IP: OpEd: Hollywood's Private War For Social Control

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Richard Forno <rforno () infowarrior org>
Organization: INFOWARRIOR.ORG
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 12:11:48 -0400
To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
Subject: OpEd: Hollywood's Private War For Social Control

For IP if you like......enjoy the weekend.....rf


Hollywood's Private War For Social Control
Richard Forno
10 August 2002 
Article #2002-10 
(c) 2002 Richard Forno. Permission granted to reproduce/republish in
entirety with appropriate credit.

Full article with reference hyperlinks is at
http://www.infowarrior.org/articles/2002-10.html

A July 25 letter sent to Attorney General  John Ashcroft by 19 American
legislators asked him to devote more Justice Department resources in the
fight against peer-to-peer networks and users swapping digital media without
permission.

Forget the fact that the FBI is neck-deep in an internal crisis of
confidence and competence, having a hard time recruiting and keeping
qualified agents, and shifting from a diverse federal law enforcement entity
to one in-line with the emerging threats to American society from terrorism.

No, it seems that one of the highest priorities for the Justice Department -
behind that simple task of securing America's Homeland - should be copyright
enforcement....at least in the eyes of the Recording Industry Association of
America.  Of course, this is made all the easier when "peer-to-peer" - a
valuable technological architecture - is interpreted and subsequently
marketed by the RIAA as synonymous with "pirating" and evil economic -
potentially terrorist - activities against the $40 billion entertainment
industry. And, of course, Congress, mental wizards they are, will believe
whatever they're asked to believe, provided the campaign contributions are
the right type and amount.

We have the "War on Drugs" and the "War on AIDS" and the "War on Terror" --
does this mean we'll see the "War on File Sharing" as the next great
American undertaking with the same effect as these other "Wars" over the
years?

When news of this bipartisan letter broke on Friday, RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen,
was, as always, quick to praise its contents, saying that "mass copying off
the Internet is illegal and deserves to be a high priority for the
Department of Justice." One wonders if she wears special shoes to be able to
jump so quickly to applaud anything that might in some - any - way lead to
profit assurance for her constituent record companies.

It was only last month that Rosen was quick to applaud the controversial
P2P-hack bill introduced by one of their owned Congressman, Rep. Howard
Berman (D-CA).  Among other things, the proposed bill (Register article
here) would create loopholes for cyber-criminals to potentially escape from
and also turn any authorized copyright holder into a potentially legal
hacker. While Rosen was more than happy to quickly jump in and praise the
proposal, Berman's bill was so controversial that even Rosen's evil
counterpart, Jack Valenti of the Motion Picture Association, took pause when
the bill was introduced, noting that "there are aspects of the bill we
believe need changing as it moves through the legislative process"  --
implying that the powers proposed in the Berman Bill - legalizing electronic
attacks and providing attacker immunity for liability in copyright
enforcement activities -- were intended to be only for the large
entertainment empires, not for any copyright holder no matter how small.

Both the RIAA and MPAA act like drug addicts.....desperately begging and
trying to get something - anything - to help their body's craving for their
addictive substances, but it's the RIAA that takes first prize in the
desperate-moves category.  Declining sales of albums - and their profits -
have been equated to Napster, peer-to-peer file sharing, Webcasting, MP3
file formats, the availability of blank CDs and hard drives, and the fact
all PCs now come with a CD burner as standard issue.....anything but the
fact that studios have produced less and less quality music that folks want
to buy, or that studios are more than happy to negotiate ludicrous contracts
with artists that only deliver mediocre album sales (*cough* Mariah Carey)
or one-hit wonders. They've happily saturated the pop market with teen bands
that look, dance, and sound so alike it's impossible to tell them apart.
They also forget that CD prices have gone up steadily over the past decade -
and that when the economy takes a downturn, paying $20 for a song or two is
not worth it to most people. Further, their efforts so far in providing
music over the Internet - to 'compensate' for the loss of Napster - makes
current Afghanistan politics look like a utopian form of government.

Granted, organized piracy (as opposed to individual copying and/or sharing)
has caused Hollywood some economic damage, but I don't see Hilary, Jack,
Lars, or studio executives standing on lines outside soup kitchens. And the
fact that someone copies or uses a CD under federal fair-use laws doesn't
present a significant economic impact to the entertainment industry, either.
If anything, casual and legal sharing of music helps broaden an artist's
publicity and generate "buzz" -  much how Microsoft software became so
dominant in the marketplace -- not through quality, but because everyone was
using it and it became the de facto standard, such that it is.

Rosen says that piracy "ultimately hurts consumers by undermining the
creatorsí incentive to bring new works to the market."  In her eyes - and in
the eyes of her purchased lawmakers - the only 'creators' that should be
allowed to easily bring new works to market are those under contract to
RIAA's member companies. To RIAA, you're either part of their cartel or you
don't matter.

Thus, we see proposals like Berman's bill, and the RIAA suggesting that all
blank compact disks (and possibly hard drives) be taxed to compensate for
piracy losses, even if such media are used for the backup of software and
user data, not entertainment content. Most sinister is the recent proposal
by Senator Fritz "Hollywood" Hollings that would mandate copyright
enforcement 'features' be part of any device that can store electronic data,
from computers and DVD players to microwaves, garage door openers, and
rectal thermometers. The Hollings proposal would essentially force the
interests of the $40 billion entertainment industry on the $500 billion-plus
technology and hardware industries in a variety of industrial sectors. Talk
about the mouse trying to own the elephant herd.

As users and customers (note I did not say "consumers" - "customers" implies
a mutually-beneficial two-way relationship - in this case we are being
exploited), we have every right to bemoan the obvious profiteering actions
of these entertainment cartels to squeeze every last dime from our wallets.
Sure, we will pay for quality music that's affordable, but we want a happy
medium where we have the flexibility to use the entertainment content
legally purchased and/or obtained in a manner consistent with the law and
our expectations. Yet the entertainment cartels are only too happy to lobby
for laws and technological controls that presume every customer a potential
criminal until it can be proven with certainty.  That's to be expected from
Industrial Age business leaders - known otherwise as "The Greed Generation."

However, that's not the problem with the whole copyright enforcement debate.
Sure, profits are involved, but there's much more at-stake than what's being
discussed in Congress or the online communities.

Freedom of choice in how one is able to bring his content to market means a
greater chance of it reaching an audience. Up until Napster, the
entertainment industry alone decided what artist gets supported, promoted,
and published, and in what quantities. The Information Age threatens to
reverse this centralized control mechanism and profit stream, enabling
anyone to publish and promote their content around the world, cutting the
middleman - RIAA and major studios - out of the financial equation and
management process. Nobody in an established role likes to lose control, be
voted out of office, or see their authority and influence erode....yet this
is exactly what the Information Age is doing to the centralized
entertainment industry. This helps explain some of the goofy proposals
mentioned earlier -- like a Vegas gambler, the RIAA (and MPAA by extension)
is hedging its bets, trying to not only maintain control of the content and
media industry, but if it can't, get as much as it can through other
methods, laws, and charges.

If you control the means to disseminate content, you can subsequently
control the public. If you can't afford - or are not willing - to play by
the 'established' means of control, you are typically left to fend for
yourself in local venues and audiences.

Thanks to the Information Age, this is not the case anymore. This harsh
reality terrifies the entertainment industry that will stop at nothing - no
matter how ill-conceived - to keep its reign despite a failing business
model and changing economic and customer environment. The copyright debate
isn't only about profit, it's also about who controls information, and
ultimately, people and society.


Further Reading:

Book: Digital Copyright: Protecting Intellectual Property on the Internet
(Jessica Litman)

Copyright, Security, and the Hollywood Hacking Bill

Operation ENDURING VALENTI



------ End of Forwarded Message

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/