Tag Archives: MPAA

SOPA soap opera

Posted on by
Reply

There is a fascinating article in The Hollywood Reporter describing the behind-the-scenes drama at the MPAA during the SOPA smackdown of the past few weeks.

In the desperate hours of early January, with chatter spreading that the White House was poised to make a devastating statement opposing parts of proposed anti-piracy legislation that Hollywood studios considered key to the industry’s very survival, MPAA president Christopher Dodd made a phone call to DreamWorks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Katzenberg’s company is not an MPAA member, but a list of the top 10 fund-raisers bundling money for President Obama would include not only Katzenberg but also his political adviser, Andy Spahn. It would not include any of the chiefs whose studios belong to the MPAA. So the former U.S. senator reached out, he says, to find out about the thinking inside the White House.

“The rumors were running rampant,” says Dodd. “I was trying to use all the information points I could to find out what was going on.”

Dodd says that at the time of his call, he had been assured no major actions were imminent. Then, on Jan. 14, the administration said it would not support legislation “that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.”

“They just made up their mind to do it,” says Dodd. “I raised issues about it, but they were going to march ahead.”

And the article notes the damage to Dodd’s reputation and effectiveness as a lobbyist caused by this remark:

In the days after the controversial House version of the bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act, was derailed, Dodd belittled those who opposed it and threatened Democrats who had fled when the bill became radioactive. Perhaps his worst post-defeat move came Jan. 19 when he told Fox News that “those who count on, quote, ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake.” There was an instant outcry, including a petition on the White House website calling on the administration to investigate Dodd for “bribery.” (In less than a week, it had attracted more than 21,000 signatures.)

As I previously noted, that remark by Dodd does seem to come close to an offer of a direct quid pro quo of money for legislative action.

Related articles

Is that a threat? (updated)

Posted on by
Reply

Those who count on quote “Hollywood” for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.

– MPAA head Chris Dodd. Maybe it is not a threat, but perhaps a contractual offer to pay a bribe as a quid pro quo for help: support Hollywood and we will pay you.  More here.

Update: And here.

Tim O’Reilly: Lobbying and SOPA

Posted on by
Reply

Tim O’Reilly, noted publisher of tech-related books, has a Google+ post noting the failure of Congress to make a careful technical and economic study of SOPA, rather than its current approach of “balancing” the positions of lobbyists.

My point is that when evaluating the request for legislation like SOPA, Congress ought to be considering factors like:

* The credibility of those making claims. The motion picture industry has a history of opposing every new technology, even those that proved ultimately to grow the market. (MPAA head Jack Valenti‘s claim that the VCR was the equivalent of letting “Jack the Ripper” into your home is the most famous example.)

* The lack of independently verified quantitative evidence that there has been actual harm to the movie business (and other copyright businesses). My conversation with Representative Pelosi focused on my experience as a publisher at O’Reilly, in which losses to piracy are far outweighed by the growth of the market. Far from being hurt by piracy, internet distribution of DRM-free ebooks is the brightest spot in my business, a key driver of growth.

* The overall benefit to consumers in supporting innovative business models that increase access and bring down prices.

This isn’t a matter of simply weighing the concerns of one set of lobbyists against those of another, but using a standard of care and independent judgment about what is best for our society.

Related articles

A secret treaty

Posted on by

As the New York Times is reporting, there is currently an international effort underway to negotiate a new treaty primarily aimed at protecting intellectual property.  And it is being done in secret.

Behind a veil of secrecy, the United States, the European Union, Japan and other countries are forging ahead with plans to coordinate an international crackdown on illegally copied music, movies, designer bags and other goods that change hands in sidewalk souks and Internet bazaars.

Negotiators, under intense pressure from media companies, luxury brands and other corporate victims of piracy, are scrambling to complete a so-called Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement by the end of the year.

But the process is running into growing criticism from Internet campaigners, lawmakers and even some people involved in it.

Since when is it good policy to negotiate law in secret and primarily for the benefit of private parties rather than sound policy reasons? One of the possible approaches apparently being considered would mandate some sort of regulations that would require ISPs to disconnect customers who content provider claim have engaged in illegal file sharing. Where is the due process? Why isn’t this just a way for a private industry to get law enforcement for its own protection for free?

More from the EFF, Public Knowledge and James Love.