The copyright study that Hollywood doesn’t want you to see

A report from the U.S. House's Republican Study Committee that criticizes the current copyright system was quickly removed from the organizations website after alleged complaints from Hollywood lobbyists. Here's everything you need to know, and why you should care.

Few issues rile up civic-minded Web users like copyright policy – and for good reason. U.S. copyright laws are ground zero in the fight between content creators – Hollywood movie studios, record companies, software creators, etc. – and us, the Web users, who “consume” that content. Copyright is the reason the largest Internet service providers in the U.S. are about to start bombarding subscribers with notices that say they may be breaking the law by clicking certain links. It is the force that has confused the idea of ownership in the digital era to the point that it is no longer recognizable. And it is for these reasons, and many others, that so many believe copyright reform is critical for both Web users, and the U.S. economy at large.

Which is why many an eyebrow raised on Friday after the influential Republican Study Committee (RSC) released a policy brief that called for a major overhaul of U.S. copyright policy. The findings and recommendations in the study, which is entitled “Three Myths About Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix it,” were so “reasonable” that copyright reform evangelists in the technology community immediately jumped on the report as a sign that Washington may soon shed itself of the Hollywood lobbyist-imposed view of copyright, and begin fighting for consumer-focused change.

The elation was short-lived, however; less than 24 hours after the policy brief went up on the Web, the RSC pulled the study from its website. (We’ve reposted it below, in full.)

“Yesterday you received a Policy Brief on copyright law that was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to meet that standard,” wrote RSC Executive Director Paul S. Teller in a mass email. “Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and viewpoints in hand.”

The “three myths” of copyright

The policy brief, authored by RSC staff member Derek Khanna, argues that current copyright policy is damaging to the U.S. economy because it “destroys entire markets,” flies in the face of free market capitalism, and imposes painful, “arbitrary” penalties on those who violate copyright law. In short: The policy brief argues exactly what critics of copyright have been saying for years. Only this time, it came from a source within U.S. House of Representatives – something that has never happened before.

Here is a summary of Khanna’s “three myths” of copyright, and why they are myths:

1. Copyright was not created in order to guarantee that content creators get paid, as copyright reliant industries claim; it was created to “promote the progress of science and useful arts,” according to the U.S. Constitution. Khanna adds that the “purpose” of copyright “is to lead to maximum productivity and innovation.”
2. Copyright is not, as some claim, “free market capitalism at work,” writes Khanna. It is the exact opposite: “a government-subsidized monopoly,” thanks to the massive, government-upheld penalties on those who violate copyright.
3. Copyright does not lead to “innovation and productivity,” writes Khanna. He argues that, instead, copyright policy has created “a system that picks winners and losers, and the losers are new industries that could generate new wealth and added value.”

How to “fix” copyright

Khanna says these misconceptions and errant implementations of copyright policy have stifled a number of industries, including the DJ/remix industry (which he says has become “heavily retarded” in the U.S.); areas of scientific inquiry, due to the copyright of scientific papers from the 20th century; public libraries; journalism; and “added-value” industries, which are prohibited from transforming things like books and movies to include user-generated content such as “‘VH1 Pop-up video’ add-ons.”

To unbind these industries and others, Khanna suggests these reforms to copyright policy:

1. Statutory damage reform: Limit the amount of money copyright violators can be charged from the current range of $750 to $150,000 per violation down to something more realistic.
2. Expand fair use: Allow people to use copyrighted content to create their own content more freely. Khanna points to a paper entitled “Infringement Nation,” which “details how things you do every single day are infringing and leave every single person liable for billions in damages each year.”
3. Punish false copyright claims: Copyright owners face “minimal or nearly non-existent punishment for bogus copyright claims today,” writes Khanna. He says this “often leads to de facto censorship,” something he says would be greatly diminished if there were penalties for copyright owners who falsely claim ownership.
4. Heavily limit terms of copyright: Right now, copyright law says that individual copyright extends for the life of the author plus 70 years. For corporate copyright owners, the period is potentially even longer: 120 from the date of creation, or 95 years from first publication. Khanna recommends limiting this to an initial “free” 12 years of copyright protection, with the ability for copyright owners to renew the copyright for additional years at a cost.

A tipping point for copyright reform?

While the RSC has disowned Khanna’s report – for reasons officially unknown, but speculated to have something to do with “lobbyist pressure” on the organization, according to an anonymous source who spoke with Ars Technica – the ideas in the brief could represent a sea change for the GOP, which is currently seeking to draw in young voters for which copyright reform is a major issue. The Web-centric fight over the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) from earlier this year has also led Congress to reconsider its relationship with Hollywood studios and other heavy hitters in copyright-centric industries.

“It’s always hard to get legislation of any kind passed, but I think the chances have improved enormously since SOPA and PIPA were defeated earlier this year,” said Gigi Sohn, president and CEO of rights advocacy group Public Knowledge, in an email with Digital Trends.

Sohn says that a number of Khanna’s ideas – many of which have been long supported by Public Knowledge and other copyright reform advocates – could make their way through Congress in the coming months and years.

“Some of the possible provisions might include those that 1) expand fair use, including the ability to circumvent technological protection measures for lawful uses; 2) punish copyright holders who willfully and recklessly abuse copyright law and the takedown provisions of the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act]; 3) shorten copyright terms; 4) reduce statutory damages and 5) ensure that the ‘first sale’ doctrine is preserved in the digital age,” said Sohn.

In fact, some of these provisions are already floating around Washington. For example, earlier this month, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) announced a proposal that seeks to allow consumers of movies and music to convert this content into digital formats.

Why you should care (if you don’t already)

Despite the passion surrounding the copyright debate, it is perfectly understandable why many Web users’ eyes glaze over at the mention of any type of policy reform. It’s complicated, even boring. But according to experts on both sides of the debate, copyright is something we should all pay attention to.

“Copyright affects every person’s ability to create, innovate, and express themselves freely,” said Sohn. “If copyright is too strong, it makes those abilities much harder for everyone but the biggest media companies.” She adds that citizens should “tell their Senators and Representatives that reforming our copyright system is important to them and that they want Congress to act in the upcoming term to make copyright law more balanced.”

PJ Kuyper, president of the Motion Picture Licensing Corporation (MPLC), agrees that copyright is important, but believes that it should be respected, not gutted.

“Copyright is not a conservative or liberal issue nor is it about more government or less government,” Kuyper said in an email to Digital Trends. “We should all be on the side of copyright because it is about property rights. No one has a monopoly to music or movies, just a monopoly on their song or their movie. It is no different than car keys giving you a monopoly on your own car.” (Emphasis his.)

What do you think? Should Congress adopt the ideas promoted by Khanna and Public Knowledge? Or should copyright be even stronger than it is today? Let us know your thoughts in the comments. And check out the full RSC policy brief below:

RSC policy brief: Three Myths about Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix It

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Why aren’t there more movies based on apps?

We've seen movies based on toys, comics, television shows and even other movies. So where are the movies based on new digital media? Perhaps Hollywood isn't ready, claims a new New York Times report.

While old media has traditionally proven itself to be very happy at the idea of recycling itself into irrelevance – See the latest reboot of a television series/movie franchise/etc. to hit a movie theater near you soon – it has equally turned out to be something that is surprisingly slow at taking advantage of media that is outside of its immediate comfort zone. While we are now used to superheroes dominating the summer blockbuster circuit, it’s worth remembering that Tim Burton’s Batman movie came out almost twenty five years ago, and the original Superman: The Movie more than a decade before that. Even comic books, apparently, needed some time to be assimilated into the movie and television mainstream. All of which is a long way of saying, for everyone who may be expecting Hollywood to turn around any minute now and realize that there is a lot of Intellectual Property just waiting to be bought up, adapted and exploited for enterprising entertainment executives out there…? You may have quite a wait ahead of you.

If you’re looking for some evidence of that, then you need look no further than this weekend’s New York Times, in which the trials awaiting app developers hoping for a multimedia payday were enumerated in painful detail. Whereas Iron Man, Optimus Prime and even John Carter have specific audiences – and nostalgic appeal – the problem with apps (and even video games) is that, well, they appeal to too many people: “Should Talking Tom be a cartoon for children on Nickelodeon?” the piece asked, referring to the creation of Outfit7, an app developer looking to bring their brand outside of the tech field. “Or is it something more grown-up, perhaps for Spike or Cartoon Network’s Adult Swim? The wrong move could narrow the following. A Nickelodeon show, for instance, could make Talking Tom uncool for men in their 20s.”

Additionally, there is the problem that today’s app makers are more merchandise-savvy than many more traditional creators. “App makers want to keep potentially lucrative toy rights for themselves. But studio executives say it is hard for them to justify pouring tens of millions of dollars into the creation of a movie or television show unless there is an added revenue stream as an incentive,” explained the Times’ Brooks Barnes.

There is, of course, an even more obvious reason why moviemakers might want to stick with what they know for now: No-one in Hollywood has worked out a way to translate first-person interactive narratives – videogames, for the most part, or even analog like Battleship – into a successful movie just yet. Until they can work out how to create a pleasing story for all viewers out of something that so much of its potential audience has made up in its head, it’ll be awhile until we’ll see a massive influx of material that’s based even more on interactivity and less on pre-set conditions.

Well, Angry Birds aside, obviously.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Bryan Singer discusses his new webseries, H+, and the danger of technology

Director and producer, Bryan Singer, talks with us about the his recently debuted futuristic webseries H+, the dangers of technology, and what tech he couldn't live without.

Hollywood producer and director Bryan Singer is the man behind some very big Hollywood movies, including the X-Men franchise, Superman Returns, as well as the upcoming Jack the Giant Killer and X-Men: Days of Future Past. The man behind the indie favorite The Usual Suspects is exploring the online world for the first time with the Warner Premiere original series, H+, which debuted yesterday, August 8 on YouTube.

H+ promises to send viewers on a journey into an apocalyptic future where technology has begun to spiral out of control and one-third of the world has traded in smartphones and laptops for H+ Nano Teoranta, which directly connects the human mind to the Internet. Check out the trailer at the bottom, or just head over to the official page to watch Episode 1.

Singer, who also serves as the producer of the Fox hit TV series, House, talks about the transmedia potential for H+ and discusses why the Internet might be a better avenue for Hollywood video game adaptations in this exclusive interview.

Within the last year or so, Warner Premier has released a Mortal Kombat short series that did so well that they now are doing a big budget movie based off of that. When it comes to H+, do you see opportunities outside of the Internet for this to live on?

I hope so. That was part of the reason I was very keen on the quality being as high as it is, the production value, the epic nature of the story, and the quality of the cast. We really want it to be top-notch so that if it lived on, and was ultimately down the road distributed in different mediums, and lived on [as] a series or inspired other things, it would start from a place of high cinematic quality.

This series focuses a lot on the future, can you talk about a favorite gadget or piece of technology that you can’t live without?

I can’t live without a car. That would be the piece of technology I can’t live without. Probably I’d need a phone; I think everyone needs a phone. If I lived in a kibbutz somewhere or was a migrant worker maybe I could stand to not have one, but in this day and age, everybody’s incredibly connected. I think people need it for practical reasons, but also crave it for social reasons. Once the television was broadcast all over the world, it opened up the world to local people. Now local people want to connect with and reach out to that world, which is an amazing thing about technology. People are no longer really alone in who they are or what they are in life. With the Internet they can reach out and find out that they’re not that alone, that there are people like them, people they can talk to who enjoy the same things, and enjoy the same conversations. It’s really extraordinary.

What are the dangers with technology?

The danger is when people become techno-narcissistic and basically sit around a table and don’t talk to each other or connect with each other physically, and just sit on their cell phones typing. You have to imagine the H+ version of that where they’re just sitting and staring into space. It would be a very quiet, weird, society. I see people just walking around living that.

How far from reality do you see the implants in H+?

Five years ago, I never thought that I’d be a texter. I never thought that I’d have a Facebook. Who knows that things like this, these implants, when this kind of technology becomes real and everybody starts doing it, even a terrified, logical person like myself may say, “Everyone else has got one. I don’t want to be left out.”

Google is working on the personal HUDs in those glasses.

Giving that information in your face, there’s something exciting about that. I think the big inspiration for me was the Douglas Trumbull movie, Brainstorm, where you would record your thoughts onto a tape, and then someone else could play those thoughts, feelings, and sensations that you’ve had. Imagine a time when someone records an experience that isn’t just audio or visual, but it’s sensory, like riding in a rollercoaster, or a particular act of sex, or jumping out of airplane. Imagine being able to give that experience mentally, physically, and experientially to a person in a wheelchair, how incredible that would be, but also how dangerously addictive that could be.

Speaking of technology and addiction, you can’t have a conversation without at least mentioning video games. Have you kept up on what’s going on in the interactive space at all?

I’m not a super gamer, so I’m probably a little behind on what the latest and greatest is.

Did you play games at all growing up?

I’m older, so I played different games than they play today. I played arcade games and I played the games at home on the old Intellivision and Atari 2600 systems. Today I play apps on my computer and my iPhone. I play games like Angry Birds and Amazing Breaker. But I’m different with my games. When I play games I don’t want to think. I like playing simple games where you knock the football into the hole or shoot the zombies. I think so much in my job creatively — working out very complicated scripts on movies and TV shows when we’re doing projects as a company. When I play a game, I want to check out and just blow things up.

Do you think about games from the perspective of when you’re creating or working on franchises, like in H+ where you explore the potential of the universe as a video game?

I always think about that to some degree, or an app, or a way for interactivity. I don’t necessarily go out of my way to try to implement it, but I do think, “How would the piece of art or entertainment that I’m creating translate to a game.” But I’m not a heavy player, so it’s hard for me to know what the playability of that game would be. I think about it, it’s just not always at the forefront of my mind.

Your director of H+ actually just also directed the new Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn online series, which obviously is based on one of the biggest video game franchises of all time.

He’s incredibly talented. I’m sure he’ll do an amazing job on it. Perhaps that’s a better format for that. It’s challenging, turning games into movies, because movies are so different. A game is all about playing, and a movie is all about being played. One has to find the essence of the game and the essence of the character in the game, and then create a journey and a story that caters to a movie and a controlled, defined experience. He’s a very talented filmmaker, so he’ll probably do a good job with that.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Klout offers ‘real life perks’ by granting VIP access to Los Angeles nightclub

Who says Klout is for nerds? Maintain a high score on the site and you can gain VIP access to a nightclub in Hollywood.

If you’re a social media mogul, you’ve probably heard of Klout, the free online service that measures your influence on your Web followers. While most will still question the authority Klout has to make such analysis, others know the site best for rewarding random perks for certain high scores or topics of influence. For example, I most recently cashed in on a $10 gift card to T-Mobile for being influential in mobile devices. But that was a few months ago, and I haven’t logged onto the site since.

To get more people interested in using Klout again, a nightclub in Los Angeles will reward a “real life” perk for maintaining a high Klout score. Members with scores of 50 and higher can gain entrance to the Playhouse Nightclub in Hollywood and receive VIP treatment on the house. According to Klout, having a score higher than 50 qualifies you as “being a thought leader in your specific business,” therefore that earns you the right to be treated like royalty. We still think it would be a bit embarrassing to whip out your smartphone before entering a club to show off your Klout score to gain special entrance.

While the concept and introduction of real life perks could be more enticing, the start at Playhouse Nightclub seems random, to say the least. It also isn’t that difficult to become a VIP at the particular club, since Playhouse Nightclub’s website simply asks you to join a mailing list to be added to its VIP list. We also have to wonder: If nightclubs and bars begin adopting such real life Klout perks, will this mean these establishments will be filled with less douchebags, more Klouchebags? It sure would be more hilarious, and perhaps awkward, to see a bunch of bloggers and journalists partying it up in the VIP section regardless of how flashy they’re dressed.

Still, the idea is a work in progress, and if Klout begins introducing more perks that people can use at local establishments, this might be a nice way to get people to care about keeping up a Klout score and influence just to earn a little freebie every once in a while. After all, who doesn’t like a good deal?

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com