by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy
Court’s language on “fair use” won’t change fight against online piracy
Indie filmmakers and musicians who find their work uploaded to YouTube without permission are probably pretty familiar with sending DMCA notices to Google. I know I am. I also know that the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal’s decision in the EFF’s infamous “Dancing Baby” lawsuit will have ZERO impact on how I approach sending those notices moving forward.
In the wake of Monday’s decision, much has been made (and written) about the potential impact it will have on content creators who must use the DMCA to remove infringing/pirated copies of their work online. Debate centers around the court’s interpretation of “fair use” and whether a rights holder must consider whether fair use applies before sending a takedown notice. Fact is, I already do that each and every time I send a notice.
When I find a full copy of our film on YouTube, I send a takedown notice. When I find our film uploaded in parts on YouTube (part 1, part 2, part 3, etc) I send a takedown notice. When I find sections of our film more than 3 or 4 minutes long uploaded on YouTube, I typically send a takedown notice. When I find someone has edited and uploaded a mashup using short clips from our film I generally just monetize the video (usually the music is owned by someone else) and leave the clip alone. As much as I believe that the DMCA is broken--and weighted against creators–it’s the only tool we have to protect our work from online theft so I use it…often.
In terms of judging whether something is “fair use” I consider how much of our film is used and the way it’s used. While I’m pretty well aware of what “fair use” means, I’m sorry to say that those who upload content to YouTube are not. In a number of instances YouTube users have uploaded copies of our film in its entirety. When I find these copies I immediately issue a takedown. No brainer right?
Many YouTube users don’t understand “fair use”
Well, apparently many YouTube users don’t have a clue as to what fair use means since some protest my takedowns saying they have the right to upload my film because doing so is “fair use.” When this happens I reinstate my claim and send them a polite note explaining that they are wrong and that it would be a good idea to review YouTube’s own explanations as to what fair use actually means:
The four factors of fair use
In the United States, fair use is determined by a judge, who analyzes how each of the four factors of fair use applies to a specific case.
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
Courts typically focus on whether the use is “transformative.” That is, whether it adds new expression or meaning to the original, or whether it merely copies from the original. Commercial uses are less likely to be considered fair, though it’s possible to monetize a video and still take advantage of the fair use defense.
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair than using purely fictional works.
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the “heart” of the work.
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
Uses that harm the copyright owner’s ability to profit from his or her original work are less likely to be fair uses. Courts have sometimes made an exception under this factor in cases involving parodies.
I must say, however, that as a filmmaker I’ve not really taken advantage of fair use. When I co-directed and produced the documentary Fighting for Our Lives-Facing AIDS in San Francisco we used short video and music clips from various secondary sources. Sometimes the video clips we used were only a few seconds long, but we always asked for permission (in writing) from the creator(s). Sure, we probably could have used most of this material without asking, but as a filmmakers we respected the work of other creators.
Just last week I received a request from from a national network for permission to use some of our clips from Fighting for Our Lives for a new documentary on the AIDS epidemic that’s being produced. As with past requests for footage, I will say “yes” because I do believe that there’s value in sharing the precious pieces of history we recorded during the height of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. However, if someone grabbed bits and pieces of our documentary without bothering to ask, I would not be pleased.
Over the years respect for the work of creators has been undermined by an online ecosystem where anything digital is assumed to be ripe for the picking. Those who routinely rail against creators and copyright are saying the Lenz case decision didn’t go far enough, but I would flip it around and propose that the court should have asked whether YouTube users “unambiguously contemplate” whether a clip would infringe someone’s copyright before uploading content to the site?
When I teach my film students about copyright I start by asking them if any of them have ever downloaded music or movies from the internet. Not surprisingly, most sheepishly raise their hands. However, as the semester progresses and they learn that it will be their work that’s at stake, perspectives gradually shift. My students realize their work has value and the effort that went into creating should be honored.
Perhaps if we stop justifying our lack of respect for creators by demonizing the business of creation ( i.e. the record companies and Hollywood studios) and start appreciating (and rewarding) the work done by creators–both individually and collectively–we won’t have to depend on courts to determine what’s fair.
The DMCA is a dated and dusty law and puts an undue burden on creators, but until Congress takes action, it’s the only tool creators have to protect themselves.The silly dancing baby clip in question was actually allowed to remain on YouTube after a counter-notice was submitted because the creaky system had actually worked as intended….much ado about nothing–save for the fact folks at the EFF saw an opportunity to further their anti-copyright agenda.
Has this decision made it even harder for artists to compete in the digital age? Perhaps–but for me, and probably most everyone else, it’s merely business as usual. I’ll continue to consider fair use before I send that takedown notice on YouTube (or elsewhere) and in doing so, give more thought to the process than those (who routinely flout copyright law) do at the other end.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google
Major brands’ billions allow YouTube to cash in on crap
Earlier this month I wrote a post asking why major companies allowed YouTube to place their ads adjacent to video clips of the WDBJ-TV that took place on during a morning show live shot. The on-air murders were horrific and its bad enough to find YouTube cashing in on them by placing ads for the likes of Amazon, Netflix and others along side the clips. What I didn’t know when I wrote the post was exactly how clueless advertisers are with regard to how their ad dollars are spent on YouTube.
According to a story in the Financial Times published last week, until now, advertisers have pretty much been kept in the dark as to how many viewers actually see the ads. I would venture to guess this also means advertisers continue to also be oblivious as to where ads are placed.
YouTube is preparing to allow companies to independently verify what proportion of the adverts they place on the video platform can be seen by viewers.
The move is a response to complaints by advertisers such as Unilever and Kellogg’s, which have become increasingly concerned that they are wasting money on ads that are not visible. – Financial Times:
“Wasting money” on ads that aren’t visible???? How ’bout wasting money on ads that appear next to terrorist recruiting videos or live TV murders? It’s actually quite remarkable to think that YouTube has gotten away with raking in billions in ad revenue without verifying a damn thing. Of course when it comes to raking in the bucks, when it comes to Google’s YouTube, and web advertising in general, it’s pretty much an anything goes mentality…copyright and standards be damned. YouTube has never provided transparency as to its business practices, both in terms of creators or advertisers.
As Music Tech Policy’s Chris Castle noted in a post last week:
Anyone who has reviewed a YouTube royalty statement knows that there’s some pretty strange things going on with advertising on the Google video monopoly. If it’s any comfort, we’re not the only ones. Advertisers have finally managed to crack the YouTube code according to Reuters. Of course, if it’s like most things having to do with accountability for YouTube or Google, it’s probably ice in winter–that is, a sham. But let’s see what happens. However–if advertisers can now find out where their ad is appearing, why can’t artists also know which ads are appearing on pages with their videos?
Aside from documented cases of kickbacks being paid by media companies (“Unbeknown to advertisers, he said, US agencies were taking “rebates and kickbacks” from media companies in exchange for spending their clients’ money with them“), there’s the general feeling among advertisers that they have no idea where their money is going or if it’s going anywhere at all.
In what other media realm is their such a lack of accountability? When it comes to television, advertisers are hyper-aware of what programming their ads appear on. The same goes for print. Crazy as it sounds YouTube has apparently managed–for years–to pull the wool over advertisers eyes while raking in billions in revenue. According to the Financial Times, YouTube’s ad business continues to grow:
The number of advertisers on YouTube has soared more than 40 per cent in the past year as big brands seek to reach millennial consumers on Google’s video site.
On the eve of VidCon, an online video event in Los Angeles, YouTube said advertisers from the top 100 brands, based on a ranking by consultants Interbrand, were spending 60 per cent more than last year.
For a fascinating look behind the curtain of Google/YouTube’s ad eco-system and future prospects, this report, “The Future of Online Video Advertising (v2.0); A Focused Deep Dive on YouTube” produced by Jefferies Equity Research.
As for the current state of affairs, I checked YouTube while writing this post to see whether WDBH clips still feature ads and had no difficulty finding more examples. This time you can add Chile’s to and the Las Vegas Arias Resort to the list of advertisers underwriting these murder clips on YouTube.
Ads for Chile’s Restaurant and Aria Resort appear on clip of WDBJ murder.
While advertisers are demanding more transparency on how many eyeballs actually see their ads, how about demanding transparency as to what content their advertising underwrites? Are they that desperate to attract eyeballs that it doesn’t matter what those eyeballs end up seeing next to their ads? Does Chile’s Texas Lemonade or Aria’s French toast really go well with a live-TV murder? What will it take to get advertisers to demand better?
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Piracy
Facebook has long turned a blind eye to profiting from piracy on its pages. Has the worm finally turned?
This past week Facebook reached a milestone when, according to founder Mark Zuckerberg, more than one billion users logged on to the social media site in a single day. Part of that growth has come from video views (4 billion per day) and so this week Facebook also announced it would (finally) tackle the online piracy that has long plagued the site.
In recent months, as a result of its increased focus on encouraging video uploads, the social media giant has faced growing criticism that it allows “freebooters” to rip-off (monetized) YouTube videos and repost them on Facebook, thereby cannibalizing creators’ profits. According to Time’s Victor Luckerson:
Online video creators, who make money by selling advertising against their content, are increasingly frustrated with the problem. In June, George Strompolos, CEO of the multichannel network Fullscreen, said on Twitter that pirated versions of Fullscreen creators’ videos were racking up more than 50 million views on Facebook. This month, Hank Green, longtime YouTube vlogger and co-founder of the online video conference VidCon, penned a diatribe against Facebook’s video policies, arguing that the social network’s preference for Facebook-native videos in its News Feed algorithm encourages theft of creators’ YouTube videos. –
Of course the same thing has happened to filmmakers for what seems like forever, but it now appears complaints (and users) have reached critical mass so Facebook may finally have to confront the rampant copyright abuse that flourishes on its pages.
Given that Facebook has its sights set on competing with YouTube as the go-to (monetized) video platform–in order to effectively compete–it seems Facebook’s days of skipping around copyright compliance may have come to an end. Following in YouTube’s Content ID footsteps, Facebook will begin to rollout its own content fingerprinting technology. According to Recode two of Facebook piracy’s loudest critics will be the first in line to test the technology:
Now Facebook says Jukin and Fullscreen are two of its initial launch partners for the new technology, along with Zefr, a service company that helps content owners track their clips on YouTube. Facebook says it is also working with major media companies on the effort, but won’t identify them.
original image-iStock
Despite this news, Facebook still has a long way to go. Not only does it need to implement and effective content matching technology (and user interface), but it also has to figure out how to split up ad profits. If history is any indication, monetization income is likely to favor Facebook rather than creators.
As with YouTube, video monetization also opens the door to scammers and may in fact worsen the problem of bootleg uploads. YouTube, despite its Content ID system, is a tangled mess. Scammers routinely upload stolen and/or dummy content and monetize it. Perhaps Facebook will do a better job and learn from YouTube’s bad example, but I’m not holding out much hope.
Has the Ostrich finally (been forced) to pull its head out of the sand?
Meanwhile Facebook, like Google, still provides fertile ground for online pirates to share their stolen goods and it’s not limited to video uploads. Like their legit counterparts, it seems every online pirate website also has its own Facebook page to share illegal links and drive traffic and ad dollars to their sites. In typical fashion, Facebook also makes money from these pirate pages by placing advertising on them. Per usual, it’s the creators who lose.
The DMCA’s safe harbor provisions have allowed this Wild West to flourish. Some call it “innovation,” but for creators, it’s just plain theft. Facebook has profited from piracy for a long time. Its proposed actions against piracy are long overdue.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Music, Tech
No, actually everything’s not hunky-dory in the creative universe
The creative community has been buzzing this past week in response to the NY Times Sunday Magazine piece by Steven Johnson, “The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t.” Not surprisingly, feedback in the Times comments section was decidedly negative. As the week’s progressed we’ve also seen a number of thoughtful responses in commentaries published across the web. Some of the criticism, notably that found in a blog post, The Data Journalism That Wasn’t by the Future of Music Coalition’s Kevin Erickson, took Johnson to task for his questionable analysis:
Alas, what ended up running was rather disappointing. NYT Magazine chose to publish without substantive change most of the things that we told them were either: a) not accurate or b) not verifiable because there is no industry consensus and the “facts” could really go either way.
Steven Johnson’s article “The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t” frames itself as a data-driven response to concerns about the plight of creative workers in the digital age. But Johnson’s grasp of the limitations of the data he cites seems tenuous, and he ends up relying on some very dubious and all-too-familiar assumptions. In its sweeping dismissal of artists’ various concerns, the article reads as an exercise in gaslighting.
Erickson’s criticism prompted Johnson to pen a follow up piece that was published in yesterday’s Times where he defended his reportage, and his examination of the “data.”
Amid the tit for tat, I suggest reading some other thoughtful responses to the original piece. Each questions the central premise of Johnson’s article–one that asserts that the business of creativity is thriving in the digital age.
Below are just a few snippets from pieces I suggest folks read in their entirety. First up is journalist is author Robert Levine, author of Free Ride: How Digital Parasites Are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back. Writing for Billboard, Mr. Levine questioned Johnson’s thesis in his piece, Are Creators Really Thriving in the Digital Age? Doesn’t Look Like It:
The biggest problem with Johnson’s piece is that he’s asking the wrong question. He’s trying to figure out if creators as a group are making more money. There’s considerable evidence they’re not. What we should be looking at instead is whether creators can sell their work in a fair and functioning market that will reward them according to the demand for their work. That’s why we have copyright — because the best way to find out which artists ought to be creating what is to see who wants it and what they’re willing to pay.
Also taking issue with Johnson’s cover story was David Newhoff of The Illusion of More blog. In his post, Steven Johnson & A Thesis That Isn’t Newhoff dissects each of Johnson’s assertions point by point, and also views the issue of copyright as being central to having genuine debate as to whether creators can thrive in the digital age:
Ultimately, Johnson is supporting an anti-copyright — and even pro-piracy — argument; but he seems to want to have his Cake and eat John McCrea’s lunch, too. And I say this because so much of the evidence for prosperity he offers — both economic and anecdotal — is largely dependent upon the framework of copyright. So, after leading off with a thesis that fundamentally begs a question about the seeds of piracy (i.e. Did it hurt us?), he winds up painting some pretty pictures, but never quite answers the question because so much of the good news he alludes to is antithetical to a market that ignores, tolerates, or even extolls the permission-free use of creative works. Because, as we see with examples like MusicKey or with the Internet industry’s willingness to monetize infringement while lobbying hard against creators’ rights, many creators themselves continue to discover that the Web giveth shortly before the Web taketh away.
Chris Castle from the Music Tech Policy blog also chimed in with a critical response in a post Why is the New York Times Coverage on Artist Rights So Oddly Inconsistent? Castle notes that not only did Johnson co-opt the blog’s tagline “Your Survival Guide to the Creative Apocalypse”, but that suggests that many of the assertions made by Mr. Johnson are strikingly similar to well-worn tech industry talking points. Castle also takes the Times to task for not offering an opposing viewpoint:
The real question is what is the New York Times up to. On the one hand we have great reporting at NYT by journalists like Ben Sisario who has some of the best music business writing out there. He takes the time to actually talk to people, get both sides, and so some first rate analysis. Trying to get at the whatchamacallit..you know, that truthiness thing. This is what we expect from the New York Times, the newspaper of record.
But to have factcheckers cherry pick issues presented “how long have you been beating your wife” style and then to not even use the information in a side bar is really hard to understand as being anything other than agenda driven. How difficult would it have been to run a companion piece saying that people disagree?
If nothing else, Johnson’s assertions in his magazine piece stirred up the creative community. Apparently those working in “creative careers” are not “thriving” quite to the extent he would have Times readers believe.
If you would like to let editors at the Times know your thoughts, send off an email to the NY Times ([email protected]). Will Buckley Jr., founder of Fare Play sent a letter to Margaret Sullivan, the NY Times Public Editor. In his letter, titled “The Creative Meltdown That Is,” Buckley noted that Johnson’s piece was, essentially, a rehash of tired tech talking points:
First off the article is basically a rehash of Mike Masnick’s ‘The Sky is Rising‘, a much derided and criticized overview of the entertainment industry and how in January of 2012 things were actually looking up for artists. Many of the points made in Masnick’s Techdirt post and ‘The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t‘ are actually the same ones used by the proponents of online piracy attempting to make a case for the positive attributes of illegal free file sharing.
Well said Mr. Buckley. The more the creative community who join with him to push back and set the record straight, the better.
*Update: My original blog post originally misidentified the Future of Music Coalition as the Music First Coalition. I regret the error.
by Ellen Seidler | Ad Sponsored Piracy, Copyright, Google, Law
Youtube slaps ads on scam uploads and collects dough from advertisers who look the other way.
It’s not news that Google doesn’t take kindly to anything standing in the way of revenue. Its business practices on YouTube are no exception.
In order to stuff the mother ship’s coffers, YouTube will monetize just about any crap upload, whether it’s a terrorist recruiting videos or scams linking to pirate websites. When Google monetizes these uploads both it and the uploader make money from the ads. Does anyone care about this dirty income?
Two years ago stories surfaced showing YouTube monetized Al Qaeda videos. At the time a YouTube the Daily Mail quoted a YouTube spokesperson as saying:
‘We also have stringent guidelines regarding advertising on the site, and we may choose to stop placing ads against any video or channel if we determine that the content is not appropriate for our advertising partners.’
Ad for Amazon Prime links to scam pirate movie website
As with most of Google’s dubious business practices the attitude is shoot first, ask questions later (if caught). Is it really OK with advertisers that their ad budgets go to support YouTube and scam account holders (or terrorists)?
I wonder if the folks at Amazon Prime know where its YouTube ad dollars actually go? Do they realize Amazon Prime ads pre-roll on scams for pirate movie websites? It’s likely some of the productions pirated are Amazon Prime originals like Transparent. Does Amazon, or any advertiser on YouTube, demand any sort of accountability as to where their advertising appears?
I’ve written more than one blog post about these shady YouTube monetization practices, but it’s like the movie Ground Hog Day--nothing changes.
Earlier this year Google/YouTube was again called out for ads on terror group videos. This time ads played with ISIS recruiting videos. Companies like Proctor & Gamble, Toyota and Anheuser-Busch were among those who ads played alongside terror videos and Google scurried to remove the ads once it was outed by the press. Though clearly not pleased, advertisers didn’t say much, perhaps not wanting to draw more attention to an embarrassing situation. According to a report on NBC News:
“Our ads should not have appeared and we’re working with YouTube to understand how it happened and to avoid it happening again,” Proctor & Gamble said in a statement to NBC News. Other companies whose pre-roll ads were spotted on since-removed ISIS-related videos — Toyota, Anheuser-Busch and smartwatch maker Pebble — didn’t immediately respond to an NBC News request for comment.
Of course ads on videos linking to scam pirate movie sites are clearly not in the same category as ISIS recruiting videos, but the underlying issue remains the same. Where are the standards?
Why does Google depend on its community guidelines as a means to vet content for monetization rather than hire a staff to do it?
Why does Google allow YouTube to monetize uploads without checking them first? Where are the gatekeepers? Why doesn’t Google, with all its riches, hire staff to review content before ads appear on videos? Google wont’ stand in the way of users uploading pirated movies or hate videos but certainly it could vet the videos to determine if they are appropriate for monetization. Why don’t advertisers demand as much?
There’s a reason Google flacks pull out the same old rhetoric when any of its YouTube policies are scrutinized. For Google, muddying the waters by mixing its protect free speech message with its unfettered approach to monetization is a savvy tactical move. It’s a smoke bomb that provides political cover so YouTube can continue to rake in big bucks and avoid accountability.
It’s one thing to hide behind the shield of free speech by allowing unrestricted uploads, but making money off them is quite another. The two are very different issues, yet Google gets away with treating them as one in the same.
Those with enough clout to force change seem either impotent, or unconcerned. Despite the ad industry’s formation of the Trustworthy Accountability Group and its “Brand Integrity Program Against Piracy” there seems to 
have been little effort, beyond weak rhetoric, to call Google to account for its bad business practices.
Where’s TAG when it comes to Unilever’s ad promoting its sustainable business practices or the Weinstein Company promoting its upcoming movie No Escape on scam pirate uploads? Why don’t industry representatives demand accountability from Google?
Do the advertising folks for Intel, Lexus, Sanuk Shoes, Oxiclean, Sandals Resort, the Weinstein Company and Disney care that their ad campaigns underwrite criminals? Does anyone care?
The advertising industry needs to take charge and force change. I can write blog post after blog post documenting the myriad of ways YouTube scams advertisers (and the public) but unless those who send money Mountain View’s way demand accountability, nothing will change.
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.
