MPAA’s Strategy for IP Protection Will Continue, Regardless of ‘Grokster’
With a Supreme Court decision looming, MPAA Pres. Dan Glickman expressed optimism Tues. that the content industry will land on the winning side of the landmark MGM v. Grokster case. The justices, expected to rule this month, could reverse the 9th U.S. Appeals Court, San Francisco’s controversial decision, which said peer-to- peer networks aren’t liable for users’ copyright infringements. They could uphold the ruling -- a win for many in high tech -- or remand the case to the Cal. court for further consideration of the “active inducement” liability theory, which comes from the same statute the Supreme Court ruled on in the Sony Betamax case more than 2 decades ago.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Regardless of the outcome, Glickman said, MPAA will continue its campaign to protect intellectual property (IP), which includes pursuing lawsuits against individuals and pirating rings that copy and distribute copyrighted content, as well as educational efforts and technology measures. Young people are at the center of the campaign, Glickman said. “Obviously, we must focus on people who have more hair and are thinner and chronologically less mature than I am,” he joked. The 2 years he spent teaching at the Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics at Harvard U. taught him there are “an awful lot of people who don’t see this as a moral or ethical issue.” Still, the places that needs the most attention are elementary and secondary schools, where students should be taught to “recognize the value of creative works.” Artists, writers, actors and software makers can help.
Another approach is “legislation if necessary,” Glickman said, adding that his brigade of lobbyists will continue “working the Hill” on the assumption that Congress will weigh in on the debate when appropriate. “I don’t want to prejudge what the court will do… but the court can make it easier for us depending on what they intend to say and how clear they are,” Glickman said at a Progress & Freedom Foundation lunch.
Pressed by an analyst on MPAA’s plans to take the offensive, Glickman responded: “I don’t think you can just give up. That’s what we have laws for.” He admitted that Congress is a “pain in the rear end” and is often slow to act, while litigation is expensive and education efforts prove difficult as well. But the country can’t “throw them all away and go to an uncivilized world,” Glickman said. He once again sounded support for consumers’ right to have “hassle free, reasonable cost ways to access content in nontraditional forms.”
Glickman denounced the “radical new movement” that believes that IP should be commonly owned. Those who argue in favor of global commons have little regard for a copyright regime that has served the cause of innovation for decades. “If we've learned anything over the last 50 years… we've learned that abusing private property rights actually leads to less creativity, less technological development and less personal freedoms.” If IP goes unprotected, it could result in a “radical restructuring of the content industry.” Glickman said the American consumer will suffer the most if this change is permitted, because the high quality entertainment that consumers have come to expect will be produced with less and less frequency.
Glickman also addressed other hot communications topics. The content industry had asked for a broadcast flag to protect over-the-air programming, but the U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., recently ruled that the FCC didn’t have authority to impose such rules. An MPAA spokesman told us this month the group isn’t likely to push to include the flag in DTV legislation, given public objections by House Commerce Committee Chmn. Barton (R- Tex.). But Glickman said Tues. that the MPAA is “still looking at ways to try to pass the broadcast flag.” Glickman also said his members have been “working on the pros and cons” of the DTV transition deadline. “There’s concern to make sure that consumers are adequately protected when they wake up one day and find out that the television set in their house doesn’t work,” he said. If Congress doesn’t build consumer protections into the deadline, “you'll have a lot of disgruntled consumers out there.” Glickman declined to comment on the details of MPAA’s legislative strategy as Capitol Hill considers the issue. Increased govt. consideration of indecency standards on cable and satellite TV providers worries Glickman as well. As an association, the MPAA hasn’t taken a position, but he said most of his member companies are “extremely worried about the FCC venturing into this area -- but it’s not unanimous.” Glickman’s view is that the “we need to do our best to protect artistic value” and “the road to censorship is not necessarily a long road.”