MESSAGE
| DATE | 2014-12-20 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] DRM SOPA MPAA continuing advancement
|
This is the app that the MPAA wants you to hate.
http://coolvideoapp.com/
You have to love it. Gets the movie industry where they need to be hurt
the most, in the pocket.
On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 06:11:54PM -0500, Ruben Safir wrote:
>
>
>
> This is the January 25th email from MPAA Global General Counsel Steven
> Fabrizio, laying out the group's Goliath strategy:
>
> Site Blocking/ISP Measures - INPUT REQUESTED - PRIVILEGED
>
> We did not get to have a full discussion of site blocking during our
> January meeting. However, I believe I have spoken with enough of you
> individually to have a good read of the room as to our authority to
> proceed with the necessary analysis. In this email, I outline the
> planned scope of analysis. Because the analysis will involve some
> expense for technical experts, consultants and lawyers (likely totalling
> in the $200-300k range), I want to make sure we are on the same page. If
> anyone disagrees with the plan, as described below, please let me know.
> Otherwise, we will proceed, with the goal of having something to present
> to you at our March meeting. (My goal is to use our February meeting to
> present and discuss a detailed US Goliath strategy.)
>
> SCOPE We have traditionally thought of site blocking in the US as a DMCA
> 512(j) issue. In some ways, that is too narrow and we plan to expand our
> scope of inquiry on two levels. First, DMCA 512(j), by its terms,
> necessarily creates an adversarial relationship with the target ISP (and
> more generally with the ISP community). We have been exploring theories
> under the All Writs Acts, which, unlike DMCA 512(j), would allow us to
> obtain court orders requiring site blocking without first having to sue
> and prove the target ISPs are liable for copyright infringement. This
> may open up avenues for cooperative arrangements with ISPs. Second, we
> start from the premise that site blocking is a means to an end (the end
> being effective measures by ISPs to prevent infringement through
> notorious pirate sites). There may be other equally effective measures
> ISPs can take, and that they might be more willing to take voluntarily.
> Our intention is to work with our own retained experts and Comcast (and
> MPAA’s Technology group) to identify and study these other
> possibilities, as well as US site blocking technical issues.
>
> ANALYSIS The analyses that remain to be done fall into three general
> categories:
>
> Legal Analyses. The legal analyses that remain to be completed are the
> smallest part of the project. We need to finalize the All Writs Act
> research and confirm that developments in the law since the time of
> previous 512(j) analyses do not materially affect the existing analyses.
> In the event we recommend or present litigation options, we will also
> consider tactical issues, including issues related to venue and the
> interplay of the All Writs Act and 512(j).
>
> Technical Analyses. Very little systematic work has been completed to
> understand the technical issues related to site blocking in the US
> and/or alternative measures IPSs might adopt. We will identify and
> retain a consulting technical expert to work with us to study these
> issues. In this context, we will explore which options might lead ISPs
> to cooperate with us.
>
> Political Analyses. Here, we mean political in the broadest sense. There
> are important Hill issues to consider (e.g., how a strategy might impact
> the copyright review process). We also need to consider ISP relations
> issues (e.g., whether a strategy might impact the Copyright Alert
> program, or any progress we have been making to secure voluntary ISP
> assistance). Finally, in the post-SOPA world, we need to consider the
> extent to which a strategy presents a risk of a public relations
> backlash (e.g., whether a strategy might invigorate and galvanize the
> anti-copyright forces we saw in the SOPA debates, and what ultimate
> impact that might have). Each of these issues are like to have
> considerations that cut in many directions. To get a comprehensive
> assessment and weigh them in context, we will work closely with the MPAA
> Policy and Communications teams (and, with them, will solicit input from
> the appropriate studio policy and communications people).
>
> Hopefully, at the conclusion of this set of analyses, we will be in a
> position to make a decision that is informed by all considerations of
> consequence.
>
> If you have any questions, or want to talk through any of this,
> don’t hesitate to call. Best,
> SBF
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 06:11:05PM -0500, Ruben Safir wrote:
> >
> > http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/12/7382287/project-goliath
> >
> > Project Goliath: Inside Hollywood's secret war against Google
> >
> > SOPA was just the beginning
> >
> > By Russell Brandom
> > on December 12, 2014 12:59 pm
> > Email
> > -at-russellbrandom
> >
> > 214
> > (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
> > Share on Facebook (5,026) Tweet (2,669)
> > Share Share (468) Pin (1)
> >
> > What is "Goliath" and why are Hollywood’s most powerful lawyers
> > working to kill it?
> >
> > In dozens of recently leaked emails from the Sony hack, lawyers from the
> > MPAA and six major studios talk about "Goliath" as their most powerful
> > and politically relevant adversary in the fight against online piracy.
> > They speak of "the problems created by Goliath," and worry "what Goliath
> > could do if it went on the attack." Together they mount a multi-year
> > effort to "respond to / rebut Goliath’s public advocacy" and
> > "amplify negative Goliath news." And while it’s hard to say for
> > sure, significant evidence suggests that the studio efforts may be
> > directed against Google.
> >
> > At the beginning of this year, the MPAA and six studios — Universal,
> > Sony, Fox, Paramount, Warner Bros., and Disney — joined together to
> > begin a new campaign against piracy on the web. A January 25th email
> > lays out a series of legally and technically ambitious new tools,
> > including new measures that would block infringing sites from reaching
> > customers of many major ISPs. Documents reviewed by The Verge detail the
> > beginning of a new plan to attack piracy after the federal SOPA efforts
> > failed by working with state attorneys general and major ISPs like
> > Comcast to expand court power over the way data is served. If
> > successful, the result would fundamentally alter the open nature of the
> > internet.
> >
> > mpaa goliath
> >
> > "We start from the premise that site blocking is a means to an end,"
> > says MPAA general counsel Steven Fabrizio. "There may be other equally
> > effective measures ISPs can take, and that they might be more willing to
> > take voluntarily." According to the email, the group has retained its
> > own technical experts and is working with Comcast (which owns Universal)
> > to develop techniques for blocking or identifying illegally shared files
> > in transit.
> >
> > That strategy also involves significant political risks. "In the
> > post-SOPA world, we need to consider the extent to which a strategy
> > presents a risk of a public relations backlash," Fabrizio continues,
> > "whether a strategy might invigorate and galvanize the anti-copyright
> > forces we saw in the SOPA debates." SOPA, also known as the Stop Online
> > Piracy Act, proposed ambitious new site-blocking measures in 2011, but
> > was ultimately defeated by coordinated outcry from web companies and
> > their users. The new emails suggest Hollywood hasn’t given up on the
> > idea. "We have been exploring theories under the All Writs Acts, which,
> > unlike DMCA 512(j), would allow us to obtain court orders requiring site
> > blocking without first having to sue and prove the target ISPs are
> > liable for copyright infringement," one email reads.
> >
> > The only thing standing in their way? Goliath.
> >
> > The MPAA’s venture is referred to over and over as "Project
> > Goliath," an effort to take Goliath down, with each studio contributing
> > funds towards a project that will benefit them all. One telling email
> > — titled "Goliath data summary" — comes with an attachment
> > titled "Search Engine Piracy Discussion (MPAA Discussion)," seeming to
> > suggest the codename is a stand-in for Google. A number of
> > Goliath-related emails also point to examples of copyright-infringing
> > search results found on Google; the persistence of file-sharing links in
> > Google search rankings has been a sore point in Hollywood for years.
> > ""We start from the premise that site blocking is a means to an end.""
> >
> > The emails reveal a multi-pronged approach to defeating Goliath. One
> > tactic is legal, convincing state prosecutors to take up the fight
> > against Goliath. After a series of meetings at the National Association
> > of Attorneys General in February, MPAA counsel Fabrizio writes, "Goliath
> > has told the AGs to pound sand…they pretty clearly told the AGs that
> > they aren’t going to do anything and essentially threatened the AGs
> > with the possibility of attacking them as they attacked folks in DC
> > during SOPA. The AGs did not like that." As a result, the counsels
> > report a growing coalition of attorneys general willing to take action
> > against Goliath, and the group budgeted $500,000 a year towards
> > providing legal support. Much of that budget went towards retaining the
> > prestigious law firm Jenner & Block, specifically Jenner partner and
> > former US Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, who has billed
> > the group for as much as $40,000 a month.
> >
> > In other emails, Google comes up as a specific target. After a dispute
> > over Google’s most recent anti-piracy measures in October, Fabrizio
> > suggested further action may be yet to come. "We believe Google is
> > overreacting — and dramatically so. Their reaction seems tactical
> > (or childish)," the email reads. "Following the issuance of the CID
> > [civil investigative demand] by [Mississippi attorney general Jim] Hood
> > (which may create yet another uproar by Google), we may be in a position
> > for more serious discussions with Google." A report from the previous
> > February suggests that the Goliath group drafted civil investigative
> > demands (similar to a subpoena) to be issued by the attorneys general.
> > "Some subset of AGs (3-5, but Hood alone if necessary) should move
> > toward issuing CIDs before mid-May," the email says. (Hood issued a CID
> > against Google in July concerning pharmaceutical counterfeiting, but he
> > does not appear to have issued any actions against the company since
> > Fabrizio’s letter in October.)
> > ""We believe Google is overreacting — and dramatically so.""
> >
> > The fight against Goliath also has an investigative side. Other emails
> > describe a proposed project called Keystone — budgeted at $70,000
> > — devoted to gathering enough evidence against Goliath to provoke
> > further action by the state attorneys general. "There is only so far we
> > can get with the AG’s unless we develop better evidence and
> > intelligence against Goliath," an email reads, "and that is the budget
> > for Keystone." The planning for the Goliath Project is laid out in
> > dozens of emails after the initial January meeting, although the emails
> > peter out after May for reasons that are still unclear. Still, budget
> > projections suggest that the group was prepared for a long battle. "To
> > take this through and have a reasonable chance of success, we probably
> > would need to continue through year two," one email reads.
> >
> > In another instance, the group seemed to look to articles on political
> > corruption not as a cautionary tale but as an instruction manual. In one
> > email, the MPAA's Senior VP of State Government Affairs circulated an
> > investigative New York Times series on lobbyists wielding increasing
> > influence over state attorneys general. The series details many tactics
> > involved in Project Goliath, including hiring former attorneys general
> > as counsel and targeting officials at the state level where lobbying
> > dollars may stretch farther. The MPAA official offered only the caption
> > "FYI, first in a series of articles." The email was sent to 62 people,
> > including executives at Paramount, Warner Bros., Fox, Comcast, and the
> > RIAA.
> > ""There is only so far we can get with the AG’s unless we develop
> > better evidence and intelligence against Goliath.""
> >
> > Still, the emails reveal a remarkable hostility towards Goliath, and a
> > persistent desire to stop copyright infringing traffic as it moves
> > across the web, a position that puts it in stark conflict with many of
> > the guiding principles of the web. That, in turn, has created a serious
> > conflict with many of the companies that have grown powerful on the web,
> > a fight that, without an ambitious action like Project Goliath, the
> > industry seems primed to lose. As one counsel noted in March, "There is
> > much to commend an expanded Goliath strategy — the status quo has
> > not exactly been favorable for us and, absent our doing something, it
> > doesn’t promise to get better anytime soon."
> >
> > As of press time, neither the MPAA nor Sony has responded to a request
> > for comment. Google declined to comment.
> >
> > Additional reporting from Ross Miller and Bryan Bishop. Illustration by
> > Dylan Lathrop.
> >
|
|
