This month marks the five-year anniversary of my first blog post about online piracy and its link to advertising profits. At the time I was pissed. The movie Megan Siler and I had spent three years creating had just been released, and within 24 hours, had found its way online as an illegal download. One illegal copy quickly morphed into many tens of thousands.
What made me angry wasn’t necessarily the fact the film had been pirated. Though certainly I wasn’t pleased, it wasn’t really a shock. I knew in the back of my mind that piracy was an issue. However, I’d never really examined it up close. When I did, I was surprised not only by the how–but by the why. Online piracy was, in fact, an insidious for-profit business cloaked behind a curtain labeled “sharing.”
Online piracy is driven by profit
It turns out our film–like thousands of others, studio and indie–was just click-bait for a flourishing online market driven by greed. The breadth and scope of this illicit online marketplace was shocking. Examining a wide range of pirate websites I discovered an insidious, profitable and widespread economy driven–in large measure–through the complicity of major American corporations.
Sure, some of the major players were well-known thieves like Kim Dotcom whose Megaupload business empire was built on content theft. But many others cashing in on the online feeding frenzy were (and still are) mainstream corporations like Google. Ad service providers and major brand advertisers were (and still are) incentivizing and sustaining online piracy as a profitable venture. It was true five years ago and unfortunately it remains true today. Legit companies supply the blood that feeds the beast.
My original blog at popuppirates.com
I didn’t begin blogging about online piracy for the sake of our film. That’s old news. The reason I’ve continued to spend the past five years investigating and writing about online piracy and copyright issues is because I don’t believe what’s happening to our creative community is fair. I write because I worry about the future of those who earn their living by creating the content we so enjoy. I write because online pirates continue to rip-off creators at every opportunity in order to make a buck.
I also write because worry that online piracy diminishes the diversity of content that’s produced. After all, we won’t know what we’re missing when it isn’t made. Creative voices on the fringes, the most fragile among us, are often the first to go, and it’s often a silent exit. Piracy apologists who believe it’s their right to take what they want– when they want–routinely belittle creators who dare speak out against such theft. For those defending piracy it seems easier to denigrate and devalue artists rather to hear them.
When I recently sent a DMCA notice to the Chilling Effects database to highlight the hypocrisy of Google’s message that it “fights piracy” my move was met with predictable derision. Few on the copyleft seemed to understand that it really wasn’t about me, or our film. The same scenario happens day after day to all types of creators who send takedown notices to Google. I used our film as an example (because I could) in order to make a point about how Google (and Chilling Effects) conduct business–removing links, but replacing the original link with another link back to a page featuring the original link. It’s a duplicitous shell game that mocks the very intent of the DMCA.
“I figured you are stupid Gay”
One blogger was so bent out of shape by my takedown notice to Chilling Effects he wrote his own post. He sent me a series of messages via my Vox Indie Facebook page and attempted to point out the futility of my anti-piracy efforts. Apparently crabbed when I didn’t respond, in a fit of pique, he resorted to childish name-calling:
A screencap showing partial excerpt of a blogger’s FB messages to me.
So much for thoughtful discourse eh? For the record, I am “Gay.” As for stupid, well, that “blogger” certainly thinks so. It would appear he has a problem with stupid Gayswho dare to speak out in defense of creators. For the record I didn’t bother to read his blog post which–given the tone of his messages–was probably not particularly friendly, nor thoughtful.
That particular blogger was not the only one to mock my attempt to highlight Google’s DMCA shell game; though I must say I’ve not really experienced the homophobic angle before. TechDirt, a site well known for its not-so-friendly views on copyright, also recently posted a harangue about my DMCA notice to Chilling Effects. That piece featured the subheading “from the stupidity-in-Russian-doll-form dept” so it would seem that the word “stupid,” in various forms, is a popular term for frustrated anti-piracy apologists to use when writing rebuttals. I imagine their dependence on the word is merely a further sign they have no cogent argument at the ready.
As the saying goes, “sticks and stones…” However, the upside is that my efforts to bring attention to the damage done by online piracy are clearly having the desired effect.
LGBT Filmmakers are among those whose voices are diminished by online piracy
Pirates sites around the world stealing LGBT films
I should also point out that LGBT filmmakers regularly send me emails asking what they can do to protect their films from online piracy. Some of them have spent years trying to bring their vision to the big screen and when they see their newly released film showing up as downloads and streams on pirate sites across the globe they are crushed. I wrote a piece about this some time ago, but it’s worth reminding audiences that these are some of the independent voices that are damaged when we allow online theft to flourish.
How can we change the status quo? We speak out. The good news is that we are. Artists across the spectrum have begun to focus frustration into action. We’ve begun to speak out and formed coalitions, demanding with one voice that our representatives in Washington take action to better safeguard creative work (and livelihoods) in the digital age. Whether it’s by re-tweeting for the #IRespectMusic campaign or joining the new Content Creators Coalition, as WE come together, WE will make progress–of that I am sure.
I didn’t make a film in order to become an “anti-piracy” activist. I made a film with my (also gay) filmmaker friend Megan Siler because we had a creative idea we wanted to share with lesbian audiences. However, once our film was released, and subjected to the online piracy pulverizer, this particular stupid Gay couldn’t look the other way. It opened my eyes to what was happening across the board to content creators of all stripes–and it wasn’t OK.
Hopefully, over these past years, through my research and subsequent blog posts, I’ve helped frame the debate over piracy in a way that exposes criminal nature of online piracy and motivates others to acknowledge it’s a problem in search of a solution. I also hope readers can better appreciate the long-term value of safeguarding our creative communities large and small.
Here’s to the next five years and hoping creators continue to make progress against the scourge of online piracy…I may be stupid, but I’m also stubborn. 🙂
Richard Prince is not an artist, he’s a con-artist.
Ripping off artists in the name of ART is not OK
How long are we going to continue to let small artists get screwed by those with deep pockets? Talk to any small creator–filmmakers, musicians, photographers, artists, authors–and ask whether they’ve had their work stolen (and monetized) by others and most will likely say “yes.” Then ask them what they did about it. The answer will likely be, “nothing.”
Right now a con-artist named Richard Prince is busy raking in the dough by selling Instagram photographs taken by others. Oh yeah, he adds some drivel and emojis to the bottom of each photo before he blows it up a 65 x 48 print. Yes art is often derivative, and yes these photographs are altered–but, in essence, at its core, the art remains a photograph taken (and owned) by someone else.
Prince, and the Gagosian Gallery where his work was shown, apparently have no qualms about blatantly appropriating and cashing by selling the work of other artists without their permission. As a Paddy Johnson noted so succinctly in a piece he wrote for Artnet News, “Richard Prince sucks.”
So, while there’s no doubt Prince is a phony, piggy-backing off the work of Instagram artists; the question is–returning to my original query–Can the photographers whose pictures were stolen do anything to stop Prince’s outrageous fraud? Well, not really. You see, quite simply, Mr. Prince is loaded and the people he steals from are not.
Prince’s scam, disguised as art, is nothing new. Over his career he’s developed a reputation as a serial thief and has ended up in court before. Two years ago he prevailed (partially) on appeal in a suit brought by photographer Patrick Cariou who claimed copyright infringement when Prince produced a series of photographs based on Cariou’s work. Ultimately a settlement was reached.
For his part Prince purports not to care much about copyright, telling Russhumazine.com:
…sometimes it’s better not to be successful and well known and you can get away with much more. I knew what I was stealing 30 years ago but it didn’t matter because no one cared, no one was paying any attention.
Why should he care? With millions in the bank Prince can afford not to. Does his past legal success mean he’d win this round? Unfortunately, it’s unlikely we’ll ever find out since filing a lawsuit costs mega money–money that most everyday creators don’t have.
Doe Deere, one of the Instagram artists whose work was stolen, posted this response on the social media site aside the photo Prince filched:
Figured I might as well post this since everyone is texting me. Yes, my portrait is currently displayed at the Frieze Gallery in NYC. Yes, it’s just a screenshot (not a painting). No, I did not give my permission and yes, the controversial artist Richard Prince put it up anyway. It’s already sold ($90K I’ve been told) during the VIP preview. No, I’m not gonna go after him. And nope, I have no idea who ended up with it! ? #lifeisstrange #modernart #wannabuyaninstagrampicture
Once again we’re left with a scenario where a rich charlatan can get away with stealing from the little guy.
It’s a scenario that’s played out many times. We’ve witnessed similar rip-offs by corporate interests that routinely steal the work of artists. Sam Levin wrote an expose for the East Bay Express last year documenting the ways in which artists are routinely victimized by such theft:
Visual artists and designers throughout the Bay Area and across the country are, at alarming rates, facing copyright infringements from large retail and wholesale companies stealing their intellectual property for their own products and profit. As artists increasingly promote their work and crafts online — through Etsy or their own websites and Facebook pages — corporations are stealing their designs and mass-producing them for sale.
Here too, an artist whose work is stolen has little recourse when it comes to fighting back. Even if they do, Levin points out that any settlement is likely to be paltry and include a non-disclosure agreement, thereby shielding the thief from any negative public shaming.
The time has come for Congress to establish a small claims court for copyright
Perhaps the time has come to get serious about establishing a copyright small claims court. It’s an idea the U.S. Copyright Office spent several years studying. A report summarizing its findings was sent to Congress in September of 2013. It outlined potential bureaucratic hurdles and ultimately recommended “the creation of a voluntary system of adjudication to be administered by the Copyright Office.” In any case, the report’s findings reinforce the need for some type of action on this issue. From the introduction:
While infringement is nothing new when it comes to the world of creative works, there is no question that it has proliferated with the ascendance of digital culture and the unprecedented desire for content. Today it is not only easy to make unauthorized copies, but to do so at virtually no cost, much to the detriment of authors and the market for their works. …Unfortunately, and perhaps ironically, as the rate of infringement has increased, so too have the barriers to pursuing copyright claims in the federal courts. These barriers are largely practical: federal litigation is expensive and time-consuming, and therefore out of reach for many copyright owners…If exclusive rights are unenforceable, they are weakened as the pillars of the copyright law, and public respect for our nation’s creativity is eroded in turn.
Other documentation gathered for the report included this startling nugget:.
In fact, one recent survey found that, as of 2011, the median cost for litigating a copyright infringement lawsuit with less than $1 million at risk was $350,000.
More analysis of the report can be found by Jonathan Bailey’s post on Plagiarism Today.
Yet here we are. More than a year and a half has passed since the Copyright Office published its recommendations, Congress has yet to act. I realize the wheels of progress move at a glacial pass in Washington, and there are other copyright-related issues being bandied about, but let’s hope this idea will move to the front burner soon.
Bottom line, establishing a small claims court where copyright claims could be heard would at least level the playing field a bit. Small creators would not have to sit idly as skunks like Richard Prince co-opt their work and make money at their expense. Obviously damages are limited in small claims court, but at least those whose work is stolen could seek redress and perhaps, collectively, turn the tide against this type of chronic theft.
Prince can afford to go to court. The Instagram users he stole from cannot. There has got to be a better way don’t you think?
The Florida legislature recently passed the “True Origin of Digital Goods Act.” The bill now sits on the desk of Governor Scott, awaiting his signature or, if tech interests have their way-the veto pen.
The proposed law would require any website operator selling digital downloads provide contact information (name and address) in order to do business.
A person who owns or operates a website or online service dealing in substantial part in the electronic dissemination of commercial recordings or audiovisual works, directly or indirectly, and who electronically disseminates such works to consumers in this state shall clearly and conspicuously disclose his or her true and correct name, physical address, and a telephone number or e-mail address on his or her website or an online service in a location readily accessible to a consumer using or visiting the website or online service.
Doesn’t sound particularly onerous does it? After all, any other (brick and mortar) business operating in Florida must do so. Why should online commerce be immune?
In predictable fashion, the usual suspects, like the (tech-funded) EFF, lined up against the bill with the usual hyperbolic warnings that it would “have disastrous consequences for anonymous online speech both inside and outside the state.” Sound familiar?
The CDT also sounded the alarm in predictable fashion, quoting a Supreme Court case: Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.
Ok, let me get this straight. Transparency is great when sites like Chilling Effect post un-redacted DMCA notices, but when Florida asks business owners engaged in financial transactions to disclose contact information, it’s a tyrannical threat?
Ironically the CDT post arguing against the law points to the DMCA as the reason such a law is not necessary. Meanwhile, when someone uses the DMCA, his/her attempt to remove infringing content is undermined in the name of transparency? Ok…
Selling digital content is selling, not speech. To conflate this law with concerns over free speech is ludicrous. Isn’t the online ecosystem mature enough for us to differentiate between the two? Not all online activity is the same. Should a person seeking a business license in Florida not provide a name and address in the name of free speech? There is language written into this law to safeguard those using excerpts of material for commentary or other non-commercial purposes.
Commercial recording or audiovisual work” means a recording or audiovisual work whose owner, assignee, authorized agent, or licensee has disseminated or intends to disseminate such recording or audiovisual work for sale, for rental, or for performance or exhibition to the public, including under license, but does not include an excerpt consisting of less than substantially all of a recording or audiovisual work. A recording or audiovisual work may be commercial regardless of whether a person who electronically disseminates it seeks commercial advantage or private financial gain from the dissemination. The term does not include video games, depictions of video game play, or the streaming of video game activity. [emphasis added]
The internet is now the center of all things–commerce, social discourse, communication and more. Not everything that happens online is sacrosanct. The time has come for reasonable measures to ensure online businesses selling digital downloads operate in a lawful fashion. That is not an extreme notion.
Governor Scott should do the right thing and sign this bill into law. Consumers in Florida will benefit. As Latin musician Monte Rosa wrote for a piece in the Tallahassee Democrat in support of the bill:
Transparency can be a powerful tool, both to arm Florida consumers with more information to better navigate the Internet and to deter an illegal website from peddling stolen music in the first place. Wouldn’t that basic information help Florida music fans better distinguish the scam sites from the licensed music services that actually compensate artists?
The only ones who will lose are those nefarious website operators whose business operations have something to hide. Please sign the bill.
Today the Digital Citizens Alliance* released a follow-up to last year’s report that examined the connection between online piracy and advertising profits. According to results documented in today’s release, Good Money Still Going Bad, not much has changed. Tainted revenue totals from 2014 aren’t very different from 2013. The 589 websites included in the report generated 209 million dollars from advertising. This, despite the fact that many of the rogue sites included in the earlier report had been shuttered.
Google’s DoubleClick leads the way serving ads to pirate websites
With mountains of evidence that ad sponsored piracy remains a hydra with many heads, why do supposedly legit companies like Google still find themselves intimately attached to this beast? According to the report Google’s DoubleClick “ad-revenue engine” leads the pack of illicit ad service providers ( AKA-piracy enablers and profiteers). Per the report, DoubleClick was found to serve ads for 109 of the rogue sites included in the report. Adcash.com came it at number two with 63 sites.
Not only does Google continue to be a prime player in ad-sponsored piracy, but the study finds that major American brands remain hopelessly entangled as well.
There were 132 premium brands observed by MediaLink researchers on the sites, up from 89 the previous year.
Promises, promises…
YouTube also profits off ads on pirated content
Over and over again we’ve heard promises from ad industry reps that advertisers were finally going to take serious action against ad-sponsored piracy. During the summer of 2013 the White House trumpeted that the IAB (Interactive Advertising Bureau) and various companies (including Google) had “committed to a set of best practices to address online infringement by reducing the flow of ad revenue to operators of sites engaged in significant piracy and counterfeiting.”
Last summer Creative Future wrote a letter to ad industry representatives praising efforts to thwart ad-sponsored piracy and in February the same IAB made announced formation of TAG (Trustworthy Accountability Group). On its website the group cites 4 areas of work which include:
Prevent advertising revenue from flowing to criminals who steal copyrighted material and place it on “pirate” sites
Budget car rental ad on streaming copy of pirate movie
Catchy acronyms and new “initiatives” are nice y’all, but when do we actually get to see results?
Yet for all the praise and press release, has any progress really been made? I’ve been writing about ad-sponsored piracy for five years and, despite much lip-service to the contrary, the online advertising industry still seems to be in pretty much the same place.
Until advertisers, and ad service providers, transform words into action, online thieves will continue make money at the expense of creators. Remember, ad money is the fuel that feeds online pirates and thieves:
Ad revenue is the oxygen that allows content theft to breathe. We know from new research by the online rights protection firm Incopro that 88% of the most popular content theft sites in Europe rely on advertising for some, if not all, revenues. Incopro called advertising the “predominant revenue source” for the top 250 unauthorized sites.
It took me only a couple seconds today to find a major brand, Budget car rental, advertising on a pirate site streaming our film. It’s worth noting that the DCA report also finds video streaming sites are a increasing threat in this illicit ecosystem:
Video Streaming a Growing Model: As consumer appetites have shifted from downloading to streaming, content theft sites have followed suit. The number of video streaming sites in 2014 was up 40% from the original report, and revenue grew significantly due to video CPMs (cost-per-impressions) that are far higher than those for display ads. Video Streaming was the only segment to generate more revenue than the year before, even with half as many large sites. Aggregate annual revenue was up more than 50 percent. It made up 12 percent of all advertising revenue in last year’s sample. This year, it made up 21 percent.
For now it seems the mantra remains-More money for the pirate, more customers for Budget and less money for the filmmaker.
*Full disclosure, I’m a member of the Digital Citizens Alliance advisory board.
Chilling Effects reposts infringing links removed from Google. Why no consequences?
Earlier this week I sent Chilling Effects a DMCA takedown notice*, requesting that the site remove links that lead directly to a pirated stream of our film, And Then Came Lola. How did the pirate link make its way to Chilling Effects? Well, it’s not a new tale. In fact, I’ve repeatedly written about the fact that pirate links reported (and removed) by Google search are routinely reposted on Chilling Effects. Google even goes so far as to provide a direct link to the notice (and the infringing links) so as not to inconvenience its users.
In the short video clip below I document just how quickly–and easily–it was to navigate from Google to Chilling Effects to the illegal, embedded stream of our film. It took me a mere 10 seconds to complete the journey from Google-to Chilling Effects-to the illegal stream of our film.
I sent the original DMCA notice to Google on April 23, 2015 and two weeks later, the pirate links were reborn via a posted copy of DMCA notice sent to Google, courtesy of Chilling Effects. How Chilling Effects can get away with this behavior is beyond me, but I imagine the legal staff at the Berkman Center at Harvard, my alma mater, are careful to operate within the confines—if not the intent–of the DMCA’s “safe harbor”provision.
These safe harbor provisions could provide valuable protection to you as a web site operator. In order to take advantage of them, however, you must comply with three administrative requirements:
You must designate an agent, usually yourself though it may be someone else who agrees to do so, to receive notices of claimed copyright infringement. Your agent must provide up-to-date contact information so that copyright owners who believe their work is being infringed on your site can send complaints or take-down notices to him or her. To designate an agent, a procedural requirement for protection under the DMCA safe harbor provisions, you must file an interim designation with the U.S. Copyright Office and submit a $105 filing fee.
You must publish on your site your policy for addressing repeated infringing activity, specifically a statement that you terminate users or account holders who are repeat infringers. If you have no subscribers or account holders, your policy may state, “If we become aware that one of our users is a repeat copyright infringer, it is our policy to take reasonable steps within our power to terminate that user.” Including the policy statement in the web site’s terms of service or privacy agreements makes logical sense, though it may be published elsewhere on the site.
You must properly comply with a notice of claimed infringement when received, including
the expeditious removal of the material that is claimed to be infringing;
notification to the user or subscriber that the material has been removed;
notification to the copyright holder if proper counter-notice is provided by the user or subscriber; and
restoration of the removed material if proper counter-notice is provided, and the copyright holder does not file suit within 10 days.
Why doesn’t Chilling Effects make it easy to find email address to send takedown notices to?
Prior to sending my DMCA notice to the good people at Chilling Effects, I attempted to search the site for an email address to send the notice to. When I couldn’t find one even after searching Google using the terms–chilling effects “DMCA agent”— I resorted to sending my notice to the only email listed on the site’s about page, [email protected].*
Update 5-8-15:Today, after receiving no response to my original notice, I forwarded a copy to the Berkman Center For Internet & Society. Shortly thereafter I received an email with a link to Chilling Effects legal policies page (https://www.chillingeffects.org/pages/legal). Of course, that was not the end of my journey. In order to get the actual email for CE’s acting DMCA agent I had to click another link (http://www.harvard.edu/reporting-copyright-infringements) and visit yet another website–this one a copyright infringement page hosted by Harvard University at Harvard.edu. Note that the Harvard page includes this verbiage:
In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), Pub. L. 105-304, Harvard has designated an agent to receive notification of alleged copyright infringement occurring in the harvard.edu domain. If you believe that your copyrighted work is being infringed, notify our designated agent specified below.
Hmmm, so I guess, technically, ChillingEffects.org is actually a Harvard.edu domain? Color me confused. Not exactly an efficient– nor transparent–way for Chilling Effects to inform people about its own DMCA takedown process.
Chilling Effects obfuscation of its own DMCA agent information is ironic given its mission is to make the takedown process transparent. Why, when it comes to its own site, do they hinder user’s ability to lawfully protect their copyrighted work from online pirates?
Chilling Effects is an independent 3rd party research project studying cease and desist letters concerning online content. We collect and analyze complaints about online activity, especially requests to remove content from online. Our goals are to educate the public, to facilitate research about the different kinds of complaints and requests for removal–both legitimate and questionable–that are being sent to Internet publishers and service providers, and to provide as much transparency as possible about the “ecology” of such notices, in terms of who is sending them and why, and to what effect.
Perhaps those who work at Chilling Effects (and the lawyers who advise them) believe that the database’s work falls outside that of the “service providers” as defined by the DMCA.
Until someone with deep pockets can take them to task, Chilling Effects is apparently quite willing to create its own ecology, above the law, where pirate links are reborn and disseminated. The Chilling Effects database may be used for legitimate research, but in its current form, it also gives users one of the most efficient piracy search engines around.
*Update: Today, Friday, May 8th I forwarded my DMCA notice to [email protected] which apparently serves as the DMCA agent for Chilling Effects.
“Balanced” copyright is really just code for killing it
The “ReCreate Coalition” is a jazzy, and kinda warm and fuzzy sounding name isn’t it? Yep, our favorite anti-artist groups are at it again, morphing into yet another anti-copyright potpourri whose mission is to demolish copyright in the name of protecting innovation or, as their press release glibly trumpets: “diverse coalition launchestopromote balanced copyright law, creativity and free speech.”
The internet has empowered everyone online to be a creator, opening up new audiences and markets for innovative people and businesses. We must work proactively to ensure that copyright laws keep up with our amazing technological advances, allow for creativity to flow to all corners of the world, and still respect the rights of content creators.
Let’s translate shall we? What’s she’s really saying is:
In order for big tech to continue to reap millions off creative content it doesn’t own it’s imperative that copyright law be neutered so that nothing will impede big tech’s ability to grow profits…
Notice the carefully crafted use of “innovative” as an adjective to describe both the people and the businesses she deigns to protect. Certainly copyright laws should “keep up with” technological advances, but not in the way I assume O’Conner means. She and her ilk hope to disembowel current copyright law in order to benefit tech’s bottom line, but if we are serious about transforming copyright law so that it remains relevant in the 21st century lawmakers should really begin by revisiting the woefully out-of-date 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act to better protect the rights of content creators.
True copyright reform should begin with questioning why it’s OK that creators have been on the short end of the stick for nearly two decades? Why not revise “safe harbor” so that it protects the innovative musicians, filmmakers, authors and other creators who routinely have their work ripped off and monetized online by others? If organizers of this shiny new coalition genuinely believed in “respecting the rights of creators” they would work to improve copyright law so that creators are afforded more protection, rather than less.
O’Conner asserts that everyone online is now a creator, but let’s face it–not every creation is equivalent. Just because I can upload a mashup video to YouTube doesn’t mean that the content I created is worthy of protection that trumps the rights of the creator whose creation made my mashup possible.
Sure, there should be an allowance for fair use when appropriate–but do members of the ReCreate Coalition really envision a world where someone who works 3 minutes on something should always have the same (copy)rights as those who spent 3 years creating the original work? Just because people can upload content online doesn’t mean their rights are equal to, or exceed the rights of those who originally created it. Innovation, in whatever form that takes, cannot be a license to steal.
Take a look at the list of groups that united to form this new, anti-copyright effort:
American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, Center for Democracy & Technology, Computer and Communications Industry Association, Consumer Electronics Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Media Democracy Fund, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge, and R Street Institute.
If you really want to understand what the goals of this nascent coalition are,simply follow the money. The same cast of characters–led by Google–seems to appear repeatedly. Whether it be through slimy, backdoor means or endeavors like the ALA’s Google’s Policy Fellowship, there’s no denying the ever-present funding (and influence) bought by big brother tech. Could their coalition be any more incestuous, or disingenuous?
While lobbyists for a number of these groups are actively working to dismantle copyright protections–and in the process undermine the livelihoods of filmmakers, musicians, authors and more–it’s worth noting many of these anti-copyright organizations seem to pay their employees pretty well–much better than non-profits where my friends work.
Take a look the Center for Democracy & Technology’s 990 tax filing for 2013 and note all ten of their ten salaried executives made over $100,000 per year, with the CEO at the time, the position now held by O’Connor, earned a pretty nice salary of $286,731 (plus $17,204 in other compensation). It’s worth noting that CDT appears to get the much of its funding from tech interests.
According to the 990 filed by the (Google/Facebook backed) EFF, for the tax fiscal year 2013, everyone but the accountant earned compensation in excess of $100,000 + (and its ED more than 200K). Those on salary at Public Knowledge in 2012 were also part of the 100K plus club with its president/co-founder earning compensation of $207,150 plus an additional 17,544 listed as “other.”
While I don’t begrudge these folks earning a good living, I do find it troubling that much of their work is so ardently focused on denying others that same right. I also find it troubling these organizations are not the grass roots organizations they purport to be. While some of their work, particularly that of the ALA, is laudable, for the most part the groups that make up this “coalition” spend a much of their time lobbying in support of initiatives promoted by tech-based corporations–and against content creators who depend on robust copyright law to protect their livelihoods. This latest phony alliance appears to be just another effort to push big tech’s profit-driven agenda to weaken copyright in order to grow profits.
It’s also worth that at the same time the ReCreate Coalition announces its stepping into the ring, another astroturf entity, The Mic Coalition sprouted up alongside. In lock-step with the ReCreate mission, this Music Innovation Consumers coalition pretends to have the interests of creators in mind, but of course it’s simply more disingenuous posturing.
Note how they deftly employ the magic tech abracadabra word “innovation” in their moniker. After all, who can argue with magic that is innovation right? To appreciate the true extent of the baloney proffered by the MIC coalition, excellent posts on the subject can be found on The Trichordist blog. Here’s just a sampling:
Gee this wasn’t coordinated at all. Two new Astroturf (squared) organizations in two days (with possibly the same web designer?) The day after the announcement of the the new ReCreate Coalition, an AstroTurf organization composed almost exclusively of Google connected Astroturf organizations, some of the same companies plus The National Association of Broadcasters, I Heart Media (Clear Channel) Pandora and NPR have announced the creation of the MIC-Coalition in order to lobby AGAINST fair digital royalties to artists; AGAINST terrestrial royalty for performers, and to keep songwriters under the oppressive and unconstitutional DOJ consent decrees. Read the website it’s unbelievable.
The real joke is on anyone, in Washington D.C. or elsewhere, who takes these groups seriously. I mean, if you’re a fan of Fringe you know that shape-shifters never had good intentions. My guess is the same could be said for these shiny new anti-copyright coalitions too. Apparently there’s a plentiful supply of b.s. to fertilize an endless supply of Astroturf in Washington D.C.
*Note, the above embedded video from the Fox series “Fringe” has been uploaded to YouTube and monetized by WBTV.
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
This month marks the five-year anniversary of my first blog post about online piracy and its link to advertising profits. At the time I was pissed. The movie Megan Siler and I had spent three years creating had just been released, and within 24 hours, had found its way online as an illegal download. One illegal copy quickly morphed into many tens of thousands.
