Creative America's Mike Nugent is the Standard-Bearer for Fighting Online Piracy

Creative America's Mike Nugent is the Standard-Bearer for Fighting Online Piracy By Daniel Holloway January 4, 2012 Mike Nugent The PROTECT IP Act, a bill that would empower the U.S. Justice Department to limit access to websites illegally distributing copyrighted material, is scheduled for a vote by the full Senate on Jan. 24. Its companion bill in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act, has already received the approval of the House Judiciary Committee. So for those of you who enjoy intellectual-property legislation as blood sport, this is going to be a big month. Congratulations.PROTECT IP and SOPA have the support of Creative America, an entertainment industry initiative launched last summer by a coalition of labor and management organizations, including the Screen Actors Guild, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, CBS, Viacom, the Walt Disney Co., and others. Mike Nugent is the executive director of Creative America, which last month launched an ad campaign in support of PROTECT IP. He spoke with Back Stage on Dec. 30 about the importance of the act, the ways content theft is eating at Broadway, and why the American Library Association is on the "wrong" side of the fence.Back Stage: You recently launched a big ad campaign in support of the PROTECT IP Act. Why is this such an important piece of legislation? Mike Nugent: It's important because it gives the U.S. government tools to go after foreign websites that are dedicated to infringing activity. Right now they don't have those tools. Because the U.S. law has strengthened, the websites have left the U.S. and gone overseas. Yet they're still coming back to the U.S. market for revenue and to distribute illegal content. So this is just one more step in the battle, and it's a very important step, because foreign jurisdictions don't take as much umbrage at the activity of these sites as the U.S. does.Back Stage: What's at stake in this legislation for actors and other entertainment industry professionals? Nugent: We think this is all about jobs. Content theft doesn't affect the movie numbers that you see on Mondaythe blockbusters that come out. What it affects largely are the indie films, the downstream revenues. What it really affects is the economic model of the film industry, even for blockbusters. This is what I mean. Content theft takes out the heart of the revenue that is needed to reinvest in movies and film, that pays the residuals and the pensions and the benefits. If you look at the contracts of actors and others, their revenue streams and their livelihood and their pensions and their benefits are all derivative of downstream revenue. That is sales of DVDs, sales of subscription TV shows, of pay-per-view, of other kinds of downstream windows. This is where content theft really kills this industry. This is all about jobs. And also about pension and benefits.Back Stage: And how would PROTECT IP specifically help to curb content theft? Nugent: What it does is it gives the U.S. Justice Department the authority to go to a court and say, "This site is dedicated to infringing conduct," either distributing copyrighted material without authorization as a primary source of its business, or other products and services, such as distributing counterfeit drugs or distributing counterfeit parts, etc. Once the court is satisfied that that website is in the business of doing that, then the court issues an order to the intermediaries, as they call them in the U.S., who support that trafficking and stolen content. That would be the credit card companies that support the distribution, the search engines, the ISPs, and the ad networks. The court order would tell them, "You have to stop supporting the website." Then the intermediaries have to comply, and then the revenue stream for these sitesfrom the U.S., at leastis dried up.Back Stage: What do you say to critics who say that PROTECT IP would endanger civil liberties and damage the architecture of the Internet? Nugent: Their response is dead wrong. The techniques that are used to take the domain names out of the registration system are the same techniques that are used to block malware sites, porn sites, child-porn sites, and other sites. It's the same technology. It's never broken the Internet yet. And in terms of free speech and First Amendment, there's a legal answer, and then there's the normal answer. The legal answer is that there's no First Amendment right to either access or distribute stolen information. That's the legal answer, and constitutional scholars have supported that. The normal answer is that even when you look at what this bill does, it doesn't stop these sites from operating. It just stops these sites [from] being supported by intermediaries in the U.S. I really think that those who are arguing First Amendment and freedom of speech and access to information are really engaging in disinformation. Their main goal is to block a democratic vote on this in the House and Senate, because if it gets to the House and Senate, they know that it's going to pass, because at the end of the day this is a bill targeting illegal traffickers, who are really bad guys. It's not going after legit sites. It doesn't affect entities like YouTube or Facebook or Google. In terms of their role as disseminators of information, it does affect their liability. It also clarifies their liability in a space where it's not clear.Back Stage: Google, as you mentioned, has been outspoken against this bill. But also organizations such as the American Library Association have been. If the privacy, technological, and civil liberties issues surrounding this are so clear-cut, why are groups like the ALA stepping out against this legislation? Nugent: As I recall, and I'm sure I'm not as up on the ALA as I should be, when I looked at their issue, it was more of a technical issue. They're not intermediaries in this bill. The wording of the bill may have put them in the role of being an intermediary, because they provide all sorts of access to the Internet through their public facilities. I think that was their major concern. I think that concern is being addressed. There are some technical concerns being addressed in the markup process, and the hearing coming in January will address these issues. Back Stage: How good a job do you think the Obama administration has done in addressing intellectual-property issues? Nugent: Actually, to date they've been the strongest administration. They've appointed an intellectual-property czar [U.S. intellectual property enforcement coordinator Victoria A. Espinel]. Joe Biden, when he was in the Senate, was chairman of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and has always had this issue close to him. At the enforcement level, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement group, ICE, which has been charged with this enforcement role, has been unprecedented in its strength. So the administration has been front and center and in support of all of our efforts in this regard. They're to be commended.Back Stage: When we think of content theft, we think of it as being something that affects mostly the film and music and television industries. What are you doing to engage the Broadway community, and what's at stake for them? Nugent: There's a number of things going on. Broadway is increasingly seeing its content up on the Internet, either peak moments or specific songs or even long stretches. The techniques that are used to do that are the same that are used in the movie industry: the camcorder. And they're very sophisticated these days. Broadway is increasingly being targeted by the same groups that are targeting TV, because Broadway is immensely popular globally and there's so little opportunity to get to Broadway. So my conversations with COBUG [Coalition of Broadway Unions and Guilds] and with the Broadway League suggest that there's strong concern in this area, and they also see this as a jobs issue and want to get involved and bring the Broadway voice to the battle in D.C.Back Stage: Does Creative America's formation represent a greater sense of cooperation or urgency on the parts of industry and labor groups? Nugent: Yes, it really does represent labor and management coming together on a common issue, and there are not a lot of common issues. They are strongly behind this effort. We are ready for our 2012 year. Our board just met and approved our plans and activity for 2012. Everyone is very much on board and frankly saying that we've got to get busier. Creative America's Mike Nugent is the Standard-Bearer for Fighting Online Piracy By Daniel Holloway January 4, 2012 Mike Nugent The PROTECT IP Act, a bill that would empower the U.S. Justice Department to limit access to websites illegally distributing copyrighted material, is scheduled for a vote by the full Senate on Jan. 24. Its companion bill in the House, the Stop Online Piracy Act, has already received the approval of the House Judiciary Committee. So for those of you who enjoy intellectual-property legislation as blood sport, this is going to be a big month. Congratulations.PROTECT IP and SOPA have the support of Creative America, an entertainment industry initiative launched last summer by a coalition of labor and management organizations, including the Screen Actors Guild, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, CBS, Viacom, the Walt Disney Co., and others. Mike Nugent is the executive director of Creative America, which last month launched an ad campaign in support of PROTECT IP. He spoke with Back Stage on Dec. 30 about the importance of the act, the ways content theft is eating at Broadway, and why the American Library Association is on the "wrong" side of the fence.Back Stage: You recently launched a big ad campaign in support of the PROTECT IP Act. Why is this such an important piece of legislation? Mike Nugent: It's important because it gives the U.S. government tools to go after foreign websites that are dedicated to infringing activity. Right now they don't have those tools. Because the U.S. law has strengthened, the websites have left the U.S. and gone overseas. Yet they're still coming back to the U.S. market for revenue and to distribute illegal content. So this is just one more step in the battle, and it's a very important step, because foreign jurisdictions don't take as much umbrage at the activity of these sites as the U.S. does.Back Stage: What's at stake in this legislation for actors and other entertainment industry professionals? Nugent: We think this is all about jobs. Content theft doesn't affect the movie numbers that you see on Mondaythe blockbusters that come out. What it affects largely are the indie films, the downstream revenues. What it really affects is the economic model of the film industry, even for blockbusters. This is what I mean. Content theft takes out the heart of the revenue that is needed to reinvest in movies and film, that pays the residuals and the pensions and the benefits. If you look at the contracts of actors and others, their revenue streams and their livelihood and their pensions and their benefits are all derivative of downstream revenue. That is sales of DVDs, sales of subscription TV shows, of pay-per-view, of other kinds of downstream windows. This is where content theft really kills this industry. This is all about jobs. And also about pension and benefits.Back Stage: And how would PROTECT IP specifically help to curb content theft? Nugent: What it does is it gives the U.S. Justice Department the authority to go to a court and say, "This site is dedicated to infringing conduct," either distributing copyrighted material without authorization as a primary source of its business, or other products and services, such as distributing counterfeit drugs or distributing counterfeit parts, etc. Once the court is satisfied that that website is in the business of doing that, then the court issues an order to the intermediaries, as they call them in the U.S., who support that trafficking and stolen content. That would be the credit card companies that support the distribution, the search engines, the ISPs, and the ad networks. The court order would tell them, "You have to stop supporting the website." Then the intermediaries have to comply, and then the revenue stream for these sitesfrom the U.S., at leastis dried up.Back Stage: What do you say to critics who say that PROTECT IP would endanger civil liberties and damage the architecture of the Internet? Nugent: Their response is dead wrong. The techniques that are used to take the domain names out of the registration system are the same techniques that are used to block malware sites, porn sites, child-porn sites, and other sites. It's the same technology. It's never broken the Internet yet. And in terms of free speech and First Amendment, there's a legal answer, and then there's the normal answer. The legal answer is that there's no First Amendment right to either access or distribute stolen information. That's the legal answer, and constitutional scholars have supported that. The normal answer is that even when you look at what this bill does, it doesn't stop these sites from operating. It just stops these sites [from] being supported by intermediaries in the U.S. I really think that those who are arguing First Amendment and freedom of speech and access to information are really engaging in disinformation. Their main goal is to block a democratic vote on this in the House and Senate, because if it gets to the House and Senate, they know that it's going to pass, because at the end of the day this is a bill targeting illegal traffickers, who are really bad guys. It's not going after legit sites. It doesn't affect entities like YouTube or Facebook or Google. In terms of their role as disseminators of information, it does affect their liability. It also clarifies their liability in a space where it's not clear.Back Stage: Google, as you mentioned, has been outspoken against this bill. But also organizations such as the American Library Association have been. If the privacy, technological, and civil liberties issues surrounding this are so clear-cut, why are groups like the ALA stepping out against this legislation? Nugent: As I recall, and I'm sure I'm not as up on the ALA as I should be, when I looked at their issue, it was more of a technical issue. They're not intermediaries in this bill. The wording of the bill may have put them in the role of being an intermediary, because they provide all sorts of access to the Internet through their public facilities. I think that was their major concern. I think that concern is being addressed. There are some technical concerns being addressed in the markup process, and the hearing coming in January will address these issues. Back Stage: How good a job do you think the Obama administration has done in addressing intellectual-property issues? Nugent: Actually, to date they've been the strongest administration. They've appointed an intellectual-property czar [U.S. intellectual property enforcement coordinator Victoria A. Espinel]. Joe Biden, when he was in the Senate, was chairman of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and has always had this issue close to him. At the enforcement level, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement group, ICE, which has been charged with this enforcement role, has been unprecedented in its strength. So the administration has been front and center and in support of all of our efforts in this regard. They're to be commended.Back Stage: When we think of content theft, we think of it as being something that affects mostly the film and music and television industries. What are you doing to engage the Broadway community, and what's at stake for them? Nugent: There's a number of things going on. Broadway is increasingly seeing its content up on the Internet, either peak moments or specific songs or even long stretches. The techniques that are used to do that are the same that are used in the movie industry: the camcorder. And they're very sophisticated these days. Broadway is increasingly being targeted by the same groups that are targeting TV, because Broadway is immensely popular globally and there's so little opportunity to get to Broadway. So my conversations with COBUG [Coalition of Broadway Unions and Guilds] and with the Broadway League suggest that there's strong concern in this area, and they also see this as a jobs issue and want to get involved and bring the Broadway voice to the battle in D.C.Back Stage: Does Creative America's formation represent a greater sense of cooperation or urgency on the parts of industry and labor groups? Nugent: Yes, it really does represent labor and management coming together on a common issue, and there are not a lot of common issues. They are strongly behind this effort. We are ready for our 2012 year. Our board just met and approved our plans and activity for 2012. Everyone is very much on board and frankly saying that we've got to get busier.