ip czar – Techdirt (original) (raw)

from the revolving-door-keeps-revolving dept

I have to admit that I’d lost track of the whole White House IP Czar position. Officially, the “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator” or IPEC, the job was created by the “Pro-IP Act” in 2008, and we warned that the whole thing was an attempt to turn the White House into Hollywood’s private copyright police force. The first IPEC didn’t come until after President Obama was elected, and while he was in office, there were two IPECs who served under him, with somewhat mixed results. The first one, got off to a rocky start, but was willing to listen to non-maximalist opinions, and eventually produced some more balanced reports on “IP enforcement.”

His second czar kicked off his job with a scary speech, misusing a bunch of stats to imply that “intellectual property laws” were directly responsible for anything “protected by” those laws.

But… after that… not much happened? I have no idea if Trump even had an IPEC. And, apparently it wasn’t a huge priority for Biden either. In 2022 the required report from IPEC was released, but it’s from “the office of the IPEC” and as far as I can tell, there was no human being who was actually the IPEC at that time. Even as some copyright-maximalist lobbyists would publicly whine about how Biden needed to nominate someone for the job, he’s only just done so now. Not surprisingly, but disappointingly, he’s pulled someone directly out of Hollywood, continuing the unfortunate revolving door between the legacy entertainment industries and the US government when it comes to roles around copyright policy.

Remember, copyright law, under the Constitution, is required to benefit the public. The monopoly rights grants under copyright are only a means to benefiting the public, not the ends themselves. Tragically, too many in Hollywood believe that the copyrights and the gatekeepers who control them are what’s important and should be the main beneficiaries. They often care little about whether or not they benefit the public. This does not mean that anyone from Hollywood will automatically support copyright maximalism — I’ve met enough people from those companies with a more open mind — but it certainly should lead to some amount of skepticism.

The bio of the person Biden has chosen at least does not suggest someone who is willing to recognize and support the important roles of fair use and the public domain in enabling creativity and innovation:

Deborah Robinson is an attorney with extensive experience protecting intellectual property rights on a global scale. Her career includes leadership roles as a corporate attorney and in public service as a prosecutor. As head of intellectual property enforcement at Paramount Global (formerly ViacomCBS), Robinson developed and implemented anti-piracy protocols to protect music, television, digital, and consumer-products properties. She built the global content protection group, amassed evidence for criminal prosecutions and directed civil litigation matters. She also coordinated regularly with social media and app platforms to create specialized enforcement workflows and forged alliances among several trade associations and industry coalitions.

Prior to joining Paramount Global, Robinson spent five years protecting music creators’ rights at the Recording Industry Association of America and seven years as an Assistant District Attorney for the city of Philadelphia.

This is not the bio of someone who is out there trying to protect the rights of the public, generally speaking. It’s someone who is protecting the profits of corporations against actual artists and the public.

But, who knows, perhaps she will surprise us. But I’m not holding my breath.

Filed Under: copyright, copyright enforcement, deborah robinson, enforcement, ip czar, ipec, joe biden, revolving door
Companies: paramount, riaa

State Dept. Enlists Hollywood And Its Friends To Start A Fake Twitter Fight Over Intellectual Property

from the um,-guys? dept

For all the talk of “fake news” going around these days, you’d think that the federal government would avoid creating more of its own on purpose. And you’d think that the MPAA and RIAA would know better than to join in on such a project. However, the following email was sent to some folks at Stanford Law School asking the law school to join in this fake news project promoting intellectual property via a fake Twitter feud:

Good Morning! My name is H——, and I am reaching out to you from the State Department?s Bureau of Economic Affairs. I gave you call a little earlier this morning, but I thought I would follow up with an email as well.

Currently, I am working on a social media project with the Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement. This summer, we want to activate an audience of young professionals- the kind of folks who are interested in foreign policy, but who aren?t aware that intellectual property protection touches every part of their lives. I think the law school students at your institution may be the type of community that we would like to engage. Additionally, we know that your law school is ranked among the top schools in Intellectual Property law, and thus our campaign may not only be fun, but relevant for you all as well.

So a little bit of a recap from the message that I left you this morning. The Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs wants to start a fake Twitter feud. For this feud, we would like to invite you and other similar academic institutions to participate and throw in your own ideas!

The week after the 4th of July, when everyone gets back from vacation but will still feel patriotic and summery, we want to tweet an audacious statement like, ?Bet you couldn?t see the Independence Day fireworks without bifocals; first American diplomat Ben Franklin invented them #bestIPmoment @StateDept? Our public diplomacy office is still settling on a hashtag and a specific moment that will be unique to the State Department, but then we invite you to respond with your own #MostAmericanIP, or #BestIPMoment. Perhaps it will an alumni defending intellectual property in the courts or an article that your institution has produced regarding this topic.

Some characters from the IP community here in DC have agreed to participate with their own tweets: US Patent and Trademark Office, the Copyright Alliance, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Copyright Office, and the Recording Industry Association of America. We hope to diversify this crowd with academic institutions, sports affiliations, trade associations, and others!

Please give me a call or email me with any questions, comments, or concerns. I look forward to hearing from you soon!

Sincerely, H——– Official UNCLASSIFIED

So, let’s break this down. This is literally the State Department, working with the IP Enforcement Coordinator (normally called the “IP Czar”) to team up with the MPAA, RIAA and Copyright Alliance (a front group for the RIAA and MPAA), along with the Patent & Trademark Office and the Copyright Office to create a fake Twitter feud over who likes copyright and patents more.

Everything about this is crazy. First, the State Dept. should not be creating fake news or fake Twitter feuds. Second, even if it were to do so, it seems to have picked one side of the debate, arguing that greater copyright and patent enforcement is obviously a good thing (how far we’ve come from the time when it was the State Department that fought back against SOPA and told the White House not to support it).

Separate from that, why are the MPAA, the RIAA and the Copyright Alliance agreeing to team up with the US government to create fake stories? That seems… really, really wrong. I get that they are obsessed with always pushing a misleading and one-sided message on copyright law, but creating out and out propaganda with the US government?

Also, even if the geniuses at IPEC — an office that was set up in 2008 under another anti-piracy copyright law — falsely believe it’s their job to push Hollywood’s message out to the world, how could they possibly have thought it was a bright idea to engage in outright propaganda using Twitter… and to try to enlist law school professors and students in these shenanigans?

I’ve put out a request for comment from the State Department’s Bureau of Economic Affairs, and will update this post if I hear back.

Filed Under: #bestipmoment, bureau of economic affairs, copyright, copyright office, fake news, fake twitter feud, ip czar, ipec, patents, state department, uspto
Companies: copyright alliance, mpaa, riaa

Our Response To The White House's Request For Comments On Its Intellectual Property Enforcement Strategy

from the be-careful-with-that-hammer dept

Last month, we noted that the new IP Enforcement Coordinator, Danny Marti, is now accepting comments for the administration’s next “Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement” plan. While I know it’s easy to roll your eyes at participating in these things, in years past we sent in comments and were pleasantly surprised to see the resulting plan actually take many of those comments into account, and turn out to be something that was mostly reasonable. We do have some concerns about Marti, given that the comments he’s made to date seem to reflect a very… one-sided view of copyright enforcement. However, we’re hopeful that he’s open to evidence and reason. Below are the comments that we’re submitting, much of which was based on the Carrot & Stick research report we released last week. If you’d like to submit your own comments, all the details are here. The deadline is today, October 16th.

Re: Comments on the Joint Strategic Plan

Daniel Marti
Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator
Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office of the President
Filed via email

Dear Mr. Marti:

I write to you today in response to your request for comments on the administration’s next Joint Strategic Plan for Intellectual Property Enforcement. As both a long-time professional content creator myself, who relies on my content to make a living, as well as someone who studies innovation, works with startups and entrepreneurs on a regular basis, I have grave concerns that the focus on enforcement is too narrowly tailored, such that it may have a negative impact on the overall goals of nearly everyone involved. It is convenient to portray debates about enforcement as being one industry’s views v. another, but the more you look, that’s rarely the case. Instead, the problem is often that policy makers become too focused on the “enforcement” tool, without looking at the actual evidence of the impact.

Last week, the think tank I run, the Copia Institute, released a new report, entitled The Carrot or the Stick, which looked closely at the actual impact of increased enforcement on piracy around the globe. What we found in every country that we looked at was that ratcheting up enforcement efforts never seemed to show the intended effect. While they may have shown a brief decrease in piracy rates, that decrease was always temporary (often no more than a matter of months). However, when new and innovative services were introduced, the impact was much clearer and long-lasting. As an example, piracy rates for all kinds of content in Sweden were quite high, which might not be a surprise, given that the Pirate Bay started in Sweden. However, piracy rates for music dropped rapidly and permanently when another Swedish business was able to offer service: Spotify. Notably, while music piracy rates dropped massively, the same was not true for movies and television.

Sweden then passed its IPRED law, to ratchet up enforcement, with greater criminal penalties. While piracy rates did drop after IPRED went into effect, the impact was short lived and studies showed that piracy rates quickly returned to normal. Yet, well after that, Netflix entered the Swedish market, and, again, piracy rates dropped precipitously for movies and television.

While some have argued that the greater enforcement works hand in hand with such innovation, the evidence we looked at suggested that was not true at all. In most areas we looked, the rapid innovation cycles (indicated by a rapid increase in authorized services) pre-dated the increased enforcement efforts.

In short: greater enforcement did not decrease piracy rates, while innovation did.

Even worse, it appears that by focusing too much on enforcement, it can actively harm or slow down that very necessary innovation. The MPAA’s Jack Valenti once famously declared that “the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.” That was in the midst of the MPAA’s heated legal and legislative battle to stop such home video machines. Yet just four years later, revenue to Hollywood from home video surpassed box office revenue. If Valenti had succeeded, things would have been worse off for the very industry he represented.

Time and time again, we’ve seen that a focus on enforcement often means trying to kill off necessary innovations. Innovations such as the radio, television, the MP3 player, TiVo and more have been sued in an attempt to “enforce” the law, when all that was really needed was for the industry to figure out ways to incorporate them into their business models. A decade ago Viacom sued YouTube for a billion dollars, claiming that it was a piracy site. Yet, just this week, Viacom’s movie studio, Paramount Pictures, announced that it was releasing over 100 of its films for free on YouTube. Things change quickly.

Historically, the pattern is clear, however. When new innovations threaten old business models, the solution is not to reach for the hammer of “enforcement.” It’s to learn from what’s happening, to understand what the public is seeking, and to innovate to provide it in a better way. Time and time again this strategy has worked, and it’s important to be careful that if you focus solely on the ability to increase “enforcement” that you actually end up with a worse result: destroying the innovation that helps provide the very tools for creating, distributing, promoting and monetizing new content.

Your role and the focus of this report is on “enforcement,” but it needs to be viewed in the wider context of “promoting the progress.” Rather than falling for the easy story line of two industries at war with one another, it’s time to recognize that the best “enforcement” is often in crafting policies that allow for more innovation, that enable more startups and more competition, rather than just looking at what things can be shut down or sued or seized.

Sincerely,

Michael Masnick
Copia Institute

Filed Under: carrot and stick, copyright, danny marti, enforcement, innovation, ip czar, ipec, joint strategic report, piracy

Our New IP Czar Gives His First Speech… And It Is Not Encouraging At All

from the almost-every-point-is-wrong dept

Last summer, when President Obama finally got around to nominating a new IP Czar (technically the “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator” or IPEC), Danny Marti, we were at least moderately hopeful that he didn’t come out of the usual copyright maximalist/Hollywood/legacy industry camp. Instead, much of his work had been on the trademark front, and thus we’d hoped that maybe his focus would be more limited to issues around counterfeiting (which are also overblown in terms of actual concern — but which have less of a free speech concern). After months of Congressional stalling, Marti was finally officially given the job a few weeks ago. And one of the first things he did was go give a speech at a “Creativity Conference” put on by the MPAA and Microsoft (yes, really), in which he appeared to repeat a bunch of horribly misleading, to downright wrong, talking points. In short, as a first impression, Marti is a disaster. Take a look:

After kicking off with a weak joke about his job title, he starts right in with the misleading talking points.

Summarizing my job, in the spirit of this conference, I think it’s fair to say that the IPEC Office is the Executive branch’s “creative conscience.”

First of all… what? The role is enforcement, which has nothing whatsoever to do with actual creativity. In the past, with Marti’s predecessor, Victoria Espinel, we often wondered why there was an “enforcement coordinator” at all, since the job title itself was so one-sided. If anything, if we were to go by the Constitutional rationale for copyright and patents, the role should be one in which it looks to see how best to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” And enforcement is often not the best way to do that. In fact, as we’ve spent years demonstrating, enforcement can often harm the progress of the science and the useful arts. So it’s interesting to see Marti suggest that his role is about being a “creative conscience.” For a second, I thought that maybe this meant he’d actually consider what was best for creativity — meaning all creators, not just the few who were lucky enough to be selected by the large legacy gatekeepers. But, no, as you’ll quickly learn, by “creative conscience” he actually means “protector of a few legacy gatekeepers who often screw over actual creators.”

Part of my job is to make sure that the administration keeps the impact on creativity top of mind when it adopts policies, makes decisions, and takes action.

Again, that’s good if we’re talking about actual creativity and all creators. But… he’s not.

I’m also responsible for helping marshal the federal government’s resources to help combat violations of intellectual property. Put simply, my office is dedicated to the protection of the American intellectual property system that helps drive our national economy.

And there we go, right off the tracks. He is focused on protecting the existing system — even when it is shown to harm creativity, free expression and innovation. That’s a problem. Maybe he didn’t really mean that? Nope, he means it:

Let there be no mistake and no misunderstanding. Intellectual property is an integral part of the US economy. We’re speaking of the spark of genius and the ideas behind transformative inventions, the artistry that goes into books, music and film. The trade secrets that preserve a company’s market edge. Or the brands that distinguish our companies and their goods and services.

Already, he’s making the cardinal sin of talking about intellectual property that we were just discussing: conflating the “property” piece with the underlying aspect of it. The spark of genius is not intellectual property. The ideas are not intellectual property. The artistry is not intellectual property. The brands are not intellectual property. The specific copyright, patents and trademarks may be property-like entities, but those are not the same thing as the underlying content, inventions or brands. As we noted in our piece about confusing those things, when you do that, your policy suggestions are going to be really, really bad. And you’re going to make really silly statements like Marti does next:

Intellectual property helps create marketplaces that help drive economies, domestically and internationally. For example, the “core copyright industries” — those whose primary purpose is to create, produce, distribute, or exhibit copyrighted materials — added more than $1 trillion to gross domestic product and created and supported millions of jobs.

That’s not true. We’ve gone through these numbers in the past, and shown how they’re simply misleading and no one should be using them to make a serious point. They very broadly define the “core copyright industries” such that any industry that gets copyrights is determined to exist only because of copyright law. And that includes software firms that thrive on giving away services for free and that don’t actually rely on their copyrights for anything. Besides, if you want to compare apples to apples, the IIPA who does the study that Marti is relying on, has shown that the “core copyright industry” isn’t contributing nearly as much to the economy or economic growth as the internet economy is, and the internet economy is frequently held back by bad copyright laws.

Intellectual property-based industries are among the U.S.’s strongest exporters.

Well, sure, that’s true if you argue that any company with a brand is an “intellectual property-based business,” but that kind of thinking takes you down the path of arguing that grocery stores are an intellectual property miracle that only exist thanks to trademark law. And that’s plainly ridiculous.

Overall, IP industries accounted for over 60% — Six Zero — of US exports.

Yes, but no one actually believes any of that is because of intellectual property laws, unless you conflate those laws with the underlying things, like brands.

The recorded music, motion picture, television and video, and software publishing businesses, for example, contributed to sales in foreign markets exceeding $156 billion dollars.

And how much of that is because of copyright law — and how much of it is because it’s content that people find valuable enough to purchase? Marti just ignores the distinction and lumps it all in because of copyright. Also, note, for someone who claims he’s focused entirely on being the “creative conscience,” his actual focus appears to be almost entirely on the commercial side of the creative ledger.

That is why it’s so important to understand and protect IP, to foster legitimate trade, and to open foreign markets to US creative content.

That last one is a “I work for the President and need to give my shout out to the TPP and TTIP agreements” talking point. But, really, what did he say before that shows why it’s “so important to understand and protect IP”? Frankly, I don’t see anything. He talked a lot about big numbers, but nowhere did he show why strong intellectual property laws made those things possible. And nowhere did he consider that, maybe (just maybe) weaker IP laws may have actually enabled larger markets, or more creativity. That kind of thinking doesn’t even enter the equation, which is kind of odd if you’re positioning yourself as the “creative conscience.”

Does he consider how strong copyright is being used to ban books, steal money from artists, shut down innovative services for creators and expose critics? Does he consider how strong patent laws are being used to stifle innovation and make the technology that creators use much more expensive? What kind of “creative conscience” is he?

Does he mention the importance of fair use in enabling creativity? Is he at all concerned about the lack of fair use in these trade agreements that supposedly will “open foreign markets” while stifling free expression?

Without understanding these things, for him to just automatically leap to the claim that we have to “protect” the existing system, it’s difficult to take Marti seriously. He appears to be repeating talking points with no understanding at all of the underlying nuances.

The timing of today’s event is fitting. Sunday is World Intellectual Property Day — a global celebration of the role of intellectual property, of innovation, of creativity, in our daily lives.

Is it? Really? No, “World Intellectual Property Day” is a celebration of the legacy gatekeepers that take the copyrights of actual creative people, and push for expanding those laws with no thoughts towards the actual impact on creativity. And the creativity “in our daily lives” is frequently done without the use of intellectual property laws — and, all too frequently, conflicts with those laws.

This year’s theme is “Get Up, Stand Up. For Music” invoking Bob Marley and Peter Tosh’s tune, to illustrate how song can serve as a call to action…. Bob Marley’s song serves as an endearing, international anthem for human rights. Let us tap into this spirit, this call to action, to speak up for artistic communities, the world over.

Right. Like, remember that time that Bob Marley’s family tried to reclaim the copyrights to two of his albums, including “Burnin'” where “Get Up, Stand Up” first was released? And remember how Universal Music fought that and won, so that Universal Music got to keep the copyright, as opposed to the Marley family? Thank goodness Universal still holds the copyright, or perhaps they would have had to pay Marley’s family for the right to use that theme for this year’s “World Intellectual Property Day,” right?

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Danny Marti is the US’s “creative conscience”… for the giant multinational corporations against the actual creative folks out there. And, really, whose brilliant idea was it to use Jamaican music as a call for stronger IP laws — when anyone even remotely familiar with the history of popular Jamaican music, knows that it involved rampant copying and remixing of others’ songs, no concern about copyright at all (until foreign record labels jumped in and started divvying up the pie) and near endless creativity from that ability to remix and try new things. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for stronger copyright laws.

And, again, if we’re speaking up for “artistic communities, the world over,” how about those who are being blocked from creating new works due to overbearing copyright laws? How about those who are being sued for having a song that has a similar feel to another song? Do they count?

Let us stand up for art. Let us stand up for the artist. Let us stand up to respect the artist’s right to make a living off of his or her artistic labor.

Yes, unless you’re Bob Marley’s family. Then let us stand up for Universal Music’s right to go to court to block the Marley family from that right! Or, unless you’re a remix artist creating wonderful new songs by building on the works of the past.

Also, where in the constitution does it say that anyone has a “right to make a living off of his or her artistic labor?” I have many friends who “labor” quite hard in making music, but don’t make livings from it. Should I send them to Marti to solve that? Will he “marshal the federal government” to make sure they make a living?

Because this is another nefarious myth. You have no “right” to make a living from your labor. People might just not value it enough to pay for it. Or you might not be offering it in a format that people will pay. What about my friends who were journalists over at GigaOm, which recently went out of business? They were creating many written words, and laboring very hard at it. But the company went out of business. But if we believe they have “a right to make a living” from their creative labor, shouldn’t they be guaranteed a living? Everyone knows that’s crazy. So why do we repeat the myth when it comes to music? Most musicians — in fact, nearly every musician — has never “made a living” off of their music. Only a very few have. And it’s not because they had a “right” to make a living.

And let us stand up to forcefully reject those who believe that the theft of one’s creative output is somehow acceptable. It is not.

Of course, we’re back to the misleading use of “theft.” Do we consider what UMG did to Bob Marley’s estate “theft”? Someone should ask Marti. Does he consider Pharrell and Robin Thicke writing a song with a similar “feel” to a Marvin Gaye song as “theft”? Does he consider a woman posting a 30-second video of her child dancing to a Prince song “theft”? Does he consider artists like Kutiman as theft? Does he consider artists like Led Zeppelin and Bob Dylan — many of whose greatest works where near note-for-note replicas of others’ songs — engaged in theft?

Because any honest discussion of creativity and intellectual property laws has to be able to take into account all of these situations, and the word “theft” doesn’t really cut it — which is also why that’s not what the law says. You’d think that the guy whose role is to help enforce the law would understand that copying a song isn’t “theft.” It’s worrisome that he does not.

When we speak of the role of creativity in our lives, we’re also speaking about human expression, building communities. The sharing of stories — whether through print, music or film — brings people together, fosters discussion, builds bridges and helps create common identity.

Of course, if that “discussion” or “common identity” strays too far, such as in creating a derivative work, that may be seen as infringement (or in Marti’s world “theft”) and thus he will “marshal the forces of the federal government” to bring you down. All in an effort to protect the glorious markets of the creative conscience.

Our digital lives have only helped to accelerate these discussions, bringing people together and bringing their stories closer.

And, because of that, the US government has been actively shutting down websites where those discussions happen and pushing for laws to throw the operators of the websites in jail.

And in order to further that, we must strive to build not only an open internet, but a safe, secure and stable one.

In other words, not really an open internet. But one that is limited and controlled by multinational gatekeepers. Either way… I feel that we’re rapidly approaching the administration’s favorite buzzword. I know it’s coming, I just know it… and…

One way the administration is seeking to do just that is by fostering multistakeholder processes in which all participants in the ecosystem — government, the private sector, and civil society — can play a role in encouraging positive internet behavior and marginalizing anti-social and, indeed, criminal behavior.

Multistakeholder! Bingo! What do I win? Oh, someone now arguing that rather than encouraging freedom of expression and an open internet, we should try to look for ways to stamp out “anti-social behavior” online. Hmm. Anti-social behavior? Wouldn’t that bar songs like “Get Up, Stand Up” that could be seen as “anti-social” in encouraging the public to stand up for their own rights when they are being taken away from them by their government? Rights like freedom of expression?

Protecting and advancing a community starts with action by its members. We need to stand up for what is good and reject what is unfair.

I think freedom of expression is good. I think shutting down websites that were blogging about music is unfair. I think that supporting programs for site blocking, that take down free speech, is unfair. I think a system that prioritizes the ability of large multinationals to block innovation is “unfair.” Yet, these all seem to be things that IPEC supports.

Stakeholder responsibility will create an environment conducive to creativity.

Let me translate this for you: “Search engines should start censoring sites that the MPAA dubs “unfair” because they challenge the MPAA’s business model.”

It will benefit those who make a living producing creative works.

Unless, like Dan Bull (who makes his living producing creative works), you relied on sites like Megaupload to distribute those works and the US government shut it down.

It will benefit those who enjoy those works.

Unless you no longer have access to them, thanks to US courts censoring them.

Respecting IP not only encourages creativity, it also promotes the technologies for communicating that creativity. This bears repeating. Respecting IP not only encourages creativity, it also promotes the technologies for communicating that creativity.

How? This is a serious question, but I’d like someone to answer it, because history doesn’t come even remotely close to supporting that claim as can be seen by Marti’s next ridiculous statement:

The desire to tell stories to even wider audiences in even more vivid ways, has a long chain of technological innovation, creating new industries along the way. From printing, to radio, to film and television, and now, of course, the internet economy.

And each and every single one of those was decried initially by the legacy forces — the gatekeepers who controlled the previous industries. The printing press was in a time before copyright, but obviously shook the very foundations of society by helping to break it out from Church control. The radio resulted in a massive legal fight as the record labels tried to kill it in its early days. The film industry moved to Hollywood to avoid enforcement of the patents of Thomas Edison, and often relied on copyrighting the innovations of others in the industry. When television came along, the film industry also freaked out and tried to hamper it — especially innovations like the VCR. And, of course, the internet. We’ve had lawsuits against search engines, video platforms, MP3 players, book indexes and more. If we “respected” IP in the terms of the legacy gatekeepers, we’d have none of those innovations.

Look, I get it: Marti’s very job description basically says that he needs to take on the role of propping up the interests of the legacy gatekeepers. But, at the very least, his predecessor, Victoria Espinel, seemed willing to recognize that there was a lot more to what was going on than the one-sided version of history presented by those gatekeepers. Espinel was at least open to the idea that too much IP could create more problems than good things. Marti shows no sign of this recognition, and seems so thoroughly bought into a single world view of intellectual property that he didn’t even realize just how ridiculous it was for anyone in the “intellectual property” world to cite Bob Marley as a good example of supporting creators.

So go on, Marti, “Get Up, Stand Up!” but recognize that what you’re standing up for, is not for the “creative conscience” or for creators themselves, but those who seek to be gatekeepers on that creativity.

Filed Under: copyrights, creative conscience, danny marti, intellectual property, ip czar, ipec, patents, protectionism, trademarks
Companies: microsoft, mpaa

Senator Whitehouse Is Very Angry About A Made Up Google Search And A Made Up Pirate Bay

from the something-must-be-done dept

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was a strong supporter of the SOPA/PIPA approach to breaking the internet to appease Hollywood. Even as lots of others bailed out on their support of the bills, Whitehouse refused to change his position. It appears he’d like to push such a solution again. On Wednesday, the Senate held hearings for the nominees for both the head of the US Patent and Trademark Office, Michelle Lee, as well as the new “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator” (IPEC), Dan Marti. Marti is a bit of a wildcard, with most of his legal practice related to intellectual property being focused on trademark, rather than copyright. So it was worth paying attention to what he had to say in response to the questions. However the most bizarre and ridiculous question came from Senator Whitehouse, who proved to be rather confused about how both the internet and copyright law worked. You can see the full video here. Whitehouse begins talking around the one hour, 35 minute mark. He kicks it off by displaying his ignorance. First, he refers to Marti’s predecessor, Victoria Espinel, and how he had asked her to do more to stomp out piracy, and then launches into a statement almost entirely devoid of factual statements:

I can remember Ms. Espinel coming here, some time ago to talk about the progress she intended to make in dealing with the criminal activity that steals American intellectual property, particularly entertainment content, and provides it to viewers, and that they were going to work really hard, with other American corporations that were supporting that activity to try to knock it down.

So while we were having this hearing, I picked up my iPad, and I went to Google, and I Googled “pirate movie.” And Google gave me “The Pirate Bay” [holds up his iPad] which is an illegal enterprise, operating out of Sweden. And if you go to the page where you would get access to the pirate content, it says “get access now” and underneath it you have the flags of Visa, of Mastercard, of American Express, of Cirrus and of Paypal. And below that it tells you all the devices it works on and shows you the logos of Apple, Android, and so forth.

It looks to me like this criminal activity is still being wrapped around with the apparent support of a wide variety of American corporations. [Incredulous expression]. Explain to me how there’s been progress made.

Almost everything Senator Whitehouse said in this statement is either wrong or totally clueless. It does not speak well of him as a Senator to be so misinformed about some rather basic things. First, there are the basics. A search engine is not and should not be illegal. Yet, Senator Whitehouse doesn’t seem to understand the different role of a system like The Pirate Bay from a site that actually hosts or uploads infringing content. Second, at the time of the hearing, the Pirate Bay is down, so his claims pretending to show the site are clearly a lie. It’s been in the news a lot that the site is gone. You’d think some staffer would have told Senator Whitehouse not to use that example.

Third, a Google search on “pirate movie” does not link to The Pirate Bay at all. Here’s the search done on Google:

Note that it actually highlights a 1982 movie, and even points people to Amazon where they can purchase it. Nowhere on the page does it point anyone to The Pirate Bay or any other site from which you can download infringing content. Not even close.

Senator Whitehouse appears to be flat out lying about what happens when you do such a search on Google, and then compounding it by lying about going to The Pirate Bay. On top of that, his description of what he claims he saw on The Pirate Bay appears to be totally false as well. And while some of my critics may find this difficult to believe, I’ve never used the site (other than occasionally reading some of its blog posts) so I reached out, via Twitter, to multiple people who had used the site regularly to see if his description was accurate. None could ever remember seeing credit card logos or Apple/Android logos. And, why would they, really, since the content found on The Pirate Bay was usually just pure files and available for free. So there would be no need to post credit card logos or even device compatibility, since that would depend more on the kinds of apps you used to view/listen/read the files obtained. Yes, there were tons of ads on the site, people point out, but they tended to be for crappy porn sites and the like.

In other words, almost every detail of what Senator Whitehouse describes is a lie. He may be describing some other site, but he didn’t find it with the search he described and it wasn’t The Pirate Bay. And even if there were logos from American companies, anyone can set up a website with such logos and it means nothing about whether they’re complicit.

And then he demands that something must be done?

Marti barely gets half a robotic sentence out in response, saying that “criminal actors, criminal enterprises have no limits” when Whitehouse cuts him off with some more nonsense:

They actually do! [Holds up iPad again] There are ways in which these companies could go to court and try to knock this stuff down. There are ways in which prosecutors can have discussions with companies about aiding and abetting offenses and about being accessories to offenses. There’s a lot that can be done in this area, it seems to me!

Marti points out that he was talking about something entirely different — that sites will of course put up logos to make themselves try to look legit (though he doesn’t go so far as to point out that Senator Whitehouse’s suggestion that because a site puts up a logo, that doesn’t mean the company whose logo was put up isn’t “aiding and abetting” a damn thing).

Even more to the point, Whitehouse’s claim that companies can “go to court and try to knock this stuff down” also makes no sense. Under what law? What legal issue is there in the (fake) circumstances that Whitehouse describes? At most, there might be a trademark violation, and does he really think it’s worth company’s time to go after such fly-by-night sites for trademark violations? And the whole “aiding and abetting” claim is ridiculous. Is Senator Whitehouse honestly claiming that if a site that offers up infringing works notes that the works can work on Apple or Android that Apple or Google are “accessories” to a crime? Isn’t a Senator supposed to understand the law?

Whitehouse then turns to Michelle Lee, who used to work at Google, but on patent policy, not copyright, and asks her if Google could stop this. Though, again, he’s flat out lying about what Google is supposedly doing. It’s a bizarre question. And Lee just says she doesn’t know the answer to that question (how could she when it makes no sense). Whitehouse gives a sarcastic “Hmm!” in response, as if he’s discovered something — other than actually revealing his astounding ignorance. He further claims that because Lee was a deputy general counsel at Google (again on patents, not copyright issues) that it shows that Google didn’t really care about this issue. Really?

Finally, he appears to attack Marti for not having done anything, despite the fact he’s not in the job yet, and then claims that all of this proves that the “voluntary” process that Espinel championed (like the ridiculous “six strikes” agreements between some ISPs and the legacy entertainment companies) is not enough. He seems to clearly be hinting that we need more government action, or more SOPA-type laws, based on an entirely false scenario that either he or his staffers (or some… lobbyists) made up and handed to him. Instead, all it shows is him getting angry in a manner that displays his near total ignorance of the topic at hand.

Is it really too much to ask that the people who make the laws impacting technology not be totally ignorant about both the laws and the technology? Frankly, Senator Whitehouse owes Marti, Lee and basically all internet users an apology.

Filed Under: copyright, danny marti, ip czar, ipec, michelle lee, search, senate, sheldon whitehouse, sopa, voluntary agreements
Companies: google, the pirate bay

White House Admits That It Still Supports Parts Of SOPA: Wants To Make Streaming A Felony

from the because-of-course dept

Last week, we wrote that Senator (and still for the next few weeks, Majority Leader) Harry Reid was looking for ways to push for a piece of SOPA, making streaming a felony, into law. The story we’d heard from multiple sources was that he was looking to attach it to the USA Freedom Act. His office came out and denied that claim vehemently. Still, multiple sources insisted not only that it was true, but that Reid was still looking for other vehicles to push that through. And… just days later, the White House responded to some (somewhat pointless) White House “We The People” petitions by… announcing that it, too, wanted to turn unauthorized streaming into a felony. This was in response to two separate petitions, Stop SOPA 2013 and Stop SOPA 2014. Neither petition made much sense, as SOPA has been long dead since early 2012. There was never any specific bill in either 2013 or 2014. And yet, Alex Niejelow, the chief of staff to the IP Czar (a position that is in limbo, as the new czar has been nominated, but not yet approved), used those petitions as an opportunity to reiterate that the White House, like Reid, supports making unauthorized streaming a felony.

Niejelow carefully tries to frame the plan as not going after individuals for uploading videos, but the language choices are deliberate here:

To be clear: We are not advocating for, and do not support, Congress enacting criminal sanctions against people who upload their own, non-commercial performances of other artists’ works on Tumblr, against the content creators making your favorite mashup on YouTube, or against the users of these services — like many of you who signed this petition — who watch and listen to this digital content.

Rather, we think the law should deter the large-scale willful reproduction, distribution, and streaming of illegal, infringing content for profit. We think it is important to combat this type of activity because of the negative impact it has in diminishing the drive and economic incentive to produce the great movies, sporting events, and music that we love and that account for millions of American jobs and billions of dollars contributed to our economy annually.

Almost everything in those two paragraphs is misleading — sometimes extremely so. As Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain helpfully explained back in 2011, the move to make unauthorized streaming a felony, changed the law in subtle, but dangerous ways. It’s true, of course, that merely uploading a file would not be considered an offense under that part of the law (it may violate other aspects of the law), but it could still be problematic. Here was Zittrain’s discussion, specifically in response to the question of whether or not Justin Bieber could have gotten in trouble for uploading videos of himself covering songs:

No one is saying that the public performance is occasioned by the mere act of uploading or downloading a file — so a huge part of that analysis is going after straw men. The question is whether placing a file onto YouTube and configuring the placement so that it can be streamed — indeed, intending that as the only reason for the file being there — results in a performance as it’s streamed to lots of people. Sadly that answer could be yes. Here’s the definition of a public performance under 17 USC 101:

> To perform or display a work “publicly” means (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.

So, the argument would go that Bieber falls under clause (2) — he’s transmitting a performance to a place open to the public (“YouTube”) or perhaps simply to the public directly, “by means of any device or process.”

The fact that YouTube might also be liable for performing the work (or may or may not have a license if the license is just for it) is irrelevant; you can have more than one party deemed responsible for an infringement. Indeed, think about embedding the video on your own page — would it matter if the page were served from your own server in your home (the easiest case for liability) or from a third party hosting service with whom you’d contracted, or who let you put it there? Surely putting the stuff on a rental server wouldn’t be enough to “launder” liability for the person who put it there. (Again, ignoring whether the third party server could itself be liable, too; this starts to implicate the DMCA safe harbors.) YouTube contributors have their own little home pages on the service, in which their videos are embedded. So, yes, those videos are likely public performances.

Of course, they try to get around this by claiming they don’t want this to impact “non-commercial performances.” But, the definition of “non-commercial” is pretty fluid. Did you put ads on your upload? Uh oh. Did the video go viral and allow you to do something that made money? Uh oh.

Or how about the “large-scale” aspect. Well, we embed plenty of YouTube videos on this site. Would that make us “large-scale”?

And then there’s the “negative impact” argument. Really? What is the actual negative impact from people streaming these works? As we’ve shown, the actual output of basically all of these industries is rapidly increasing. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of a negative impact at all. It’s especially bullshit to slip in “sporting events” in there (but, again shows how sporting organizations, including UFC and MLB, have been key to lobbying for this change), when the sporting events industry is thriving at unprecedented levels, and many of the major sports leagues (especially MLB) have shown that when you make a really good premium product, people will pay.

In fact, literally the day after the White House appeared to be arguing that streaming has created a “negative impact [that is] diminishing the drive and economic incentive to produce great… sporting events,” PwC came out with its latest analysis of the sports market in North America, showing that it’s nothing but up, up and up for sporting events in the US. If people streaming these events online has diminished the economic incentives, someone forgot to tell, well, everyone. If your job is to be in charge of understanding “intellectual property” in the US, shouldn’t facts like this have a role? Here’s PwC’s data (2014 is estimated, as of October), and it shows a pretty steady upward trend, especially on “media rights,” the only part really likely impacted by any streaming:

Furthermore, if you look at the full report [pdf] PwC predicts continued massive growth, especially in media rights, but we won’t show that because it’s speculation.

But, basically, the argument that sports events are somehow facing negative incentives to put on great events because some people are streaming unauthorized versions just doesn’t make any sense at all. It makes the claim that such a law is needed incredibly suspect, and hints strongly at the simple fact that this is nothing more than an attempted government favor to certain lobbyists.

Even where sports streaming does occur, it tends to be in situations where the leagues themselves have made it nearly impossible to legitimately pay for access in the first place, with idiotic concepts like blackout rules. Want to massively decrease unauthorized streaming of sporting events? Make better services and drop blackout rules. No need to turn hosting a webpage with some embeds into a felony.

Either way, it seems clear that the White House (and some in the Senate) still don’t realize that all of SOPA was a bad idea, including the ridiculous plan to make unauthorized streaming a felony.

Filed Under: alex niejelow, copyright, felony, harry reid, ip czar, justin bieber, petitions, sopa, sporting events, sports, streaming, we the people

President Obama Finally Gets Around To Nominating A New IP Czar

While we’re still waiting for the White House to actually nominate a new head of the US Patent and Trademark Office, the other big administration “intellectual property” job has also been vacant for over a year: the “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator” (IPEC) job, frequently referred to as the “IP Czar.” That job was previously held by Victoria Espinel, who left a year ago and immediately jumped to a lobbying job with the BSA, the copyright maximalist trade group run by Microsoft.

While I was disappointed to see Espinel jump to such a group, and disagreed with some of things she did as IPEC, on the whole she did a good job while in that role. The job itself is very strange in that it’s written into the law (PRO-IP Act of 2008) to be a role that basically pushes for IP maximalism, rather than any sort of balance (or anything involving actually promoting the progress of science and the useful arts). It would be like having a role in the Treasury Department specifically devoted to “how do we protect outdated bank business models.” But, on the whole, Espinel actually worked really hard to take opposing viewpoints into account, to bring a variety of people into the discussion (including voices that had previously been ignored by DC). Her more nuanced and inclusive take on things was evident from the big 2013 Joint Strategic Plan that she released right before leaving office. It recognized that the best way to deal with infringement wasn’t necessarily by ramping up enforcement (despite her title), but in encouraging greater innovation. And unlike many other similar efforts, it actually recognized the value and importance of fair use.

Given all that, many people had been wondering who would be appointed to take over the job. It’s now been announced that Obama is nominating Danny Marti, a long-time DC trademark lawyer. While he’s been involved in other types of cases, including CFAA, cybersquatting and copyright cases, it appears that his focus has been on trademark. That’s an interesting choice, since trademark issues tend to be less controversial than copyright ones. He also doesn’t appear to have much of a policy background at all, which makes it an interesting choice.

While the RIAA and MPAA, along with NBC Universal and the US Chamber of Commerce, all cheered on the nomination, they’re kind of expected to do so. And, as the Washington Post notes, they appear to be cheering on the position more than the guy filling the role. The Washington Post also quotes Mitch Stoltz from EFF noting that he hopes Marti’s experience in these cases means that he “understands that careless over-enforcement of trademark, copyright, and patent laws can harm our economic progress and our freedom of speech.” He still needs to be approved by the Senate, but we’re hopeful that if he is, Marti continues to follow in Espinel’s footsteps in actually listening to a variety of opinions outside of just those emanating from Hollywood.

Filed Under: copyright, danny marti, ip czar, ip enforcement coordinator, ipec, patents, proip act, trademark, victoria espinel

from the of-course-not dept

The Obama White House has been a big supporter of getting companies to come up with what they like to call “voluntary agreements” for various issues where both the White House and Congress know that there just isn’t enough political will in Congress to pass a law. Not that Congress is particularly good at legislating, but sometimes these “voluntary agreements” don’t appear to be all that voluntary, and at other times they appear to border on being collusion against certain competitors and innovators. This focus on “voluntary agreements” has been a big part of the administration’s approach to dealing with copyright law. That was true prior to the SOPA debacle, but even more so since that legislative effort fell flat on its face. The most high profile of these was the six strikes “voluntary agreement” between certain major ISPs along with the RIAA and MPAA.

Of course, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Chris Soghoian showed that rather than a truly “voluntary” agreement, the White House, in the form of then IP czar Victoria Espinel, was heavily involved in the process. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (where the IP czar position is housed) withheld most of those emails. Soghoian sued and lost, as the court ruled that OMB was okay to hide the documents claiming either that they contained confidential commercial information or that it was part of the “deliberative process privilege.”

It appears that the IP czar and OBM are going to get away with this again. A professor from the University of Iowa School of Law, submitted a similar FOIA request for details of the IP Czar’s involvement in the creation of a similar voluntary agreement with payment processors — an effort to get Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, American Express and others to stop doing business with sites deemed evil by the MPAA and RIAA. In this case, OMB is admitting that it has found 60 pages of relevant information but is withholding all of it for the same reasons given to Soghoian. Specifically:

We are withholding the 4-page final agreement under FOIA exemption 4… which protects from disclosure “… trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential. We are withholding the 56 pages of various drafts of such agreement and other related documents under FOIA exemption 4 and FOIA exemption 5…. Exemption 5 protects interagency and intra-agency predecisional, deliberative materials, the disclosure of which would inhibit the frank and candid exchange of views that is necessary for effective government decision-making.

So, once again, the main issue here is the deliberative process privilege. In theory, it makes some sense to have such an exemption, because you want government employees to be willing to discuss things frankly when shooting around ideas. But here’s the problem in both of these cases: these aren’t government policies. The whole point is that they’re “voluntary agreements” between private parties. And thus, there’s no government policy involved, and thus it’s difficult to see how the deliberative process privilege could or should possibly apply. Unfortunately, the court ruled otherwise against Soghoian, and I’d imagine that should Gleason appeal this rejection the results would be the same.

Of course, the end result now is that the office of the IP Czar now realizes that it has basically free rein in browbeating companies into collusive positions against upstarts and innovators as pushed for by copyright maximalists — and it can keep the efforts of the government (i.e., threats of “do this or we’ll pass legislation” or “do this or we’ll make life difficult for you”) totally secret. That should raise serious questions about the appropriateness and legality of nearly all of these so-called “voluntary agreements.”

Filed Under: copyright, foia, ip czar, obm, six strikes, white house
Companies: mpaa, riaa

Former White House IP Czar Immediately Jumps Ship To Microsoft-Driven Anti-Piracy Lobbying Group BSA

from the shameful dept

This was rumored for weeks before the former White House IP czar (technically “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator”) even had announced that she was stepping down from her job, but now it’s been confirmed: just weeks after leaving the White House, Victoria Espinel will take over as the head of the Business Software Alliance, a group with a shameful past of overaggressive anti-piracy and pro-software patent positions, driven in large part by legacy software companies long past their innovation stage, and well into their “litigation” against innovators stage. The organization tends to take its orders mainly from Microsoft and Autodesk, two proponents of very strong copyright and patent enforcement, because it helps those legacy companies ward of competitors and disruptive innovators.

As you may recall, every year the BSA puts out a laughably ridiculous “global piracy study” that argues every infringing copy should count as a “lost sale.” The BSA has a long history of using those reports to mislead the public and policy makers. The BSA also has a long history of raiding companies, tying them up in ridiculous “audits” where if you can’t find the specific paperwork for the software you licensed years ago, you may be forced to pay huge sums. The organization has been widely criticized for the practices which often push small businesses to the edge of bankruptcy just because they can’t find the right paperwork. The program also relies on bribing employees and former employees to rat out their companies based on completely bogus promises of payouts of “up to 1million,”whentheyalmostneverpayoutmorethan1 million,” when they almost never pay out more than 1million,”whentheyalmostneverpayoutmorethan5,000. We once promised to pay out “up to 1million”ifanyonecouldproveaBSA1 million” if anyone could prove a BSA 1million”ifanyonecouldproveaBSA1 million payout. We never had to pay out a dime.

The BSA also, of course, was a strong supporter of SOPA until Microsoft realized that its users were angry and that SOPA might cause tremendous problems for the internet… and magically, the BSA suddenly changed its mind. The BSA has always had a close relationship with the federal government, of course. For years, its “anti-piracy” efforts were run by Neil MacBride who, like Espinel, once worked for Joe Biden. MacBride left the BSA after President Obama was elected to become the a top Justice Department official, later switching to become the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virgnia, where he’s been involved in a number of high profile cases, including those involving copyright enforcement — such as the case against Kim Dotcom and Megaupload. Just last week MacBride announced he was stepping down.

It is worth noting that, while I often disagreed with the position of the administration and Espinel on IP enforcement issues, she was much more willing to actually listen to complaints and have pretty open and wide ranging discussions on the issues. In the time she was in office, she was more than willing to reach out and discuss concerns and complaints that I and others had raised about the administration’s positions, and some of her more recent efforts showed that she was certainly willing to take such constructive criticism into account. I hope that she will be willing to do the same in this new position, but I have concerns, since the role is not about pushing for the most effective policy position, but the one that benefits a few giant legacy companies the most. And the BSA is so tainted on that front, it would take a pretty miraculous shift to make the organization a “good” player on these issues.

Of larger concern: Espinel was intimately involved in a number of the discussions on “voluntary” agreements between various industries over how to deal with copyright infringement, meaning that she knows quite well the positions and plans of those whom she now may be fighting against in her new role, where she obviously has strong connections to those still in the government. Considering the massive concern about the “revolving door” between IP maximalist organizations and the government, the risk of bad results here seems quite high. Espinel was quite successful in bringing in a variety of viewpoints and trying to find common ground. Unfortunately, that’s not what her new position likely calls for.

Filed Under: anti-piracy, copyright, ip czar, lobbying, patents, revolving door, victoria espinel
Companies: autodesk, bsa, microsoft

Latest White House Intellectual Property Strategic Plan Much More Balanced & Reasonable

from the a-step-in-the-right-direction dept

The White House’s “IP Enforcement Coordinator” (IPEC), often referred to as the IP Czar, Victoria Espinel, has released the administration’s 2013 Joint Strategic Plan for Intellectual Property Enforcement, which she’s required to put out under the law that created her position, the ProIP Act. When the last report came out, in 2010, we noted that it wasn’t as bad as we’d expected, though it still had some serious problems. The latest report is actually a decent improvement on that one, going much further in recognizing some of the problems many of us have with how these issues are handled. Even the announcement about the report is better. In 2010, even though the report is officially named above, the announcement about it called it the Joint Strategic Plan to Combat Intellectual Property Theft. This year, that inflammatory and misleading language is definitely toned down.

More importantly, there are a lot of good (and somewhat unexpected) things in the report, which shows that Espinel and her office have been paying attention to the concerns many of us have raised over the years, about how the one-sided focus on “piracy” was misleading and not actually helpful. The full report is worth a read, but let’s highlight a few points. The report highlights a key point that we’ve made over and over again, that the best way to actually deal with “piracy” is through innovation, because when innovation is allow to flourish, solutions present themselves:

With respect to the online environment, the Administration believes that when Americans and people around the world are given real choices between legal and illegal options, the vast majority will want to choose the legal option. Accordingly, we encourage the further development and use of legitimate online services as an important part of an effective approach to reducing infringing activity. Today there are a myriad of legitimate ways to obtain music, video, books, games, software, and other entertainment and educational materials through a wide variety of business models. These include paying per use, paying per copy, and paying a fee for access to a collection of works; allowing customers to pay what they wish; and legitimate content that is available for free, including entertainment industry portals and artists and authors using systems to permit free distribution of their works under conditions that they choose.

We believe that legitimate goods, including digital goods, offer clear advantages over infringing ones regardless of price. Use of legitimate goods compensates artists, creators, and those who invest in bringing their works to the public, and provide incentives for future creation and distribution. In addition, legitimate goods are often of higher quality, come with express or implied warranties or guarantees of quality, offer customer services, and do not pose the same risk of viruses or malware. They may also include extra features not available with infringing content. And, increasingly, they may be more convenient and easier to find.

We support and will look for additional ways to encourage and facilitate efforts that will help expand the reach of legitimate alternatives to infringement, including through the development of copyright registries and online databases, micro-licensing arrangements, and other market-driven mechanisms to facilitate smooth and efficient access to content. We also encourage the work of the U.S. Copyright Office to update and improve the copyright registration and recordation system in ways that will facilitate licensing and encourage public-private partnerships.

To some extent, this may be overstating the playing field today with regards to where it should be, and fails to recognize the hurdles that are sometimes put up to prevent legal services from becoming truly convenient and powerful. But we have been moving in the right direction, and it’s great to see the acknowledgement that innovation is the way forward, and holding back innovation with crazy licensing demands does more harm than good.

The paper also focuses heavily on increasing transparency and public outreach, which is important, since this topic has long been dominated by certain special interests:

The Administration strongly supports improved transparency in intellectual property enforcement policy-making and international negotiations.

That’s good, but until the USTR actually gets on board with this (and recognizes that transparency is about sharing information to the public, not just listening to stakeholders) we still have a long way to go. The fact that the TPP (and likely TAFTA to follow it) is going to have large intellectual property sections negotiated in complete secrecy is a huge problem. If the IPEC wants to commit to true transparency, it needs to get the USTR on board. The fact that the report, elsewhere, celebrates the signing of ACTA (which was similarly negotiated with almost no transparency) as well as some very poorly designed trade agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea suggests that this is still a real problem, where the administration has, unfortunately, not yet changed its strategy, despite its claimed interest in transparency.

There’s also a whole section on getting content creators much more familiar with fair use. Considering that fair use is often something that these kinds of documents ignore, this is really impressive.

Effective enforcement is critical to providing meaningful protection of intellectual property rights, but enforcement approaches should not discourage authors from building appropriately upon the works of others. We recognize the work that agencies across the U.S. Government are doing in the area of intellectual property education, and their efforts to increase and improve this work in the digital environment. This work includes efforts at the USPTO and the U.S. Copyright Office to help the general public better understand the Constitutional purpose and value of intellectual property laws, and the scope of both protections and exceptions in such laws.

The Administration believes, and the U.S. Copyright Office agrees, that authors (including visual artists, songwriters, filmmakers, and writers) would benefit from more guidance on the fair use doctrine. Fair use is a core principle of American copyright law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored fair use provisions in the Copyright Act as a key means of protecting free speech, and many courts across the land have upheld the application of fair use as an affirmative defense to infringement, in a wide variety of circumstances.

In order to make fair use more accessible to the authors of the 21st century, ease confusion about permissible uses, and thereby encourage the production of a greater variety of creative works, the U.S. Copyright Office, working in consultation with the Administration, will publish and maintain an index of major fair use decisions, including a summary of the holdings and some general questions and observations that may in turn guide those seeking to apply the decisions to their own situations.

The specifics here will matter, but the fact that they’ll be pushing fair use, and not ignoring it or hiding it away, is definitely a step forward.

It’s also worth noting a very different tone and choice of words in the paper than the usual biased choices. It repeatedly, correctly, refers to “infringement” rather than loaded terms like “piracy” and “theft.” For most of the paper (there are a few exceptions) it focuses on the areas where real threats may exist: with counterfeit drugs (though, too often, we see that conflated with reimported legitimate drugs) and military parts. The paper really doesn’t go into the usual hysterics you see from government documents about online copyright infringement, which is a welcome change.

As mentioned, there are still some issues with the plan. We already mentioned the support for ACTA, TPP and other USTR agreements that are questionable at best. It also talks up the DOJ’s increasing efforts around enforcement, some of which have been quite concerning (Megaupload, anyone?) and increasing efforts for IP enforcement around the globe, which too often has meant having diplomats act as Hollywood’s enforcers in other countries. The report spends a lot of time on “trade secret” enforcement, which is a big buzzword, especially with bigger companies. This is a dangerous red herring, where big companies are seeking laws and enforcement that often will be used to block disruptive innovators, but it’s still better to focus on that rather than some other overhyped claims of copyright infringement.

It also highlights the Department of Commerce’s absolutely awful report that counted all grocery store employees as having jobs because of “intellectual property.” That report has been widely abused by maximalists to argue that we need stronger IP laws, when that’s not what the report shows at all. This latest plan announces that this report will now be updated annually, and that it will “will calculate the number of jobs and the contribution to the GDP on an annual basis.” I hope that they seriously improve their methodology in time for the next release.

On the whole, this report is a big step forward in both substance and tone. There are many points in there that I might quibble with, but given the kinds of documents that we’re used to seeing come out of various governments when it comes to intellectual property issues, this one is quite well done. Combined with today’s news about the FTC going after patent trolls, it actually seems like the administration may realize that “more, stronger intellectual property” and “greater enforcement at all costs” is not the same as effective strategies for promoting the progress of science and the useful arts.

Filed Under: administration, copyright, fair use, ip czar, ip enforcement, ipec, joint strategic plan, trade secrets, victoria espinel, white house