Hollywood, Silicon Valley Sharpen Their Swords in Piracy War

Hollywood Tech SOPA Piracy War
Jakob Hinrichs for Variety

The battle against online piracy may be shifting to movie streaming sites, but the PR war over tactics is still stuck in SOPA mode.

The Stop Online Piracy Act stalled out in early 2012, in the face of an unprecedented online protest, driven in part by tech congloms, that it would jeopardize the free flow of Internet content. But the specter of the battle still lingers. In recent months, Hollywood studios have been accused of attempting to revive the stalled legislation in a number of ways, most recently via legal maneuvering.

Last month, major studios sued MovieTube, an operator of a series of sites that stream pirated movies and TV shows, and sought a preliminary injunction that would require third parties to “cease or disable” services to the company. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Yahoo pushed back, contending in a court filing that the studios’ proposed injunction would be too sweeping in its scope. They fear it would set a precedent for other cases, and bind service providers to the litigation.

In a proposed amicus brief, the tech companies said that the injunction being proposed “would require the same intermediaries targeted by SOPA to engage in the same kind of content- and domain-blocking that would have been required by SOPA had it been enacted.”

The studios have since dropped the injunction request after MovieTube pulled its sites.

But the the tech firms’ outcry was only the latest charge that other means were afoot to impose the failed legislation. The studios and tech companies each weighed in on an Intl. Trade Commission case over dental braces in which the ITC claimed authority to prevent patent-infringing 3D digital files from crossing borders, just as it would halt counterfeit physical goods. The studios argued that the intent of Congress was for trade law to protect U.S. industries “from all manner of unfair acts,” while the tech sector decried that notion as potentially allowing broad government oversight over Internet transmissions. The case is now before a federal appellate court.

On the state level, Google general counsel Kent Walker has labeled an investigation by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood into the company’s search practices as a studio attempt “to revive the failed SOPA legislation through other means.” And studios’ and labels’ calls for online registrars to better enforce piracy has raised the argument that the MPAA was leveraging the Internet Corp. for Assigned Named and Numbers to use the domain name system to enforce copyright law. The studios countered that their efforts have been distorted by “fringe tech groups.”

Studios have argued that they are merely trying to pursue an antipiracy strategy by applying laws already on the books.

Jonathan Lamy, spokesman for the Recording Industry Assn. of America, painted the anti-copyright forces as hypocrites. “During the SOPA debate, the common response was that existing law or agencies like the ITC were the appropriate ways to deal with overseas rogue websites,” he said. “Fast forward three years, and apparently those statements are ‘no longer operative.’ Our job is to hold them to their word.”

Some public interest groups say that there is good reason to sound the SOPA alarm over the current round of skirmishes: Leaked MPAA memos from the Sony hack showed that the studios were exploring a range of legal options, including court orders, that would require ISPs to quarantine infringing sites.

Sherwin Siy, vice president of legal affairs for the nonprofit Public Knowledge, says that while the term “SOPA” has been used as a rallying point for different issues since 2012, the recent cases are relevant, because they have to do with the idea of site blocking, which was “what motivated the SOPA protest in the first place.”

Citing the MovieTube case, Aaron Liskin of Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert said that although the studios’ request for an injunction was “somewhat uncommon,” the fact that they don’t know who’s behind the website is an operative factor. Still, he allows, “The general rule of thumb is that injunctions bind parties (to litigation). Here Facebook and Yahoo are not parties.”

Studios are well aware that their moves risk being branded as “SOPA-like,” and it’s a reason no major antipiracy legislation has been pursued since 2012. They have been working on a counter-PR strategy, via groups like CreativeFuture — formerly the studio- and guild-backed Creative America — to try to mobilize the content community around the value of protecting creative works. But there’s also a recognition that getting that message ingrained in the minds of consumers is a long-term initiative.

Ruth Vitale, CEO of CreativeFuture, took to the group’s blog to mock what she saw as particularly alarmist reactions to the MovieTube case.

“I know that ‘stop censorship’ and ‘don’t break the Internet’ were effective talking points more than three years ago,” she wrote. “That’s the past, and a reference to legislative history. I think we’re all a bit wiser now. Can we finally collectively agree that piracy is not free speech?”

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 3

Leave a Reply

3 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Jedi77 says:

    I torrent from time to time, not so much anymore, though. Spotify, HBO Nordic and Netflix leave very little left for me to actually want badly enough to torrent.
    Though watching The Walking Dead when it airs still holds some importance for me – so that I still torrent. And I use, as a fig leaf, the fact that a national TV station in my country, to which I subscribe, has bought the rights to The Walking Dead as a defence. I have already paid via my subscription to the network, but I torrent because I want to watch it at my leisure, and without subtitles.

    I am saying this to relay the fact that I am not an anti-piracy advocate.

    But it seems very strange to me that we live in a society where the ISP’s voluntary blocking of an illegal, copyright infringing site isn’t commonplace.
    Why can I still google “ant man torrent” and get results?
    I appreciate the SOPA outcry, and I for one, would very much like to keep the internet open, but the ISP’s resistance to common decency when it comes to defending against copyringht infringement, will only lead to an eventual acceptance of SOPA like legislation.

    If ISP’s don’t reach a compromise with Hollywood on their own, legislators will be forced to enact tough, wide reaching legislation eventually.

    Block torrent sites, block popcorn time, block all the sites that link to copyright protected material which the companies behind the material want blocked.
    How hard can it be?
    And what possible, rational, defence can there be for not doing it?

    • John Malletman says:

      One problem with blocking all sites that link to copyright protected material is that someone could add a comment to a blog/news article that has a link to a copyrighted item.

      For instance, someone that wants to silence Variety could post a comment with a link to an Ant Man torrent. Then Disney could file an injunction against Variety to remove this link and take Variety off of the internet until they can prove that the link has been removed.

      The potential for abuse is very strong, though not quite as bad as SOPA, where the mere accusation of having an Ant Man picture on your site could have caused a preliminary injunction without any form of due process.

      • Jedi77 says:

        And that’s exactly why the ISP’s should do this voluntarily.
        You can’t block them all, but you can block the 50 most used torrent sites, no problem.
        You could do it today.

        If the agreement is that the blocking is voluntary, the ISP can choose to not block a site in which they find the evidence questionable.
        And because they have blocked all the obvious sites (voluntarily) the media companies will have a lot of goodwill left over for rational discussions about the questionable ones.

        If you don’t do this, then #John Malletman’s scenario will become reality somewhere down the line.
        It will be legislation, and even legitimate sites will be at risk, though I don’t see the example of Variety happening.

More Digital News from Variety

Loading