Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Next to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer’s roaring lion, they’re like squeaking mice. But despite their obvious handicap, a group of Internet wizards intends to take on Hollywood in the political realm. Two months ago, they set up a political action committee — the Intellectual Property Action Committee, or IPac — to champion less restrictive copyright protection rules for digital content. So far, they’ve pulled in $7,000 in contributions, which they distributed to six candidates — one Senate hopeful, who lost, and five incumbent U.S. representatives, all of whom won. The purpose of the PAC is “to prove to politicians that there is another side to the piracy and file-sharing argument,” said independent political consultant and media blogger Matthew Stoller. Stoller founded IPac with David Alpert, a product manager at Google Inc., and Ren Bucholz, who runs the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s grassroots activism network. Alpert got the idea for the PAC as he saw more people getting involved in the presidential election and as blogs and the Internet became an integral part of political organizing. “In the recent cycle, people focused on partisan issues,” said Alpert. “Now they can devote energy to thinking of other issues beyond left versus right.” Content owners — particularly the motion picture and recording industries — have long fought copy-friendly technology and the people who use it. But since Napster — the one-time music-swapping sensation — debuted four years ago, the fighting hasn’t let up. Earlier this month the Motion Picture Association of America announced it would file lawsuits against people who illegally share movie files online. The move mirrors an aggressive campaign by the Recording Industry Association of America against individuals who swap music files over the Internet. The RIAA has filed suits against more than 1,000 individual computer users this year. The motion picture and recording industries also have been pushing for legislation to further restrict peer-to-peer file sharing. Earlier this year, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, introduced the so-called Induce Act, which would make corporations liable for inducing children and others to commit copyright infringement. While the bill failed this year, it is expected to be reintroduced in the next Congress. “I think there’s a sense the interests of technology companies and the public don’t get through in Congress because Hollywood is well organized and has a lot of connections while the tech industry isn’t,” said Stanford Law School professor Mark Lemley. “The digital civil liberties community is waking up to the problem. IPac is a great example of that.” IPac, which is backing politicians that support intellectual property laws that favor “fair use” access to copyrighted works, hopes its meager war chest will help counter the influence of movie studios and record labels. In the Nov. 2 election, IPac singled out Reps. Rick Boucher, D-Va.; Joe Barton, R-Texas; John Doolittle, R-Calif.; and Christopher Cox, R-Calif., in part for their sponsorship of the Digital Media Consumers’ Rights Act last year. The bill would have modified the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to allow consumers to break encryption technology for fair use access to copyrighted works. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Silicon Valley Democrat, also received funding for co-sponsoring the bill and for introducing legislation that would allow work to go into the public domain if the copyright was not renewed after 50 years. The little bit of cash IPac contributed to these politicians is insignificant next to the $23.9 million contributed in 2004 by the motion picture, television and music industries. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, $4 million of that sum came from PACs. But then Hollywood’s arch enemy in the battle over digital rights — Silicon Valley — has its own deep pockets. In its breakdown of contributions by industry, the Center for Responsive Politics reports that the computer and Internet industries contributed $21.2 million in the 2004 election cycle, of which $3.9 million came from PACs. Still, one voice is missing. “All the legislation moving through Congress is slanted toward more [copyright] protection and more enforcement without any real benefit to consumers,” said Jason Schultz, an EFF staff attorney and IPac contributor. “There’s a need for more of a public voice for the rest of us. In D.C., one of the big ways to get your voice heard is to have money.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.