Entertainment Industry: Yes, Please Keep Negotiating Secret Copyright Treaty To Save Our Asses

from the yeah,-that's-convincing dept

Sherwin Siy (one of the few people who actually was allowed to glance briefly at parts of the proposed ACTA treaty, though under strict NDA) has written about yet another letter sent by the entertainment industry to the government in support of ACTA. This letter includes pretty much everyone who benefits from abusing copyright laws and is afraid of the internet:

Advertising Photographers of America
American Association of Independent Music (A2IM)
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)
American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. (ASMP)
Association of American Publishers (AAP)
Broadcast Music, Inc (BMI)
Commercial Photographers International
Directors Guild of America (DGA)
Evidence Photographers International Council
Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA)
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE)
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA)
National Music Publishers Association (NMPA)
NBC Universal
News Corporation
Picture Archive Council of America (PACA)
Professional Photographers of America (PPA)
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Reed Elsevier Inc.
Society of Sport & Event Photographers
Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA)
Stock Artists Alliance
Student Photographic Society
The Advertising Photographers of America
The Walt Disney Company
Time Warner, Inc.
Universal Music Group
Viacom Inc.
Warner Music Group

Funny... isn't it, that all these companies and industry groups are supporting a deal that no one's seen yet? Oh wait... that's because many of them have seen it and actually have had a hand in creating it. But what's really damning is that no where in the letter do they explain why this is actually needed or how it will do anything valuable. Instead, it's a pure faith-based letter saying "if you pass this secret treaty, good things will happen." I don't know about you, but generally, I prefer there to be actual proof and evidence that restricting consumer rights around the world actually leads to some sort of real benefit.

Tellingly, they don't respond to any of the points we raised earlier. This is not a treaty to help people or the economy. It's a deal to try to sneak through a system for propping up an obsolete business model by companies who don't want to adapt.

42 Comments | Leave a Comment..

No, ACTA Secrecy Is Not 'Normal' -- Nor Is It A 'Distraction'

from the don't-make-us-laugh dept

Over the last few weeks people who are actually concerned about individual rights have done a decent job sounding the alarm about the problems with what little we've seen of the ACTA negotiations. In the last week or so, those who work for the entertainment industry have suddenly started scrambling to respond, after realizing that more and more people are starting to pay attention and to worry about ACTA. However, it's been pretty funny to watch the desperate attempts by industry lawyers to try to paint this all as much ado about nothing (with gratuitous swipes at those of us who have called attention to what's going on).

One of the points they make is to say that the "secrecy" is no big deal, because it's "normal" for such negotiations to happen this way. This was what the USTR stated earlier this year when the question was raised, but unfortunately, the facts (and common sense) simply don't support that claim at all. If you look at the transparency level on many other international agreements, including well known ones concerning WTO, WIPO, WHO, UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT, UNCTAD, OECD, Hague Conference on Private International Law and many others, you see that they are significantly more transparent and/or have clear procedures in place for concerned parties to take part in the discussions. That is not the case with ACTA.

A second point they make is that if the end result is really bad, countries can simply decide not to sign it and not to participate. Yes, stop laughing. It's as if they think that we're all idiots who haven't seen how lobbyists have historically relied on the line "but we must live up to our international obligations" to push through all sorts of laws the public does not support.

A third point raised is that this isn't a "treaty" but a "sole executive agreement," so we shouldn't worry since it can't change the law. Except, by categorizing it as such, it's actually a loophole that could potentially take Congress out of the process of reviewing or approving anything that's in the agreement, and then just wait for the "but we must live up to our international obligations" to start pouring out of lobbyists and industry lawyers' mouths.

A fourth point of attack is that some of the descriptions of what's being discussed are inaccurate. Well that's funny since a big part of the problem is that we're not even being shown what's being discussed. So, yes, as we've been clear, this is an ongoing negotiation, and the final results may differ from what bits and pieces have been leaked. But, what is leaked has suggested that some very, very bad things are at least on the table, and making that clear and opening up the discussion is important, no matter how much the lawyers don't want anyone interfering. Separately, as you would expect, some of the language used to date in the leaked reports suggests the usual legal games are being played, so that when people point to something and say that opens us up to a bad thing, the lawyers can say "oh, that's no different than what we have already." Just like the RIAA did back when they wiped out musicians rights to reclaim their music (thankfully, only temporarily). But if you actually understand the details, you know that the subtle language choices are all chosen very carefully to drive future legislation. You can see this by simply monitoring what's happening in South Korea now, since that's what the new agreement is supposedly "modeled" on. And, it's not pretty. Various user-generated content sites are severely limiting what users can do, to the point that they're barely recognizable as UGC sites any more. Liability pointed at service providers are scaring them into massive limitations. That's not the sort of world most of us want to live in.

Finally, the ACTA supporters claim that because the administration showed a very small group of consumer rights folks, such as Public Knowledge, a draft of the document, that consumer groups are "a part of the process." That doesn't take into account the level of access. Whereby industry lobbyists had a large hand in drafting ideas and suggestions for parts of the legislation, a Public Knowledge representative was involved on "very short notice" in an initial hour-long meeting whereby they were allowed to look at the text, but not copy it, and then a further short discussion about a revised copy -- but the process included NDAs that prevent much discussion about what was seen. That's not serious involvement.

Finally, as I was writing this, Jamie Love pointed out that the MPAA has sent a letter in favor of ACTA, which is chock full of laughter inducing falsehoods (such as claiming the entire motion picture industry is at risk, even as it's having its best year ever). But the most ridiculous is this:

"Outcries on the lack of transparency in the ACTA negotiations are distraction."

Yes, that's right, making sure that the public knows what the hell its government is signing up for is a "distraction." Could the MPAA's lawyers be any more obvious in brushing off the concerns of the public than by calling it "a distraction." To the MPAA this is all about propping up its business model and stopping competition from online sources. The public doesn't matter. As Jamie Love notes, "transparency isn't a 'distraction.' it is an obligation of governments, to those it wants to govern."

So, yes, perhaps some of the discussion has suggested things that will go beyond what's actually in the document, but it's hilarious to see industry lawyers suggest that those concerned about our rights are "creating a moral panic" when the only reason there's concern at all is because the public is not even allowed to see what's being discussed. Want to end the rampant speculation? Release the documents and let the public take part in the process. The MPAA's letter and the sudden whining from industry lawyers shows what this really is: yet another attempt by one particular industry that refuses to adapt to a changing marketplace, looking to governments to prop up their existing business model at the expense of innovation, consumer rights and upstart competitors.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Lobbyists' Ability To Control The Message

from the we-say-what-they-want dept

It certainly won't come as much of a surprise to readers around here that lobbyists from Roche/Genentech were able to get 42 different members of Congress to include text they had written into the Congressional Record. For way too long, we've seen how much politicians seem to rely on lobbyists to write the legislation, create the talking points and (at times) even deferring questions to the lobbyists themselves. Is it any wonder that lobbyists have become the new celebrities?

But what is rather stunning about the NY Times story on how Genentech's talking points were mentioned (with multiple Congressional reps using the exact same language) is how unconcerned everyone is about it. The lobbyists wrote up talking points for both sides of the aisle. It wasn't about being in support or against the current healthcare bill, but just to get these Congressional Reps "on the record" in supporting key concepts, so that those same lobbyists can go back and point to such "bipartisan" support in the future, even if the Congressional reps themselves don't even know what they're talking about.

The NY Times talked to a bunch of Congressional offices about this, and they all seem to admit freely that the language came from Genentech lobbyists, and they incorporated it directly (sometimes with a few minor changes) into the remarks that get put into the Congressional record. This isn't the fault of Genentech or its lobbyists -- who, of course, are going to push for such things. The really damning part is that all of these Congressional reps don't seem to think there's any problem at all with simply taking text directly from a company and putting it into their own remarks as if they agree on the concept, when they don't even seem to understand what they're saying half of the time. Often these sorts of Congressional remarks are later used to show "Congress' intent" in doing certain things. But, perhaps they should just start being upfront and honest about the fact that these remarks are "the industry's intent" and simply signing them with the companies that actually wrote the language (or at least tagging the remarks with the name of the company/industry group that wrote it).

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More ACTA Details Leak: It's An Entertainment Industry Wishlist

from the no-wonder-they-kept-it-secret dept

The latest round of "negotiations" over the ACTA treaty continue in secret due to as yet unexplained national security reasons (despite the fact that the entertainment industry lobbyists have had full access to the document) are kicking off in Korea. Once again is becoming clear that the claims by US trade reps that ACTA did not represent any kind of major change in copyright law, and thus didn't require public scrutiny, are nothing more than a myth. Despite ridiculous efforts to keep the document secret (some countries were given only physical, watermarked, copies of the latest drafts), some of the details are leaking out and it's not pretty at all.

The plan is modeled on the ridiculously misnamed "free trade agreement" between the US and South Korea from a few years back. It's misnamed because it wasn't about free trade at all, but massive protectionism for the American entertainment industry. The end results haven't been pretty. The treaty pushed South Korea to implement new copyright laws that are perhaps the most draconian around, getting the country to be the first to kick people off the internet based on accusations of file sharing, and putting so much liability on third parties that various user-generated content services have had to turn off the ability to upload all sorts of content (no videos on YouTube, no music on blogs) and has resulted in ISPs even banning any kind of advertising that might make them liable for copyright infringement.

It's Hollywood's dream. It would require signing countries to implement a more draconian version of the DMCA, including incredibly restrictive anti-circumvention wording that has no exception for fair use. It would put liability on third parties for the actions of their users (in other words, it wouldn't include current DMCA-style safe harbors). It would create incentives to kick people off of the internet for file sharing. This is not about free trade at all. This is an entertainment industry-written bill designed to recreate the internet in its image -- as a broadcasting platform, rather than one used for user-generated content and communication.

This isn't about free trade. This isn't about "anti-counterfeiting." This is the "Protect the American Entertainment Industry" treaty.

And, of course, it's not even close to necessary. As happy as the entertainment industry is about what's been happening in South Korea lately, before these laws passed, the industry there (though, not the local subsidiaries of stodgy American entertainment firms) were adapting in amazing and fascinating ways, that didn't require new laws, but embraced what was actually happening. Yet, because the American record labels and movie studios don't want to change with the times, they're pushing through these laws, outside the judiciary process, sneaking it through via a secretive international treaty they had a hand in writing.

There is simply no reason for ACTA, at all. It is nothing but an attempt by the entertainment industry to put massive restrictions on the internet, place liability on lots of third parties, and do nothing to push themselves to adapt to a changing marketplace with new business models.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Arizona Court Says Metadata On Public Records Is Public As Well

from the lobbyists-rushing-to-scrub-metadata dept

An interesting ruling in the Arizona Supreme Court found that the metadata on a public record should be public as well -- so people could, conceivably, look at who created certain documents and when they were created. While that might not seem like a big deal, as the article link above describes, plenty of interesting data often can be found in the metadata -- such as what lobbyist wrote up what documents for other organizations to send. While this only applies in Arizona right now, you have to imagine that lobbyists are quickly learning how to better scrub metadata off their astroturfing letters.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

France Agrees To Kick File Sharers Off The Internet Again; Lobbyists Call It 'Consumer Relief'

from the up-is-down,-black-is-white,-you-said-what-now? dept

There isn't a huge surprise in the news that France has once again passed a law to force ISPs to kick accused (not convicted) file sharers off the internet under a draconian "three strikes" system. We all knew this was coming. After the original French three strikes law was gutted as being totally unconstitutional, French President Nicolas Sarkozy (who apparently doesn't believe any such law should apply to him, given his history of mass piracy) insisted that such a law was necessary to defend freedom. Yes, really. And, even as France's cultural minister was planning to get multiple internet connections just in case he got cut off -- while also wishing that his own creative content were "pirated" more often, the French gov't went back to work on putting in place such a law. The big "change" this time was to give judges 5 whole minutes to rule on file sharers, so that they could say a judge oversaw the case, rather than it just being a random accusation. I'm not sure how due process works with a 5 minute limit... but what can you do.

What's much more entertaining is seeing how entertainment industry lobbyists are cheering this on. I'm beginning to think that they actually believe that kicking people off the internet will make people buy more of their content. Incredible. First up, the MPAA's Dan Glickman (who's being pushed out of his job for being woefully ineffective):

"Today's decision is an enormous victory for creators everywhere. It is our hope that ISPs will fully honor their promise to cooperate and that the French government will take the necessary measures to dedicate resources to handle the enormous task ahead."

A victory for creators? Really? By kicking fans off the internet for promoting their works? Yikes. Someone's out of touch. Then we have Rick Cotton, of NBC Universal, the man who insisted that movie piracy was really harming the poor American corn farmer since people ate less popcorn with pirated movies:

"The French action recognizes that jobs and economic growth in creative industries are under assault by digital theft. We need a safe and secure Internet that enables consumers to access content easily but does not facilitate illegal file sharing that kills jobs in creative sectors."

Yes, and the corn farmers, too, right? So, if it's really all about jobs, what about the people kicked offline who rely on the internet for their job? Apparently those jobs don't matter? In the meantime, it's already pretty clear from multiple studies that it's not file sharing that's "killing jobs in creative sectors" but the inability of executives like Cotton to understand basic economics and business models.

But, honestly, the most guffaw-inducing response to this comes from Tom Sydnor at the Progress & Freedom Foundation. Sydnor, who as you may know, has a long history of making claims that don't pass the laugh test, has really outdone himself this time (it's even better than when he accused a college that couldn't identify accused file sharers of harboring "terrorists, pedophiles, phishing-scheme operators, hackers [and] identity thieves" by giving them a "get out of jail free" card). So what's his take on kicking people off the internet based on accusations? Well, it's really about consumer relief. No, seriously:

"As a consumer, I would far prefer the successive warnings that French law would now provide to the sudden financial devastation of the John-Doe lawsuit that American law would now require. I thus urge American internet-service providers and copyright owners to work together to provide American consumers with similar relief."

Ah, yes, because the only options are to sue everyone or to kick people off the internet? Apparently Tom has such incredibly little faith in the innovation ability of content providers that he assumes that they cannot craft unique and innovative business models that don't involve suing everyone or kicking people off the internet. How insulting of him towards content creators. Every time Sydnor makes a statement like this and PFF promotes it, it just weakens the work that PFF does in other areas. It's tough to take an organization seriously that has someone claiming that kicking people off the internet based on accusations of private companies is "consumer relief."

56 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ACTA Negotiations Back On... White House Shows Small Group Proposed Text Under NDA

from the but-what-about-the-public dept

With the next round of negotiations on the ACTA treaty -- which may require the US and other countries to make significant changes to copyright law that favor the entertainment industry -- set to get underway, the White House still refuses to release details to the public, but did show the text to 42 Washington "insiders" under NDA. The good news is that the list includes a fair number of folks who recognize the problems with copyright law and the ACTA proposal -- including people like Gigi Sohn, William Patry, Sherwin Siy, David Sohn and Michael Petricone. Many of those people will push for the public's best interests. But, still, it's a bit troubling that the whole conversation remains secret for "national security" reasons. If we're talking about changing copyright laws that effect everyone, why not let everyone know? Sherwin Siy, from Public Knowledge, told KEI (in the link above) about his experience viewing the document, which sounded greatly limited, and notes that while the document has been adjusted, "the most troubling aspects" have not been "resolved."

In the meantime, it's worth asking why this is necessary again. First of all, in a world where trade agreements are supposed to be about breaking down trade barriers, ACTA seems designed to be putting up protectionist policies. Protectionism doesn't work and only creates more harm. But, much more importantly, much of the push for ACTA is based on lobbyists' claims of the "harm" done by counterfeiting. Except both the GAO and the OECD have put out independent reports showing that counterfeiting isn't that big a problem, and that whatever problems there are seem to be significantly exaggerated by lobbyists. Yes, those same lobbyists who were given much earlier access to the document and, records suggest, had a hand in shaping the document itself. So why do we need ACTA again? And why are we allowing those who the government has already found to have exaggerated the problem drive the negotiations?

17 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Lobbyists As The New Celebrities? Cheering On Those Who Abuse The System

from the the-greedconomy dept

In the first half of this decade, the press liked to cheer on those hedge fund bosses, who abused the financial system to great wealth. These days, of course, with the economy in the tank, the press needs to find some other class of system-abusers to cheer on. As Copycense notes, it looks like DC lobbyists may be getting the celebrity treatment these days, similar to the hedge fund batch a few years ago. It's as if the press gleefully looks for those who abuse the system for greed to celebrate. What a shame.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Copyright Lobbyists Celebrate Latest Bogus Stats With Willing Gov't Officials

from the this-is-depressing dept

Every day, we see greater and greater evidence that too stringent copyright laws are harming creative efforts rather than encouraging them. The evidence is all around us and growing. But, very few in the government recognize this. They don't actually look at the real research on these things. Instead, they accept as gospel the ridiculous debunked research that comes out of the industry lobbyists who benefit the most from such protectionism that limits real and meaningful competition. And no one calls them on it. Take, for example, this Internet News report on how lobbyists for the music, movie and software industries all got together with Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, and talked up a new and misleading study from the International Intellectual Property Association that talks up the importance of copyright.

Unfortunately, the report has many, many problems. It mistakenly assumes that anything covered by copyright (i.e., any sort of creative output) is created solely because of copyright. Plenty of content/software/etc. is not created because of copyright -- but this study assumes that it is and that it needs to be protected -- even though for much of it, that's unlikely to be true. That leads to a very distorted picture, because it makes you automatically think that granting more copyright is better, even if much of that output would have been done anyway -- and even if there would have been more output without copyright. It falsely assumes that the production is because of copyright, rather than just covered by copyright.

But, with such bogus stats -- and gullible gov't officials -- it's easy to push for more protectionism and stronger copyright laws as being necessary to "protect" these industries. The industry officials went on and on at the get together, falsely blaming "piracy" for the music industry's troubles -- ignoring that real studies (i.e., not lobbyist-backed ones) are telling quite a different story. The overall industry is actually thriving -- in part because of the better ability to distribute and promote content and software at greatly diminished costs (often free). Ignoring these benefits, and treating them all as harm is a huge mistake.

But, it's these lobbyists and their bogus numbers that have the ears of our elected officials. What a shame. No one was invited to suggest the countering viewpoint or to show why the industry's numbers were clearly false. No one was there to discuss how stronger copyright actually harms creative output, and to show how these very industries have repeatedly fought against and shut down innovations that could have helped the economy. No one was there to question why politicians would simply accept industry-financed studies. And, no reporters seemed to have asked these questions, either. It's just politics and business as usual.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

NPR Plays Spot The Healthcare Lobbyists At Healthcare Reform Hearing

from the nice dept

As those involved in public policy issues know all too well, much of what happens in DC is driven (or at least heavily influenced) by lobbyists. But, for the most part, the lobbyists stay out of the spotlight, allowing politicians to present their positions for them. But the lobbyists themselves are never far away -- it's just that the press always has the cameras facing the politicians, and the lobbyists go undetected. That's why it's great to see that NPR actually has tried turning the cameras around (found via Jerry Brito). At a hearing on healthcare reform, NPR photographers turned around and photographed those in the audience, and then placed the photo online, asking viewers to identify the lobbyists in attendance. Brito points out that it's not clear that enough people who would know actually have looked at the photo, but it's still a nice idea.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Consumer Group Wants ACTA Discussions Stopped Until Consumer Rights Are Represented In Negotiations

from the would-be-nice,-but-seems-unlikely dept

We've discussed in great detail how the current ACTA treaty has been mostly driven by corporate interests as a way to sneak in more draconian copyright laws through international treaty, rather than through legislative means. When consumer groups have requested a seat at the table, they've been rejected, even as industry lobbyists have had no problem being active participants in the process.

Now, a group called the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialogue has demanded ACTA negotiations be put on hold until consumer groups have a real seat at the table, or at least are given access to documents being negotiated. TACD raises a number of important issues, such as respecting privacy rights and the rights of developing nations, who are often trampled over when it comes to IP protectionism from developed countries. But best of all, it points out one of the most annoying things in all efforts by copyright holders to extend copyright protection: they never, ever present any evidence for why it's necessary. It's an evidence-free zone. TACD specifically requests that real evidence be used:

Public policy on the enforcement of intellectual property rights should be informed by creditable evidence, transparent and realistic assumptions and objective peer reviewed analysis. Multiple approaches to addressing the legitimate concerns of right owners and consumers should be considered.

• Statistics on counterfeiting and or infringement must be objective, accurate, and presented in the appropriate context.
• Statistics on counterfeit and substandard medicines should not be combined when this misleads policy makers about the extent of either problem. The solutions to counterfeit and substandard products are often quite different.
• Estimates of losses from infringements of intellectual property rights should be based upon realistic demand and usage parameters.
• Governments should collect and analyze statistics on the relationship between infringement and affordability of products.

Here's TACD's full proposal:

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Obama Administration Reiterates Its Support Of Secretive, Industry Written ACTA

from the this-is-a-problem dept

We've been bothered by the incredibly secretive (except if you happen to be in the entertainment industry) ACTA Treaty negotiations for quite some time now. This is the industry-led effort to get a bunch of nations to agree to draconian and damaging new copyright laws by sneaking them through as a secretive "international treaty," such that countries are then compelled to change their copyright laws to "be in compliance with international agreements." It's a really sneaky trick that Hollywood has used for years. And then it acts all innocent when people accuse it of pushing draconian laws on consumers, claiming "it wasn't us... we needed to be in compliance with our international agreements." They just leave out the part where they're the ones who write those agreements for the various trade representatives. The early drafts of ACTA are no different. They were clearly written by industry lobbyists, and are now being pushed by various trade representatives, and then our elected officials will have "no choice" but to change copyright laws to be in compliance.

Perhaps the most troubling part of all of this is that the negotiations are happening in secret, and when consumers rights organizations ask to be given a seat at the table, they're denied. When those same consumer rights organizations ask to at least be told what's being negotiated, they're told it's forbidden because of "state secrets." However, for all that national security, the administration has absolutely no problem giving industry lobbyists access to the process. Funny how that works.

Either way, it should come as no surprise that Michael Geist alerts us to the news that the US Trade Rep, Ron Kirk, is eager to get ACTA moving forward again. In response to all that secrecy, he claims:

As we proceed with these negotiations, we will ensure that the public is kept well informed and has further opportunities to give input.

Of course, the next meeting will take place in Morocco. How many consumer representatives will be there?

In the meantime, Kirk claims:

"The ACTA negotiations provide an opportunity to toughen international standards for the enforcement of intellectual property rights, making it harder for counterfeit and pirated products to enter our country, and making the world safer for the innovation and creativity that are so critical to the U.S. economy."

But... wait. Is it really true that this is a big problem? Both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have taken a close look at the numbers thrown around about the "problem" of counterfeiting, and found them to be wildly overblown by lobbyists -- the same lobbyists writing ACTA, not surprisingly. So why is the US Trade Rep agreeing to let this go forward? It's not about "making the world safer for the innovation and creativity." It's about granting special protection to a few powerful US industries with lobbyists.

Isn't that a problem?

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Politicians Defer To Time Warner Lobbyists Who Wrote The Bill They're Pushing

from the funny-how-that-works... dept

Following up on the earlier story of Time Warner Cable going the political route to try to block municipal competition in Wilson, North Carolina, Broadband Reports has a story pointing out two interesting side stories:

1. During hearings about the law to ban such municipal competition, the politicians pushing the bill that would ban municipal competition were asked to clarify, and rather than answer themselves, the politicians "turned to a Time Warner staff member and an attorney who represents the industry to speak on their behalf." In other words, they outright admitted they didn't understand their own legislation and that the corporate lawyers from the company that would benefit from the legislation understood it better than they did. It's certainly no surprise that lobbyists write the legislation that politicians pass, but usually they at least try to hide it a little bit. Here they're basically flaunting the fact that Time Warner Cable wrote the bill, and the politicians just shuffled it through the process without understanding it. Isn't it great to be a servant of the people?
2. Time Warner Cable is complaining about what a huge cost municipal broadband is to the people of Wilson, but leaves out the fact that Time Warner Cable's CEO's compensation from the past two years is greater than it cost the city of Wilson (via a bond measure, so not taxpayer dollars) to fund the deployment of the fiber network. And you have to wonder if Time Warner Cable will end up spending more trying to block this competition than it would have cost to have built out a competitive quality service as well.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Administration Lobbyist Ban Not Doing What It's Supposed To Do

from the too-bad dept

While conceptually, I think many people appreciate President Obama's stance against bringing lobbyists into his administration, in all practicality, the rule has been a combination of meaningless or troubling. Tom Barger points to a NY Times article where many people are upset that some extremely qualified folks who worked for non-profit human rights organizations are being denied positions in the administration. There's been some pushing to get the administration to make an exception for human rights and non-profit lobbyists, noting that the intent of the rule was to bar corporate lobbyists from gaining too much influence, but the administration has struck down those suggestions, saying it leads to a slippery slope.

But, of course, in reality, we know that slippery slope already exists. That's because the ban on "lobbyists" is really only being used for folks who were officially registered as lobbyists. That leaves out tons of people who worked for these corporate entities or even for the lobbyist groups themselves, but weren't officially registered lobbyists themselves. We've already seen how the Justice Department is, for example, being filled with lawyers who regularly worked with the RIAA, MPAA and BSA -- three of the biggest copyright lobbying organizations, and those individuals have wasted no time in expressing their desire to continue pushing those industry's viewpoints in their new positions.

So the idea that lobbyists are being kept out is pretty silly. As the NY Times article notes, all this really does is encourage lobbyists not to register themselves as lobbyists, but to focus on lobbying unofficially, so that they can still get administration positions at a later date. That creates less openness and transparency, and a larger risk of regulatory capture, rather than a diminished one. We all like the idea of trying to keep corporate influence out of the law making (and law enforcement) side of government, but a blanket ban on all lobbyists, while letting non-lobbyist lobbyists in the back door isn't exactly reassuring.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Open Secrets Takes Us One Step Closer To Open Government

from the a-good-step-forward dept

OpenSecrets.org, the website of Center for Responsive Politics has just put over 200 million documents online -- basically the groups' entire archives. Specifically, the data includes info about fundraising, lobbying, personal finance of politicians and information about "advocacy groups" known as 527 organizations. It looks like a treasure trove of information that plenty of politicians and lobbyists probably wish remained hidden behind closed doors.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Lobbyists Get Random Unsuspecting Groups To Rally Against Patent Reform

from the who-said-what-now? dept

We've discussed in the past the neat little trick of some underhanded lobbying groups in DC who run down a list of random "interest groups" and get them to sign on in "support" of some bill or another, without having any knowledge or real interest in the matter. The key quote from that article was: "You go down the Latino people, the deaf people, the farmers, and choose them.... You say, 'I can't use this one--I already used them last time...' We had their letterhead. We'd just write the letter. We'd fax it to them and tell them, 'You're in favor of this.'"

Well, it appears that the same thing is happening with patent reform. Wired has done a little digging, and was curious why an anti-communist Hungarian group, the Minutemen (vigilante border guards), and various religious groups have suddenly come out against patent reform. In pretty much all cases, the groups don't seem knowledgeable at all about the actual issues, and were basically told to "sign on" after being given a one-sided presentation that falsely claimed that patent reform was designed to harm American inventiveness and help foreign companies. The best explanation, however, goes to Laszlo Pasztor, the 87-year-old "honorary chairman" of the National Federation of American Hungarians, who is very much opposed to patent reform, though he seems rather confused why:

"It was in Chicago or Detroit, I can't remember. Somebody brought this up, I don't know for what reason... So I gave them permission to use my name."

But, then it gets better. Wired asked Pasztor if it could speak to others in his group that were more knowledgeable about the issue, when Pasztor admitted that the group was being disbanded, but:

"I am a 87 and a half years old," he explained. "And our treasurer is 91 years old. Our chairman, who is a Roman Catholic priest, is so busy working on church issues in Ukraine and Slovakia, it is impossible to reach him."

Pasztor volunteered to get us more information once he reaches Washington. "I will try to reach the still living members of the board," he said.

Nice coalition against patent reform there...

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Do Newspapers Keep Publishing Bogus Piracy Numbers From Lobbyists As Fact?

from the why-newspapers-are-dying dept

With all this whining about how the death of newspapers will somehow lead to the "end" of investigative reporting, it has to be asked why newspaper reporters never seem to tire of rewriting industry press releases full of bogus numbers as factual? If newspaper reporters are really so great at investigative reporting -- shouldn't they be questioning the bogus stats? We've seen this for years in reports on "piracy" stats, which are almost always calculated by industry lobbyists who have every incentive in the world to blow the numbers out of proportion. Looking at the details, it's not at all difficult for anyone to realize that the stats are completely bogus -- but, for some reason, these lobbyists can always find press willing to restate the numbers as fact, and that often leads to a nice virtuous circle, whereby industry lobbyists and politicians can then point to the news report to support their bogus piracy numbers.

The latest gullible reporter? Tony Wong of the Toronto Star, who has written an article that probably could have been written every year for the last decade about the awful threat of piracy to the satellite TV industry. What's amusing is that it really does look just like an article years ago, even quoting bogus 2001 "piracy" stats and then just saying "that number is likely far higher today." But the reporter does nothing to verify this at all. He then goes on to talk about how the satellite TV companies are "fighting back," with a "tough new encryption system." I remember reading nearly identical stories from a decade ago, about some great new encryption scheme that would wipe out satellite TV piracy. Yet here we are in 2009, rather than 1999, reading the exact same article. Isn't it the reporters' job to ask questions about both the bogus basis for the numbers and the fact that the industry has been trotting out the same "fighting back! stronger encryption!" story for over a decade? No wonder newspapers are collapsing.

38 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Utah Allows Elected Official To Lobby... And Vote For Bill Her Company Is Pushing

from the utah-politics-at-work dept

Tim already covered some of the problems with Utah's repeated attempts to ban (or greatly limit) keyword advertising on trademarked terms. However, there were two separate disturbing issues related to this, both brought up by Eric Goldman, that seemed worth discussing. Both involve two of the legislators who voted on the bill. The first, Rep. S. Clark, voted against the bill, but for flabbergasting reasons. You see, it wasn't that he disliked the idea that companies would be blocked from advertising on competitive keywords, it was because he wanted to pin all the liability on Google:

"We should be going after the Googles that are creating this problem. They're the villains." .... "If we're going to use the strength and resources of the state to go after businesses, then we ought to go after the business that is causing the harm. ... We ought to go after the Googles with the state's resources and reputation."

Then, there's Rep. Jennifer "Jen" Seelig, who voted for the bill. But, that shouldn't be surprising. You see, even though she's an elected official in the state legislator, she's also still employed as a registered lobbyist for 1-800 Contacts, the company that has been pushing the bill. Apparently that sort of conflict of interest isn't seen as a problem in Utah.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Copyright Lobbyists Again Demand That The US Classify Canada As Being A Piracy Hotbed

from the blame-canada dept

Every year, the entertainment industry comes out with some ridiculous report about how Canada is a hotbed of piracy, on par with places like China and Russia. Every year the report asks the US Trade Representative to classify Canada as being on the "Priority Watch List." And, once again, it's that time... the International Intellectual Property Assn., a copyright lobbying group, has again complained about rampant Canadian piracy. In the past, Michael Geist has shown in great detail how silly these claims are. This year, it's gotten so ridiculous that he barely has anything to say at all, but instead simply points back to his responses from the past few years. In the past, the USTR has refused to go along with the IIPA's demands. Let's hope that this doesn't change with the new administration -- who, so far, has appeared much more willing to listen to Hollywood's friends. The only potential good news is that Obama's first choice for USTR (currently representing Hollywood in Congress -- literally) backed away from the job after fearing that "trade" wasn't a priority to this administration. Just imagine what would have happened if he had taken the job.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

US IP Interests Pressured Canada To Join In Its WTO Fight With China

from the teaming-up dept

In the WTO fight between the US and China -- in which the US declared victory recently, despite losing most of its arguments -- Canada had joined the fight on the US's side. However, as Michael Geist has discovered, by accessing government documents using the Access to Information Act in Canada, Canadian officials didn't see any reason to get involved at all, not believing the dispute impacted Canadians in any manner. However, it appears US officials didn't like that very much, and a rather heavy attempt to pressure Canadian officials into signing up ensued, with both US officials and the Canadian Recording Industry Association (often seen as basically a puppet of the RIAA) applying the pressure. While Canadian officials continually expressed doubt about participating, noting little evidence that China's practices had any impact on Canadians, eventually they signed on in support. As Geist notes, the end result has been quite damaging to Canada. Since the main points of the case were won by China, Canada signed up with the wrong side of the arguments and the effort has damaged Canadian relations with China. That's what you get for getting pushed around by the IP bullies...

3 Comments | Leave a Comment..