According to the Department of Labor statistics, employment in the entertainment industry has increased:

Why yes, that does show that the industry grew nicely from 1998 to 2008… all the while we were being told it was being decimated by piracy and no one could find work any more. Oh, and check out that last line. Independent artists, writers and performers jumped from 35.2k in 1998 to 50.4k in 2008 — the first decade of real mainstream internet infringement (Napster arrived in ’99). If you’re not quick with the percentages, that’s a pretty astounding 43.2% growth rate. And, it appears the BLS continues to think that jobs in that sector are going to grow over the next decade as well. Damn those pesky facts.

But surely all that “piracy” – that drives the MPAA/RIAA to lobby for truly bad laws like SOPA/PROTECT IP – has done some harm? None that’s apparently provable. This article - How Much Do Music and Movie Piracy Really Hurt the U.S. Economy – quotes the figures of “harm” that are propounded by the usual suspects and finds:

The good news is that the numbers are wrong — as this post by the Cato Institute’s Julian Sanchez explains. In 2010, the Government Accountability Office released a report noting that these figures “cannot be substantiated or traced back to an underlying data source or methodology,” which is polite government-speak for “these figures were made up out of thin air.”

More recently, a smaller estimate — $58 billion – was produced by the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI). But that IPI estimate, as both Sanchez and tech journalist Tim Lee have pointed out, is replete with methodological problems, including double- and triple-counting, that swell the estimate of piracy losses considerably.

These figures were made up out of thin air. That’s not from a pro-piracy lobby group, that’s the US Government Accountability Office, who categorically state that there is no basis for any of the scare mongering figures of “damage” done. No evidence. In fact there has NEVER been any peer reviewed studies that show ANY harm from unauthorized distribution.

And yet the idiots at the MPAA and RIAA – and their bought-and-paid-for stooges in Congress – insist on lying to the Government, their artists and the public. Ironic, since they’ve been so totally wrong about technology in the past.

Now, I’d want to take issue with the assumption that factory work or farming is that common as a career/employment these days – certainly not farming – but I think the point was rather that “Someday, writing code could require as few skills as farming or factory work”.

Currently writing code is a combination of highly technical skills, attention to detail and a need for creativity in solving the problem and writing the code. Although I am a software product manager, I do not write code because it seems incredibly complex.

Just like editing!  Both require a combination of creative and technical skills now.

Roy Bahat, president of gaming media company IGN Entertainment, writes that coding is:

Like farming was in the 17th century, factory work during the industrial revolution, construction during the Great Depression, and manufacturing after World War II….Code may one day be a basic workplace expectation – like emailing, or “proficient in Word.” Young people are also willing to learn: coding now has a brand. The kid who writes an iPhone or Android app, these days, gets the girl (or boy!).

That reminds me of my long held opinion that video production is rapidly becoming “another form of literacy“. If coding can, why not video?

From the article:

All of my stuff is pirated. Everything from my HDR Video Tutorial to eBooks to Apps. Fine. It’s all there on PirateBay and MegaUpload and all that stuff. Here are the reasons why I don’t mind:

His five points:

1. It’s a cost of doing business on the internet (and indeed it is).
2. People who don’t buy now, may buy later. (In my case, I don’t mind that the next generation grows up “knowing” I know my stuff.)
3. “Pirates” are people too and not just in it for themselves. They may not be able to afford it right now.
4. Pirates have friends with money and the piracy serves as publicity. (Well, d’oh but the RIAA/MPAA are totally unable to see that despite the RIAA members regular payola scandals where they pay radio stations to “pirate” their material, it’s just authorized at that point but functionally no different)
5. As soon as he opened everything up under a Creative Commons license his business grew!

This totally parallels my experience. I know for sure that there are copies of the HD Survival Handbook and probably all my books published as unprotected PDFs, but I’ve made a very good return for the work I put into that book, and don’t feel the need to “stamp out piracy” even where I know it exists.

Of course all predictions are subject to change but Steven Rosenbaum takes a shot at it in this Fast Company article. Naturally Fast Company are going to be more focused on the business side, rather than production side, so no “large sensor” type predictions here instead the five predictions are below with my comments.

Prediction #1. 2012 is the year all video goes a la carte.

I seriously doubt that all content will go a la carte in 2012. Hopefully some moves in that direction but to have even all cable channels available a la carte in 2012 is highly unlikely because it’s just too big a shift in thinking to happen that quickly. That it is a trend that will grow somewhat in 2012, is likely.

Prediction #2. 2012 will be the year of the OverTheTop revolution.

“Over the top” = “cord cutters” = “Internet set top boxes” like Boxee, Roku and Apple TV (among others). Definitely a trend toward dropping the cable subscription in favor of broadcast HD (free with an antenna) and a combination of Hulu and other sources for content, but will this year be the tipping point? Very highly unlikely. Cable subscriptions seem to be dropping but nowhere near fast enough for any cable company to fee the pressure in 2012.

Prediction #3. YouTube and Google TV will merge (really this time). 

Perhaps, but we won’t really care as all the action is around YouTube where money is going into original production.

Prediction #4.  Yahoo will emerge as a big creator and distributor of video.

Again, perhaps, but within the span of the next 12 months we won’t necessarily see the results. Yahoo went down the path of content creation a few years back and lost a boatload of money on it. As a company that doesn’t have strong reserves (or necessarily a strong future at all) to pull off a major turnaround and be a player in creating and distributing video with 12 months, it’s highly unlikely. Maybe the deal to distribute ABC News will come to something but it’s hard to get excited over that single deal indicating anything significant.

Prediction #5.  Business video will arrive as a real targetable business opportunity.

Yep, got to agree with this one. The use of video in business promotion – both online and in real life – is growing dramatically. Branded entertainment – where the brand pays to produce a program(s) directly – is in major growth and shaping up to be one of the viable methods of funding production in the future. (There will be an upcoming blog post summarizing the sorts of deals done in recent years.)

Rosenbaum finishes with:

The next twelve months are going to be transformative. Web video will become simply “video”–made everywhere and consumed everywhere. And brands and companies, who’ve contemplated using video to tell their stories or connect with consumers, will find that the train is leaving the station. It’s time to get on board the video express, or be left with an unpunched ticket in your hand.

That I also agree with.

To date I have never found a peer reviewed study (i.e. one that has some validity) that shows any harm from unauthorized distribution via bittorrent or other means. There are, however, many studies and examples that show a positive benefit from the publicity and promotion that happens when a project gets released onto a torrent tracker.

Within 24 hours 5,000 people had already grabbed a copy without paying. For some filmmakers this is a nightmare scenario, but Diestler clearly disagrees as he sees all these BitTorrent downloads as a good way to gain exposure for the film that took blood, sweat and tears to make.

“I would much rather have 500,000 downloads than 5,000, although our distributor may feel differently. The worst thing that can happen to a small film, any film for that matter, is to fall into obscurity. 500,000 people could download it and hate it, but in my mind that is better than then not seeing or hearing about it all,” Diestler tells TorrentFreak.

Once, when doing a presentation on How to build and monetize an audience for your independent project I bought up the issue of “piracy” starting with:

“If you aren’t being torrented…”

before I finished someone in the audience completed the sentence with

“… you suck”.

And that’s the truth.  There is one thing worse than being torrented – being ignored!

“When you are a small film with zero money for advertising, BitTorrent can get your film out there and get people talking about it – that is all advertising really does anyway. It’s certainly an interesting question. Being friends with Jamin and Kiowa Winans – the filmmakers behind the film ‘Ink’ – I am very close to this topic,” he says.

You’ll notice the reference to “Ink”.  That is an example I use in the presentation noted above:

“Ink” got heavily pirated 400,000 times, shot into the top 20 movies on iMDb up from 12,991!

Kiowa says that is really hard to put an exact figure on that – they haven’t sold a DVD or Blu-ray for every download but sales have unquestionably gone up.

“We put that [donation link] up at the urging of some of the downloaders with the message ‘if you have watched Ink online for free and would like to contribute what you can, click here’,” Kiowa explains.

Incredibly it has stayed as one of the top 200 movies in the world for the last two months, a feat that would have been impossible without the extra exposure.

And like “Ink” the results are looking good:

Thus far The Inner Room has done “great” on BitTorrent resulting in the much anticipated buzz. Just a few days after it was pirated the movie saw a huge bump on IMDb’s movie meter where it’s currently ranked 250. And although the exposure is nowhere near that of “Ink,” the makers are content with the publicity BitTorrent pirates have given them thus far.

Bittorrent exposure, and free copies, are great ways to promote a project as long as there is a business model to capitalize on the publicity and promotion.

I’ve long agreed with Techdirt that connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy something (at a reasonable price) is the model for indie financing of project.

For years, we’ve talked about this concept of Connect with Fans + Reason to Buy (CwF + RtB), and too frequently have assumed that the really difficult part is the RtB side of the equation. But it’s really amazing just how many artists have trouble with CwF as well. And this is a great explanation of why. We often hear from artists who say, “well, I have a Twitter and a Facebook feed, but it doesn’t work.” And then you go and look at the feed, and all it is is them announcing, “I just released this work,” or “I’m performing at such-and-such on December 10th,” or whatever. It’s not just that there’s little interaction, but that there’s little that’s interesting.

It wasn’t until I found a way to use Twitter to share news items I found interesting (which, btw, get reproduced back here, where I write more) that I even got on Twitter.

MediaPost asks a very good question about the likely profitability to Netflix of reviving Arrested Development, but ultimately Netflix, like cable companies before it, may fund a program that isn’t profitable directly, but indirectly contributes to the bottom line of the whole channel.  Mad Men on AMC is unlikely to be directly profitable for AMC but it raises the profile and perception of the network and is worthwhile as a result.

On the positive side, Ashkan Karbasfrooshan, writes:

What it lacked, was viewers, or at least, enough viewers to please big media marketers, sliding from six million to four million viewers from season 2 to 3.

Mind you, just because those numbers don’t make economic sense for on-air or cable television, it might for Netflix.  Earlier this year, TechCrunch made the case with another cult-classic that was flatlined too soon, according to its fans: “‘Firefly’ averaged about 4.5 million viewers when it was on the air in 2002. Let’s say that Netflix could convert just 500,000 of those to paying customers (who weren’t previously) in order to continue watching the show. That would be a half million people paying at least $8 a month. That’s $4 million a month in revenue. And $48 million a year. And you can assume most would end up as multi-year subscribers.”

After an interesting discussion of why it may not work so well for Netflix, Ashkan is still positive on the idea (as am I):

Lastly, I’ve always argued that with the marginal cost of digital production and distribution sliding towards zero, it remains to be seen if content is a cost center or a profit unit.  It’s possible that “Arrested Development” will become a cash cow for Netflix, as a higher-than-expected percentage of its viewers subscribe to the show — but it’s more likely that Netflix is experiencing the equivalent of a big, splashy marketing campaign that Netflix’s CEO, Reed Hastings, hopes will turn around the company’s sagging goodwill and stock price.

I think branded video – where a company or brand puts up all the production money in order to present their brand.  This article from VideoInsider.com jumps from an “interesting” statistic, to examine what brands want, or need ,out of their investment in video.

Our research has shown that consumers are not typing brand names into Google to download commercials to their PCs.  They’re searching for information.  Through our research for a large electronics company, we learned that consumers weren’t searching for information about how to choose a camera, but were searching for information on how to use one to take pictures of babies, weddings, kids, etc.  That insight was invaluable in crafting our branded online video strategy for the company, which focused on providing consumers with information on how to take the best pictures — using their brand of cameras, of course — rather than a commercial about which of their cameras consumers can buy.

Good statistics and background in the article.

That main issue, we’re told over and over again, is “piracy” and specifically “rogue” websites. And, let’s be clear: infringement is a problem. But the question is what kind of problem is it? Much of the evidence suggests that it’s not an enforcement problem and it’s not a legal problem. Decades of evidence from around the globe all show the same thing: making copyright law or enforcement stricter does not work. It does not decrease infringement at all — and, quite frequently, leads to more infringement. That’s because the reason that there’s infringement in the first place is that consumers are being under-served. Historically, infringement has never been about “free,” but about indicating where the business models have not kept up with the technology.

Thus, the real issue is that this is a business model problem. As we’ve seen over and over and over again, those who embrace what the internet enables, have found themselves to be much better off than they were before. They’re able to build up larger fanbases, and to rely on various new platforms and services to make more money.

The real problem is that the studios and record labels still think of it as an analog world, and have never made the adjustment to digital business models where abundance is free!

Even TorrentFreak aren’t taking themselves seriously with this one, but by extrapolating how much more the MPAA studios would make if all the US BitTorrent traffic moved to NetFlix subscriptions, and comes to the conclusion:

What does this mean?

Nothing. It’s a simplistic attempt to put a number on BitTorrent piracy in the US.

It shows that even when you assume that 90% of all US BitTorrent traffic is dedicated to video piracy, the added revenue for Hollywood in 2010 would have been less than the amount they paid to the MPAA. That is, if all BitTorrent users switched to Netflix.

The real added revenue if BitTorrent disappeared would of course be a fraction of this, as not everyone would start paying.

We don’t want to draw too many conclusions on this simple thought experiment, but it’s something to consider, especially when ISPs are expected to dedicate millions of dollars in resources to send BitTorrent users warning letters early next year. Not to mention the negative effect of the censorship bills that have been proposed recently.

Is it really worth all that?

A terrific article by Nancy Scola at Salon goes into detail why SOPA/PROTECT IP is such a bad idea for the Internet. I strongly recommend you read the whole article as it’s hard to excerpt just part, but I thought this was important:

When it comes to talking about SOPA, it is important to remember this: You can think that “intellectual property” infringement (not only of movies and music, but knockoff Nikes sold online) is bad for the American economy and still think the legislation is a disaster. Not only would the bill likely do little to address the problem of online content fraud and counterfeiting, but it takes aim at the core features of the Internet that have contributed a great deal to the American economy.

Frankly, when you can legitimately pay $7.50 a month for access to millions of tracks, the current statutory fine – up to $150,000 per instance – are way out of balance.  There are far worse things you can do – criminal acts – that incur less of a penalty.

Actually, one third of the respondents thought there should be no fine for what 70% of people apparently are already doing: downloading content that isn’t licensed to them.

ProductionCONN 2011 is a digital media and production industry trade show in Greater Hartford, presented in association with Manhattan Edit Workshop and presenting sponsor AJA Video Systems. With its location at the geographic center of New York and Boston, ProductionCONN 2011 has been positioned as a highly anticipated “not-to-be-missed” east coast trade show.

Recent partnerships with SMPTE and Createasphere (formerly HD Expo), have contributed to our fast rise in industry-recognition. ProductionCONN is proud to bring a caliber of event previously only seen in New York and the West Coast to the heart of New England by delivering outstanding content, speakers, workshops, and exhibitions to our attendees.

We would have loved to be there showing off our latest – Event Manager X and Project X27 – in person, but instead we (partly) sponsored drinks at the reception.  I suspect we’ll be more popular not turning up!

If you’re in the New York, Connecticut or Massachusetts area, Production CONN 2011 is the smaller friendlier alternative to NAB you’ve been looking for.

The ten bullet points from Mark Suster’s talk at The Future of Television. There’s good detail in the text summary, and the full 10 minute talk is available on video.

1. The promise has been made for too long, People are cynical

2. The right factors are finally in place

3. YouTube is the new Comcast

4. The distributed ad platform enabled this industry to evolve

5. Internet TV is following the CLASSIC case of the “Innovator’s Dilemma”

6. Cable & Satellite packages will become music albums

7. Mass adoption of Internet video has already taken place

8. TV is the medium people prefer (whether we like it or not) –

9. Video is different than text. It requires unique, creative skills

10. This revolution is starting in Los Angeles.

I totally agree with this guy. When we moved from the West San Fernando Valley to Burbank we dropped out Dish service largely because the Dish representatives when I was closing out the service simply directly and clearly lied about where they had sent the pickup box, and then tried to charge me for not returning it on time. Dish, therefore, is not a company I would ever do business with again.

So we considered DIRECT TV but they would not issue any type of DVR product at my location, nor were they interested in explaining why. I have news for service providers: if you don’t want to provide me with what I want to buy, I will buy *nothing* from you. And that’s what I did, and now enjoy a mix-match of services, none of which are ideal and none of which really encourage me that there is a company that actually wants my business.

Back to the article:

In a time when people stand in line for Apple products for sometimes days in advance, DIRECTV simplifies its inventory management by sending you whatever unit they please.

and

We’ve all talked about how Apple is constrained by its ability to sign deals for sports and programming content. Apple can make cool hardware, even an HDTV, but unless Apple can strike deals with the studios to deliver primary content, the Apple TV will always be a supplemental device. Even so, I see some serious holes in DIRECTV’s customer relationship model and their hardware technologies. In the long run, a persistent Apple will break through the barriers. The contrast in the way each company does business makes that evident.

Frankly anyone could kill every cable and satellite company by simply caring about customers and actually providing a quaint little thing called “customer service”!

But, you say, aren’t these the people buying off the politicians and forcing this Internet-destroying legislation through?

They are, but they have such an appalling track record of adapting to technology and knowing how that technology will benefit them, that they must be protected from themselves (and we need to be protected from the damage these bills would inflict on the Internet). I mean it quite seriously.  If Thomas Edison would have had his way, there would be no movie projectors as his business was in Kinescope booths.Scott Kirsner does a great job of pointing out “Hollywood’s” track record of missing technology and opposing what ultimately was good for their business, in Inventing the Movies.

But most egregiously where would the Movie business be today if  MPAA boss Jack Valenti prevailed:

I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.

Turns out that was not only completely wrong, but Home Entertainment – the business that grew out of the VCR and then DVD – is now significantly more than revenue from movie theaters/cinemas.  If the MPAA had had their way, the biggest part of their business would not exist today.

Based on their track record, the MPAA and RIAA (and associates) are so wrong, so often that they should be protected from themselves.

Take a moment, and consider where the movie business would be today, if the VCR never existed. And think about just how wrong the MPAA was then to freak out about a technology that later saved it. And consider that perhaps we should wait before changing the law to allow the MPAA to kill off the next “VCR” in the digital age. (Techdirt.com)

Opposing SOPA/PROTECT IP also has the advantage of not breaking the Internet, not putting Justin Beiber in Jail (as would be the case if this law was already in place), and not preventing new startups (like Dropbox) from getting established.

Here’s some reading or viewing:

How Protect IP / SOPA Act Breaks the Internet

The folks behind Fight For the Future have teamed up with Kirby Ferguson, who created the excellent everything is a remix series, have teamed up to put together a video about the problems with PROTECT IP/E-PARASITES.

Content Industry Insists E-PARASITE Won’t Rewrite DMCA, But Co-Author Of The Bill Admits That’s The Plan

But, in this case, why don’t we go to the source: Rep. Bob Goodlatte, supposed co-author of the bill, and the chair of the IP subcommittee in the House. When asked about criticism of the bill by Gautham Nagesh at The Hill, Goodlatte flat out admitted that the intention is to take away the DMCA’s safe harbors:

“I think it is unrealistic to think we’re going to continue to rely on the DMCA notice-and-takedown provision,” Goodlatte said.

“Anybody who is involved in providing services on the Internet would be expected to do some things.”

Why All Filmmakers Should Speak Out Against SOPA by Ross Pruden (Showrunner. Moderator of #infdist, The Infinite Distribution Panel on Twitter for discussing the future of film in the digital age.  Mastermind behind http://infdist.com)

There are many reasons why SOPA and other legislation like it should never be passed, e.g., it fundamentally changes how the internet functions, but here are just two things that should get you thinking:

1. In 1999, I was vehemently against media piracy. It was wrong, I felt, to “rip off” artists without their permission.
2. In 2011, I can say with absolute conviction that I was the one who was flat out wrong.

I’ve worked in the film industry for two decades as a screenwriter, director, assistant director, script supervisor, production assistant… I’ve seen a lot of change in the film industry in the last decade and realized at some point that I was witnessing a transition arising from the internet; the same transition that happened to the music industry in the 90s.

Stop SOPA, Save the Internet by Cory Doctorow

Google knows it. Viacom knows it. The Chamber of Commerce knows it. Internet democracy groups know it. BoingBoing knows it. But, the Internet hasn’t been told yet — we’re going to get blown away by the end of the year. The worst bill in Internet history is about to become law. Law is very real here in the United States and legal language is often different than stated intentions — this law would give government and corporations the power to block sites like BoingBoing over infringing links on at least one webpage posted by their users. Believe the EFF, Public Knowledge, Google when they say this bill is about much more than copyright, it’s about the Internet and free speech everywhere.

The Copy Culture Survey: Infringement and Enforcement in the US - Just one of a number of excellent points and observations:

Solid majorities of American Internet users oppose copyright enforcement when it is perceived to intrude on personal rights and freedoms.   69% oppose monitoring of their Internet activity for the purposes of enforcement.   57% oppose blocking or filtering if those measures also block some legal content or activity.

If it’s so unpopular, why is it even in play?  House Judiciary Committee SOPA Hearings Stacked 5 To 1 In Favor Of Censoring The Internet

The five “pro” speakers are the Register of Copryights, someone from the MPAA, someone from Pfizer, someone from MasterCard, and someone from the AFL-CIO. The choice of MasterCard is deliberate, since Visa is against the bill — because Visa recognizes that supporting a bill that requires them to cut off customers based on accusations of infringement is going to be a huge burden, and one that isn’t good for their own customers.

Furthermore, the “one” against SOPA is going to be Google. This is a strategic choice, because the pro-SOPA folks know that Google is easy to dismiss on this topic, because they’ll claim (not accurately) that Google just wants to profit from infringement.

Future Of Music Coalition “Coming Clean on SOPA”

We at FMC want to see the growth of a legitimate digital music marketplace that rewards creators and fans. We support efforts to protect rightsholders online and encourage fans to participate in platforms where CNET’e creators get paid. We genuinely hope that if Congress gets involved that they find a way to support creativity without compromising free expression and innovation. In its current form, SOPA is not that bill.

The Association of Research Libraries and the Association of College & Research Libraries wrote to Congress opposing the Bill(s):

Two provisions of section 201—the definition of willfulness in section 201(c) and the expansion of criminal penalties to public performances in section 201(a)—are troubling. While each provision is problematic in its own right, the two together could threaten important library and educational activities.

Facebook, Twitter, eBay & Other Big Internet Companies Come Out Against SOPA

We are very concerned that the bills as written would seriously undermine the effective mechanism Congress enacted in the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) to provide a safe harbor for Internet companies that act in good faith to remove infringing content from their sites. Since their enactment in 1998, the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions for online service providers have been a cornerstone of the U.S. Internet and technology industry’s growth and success. While we work together to find additional ways to target foreign “rogue” sites, we should not jeopardize a foundational structure that has worked for content owners and Internet companies alike and provides certainty to innovators with new ideas for how people create, find, discuss, and share information lawfully online. 

SOPA: Hollywood’s latest effort to turn back time CNET’s Larry Downes comments:

SOPA also includes its own version of another Senate bill, which would make it a felony to stream copyrighted works. The House version allows prosecution of anyone who “willfully” includes protected content without permission, including, for example, YouTube videos where copyrighted music is covered or even played in the background.

While supporters deny that such minimal infractions would meet the bill’s definition of “willfully,” the actual text suggests otherwise. Prosecutors need only demonstrate that the use had a total “retail value” of more than $1,000. To avoid a felony conviction, a defendant would have to prove they reasonably believed their conduct was lawful, as for example someone in a “bona fide commercial dispute” over the scope of a license to use the content.

Joe Biden on Internet Freedom = Anti-SOPA

In a stirring and commendable speech, Vice President Joe Biden makes a clear and convincing — if entirely unintended — case for why the massive expansion of copyright laws through SOPA or PROTECT IP would go against everything America stands for, would harm innovation and be bad for entrepreneurs.

Except just a few weeks earlier he was doing the industry’s bidding.

Congress’s Piracy Blacklist Plan: A Cure Worse than the Disease? Time magazine weighs in

There are many reasons to dislike these anti-piracy bills—from overly broad definitions of what counts as infringement, to how they may shift the burden of policing from content owners to the service providers—yet the proposed meddling with the Internet’s Domain Name System is the most alarming.

Study Shows How SOPA/PIPA Will Harm Investment In Key Innovations

This is quite important to think about in the context of SOPA/PIPA, where Hollywood and the US Chamber of Commerce are seeking to massively change the legal framework around cloud computing (effectively killing the Cablevision ruling and much, much more). The clear fear here should be that doing so will massively chill innovation, job creation and investment. This is why top venture capitalists are so worried about SOPA/PIPA. It’ll seriously chill investment in a key area of the innovation ecosystem. Even worse, this is the part of the industry that’s actually helping the entertainment industry move into the 21st century.

A bipartisan bill introduced last week in the House of Representatives would mark a fundamental change in Internet law, shifting liability for copyright piracy from the infringer to the host website.

It would chip away at critical safeguards that have shaped the Internet as we know it today, and many worry it would make it far more difficult for the next YouTube, Facebook or Craigslist to emerge and succeed.

Rep. Darrell Issa Joins Rep. Lofgren In Saying That SOPA Is A Bad Idea

Ron Paul Comes Out Against SOPA; Joins Other Elected Officials Saying No To The Great Firewall Of America

SOPA Will Have Serious Implications For Sports Fans And Blogs

SOPA will target websites distributing pirated material and illegal online streaming by allowing copyright owners to shut down payments and ads to alleged infringers. Under current law, copyright owners (movie studios and record labels) must go to court to block such sites or demand copyrighted content be taken down. The new legislation allows copyright owners to effectively shut down websites simply by accusing them of having copyrighted materials without permission.

Note: The proposed bills do not require anything more than an “accusation”. No proof. No due process, just an accusation.

And now let’s consider some of the ways the industry really lives:

The Secret Behind SOPA Defense: Insist That It Doesn’t Say What It Actually Says

RIAA Explains Its Interpretation Of SOPA; Which Doesn’t Seem To Be Found In The Bill Itself

Warner Bros., Right After Announcing Record Profits, Pleads Poverty In Asking People To Support ‘Grassroots’ Campaign For E-PARASITE Act

Viacom, ‘Decimated By Piracy,’ But Its CEO Got The Biggest Raise Of Any Exec Anywhere

 Viacom chief Philippe P. Dauman topped the charts for the exec with the biggest pay raise in 2010. His total pay was $84.5 million last year — a 148.6% raise on his previous year’s take home. Yes, that’s a $50 million raise.

A Glimpse Of The Future Under SOPA: Warner Bros. Admits It Filed Many False Takedown Notices

Hollywood Front Group Rounds Up 4,000 Letters Sent To Congress, Pretending It’s 100,000

Piracy problems? US copyright industries show terrific health Ars Technica tells us like it is:

Pity the poor people who work in the US “copyright industries.” Battered by a decade of digital piracy and facing even more of it thanks to cheap computers, fast Internet, P2P file-sharing, and online file lockers, the US creative industries teeter on the verge of collapse. You can tell because the industry:

• Pays better than most American jobs
• Has outperformed the US economy through a horrific recession
• Sells record-setting amounts of product overseas, earning more foreign revenue than the entire US food sector or US pharmaceutical companies

Copyright Industries Massive Success Shows That They’re Dying And Need More Draconian Copyright Laws?

Rep. Blackburn, Co-Sponsor Of E-PARASITE, Explains Why Regulating The Internet Is Terrible

Before he was for it, he was against it just a few months back! Do they even now what the legislations says (I vote no, they do not.)

Do The Authors Of The Felony Streaming Bills Even Know What The Details Of Their Own Bills Mean?

All in all, a mixture of incompetence and outright lying. By the way these are only about half the links I have on the subject!

The arguments of the MPAA and RIAA reduced to the level of the absurdity that they are.

The rankings go from just over $100,000 a year up to $300,000 a year. Even for team productions that’s still a decent income from online video. And just like the traditional market, a few people are making good money, and a whole lot more people are making little to nothing from their online video efforts.

But at least it can be done, and young Lucas Cruikshank (a.k.a. “Fred”) with an estimated $149,000 income this year, probably doesn’t have to worry about college tuition fees, if he even wants to go to college.

In other news, Goodnight Burbank has secured a “real” TV deal with Mark Cuban’s HD Net. That’s in addition to the Hulu distribution that they’ve already had. Don’t know what sort of money is involved in the deal, but it’s a long way from the first Goodnight Burbank episodes.

Trivia item: My interview with Hayden Black on the Digital Production BuZZ in October 2007 was his first media interview about the show.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that:

In 1985, the Court ruled in Dowling v United States that copyright infringement is not theft, even when dealing with physical objects, such as vinyl records.

And yet, despite that 1985 ruling so-called “intelligent people” – including VP Biden – have blatantly referred to Copyright Infringement as “theft, plain and simple”, in complete contradiction to law and precedent.

In reality the last thing the RIAA and MPAA want is for copyright infringement (a civil issue) to be prosecuted as theft (criminal).

Firstly, the standard of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt” and it’s very, very unlikely that the discovery process in copyright cases would pass muster. It’s never been proven to be reliable in any court anywhere in the world. An IP address does not identify an individual, no matter what the fantasies of the legacy industries in music and film distribution.

Secondly, the penalties are much more reasonable.

Regardless of your opinions on copyright infringement, in the USA, it’s not theft. Personally, I’d prefer “beyond reasonable doubt”. The article compares the Jammie Thomas case as it has proceeded under copyright infringement and how it would have proceeded had it been tried as theft: bottom line – a much smaller fine (with the potential for a short prison term, although unlikely for the very small amount of value “stolen”, as the criminal case works on actual real value: 99c a song!

Good push back against the ever-growing threat to civil liberties by the RIAA/MPAA and the disastrous PROTECT IP proposed legislation, which has the potential to “break” the Internet as we know it. And that’s exactly what they want, and we don’t.

Slate magazine’s Bill Wyman argues that the movie studios are repeating the mistakes of the record labels of the last decade, by refusing to adapt business models, suing customers and trying to make their business model problem a legal one.

Right now, in fact, the movie and TV business looks a lot like the music one did in the early 2000s. And as we’ve seen, that decade didn’t work out too well for the labels. So it’s worth looking at the situation and wondering how things are going to fare in the TV and movie world in the decade ahead. It can all be summed up in one single sentence. I’ll get to that in a minute.

He goes on to demonstrate how the legal offerings are inconvenient (at best) for the legal customers making unauthorized distribution not only cheaper but a significantly better product:

The trouble facing the movie industry right now is the same one the music industry had to confront 10 years ago. This is the summing-up sentence I referred to above:

The easiest and most convenient way to see the movies or TV shows you want is to get them illegally.

and

Again, to belabor the obvious: The illegal version isn’t just free. It’s better.

He goes on to suggest the solutions, but read the whole article (please), before commenting