Thoughts on This Film is Not Yet Rated

Just watched the spectacular film This Film is Not Yet Rated, which chronicles how the MPAA actually places ratings on films. A few things of note:

• The interviewees echo a concern that has been voiced many times before, namely that a film is penalized more for sex than for violence, especially where female pleasure is concerned
• There is an appeals process that a filmmaker can go through to change the rating on his film. On the board that oversees this process sits one Catholic priest, one Protestant pastor, (WTF???) and a handful of Big Media insiders
• The McCarthyist investigation into Hollywood in the 50's was largely a power move by Big Media executives to break the back of labor unions that were on strike at the time (makes me want to read The Shock Doctrine, which I saw on display the other day)
• The Requiem for a Dream director makes an interesting point: in PG-13 movies, gunplay is shown without the consequences (that is, no blood or guts, just people going 'oomph' and falling down) whereas in R rated movies it is not. He believes this should be the other way around because it is misleading: why is it more appropriate to show younger kids violence with less consequences?
• In a conversation with an MPAA spokesman, it is revealed that the MPAA's main disincentive for rating films lower is that they recieve a lot of mail from various special interest groups. This is in stark contrast to the MPAA's oft-given reason for keeping the process so secretive: to "protect people from possible influence" (not to mention people who have a financial incentive in influencing the ratings are integrated into this process).
• Any film using military-loaned equipment must submit 5 copies of its script in advance of the movie's release to the Pentagon, so the military can censor any negative detections of military life (drinking, drugs, language, excessive violence etc.).
  

This film exposes the hypocrisy and nepotism of the Hollywood rating system. Independent films are censored in the interest of diverting more viewers towards Big Media productions (because many theaters/chains will not carry a movie if it gets an NC-17 rating). I was surprised to discover the military and Christianity's role in censorship of films (perhaps I shouldn't have been), but certainly not surprised that the MPAA ratings are mostly arbitrary and inherently aligned with the interests of major studios. In conclusion, never trust ratings -- they're a bunch of bullshit, rife with bias and Big Media politics.

Copyright and Free Speech are not Compatible, and other Follies of Dan Glickman

For anyone that thinks that copyright and free speech can be enforced simultaneously on the Internet, the statements and actions of the MPAA can be a rude awakening. The MPAA and others are trying to get ISPs to build in packet-sniffing technology into the architecture of their networks solely to enforce the interests of copyright owners. Trouble is, there is no standard for identifying certain 1's and 0's over a wire as 'copyrighted' and others as 'not copyrighted.' Not to mention that you can't try and determine the copyrighted-ness of data without examining all of the data, thus violating the privacy of a (formerly) two-party, private exchange.

The MPAA's Dan Glickman has a lot of laughably misinformed opinions and spouts a number of misleading statements in the Ars article which merit addressing.

"Protection of content from theft."

Woah, buddy. "Theft" is when I steal something. You can't steal data. It's impossible. When I make a copy of someone else's data, they still retain that data. Contrast that to say, stealing a car, which is an act of theft after which the rightful owner can no longer use the car. Peer to peer file sharing also differs from theft in that the transaction is consensual, whereas with theft it is not.

"Piracy costs the studios $6 billion worldwide every year"

$6 billion, eh? Well, it's worthwhile noting that you have an interest in inflating this figure to make the "problem" seem like it is larger than it really is. Second, where are you getting these figures? Studies have come out that argue that file sharing actually increases sales. I can't find the link, but I think I remember reading that the RIAA attorney in Capitol v Thomas said that there was no basis for determining those figures. Even if that isn't true, the way the MPAA is coming up with these figures is arbitrary.

"'Traditional organized criminals would drool' over the margins made by pirates."

Oh, really? You think everyone that downloads anything is making money off of the transaction somehow? Get real. 99.9% of file sharing has to be non-commercial between fans who just want to trade songs that they are interested in. I would also think that robbing a bank would pay WAY higher margins than selling DVDs of Police Academy on Chinese streets. The cost of production is essentially the price of the physical DVD, and there's no significant barrier to entry. So if you charge a billion yuan for Rush Hour 2, someone will certainly undercut you, if not download the movie for free themselves.

"Piracy"

Let us also remember that this term in and of itself is overloaded. This used to be a term for distributors that would print an author's work without paying him. (See Stallman's Free Software, Free Society) Let's call it what it is: file sharing of copyrighted content that is illegal in the American jurisdiction. Not 'piracy.'

Harry Fox Agency makes a compromise... for a price!

The Harry Fox Agency, who gained my attention by suing the OLGA and other guitar tablature sites into obscurity, recently announced that they will allow sheet music of its artists to go online... for massive sums of ad revenue that the website hosting the tabs gathers.

Yet another struggle of music lovers against a gaggle of faceless industry associations "representing artists' rights" -- the HFA, MPA (Music Publishers' Association), and NMPA (National Music Publishers' Association). When will the insane extortion end?

Fight back against Big Media

Ars Technica is reporting (as they usually do) on Big Media's attempts to marginalize the student population of America. This time, it's the MPAA releasing a hit list of "most-wanted" schools for downloading movies. Where music goes, movies follow.

Thankfully, the good folks over at EFF have decided that there is a need to fight back against this oppression. If you have any love for digital freedoms at all, please go to the Digital Freedom Campaign's web site. It's a gathering point for those who feel that they should be able to do what they want with their own property, not what some Warner executive wants. They also link to another site I haven't heard of, the Home Recording Rights Coalition, which fights for (duh) fair use freedoms as they relate to home recording. See the DFC's page of links for more sites of this nature.

Here's why you should participate, from "The Issue" page of the DFC, which puts things in a nice historical context:

The Problem

Digital technologies allow everyone the freedom to be artists, innovators, producers and creators; to listen, watch and participate wherever, whenever and however they choose. But that freedom is in jeopardy today. The big labels and studios have launched an assault on your technology freedom, because they fear their antiquated business models are being threatened. They’re lobbying for government controls over new technology and filing lawsuits to do the same.

Their goal is to outlaw new digital technology and devices that allow individuals to enjoy digital music and videos at a convenient time and place. They want to severely limit— if not eliminate altogether— the technology-provided freedom to innovate, create, listen and see.

The Digital Freedom Campaign recognizes that new technologies are essential to the creativity and innovation that have allowed this nation to thrive. Allowing these new technologies the freedom to flourish is at the heart of The Digital Freedom Campaign. Digital technology enables would-be artists and hopeful innovators to produce music, create cutting edge films and videos that reach new audiences. It allows consumers to enjoy these legally acquired works whenever, wherever and however they choose. These basic freedom must be protected. The Digital Freedom Campaign is dedicated to defending the rights of artists, innovators, creators and consumers to use technology without fear of unreasonable government restrictions or costly lawsuits.

The Threat

The fear of new technologies is hardly new:

" I foresee a marked deterioration in American music…and a host of other injuries to music in its artistic manifestations, by virtue—or rather by vice—of the multiplication of the various music-reproducing machines…"
- John Philips Sousa on the Player Piano (1906)

"The public will not buy songs that it can hear almost at will by a brief manipulation of the radio dials."
- Record Label Executive on FM Radio (1925)

"But now we are faced with a new and very troubling assault on our fiscal security, on our very economic life and we are facing it from a thing called the videocassette recorder…"
- MPAA on the VCR (1982)

"These devices are just repositories for stolen music, and they all know it. So it's time to get paid for it."
- Universal Music Group Chairman/CEO Doug Morris, November 10, 2006

The Nature of the Fight
The United States Constitution grants a limited monopoly to the works of authors and artists as an incentive to create and innovate. That monopoly typically has granted creators a limited period of time in which their works cannot be copied, or otherwise appropriated, without permission and compensation. Fair Use of those works, however, gives an exemption to that monopoly by allowing certain unauthorized uses—for example, the right to discuss the work in a review or the ability to make a personal backup copy of a CD—as long as they don’t infringe on the creator’s rights. Because copyright, in some cases, limits free speech rights granted by the Bill of Rights (not allowing someone to read another author’s poem without permission on national television is arguably a limit on free speech), one Supreme Court Justice has stated that Fair Use is what keeps copyright Constitutional.

But today, Fair Use is under fierce attack by the entertainment industry, particularly the large recording labels and Hollywood studios, who contend that any unauthorized use of a CD or DVD somehow infringes on their copyrights. They are wrong. Fair Use protects most of the activities they seek to ban. Why shouldn't a student be able to use lawfully acquired music in a school project? Why can't someone use the song she bought on ITunes on a DVD she is making of her photos? Why can't a consumer make a favorite hits CD with music lawfully acquired? Why shouldn't a music teacher be able to assemble clips of sound recordings purchased by the school in order to better teach a class?

The entertainment industry would have you believe that this is about piracy. Again, they are wrong. The Digital Freedom Campaign has nothing to do with the unauthorized mass distribution of copyrighted materials. We all oppose that. In its 2005 Grokster decision, the Supreme Court gave the entertainment industry the legal ability to go after peer-to-peer networks that promote mass, indiscriminate redistribution of copyrighted works if those networks “induce” that behavior. In their arguments, the big recording labels repeatedly stated that their target was not the private and personal recording practices of law-abiding consumers.

Yet, the industry made a concentrated push in 2006 to restrict in-home personal use of new technology. New technology is under the most serious assault since Hollywood almost succeeded in keeping consumer VCRs off the market 25 years ago. The entertainment industry is filing punitive lawsuits against legitimate and law-abiding businesses, and having bills introduced in Congress that would place absurd restrictions on lawful consumer practices.

For more information on Fair Use and efforts to restrict it, please visit www.hrrc.org.

The following are recent lawsuits threatening to restrict or ban new technology and limit Fair Use rights

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY: DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDERS

Atlantic Records v. XM Satellite Radio
The recording industry sued XM Satellite Radio for billions in potential damages, for marketing lawful products that allow subscribers to time-shift programs by recording them only for private, personal use such as listening to them at a more convenient time. The devices do not allow transferring music to computers or other players, nor do they permit burning permanent copies or distribution over the internet. This lawsuit has been pursued even though the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 prohibits lawsuits based on the use of such products (on which the music industry already receives royalties under the AHRA).

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY: HOME VIDEO EDITING

Macrovision v. Sima Products
Sima's digital consumer video editing products allows consumers to improve the quality of certain non-commercial recordings, such as wedding videos, by stripping analog video recordings of the artificial noise and distortion that are a result of Macrovision's copy protection. A Federal District Court has enjoined the sale of these products under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) because the device doesn’t include a chip that generates copy protection – despite the fact that the copy protection would create some of the very viewing distortions that the editing products are meant to remedy.

TARGETED TECHNOLOGY: HOME NETWORKING OF DVDS

DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) v. Kaleidescape
DVD CCA is suing Kaleidescape claiming that it is illegal for them to sell a home server which copies legally-purchased DVDs to a hard drive and sends them around the home network.

TARGET TECHNOLOGY: PLACE-SHIFTING OF DVDS

MPAA v. LOAD 'N GO Video Inc.
Load N' Go is a service that allows consumers to load DVDS, which they have purchased, onto their iPods. The movie studios' suit claims that this is illegal, because ripping a DVD (i.e., decrypting it and making a copy) is illegal under the DMCA. The suit also claims that this constitutes copyright infringement.

Other Threats to Fair Use

Association of American Publishers v. Google
The publishers are suing Google for digitizing libraries, even though the information publicly displayed is minimal (like a library card) and publishers can opt out. This service will make libraries and their books far more easily searchable and, because only short snippets are excerpted, does not provide a substitute for the book itself.

Google v. Perfect 10
The issue here is whether a search engine indexing a copyrighted image on an unauthorized site, and then creating and then delivering a thumbnail photo of that image constitutes an infringement. That Perfect 10 is an adult entertainment site does not diminish the threat here to the ability of consumers or libraries to rely on search engines to find content on the internet. Another Federal District Court held that Google’s linking to certain images, as a result of consumer searches, is not Fair Use – threatening personal use of a popular consumer tool for finding information and content.

Huntsman (Cleanflicks) v. Soderbergh
The issue here is whether parents can utilize services that edit out adult scenes and language in movies. A U.S. District Court found that supplying consumers a version of a DVD in which objectionable content has been edited out is not Fair Use – even though the original version has been purchased and supplied to the consumer as well.

P2P endangers children and undermines national security? Yeah, right.

The lobbying wizards over at the MPAA and RIAA are at it again, presumably. This time, they have managed to get the US Patent Office to release a statement saying that peer to peer file sharing endangers children and undermines national security. Seriously. I'm not making this up. The only things they fail to include in this are claims that the sky is falling and Armageddon is coming.

You know a business model is in danger when its backers start invoking the "Think of the children! (tm)" and "Terrorists could strike again! (tm)" arguments. Oh, and remember kids...

Torrent entrapment by the MPAA

Good ol' Big Media is at it again! In their never ending quest to put art lovers in a perpetual state of fear, the MPAA decided it would be a good idea to upload fake torrents in order to harvest torrent users' IP addresses. Who knows what nefarious ends the MPAA will use this information for... do I smell another round of illegitimate, bullying lawsuits? It's unfortunate that the DMCA has given Big Media license to crawl the Internet acting like police. The only difference between the real cops and these pseudo cops is the real cops can't make as much money from extortion.

MPAA exec's kid gets a talking to, you get sued into oblivion

Guess who is pirating copyrighted content and immorally depriving hard-working artists of their hard-earned money? Why, none other than the child of Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman. Rest assured, folks, the head of one of the MPAA members is no hypocrite when it comes to discipline: he gave his kids a stern talking-to!

Hey Edgar, why don't you hold your kids to the same standard as you hold all of those grandmothers, deceased persons, and red-blooded Americans? Looks like your kids just got a memorable lesson in favoritism and hypocrisy. I'm sure they'll always remember that one.

MPAA copies movies, then tells you not to

About a year ago, the MPAA admitted to copying a movie that they were specifically told not to copy by the owner. The article shoves the the-MPAA-are-hypocrites line down your throat, so I don't have to. Not that it shouldn't be obvious anyway.

Our hero, the MPAA, opposes a ban on fraud

An anti-pretexting bill in the California legislature was defeated earlier this year due to the strong influence of the MPAA. The MPAA claimed that a ban on pretexting would interfere with their "anti-piracy" efforts.

You may remember "pretexting" as doublespeak for gaining personal information under false pretenses. The most recent and infamous use of this tactic was the HP Board Scandal.

At least someone is fighting the good fight, however. From the Wired article:

Ira Rothken, a prominent technology lawyer defending download search engine TorrentSpy against a movie industry copyright suit, says he didn't know about the lobbying, but can guess why the MPAA got involved. Rothken is suing (.pdf) the MPAA for allegedly paying a hacker $15,000 to hack into TorrentSpy's e-mail accounts.

"It doesn't surprise me that the MPAA would be against bills that protect privacy, and the MPAA has shown that they are willing to pay lots of money to intrude on privacy," Rothken said. "I do think there needs to be better laws in place that would deter such conduct and think that it would probably be useful if our elected officials would not be intimidated by the MPAA when trying to pass laws to protect privacy."