The goals of protecting free speech and stopping online piracy are not mutually exclusive
The concept of protecting “free speech” is fundamental to sustaining healthy political discourse in any society. Yet in debates over copyright and content theft, those who oppose bringing any sort of regulation to the internet twist the concept of protecting “free speech” into a disingenuous cudgel to obfuscate the issue and generate opposition to anti-piracy efforts.
With this in mind, perhaps it’s worth looking at a recent example which demonstrates that the issue of squelching “free speech” is not inextricably linked to other forms of online expression, ie. piracy.
Russian social media site (and Facebook wannabe) Vkontakte (vk.com) provides a good example. Pavel Durov, the site’s founder, was recently pushed aside in favor of ownership interests tied to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Per news reports yesterday, he’s apparently left the Russia saying “Unfortunately, the country is incompatible with Internet business at the moment.” A piece published in January on TheVerge.com explained the power play in a piece, “How Putin’s cronies seized control of Russia’s Facebook,”
Durov, 29, sold his remaining stake in VK this week, officially ending his tenure at the helm of Russia’s most popular social network and turning the page on more than two years of turmoil and political strife.
Durov’s departure effectively transfers majority control of VK to business magnate Alisher Usmanov — Russia’s richest man, with an estimated worth of $20.2 billion, and a close ally of President Vladimir Putin. Durov sold his 12 percent stake to Ivan Tavrin, chief executive of telecom provider MegaFon, which Usmanov controls. (The exact sum of the sale was not disclosed, though it is believed to be between $300 and $400 million.) That means that Usmanov and his Kremlin-friendly allies now control 52 percent of the company, raising concerns over the future of VK and the freedom of its users.
It’s a stratagem that appears tied to disputes over political expression and Vladimir Putin’s crackdown on dissent that has become increasingly aggressive of late.
Even though much of the Russian media is known to be under state control, the Internet has remained relatively free, with blogs and social media sites providing an important and creative platform for political discussion. But on March 4, the Kremlin once again took the media battle it has been waging against pro-Western protests online. Russia’s Internet monitoring agency Roskomnadzor blocked 13 profiles associated with the Ukrainian protest movement on the popular Russian Facebook equivalent VKontakte because they “contained calls to commit terrorist acts and take part in unsanctioned mass action.”
Vk.com has been in the Kremlin’s sites since 2011 when Durov refused the government’s request to close down pages that promoted demonstrations against its policies after the results of parliamentary elections were disputed. According to a report in RIA Novosti:
“We received a request from the FSB to stop the activity of Vkontakte groups calling for riots and a revolution,” Vladislav Tsyplukhin, spokesman for social network VKontakte, wrote on his corporate web page.
“We explained in response that we have been following those groups and cannot block them as a whole just because some individual users have called for violence,” Tsyplukhin wrote.
The accounts of specific users who have explicitly called for public disorder however are being blocked by the company, he said, adding that there had not been any excessive “pressure, threats or rudeness” from the Federal Security Service (FSB) in its requests.
vKontakte.com (also operating as vK.com): The Russian site vKontakte.com, in the List since 2011, is styled primarily as a social networking site, and it is extremely popular in Russia and surrounding countries. While as a general matter, social networking sites can serve many salutary purposes, this site’s business model appears to include enabling the unauthorized reproduction and distribution, including streaming, of music and other content through the site and associated software applications.
In searching the site this week I easily found multiple users who utilized the site as a file host for thousands of websites offering streams of pirated movies.
According to a Russian blogger atkatyatrubilova.wordpress.com, Vk.com has an advantage over Facebook in attracting users due the fact piracy remains a perk not found on Facebook.
Nevertheless, Vkontakte offers a special feature which attracts more new members daily and makes them spend a lot of time online. Members are able to view thousands of pirated copies of domestic and foreign movies dubbed into Russian. In addition, it’s possible to upload and download video and audio files via the VK Tracker application.
Those who value free speech should be alarmed that Vk.com has fallen under the grip of Putin and his allies. The battle against piracy remains a separate issue here, and elsewhere. It’s time to disengage the two concepts. Fighting for one does not preclude fighting against the other.
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.
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.
According to an article published in by Kate Tummarello in The Hill today, Zoe Lofgren doesn’t think much of Congressional efforts to reform copyright law.
Rather than trying to rewrite copyright law, the content industry is working with the tech community to curb online piracy, Lofgren said.
“They’re trying to do collaborative deals with the tech world,” she said. “They’re not asking for a big review of the copyright law.”
Hmmm, last time I checked a number of people representing a wide swath of the creative industries (indie and otherwise) have become very invested in copyright reform efforts believing that it’s long past time to update the law for the 21st century/digital age. Of course, when digesting anything Ms. Lofgren has to say about copyright it’s important to remember that according to opensecrets.org Google is her #1 corporate campaign donor and the company’s general distaste for laws that protect creator’s rights is well established.
The legal woes for Megaupload’s founder Kim Dotcom continue with today’s news that six movie studios including Fox, Disney, Paramount, Columbia, Universal and Warner have filed a lawsuit in federal court charging Dotcom and his site with “massive” copyright infringement. From the complaint filed in federal district court in Virginia:
1. Until January 2012, when defendants were indicted on federal charges, defendants operated the notorious website and service located at www.Megaupload.com (“Megaupload” or ”Megaupload website”) as a commercial online hub for publicly providing popular copyrighted content, including thousands of plaintiffs’ copyrighted works, over the Internet to millions of Megaupload users without authorization ox license. On a daily basis, defendants intentionally infringed plaintiffs’ copyrighted motion picture and television programs on a massive scale and for a substantial profit. Defendants carried out this intentional, large-scale theft of plaintiffs’ intellectual property primarily through the operation of the Megaupload website, as well as associated websites like the video streanning service located at www.Megavideo.com (“Megavideo”).
2. Defendants intentionally and actively encouraged theix users to upload to the Megaupload computer servers infringing copies of the most popular entertainment content, including plaintiffs’ copyrighted television shows and movies. For example, through Megaupload’s “Uploader Rewards” program, defendants openly paid Megaupload users money to upload popular unauthorized and unlicensed content, including plaintiffs’ copyrighted television shows and movies, onto Megaupload’s computer servers. Pursuant to the Uploader Rewards program, the more often an uploaded file was downloaded by other users, the more money the uploader made.
3. Once a Megaupload user uploaded a file, defendants provided that user with a “link” to the infringing content and encouraged the user to disseminate the “link” as broadly as possible on the Internet so that as many people as possible would find the link and use it to download the infringing content from Megaupload’s servers.
4. Defendants profited handsomely from this copyright infringement in at least two ways: by selling users “premium” subscriptions, which enabled rapid, unrestricted downloading; and by selling online advertising space to advertisers.
The complaint goes to describe the site’s business model–one built on piracy whereby the more content uploaded, the more traffic for the site, and the more ad and subscription revenue earned–more than 25 million according to the complaint. It also pokes holes in the claims of Dotcom, and his apologists, that the site was a legitimate enterprise that merely provided storage for its users:
Contrary to some of defendants’ public assertions, Megaupload was not designed to be a private data storage provider. Users without premium subscriptions were restricted not only in their downloading capabilities, but also in their ability to store files on the site. Any content they uploaded would be deleted if it was not also downloaded within a certain period of time —after 21 days in the case of unregistered, anonymous users and after 90 days in the case of registered users who were not premium subscribers. Only premium subscribers (estimated to be 1% of users) could use Megaupload for long-term file storage. Thus, by design, Megaupload functioned not as a private online storage locker, but rather as a hub for uploading and downloading infringing copies of popular movies and television shows, including plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.
With this latest legal salvo fired against Megaupload and its founder perhaps it’s worth taking a moment to examine why YouTube, another site dependent on user-generated content (UGC) managed to survive and thrive, despite early accusations (and a major lawsuit) that labeled it a piracy cornucopia. Why did Megaupload end up on the dust bin of history while YouTube has become a web video (and music) juggernaut?
The early growth and popularity of both sites was dependent on the public’s general disregard for copyright law. Sure, some of the traffic to YouTube was generated by cute cat videos gone viral, but much of the site’s popular content included clips and often entire copies of tv shows and movies–content uploaders certainly had no right to disseminate. Like Megaupload, YouTube hid behind the shield of “safe harbor” and monetized the content with advertising but unlike Megaupload, the site did not offer cash or other incentives to uploaders, not directly anyway.*
In 2007 Viacom filed suit against YouTube and like today’s filing against Megaupload, the charge was “massive” and “brazen” copyright infringement. After seven years of legal back and forth, the parties finally announced they had settled the case in March, one week before they were scheduled to again face off in court. The companies issued a joint statement which characterized the resolution this way: “The settlement reflects the growing collaborative dialogue between our two companies on important opportunities, and we look forward to working more closely together.”
Ultimately what separates YouTube/Google’s success versus Megaupload’s demise lies with the fact that the head honchos at Google determined that respecting copyright ultimately provided a better business model than ignoring it. On the heels of Viacom’s infringement suit, YouTube introduced its Content ID (digital fingerprinting) system in 2008 which gave rights holders a (relatively) efficient way to deal the massive copyright abuses that plagued the site. Rather than send hundreds, if not thousands of DMCA takedowns, musicians and filmmakers could claim content they own and be proactive in blocking, removing, or monetizing it. The key was that Content ID allowed the creators to determine if and how their content could be viewed on YouTube, not the other way around.
Megaupload paid lip service to honoring DMCA takedown requests, but in actuality was playing a shell game, removing infringing links but not removing the actual files. If you read the 70 page federal indictment against notorious pirate cyberlocker website Megaupload, you will find this charge on page 10, section 22:
When a file is being uploaded to Megaupload.com, the Conspiracy’s automated system calculates a unique identifier for the file (called a “MD5 hash”) that is generated using a mathematical algorithm. If, after the MD5 hash calculation, the system determines that the uploading file already exists on a server controlled by the Mega Conspiracy, Megaupload.com does not reproduce a second copy of the file on that server. Instead, the system provides a newand unique URL link to the new user that is pointed to the original file already present on the server. If there is more than one URL link to a file, then any attempt by the copyright holder to terminate access to the file using the Abuse Tool or other DMCA takedown request will fail because the additional access links will continue to be available.
During my dealings with Megaupload I’d long suspected as much. Time after time, I’d remove links using Megaupload’s content management tool only to see a duplicate file reappear (with a new link) minutes later. Of course, unlike federal authorities, I did not have access to the actual content residing on Megaupload’s servers, so I couldn’t really prove it.
In the fall of 2011 while I was researching a pirate blog that offered illegal downloads to LGBT films, I saw that the film “Kyss Mig” was being pirated. Since it’s a film distributed by the same company (Wolfe Video) that distributes our film I notified them of the infringing link. A DMCA notice was sent and, as expected, the link was disabled. However, when I went back to the website the following day I noticed that the disabled link had been replaced by a new one. That led me to again notify Wolfe and the exercise in futility was repeated. A few days later I noticed that the link was alive yet again, but the blog owner had changed things up (to protect her download) and the link now took me to an intermediate site “undeadlink.com.”
Essentially the site offered a convenient way to regenerate links to supposedly “dead” files on Megaupload (and apparently Fileserve). If Megaupload had actually removed the infringing file when it was originally reported, this wouldn’t have been an option. However, because Megaupload apparently did exactly what is spelled out in the indictment, it was very possible (and efficient). When I discovered what was going on last fall, and that it verified my suspicions, I decided to record the process. This video documents what I found.
It’s an ethos that has allowed online piracy for profit (under the guise of innovation) to propagate across the globe. Why invest in a product when it’s just as easy to steal (and monetize) it? Of course Dotcom and Michael Robertson (founder of MP3tunes who was found liable and hit with a 41 million dollar verdict last month in a copyright infringement suit) have both discovered there are consequences to such theft, but this should be the norm, not the exception. Dotcom’s unbridled hubris and greed got the better of him. One can only imagine what he could have achieved had he crossed over from the dark side and followed YouTube’s lead.
Moving forward, preventing such businesses from taking root in the first place should be one goal in Congressional efforts to update the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for the 21st century. For all its faults, YouTube’s Content ID system lights the way for a possible path forward in redefining “safe harbor.” If a website’s business model to is predicated on “sharing” creative work, providing content creators with technological tools to safeguard their work should be a requirement for meeting the “safe harbor” provisions of the law. Such a requirement would not “break” the internet. It actually would could go a long way in fixing what’s currently broken.
Meanwhile, while YouTube has thrived where Megaupload has failed, businesses like YouTube can and should better reward the creatorson whose work they depend. As online distribution options grow and improve, hopefully many will say goodbye to the opaque revenue “sharing” model imposed by YouTube (and others) and take their content to sites/businesses where formulas for compensation are more transparent, and more generous to those who actually create the content.
A download link to a pirated copy of our film on Megaupload.com
BTW, is there a way indie artists could jump on board the lawsuit filed by the studios? Why not make it a class action affair? There are plenty of indie musicians, filmmakers and authors around the world whose works (and livelihoods) were ripped off by Kim Dotcom’s enterprise. In their lawsuit the studios are asking for maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per infringement plus the profits the defendants generated. Just imagine how many new works might be in the offing if those thousands of creators whose works were pirated on Megaupload were awarded damages along with the studios?
1998’s DMCA is well past its sell-by date. Time for a makeover.
The past 20 years have seen a virtual technology revolution. We have the world at our fingertips, literally. Yet, despite the massive technological transformation of our society and culture, our laws have yet to catch up. The haggard Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a shining example of this fact. Signed into law in 1998, the legislation was designed to manage copyright issues in the dawning digital age.
Unfortunately, rather than manage copyright, it’s provided a huge loophole through which a number of online pirate entrepreneurs sail blissfully through. Known as the “safe harbor” provision, this oft-abused language has served to shelter digital thieves at the expense of rights holders. “Safe Harbor” has enabled the growth of a criminal cancer and it’s a cancer–that as of now–cannot be beaten, only kept (marginally) at bay. As Wikipedia notes, “The DMCA’s principal innovation in the field of copyright is the exemption from direct and indirect liability of internet service providers and other intermediaries.” As I’ve suggested previously, any update to the law should include a requirement that in order to qualify for the limitations to liability that safe-harbor offers, certain user-generated content sites must implement reasonable technology to mitigate content theft. More on that later.
The actual “takedown” process has also drawn fire (from both sides of the debate). Copyright holders often find sending out DMCA notices to be an exercise in futility as it’s nearly impossible to keep up with the volume of pirated content found online (usually via for-profit piracy websites). Those who operate legitimate user generated content sites like YouTube argue that false DMCA notices stifle “free speech.” Never mind that the vast majority of notices sent are valid if Google’s stats are any indication. They report that more than 97% of the notices they receive are valid (data listed from 2011).
At any rate, this past week in Washington the wheels of government moved ever-so-slightly as the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a hearing on the DMCA. The witness list included Katherine Oyama, Sr. Copyright Policy Counsel for Google; Paul Sieminski General Counsel for WordPress parent Automattic; Grammy winning composer and conductor Maria Schneider; Paul Doda, Global Litigation Counsel for Elsevier; Annemarie Bridy, professor University of Idaho College of Law; and Sean M. O’Connor, a law professor from the University of Washington.
Overall the testimony was predictable. Those representing copyright holders spoke on the burden of sending repeated takedowns while those with a tech perspective argued that the DMCA actually hurt those receiving notices more than it helped artists in safeguarding their work. Tech representatives also extolled the virtues of “safe harbor” and declared that it was the reason that the internet has flourished in the nearly 20 years since the law was enacted. Of course they failed to mention that abuse of “safe harbor” is rampant and that the intent of the law’s languages has been twisted beyond repair and in desperate need of a 21st century makeover.
Google’s Katherine Oyama appears be well-liked in Washington DC, but even the RIAA found fault with her testimony and published a “fact check” of her statement. Oyama noted that Google has spent more than “60 million dollars on the development of content ID on YouTube,” but the RIAA fact check puts that figure into context:
Google created Content ID in 2008. Google’s revenues since then have surpassed $200 billion – so Google only spends less than 0.03% of its revenues on preventing copyright theft on YouTube?
Ms. Oyama’s assessment that the DMCA was working well for rights holder was also a dubious assertion.
The increasing volume of takedown notices demonstrates the continued relevance and effectiveness of the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown regime. Copyright owners are using the process ever more intensively, suggesting that they continue to find it valuable.
“Valuable” relative to what? I suppose something is better than nothing but certainly the DMCA as an effective method to remove infringing content online is somewhat like using an umbrella to keep dry in a hurricane. Though not her intent, Ms. Oyama’s testimony does offer a glimpse at what should be included in any update of safe harbor:
As copyright owners and enforcement vendors continue to deploy new technologies to identify uses of their works online, we expect the cost per notice to continue to drop, and takedown volumes to concomitantly increase.
The key here is new technologies. As I alluded to above, my suggestion to “fix” safe harbor would be to mandate that websites offering affiliate rewards (the business model used by the now defunct Megaupload) be required to institute some form of content ID system in order to vet content uploaded by these affiliates. Note that I said sites offering affiliate (cash) rewards. The cyberlocker business model, which has become the central means of disseminating and monetizing stolen content online, would no longer be viable. Sites like drop-box that allow users to store and share files but don’t incentivize piracy would remain untouched.
Paul Sieminski who testified on behalf of Automattic, the parent company of the popular online blogging platform WordPress made perhaps the most ironic statement of the afternoon.
Another deterrent is that the counter notice form itself` – many users need to consult a lawyer before completing and submitting the form, and most don’t have the time or resources to do that.
Mr. Sieminski should try replacing the term “counter notice” with the term “DMCA notice.” Just imagine what it’s like for indie filmmakers, musicians, photographers, etc. who find their work appropriated (usually for profit) online. As Ms. Schneider pointed out in her testimony, the system is actually weighted against the content creator:
The takedown procedure should be more balanced. I am certain that most of my fans who upload my music have no intention of harming me – and probably no
knowledge that they are doing so. But to upload my music on most sites, one simply has to click a box saying they acknowledge the rules. On the other end of the transaction, I, the harmed party, must jump through a series of hoops, preparing a notice for each site, certifying documents under penalty of perjury, and spending hours learning the sites’ unique rules for serving the notice. Owners should have a more streamlined and consistent process to take content down.
Need more proof? Well, if you haven’t done so already, take a look at the video I posted at the top of this piece documenting the more than 56,000 download links and streams we sent out to remove pirated copies over several months in 2010 after our film’s release. Our DMCA story is not atypical. Every day musicians, filmmakers and other creators around the world are spending time they could be using more productively, sending out DMCA takedown requests. What about the “time and resources” of the content creators whose work is stolen and monetized by thieves? Takedowns will be a part of any fix, but we must figure out a better way to create a balanced approach that doesn’t necessitate the need for an sending a seemingly endless cycle of notices to cyberlockers and search engines.
The time has come to fix the broken DMCA and create a system where creators can flourish– and the wealth of content they create can be enjoyed, and sustained, by consumers throughout the world.
Marvin Ammori pens a (laughingly) disingenuous anti-copyright screed
This week Google-backed attorney (and fellow at the New America Foundation) Marvin Ammori wrote a piece for Slate, “Hollywood’s Copyright Lobbyists Are Like Exes Who Won’t Give Up” bashing efforts by the rights holders and their representatives to build voluntary consensus to fight online piracy. Ammori argues that such efforts are actually a veiled effort to reintroduce SOPA, the anti-piracy legislation that went down in flames two years ago.
Apparently Mr. Ammori believes (or those paying him do) that we shouldn’t address this issue at all. Legislation is bad and voluntary agreements are bad too. It seems that even talking about the subject is bad.
In his Slate piece Ammori condemned “copyright lobbyists” for discussing such agreements “in hearings and little information-gathering events—the equivalent of an ex just trying to catch up over drinks.” His lame “ex” analogy aside, I must say it’s beyond ironic to see a known confederate of the #1 lobbyist in DC actually condemn lobbying. Just pull back the curtain and you’ll see that Google’s former CEO Eric Schmidt is actually the Chairman of the Board for the New America Foundation. The foundation also lists Google as one of its funders.
According to the website Open Secrets, Google spent 15 million dollars lobbying in 2013. 14.6 million of that was for lobbying on issues related to “computers and the internet.” It’s likely that some of those expenditures included sending representatives to “hearings and little information-gathering events” in DC don’t cha think?
Initially Slate failed to disclose Mr. Ammori’s ties to Google, but was forced to “update” the piece with this disclaimer:
Update, March 11, 2014: Disclosure: The author represented Google and other companies fighting SOPA/PIPA in 2011 and 2012. He currently represents Google and other companies on several issues, including copyright reform. These views are his own.
The fact that Mr. Ammori neglected to initially mention his many ties to Google undermines the very gist of his arguments. Sons of Anarchy writer Kurt Sutter wrote a great rebuttal in Slate to Ammori’s piece which begins:
Let’s consider the March 11 anti-copyright rant in Slate by Marvin Ammori, a lawyer working for Google (which somehow he forgot to mention in the article). He compares Hollywood to that insidious “ex who won’t give up” pursuing you and making your life miserable. As a guy with more than a few exes, I have to tell you, Marv, the most insidious ex is the one who hides the truth, steals your money, and lies to all your friends. That’s what Ammori and Google are doing.
I recommend reading Sutter’s entire piece in which he lays bare the true motivations behind Ammori’s post (and Google’s lobbying efforts).
…when Hollywood tries to impede that thievery, it’s presented to the masses as a desperate attempt to hold on to antiquated copyright laws that will kill your digital buzz. It’s so absurd that Google is still presenting itself as the lovable geek who’s the friend of the young everyman. Don’t kid yourself, kids: Google is the establishment. It is a multibillion-dollar information portal that makes dough off of every click on its page and every data byte it streams. Do you really think Google gives a shit about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope.
To blame Hollywood copyright lobbyists for trying to influence law when google does the exact same thing is either ignorant or hypocritical. And to ignore the fact it isn’t just “Hollywood Copyright Lobbyists” but entire countries that are reacting to what they see is Big Tech run rampant, suggests once again the narrative is being controlled in Big Tech’s favor.
Ammori whines about SOPA and he whines about new efforts to create “voluntary” agreements as a possible path forward in the ongoing battle against content theft. Apparently we are essentially damned if we do and damned if we don’t? What are content creators supposed to do? Are we supposed to sit on our hands and watch as tech behemoths like Google continue to enable (and profit from) an illicit online economy that is bleeding creators dry?
Ammori points to the fact that payment processors like PayPal have pulled their services from various websites and warns,
…copyright holders can starve websites of their funding, strip them of their domain names, and remove them from search. The sites at risk include those that enable users to store and share content—if even a fraction of those users might violate copyright. So these agreements can threaten free expression and innovation online for all of us, just to target a few infringers.
Oh please…he really doesn’t have a freakin’ clue does he? Has he ever actually researched online piracy and examined these websites and to see how they operate? Does he really that only a “fraction” of Megaupload or Filesonic’s users were violating copyright? At this point the poor guy is clearly trying to gin up the same tired, hyperbolic, deceitful anti-SOPA rhetoric the tech-industry employed to work web users into a lather. Problem is, it ain’t gonna work any more. As Sutter’s rebuttal makes clear, creators from all walks of life are fed up with piracy profiteers being propped up by companies like Google–tired of the b.s. We’re mad as hell and not going to take it any more.
We’re sick of companies like Google spending millions to defend their business model, acting like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. We’re tired of Google pretending this is about “free speech” when, in fact, it’s about their bottom line. We’re tired of the hypocrisy of a company that spends millions to undermine artist’s rights while being the first in line at the courthouse when it comes to protecting its own IP. We’re tired of watching our livelihoods whittled away while others steal our work to make millions. We’re tired of folks like Mr. Ammori pretending to defend the web’s users when they’re really defending the web’s oligarchy.
As an indie film and broadcast journalism veteran, I'll share my perspectives on issues of interest to the creative community and beyond--Ellen Seidler
The goals of protecting free speech and stopping online piracy are not mutually exclusive
