stadium shows, but of the "big" music industry players, it's actually one of the more interesting and better positioned companies out there, because it really has aligned itself to benefit from the sale of scarcities, rather than the sale of music itself. It does have some legacy issues, such as huge commitments to some large acts and a distracting merger fight with Ticketmaster, but the company is still worth watching. It's been trying to do more and more with its website, to make it something of a destination/e-commerce play, and its latest move is to make it more of a platform. Both artists and fans will be able to upload concert footage, as well as various community features (wikis, reviews, Twitter streams, fan Q&As and more). It increasingly seems like Live Nation is trying to enable a platform where fans and artists can connect, and on which fans can buy (mainly concert tickets, but other things as well). It's a smart move, but I wonder whether or not Live Nation ends up competing with a band's own web presence. What could be cool is if Live Nation also makes it so an artist can integrate many of these features into their own site as well. In the meantime, though, we're once again seeing why now is a great time to be a musician. There are so many different services that help enable artists to both connect with fans and set up business models.

3 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Court Says Kentucky Has No Right To Seize Gambling Domain Name

from the not-that-it-cares dept

We've covered the bizarre legal battle in Kentucky, where the governor tried to have a long list of gambling-related domain names (none of which had anything to do with the state of Kentucky) declared "illegal gambling devices" so that the state could seize the domain names. The governor has been pretty open that this has nothing to do with any moral issue over online gambling, but is a blatant attempt to help protect local gambling establishments in the state. Of course, it's ridiculous to think that a state governor could claim the right to seize domain names that are not based in Kentucky at all, and after a lower court (that didn't seem to understand the issue) sided with the governor, an appeal court overturned that ruling. Rather than recognize how silly this campaign is, the case is going to the state Supreme Court.

But, apparently the lawsuits aren't just happening in Kentucky. Michael Scott points us to the news that one of the companies targeted by Kentucky brought a lawsuit both against Kentucky and its own registrar in the UK to get a ruling that it is not subject to the whims of Kentucky politicians. The state of Kentucky ignored the proceedings, which resulted in the court agreeing that Kentucky has no right to seize the domain name. Of course, the state of Kentucky probably couldn't care much less about what a court in England thinks (which explains why it didn't even bother to respond), so the victory may be somewhat meaningless. However, at the very least, if Kentucky somehow wins its case in the US, perhaps the registrars in the UK can point to this ruling to refuse handing over the domain names.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Google Going Better Than Free On Navigation? Will That Set Off Antitrust Alarms?

from the should-it? dept

A few friends have passed along Bill Gurley's excellent (as usual) analysis of how Google is disrupting the navigation market by ditching the two big players in the space (Tele Atlas and Navteq), going it alone and also (the big news) offering its navigation info for free. Gurley points out that the truly disruptive part is that Google is actually offering mobile operators a deal that is better than free, in that they get to share in some of the ad revenue associated with anyone using the services. The point is pretty clear: those who are relying on the old business model of getting paid for navigation info are likely in serious trouble.

Of course, there are some perception issues. Plenty of companies who have tried a "we'll pay you" approach to marketing often find that it actually breeds some level of mistrust, as partners/users start wondering why, and if there's some sort of nasty catch. Google, of course, has a pretty good reputation, and ought to be able to overcome that issue. However, it does make me wonder if this will set off the Justice Department (and Google's enemies) on some silly witchhunt, claiming that this is somehow "predatory pricing." That, of course, is ridiculous if you actually think it through. The only real problem with predatory pricing is if it's used purposely to drive others out of business to then jack up prices. But Google's idea is to just give it more opportunity to make ad revenue. It's not predatory, it's just smart from a business sense. However, with so much scrutiny on Google these days, you could certainly see this backfiring.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Obama Administration Uses 'State Secrets' Clause To Try To Block All Warrantless Wiretapping Cases

from the transparency-is-dead dept

Despite new rules from the Obama administration that are supposed to reduce the use of "state secrets" claims to avoid revealing certain information, the first use of such a claim out of the administration since change the rules is to (once again) try to stop lawsuits involving warrantless wiretapping efforts by the federal government that began under the Bush administration. Again, this is disappointing. It remains difficult for me to see how anyone can justify a warrantless wiretapping program. I have no problem with a wiretapping program that has judicial oversight, but how can anyone defend a system that had no oversight at all?

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Music Critic: This Is The Golden Age For Music

from the you-can-listen-to-whatever-you-want dept

While we keep hearing record execs and politicians bemoaning the state of the recording industry, UK music critic John Harris has written up a great article at the BBC pointing out how wrong they are, and noting that this is the "golden age of infinite music." Indeed. This is exactly what we've been saying for years, though not as eloquently as Harris:

Last weekend, by contrast, I had a long chat about music with the 16-year-old son of a friend, and my mind boggled.

At virtually no cost, in precious little time and with zero embarrassment, he had become an expert on all kinds of artists, from English singer-songwriters like Nick Drake and John Martyn to such American indie-rock titans as Pavement and Dinosaur Jr.

Though only a sixth-former, he seemingly knew as much about most of these people as any music writer.

Like any rock-oriented youth, his appetite for music is endless, and so is the opportunity - whether illegally or not - to indulge it. He is a paid-up fan of bands it took me until I was 30 to even discover - and at this rate, by the time he hits his 20s, he'll have reached the true musical outer limits.

What does all this tell us? Clearly, for anyone raised in the old world, the modern way of music consumption has all kinds of unforeseen benefits.

He notes that smarter musicians are realizing they can't just offer up "filler" material any more, but need to focus on music that's actually good, and that the industry itself needs to change:

So, yes, the record industry may yet have to comprehensively reinvent itself, or implode. Sooner or later, given that the need to read reviews before deciding what to listen to is fading fast, I rather fear that even music journalists may be rendered irrelevant.

But for now, this is a truly golden age - the era of the teenage expert, albums that will soon have to be full of finely-honed hits and the completely infinite online jukebox.

Even if the music business manages to somehow crack down on illicit downloading and claws back a few quid via annual subscriptions in return for that self-same endless supply of music, the same essential rules will apply. Really: what's not to like?

The one area where I disagree with Harris, is that he seems to think that this will push some artists to focus on creating more "hits" rather than more thoughtful music that "grows" on people. I'm not so sure of that (and I haven't seen it in the niche areas of music that I follow). Instead, because communities build up around certain artists or music genres, the community actually does a good job promoting the music and giving it life, rather than relying on it being a massive "hit."

We've said it before, and it should be said again: nearly everything about the music industry today is better. More music is being made than ever before. More people are making music than ever before. More people are listening to new music than ever before. More musicians are making money from music than ever before. Even more musical instruments are being sold than ever before. The only thing suffering is the sale of plastic discs (though, the sales of iPods are doing quite well). The problem isn't the music industry. The problem is with a certain small group of businesses who built their business on the concept of selling plastic discs.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Brazil To Let Hackers Try To Crack E-Voting Terminals

from the good-for-them dept

One thing that never made much sense was how vehemently the big e-voting manufacturers fought pretty much every single attempt to let outside computer security experts try hacking their machines. They often made excuses about how this wouldn't be fair under "non-real-world conditions," but never explained how it would be bad to at least let these hacks proceed to learn from them and use them to strengthen the overall security of the machines. Thankfully, it looks like voting officials in other countries are a bit more open to this concept. Slashdot points out that Brazil opened up a "challenge" allowing security experts and other hackers to request to take part in a big hack attempt on e-voting equipment. Not only that, but the government is going to give $5,000 to whoever successfully hacks into one of the e-voting systems. This seems like a much smarter way to check the security on these machines than the previous method of very basic gov't oversight and the e-voting firms issuing a big "trust us," answer to every question.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Teens Sue School After Being Disciplined For MySpace Photos

from the no-free-speech-until-you-graduate? dept

We've seen a bunch of stories lately about schools handing out discipline for activities done online, and conflicting court cases on the subject make it fairly unclear where a school's authority to discipline students ends. In the latest case, two sophomore high school girls posted private photos to their MySpace accounts from a sleepover. The photos are described as "racy." While they were set to private, someone copied them, and eventually school administrators saw them and banned the girls from extracurricular activities for a while and also required that the two girls apologize to the (all male) coaches' board. It also required the girls to undergo therapy sessions. All this because they posted some silly photos online? Beyond the question of whether or not the school even has the right to discipline these students for events that had nothing (at all) to do with the school, the punishment also seems to go well beyond the "crime." Kids do silly/stupid things all the time. And, yes, these days there are cameraphones and social networks that make these things easier to record and distribute, but it doesn't change the fact that kids are kids. I doubt there are many adults out there today who didn't do something silly or stupid as a teen. For those of you who are a bit older, imagine if cameraphones and social networks had been around then? Would you have wanted to have been suspended from school activities? The whole thing seems like a huge overreaction.

61 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Once Again: DVRs Not Killing TV, But Helping It

from the think-this-through-a-bit dept

It's becoming almost comical how often this happens: a new technology comes along for consuming/watching/listening/distributing some sort of entertainment content, and the industry freaks out. The technology is going to destroy the industry, and laws must be put in place, royalties must be paid, technology must be crippled, etc. And yet... the impending doomsday scenario never shows up. The player piano did not kill the sheet music market. The gramophone did not kill live concerts. The VCR did not kill the movie industry. And, here we are, with TV folks finally realizing that the DVR is not killing TV, but actually helping it. Basically, lots of people still watch ads, even if they're watching a time-delayed program. What's funny is that throughout the article you have execs insisting that this was a shock to everyone and no one could have predicted it. Except, of course, we wrote about the same basic thing three and a half years ago. But no one listens to us.

The article doesn't even mention the biggest benefit to DVRs -- even beyond the fact that people watching them still watch commercials: that it allows people to become more connected to certain shows, since they're less likely to ever miss an episode. That makes them more likely to watch those shows regularly (with or without the commercials). If someone can't keep up otherwise, they'll just let the show go entirely.

The other amusing finding in the article is that NBC's attempt to "DVR-proof" itself by moving Jay Leno to 10pm (on the theory that more people would watch it live when they couldn't fast forward through the ads) has totally backfired. That's because it also means that if people miss the show, they don't go back and watch it days later (who wants to watch stale jokes?) -- so fewer ads get watched in the long run (compared to a show that would be recorded and watched later). Oops. In the meantime, can we go back to those TV execs who were threatening to sue TiVo just a few years ago, and ask for an apology for wasting everyone's time?

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Yet Another (Yes, Another) Study Shows File Sharers Buy More

from the how-many-more-do-we-need? dept

Pretty much every single non-industry-backed study has shown this same thing, but just for the record, here's yet another study showing that those who engage in unauthorized file sharing end up buying more media. The study, looking at the UK (home of the new proposal to kick people off the internet), wasn't even close. Those who engaged in unauthorized file sharing tended to spend £77 on media per year, while those who did not spent about £44. And yet file sharers are the enemy? And the industry wants to kick them offline so they discover less new content? How will that help?

51 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Pepsi Told To Pay Over A Billion Dollars For 'Stealing' The Idea For Bottled Water

from the the-world-has-gone-mad dept

Ben was the first of a few folks who sent in the story that Pepsi has been told to pay $1.26 billion (with a b) for supposedly "stealing" the idea for filtered bottled water. Seriously. Two men claim they came up with the idea in 1981 to bottle water this way and approached Pepsi distributors with the idea. They say that Pepsi "stole" their trade secrets when it launched a bottled water line, Aquafina. Of course, Aquafina was launched in the mid-nineties, a decade and a half after this conversation supposedly took place. The $1.26 billion is something of a joke as well. It's a default judgment because a Pepsi secretary apparently forgot to pass on the letter alerting them to the lawsuit, so they didn't respond. Even so... there's so much wrong with this. First, $1.26 billion? For the "idea" of filtered bottled water? And for a lawsuit filed nearly thirty years after the alleged conversation? Nearly fifteen years after the product came to market? Yeah, that makes sense...

83 Comments | Leave a Comment..

60 Minutes Puts Forth Laughable, Factually Incorrect MPAA Propaganda On Movie Piracy

from the no-sense-of-history dept

31 years ago, in 1978, the television program 60 Minutes put on an episode about the awful threat of "video piracy" to the movie industry. Featuring the MPAA's Jack Valenti, the episode focused on how the VCR was going to destroy the movie business because anyone could copy and watch a movie in the privacy of their own home. Of course, in retrospect, that episode is hilariously wrong. You would think that, given how wrong they got it thirty years ago on this particular subject, 60 Minutes would be a bit more careful taking on the same subject again.

No such luck.

CBS's 60 Minutes has made itself out to be more of a laughingstock than usual when it comes to "investigative reporting," putting on an episode about "video piracy" that is basically 100% MPAA propaganda, without any fact checking or any attempt to challenge the (all MPAA connected) speakers, or to include anyone (anyone!) who would present a counterpoint. The episode is funny in that it contradicts itself at times (with no one noticing it) and gets important (and easily checked) facts wrong. And, of course, it basically mimics that old episode that history has shown to have been totally (laughably) false.

The report opens with the claim that counterfeit movies is where organized crime is making its money these days. Fascinating. Except they don't show any proof whatsoever that organized crime has anything to do with movie piracy at all. They just claim it, talk about Mexican gangs, and then assume it must be true. But, of course, most of the report actually focuses on the internet and file sharing of movies -- which completely goes against the claim that organized crime is "making its money" off of video piracy. After all, reports have shown that online file sharing has actually been putting DVD counterfeiters out of business. You would think that the "journalists" at 60 Minutes might have noticed this contradiction.

A big chunk of the episode is taken up by director Steven Soderbergh, who has come out in the past touting the MPAA's line before, so it's no surprise that he does so again. He claims that "piracy is costing Hollywood $6 billion a year at the box office." Does he mention that Hollywood has been making more and more and more at the box office every year the past few years? Oops. No. Did the reporters at 60 Minutes look into this fact and bring it up? Of course not. The entire story appears to be an MPAA press release, so you don't want to cloud it with pesky facts that prove they don't know what they're talking about.

Next up, Soderbergh claims that fewer movies are getting made thanks to movie piracy. Uh huh. Another checkable fact. Another one wrong. It was recently summarized, according to the movie industry's own numbers:

2004 Total Movies Released: 567 Total Combined Gross: $9,327,315,935
2005 Total Movies Released: 594 Total Combined Gross: $8,825,324,278
2006 Total Movies Released: 808 Total Combined Gross: $9,225,689,414
2007 Total Movies Released: 1022 Total Combined Gross: $9,665,661,126
2008 Total Movies Released: 1037 Total Combined Gross: $9,705,677,862
2009 Total Movies Released: 1177 Total Combined Gross: $7,596,626,766
(2009 figures incomplete, total movies scheduled to be released, gross to date)

So, actually, more than double the number of movies are being made today than just five years ago. Hmm. That's the sort of thing that a real journalist at a show like 60 Minutes might bring up to a biased director like Steven Soderberg, right? Nope.

The article mentions how to go to the movies these days, some people have to go through "airport-like security. Their bags are searched for cameras and they have to check their cell phones." Does it point out that this might be a pretty serious reason why people might not want to go to the movies? A reason why people might actually give less money to the industry? Nope. Why bother with details like that?

And then, 60 Minutes brings on our favorite industry spokesperson: Rick Cotton, NBC Universal's general counsel, the guy who warned that movie piracy put corn farmers at risk because people watching pirated movies eat less popcorn (never mind the fact that the corn industry is thriving, that people watching pirated movies still eat popcorn, and "popcorn" represents an infinitesimal part of the market...). Cotton was also the guy who thought it was a good idea to push people who wanted to watch the Olympics to pirate it rather than watch the crappy official online channel. Cotton is asked how many movies are released in the US:

"Ballpark, 400 to 500 movies are released in the United States."

Except, as we noted above, he's off by about 600 or 700 movies. Again, this is the sort of "fact" that a reporter, such as those employed by CBS and working on a television program like 60 Minutes might be expected to check, right? I would guess that most viewers of 60 Minutes expect the show's reporters and legions of other employees to do such basic fact checking. So, given that 1177 movies are going to be released in 2009, doesn't it make sense to, say, push back on Cotton's bogus number? Apparently not.

Random aside: I wonder how much money CBS makes from the big studios buying movie ads? That can't be important here, can it?

Most of the rest of the program is Soderbergh making a bunch of totally unsubstantiated statements, such as saying that no one would make The Matrix today. Why? No explanation. It's just that Sodergbergh says.

And, of course, beyond failing to fact check the most basic facts, no one at 60 Minutes thought to talk to anyone outside of the studio system to see if it made sense. It didn't talk to any one of the growing number of people who are making movies and embracing file sharing to help get those movies seen. It didn't talk to moviemakers who are embracing new business models. It didn't talk to copyright experts and consumer advocates who have shown how ridiculous the MPAA's claims are. In other words, it presented an MPAA press release as if it were news. Thirty years after it did the same exact thing and got the entire story wrong. It didn't even go back and note that earlier episode. It just repeated it with modern stand-ins.

126 Comments | Leave a Comment..

German Chancellor Proposes Special 'Save Newspapers' Copyright Law

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

It's beginning to look like German Chancellor Angela Merkel believes the entire point of copyright is not to provide incentive to create, but as a way to hurt Google and protect obsolete local businesses. Last month, we wrote about her complaints concerning the Google book project (where she conveniently left out the fact she had tried to fund the European equivalent). And, now, her party has proposed creating a special new copyright law just for old school news organizations. There aren't many specifics, other than they want to protect news organizations, and this odd claim:

"The Internet cannot be a copyright-free zone."

The thing is, it's not a "copyright-free" zone. But what the internet has shown is that if you put in place dumb copyright laws that do no more than to prop up business models, people will route around them. That's even more likely to occur if Merkel and her colleagues create a special "protect newspapers" copyright.

The article suggests that the likely proposal would involve "neighboring rights," which are found in some other areas of copyright law -- and would require that the original creator of the content give some kind of permission before any commercial use of the work. So, in theory, any "commercial" aggregator could only aggregate and link to stories from which it has received explicit permission. In other words, it would effectively break the basic premise of the web by not allowing you to summarize and link where you would like.

Not surprisingly, newspaper and magazine publishers in Germany are all for it, though they might want to think twice about that. Just wait until one of their competitors breaks a story, and they're unable to talk about it without "permission." Meanwhile, plenty of people who actually have put some thought into this realize that the "commercial/non-commercial" line is not clear at all. Is a personal blogger who puts up some basic ads on his or her site (even if they earn pennies) a "commercial enterprise"? And what about Google News, which doesn't have ads on the European version of Google News (it only recently put ads on the US version)?

On the whole, this sounds like someone decided they wanted to "help out" the major media companies, but without anyone putting much thought into the actual details or inevitable consequences of such a law. A more cynical person might suggest that this proposal is really designed to gain the current ruling party a bit of support from the mainstream press in Germany...

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

NJ Gubernatorial Candidate Using Monty Python Video Without Authorization In Campaign Commercial

from the double-standards dept

Politicians almost always push for stronger copyright laws or copyright law enforcement -- and yet, time and time and time again we see that when it comes to their own use, they often violate copyright law themselves. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt: most people who don't pay attention closely simply buy the industry's line about copyright: that it's property and that it's important to keep the industry functioning. Neither is true, of course, but if you don't think about it or pay attention to how copyright really works, you can see how people would believe that.

So here we are again, with yet another politician -- this time US Attorney and current New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie -- caught red handed making use of content he most likely had no permission to use. In this case, he used clips from old Monty Python skits in his television commercials (which were also placed online). The chaps who make up Monty Python insist that Christie had no permission to do so and they don't like it (they're considering suing). Now, I tend to think that using a clip in such a manner should be perfectly legal, but given that it is not, it does look pretty bad for a long-term lawyer, current US Attorney and now candidate for governor to be caught flat-out ignoring copyright law.

One could hope that this would be a "teachable moment" to a politician, letting him know that copyright is an issue that isn't quite as clear cut as many politicians make it out to be. And yet, somehow, I doubt that will happen. It's not yet clear if Christie has much of a record on copyright issues (I can't find much), but somehow I doubt he'll suddenly become a fair use crusader.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..