Says critics of the meeting, which brought together leading govt officials and entertainment industry heavyweights with absolutely no presence from public interest groups, are “dead wrong,” and that other groups can have their own meeting if they wish.
Earlier this week I mentioned how Vice President Joe Biden convened a piracy summit at the White House with Hollywood CEOs, music industry execs, and legal experts for what was billed as a “first of its kind” meeting to “bring together all the stakeholders to discuss ways to combat piracy in this rapidly changing technological age” (full guest list).
Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, FBI director Robert Mueller, and the new Anti-Piracy Czar Victoria Espinel joined Sony’s Michael Lynton (the same guy who said last May that he’s a “guy who doesn’t see anything good having come from the Internet,” and more recently that CAMs are ruing the movie biz), Warner Bros.’ Barry Meyer, Viacom’s Philippe Dauman, NBC Universal’s Jeffrey Zucker, Warner Music Group’s Edgar Bronfman, Harper Collins CEO Brian Murray, Universal Music Group’s Zachary Horowitz, MPAA’s Dan Glickman, and the RIAA’s Mitch Bainwol.
Conspicuously absent from the discussions were public interest groups and technology-related business concerns.
Public Knowledge, a DC-based public interest advocacy organization dedicated to promoting the public interest in access to information, was shocked by the meeting being that President Obama, or at least Candidate Obama, believed in “protecting the openness of the Internet.“
The group writes:
We know that Big Media is a source of Big Money for Democrats. We know that Biden, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was favorably disposed to the “creative community,” as many legislators are. Even so, to have three cabinet officers, agency heads, studio heads, Big Media lobbyists representing companies which think fair use is theft and companies which want the Internet Service Providers to spy on you – all in one room? Not to mention NBC’s chief lobbyists and the Attorney General, who might have to review a little deal NBC has cooking with Comcast.
It goes on to point out as I have that glaringly absent were advocates for digital consumers, consumer advocates (i.e. EFF, Public Knowledge), technology companies, technology trade groups, or even ISPs, all of which also have just as important if not more important interests at stake in the negotiations.
With the MPAA wrapping up its best year EVER and the RIAA a victim of largely self-inflicted wounds, the need for draconian legislation worked out in secret is disturbing.
MPAA head Dan Glickman responded to Public Knowledge’s criticisms, first noting that attacking the White House wouldn’t win them any friends for their cause.
“It is perfectly appropriate for our government to meet with industries producing jobs that feel they have a threat in the event you see business models develop that have the opportunity of ending, or significantly reducing it,” he told C-SPAN. “So I think they are just dead wrong.”
Again, with a 9% increase in revenue from last year the MPAA is nowhere near in danger of of seeing their business model “ended” or “significantly reduced.”
He added that critics like Public Knowledge have a “perfect opportunity” to have their own meeting with the WH if they wish, and that he “expects they will.”
Glickman said the meeting was at the request of the VP who simply wanted to get more info on intellectual property situation.
Public Knowledge however, pointed out that it was really about how they could get the federal govt to protect their economic interests rather than having to adapt to the realities of emerging technologies.
“This was a one-sided, protectionist meeting that looked to the past, not to the future,” he told Broadcasting & Cable. “It’s a shame the discussion was about how the industry could continue to exist as it is with the protection of all the enforcement power of the government, rather than how it should rework itself to take advantage of changing technologies.”
Exactly.
The group also finds it funny that Glickman would characterize their criticism of the meeting as an attack on the WH, and that it looks forward to a meeting with an “equally impressive lineup of government authority” to discuss the “rights of consumers and the process of innovation and technology.”
As for the need of increased piracy enforcement in the context of that pesky matter of record profits Glickman cited slipping DVD sales and an uncertain online streaming future. He said it’s best to stay ahead of the game, solving foreseen problems now before it’s too late.
Too bad “solving problems” for the entertainment industry always means limiting consumer choice.
Stay tuned.
