Open letter to PPA and David Trust, CEO

[stef@apl]

The PPA sent out a letter to its members regarding SOPA and PIPA, expressing the support for the legislation, reproduced in their blog. The title of the email was "SOPA and PIPA - don't be fooled" and signed by David Trust, Chief Executive Officer, Professional Photographers of America.

Mr Trust, in your letter you describe opponents to the bill misrepresenting it, and equating copyright to censorship. I believe you have a misunderstanding of what the bill was attempting to do versus what the bill had the potential to do. While you admit the bill was flawed, you have no clue just how flawed it was. At a minimum, you're giving a disingenuine or naive depiction of it. Let me note that I hold a degree in computer science and worked for 15 years at a national laboratory doing computer security. I have extensively studied RFCs (the documents detailing internet protocols). I have programmed routers, firewalls, and large-scale network scanners. I have studied copyrights and legislation since Usenet (late 1980's). I am now a full-time photographer.

You correctly surmise the bill was aimed at stopping off-shore piracy. What you miss is the following:

• The structure and protocols of the Internet have existed without legal interference of technical protocols, and this has resulted in the BIGGEST world-wide job creation infrastructure ever seen. It exists because of lack of governmental control, and is a world-wide infrastructure. This is not owned or controlled solely by the US, nor should it be.
• The Internet has also destroyed outmoded business models that could not adapt, such as newspapers. However, those that adapted survived well, such as the NYT or Washington Post. This is no different than cars destroying the wagon wheel industry. No technology or business model lasts forever, but that brings us to the SOPA and PIPA bills... this is an attempt to enforce an outmoded business model with laws.
• The SOPA and PIPA bills would interfere with the technical structure of the internet, penned by non-technical congressmen who actually brag about their lack of understanding of the technicalities of the internet. This is worse than just the "series of tubes", but downright insulting to those who spent years helping develop the technical issues to have it swept away by elected fools who brag about their own ignorance. Let's have them tell doctors how to treat patients in the ER, too. What's the worst thing that can happen?
• The bill would enforce both a US-centric view on the worldwide internet, and abuse its position of holding the .com registry. US copyright law is NOT THE LAW WORLDWIDE. The Berne convention requires local laws based on similar principles, and these laws differ.
• Copyright infringement is already illegal. However, Fair Use is not illegal and is an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE to claims of infringement, but this bill gives the power of debilitating takedowns on those legally using copyrighted material in Fair Use. It appears you have little understanding that media holders might actually abuse this power. They have in the past, and they intend to in the future.
• The government has used existing laws to take down sites, and has accidentally taken down 84,000 non-infringing sites. Giving this power to historically abusive entities such as big media (MPAA, NBA, RIAA, UMG, Sony, etc) is reprehensible and irresponsible.
• The issues of breaking the established protocols of the Internet will not stop the actual piracy. There are technical workarounds that pirates will use. The only ones this will harm are website owners using media legally in Fair Use. This bears reiteration: THIS WILL NOT STOP ONLINE PIRACY, OFFSHORE OR OTHERWISE. It will merely HARM CONTENT CREATORS and CONTENT COMMENTATORS.
• Moreover, the security issues of breaking the established protocols would force a DNS redirect, which in itself is not only lying to the DNS requestor (violating RFCs), but could redirect to a website that violates privacy or is otherwise malicious. This has huge security implications, and congressmen have no business establishing such requirements.
• Dangerous companies and copyright trolls such as the now-defunct Righthaven would love to see this type of law. It will give amazing powers of extortion and racketeering, and through abuse of process make it financially impossible to defend against by the average citizen legally using content.
• Not only just blatant copyright trolls want to see this become law. Fair Use fully allows using copyrighted material in certain circumstances. This bill emasculates the Fair Use provision in copyright law. This is something big media would love to see happen, as they can abuse the law to harm those using material legally, and put the burden of proof and finances on the people legally using the material. You are misrepresenting the protection of copyright. It's not a full monopoly.
• The companies that really want to see this pass are NOT CONTENT CREATORS. Big media rides on the backs of people like us, who actually create the content. They are content promoters. The creators, such as photographers and musicians, will likely not see any increase of revenues from this bill becoming law.
• Big Media have been padding the pockets of our congressmen in order to keep their outmoded way of doing business. All of those numbers they have produced on how much money they lost to piracy cannot survive scrutiny. Independent evaluations have shown they are not only inflated, but vastly so. Studies have also shown that the internet has increased sales of their media, especially amongst those that actually pirate songs!

I have no problem with claiming US copyright laws are behind the times. The DMCA was an attempt to modernize, and has provisions for takedowns (which big media has also been shown to abuse many, many times). But giving any extra power to these mega-corporations with roomsful of lobbyists who pay off congressmen is called CORRUPTION, and by endorsing this corrupt bill, you, Mr. Trust, are endorsing corruption. I am close to believing you are participating in it yourself, and using the funds of the PPA members to lobby to help push through something only the most backwoods of photographers might truly want. The falsehoods you sent out in your letter do not help uncover the true purpose of this bad legislation. Specifically, I refer to your statement "Google, Wikipedia and others [...] define copyright as censorship". I would like a reference, because this sounds like you are making a false statement, almost criminally so. This sounds like an outright lie to your own members, myself being one. I am both embarrassed by you representing me and my chosen field, and reconsidering my membership in an organization headed by a rumor-monger. I can only think you have ulterior motives, or are hopelessly ignorant.

Regarding this corruption, Ex-senator Chris Dodd, who is now heading the MPAA, commented: "Those who count on quote "Hollywood" for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."

Doesn't that just sound like a slimy record company owner? Mr. Dodd is blatantly stating "We give you money to pass the laws we want you to pass. If you refuse to play ball, we'll give our money to someone else who will." This is an example of the corruption surfacing, but have no doubt this has existed for a long time now. You, Mr. Trust, are pretending this doesn't exist or that the tremendous outrage at it by content creators, content users, and Internet companies is something unreasonable. No, the outrage at such corruption is long overdue.


Addressing more of your points directly, you state "the greater good demands that measures be taken to protect the rights of creators like you." You fail to realize that these bills fall far short of this protection, but they also abuse the rights of Fair Use by giving the copyright holders ability to shoot first at anyone in their line of fire. This includes innocent people. This is not the American Way. We do not kill innocents. The greater good should instead protect the innocent: those using copyrighted works in Fair Use, which is far more people than those running offshore piracy havens.


You state "It is true that those mega-corporations opposed to the bill could possibly have been inconvenienced by the legislation. It is their job to make money, and their actions merely represented those purposes."
I am going to state this back to you, with corrections: It is true that those mega-corporations that support the bill would find it very useful for their continued history of abusing innocent people who use media in Fair Use. It is the job of these mega-corporations to make money off the backs of the true content creators, and their actions merely represent those purposes.


SOPA and PIPA - don't be fooled by the PPA's position.

[jerryph]

Well said.

[stef@apl]

Here is a very clear description of these bills, from a freelance movie editor, in plain English. He is also a content creator, like me, who looks to benefit from these bills on the surface.

He clarifies a lot of what I was trying to state above, and adds a few points I missed. Sometimes I use nomenclature internal to the field of computers, but this is an easy read, if longish.

[ClintS]

SOPA and PIPA are dead in the water. But they will resurface with new names.

[OneRaven]

ClintS is right, some big bill will come along and a crooked politician will try and slip a rider on the bill. It ain't dead by a long shot.

[Douglas]

And if it isnt one big bill, it will be bits and pieces spread out among other bills. Cant get approval to buy a car? Well, lets just get wheels. Wheels are harmless. Nuts and bolts and a giant piece of iron cant due anything...... But once the puzzle is complete....