November 22, 2024

Archives for 2004

Testimony of Jack Valenti

Testimony of Jack Valenti
Motion Picture Association of America
Before the Senate Commerce Committee
April 1, 2004

Mister Chairman,

Last year I appeared before this committee to urge your support for the broadcast flag, a harmless technical standard necessary to stem the gruesome tide of piracy that is sapping the very lifeblood of America’s most important industry. It is with shock and sadness – and deep concern for the fate of our great democracy – that I must reveal to you today an even more disturbing threat to our way of life.

Recently, Israeli scientists demonstrated a new form of wireless networking, a so-called pigeon-to-pigeon, or “P2P”, technology based on ultra-high-density memory cards transported by carrier pigeons. The so-called scientists, with utter disregard for all standards of content protection and human decency, proved that their technology offers twice as much bandwidth to the home as existing broadband solutions such as DSL, allowing pirates to download twice as many movies.

Let me be blunt, Mister Chairman. This technology is a vehicle for pornography. Nothing prevents its use to transport the most vile and hateful filth. Indeed – and I hesitate to say this in an open hearing room, but you must know the truth – the carriers themselves have been known to engage in acts of procreation.

Even today, deployment of this destructive technology proceeds. A technical standard for its use, known as RFC 1149, has already been issued, and P2P carriers have begun assembling in parks throughout our great nation – the very same parks frequented by drug dealers.

We cannot – we must not – allow this to stand. Faced with the threat of DSL, our nation rose to the occasion by adopting the broadcast flag. We must rise again, to defy this newest and greatest threat to our liberty, by instituting a program of Direct Reproductive Management, or “DRM,” requiring mandatory contraception for every pigeon in America.

Our experts assure us, as they did with the broadcast flag, that this plan is simple, inexpensive, and risk-free. This initiative is of utmost importance to the MPAA. Therefore, it should be implemented by the U.S. Department of Justice, so as not to impede our industry’s work on the nation’s behalf.

Mister Chairman, I cannot overstate the importance of this issue. Our industry, our nation, indeed our civilization itself, depends on your action.

Remixing Politics

Somebody over at the Bush-Cheney campaign had better figure out this Internet thingy pretty soon, or it’s going to be a long, unpleasant online campaign for them.

The first evidence of the campaign’s Net-cluelessness was the Bush-Cheney poster generator that came to be called “The Sloganator”. This was a web tool, on the campaign’s site, that let you create a Bush-Cheney campaign poster containing the slogan of your choice. On hearing about this, any Net-savvy person knew exactly what would happen next. Opponents would discover the site and create posters with disparaging slogans. Contests would be held, to see who could make the funniest poster. And the whole episode would be commemorated with an online slide show.

This week brings another “what were they thinking” moment, as the Bush campaign contemplates buying pop-up ads on websites. This would be a clever idea – if the ads said “Vote for Kerry”. It’s hard to think of a better way to alienate the Net community than to associate your cause with something as universally despised as popup ads. And the mistake of running popup ads would be compounded by the inevitable response, as people all over the Net started attaching spoofed popup ads to their own sites.

Bradley Rhodes at DocBug predicts more of this sort of thing, as the remix culture collides with politics. The MoveOn homebrew ads are only the beginning. Expect to see agenda-laden Flash games, spoofed websites and commercials, George Bush verbal blooper tapes, videos of John Kerry debating himself, and nasty-funny creations of all types, from supporters of both sides (or all three, if you count Nader). It looks like we’re in for an entertaining campaign.

Study: Filesharing Doesn't Affect Record Sales

Felix Oberholzer and Koleman Strumpf, of Harvard and the University of North Carolina, respectively, have published an interesting study on the effect of file sharing on record sales. They looked at album sales, actual download traffic for individual songs, and several other variables. Their main conclusion that file sharing had little or no effect on sales, and they could not reject the statistical hypothesis that filesharing had no effect at all on sales. Though these effects are not statistically significant, the data suggests that file sharing may boost the sale of the most popular albums, and may depress the sales of less popular albums, with a near-zero net effect on sales.

How much should we trust these results? I don’t know. The authors look like respectable academics, but their methodology is complex enough that I am not qualified to evaluate it. Perhaps a more qualified reader will have something to say about the study’s methodology.

Improving the PIRATE Act

Senators Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy have introduced a new bill, the PIRATE Act, that would authorize the U.S. government to bring civil lawsuits against copyright infringers, and would create a $2 million fund to pay for such suits. (Copyfight has the details.) Rather than doing this, it would be more efficient simply to give copyright owners the $2 million in cash, and let them decide whom to sue, or not to file suits at all.

If spending $2 million on lawsuits will deter enough infringement to increase (the present value of) future copyright revenues by more than $2 million, then copyright owners will find it in their interest to file the suits themselves. If not, then the government has no business filing the suits, since doing so would burn $2 million of government money to create a benefit of less than $2 million. So let’s save ourselves the trouble, and just give the cash to the RIAA and MPAA.

Criminal enforcement by the government might make sense, since private parties can’t bring criminal actions. But civil suits brought by the government, on the same terms those suits could be brought by copyright owners, can only be inefficient.

Worst of all, asking the Department of Justice to spend its valuable time and attention on small-fry copyright suits carries a high opportunity cost. The DoJ has much more important things to do. Copyright infringement is bad, but it’s hardly the greatest threat we face.

Witty Worm Analysis

Peter Harsha at CRA points to an interesting analysis, by Colleen Shannon and David Moore of CAIDA, of the recent Witty worm.