by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy
The fight against movie piracy is a fight FOR diversity
It’s no secret that Hollywood has a long way to go when it comes to diversity and a new report released today by the Media, Diversity, & Social Change Initiative at USC’s 
Annenberg School shows just how far. Echoing findings of a similar study issued last winter by UCLA’s Bunche Center, today’s report finds that women, minorities and LGBT characters are not only rare–but often insignificant in Hollywood films. The findings include:
- Of the 4,610 speaking or named characters on screen, only 19 were coded as LGBT across the 100 top films of 2014.
- Only 30.2% of the 30,835 speaking characters evaluated were female across the 700 top‐grossing films from 2007 to 2014. This calculates to a gender ratio of 2.3 to 1. Only 11% of 700 films had gender‐balanced casts or featured girls/women in roughly half (45‐54.9%) of the speaking roles.
- Only 17 of the 100 top films of 2014 featured a lead or co lead actor from an underrepresented racial and/or ethnic group. An additional 3 films depicted an ensemble cast with 50% or more of the group comprised of actors from underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds.
- In 2014, no female actors over 45 years of age performed a lead or co lead role. Only three of the female actors in lead or co lead roles were from underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds. No female leads or co leads were Lesbian or Bisexual characters.
The report is a must-read, but how does it have anything to do with the topic “movie piracy” or the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)? Well, given that Hollywood is clearly doing a pretty lousy job telling the diverse stories of our society at large, where can audiences watch films that reflect our lives? Look no further than the narratives created by a diverse cornucopia of independent filmmakers.
Pirate sites around the globe feature stolen LGBT movies
Unlike those in Hollywood, indie filmmakers are not well-funded and often have to cobble together lean production budgets using a variety of sources from credit cards to crowd-funding. Without the deep pockets of the studios, these filmmakers often go deep into the red to create their not-so-mainstream films.
So, when it comes to assessing piracy’s damage, indie filmmakers, like their counterparts in music, are often the most vulnerable. As I noted in a 2013 blog post about the negative impact piracy has on LGBT cinema:
Unlike studio-backed films, these titles usually don’t get a theatrical release and so are totally dependent on back-end revenue (VOD, DVD, TV) to recoup production costs and pay off debts. Parasitic pirates, who themselves profit from piracy, erode this much-needed revenue stream.
This brings me to the EFF and a recent blog post by Mitch Stoltz, a Senior Staff Attorney there. In response to recent efforts by the movie industry to shut down a group of piracy-for-profit websites based offshore, Stoltz sounded the alarm by dusting off the well-worn SOPA canard and cries of “censorship” and “abuse.” His love of the word “abuse” was so strong, in fact, variations of the term appear 9 times in his piece.
Isn’t it time for those at the EFF and others who yell “SOPA” each time the movie industry takes legal action against online pirates to shut the hell up? What is abusive is the way online piracy (for profit) is allowed to flourish, made sacrosanct by tech apologists.
Why can’t we differentiate between websites engaged in theft for profit and legit ones? Are we (and the courts) really that stupid? When it comes to other illegal activity online we manage to differentiate between the good guys and the bad…drugs, child porn, etc.
Piracy is not free speech, it’s theft.
Asking that pirate sites be shut down for criminal activity (movie piracy) is no different. Despite the hyperbole, it’s also not an attack on “free speech.” In fact, ridding the web of pirates actually strengthens “free speech” by helping make sure that oft-marginalized subjects and stories brought to the screen by indie filmmakers are not muted.
Why can’t the EFF find value in protecting the diversity of free speech found in film?
EFF bluster is nothing new. It’s a tired old playbook that I’ve addressed in earlier posts:
…the EFF routinely muddies the waters and conflate valid concerns over online privacy and free speech rights with copyright holders’ efforts to protect their work from infringement. Protecting rights within all three realms is important and doing so effectively, despite EFF rhetoric to the contrary, need not be a mutually exclusive process. The EFF approach to protecting “rights” in the digital age has always has been disingenuous. Gin up hysteria in order to push an anti-copyright agenda–an agenda, covertly built on the interests of the tech industry and NOT the community at large.
So, back to the issue at hand…lack of diversity in film. I would argue that the fight against online piracy is also a fight FOR filmmakers who create diverse films. It’s also a fight for the jobs of all those involved in making them.
There’s no question Hollywood needs to do a (much) better job when it comes to including women, minorities and LGBT in roles on camera and off, but in its perhaps own inadvertent way–by taking aim at online pirates–the industry is helping make sure that audiences worldwide will continue have access to independently produced films, rich with a myriad of characters and stories.
While Stoltz and his tech-influenced ilk continue to demonize Hollywood’s efforts against piracy, I will continue to applaud them for taking action. They are fighting the good fight against piracy for all filmmakers. Meanwhile I will continue to advocate for a Hollywood that better reflects the world around us. The two are not mutually exclusive.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Piracy, Politics, Tech
Google’s True Colors as Lobbying Goliath Revealed
Sunday’s Washington Post featured a story, “Google, once disdainful of lobbying, now a master of Washington influence” that examined the company’s rise to become a top dog among Washington influence peddlers. For Google watchers revelations in the piece, authored by Tom Hamburger and Matea Gold, come as no surprise. However, for those who continue to regard Google as the web’s guardian angel of “free speech,” the story should add a bit of tarnish to its halo, illuminating the company’s extensive back-door maneuverings — the new normal in DC’s world of political puppeteering.
The behind-the-scenes machinations demonstrate how Google — once a lobbying weakling — has come to master a new method of operating in modern-day Washington, where spending on traditional lobbying is rivaled by other, less visible forms of influence.
(Read the e-mails between Google and GMU officials)
That system includes financing sympathetic research at universities and think tanks, investing in nonprofit advocacy groups across the political spectrum and funding pro-business coalitions cast as public-interest projects.
The rise of Google as a top-tier Washington player fully captures the arc of change in the influence business.
It wasn’t too long ago that Google was leading the charge against Washington insiders, those who deigned to file legislation that would target online content theft, the notorious Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Of course its ginning up hysteria among web users with the rallying cry “don’t break the internet” is simply just another strategic slice of the same (lobbying) pie the company is currently feasting on in Washington. While the contrivances employed differ, the ultimate goal of protecting the company’s interests (and bottom line) lies at the core both of both.
Of course it’s not particularly surprising to find that one of the nation’s most successful and influential company has invested heavily (more than 15 million in 2013) to influence policy by any means necessary. What is important is to see that Google’s anti-SOPA efforts for what they were–skillful lobbying that engaged web users as foils in a much larger game of chess. After the SOPA web blackout, a headline in Tech Crunch gleefully declared, “SOPA Scorecard: Internet 1, Lobbyists 0.” In his story David Binetti gave this appraisal of the (so-called) grassroots efforts that led to SOPA’s defeat.
Think about that for just a second: A well-organized, well-funded, well-connected, well-experienced lobbying effort on Capitol Hill was outflanked by an ad-hoc group of rank amateurs, most of whom were operating independent of one another and on their spare time. Regardless where you stand on the issue — and effective copyright protection is an important issue — this is very good news for the future of civic engagement.
Looking back, such assessments seem almost quaint in their naivety. Following the web blackout, in a post-mortem published on 3digital.com David Rodnitzky got it right:
The SOPA blackout was about as organic as the masses of North Koreans crying in the streets upon hearing of Kim Jong Il’s death. Behind the scenes, the SOPA protest was a well-organized campaign, fueled by the lobbying arms of major Internet corporations.
Moving forward, let’s hope that more people take note. Google is out to protect Google’s interests, not ours.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Piracy, Politics, Tech
Creativity ‘Continues to Thrive,’ in spite of SOPA’s defeat, not because of it
In a post marking the anniversary of SOPA’s defeat (Stop Online Piracy Act) Google asks users share a graphic to celebrate. “Since we combined our voices to stop SOPA, creativity has continued to thrive — both on and off the web.” Their celebratory note also includes this caveat:
Of course, piracy remains a major concern and Google does its part to fight it, but, two years after SOPA, it’s clear that the Internet has been really good for creativity and entertainment.
Frankly, I’ve never heard artists or entertainers make the argument that the internet isn’t “good” for creativity or entertainment. Yet, during the SOPA debate, as red herrings flew, content creators became the enemy in and us vs. them debate as hyperbolic and often mendacious rhetoric echoed across the web.
SOPA anniversary aside, this week marked another milestone– 100 Million takedown requests to remove search links to pirated music have been sent to Google. Note this total only includes takedown notices sent by the music industry. Don’t forget to add those millions sent to Google for pirated movies, photographs, books, and more.
If piracy is really a “major concern” for Google why do illegal sites still dominate in searches for music and movies? Here’s a graphic that is a tad more “balanced” than the one Google wants you to share.
Below is another graphic that worth considering when reading about Google’s rather disingenuous statements about their concerns re: online piracy. Yes, creativity continues to thrive online, but just image what could happen if Google actually took serious steps to stop supporting online piracy? It would be nice to see the trend lines in the chart below going down rather than steadily climb.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Music, Piracy, Politics, Tech
Derek Khanna first came to public notice in 2012 after writing a lopsided anti-copyright “policy brief” for Republican Study Committee called “Three Myths About Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix It.” A day after the document was released it was withdrawn and Khanna lost his job at the end of the 112th Congress. He blamed wealthy donors in the “entertainment industry” for his dismissal and quickly became a martyr for the anti-copyright cause. He ended up at as Yale Law Fellow with the Information Society Project.
Unfortunately, like many of those in the legal field who are working to undermine creator’s rights, Mr. Khanna speaks from a decidedly one-sided perspective in penning a piece for today’s Washington Post that ominously warns that “Hollywood should not decide our copyright laws.” Aside from selecting a splashy but lazy (and inaccurate) headline for his piece, he conveniently ignored the (Tech) elephant in the room when he wrote, ” Last year’s defeat of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) caused industry groups to intensify their lobbying efforts. And they haven’t been subtle about it.” Sure, television and motion picture interests have increased their presence in Washington, but then so has “Big Tech.”
May I remind you that the reality of the anti-SOPA uprising was in large part a result of a deliberate (and well-funded) astro-turf campaign managed by the big guns of tech (Google, et al) to gin up the public. How hard is it to get the internet in a spin when you’re in control of its major gateways? Certainly there was room for open discussion about the Stop Online Piracy Act and possible revisions to improve it, but the option for an open debate was quickly overwhelmed by an online avalanche of protest. Never mind that the majority of those who Tweeted or posted condemnations on Facebook hadn’t actually read the bill. For them all that was required was a mendacious meme that SOPA would “break the internet” and do away with “free speech” online.
It’s also worth noting that Mr. Khanna’s current employer (the Yale Law Information Society Project) receives some of its funding from Google–a company not exactly known for its love of present copyright law.
I do agree with one thing Khanna wrote in his post piece:
So in its deliberations, Goodlatte’s committee should ensure that Hollywood isn’t the only voice at the table. Both content creators and innovators desperately want to see copyright reform.
However, after that non-controversial statement it all goes downhill, quickly as Mr. Khanna gives readers a list of examples that, to him, demonstrate why copyright law is bad for creators and industry innovators alike. Why’s that a problem? Well, it’s a problem because, as is often the case with the copy-left, he doesn’t see fit to talk to tell the full story as to how crucial copyright protection is for those whose livelihoods depend on content creation. Khanna lists Hank Shocklee of Public Enemy, as an example of an artist constrained by current copyright law, but fails to mention that while Shocklee is a musician, he’s known for work often derived from sampling the work of others. His situation is not exactly representative of all artists, musical or otherwise, who have a stake in this debate.
Why not talk to some 45% of professional musicians who are no longer working in large part because our current copyright law is flouted by today’s digital pirate profiteers? Why not make mention of the independent filmmakers whose innovations are routinely stolen and monetized by bootleggers and online thieves?
Mr. Khanna also drones on in typical fashion about the DMCA. Yes, it’s an outdated law, but not for the reason he states. It’s outdated because it’s unworkable for creators, small and large, because its “safe harbor” provisions make protecting one’s content from pirate profiteers nearly impossible. He closes his piece by saying:
We can craft a system of copyright that compensates rights holders and incentivizes innovation for start-ups and new artists. It is not an either or proposition. But we’ll only get a balanced copyright system if Congress hears from a broad range of voices. It can’t just be special interests controlling the debate, writing the amendments in backrooms, and writing big checks to members of Congress.
True enough, BUT please remember that artists ARE innovators and that the tech industry represents a big “special interest.” Next time hearings are held in Washington let’s hope that a diversity of creator’s voices is heard rather than a panel of legal theorists–and if he writes about copyright reform again, perhaps Mr. Khanna would be wise take the same “balanced” approach he’s suggesting for members of Congress.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Tech
As Google has grown to dominate internet search and online advertising, the company has repeatedly lobbied against legislative efforts to protect copyright owners from piracy in the name of keeping the internet “open” and “free” from censorship. During the debate over SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act) the company led the astroturf charge against the proposed bill saying:
Like many businesses, entrepreneurs and web users, we oppose these bills because there are smart, targeted ways to shut down foreign rogue websites without asking American companies to censor the Internet. So tomorrow we will be joining many other tech companies to highlight this issue on our US home page.
The company even went so far as to obscure it’s search logo with a dramatic swath of black and provided a link so that visitors could “tell Congress not to censor the web.” 
Despite the hyperbole, many of those who create content for a living understood that Google’s campaign was not born out of a desire to protect the greater good, but rather to protect it’s massive online advertising profits that risked being diminished should illicit websites be subject to takedown. During the SOPA hysteria Google played puppeteer in orchestrating the movements of not-so-grassroots campaign to defeat the legislation. Sadly, few who opposed SOPA took the time to understand Google’s role in encouraging and sustaining online piracy (along with other nefarious online sites offering counterfeit products and pharmaceuticals) and, while the bill had its flaws, thanks to Google and other tech-driven memes, there was little interest in building consensus about how to effectively and reasonably attack the growing problem of online theft.
As was pointed out by Scott Cleland in a Forbes piece, for Google, organizing opposition to SOPA was a business decision, pure and simple:
Google led, orchestrated, politically-framed and set the political tone for much of the Web’s opposition to pending anti-piracy legislation, SOPA/PIPA, because rule of law and effective enforcement of property rights online represent a clear and present danger to Google’s anti-property-rights mission, open philosophy, business model, innovation approach, competitive strategy, and culture.
So, today, when I read this account in Wired.com about Google’s insistence that those who purchase a Google Glass (“Explorer” edition) be prevented from selling, loaning, or transferring them to another person, I had to laugh. Let me get this straight, when it comes to creative content online (including pirated material)–it’s fine to sell, loan or “transfer” it to another (and make money by doing so thanks to Google’s AdSense) but if I want to sell or loan my Google Glass to my pal, I can’t???? Hmmmm….crazy, but apparently true according to the Terms of Services published by Google.
According to the LA Times:
Google says that these terms are specifically for the early version of Glass, so they may change by the time the device goes on sale to the general public. But for now, Google says it simply wants the first users to use the device, not anyone else.
So, it’s OK for Google to decide what happens to their products, but it’s not OK for creative artists to decide what happens to theirs? Guess what’s good for the Creative Goose ain’t OK for the Google Gander. In both instances what seems only to matter is Google’s bottom line. No surprise really, but their hypocrisy is truly a sight to behold.
Google’s philosophy is one of openness, or so they claim on their blog:
At Google we believe that open systems win. They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable, and competitive ecosystem for businesses. Many companies will claim roughly the same thing since they know that declaring themselves to be open is both good for their brand and completely without risk. After all, in our industry there is no clear definition of what open really means. It is a Rashomon-like term: highly subjective and vitally important.
I guess their belief in “open systems” doesn’t apply to tangible goods. When it comes to property rights, Google’s approach is indeed “subjective.”
Jonathan Rosenberg, Senior Vice President, Product Management who wrote the post goes on to add:
So if you are trying to grow an entire industry as broadly as possible, open systems trump closed. And that is exactly what we are trying to do with the Internet. Our commitment to open systems is not altruistic. Rather it’s good business, since an open Internet creates a steady stream of innovations that attracts users and usage and grows the entire industry.
And here’s the kicker:
Finally, we must always give control to the user. If we have information about a user, as with IBA, it should be easy for the user to delete that information and opt-out. If they use our products and store content with us, it’s their content, not ours.[emphasis added] They should be able to export it or delete it at any time, at no cost, and as easily as possible. Gmail is a great example of this since we offer free forwarding to any address. The ability to switch is critical, so instead of building walls around your product, build bridges. Give users real options.
Yeah right, give users “real options” except when it comes to selling or sharing their super-cool, nifty (and expensive) Google Glass. I’d be fine with Google dictating licensing terms for their products, if only they were fine with me doing the same. Hypocrisy, thy name is Google.
Annenberg School shows just how far. Echoing findings of a similar study issued last winter by UCLA’s Bunche Center, today’s report finds that women, minorities and LGBT characters are not only rare–but often insignificant in Hollywood films. The findings include:
This brings me to the EFF and a recent blog post by Mitch Stoltz, a Senior Staff Attorney there. In response to recent efforts by the movie industry to shut down a group of piracy-for-profit websites based offshore, Stoltz sounded the alarm by dusting off the well-worn SOPA canard and cries of “censorship” and “abuse.” His love of the word “abuse” was so strong, in fact, variations of the term appear 9 times in his piece.
