by Ellen Seidler | Copyright
An interview worth listening to: Ruth Vitale, CEO of Creative Future, talked about technology and innovation in the film industry during a recent radio interview with journalist John Hockenberry for the public radio morning show The Takeaway on WNYC and PRI. Creative Future promotes the value of creativity in today’s digital age and during the interview Vitale explains the ties that bind the tech industry with the creative industry and how copyright ensures our collective (creative) future.
You can listen to the interview with Ruth Vitale here.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Law, Piracy
More reliance on blockbusters means less diversity in film (graphic USC Annenberg)
Yes Virginia, piracy damages both the film industry and its audience
It’s that time of year again, when the piracy apologists pull out their annual canard that Hollywood’s profits provide proof that online piracy doesn’t hurt the film industry. It’s an assessment that found in this week’s post by Torrent Freak’s editor Ernesto, Pirates Fail to Prevent 38 Billion Box Office Record:
…the MPAA and other groups warn that hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake, while the economy is losing billions due to piracy. Illegal downloads, they say, are slowly killing their creative industry.
Interestingly, these stark warnings are not reflected in last year’s box office revenues.
Recent numbers show that the movie industry just broke the magic $11 billion barrier, generating more revenue than ever before at the North American box office. The revenue for 2015 totals $11.3 billion, which is roughly a 9% change compared to last year.
The worldwide grosses also reached an all-time record according to research from Rentrak, which estimates the global grosses at a staggering $38 billion based on data from 25,000 theaters across the globe.
Looks like a no brainer conclusion right? Not so fast. While (most) Hollywood studios did make a lot of money in 2015, the truth conveniently omitted from the post in Torrent Freak is that they did so by producing fewer films. After all, the studios are in the business of making money for their shareholders and to that end–in this age of unchecked piracy–fewer chances can be taken on movies that won’t draw huge crowds. The Hollywood films that are being made are those that are sure bets to overcome digital theft and still make money. In 2015, the top 5 films made 20% of the revenue.
The studios have steadily been moving away from midsize movies and focusing instead on fewer, mega-budget movies. In 2006 the seven major studios combined made 187 films. In 2013 those same studios made only 139 films (a decrease of 26%). Those films generated $8.2 billion in 2006 and $8.8 billion in 2013 in real box office revenue domestically (an increase of 6%). More simply, fewer films are sharing more revenue.
…At the end of the day, if you’re a studio and looking to mitigate your overall financial risk, I guess it sort of does make financial sense stick with mega-budget films. So you have permission to greenlight Avatar v. Terminator v. Batman: The Oz Adventures!
This it’s important to drill down and examine the implications of this trend. Yes, Hollywood
shareholders may be doing OK, but with fewer films being produced, fewer people are employed in film production and audiences have fewer options when it comes to what they can see in movie theaters. There’s a reason that the majority of cineplexes across the land are filled with formulaic, big budget faire.
Strategically, the blockbuster approach involves “making disproportionately big investments in a few products designed to appeal to mass audiences,” Elberse explains. “Smart executives bet heavily on a few likely winners. That’s where the big payoffs come from.”“In the movie business, the product is the same price to the consumer regardless of the cost of manufacturing it—whether its production budget is $15 million or $150 million,” he told her. “So it may be counterintuitive to spend more money. But in the end, it is all about getting people to come to the theater. The idea was that movies with greater production value should be more appealing to prospective moviegoers.”
Fast fading are those lower budget films with limited audiences that carry more box office risk. As noted in an article by Flavorwire’s Jason Bailey, How the Death of Mid-Budget Cinema Left a Generation of Iconic Filmmakers MIA:
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, when Waters and Lynch were doing their most commercially successful work, it was possible to finance — either independently or via or the studio system — mid-budget films (anywhere from $5 million to $60 million) with an adult sensibility. But slowly, quietly, over roughly the decade and a half since the turn of the century, the paradigm shifted. Studios began to make fewer films, betting big on would-be blockbusters, operating under the assumption that large investments equal large returns. Movies that don’t fit into that box (thoughtful dramas, dark comedies, oddball thrillers, experimental efforts) were relegated to the indies, where freedom is greater, but resources are far more limited. As Mad Men’s Matthew Weiner put it, “Something happened that nobody can make a movie between $500,000 and $80 million. That can’t be possible.”
Let’s look at in another way. If studios didn’t have to deal with a business model predicated on minimizing the threat posed by online piracy it’s more likely more of these mid-budget films would be made. Film industry profits should not be considered poison–they provide the means to produce more, and potentially riskier films. By diminishing this flow of money to potential productions, piracy does indeed erode the overall health of Hollywood.
With more blockbusters comes less diversity
Academics analyzed the 100 top-grossing films for 2014 and found that none of of them, save for those with ensemble casts, featured a woman 45 or older. They found only three non-ensemble films that featured minority women.
The percentage of women in speaking roles has actually gone down since 2007, when about 30 percent of films featured speaking women, USC found. In 2014 that percentage is 28.1 percent. That’s about the percentage of films featuring women in sexy attire or at least partially nude. When it comes to men, that figure is 8 percent.
The report says “females function as eye candy” in top-grossing movies.
Women behind the camera aren’t likely to fare much better in an industry focused on the next great blockbuster either. According to research by San Diego State’s Center for the Study of Women in TV and Film independent films are where women find the greatest opportunity:
In 2014-15, women comprised 29% of directors working on documentaries and 18% of directors working on narrative features screening at more than 20 high profile film festivals in the United States. These figures stand in stark contrast to the percentage of women directing top grossing films in 2014 (7%).
Looking further at their research its safe to say that as Hollywood become more focused on tent-pole productions to generate profits, women are less likely to find opportunity. As budgets go up, opportunities go down.
SD State Center for Study of Women in TV and Film graphic
This lack of diversity extends beyond sex. According to the Annenberg Study:
The landscape of popular cinema in 2014 remains skewed and stereotypical. Across 700 films and over 30,000 speaking characters from 2007 to present, movies continue to distort the demographic reality of their audience. Film characters are overwhelmingly White and male, despite both population statistics and viewing patterns.
Employment trends behind the camera evidence a similar dearth of diversity. Only five Black directors helmed top movies in 2014, and women were underrepresented by a factor of 5.3 to 1 as directors, writers, and producers in 2014. Further, the 100 top films of 2014 featured no Asian directors. Despite activism, attention, and statements about addressing the issue, Hollywood’s default setting for characters and content creators remains fixed on “status quo.”
The “film industry” is more than just Hollywood
Per usual, piracy apologists as frame their pro-piracy arguments using a David vs. Goliath scenario with Hollywood being Goliath. Somehow the industry made to be the enemy because it deigns to defend the products it produces from theft. As part of their construct piracy-apologists propaganda that paint big bad Hollywood as an enemy, conveniently neglect to mention any filmmaking that takes place outside Hollywood. It’s a convenient omission, but one that undermines the credibility of their thesis that piracy is a victimless crime.
bfi.org.uk
Take film production in the United Kingdom, which boasts a film industry second only to that of the U.S. According to a British Film Institute (BFI) study released last month, UK film production, particularly in the lower budget range has actually fallen.
- The total filmed entertainment market in the UK in 2014 was worth an estimated £3.8 billion, down from £4.1 billion in 2013.
- Revenues across all platforms were down compared with 2013 except for digital video which recorded a rise of 35%.
- Gross revenues for UK film were an estimated £840 million, down from £895 million in 2013.
- The 2014 market down 26% from the peak. In real terms, film revenues in 2014 were the lowest since 2000.
An even more glaring omission comes with the refusal to acknowledge impact that piracy has on indie film production worldwide. For the Hollywood blockbusters, millions can be had via the box office, but for independent films with small or no theatrical release, revenue comes via the backend, DVD and digital distribution. This revenue has been shrinking for both Hollywood and independent producers, and for the latter, is crucial to paying off production debt and can be the difference-maker as to whether a filmmaker ever makes another film. It’s here where online piracy and legit sales really do compete head to head.
Smaller budget films are particularly dependent on this back-end income to recoup production costs. As I noted in an
blog post last summer:
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.
When indie filmmakers lose, so too do audiences
Given that unchecked piracy cannibalizes this much-needed income stream, online piracy does HURT the “film industry” and filmmakers like
David Ward who
described how online piracy undermined revenue for his film,
Balls Out, in a
Tumblr post:
I am writing this as a producer of the indie movie “
Balls Out” that was just released on June 19th in theaters and VOD. Immediately upon its release, it made its way onto all the top torrent sites in full HD quality. We’re not stupid, we knew that as soon as the movie was out it would be up to download for free online. What we didn’t expect was just how popular it would be on those sites. We’re one of the most pirated movies right now in terms of how many people are currently downloading, and seemingly the only independent film currently on the list… we have a very small theatrical release and have to count on VOD to make our investors’ money back…None of the filmmakers I know are getting rich doing this, they are doing it because they love making movies and entertaining people. It’s unbelievably hard to get any kind of movie made, let alone one worth watching, and if people don’t support the filmmakers doing original work then we’ll be forever stuck watching sequels and spin-offs and sequel spin-offs of tie-ins until the end of time.
Jean Prewitt, head of Independent Film and Television Alliance, puts piracy’s ultimate impact on film production even more succinctly in comments to
The Guardian:
What this means to the consumer is not that some producers don’t get rich, it means the product doesn’t get made.”
Let’s not forget that piracy’s cannibalization of back-end revenue streams has also played a hand in forcing Hollywood studios to make sure the movies they produce draw big at the box office the first few weeks in theaters. Markets that used to serve as a financial cushion for margins is no longer and while digital sales continue to grow, it’s logical to assume that piracy will continue to take a bite out the profit pie.
Of course those who support piracy see things differently. Torrent Freak’s Ernesto sardonically suggests that perhaps pirates should “up their game” if they really want to create havoc among those whose livelihoods depend on a healthy film industry.
That said, piracy has certainly not destroyed the movie business just yet. There are still plenty of people who are going to the movie theater to pay for their entertainment. Perhaps pirates should up their game?
But Piracy isn’t a “game”
Problem is, piracy isn’t a game and Hollywood isn’t an enemy. It isn’t David v Goliath. It’s not Robin Hood in Sherwood Forest. Piracy is theft. Piracy has victims. It’s a crime that takes a financial and cultural toll.
For those working in the film industry, it’s their livelihoods–and opportunity for advancement–at risk. For consumers, online piracy has quietly eroded both the number and diversity of quality movies to choose from.
So, when piracy apologists crow about Hollywood profits, look past headlines and cherry-picked facts and remember piracy incurs a cost we all pay for.
In the meantime, last time I checked, industries are allowed to (thrive) and make money off the products they produce. Why should Hollywood, or any other creative industry, not have the same right?
Ultimately piracy apologists try to rationalize and excuse morally dubious behavior by doing all they can to deflect and obscure the truth. This latest, routine round of headlines is more of the same.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Film, Google, Law
YouTube will pay copyright court costs for a few users–not because it’s right–but to protect Google’s bottom line
According to a story in the NY Times, the folks at YouTube are ready to pony up cash to support some of its users “fair use” claims in court.
YouTube said on Thursday that it would pick up the legal costs of a handful of video creators that the company thinks are the targets of unfair takedown demands. It said the creators it chose legally use third-party content under “fair use” provisions carved out for commentary, criticism, news and parody.
You’ve probably read a lot about “fair use” lately. It’s the Google-funded (EFF) Electronic Frontier Foundation’s mantra and if the folks there had their way, pretty much everything and anything would be considered “fair use.” Fair use an important legal doctrine and when applied properly (criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research) is not an infringement of copyright. However, these days, too often it’s used as a disingenuous defense for copyright theft.
The tech-funded campaign to turn villains into victims
When a court recently ruled that a snippet of a Prince song playing in the background of a YouTube video in the notorious Dancing Baby case was indeed “fair use,”it gave a boost to efforts to use fair use as a cudgel against rights holders who legitimately assert their rights using the DMCA takedown process.
Note that the actual video at the center of this case was reposted after the uploader sent a counter-notice. The only reason the case ended up in court was because the uploader, Stephanie Lenz, filed suit and the only reason she did so was because she was bankrolled by the EFF. The EFF saw it as an opportunity to advance its Google-funded agenda. As Terry Hart noted in 2010 on his Copyhype blog:
Luckily, our society has survived the brief time when Lenz’s video was not available to the world. But does this episode only highlight the DMCA’s sword of Damocles hanging over free speech and creativity? Or is it just another example of the cries of internet freedom fighters that the sky is falling as content industries adapt to technological changes? I think it’s the latter: despite the elevation of this dancing baby video to a cause célèbre, our freedom to speak is not threatened, and any “burden” the DMCA places on users uploading content is almost illusory.
With this YouTube gambit–which Jonathan Bailey breaks down in a blog post on Plagiarism Today–one can imagine that EFF is chomping at the bit to find yet another test case to take to court in an effort to expand the definition of fair use beyond those prescribed by current copyright law.
At last weeks House Judiciary committee copyright roundtable in Santa Clara the term “fair use” was bandied about repeatedly. At some point a panelist complained that bogus DMCAs made up more than half the takedowns sent. NOT TRUE!
Legit DMCA takedowns on Google outnumber false ones by a huge margin–97% to 3%.
The EFF and their compatriots routinely like to assert that every day, everywhere, poor innocent uploaders are being damaged by DMCA takedowns on YouTube and elsewhere. Give me a break. The fact is that creators victimized by piracy, forced into the time-consuming process of sending DMCA notices to protect their work, FAR outnumber users victimized by erroneous DMCA takedowns. According to the most recent numbers I could find (via Google’s transparency report) the company “removed 97% of search results specified in requests that we received between July and December 2011.”
I have to give the EFF and its well-paid attorneys credit though. They have successfully made the victims into villains through an ongoing campaign of carefully crafted rhetoric. Never mind the actual truth–that for every “bogus” and “absurd” takedown sent there are thousands that are legit. Sadly it’s a fact that gets lost on most of the public and very likely some of the politicians considering copyright reform that were sitting in that room.
Hey YouTube! What about covering legal costs of creators who receive bogus counter-notices?
Yes Virginia, not every counter-notice in response to a DMCA takedown sent is legitimate. It’s a fact that creators who send a legitimate DMCA notice, to remove full copies of a film from YouTube for example (no debate about fair use here) have received a counter-notice from the uploader.
I wrote about this specific scenario in a blog post “How DMCA Abuse Hurts Creators” in 2013. In this case the uploader had zero right to upload the film, but because she sent a counter-notice, YouTube put the full copy of the film back online.
This film was reposted (in its entirety) to YouTube after the uploader sent a counter-notice. The filmmakers’ only recourse is to go to court. Will YouTube cover those costs?
What now? The only recourse the user has is to go to court. Is YouTube willing to cover those court costs? Will YouTube step up to protect rights holders whose work is ripped off on their site? The answer is a simple, NO.
YouTube’s move is not about doing what’s right, or protecting legal rights. It’s about protecting Google’s bottom line. YouTube depends on fresh content to drive traffic to its site. From a business perspective, it makes total sense to streamline that path from any speed bumps along the way, including those pesky copyright claims.
DMCA does not work well for creators trying to protect their work from online theft
The DMCA is broken, but not in the way the EFF would have you think. It’s broken because it does a lousy job protecting the work of filmmakers, musicians, photographers, and authors.
Over these past few years I’ve written plenty on the subject so if you’re so inclined, you can a sampling of some of my other posts that explore why the DMCA needs fixing:
Dancing around DMCA Takedowns on YouTube
Using DMCA to fight Ashley Madison hackers is poor use of copyright law
Google lives on tech’s cutting edge–but in DMCA takedown Luddite-land
Why does Google play a DMCA piracy shell game?
Does Chilling Effects make a mockery of the DMCA?
Etsy uses DMCA “safe harbor” to protect photography pirates
Google and the Art of the DMCA Dawdle
Google’s Blogger DMCA takedown procedures a hot mess
Everyone hates the DMCA
Is this really what Congress had in mind when it created the DMCA?
How DMCA Abuse Hurts Content Creators
Hollywood and Silicon Valley talk distribution, DMCA, and more during panel on piracy
The RIAA Explains Why DMCA doesn’t work
Nickel and Dimed to Death? Pirates Profit off DMCA Requests
Anti-copyright Astroturf gangs, fertilized with tech cash, suddenly sprout
Google’s downranking of pirate sites is a big, fat, LIE
Google’s 100 Million Takedowns-A Mess of its Own Making
Chilling Effects (still) makes searching for pirate links easy
Pirate Bay shut down-Is it a sign of progress against piracy’s “free for me” mantra?
Piracy for profit-YouTube’s dirty secret
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) uses copyright law as censorship canard again
Google’s demotion of pirate search results earns a FAIL so far
Should we trust Google’s piracy report? Probably not….
Google gets called out (again) for its laissez faire attitude on piracy
Google’s “We fight piracy” Gobbledygook
Raise your hand if you’re tired of EFF tech-funded talking points
Google’s piracy profit machine continues unchecked
Busting Piracy on Google’s Blogger Barnacle Sites
Free Speech According to Google? Blackmailing Indie Music Labels Over YouTube Streaming?
Piracy’s Potpourri of Profit and Prevarication
Record Share Price Aside, Google Still has a Piracy Problem
Search Engines = G.P.S. for Online Piracy
How Google (Doesn’t) Fight Piracy
LGBT Cinema, Diverse Voices Quieted by Piracy’s Punch?
Google and friends spin search piracy study
YouTube’s Paid Channels are Here and a Counterfeit Cleanup is Past Due
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Google, Piracy, Tech
Google’s global reach has global implications when it comes to the law
In a case that could have broad implications moving forward, a Canadian appeals court handed Google a rare legal setback when it upheld a worldwide injunction ordering the search giant to remove results linked to counterfeit hardware. The ruling was an affirmation of a lower court ruling that mandated Google remove certain search results (linking to illegal products) on a worldwide basis.
Reading the court’s decision, the plaintiff’s arguments–and Google’s responses–are familiar to anyone who’s gone toe to toe with tech behemoth and its shills like the EFF. What’s new is that the appeals court not only upheld the lower court’s worldwide injunction, but it also shot down the tired, oft-used “free speech” canard employed by tech apologists to attack rights holders:
[105] The plaintiffs made considerable efforts attempting to track down the defendants, and find ways to eliminate their websites. The judge’s finding that the granting of the injunction was the only practical way to impede the defendants from flouting the court’s orders amounts to a finding that the involvement of Google in this matter was necessary.
[106] With respect to extraterritorial effects, Google has, in this Court, suggested that a more limited order ought to have been made, affecting only searches that take place on the google.ca site. I accept that an order with international scope should not be made lightly, and that where an order with only domestic consequences will accomplish all that is necessary, a more expansive order should not be made…
[107] The plaintiffs have established, in my view, that an order limited to the google.ca search site would not be effective. I am satisfied that there was a basis, here, for giving the injunction worldwide effect. [emphasis added] I have already noted that applications can be made to vary the order should unexpected issues arise concerning comity.
[108] Finally, I note concerns expressed by Google and by the intervenors Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Electronic Frontier Foundation concerning the openness of the World Wide Web, and the need to avoid unnecessary impediments to free speech.
[109] The order made in this case is an ancillary order designed to give force to earlier orders prohibiting the defendants from marketing their product. Those orders were made after thorough consideration of the strength of the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ cases. Google does not suggest that the orders made against the defendants were inappropriate, nor do the intervenors suggest that those orders constituted an inappropriate intrusion on freedom of speech.
[110] There has, in the course of argument, been some reference to the possibility that the defendants (or others) might wish to use their websites for legitimate free speech, rather than for unlawfully marketing the GW1000. That possibility, it seems to me, is entirely speculative. There is no evidence that the websites in question have ever been used for lawful purposes, nor is there any reason to believe that the domain names are in any way uniquely suitable for any sort of expression other than the marketing of the illegal product. [emphasis added] Of course, if the character of the websites changes, it is always open to the defendants or others to seek a variation of the injunction.
It’s refreshing to see a court of a law look past EFF hyperbole and distinguish between legit websites and those engaged in criminal activity. Score one for common sense (and the law). It should be noted that in predictable fashion, the EFF characterized the decision as “dangerous precedent” and that allows an intermediate to “edit the internet” and warned that the ruling “lays the groundwork for nations with authoritarian restrictions on speech to also impose their own rules on the global Internet.”
I suppose we should consider it progress that instead of “breaking the internet” we are now only accused of wanting to “edit it?”
Over the years, Google has run roughshod over any effort to impede its take-no-prisoners business practices, but lately its veneer of invincibility seems to have cracked. As this latest ruling demonstrates, courts and regulators (outside the U.S.) are finally beginning to treat Google as the global beast that it is.
In May of 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union found that EU citizens had the “right to be forgotten” and that search engines like Google must remove search results upon request. Last November, Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, the group charged with overseeing the ruling, issued guidelines on implementation that .com domains worldwide, not just those in the European Union should be included in requests for data removal.
7. Territorial effect of a de-listing decision In order to give full effect to the data subject’s rights as defined in the Court’s ruling, delisting decisions must be implemented in such a way that they guarantee the effective and complete protection of data subjects’ rights and that EU law cannot be circumvented. In that sense, limiting de-listing to EU domains on the grounds that users tend to access search engines via their national domains cannot be considered a sufficient mean to satisfactorily guarantee the rights of data subjects according to the ruling. In practice, this means that in any case de-listing should also be effective on all relevant domains, including .com. [emphasis added]
In April, the EU’s scrutiny of Google’s business practices became even bolder when it charged the company with anti-trust violations. From the Wall Street Journal:
The European Commission took direct aim at Google Inc. Wednesday, charging the Internet-search giant with skewing results to favor its comparison-shopping service. But the formal complaint may only be the opening salvo in a broader assault that prompts big changes at Google.
European antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager said she continues to examine other domains, such as travel and local services, where Google is accused of favoring its own services over those of others. She also opened a second front, intensifying a separate probe of Google’s conduct with its Android mobile-operating system.
Given Google’s growing influence as a Washington lobbying force, don’t expect to see U.S. lawmakers following in the EU’s footsteps any time soon. However, any crack in Google’s armor is progress. While U.S. authorities won’t hold Google accountable, it seems like the rest of the world just might.
by Ellen Seidler | Copyright, Law, Piracy, Politics, Tech
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.
