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.

67 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Pro-Stronger Copyright Propaganda Shows Up In Canadian Press

from the no-quotes-from-anyone-on-the-other-side? dept

Rob Hyndman points us to a column in Toronto's Globe & Mail by Barrie McKenna that is basically all of the recording industry's talking points on copyright, without even a nod to the views of the other side. It appears that most of the info is (surprise, surprise) based on a recording industry lawyer. It starts with a nice little moral panic about how file sharing sites are rushing to base themselves in Canada due to the country's supposedly lax copyright laws. Of course, that's ridiculous. Canada has very strong copyright laws already. What they don't have is a DMCA. That's what the industry wants. McKenna tries to bolster his claim that Canada has weak copyright laws with the following:

Earlier this year, the Obama administration put Canada on its blacklist of shame - a "priority watch list" of intellectual property laggards, joining the likes of China, Russia and Venezuela.

Sounds nice, but incredibly misleading. The "blacklist of shame" that McKenna mentions, but does not explain, is actually the US Trade Rep's special "301 Report." Mention it to just about any policy maker (excluding those pushing for protectionist policies for a specific industry, of course), and you get an eye roll. It's not so much "the Obama administration" but industries with wishlists attempting to restrain trade in foreign countries by putting forth scary stories about what's happening in those countries. The USTR basically takes those industry-submitted reports and wraps them up into the 301 report. It's a joke. Most of the complaints in the report concern countries that actually are in perfect compliance with international treaties -- but which the industry still wants to go further.

Of course, given that McKenna's source is an industry lawyer, perhaps it's not surprising that such info wasn't shared. But, the next claims go from the just uninformed to the unbelievable:

Canada, which has repeatedly promised but so far failed to deliver on copyright reform, isn't just out of step with the United States, but with much of the Western world.

This is simply untrue. Canada's copyright law is actually quite in line with most of the Western world, no matter what the entertainment industry suggests (and, you might think that McKenna would ask someone other than the person representing the industry that benefits from this). Furthermore, the line that Canada has "so far failed to deliver on copyright reform" is either blatantly misleading or simply ignorant of rather recent history. Canadian politicians have tried to push forth copyright reform, but due to a massive public outcry from people who actually understand how things like the DMCA cause all sorts of problems -- especially concerning free speech and consumer rights -- those politicians were forced to back down.

That's called informed democracy in action.

Oh, McKenna also claims that the last time the Canadian government tried copyright reform was in 2007. According to his bio, McKenna is based in DC, not Canada, but even down here in the States plenty of us were aware that Jim Prentice introduced copyright reform in 2008.

So, McKenna makes it out like Canada has no strong copyright laws (false), that it's laws are different from most of the western world (false) and that it hasn't tried to add more draconian copyright laws (false again). From there, he comes up with this bizarre justification for more draconian copyright law:

The world has gone digital. And there's now an explosion of legitimate download sites in the U.S. and Europe, including ground-breaking music sites Pandora.com and Lala.com. But you can't use them in Canada.

These and other businesses are choosing to bypass the market entirely, in part because of licensing problems.

And the creative industries that produce music, software and the like - industries that contribute significantly more to the economy than BitTorrent sites - may also shun Canada if nothing is done.

Actually, you have Canadian record labels like Nettwerk, that are doing quite well, even as its CEO has declared that copyright is obsolete and should be done away with entirely within a decade. And the reason that those services can't be used in Canada isn't because the law is too lax, but because the laws are too strict, in terms of figuring out special licensing setups in each country. It's such a pain to get them licensed in a single country that the services have been forced -- against their will in many cases -- to block access in other countries like Canada.

Meanwhile, it's telling to note some of the things that McKenna conveniently left out. Like how about the private copying levy system up in Canada, which has made blank media ridiculously expensive, and which is supposed to be paying for all that "piracy." We don't have that in the US at all. Or what about the weak fair use/fair dealing laws in Canada? What about an understanding of the value of the public domain or the value of fan promotions? What about new business models that have shown that copyright isn't necessary to make money in the industry? What about the studies that have shown that file sharers tend to buy more music? All of that seems relevant... but when your only source is a representative of the industry looking to get laws passed in its own interest, is it any wonder they get left out?

Barrie McKenna got taken for a ride here by the recording industry. His writeup included multiple factual errors, significant errors of omission, and a gross misunderstanding of what's actually happening in the music industry these days.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Anti-File Sharing Propaganda Back To Focusing On That Horrible Malware You'll Get

from the unprotected-file-sharing-is-bad dept

The thing that you sort of need to admire about the copyright maximalist lobby is that they attack the problem from so many different directions on such a constant basis. It's almost impossible to keep up -- though, you do begin to notice some patterns. A particularly popular move is to alternate between the moral argument against copyright infringement (stealing! bad!) and the idea that file sharing is going to destroy your computer (we're just looking out for your safety!). It looks like the industry is back on that latter kick, as two recent stories indicate.

First, the BSA has its widely debunked "piracy" numbers -- but it's now getting news for focusing instead on how you're going to get malware if you file share. Since it can't actually back up its bogus numbers, instead it's hoping that most people don't know that correlation doesn't mean a causal relationship -- but at least we know that most of our readers know better. The report notes that there's a correlation between higher piracy rates and higher malware infections, but seems to totally ignore exceptions to that rule (the US) or delve into other variables that may explain either the piracy rate (already questionable) or the malware rate (education levels? poverty? shared computers? etc.). Even more amusing, they claim (with no actual evidence) that those who get malware have to spend more to repair their computers than it would have cost to get the legitimate software in the first place. I have no doubt that there are risks for those who file share, but this report does nothing to show the actual risks and is yet another in a long line of weak propaganda from the BSA, that despite being called on it for years, never seems to do anything to back up its reports with facts.

Then, we have the story of the MPAA apparently sending a bunch of anti-piracy comic books to New Zealand, home of one of many different fights on how to change copyright law. The comic book, like the BSA report, involves plenty of ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims about how file sharing will unleash nasty malware and viruses all over your computers -- but drawn in nice comic book form. Can we send those kids who got the MPAA comic book a copy of the Tales from The Public Domain comic books as well? There are free digital downloads for anyone who wants to hand them out in exchange for the bogus MPAA ones....

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

More Industry Anti-Piracy Propaganda: Former EMI Anti-Piracy Boss Launches 'Educational' Program

from the 2+2=? dept

With the school year having only recently started up, we had already covered the RIAA's silly propaganda campaign masked as an "educational resource." Of course, that's not the only such program. The MPAA has offered up its own "copyright education" as has The Copyright Alliance -- an operation whose entire purpose appears to be to push entertainment industry nonsense and propaganda without any factual support or basis. It looks like there's another such program coming out of the UK as well. Torrentfreak alerts us to the news that EMI's former anti-piracy boss just happened to have "left" EMI in time to create her own "educational campaign" about copyright for school children as young as five. The good news, though, is that the reporter from The Daily Mail wasn't buying any of it, raising questions about why five year olds should be learning about copyright from industry supplied sources. The article also questions the claim that this campaign was financed independently from the recording industry, calling out the fact that the woman's own LinkedIn profile indicated otherwise, until she changed it right after being interviewed (funny, that...).

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Entertainment Industry Propaganda Organization Kicks Off Hilarious Astroturf Letter Writing Campaign

from the good-luck-with-that,-pat dept

The "Copyright Alliance" is a propaganda organization put together by the entertainment industry, pretending to focus on "the rights of creators," but which has always been focused on strengthening the monopolies of the middlemen (the same folks who quite frequently screw over the creators). Recently, the Copyright Alliance came out with its latest astroturfing attempt, with an automatic letter generator that will pop out cloned letters that the Copyright Alliance itself will send to President Obama and Vice President Biden. The tone of the letter is rather silly, as it seems to suggest that Obama and Biden haven't been supporting the entertainment industry's position all along -- and that there's some huge legislative movement afoot to wipe out artists' rights. It is, as William Patry notes, yet another attempt by the entertainment industry to create a folk devil and a moral panic in an attempt to further prop up its business model. Patry, not surprisingly, takes little time ripping the letter to shreds:

It is very hard not to laugh in the face of such ugliness and to wonder where the reason is in such dysfunctional nonsense, but what came to my mind was Helen Reddy's 1972 anthem, which began: "I am woman, hear me roar/In numbers too big to ignore." The moral panic in the Alliance's letter is that the very essence of what makes America America is threatened by evil forces that supposedly have launched an assault demanding that Helen Reddy and her 11 million colleagues give their works away for free, that the evil doers be permitted to have their way with the vestal virgins of America's copyright sweethearts. This is of course complete baloney. Name one piece of pending legislation that would accomplish what the Alliance claims. Name one lawsuit currently pending that would accomplish what the Alliance claims. There are none.

Indeed. At first, I had considered setting up our own "letter generator" in response, highlighting the problems of stricter copyright law, the vast and ever growing evidence of how copyright law is misused by the very organizations that back the Copyright Alliance to prop up obsolete business models rather than innovate. On top of that, such a letter would highlight all of the creative content creators who have been embracing new technologies for creating, promoting and distributing content along with embracing new business models and finding that they work better than the old models.

But, honestly, I'd like to believe that our President and Vice President aren't swayed by a bunch of form letters from an industry propagandist, and that, instead, people would be inspired to write their own letters highlighting the creativity that new technology has allowed -- and how some legacy industries have repeatedly abused copyright law to stifle such innovation and creativity many times over. Luckily, Jonathan Melber has a nice prototype of just such an open letter, where he highlights our cultural heritage, and how content creators regularly build on the works of others in creating something new and wonderful -- but how that tradition is often blocked by an industry that doesn't like outsiders trying to route around its control.

Separately, the Copyright Alliance should be ashamed of itself for blatantly lying with statistics. It tries to claim the right to speak for $1.52 trillion of the nation's GDP. This is pure farce. It's based on a study done by (you guessed it) the industry itself in the form of the International Intellectual Property Alliance, which is yet another propaganda/lobbying organization made up of the other lobbying/propaganda groups representing different industries: including the MPAA, the RIAA, the BSA and the ESA among others. In other words, hardly an unbiased source.

The methodology of the study is pretty laughable. It's based on WIPO's stated methodology, which is basically "count absolutely everything that even remotely touches on copyright" and then assume that every bit of that revenue is because of strong copyright laws. Hell, by the methodology used in the report, all of the revenue we earn here -- despite all the content on this site being public domain -- gets credited to "the copyright industry." It's such a typical DC-insider move: use totally bogus stats to bolster a weak argument. But that's the game that the Copyright Alliance has played since its inception. Just defining all those industries as "copyright industries" is misleading, because it implies that their revenue is due to copyright. But it's much worse than that. Companies that make furniture or jewelry are specifically listed as being a part of "the copyright industry" for purposes of this calculation. Yes, because without copyright, no one would be making furniture, right?

Even more amusing -- that same report shows continued and strong growth in what it defines as the copyright industries. So much for that massive attack destroying American society, huh? And this highlights the intellectual dishonesty of the Copyright Alliance and its backers. For the sake of making themselves look "big" they have to throw everything and the kitchen sink into their estimates and show that it's "growing." But for the sake of demonizing anyone who might seek to stop abuse of copyright laws, they have to claim that those industries are under constant attack, even as they grow to record levels. Propaganda at its finest.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Wait, Was That An RIAA Education Campaign... Or Is It About Turning Schoolkids Into Unpaid Shills?

from the why-is-this-in-our-schools? dept

We recently took a look at the many problems with the RIAA's "educational materials" that it's pushing on schools. The EFF (who has its own -- much more accurate -- curriculum for schools) has noticed one other significant problem with the RIAA's propaganda material. They include an exercise that involves having schoolkids pitch local newspapers and TV stations to present propaganda:

Imagine that you are in the music industry... With your team of fellow music industry employees, plan an information campaign that lets others know why it's important to get their music the right way... You'll want to convince your classmates that your teams' plan is the one that will become the class project!

Challenge: Take your campaign a step further by contacting the editor of your community newspaper or the director of your community cable television station to see if you can submit an article or video about your campaign.

Of course, since we were suggesting more reasonable responses to the RIAA's proposals, why not have those same kids do a class project where they talk about artists who have embraced what their fans want, and have showed that it's possible to do quite well with models that don't involve going to war with your best fans. In the meantime, we're still wondering why any school would use obviously biased materials from an industry association, rather than impartial materials that are actually accurate? Does anyone know of any schools that use the RIAA's materials? We'd love to speak to some teachers who do...

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Propaganda The Copyright Industry Teaches Our Children

from the omission,-overstatement,-conflation dept

Last week, I spent some time highlighting some of the more ridiculous claims found in the RIAA's "classroom materials" which it hopes teachers will use to brainwash students. In the comments, someone pointed out that Tarleton Gillespie wrote up a paper last year examining such "educational materials" from the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, ASCAP and others, and found them to be quite lacking. Rather than actually teaching the ins and outs of copyright, most were focused on normative statements of a world those industries want to exist, as well as seriously questionable descriptions of what copyright is supposed to do and how those industries work. None of the materials seem to recognize that technology has also changed the production, promotion and distribution of new works, and none seem to recognize that content creation can come from those outside of the big corporate entities who paid for these materials in the first place. Again, it's worth asking: why does any educational institution or education professional use such obviously biased (and at times misleading) educational materials?

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

A Look At The RIAA's Copyright Propaganda For Schools

from the why-does-anyone-use-this-stuff? dept

It's back to school time, and our friends over at the RIAA have a blog post up excitedly talking up its special "curriculum" for teachers. But, of course, that "curriculum" is laughably biased and at times outright wrong. And it makes me wonder: why would any educational institution accept a one-sided curriculum written by the industry that's clearly designed to promote that industry's own business? Do schools use science curricula provided by Exxon or Monsanto? As for the actual content included in the curriculum (which, by the way, the RIAA links to incorrectly twice), it's almost a joke. Check out the RIAA propaganda. Fair use doesn't exist -- at all. Reading through the main document, I find not a single mention of it. But what does exist is all sorts of bogeymen about how evil file sharing is, how it exposes your hard drive to viruses and reveals your tax return info.

Oh, but the best part, is that the RIAA is pushing for a new totally made up term called "songlifting" which is the central theme of every single lesson. Sounds like "shoplifting," right? That's the idea -- though the RIAA cleverly tries to pretend that it didn't make up the word. In fact, it presents it as if it's a common term. Of course, the curriculum doesn't happen to mention the Supreme Court's Dowling decision, where the court specifically talked about how very different infringement is from "stealing." Of course, the RIAA also mentions the Grokster ruling -- but is misleading there as well, claiming that the law is clear that parents could be found liable for their kids sharing unauthorized files.

The actual exercises are ridiculous propaganda. The first one is supposed to be about "math" skills for the lower grades and "spreadsheet" skills for higher level students. Guess what the "math" is?

This part of the activity should help students recognize how songlifting, though it might seem harmless at first, can quickly become a largescale problem. Have students complete the calculations on the worksheet using spreadsheet software or a calculator. If time permits, repeat the first calculation by having students choose a realistic number of songs they would take if they could get them all for free. Adding desire to the equation in this way can further dramatize why songlifting can have an enormous economic impact.

Answers
Total number of songs lifted = 7,800,000;
Total cost of songs lifted = $7,722,000.
$926,640,000 (i.e., nearly a billion dollars).

Hmm. If we're simply making stuff up for propaganda purposes, how about "total number of new listeners a musician gets thanks to such sharing?" And then "total amount those musicians make when those new fans go to concerts or purchase merchandise thanks to hearing the songs for free." Might change the math a bit, but what do I know? I'm not an industry lobbyist, so my "industry" math isn't up to par.

Then there's propaganda about job losses:

Ask students to name some people who might work in this part of the music business (e.g., machine operator, printer, packager, truck driver, store manager, cashier, online order handler, etc.). Talk about how these people might be affected by songlifting, then have students work individually or in small groups to list other music makers unnamed in the story.

Ok. Why don't we talk about the jobs on the other side of the equation? How about all of the people employed by technology companies that the RIAA has helped put out of business through lawsuits? Or students that the RIAA has bankrupted via lawsuits? Have students put together a list of just how many lives and jobs the RIAA has destroyed. Point them to the story of MP3.com. And Napster. And Launchcast. And Grokster. Tell them how the RIAA tried to have the iPod (or, more accurately, its predecessor) banned, and have them think about how different life would be without it. Tell them how the RIAA is fighting hard to tax radio stations, putting so many radio people out of business. Tell them the story of the MIT student who the RIAA suggested drop out of school to pay a fine. Talk about how all of these people might be affected by the RIAA's overreaction to innovation and new technologies, and its own inability to embrace new business models. Then have students work individually or in small groups to list other tech companies making lives better that the RIAA has threatened, sued or put out of business.

Highlight the variety of career opportunities available in the music industry by having students research one behind-the-scenes music maker and write a brief description of that job.

Highlight the variety of career opportunities available in the tech industry thanks to new innovations that the RIAA has tried to kill. Then highlight the career opportunities in the music industry itself that have finally opened up now that the major labels are scrambling to learn technology.

Next, draw the copyright symbol (©) on the chalkboard. Ask if students know what this symbol means and where they might have seen it (books, posters, CDs, etc.). Explain that the copyright symbol is used to identify the owner of a piece of intellectual property and serves as a reminder that it is illegal for anyone to copy or distribute that property without the owner's permission.

Next, explain fair use, and how the above statement claiming that it's illegal for anyone to copy or distribute without the owner's permission is not necessarily true at all. Oh wait... that sentence isn't in there.

You might also inform them that our nation's Founders included copyright protection in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8), believing that it would encourage creativity by giving the creators of intellectual property an exclusive right to profit from their artistic talents.

You might also inform them that those Founders were highly cautious about this issue, and had stated their worries that these monopolies would do more harm than good, and that they should be greatly limited and monitored to avoid such harm. You might also want to point out that the RIAA seems to have forgotten the "limited time" part of this, but I guess you can be forgiven, since they (and their friends in the movie industry) have pretty much convinced Congress to ignore that part.

Then there's this fun list of "brainstorming ideas" with some responses/corrections/clarifications after each one:

• Songlifters take millions of dollars of music each year.
  
  Actually, file sharers don't "take" any money. This is a flat out lie.
  
  
• Songlifters hurt all kinds of music makers, not just the stars.
  
  Those who have embraced file sharing in combination with smart business models have found it works for all kinds of music makers, not just the stars.
  
  
• Songlifters keep new artists from getting their chance at stardom.
  
  Many up-and-coming artists are finding that giving away their music is a large part of how they build their fanbase and become stars.
  
  
• Songlifters are breaking the law.
  
  In many cases, those who share unauthorized files may have violated copyright law, though it's a civil issue, not a criminal one.
  
  
• Songlifters can get other people in trouble by sharing illegal music.
  
  Because the RIAA isn't very good with data, it's been known to sue the wrong people
  
  
• Songlifters can get computer viruses when they illegally download online.
  
  Doing things online when not careful can result in getting viruses. That has nothing to do with file sharing. Careful users can avoid viruses.
  
  
• Songlifters don't respect other people's intellectual property.
  
  The RIAA doesn't respect fair use rights, the need for a lively and dynamic public domain or the right of technology companies to innovate.

The whole thing is pretty ridiculous frankly. It doesn't even make a half-hearted attempt at talking about the rights of everyone else or the actual purpose of copyright law. The whole thing is basically about brainwashing kids into accepting that the record labels' old business model must stay in place forever. Luckily, most kids are smarter than that and can see through such propaganda pretty quickly. However, if schools really are interested in educating kids about copyright, why not use a non-industry curriculum, like the one put together by the EFF, called Teaching Copyright.

71 Comments | Leave a Comment..

What Happened To 'If You Didn't Pay For It, It's Stealing'?

from the except-when-we-do-it dept

For years, the entertainment industry has pushed a propaganda line in its "education" programs that are used in schools: "if you haven't paid for it, you stole it." Of course, that's not actually true. But, if the entertainment industry wants to claim that, shouldn't it live by those rules too? Apparently, the managing director of Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, that's currently involved in numerous lawsuits against file sharing sites, is happily talking up the fact that he now has possession of a laptop from a "hacker" and that it was confiscated from that hacker. So, clearly, BREIN didn't pay for it. Doesn't that mean it was stolen by their own definition? While the police may have the right to confiscate goods, BREIN is not the police. It's a private industry organization, that claims it's against theft, but doesn't seem to mind participating in "getting things without paying for it" when it has the chance.

62 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Once Again, Congress Wants To Blame Limewire For Stupid Staffers, As Arts+Labs Propaganda Campaign Works

from the limewire-ain't-the-problem dept

This started a few years ago, when suddenly grandstanding Congress-folk started blaming Limewire for "leaking" a confidential terrorist threat assessment. Of course, that was misguided. The problem wasn't Limewire (or any file sharing software), but idiotic gov't employees who (a) put file sharing software on gov't computers (b) didn't properly wall off the software and (c) put confidential info where it could be shared. Earlier this year, suddenly, the issue came up again (again targeting Limewire). It was instigated by some aggressive entertainment industry lobbyists, who have concocted this huge story about how Limewire is to blame. And politicians always seem willing to buy it.

The latest is that some in Congress are planning legislation after claiming that "Secret Service safehouse locations, military rosters, and IRS tax returns" were available via Limewire (funny... those are the same things mentioned in the PR email I got from the entertainment industry lobbyist's PR person...).

Our Congressional critters tried to one up each other in stupid proposals, with one, Rep. Bill Foster, even tossing out the idea of passing a law to block the Gnutella protocol (though, he admitted it wasn't likely to work). Others just planned to pass laws that would ban the use of file sharing software on gov't computers (you need a law for that?!?) and to have the FTC investigate Limewire. And, of course, the real goal in all of this, politicians want to pass a law demanding that the gov't "undertake a national campaign to educate consumers about the dangers of file sharing software."

That last one, of course, is actually the end-goal here. The entertainment industry and their shills such as the group Arts+Labs (who was behind much of this campaign) have been demonizing file sharing software completely, and now want the gov't to help. So the best way to do that was to find some folks who misused the software, get some headlines about how P2P software "exposed" Obama's safehouse locations and then get the gov't to put in place some entertainment industry propaganda. Arts+Labs wins completely. It's backers include the various entertainment firms (bonus! gov't pitching their propaganda story) and a few tech companies who sell filtering/blocking technology (bonus! gov't increasing demand for their technology).

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Entertainment Industry Propaganda Moves Into Schools In Australia As Well

from the why-do-schools-allow-this? dept

We've seen all sorts of attempts by the entertainment industry to push their highly biased interpretation of copyright law (which sometimes strays into outright falsehoods) into schools as "educational" programs. The RIAA and the MPAA have each run campaigns in schools. And recently the Copyright Alliance (another industry propaganda group) released a questionable educational offering. It appears this effort is global. Phill alerts us that an Australian anti-piracy group is now pushing an educational campaign for schools. The group admits that the purpose isn't to learn about copyright from an impartial perspective, but teach "the importance of copyright" and to create " a change in attitudes and behaviour." In other words, it's not an "education" campaign as it's literally trying to change behavior for corporate interests. This should raise tremendous questions about why any school would allow this content to be shared with students, since it's specifically designed to promote the interests of certain corporations.

23 Comments | Leave a Comment..

EFF Launches Copyright Curriculum To Counter RIAA Propaganda Being Handed Out To Schools

from the good-news dept

It's been quite troubling that for years various schools have simply accepted propaganda and totally inaccurate "teaching materials" about copyright and used them to teach students. These programs have been created by both the RIAA and the MPAA, at times. More recently, a lobbying organization backed by both of those organizations, the Copyright Alliance (which has a long history of making up the most fantastic myths about copyright) has been pushing a copyright curriculum on schools. Tragically, unsuspecting schools have been using the pure propaganda put out by the Copyright Alliance as if it were some sort of impartial and accurate educational material on copyright. It's not. Not even close. Last year, one of the world's foremost experts in copyright, William Patry, took the Copyright Alliance's founder to task for having "chutzpah in abundance" in basically making up what copyright and fair use is about, and presenting himself as some sort of expert on the subject.

Unfortunately, schools that are using these materials often don't realize that they're simply accepting corporate propaganda, assuming that a front group like The Copyright Alliance is some sort of impartial player in the space, even though its curriculum is laughably bad, positioning any kind of copying as a high risk activity that should be avoided. Luckily, the EFF has finally launched a much more accurate and reasonable curriculum that was actually created by those who know the subject matter, rather than corporate execs and lobbyists. The EFF's curriculum is available at Teaching Copyright and is under a Creative Commons license. Unlike many of the propaganda copyright curricula, Teaching Copyright focuses on the broader picture, recognizing the fact that copyright is not for protecting creators, but is a deal between creators and the public to encourage creation within certain important limitations. It covers important concepts such as the public domain and fair use that are either ignored or downplayed in most of the curricula put out by the industry. This is a welcome addition to materials for schools to use to educate students on copyright.

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

BBC Presents MPAA Propaganda On Movie Piracy, Claims It's 'Fully Balanced'

from the on-one-side-of-the-scale... dept

You may recall back in 2007, that the BBC put on a program all about the "dangers" of WiFi that was entirely one-sided and had shoddy reporting, bad science and (best of all) conflicts of interest, as one of the main participants sells products to protect people from so-called radiation. The program was widely criticized, and many months later, the BBC finally admitted it made some mistakes with the program -- but the only one it would admit was that it was unfair in how it presented the one dissenter who pointed out that there's little to no evidence that WiFi causes any harm.

It looks like the BBC has done the same thing yet again. TorrentFreak notes that it just did a segment on all of the harm done by "piracy" to the movie industry, including quoting the already discredited report, paid for by the movie studios, claiming that movie piracy funds terrorism. Beyond that, the BBC program speaks to four different people -- all of whom agree that movie piracy is a hugely dangerous problem that could (they claim) end the movie industry in the UK. Do they present any evidence? Other than the discredited Rand study, not a bit.

So when someone complained to the BBC about the piece, you would think that maybe they'd realize that the piece had been a bit one-sided, but instead, they responded:

This report focused in on a legitimate problem for both the film industry and the authorities as they try to tackle what is an ever increasing and profitable criminal activity. We feel the report outlined the laws surrounding the issue of film piracy adequately and that the interviewees from the film industry were entirely appropriate people to comment on the problem.

Impartiality is the cornerstone of all our output, and we feel this report was fully balanced in it's coverage of copyright theft.

You see, apparently there is no other side to the story, and you can take the word of the industry insiders, because they're the only ones who can or should comment on the issue.

Amusingly, TorrentFreak also points out that the previous segment on that same broadcast, was about pirate radio, where the participants are described as "lovable." Yet, suddenly, when it switches to movies, they become "no laughing matter." Why? Did it ever occur to the folks at the BBC that perhaps the issues are actually the same -- and the people involved in both types of "piracy" are effectively doing the same thing? Apparently not.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

China Looks To Build Human Firewall With Fun, Prizes

from the snitching-pays dept

China's experiment with crowdsourcing internet propaganda -- in which it reportedly pays people 50 cents for each positive post they make about the government or its policies -- must be going well. The government there is now looking to engage citizens' help in purging the internet of porn and other undesirable content by giving people rewards for reporting porn sites. This follows the government's push to get search engines to try and prevent people in China from accessing porn by threatening them with punishment if they don't. While China's "Great Firewall" does manage to block a lot of content, it certainly isn't foolproof. And if people can find ways around it to discuss contaminated milk, one has to imagine that this latest hurdle won't prove too difficult for porn fans to navigate.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

YouTube Bans Terrorism Videos; Don't You Feel Much Safer?

from the I-know-I-don't dept

Back in May we wrote about Senator Joseph Lieberman demanding that YouTube remove a bunch of videos of terrorists. At the time, YouTube reviewed the videos in question, and took down the ones that violated the site's terms of service, but left most of them up, noting that the ones they left up did not promote hate speech nor show violence. As we pointed out at the time, trying to ban terrorists from posting videos to YouTube seems incredibly short-sighted. First, it won't work. Those videos will quickly pop back up on other sites that won't take them down. Second, most of those videos are preaching to the choir. It's unlikely that very many people are being recruited to the terrorists' causes by a grainy video on YouTube. Third, letting terrorists post their videos to a mainstream site like YouTube should help authorities figure out who's posting the videos and where they're coming from. Fourth, and most important, one of the key founding principles of this country is the right to free speech, no matter how much one might disagree with that speech. But, part of that principle is that it allows people to respond. So, yes, the videos may be pure propaganda, but there's no reason that people can't respond to the videos and show why they're propaganda and wrong. Confronting your critics is a reasonable stance. Demanding that they cannot speak is not.

Yet, a bunch of folks have been sending in links to a story claiming that Google has now caved to Sen. Lieberman, and will now ban terrorist videos on YouTube. The article says that YouTube's new terms of service will ban footage that "advertises" terrorism or "extremist causes," which seems pretty broad, and certainly open to abuse. The article describes some videos that show how to commit violent acts -- but those were already banned by YouTube, so that's rather misleading. These new terms are more disturbing. It's not going to stop the videos, it's just going to make it harder to keep track of them, harder to counter them -- all while making the terrorists feel more legitimate.

Terrorists should be tracked down and stopped -- absolutely. But we should be dealing with the actual problem of terrorists, not some videos they made.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Totally False Propaganda About File Sharing Being Given To Students As Educational Material

from the will-the-next-pamphlet-be-about-lying-to-students? dept

It's no secret that both the MPAA and the RIAA have created so-called "educational campaigns" for students about copyright. These educational programs are incredibly one-sided, of course, and it's amazing that many schools actually allow this sort of corporate propaganda to masquerade as educational material. Even more problematic is when an entirely separate organization, supposedly offering a non-biased educational campaign, starts parroting the propaganda. The nonprofit National Center for State Courts, whose charter apparently is as an "organization dedicated to improving the administration of justice by providing leadership and service to court systems in the United States," has done just that. As part of that, it created a set of "graphic novels" (more like a pamphlets) designed to teach students how the court system works. Except the first such graphic novel actually teaches a bunch of RIAA propaganda about file sharing that is mostly flat-out false.

Among the things that aren't true is a claim that file sharing is a city level crime that will get you arrested by the local cops, and that you can face a 2 year jail sentence and a criminal record for downloading songs. You would think that a pamphlet designed to teach kids how the courts would work would actually get the legal issues correct. But, instead, it's just a bunch of propaganda that is completely incorrect about the law.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Recording Industry Funds Charity To Run Its Latest Brainwashing Program

from the why-should-a-charity-be-hyping-one-industry's-business-model? dept

We've already seen the entertainment industry put together propaganda curriculums for kids about "intellectual property" that are so tilted and one-sided that the kids roll their eyes and challenge many of the statements. But that's not stopping the industry. Now it's funding a children's charity to push out the same propaganda to kids, warning the kids about how awful file sharing is, and how dangerous it is. Who knew that charities could be funded to promote the obsolete business model of a dying industry? Somehow I doubt that the charity's discussion will delve into things like "fair use," collaboration, sharing, the promotional aspects of content and artists who embrace file sharing to good results. I wonder why...

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Bureacracy That Goes Into Censoring The Internet In China

from the tuttle-tuttle-buttle-tuttle dept

It's no secret that the process for censoring the internet in China involves a huge bureaucracy of people. Earlier reports had it at 30,000, though we've seen some reports that put it at 40,000 (yes, internet censorship is apparently a growth business in China). So, perhaps it should come as no surprise that there's quite a bit of bureaucracy behind Chinese internet censorship. Apparently a disgruntled censor leaked out the details behind the bureaucracy. Apparently, there are three agencies responsible for different aspects of online censorship: the Internet Propaganda Administrative Bureau, the Bureau of Information and Public Opinion, and the Internet Bureau. There's also the Beijing Internet Information Administrative Bureau to handle all the internet firms located in Beijing. It's all very organized. The Propaganda Agency is in charge of licensing news agencies -- but the licenses aren't to report news or do any, you know, reporting. The licenses are to report propaganda provided by the government. The Public Opinion group basically watches over what public opinion is saying and lets Party leaders know about it, so that a response can quickly be generated. The Internet Bureau, then, is where the real censorship takes place. As for the Beijing Internet organization, it meets with the big internet firms and tells them what news stories will be allowed or not allowed that week. There are a few other organizations involved as well, but the whole thing looks quite organized in trying to snuff out anything it doesn't like online. Of course, that doesn't mean it's particularly effective, but that's an entirely different story.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..