The media companies are their own worst sources of bad publicity. They act like gangsters, and the public believes they are gangsters.

The media companies are clearly on the losing side of the war against Internet users, and as Doctorow correctly states, they are clueless to the changes that have occurred since 1996. There is absolutely no way that the entertainment industry, even with its billions of dollars, will be able to overcome the social powers of the decentralized Internet community’s efforts. History has shown that even the most powerful of leaders cannot oppose a diverse opposition with no single weak point to exploit. The media companies will be defeated no matter what, eventually.

But they won’t go away any time soon either. Whether we like it or not, the media companies will continue to garner high profits with which they will use to their advantage. During the Great Depression, when the rest of the economy was in shambles, the entertainment industry continued to prosper. This long-lasting struggle between Internet users and the entertainment corporations will probably drag on for a long time, leaving significant collateral damage amidst the crossfire.

While it’s not the 1990’s, the laws from the 1990’s – “almost entirely designed by the entertainment industry” – continue to haunt us today. The No Electronic Theft (NET) Act of 1997 made noncommercial copyright infringement a crime (rather than an cause for a civil suit) by changing the definition of “commercial advantage or private financial gain.” “Perpetual copyright on the installment plan,” a slogan by critics of copyright extension, is most recently applicable to the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998. This law has eliminated a potential public domain for future creative works by retroactively extending copyright, earning itself a nickname as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, in reference to its effect on the earliest Mickey Mouse cartoons. Ironically, these same cartoons would have constituted copyright infringement had our current copyright law applied to works that the Mickey Mouse cartoons were based off, such as the 19th century fairy tales by the Brothers Grimm. The Digitial Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed in the same year, has continued to harm free speech and market competition. This law makes any non-official implementation of a DVD player in the United States illegal, including free software implementations, and provides a loophole by which media companies can expand the powers of copyright to prevent competing technologies. It also has been widely used to silence political speech, including against critics of the Church of Scientology and against official campaign videos by the McCain-Palin presidential campaign. We can’t ignore the cumulative effects of these laws to date.

Despite Doctorow’s examples of successful efforts against copyright expansion, there also exist a number of recent unsuccessful efforts. The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act, which become law in October 2008, is a recent example of the success of media corporations. While critics were successful in getting the most blatantly corrupt aspects thrown out – conducting civil suits with taxpayer money on behalf of private copyright holders (i.e. media corporations) and awarding these winnings to the holders – the law nevertheless increased copyright infringement penalties and following on past work in combating drug trafficking, created a new office in the executive branch of the federal government called the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative (USIPER), more commonly known as the “copyright czar.” My letters to my Senators, Representative, and President were unheard; the President failed to use his veto power when he really needed it.

The entertainment companies still have the higher ground. Not only do they have the inertia of passed laws, but they also happen to have their political party of choice in the executive office as leader of America and model for the world. The President’s second in command is even more representative of their interests.

Don’t let me be misunderstood. I don’t lack respect for President Obama. He’s a great man who’s managed to succeed through many obstacles. He also dedicated himself to great ideals of change, and possesses an understanding of the Internet’s social power – after all, the Internet was key to his success in the election. What I find troubling, rather, is not the lack of character in our President, but the fact that a man of such great character and ideals can be so easily subverted by simple corporate interests. Somehow, he’s managed to walk back on the ideals of the same movement that propelled him forward.

During the primaries, Professor Lawrence Lessig of Stanford University served as Mr. Obama’s Technology Adviser. Lessig is the leading voice of moderate copyright liberalism. He’s the author of several books relating to copyright, including Free Culture, which details and opposes the political efforts of the entertainment industry. He’s also the founder of the Creative Commons project, the most notable icon of the free culture movement towards copyright liberalism. And in the past year, Professor Lessig has changed his focus towards combating political corruption, specifically the efforts of corporations and their lobbyists to control politics.

This pick for a technology adviser is no coincidence. Mr. Obama knew very well what he was doing when he campaigned: he was trying to be the hero of change that people would idealize and admire. But President Obama is a different person. From the moment he picked Biden as his running mate, the tables started to turn. Senator Biden, in contrast, in contrast to Mr. Obama, was a conservative Democrat who had supported the Iraq War and incidentally – one of the greatest representatives of the American film (MPAA) and recording (RIAA) industry in Congress.

Like the public interest representatives in Doctorow’s analysis, Professor Lessig has been basically cut off from the candidate he helped place on the Democratic ballot. President Obama has little connection to Lessig, neither through copyright views nor through Lessig’s work on fighting political corruption. In fact, President Obama has taken a stance towards copyright worse than his predecessor, an indicator of the sad reality of corruption in America’s leading liberal party.

When President Obama appointed two RIAA lawyers to top senior Justice Department positions, the Internet’s political and consumerist groups grew concerned, and the RIAA applauded the decision. A number of diverse consumer interest groups, including the EFF, Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports), Internet Archive, Wikimedia Foundation (organization operating Wikipedia), and Public Knowledge, sent an open letter to President Obama about the conflict of interest. Especially considering the Justice Department’s recent intervention in a civil copyright infringement case on the side of the media corporations, how could we expect impartial interpretations of copyright? Such decisions could easily be attributed to simple error, so concern died down. But then these same groups become alarmed when President Obama hired three more RIAA lawyers, sending the political equivalent to the public interest groups as “get lost!”

Last Tuesday, Vice President Biden attended a private dinner held by MPAA lobbyists as the guest speaker. First, he stated that “piracy is pure theft,” a statement that is wrong both legally and morally. US law treats theft and copyright infringement as two very different actions with two different penalties. Copyright infringment can often be noncommercial, while theft by its nature never is. Morally, theft deprives the owner of something, while copyright infringement makes a second copy. If I stole your car, you would be deprived of a car and the ability to drive; if I copied your car, we could both drive. Secondly, he told the lobbyists that President Obama “will find the right person for intellectual property czar,” in reference to the newly-created copyright czar position established by the PRO-IP Act late last year. When Biden’s past history with the MPAA and RIAA is taken into consideration, along with the audience that he made the statement towards, “right” most likely appears to be one who is a puppet of the entertainment industry.

The United States is not alone, but it is a role model with great influence. Last week, right after the publication of Doctorow’s analysis, the European Parliament retroactively extended musical copyright by 20 years, just in time to freeze the passage of early Beatles music into the public domain. Currently, Canadian media lobbyists are claiming that Canadian copyright law is lax and therefore requires the passing of laws similar to the American DMCA.

Cory Doctorow’s analysis is correct. Big entertainment is clueless and their attempts to manipulate politics can easily backfire. The Internet community has advanced since 1996 to protect its interests; it’s more difficult now for the entertainment industry to get “anydamnfoolthing” passed. And yes, groups like the EFF can take “the tiniest amount of funding … leverage them with the Internet’s help, and beat the hell out of huge, powerful entertainment companies.” We should be proud. But we shouldn’t call victory yet: Big Media is fighting back. Media corporations are managing to get their laws passed despite consumer opposition. The amount of concern outside of the Internet community towards the secretive nature of the ACTA is relatively limited. President Obama, a man who started with copyright liberalism sympathies, has taken a stand towards copyright worse than his predecessor. Protecting the Internet won’t be easy; Big Media is determined to destroy it at whatever costs. We cannot afford to end our tireless efforts – we must remain vigilant.

1. Pay for music we like after hearing it, rather than music we may like
2. Give to the artists instead of the recording companies
3. Give to people who make what we like about a movie; If we like the plot, we pay the writers; If we like the acting, we pay the actors.
4. Get instant access to any music for people to request at parties
5. Watch any movie streamed online instead of going to the rental store or waiting for it to come in the mail
6. Pay what we think the music is worth, rather than what someone else thinks the music is worth
7. Remix and Mashup
8. Use less CDs and DVDs, therefor creating less waste
9. Ship less CDs and DVDs, reducing global warming
10. Create less CDs and DVDs, making other products that use similar materials cheaper
11. Listen to more music whithout giving less money to the people who make it
12. Watch more movies, without giving less to those make them
13. Pay for music once, instead whenever there is a new way to play it
14. Give better artists more money for making better music
15. Listen to the same song on an iPod, on a computer, and in a car
16. Not get falsly accused of piracy
17. Get monitored less by ISPs, resulting in faster internet
18. Share music and videos files via DVDs, flash media, or LAN, using less bandwidth, giving everyone faster internet
19. Read less about the RIAA and MPAA legal battles, giving us more time for more important news
20. Let people who are financially challenged listen to music and watch movies
21. Stop paying profiteers for music from artists that are long dead
22. Listen to music even after accidentally breaking the CD
23. Let the blind listen to books on an Amazon Kindle
24. Pay for music and movies instead of lawyers
25. Not ruin computers with DRM software when installing a game

These are just a few things that copyright laws prevent.

Most films that are censored are aimed at an adult audience, thus the previous mentioned quote is untrue, for censorship is used to protect everyone from the damaging effects of horrific, sexual or violent images and idea. The images and ideas that are believed to need protecting from vary from classification system to classification system.

This variation is caused by cultural influences, governmental control and general public debate in conjunction with the classification board. Therefore every film will get a different classification and or different cuts pertaining to the country in which the classification is given. In the United States of America the classification of films is completed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

In Australia the Office of Film and literature Classification (OFLC) classifies and censors films and in the United Kingdom the classification board is The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). Each of these organizations aims at classifying film into age ranges, pertaining to the films content and appropriateness. However, the three organizations do so differently and with different standards.

The MPAA classifies films using a parent method, which means that every movie is classified by a rating board who members can “put themselves in the role of most American parents so they can view a film and apply a rating that most parents would find suitable and helpful in aiding their decisions about their children and what movies they see” (How Movies Are Rated, 2005). Thus, the MPAA is aimed at classifying films into appropriate content for specific age groups with a large concern of what parents want their children to see.

If a film’s target audience is a G rated audience and gets a higher rating than expected. The film maker then has the option of re-editing the film for re-evaluation. The MPAA in its self will not censor a film due to the film maker’s constitutional first amendment of free speech, but will suggest certain areas for editing in order for the movie to get a specific rating.

Two films, A Clockwork Orange (1971) and 9 Song (2004), can be examined closer in connection with the MPAA classification system. The Film, A Clockwork Orange was originally given an X rating (now NC-17) by the MPAA. The NC-17 rating is given to movies that the board believes most parents would find inappropriate for their children under that age of 17. The content of an NC-17 movie can be pornographic or obscene in connection with sex, violence and or drug use (What do the Rating mean, 2007).

The creators of A Clockwork Orange re-edited and re-released the film in American theaters which received an R rating. With the R rating the movie was distributed in national theater but the original X rated film was later released on video/DVD. The film, 9 Song (2004), according to the MPAA is not rated (NR). This means that the film was not viewed by the MPAA and thus was not given a rating.

The fact that films can be nationally distributed without a classification is a key difference in the American film industry compared to other counties. However, most film are classified because it help with a films theatrical release, but video and DVD sales include many NR titles, usually sold as Director’s Cuts.

The OFLC is different than the MPAA, because the OFLC is organized by the Australian government and is run with specific legislation in mind. This legislation includes the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, National Classification Code and Classification Guidelines (Relevant Legislation, 2007).

The classification board of the OFLC is an independent statutory organization whose soul purpose is to make classification decisions on a variety of public media and art. The OFLC states that it classifies films with four key points or codes in mind.

These codes are that, “(a) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want, (b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them, (c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive and (d) the need to take account of community concerns about, depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence and the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner” (National classification Code, 2007). The codes followed by the OFLC, are further elaborated on in the guidelines of the organization.

The OFLC uses these codes to classify every film that is brought to the board. The film A Clockwork Orange was viewed by the board but was initially banned due to its highly violent content. The Film was banned for over 30 years until October 2007 when the film was re-reviewed and was given an R 18+ rating due to its highly violent content (Clockwork Orange, 2007).

The R 18+ rating means that the film is restricted to adult viewers but viewers should understand that the film may be offensive to sections of the adult community (R18+ – Restricted, 2007).

Another film supposedly reviewed by the OFLC is the film 9 Songs, the movie was given an X rating according to an unreliable website. However, the OFLC website gives no indication that the movie 9 Songs has been reviewed. There are many reasons that the film choice not to be reviewed by the OFLC.

In Australia every movie that wanted to be sold legally needs to be reviewed by the board and a fee from the film makers is required. The film makers of 9 Songs, could have chosen not to have their movie reviewed due to Australia’s strict restrictions on sexually explicit films. The restrictions are as followed, a film containing consensual sexually explicit activity will be given an X 18+ rating, with this rating the film is only available for sale or hire in the ACT and Northern Territory.

The film can also show no violence and does not have sexually assaulting language. The film can also use no fetishes, examples of which are bondage, fisting and candle wax. The rating also restricts the age of actors and the portrayal of actor’s ages (X18+ – Restricted, 2007). The film makers of 9 Songs could have deemed in unnecessary to advertise there movie in a country where such high restriction are place on content.

The BBFC, is the boldest of the three organizations in that it not only classifies films it also has the ability to censor them. When reviewing a film the BBFC, uses legislation to deem material as appropriate for a viewing audience, but unlike the OFLC the BBFC is not under direct government control. When classifying and censoring films the BBFC does so not with the governments control but with what they deems as appropriate for the audience in conjunction with legislation specific to film material.

Three key elements of a film are examined when a film is being reviewed, they are: (a) does the material conflict with the law? (b) is the material, at the age group concerned, likely to be harmful and (c) is the material, at the age group concerned, clearly unacceptable to the board’s public opinion (Introduction, 2007). In direct connection with children, a harm test is done to every film.

When a film goes through the harm test, it is viewed to see if the material in the movies could cause harm to a child. An example of the harm test being used is in the opening scene of the Disney movie Rocketman. The opening scene of the movie was cut because it portrayed a child using the Dryer as a rocket ship. This was viewed as harmful because if a child were to do the stunt it their own home they could die. This is a blatant form of censorship pertaining to children. However, every film has the ability to be censored even if it is advertised at an adult age group by the BBFC.

The idea for the film, A Clockwork Orange, was originally submitted for review in 1967, when the movies original screen play was reviewed. The Boards initial reaction to the screen play was that a film with vicious violence and hooliganism would be unacceptable by the BBFC, even though the film was advertised at an adult audience.

Surprisingly with little script changes the final movie was classified with an original X rating later changed to an 18 rating when released uncut by the BBFC (A Clockwork Orange – Case Study, 2000). Another movie classified by the BBFC was 9 Songs, the film was given an 18 rating and was uncut. It was a landmark move by the BBFC because the movie depicted real sex.

The classification had received mixed reviews with many individuals praising the classification and other finding it inappropriate (9 Songs, 2007). These two films were aimed at adults and were not cut, however that is not the case with every movie reviewed by the BBFC. Films that have been aimed at an adult audience and were cut by the BBFC are 1995s Showgirls, 1989s Child’s Play, and 1982s The Evil Dead. All three of these films were advertised for an adult audience but the BBFC still deemed that parts of the films needed to be censored.

A Clockwork Orange and 9 Songs are used as examples in connection with the MPAA, OFLC, and BBFC’s classification and censorship procedures, demonstrate that the organizations are censoring film for all age groups not just for children.

If the classification organizations were censoring films only for children then movies targeted at an adult audience would be free of censorship, which according to the OFLC and BBFC are not due to the organizations ability to censor and ban material. The MPAA does not have the ability to out right censor a film but it can determine the appropriate content available for specific age groups by classifying film into a higher or lower classification group.