Online companies win piracy fight

2012-01-22 14:26

Washington - Outspent but hardly outgunned, online and high-tech companies triggered an avalanche of internet clicks to force Congress to shelve legislation that would curb online piracy. They outmanoeuvred the entertainment industry and other old guard business interests, leaving them bitter and befuddled.

Before Senate and House leaders set aside the legislation on Friday, the movie and music lobbies and other Washington fixtures, including the US Chamber of Commerce, had put in play their usually reliable tactics to rally support for the bills.

There were e-mail campaigns, television and print ads in important states, a Times Square billboard, and uncounted phone calls and visits to congressional offices in Washington and around the country. That included about 20 trips to the Capitol by leaders of the National Songwriters Association International, often accompanied by songwriters who performed their hits for lawmakers and their staffs.

"We bring our guitars on our backs," said songwriter Steve Bogard, the association's president.

Such campaigns are often music to the ears of lawmakers. This time, however, it was smothered by an online outpouring against the legislation that culminated on Wednesday. According to organizers, at least 75 000 websites temporarily went dark that day, including the English-language online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, joined by 25 000 blogs.


"The US Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open internet," said a message on Wikipedia's home page, which was shrouded in shadows and provided links to help visitors reach their members of Congress.

Thousands of other sites posted messages protesting the bills and urging people to contact lawmakers. Protest leaders say that resulted in 3 million e-mails.

Google, its logo hidden beneath a stark black rectangle, solicited 7 million signatures on a petition opposing the bills. Craigslist counted 30 000 phone calls to lawmakers and there were 3.9 million tweets on Twitter about the bills, according to NetCoalition, which represents leading internet and high tech companies.

"It's still something we're trying to comprehend," said Google spokesperson Samantha Smith. "We had such an overwhelming response to our petition that it honestly far exceeded our expectations."

As co-sponsors of the bills peeled away, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Friday postponed a vote that had been set for this Tuesday on moving to the legislation. The vote seemed doomed well beforehand. Representative Lamar Smith, chairperson of the House Judiciary Committee, also put off further work. "I have heard from the critics," he said.


Just weeks ago, the bills seemed headed toward quiet approval with bipartisan backing that ranged from liberals such as RepresentativeHoward Berman, a California Democrat, to conservatives such as Senator Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican. The turnabout was so unexpected that some think the online world's triumph signals a pivotal moment marking its arrival as Washington's newest power broker.

"This does serve as a watershed moment," said Jennifer Stromer-Galley, a communications professor at the State University of New York at Albany who studies how political groups use high technology. "Certain channels for communication that people routinely use have the power to get their users to become political activists on their behalf."

Both bills are aimed at thwarting illegal downloads and sales of thousands of American movies, songs and books, as well as counterfeit pharmaceuticals, software and other copyrighted products. They would do so by making it easier to stop American websites and search engines from steering visitors to largely foreign websites that pirate the items.

Supporters estimate that online piracy costs the US at least $100bn annually and thousands of jobs; even the bills' critics say sales of pirated products must be stopped. But foes say the legislation goes too far, threatening to curb internet free speech, stifle online innovation and burden online businesses with damaging regulations.

"People love their internet. They use it every day, they don't want it to change and they don't want Washington messing with it," said Maura Corbett, spokesperson for NetCoalition.

Online frenzy

Claims that "big brother" would oversee the internet infuriate bill supporters, who say their opponents employed fear-mongering and distortion to foment an online frenzy.

"They've misidentified this issue as an issue about your internet, your internet is being jeopardised," said Mike Nugent, executive director of Creative America, a coalition of entertainment unions, movie studios and television networks. "In fact their business model is being asked to be subjected to regulation. They're misleading their huge base."

Misleading or not, the online community had a huge impact on members of Congress, with many saying they heard little from the entertainment industry but plenty from internet users.

"Everyone's online, and a lot of people online are very inclined to complain about" new fees and other problems, said Representative Gerald Connolly, a Virginia Democrat. "It's a culture of fairly quick mobilisation."

The bills' champions said they purposely avoided hauling entertainment celebrities to Washington, saying they preferred to focus on how the measure would help the entire economy.


"If we brought in Hollywood stars, that would play into the other side's narrative that this is all about Hollywood," said Steven Tepp, who helped guide the campaign for the Chamber of Commerce. "We want to keep the focus on the reality that this is much, much broader."

In the end, the outcome showed the lobbying world is changing, said Kathy Garmezy, an official with the Directors Guild of America, which supports the bills.

"Of course you say to yourself, 'What can you change?'" she said. "I don't think we've come to conclusions or closure."

Participants say last week's online protests were spawned last fall, as Congress was writing the bills and internet users started chatting and e-mailing about them.

The blogging service Tumblr called attention to the measures on its website in November. Other efforts also garnered attention, including a drive by owners to remove their domain names from, which sells domain names and was a supporter of the anti-piracy legislation.


Among the first to publicly say they would darken their sites on Wednesday were Reddit and Wikipedia.

"Like most things on the internet, it was very unorganised and chaotic," said Erik Martin, Reddit's general manager.

In terms of their Washington presence, online businesses are adolescents compared to the well-established industries they are battling.

According to Maplight, a nonpartisan group that analyses money's role in politics, current senators have received $14.4m over the past six years from entertainment interest groups supporting the online piracy bills, seven times the $2m they got from internet groups opposing the legislation.

The differences are also stark when it comes to lobbying.


Google, one of the internet world's largest players in Washington, spent $5.9m lobbying on all issues during the first nine months of 2011, according to data from the Centre for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. The Chamber of Commerce spent $46m, the most in town.

Even so, online businesses have been beefing up their representation in Washington, the centre's figures show.

Google's $5.9m paid for 112 lobbyists last year, more than double the $2.8m it spent for 54 lobbyists in 2008. Facebook's $910 000 for lobbying during the first three quarters of 2011 paid for 21 lobbyists, compared with two lobbyists and $351 000 it spent a year earlier.

High tech companies are also learning the value of big names. One Google lobbyist is former Missouri Representative Richard Gephardt, a House Democratic leader and presidential candidate. Last year, Facebook hired Joe Lockhart, a press secretary for President Bill Clinton, as vice president of global communications.

Bill supporters lost one advantage because former Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, chairperson of the Motion Picture Association of America, could not personally lobby senators. The Capitol Hill veteran retired from the Senate last year and is legally barred from lobbying his former colleagues for two years. 

  • Christo - 2012-01-22 17:18

    So does this mean SOPA is a thing of the past or not?

  • Gerry - 2012-01-22 19:12

    Billionaires created SOPA - - and fought against it - - Hollywood, MLB, NFL, NBA in favor - - Zuckerberg, Brin & Page (Google), David Filo and Jerry Yang (Yahoo) etc., opposed

  • Zyklon85 - 2012-01-22 21:27

    isohunt brought me here

  • Willem Venter - 2012-01-22 22:24

    Although piracy is the issue the supporters of this bill highlighted, I think it is more about money and the control of sales. What they tried to do was the equivalent of closing all radio stations and libraries to force people to buy books and music. The implications of this law would mean that any website linking or containing copyrighted material would be closed. This would include any website where a user can post links or upload content. A malicious user could post an incriminating link there and report that link to the authorities and this site would be closed. Who in their right mind would attempt to close all search engines, social media and forums like this one? I hope the power hungry companies now realize that they are not as omnipotent as they thought. Information wants to be free...

  • Retardus - 2012-01-23 09:24

    I understand that Piracy is a big problem but... Waiting 6 months for the 'Movie of the year' and the paying a crap load of money to see it on a big screen (out of focus) with horrible sound. As for TV episodes... If I have to sit through 5 million adds, the least the SABC can do is import quality entertainment. I personally believe that as long as Brangelina gets $ 25 million for a 120 min movie, Piracy isn't a big deal. Lets talk again when they start earning $ 500 000 p/a.

  • ludlowdj - 2012-01-23 10:48

    The scope of the act is to broad and gives the US unprecedented power in respect to detention and conviction of foreign nationals. Although just set aside for now we need to ensure that this law never sees the light of day and that the US's power is restricted to within its own borders. Contrary to their propaganda, the US is not the protector of the free world, nor are they the land of the free. The US presents a very real threat to world peace and the continued autonomy of western governments, as does the UK, its longtime sidekick.

      Steward - 2012-01-24 18:31

      I never agreed with this view till the past few weeks. How the swiss government can allow the americans to dictate terms with regards to their banks I wouldn't know. Now they want to control the internet?

  • pages:
  • 1