Slashdot Mirror
Rumors of a 'Whisper Campaign' Forming Against Fair Use
An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica reports that a group of companies and organizations it calls 'big content' is currently engaged in a worldwide 'whisper campaign' against Fair Use. 'The counter-reformation in question takes the form of a "whispering campaign" in which ministries in different countries are told that plans to expand fair use rights might well run afoul of the Berne Convention's "three-step test." The Convention, which goes back to the late 1800s, was one of the earliest international copyright treaties and is now administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).'"
It's lobbying.
Politics does not select for politicians who are deep thinkers -- although possibly there may be a few odd examples. Politics favors the gregarious, the people pleasers, the networkers.
So, suppose you are such a person, who makes his way in the world by being popular. You aren't stupid by any means, and let's stipulate for the purposes of argument you are not corrupt, but well intentioned. Still it's a fair bet you probably aren't the kind of person who likes to hike to a lonely spot in the mountains, to spend a pleasant afternoon contemplating the role of the unrestricted flow of information in maintaining a vibrant and free society.
But this is exactly the most important kind of issue that comes in front of you as an elected official. And in all probably, you don't have a deep reservoir of accumulated thought to draw upon when this comes up. You have deeply held convictions but you haven't worked out how they all apply in cases like these.
So, being a gregarious person, you draw upon the thoughts of others who had the foresight to propose the connections in advance. Furthermore, being a people pleaser by nature, your first inclination when they did this was to receive their argument favorably. You certainly did not tear it down and throw it in their face as a load of rubbish.
Having received the argument favorably, and since the argument connects the question to some of your values, like "private enterprise", you're primed to take it up as your own.
That's why buying access is such a huge win for special interests and a huge loss for democracy. It's not that there isn't corruption, of course there is. But a politician doesn't have to be personally corrupt for you to corrupt his opinions.
It's an odd thing, but being the kind of person who likes to spend quiet afternoons contemplating big questions, I have found vigorous "men of action" remarkably easy to steer. They're always up to do something and they think of themselves as "far sighted", but that usually means they don't have a clear view of how the ground in front of their feet is connected to the goals they see on the horizon. And they tend to be completely unaware that they are acting without a road map, so when you slip one under their nose, they internalize it. You can see that this is just one of many possible alternatives, but they have a way of seeing it as the one true path that they have been following all along.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'm not the same AC as this guy, but it's funny he mentions them in the context of a "whisper campaign" against fair use.
Sonny Bono was a Scilon and a Congressman. In 1998, he didn't just argue for copyright extension, he got the Mickey Mouse Protection Act named after him: The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA).
The Scilons, via Bono and via the rest of their Hollywood connections, were strong advocates for the DMCA. Within months of its passage, they were using DMCA threats to out critics and open them up for further harassment. They've used the DMCA as a legal cudgel against everyone from Google (they tried to prevent Google from linking to critics' sites) to Slashdot (the only time in Slashdot history that the Editors have been forced to delete a post).
Using back channels to lobby for the end of fair use would be a major legislative victory for the Scilons; the only reason they don't sue on the basis of the phrase "seventy-five million years ago" is because they'd be laughed out of court. Under cult doctrine, "the purpose of a lawsuit is not to win, but to harass", and if fair use (using quotations from cult materials for purposes of parody, expression, or criticism) goes away, they'd have standing to file such suits.
That AC's closer to the truth than he knows. It wouldn't surprise me one damn bit to see the Scilons behind this.