Phillip Dampier

Sometimes you have to wonder if some people have no shame.  Former Sen. Chris Dodd, who now collects a fat paycheck as chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, has his fur in quite the ruffle this morning, upset to learn thousands of websites have voluntarily gone offline in a one day protest against proposed copyright legislation bought and paid for by the industry he now represents.

“Some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging,” Dodd said in a statement.

Corporate pawns?  The irony of Dodd’s use of the revolving door between his public office and the special interests he used to oversee (and now earns a living from), was lost on him.  So was the fact the MPAA and its recording industry cohort the RIAA have spent the past several years alienating consumers extorting settlements out of those presumed guilty, under threat of being sued for much more.  With years of overreach and customer alienation under their belts, pardon America if they suspect Hollywood’s latest anti-piracy plan is more of the same.

Dodd served the people of Connecticut when the music and movie industry began a series of crackdowns on content theft that did more harm than good.  This is the industry that fought the right of consumers to record TV shows on home VCR’s for later viewing, wanted to tax blank media, raised prices on CD’s and DVD’s to the point it fueled piracy, for years refused to license legal online content in ways that would have undercut piracy, imposed “digital rights management” technology that effectively curtailed fair use of content consumers purchased for themselves, and sued customers it suspected of stealing — innocent or otherwise.

Dodd

But Chris Dodd doesn’t work for the American people any longer.  He works for giant corporate studios and now represents their interests.

Dodd is especially upset because the Stop SOTA protests may actually be effective at shutting down the railroading of the so-called “Stop Online Piracy Act” through Congress.

“It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information… A so-called ‘blackout’ is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals,” said Dodd.

The industry has spent millions trying to position their legislation as a solution to shady offshore counterfeiters and content thieves, but the bill’s most significant provisions hit much closer to home.

The proposed legislation would allow the Department of Justice and content owners to seek court orders against any site accused of “enabling or facilitating” piracy.  Since America’s long arm of justice can reach only between the states of Hawaii and Maine, this most important provision of the proposed bill would do little to curtail those “foreign criminals.”

SOPA also demands that search engines censor themselves to remove anything Hollywood suspects of infringing copyright from search listings.  As the Electronic Frontier Foundation has documented for years on its Chilling Effects project website, such powers have already been used within the scope of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to wipe out listings that just reference copyrighted works, occasionally even by third parties that have no real standing to file the complaint.  At least websites responding affirmatively to DMCA complaints are protected from unknowingly violating copyright law.  Under SOPA, those protections are bypassed, potentially making even innocent infringement liable for civil action and search engine blocking.

Much of the enforcement, likely encouraged by companies Dodd now represents, will be done at the behest of Hollywood studios and other deep pocketed content producers.  Ultimately, most of the impact will be felt by consumers suspected of “infringing,” many who effectively lack the financial resources to prove their innocence.

Any web publisher would need to think twice about publishing anything online, if only because the financial risks of defending oneself against alleged copyright infringement would be onerous.

Since most of the criminal element Dodd claims to be concerned with is in it for the money, the most obvious solution is simple: remove the financial incentive.  A victim of copyright infringement need only seek a court order that bars financial transactions between theft-oriented websites and the online payment processors that supply the money.  Barring credit card companies, online payment services like PayPal, and other payment services from accepting money for copyright infringement puts the criminals out of business fast.  Existing provisions in the DMCA already force search engines to remove infringing content.

The alternative is turning the Internet over to the Hollywood copyright police, who along with the movie industry have demonstrated a long history of broad brush enforcement that cares little about the presumed innocence of the accused.

Watch these shows online, if you want to risk some uninvited guests.

There is nothing new about news outlets promoting tips and tricks to lower your monthly cable bill.  We publish similar stories ourselves here on Stop the Cap!  But some newspapers take things further, openly advocating you disconnect your cable service for good and watch everything online.  This week, we found one even willing to publish website addresses that skirt copyright laws and take online video underground.

The State Press encourages Arizona State students to thumb their noses at Cox Communications’ latest offer — cable television for $29.99 a month, good for six months (regular price $70).  Instead, they encourage, take your viewing online to Netflix and Hulu — the former for movies, the latter for television series.  But with cable companies and Hollywood studios conspiring to tackle the growing problem of cord-cutting, new restrictions are finding their way to fans of both websites, including waiting periods, limited series runs, and higher subscription fees.  This means war to the State Press:

There is a dark side to these two corporate entities, however. In their attempt to slowly weasel their way into your pockets a bit more, Hulu has gone Plus and Netflix has divided their packages, limiting your viewing. Hulu has seemingly said, “You can pay a little more to watch it the day after, right? No? Well, then I guess you’re waiting five more days for that recent episode,” while Netflix has exclaimed, “Unlimited to our choosing! You’re going to have to pay up if you want every movie out there.” So we must retaliate and go a little dark ourselves.

The author advises readers there is a way around the roadblocks — visiting a website already shut down once by copyright enforcement action (but has since resurfaced with a Chinese web address), providing a list of links to other websites that host copyright-infringing videos you can’t watch on Hulu or Netflix.

While the author of the State Press story may not realize it, a brief test visit to the “pirate-streamed site” opened the door to some nefarious extras.  With the help of Malwarebytes’ Anti-Malware, we stopped unwanted browser toolbars, various intrusion attempts, and even a few pieces of actual malware that wanted in on the party.  Without the most robust security software, visits to websites with underground video content can wreak havoc, and there are not that many TV shows worth watching to make that headache worthwhile.

The website owner disclaims responsibility from just about everything:

“[This website] does not host, provide, archive, store, or distribute media of any kind, and acts merely as an index (or directory) of media posted by other webmasters on the internet, which is completely outside of our control. Whereas we do not filter such references, we cannot and do not attempt to control, censor, or block any indexed material that may be considered offensive, abusive, libellous, obnoxious, inaccurate, deceptive, unlawful or otherwise distressing neither do we accept responsibility for this content or the consequences of such content being made available.”

We encourage you to exercise caution visiting websites that are willing to skirt copyright laws.  Up-to-date antivirus and spyware detection software when visiting is a must at all times.  Many of these sites stay in business selling ad space to anyone, and those ads can come with unwanted malware that can find its way onto your computer long after the viewing is over.  Be careful.

A California company with a novel approach for renting DVDs faces the prospect of a preliminary injunction against the service if a judge agrees the service is skirting copyright law.

Zediva promotes itself as a remote DVD rental service that avoids lengthy delays often imposed on online streaming and pay-per-view services.  The company allows customers to “rent” DVD titles the same they are released, remotely streaming the contents over a broadband connection.  Zediva says it literally has a bank of DVD players which customers can access and remotely control.  When a customer “rents” a DVD, a Zediva employee inserts the disc into a DVD player and gives each customer up to two weeks to watch the movie.  Because Zediva says only one customer can rent the physical DVD at a time, it is not skirting copyright or streaming laws. The service will even mail the DVD to a customer if they don’t want to watch it over their Internet connection.

Zediva argues it is using the Internet as a way to connect the DVD player to a renter’s television.  The company says it should not matter where the player is physically located, and because a customer can exclusively control the actual player during the rental period, it is not violating any laws.

Hollywood disagrees, and the Motion Picture Association of America promptly filed suit in April, claiming Zediva’s business model undermines its licensing agreements with online movie services.  The lawsuit claims Zediva is not paying movie streaming rights like other online movie services, and is not comparable to a traditional movie rental store because the company makes individual titles available for viewing by other parties as soon as four hours after a customer stops watching, even though they can return and watch the movie again for no additional charge for up to two weeks.

This week, the MPAA touted a potential new friend of the lawsuit — Cablevision, which filed its own amicus brief in the case drawing distinctions between its Remote DVR service and Zediva.  Cablevision is in trouble with some rights holders over its new Remote DVR, which records shows on equipment at the cable company’s offices and then streams the programming on-demand to subscribers’ TV sets.  Some contend Cablevision owes “per performance” license payments for every show watched over the service.  Cablevision has consistently argued to the contrary, suggesting the actual location of the storage system should not matter, so long as the recordings are made and watched by only a single customer.

But Cablevision’s brief shows the company has no interest in being connected to Zediva, arguing its Remote DVR service is not comparable to the pay-per-view business Zediva is running.

A judge is expected to hear the case early next week.

[flv]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CNBC Zediva Video Streaming Service 3-17-11.flv[/flv]

CNBC and the New York Times’ David Pogue tried out Zediva back when it was introduced in March of this year.  (3 minutes)

Sharing your Netflix account with your spouse or your son at college? Under a new Tennessee law, both you and the other party could spend up to a year in jail for “theft of entertainment services” if Netflix, or any other entertainment service says that is not okay.

Eyebrows were raised in Tennessee this week as Republican Gov. Bill Haslam admitted he signed the new copyright protection bill into law while telling reporters “he wasn’t familiar with the details of the legislation.”

Rep. Gerald McCormick (R-Chattanooga), who worked last summer to completely deregulate AT&T’s phone service in Tennessee spent this spring pushing for adoption of a bill sponsored by Nashville record labels to up-end state copyright law in favor of content producers.

The entertainment industry, having failed to win wholesale support of its copyright protection agenda in Congress has now taken to lobbying individual statehouses for new state copyright laws.  Tennessee is the first among 50 states to extend its long-standing cable-TV theft statute to include content over the Internet.

Under the law, anyone other than the account owner who uses their account name and password, even with permission, is a violator and subject to a criminal misdemeanor charge punishable by up to a year in jail and a fine of $2,500. If the username and password opens access to content collectively worth more than $500, the charge becomes a felony with correspondingly harsher penalites and fines.

Some reporters questioned whether the law could mean sharing your Netflix, iTunes or Rhapsody account with an immediate family member meant you were breaking the law.  The answer is, you might, although bill supporters doubt it would be prosecuted.

“What becomes not legal is if you send your user name and password to all your friends so they can get free subscriptions,” McCormick told the Associated Press.

Currently, most online content providers don’t have a problem with immediate family members sharing accounts.  Netflix allows at least two concurrent video streams of its online content.  Music services often recognize three or more “authorized devices” on which content can be shared and accessed.

But if attitudes change, content providers can file complaints when they realize their service is being accessed by multiple parties at the same time or in multiple places.

"Gerald McCormick will support anything if you staple a big check to your cover letter."

The music industry in Nashville openly admits it strongly advocated for passage of the bill, claiming the music business loses millions from account sharing.  But critics of the new law attack it as overly broad.  One defense lawyer suggested it is so broad, it could be used to prosecute people who share magazines.

Proving a case to hard-working law enforcement officials could also present a problem says Jeff Polock, a Knoxville-based law enforcement and consumer advocate.

“We have enough trouble fighting crime on the streets,” Polock tells Stop the Cap! “While law enforcement officials appreciate the dilemma of copyright theft, many officers are not going to be technically skilled in building a case over who shared what password in the dorms at the University of Tennessee.”

Polock suspects the new law will be wielded against larger wholesale copyright offenses, if only to avoid the threat of negative publicity.

“Can you imagine what the local evening news would do if they arrested some father in Chattanooga for sharing his iTunes account with his daughter at school here in Knoxville?,” Polock wonders.  “It’s not like these people are downloading stolen copies of content they are not paying for — they are running a single iTunes account so the parents can monitor what their kids are buying, watching, or listening to while away from home.”

As for McCormick, Polock has choice words.

“Gerald McCormick will support anything if you staple a big check to your cover letter,” Polock says. “The man is never too far away from corporate interests trying to win favorable legislation in the state legislature.”

In a stretch even the most accomplished Yoga master would never attempt, an industry-funded dollar-a-holler group has told Congress that Internet Overcharging is a useful tool to combat online piracy.

On Tuesday, Daniel Castro, an analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the issue of combating “rogue sites [that] operate in a low risk, high reward environment.”

In December 2009, ITIF proposed a number of policies to help reduce online copyright infringement, especially in countries that turn a blind eye to copyright enforcement. The purpose of these policies is to establish a robust enforcement mechanism to combat IP theft online. These recommendations include the following:

• Create a process by which the federal government, with the help of third parties, can identify websites around the world that are systemically engaged in piracy;
• Enlist ISPs to combat piracy by blocking websites that offer pirated content, allowing pricing structures and usage caps that discourage online piracy, and implementing notice and response systems;
• Enlist search engines to combat piracy by removing websites that link to infringing content from their search results;
• Require ad networks and financial service providers to stop doing business with websites providing access to pirated content;
• Create a process so that the private sector can consult with government regulators on proposed uses of anti-piracy technology;
• Fund anti-piracy technology research, such as content identification technology;
• Pursue international frameworks to protect intellectual property and impose significant pressure and penalties on countries that flout copyright law.

Castro’s idea of allowing providers to establish “pricing structures and usage caps” stands out like a sore thumb in the context of battling piracy because it is the only recommendation on the list that targets every broadband user with the same broad brush, punishing every customer whether they are engaged in piracy or not.

It would be like setting up roadblocks and searching every vehicle in a city to search for a shoplifter.  Every individual is found guilty before being proved innocent, and will be forced to pay higher prices regardless of the outcome.

The ITIF proposal runs contrary to years of efforts by Internet Service Providers to avoid being involved in the personal business of their customers.  In 2009, major ISPs wanted no part of enforcing a proposal from the record industry for a “three strikes, you’re out” plan.  Verizon, among others, made clear copyright enforcement was not their responsibility to police, although many ISPs are willing to forward copyright infringement notices to individual customers.

Castro’s testimony goes over the top when he blames his own suggested pricing antidote for “hurting law-abiding consumers who must […] pay higher prices for Internet access to compensate for the costs of piracy.”

Of course, no ISP has ever suggested they would use the extra revenue earned from Internet Overcharging to combat another industry’s piracy problem.

His sweeping indictment against consumers extends beyond nipping at their bank accounts on behalf of telecommunications companies who help fund the group he represents.  He also suggests those who oppose his piracy prescriptions are either in league with, or defenders of piracy — or other offenders ranging from criminal enterprises to kiddie porn peddlers.

Castro’s support for usage caps to control illicit online activities leaves collateral damage as far as the eye can see.  It also simply won’t work for many forms of piracy Castro complains about.  ISPs with usage caps go out of their way to note even the most draconian limits still allow thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of songs to be downloaded — legal or otherwise.  Castro testified e-published books are now increasingly vulnerable to piracy, content compact and easy to obtain even with usage limits.  Combating websites dealing in counterfeit goods with usage limits isn’t even worth trying.

What Castro’s proposal will do is limit access to the growing amount of legitimate online video traffic.  While the author cites statistics that “one in four bits of traffic traveling on the Internet today is infringing content,” (taken from a report commissioned by NBC-Universal, who has a major interest in this battle) he ignores other facts.  Namely, more than three-quarters of all broadband traffic is legal and legitimate.  Nearly 20 percent of primetime broadband traffic is coming from companies like Netflix who are in the business of providing a legal alternative to video piracy.

Castro’s argument on usage caps simply falls apart: ISPs, who have never been particularly interested in being the enforcement divisions for Hollywood studios, should be given the right to limit broadband usage and raise prices to combat piracy even when most of that traffic heads for legitimate websites?

Public Enemy #1 for Content Theft circa 1981: The $1,400 VCR

Online piracy enforcement should not involve Internet Overcharging schemes, and arguments that it should only illustrate why so many consumers and public interest groups get nervous about industry-proposed enforcement mechanisms.  Too often, they ignore presumption of innocence before guilt, browbeat alleged offenders into settlements to avoid costly litigation — guilty or not, and turn over policing to an industry with a long track record of overreach to protect their business interests. The record speaks for itself:

• Demands to ban videotape recorders in the 1970s and early 1980s for “piracy reasons”;
• Tax cassettes and video tapes to cover alleged piracy losses in the 1980s;
• Tax blank digital media in the 1990s because of “rampant piracy”;
• Impose monthly “piracy recovery surcharges” on broadband users in the 2000s;

Now the industry wants to police the piracy problem on its own terms.  As before, the proposed solutions are worse than the problem.

Back to the future.  In 1981, ABC’s Nightline ran this report on the entertainment industry suing a VCR owner, retailers, and manufacturers for piracy over taping a television station with a videocassette recorder.  The concern in 1981 — technology was moving faster than copyright law could keep up.  Many of the yesterday’s players are part of today’s debate, including Universal, the company that purchased research indicting 20 percent of all Internet traffic as “illegal.” (Part 1 of 3 – 9 minutes – Courtesy WEWS-TV Cleveland, ABC News, and ‘videoholic1980s’)

Today’s piracy debate rehashes the same accusations of content theft, only the technology has changed.  One executive tells the Nightline audience he’s offended at being told the industry already earns enough.  The movie and television industry predicted calamity over the VCR more than 30 years ago, saying it would cost them billions in lost profits.  Hollywood eventually lost the argument against the VCR and their businesses turned out fine, earning billions in revenue selling videotapes of movies and television shows to consumers they were willing to sue just a few years earlier. (Part 2 of 3 – 9 minutes)

Before Washington is asked to join the panic-frenzy over online piracy, perhaps they should recall the same predictions of doom and gloom made by many of the same companies — predictions that were overstated.  Imagine if they had succeeded in banning the VCR?  Indeed, just as before, Hollywood stands to earn billions online when they make their content available for easy, legal viewing at a reasonable price.  Slapping usage limits on broadband consumers is the worst idea ever to promote legal viewing of digital content because it discourages customers from shopping for it.  (Part 3 of 3 – 4 minutes)