TeleRead Update #5
TeleRead Update #5 
$730,000+ to U.S. Politicians from
Copyright Lobby Worried about Net, a report by the Center for Responsive Politics
Educators, Baby Bells, Others vs. Clinton
Copyright Policy, by Mark Voorhees, Information
Law Alert
Some of TeleRead's most interested readers live outside the States, in countries ranging from Australia to Sweden. I'm not surprised. In copyright and high-tech, the United States often sets the trends. And sometimes that isn't for the better.
Here is an urgent warning not to look to the U.S. these days as a model on copyright matters. Bruce Lehman, the ex-lobbyist who is Bill Clinton's czar of intellectual property, has politicized the drafting of copyright law to enrich Hollywood tycoons and other fat cats at the expense of schools, libraries, and the Internet. The Lehman-influenced White Paper wouldn't force everything on the Net to be copyrighted. But life would be harder for Internet sites and commercial services. In effect, they could be exposed to heavy penalties if they didn't set up copyright Gestapos to police their users. Encumbered by onerous technical requirements, providers of free information would suffer. See the Voorhees article for more on why law professors and even hardware manufacturers are seething. Also check out Pamela Samuelson's article in the January 1996 Wired magazine.
Stop Lehman! Copyright law is an international creature. Wherever you live, tell your government not to replicate Lehman's backwardness in the network era. Let's update existing international copyright law through a modern system of TeleRead-style national digital libraries that would be fair to readers, copyright holders, and Net providers alike.
Meanwhile, as proof that the old, entrenched interests are trying to buy a Net-hostile copyright policy from the White House and the U.S. Congress, I'm reproducing an article from the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Center has counted up some campaign donations from copyright-related industries and some people opposing them.
For just the first half of 1995, campaign gifts from the copyright interests reached $730,055, and this is merely the tip of green iceberg if you add in past contributions and those made in late '95.
People linked to the controversial West Publishing--just one of many companies lobbying against the interests of schools and libraries--made $738,000 in donations to national politicians in a five-year period, according to the Taxpayer Assets Project, a Nader-founded group. Copyright, of course, isn't the only reason why West, Hollywood, and other industries make donations. But the effect is the same. In an era of expensive TV advertising, American politicians don't just count votes; they count dollars. You might say that the money is fully multitasking.
The powerful aroma of campaign cash mixed with copyright law is nothing new to readers of the TeleRead Page and my book NetWorld! Still, the Center for Responsive Politics has enriched the debate with many new details going beyond my own efforts, which themselves were based on printouts I requested last spring from the group.
"During the first half of 1995, members of the Creative Incentive Coalition and other companies supporting strong copyright controls on the NII contributed $245,500 in soft money to both parties, with the majority, 61 percent, going to the Democrats," the Center now reports. It notes: "The Hollywood entertainment industry was an important source of campaign money for President Clinton in his 1992 election." That hasn't changed. Just recently the Clinton people benefited from a $50,000-a-couple fund raiser at the home of Steven Spielberg. Any mystery why the White House let a gang of entertainment magnates serve on the 37-member National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council but included just one librarian and K-12 educator?
Political Action Committees "associated with members of the CIC, along with other PACs representing movie, software, cable, and recording concerns, contributed $484,555 to congressional candidates during the first half of this year, 69 percent to Republicans," according to the Center. Add that in with the $245,500 and you've accounted for the $730,000.
You can bet the Republicans want their share of the big bucks from the copyright lobby. As reported by the Washington Post of October 25, Republican Congressman Sonny Bono, yes, the ex-singer of "Sonny and Cher" fame, has told Hollywood and similar interests to "to 'write your own legislation and bring it to us'" on issues such as copyright. Helpfully he does not promise that submissions will become law. But, hey, Sonny, they've bought you, babe. True, your recent $2,250 from the copyright interests isn't overwhelming, but we know there's more where that came from. Keep pandering away.
I'll add a little more interpretation to the valuable material below from the Center for Responsive Politics. Although some educational groups have made large donations to national politicians, such organizations have many priorities other than copyright. With major exceptions--the American Library Association is a notable one--the biggest white-hat groups have not taken the time to understand the details of the copyright debate. I hope they will in the future, now that the Center has treated us to an inside look at the bidding war on Capitol Hill.
There is one bright hope in the copyright controversy. Phone companies and online services have caught on to the fact that Bruce Lehman's anti-network copyright proposals are a threat to them. And in money-driven Washington, D.C., it may be hard for his Hollywood friends to outbid the rich Baby Bells. Live by buck, die by the buck.
For more information on campaign donations in the United States:
Project Vote Smart (covers
many issues beyond donations but is a good way for Americans and
overseas people alike to understand The System)
The
Coin-Operated Congress (from Mother Jones magazine)
[Top of Page | TeleRead Home Page]
"Copyrighting the Net" appeared in the Money In Politics Alert, Vol. 1, #23, dated November 20, 1995, from the Center for Responsive Politics, 1320 19th St., N.W., Suite #700, Washington, D.C. 20036, telephone 202-857-0044, fax 202-857-7809, email info@crp.org. Nancy Watzman and Jay Youngclaus produced the Alert article. The Center also offers other publications including the bimonthly Capital Eye: A Close-Up Look at Money in Politics. The group accurately describes itself as a "nonpartisan, nonprofit organization" and "does not take sides on the substance of any particular bill or policy debate." It does not speak for me, I do not speak for it, and all hypertext links on this page are mine. Thanks to the Center for its kindness in letting me reproduce the article.
Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property held their first joint hearing on H.R. 2441 and S. 1284, the "National Information Infrastructure Copyright Protection Act of 1995." The bills are based on a Clinton administration white paper, itself the product of a special committee chaired by Bruce Lehman, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and a former copyright lobbyist.
Supporting the legislation are the motion picture, recording, publishing, cable, and software industries--businesses that make their money from creating and marketing original works. They all want strong copyright protection as part of the National Information Infrastructure (NII). But libraries, education associations, consumer groups, and cyber policy groups argue that the legislation goes too far, and would potentially punish those who want to share magazine articles, books, educational materials, and other information over the Internet.
Microsoft, Time Warner Inc., and West Publishing Company are among the industry heavyweights who belong to the Creative Incentive Coalition (CIC), represented by Podesta and Associates, a lobby firm with strong administration ties. (President Anthony Podesta is brother of John Podesta, President Clinton's former staff secretary.) CIC's recent lobbying activities include a pre-hearing briefing "where we demonstrated piracy on the Internet," according to spokesperson Erica Bonnett. The recording industry showed the committees "a Sheryl Crow home page, where they had all this music, album covers, cassette covers--and all of it was unauthorized."
Together, PACs associated with members of the CIC, along with other PACs representing movie, software, cable, and recording concerns, contributed $484,555 to congressional candidates during the first half of this year, 69 percent to Republicans. Many of these companies also have the telecom reform bill at the top of their legislative lists, so it's not surprising that the top recipients are Senate Commerce Chairman Larry Pressler (R-S.D.), with $22,201, and House Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance Chairman Jack Fields (R-Texas), with $21,000. Still, members of the Judiciary committees considering the new legislation are recipients of PAC contributions from these interests. (See charts.)
The American Library Association is heading the new Digital Future Coalition, made up of libraries, education associations, and other groups with concerns about the legislation. Just one member--the National Education Association--has a PAC, which distributed $75,740 to congressional candidates during the first half of 1995, 97 percent to Democrats. They may, however, have some industry allies. Baby Bells and online companies, which are in the business of transmitting intellectual property, as opposed to creating it, may have concerns about the legislation. During the first half of 1995, PACs for Baby Bell companies distributed $630,147 to congressional candidates, 76 percent to Republicans.
The Hollywood entertainment industry was an important source of campaign money for President Clinton in his 1992 election. At the time of the Democratic convention, he had raised nearly $260,000 in contributions of $200 and above from executives working in the television and movie production industries. From January 1991 to December 1992, the Democratic Party raised $1.7 million in soft money contributions from these same sources, while the Republican Party raised just $289,000.
During the first half of 1995, members of the Creative Incentive Coalition and other companies supporting strong copyright controls on the NII contributed $245,500 in soft money to both parties, with the majority, 61 percent, going to the Democrats.
Carlos J. Moorhead (R-Calif): $6,500
John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich): $5,196
Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va): $4,000
Rick Boucher (D-Va): $3,500
Xavier Becerra (D-Calif): $3,000
Charles T. Canady (R-Fla): $2,500
Sonny Bono (R-Calif): $2,250
Howard Coble (R-NC): $2,000
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif): $1,549
George W. Gekas (R-Pa): $1,500
F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis): $1,000
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): $1,000
*PACs associated with Creative Incentive Coalition and movie, software, cable, and recording industry PACs coded by the Center.
Committee members not listed did not receive PAC contributions from these interests.
[Top of Page | TeleRead Home Page]
Amount (Next Election)
Fred Thompson (R-Tenn): $13,500 (1996)
Spencer Abraham (R-Mich): $4,300 (2000)
Mike DeWine (R-Ohio): $2,500 (2000)
Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo): $2,250 (1996)
Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa): $2,000 (1998)
Strom Thurmond (R-SC): $1,250 (1996)
Russell Feingold (D-Wis): $1,000 1998
The PACs were associated with Creative Incentive Coalition and movie, software, cable, and recording industry PACs coded by the Center. Members not listed did not receive such donations.
[Note: More links to committee member info to come.-D.H.R.]
[Top of Page | TeleRead Home Page]
Soft money contributions from groups supporting strong copyright controls on the NII, January - June 1995
MCA*: $15,000 to Republicans; $100,000 to Democrats; $115,000 total
Time Warner+: $30,000 to Republicans; $31,000 to Democrats; $61,000 total
Sony Corp. of America*: $30,000 to Republicans; $15,000 to Democrats; $45,000 total
Comcast: $15,000 to Republicans; $0 to Democrats; $15,000 total
Microsoft+: $5,000 to Republicans; $0 to Democrats; $5,000 total
Walt Disney Co.: $0 to Republicans; $3,000 to Democrats; $3,000 total
Magazine Publishers of America+: $0 to Republicans; $1,500 to Democrats; $1,500 total
*Total came from more than one contributor affiliated with this group.
+ = member of Creative Incentive Coalition (CIC)
[Top of Page | TeleRead Home Page]
Can librarians and academics team up with some hardware people and the Baby Bells to defeat legislation based on the anti-library, anti-net White Paper from Clinton Administration? They're giving it a try, anyway. Below is the October 13, 1995, issue of Information Law Alert published by Mark Vorhees. Usual disclaimer: He doesn't speak for me and I don't speak for him. - David H. Rothman, rothman@clark.net.
[Top of Page | TeleRead Home Page]
By Mark Voorhees
A diverse group of academics, librarians, industry officials, and privacy advocates met today to plot opposition to the Administration's efforts to modify copyright law.
About 40 people met at American University in Washington, D.C., to share their concerns and figure out how to try to modify the legislation. Although their specific agendas vary greatly, the members of the meeting share a common concern that the legislation favors content providers over consumers and distributors.
Among the attendees were professors Peter Jaszi of American University. Pamela Samuelson of University of Pittsburgh, Jessica Littman of Wayne State University, and David Post of Georgetown; Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center; representatives of the telephone, broadcast, and computer industry, and librarians.
Despite the diverse nature of the group, it is aligned against powerful interests strongly supportive of the Administration's approach to copyright, the software and recording industry, publishers, and studios, among others.
The Administration's legislative package grows out of a nearly two-year effort to examine how to protect intellectual property in a digital, networked environment An Administration task force, chaired by Patent Commissioner Bruce Lehman released its final report, the white paper," complete with proposed legislation, in early September. Hearings are likely to be held next month.
The legislation would explicitly give copyright holders the right to distribute works via "transmission," a seemingly technical amendment that particularly riles professors; would allow libraries the ability to make archival copies of digital works, a change librarians see as insufficient; and outlaw devices primarily intended to defeat copy-protection schemes, a ban many in the computer and user community believe chips away at hard-fought court battles expanding fair use, reverse engineering, and interoperability.
The Administration deliberately omitted from its legislative package any relief from punishment for online service providers, which are now strictly liable for infringements committed by their customers. The white paper also offers controversial interpretations of unsettled law. For example, the paper's interpretation of the first-sale doctrine, if adopted by courts, would limit the ability of the owners of copyright works to dispose of them. The magnetic force drawing the individuals to the meeting was their common belief, in the words of one participant, that the white paper "while purporting to be fair is extremely unbalanced."
[Top of Page | TeleRead Home Page]
Whether the group can transform and animate their ideological opposition into a political force remains to be seen. Standing alone, academics and librarians don't hold much sway. But aligned with the computer. telephone, and online industries, they would pick up considerable strength.
Lehman has presented the proposed copyright changes as relatively minor and noncontroversial depicted the critics as the digital equivalents of long-haired beatniks. To the extent that academics don't have much skin in the game--arguably, they represent consumer interests--Lehman may have a point. But it's hard to dismiss opponents such as Sun Microsystems, the Baby Bells, and broadcasters--all represented at the meeting--as fringe players.
Bell Atlantic and U.S. West recognized long ago, for example, that the Administration's proposals could make it harder for them to distribute digital works. Broadcasters are concerned that the so-called transmission" right could lead to unintended consequences, such as additional royalty payments. And Sun, as always, is concerned that the proposals would make it more difficult to create open systems and networks.
These are not minor issues. But do they stand a chance against the forces that want to make the Internet safe at any cost?
NOTE: You can reach the Digital Future Coalition's site at http://home.worldweb.net/dfc--DR.
(c) 1995 Mark Voorhees. Unauthorized duplication prohibited by law. Reproduced here by permission. (Thanks, Mark!)
For information, call 718-369-0906 or 800-369-4840, or fax 718-369-3250. Email address: voorhees@interport.net.
Online: Individual articles from Information Law Alert are also available electronically to subscribers of NewsNet (800-952-0122); Dialog (800-334-2564); and Dow Jones News Retrieval (800-522-3567).
[Top of Page | TeleRead Home Page]