Hacking Politics: How Geeks, Progressives, the Tea Party, Gamers, Anarchists, and Suits Teamed Up to Defeat SOPA and Save the Internet (20 page)

One ongoing criticism of our activism from certain quarters, particularly on this front but also on others, is the notion that even if the letter of the law allows for Terrible Thing X to happen, odds are that nobody’s going to go after the small fry, petty violator—the Feds will only prosecute the industrial infringers. This argument holds especially little water in the copyright realm, where music publishers have readily tried to squeeze teenagers for hundreds of thousands of dollars in statutory damages. We also know from several incidents outlined in this book, perhaps most starkly illustrated in the case of the Dajaz1 website takedown explicated by Joshua Bauchner in a later chapter, that Content Industry flaks have extraordinary influence over the government, including law enforcement, there being a well-oiled revolving door between the two realms. Readers might consider perusing Harvey Silverglate’s excellent “Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent” whose thesis is that federal statutes are written in such an over-broad manner that the average American regularly commits unknowing felonies. We’re all sitting ducks, should we ever wind up in the sights of a federal prosecutor.

With the vein of gaming enthusiasts taking up arms against the Klobuchar “ten strikes” legislation, a population of largely previously apolitical people had taken to activism and helped stall out a terrible bill. As Fight for the Future launched that October, they had in mind the mobilization of an entirely different
crowd that was similarly predominantly apolitical: people who pay attention to Justin Bieber. (Full disclosure: Co-editor David Segal did work for FFTF through that fall, helping them get their email activism underway.)

Bieber got his start circa 2008 when a music promoter discovered YouTube videos his mom had posted of him singing other artists’ songs. Klobuchar’s bill could’ve turned him (more likely his mom) into a felon. FFTF’s campaign entailed launching a satirical site that was to serve as the hub of the “Free Bieber” movement. Their crack design staff mocked up several images of the Biebs behind bars, which straddled the line between hilarious and genuinely disturbing—one had him stuck in a cell, crying a L’il Wayne tattooed tear, caught in the gaze of a much older inmate. Within a few days we’d struck the mother lode: a radio host confronted Bieber about the bill and the concocted controversy. His response was to deliver a rather heartfelt (though clearly teenaged) soliloquy about how important it is that people be free to perform and share music; that he loves watching fans’ YouTube performances of his hits; and, most critically, that Amy Klobuchar “needs to be locked up, put away in cuffs.”

An image created by Fight for the Future as part of their satirical “Free Bieber” campaign.

Demand Progress and Fight for the Future quickly made sure that all of the Minnesota press knew about the reigning king of pop’s decree, and produced a 30-second commercial whose thrust was: “Everybody’s out of work, yet somehow Amy Klobuchar’s in a throw-down with a Canadian teenage pop star. What gives?”

We had pledged to get it into rotation for a week on cable stations in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, and our strategy made it into the pages of
Politico
. On November 11, 2011, they wrote “two opponents of Klobuchar’s bill … are looking to buy ‘a few thousand dollars’ worth of ad time … on major cable networks such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox and Comedy Central … The ad features shots of Occupy Wall Street protesters and then fades to an audio clip of Bieber speaking out against Klobuchar …”

Our ad campaign appeared to strike some nerves with backers of PIPA and Ten Strikes. On Friday, November 11, 2011, the spot was ready to air and we submitted both the ad and payment information to our Comcast sales contact, Mike in Minnesota. He promised to check back with us on Monday, so that our ad would start airing the next Tuesday. We never heard back from Mike, and instead later received a voicemail demanding substantiation for the claims in the ad. After providing Comcast with copies of articles and statements by attorneys documenting the potential ramifications of Klobuchar’s anti-streaming legislation, Comcast still refused to air our ad.

Next we tried our luck with another Minnesota cable company called Charter Media. Just as with Comcast, our Charter Media sales rep Nicole was more than happy to try to reserve ad space for us. It seemed normal enough when she wanted to know who the clients were, and even to see the spot in advance. But after reviewing the footage and finding out that the client was Demand Progress and Fight for the Future, Nicole came back to us with an additional request: “Legal has asked for the substantiation. Can you send that please.”

Once again, we forwarded line-by-line documentation about the potential impacts of Klobuchar’s proposal, but this time Charter Media never even bothered responding. When I pushed Nicole for information about what was going on and how long ad approval would take, she acknowledged the unusual circumstances we were facing: “That is a really good question. I haven’t had to do this yet this year …” It was late October. The corporate backers of PIPA and Ten Strikes had decided to play hardball and were now doubling down on their ongoing media embargo by not only refusing to report on the legislation, but by actively censoring our political speech.

Some local affiliates had run stories on the Bieber-Klobuchar spat, but there was an ongoing, impenetrable national blackout on network coverage of this affair, the streaming bill in general, PIPA, and COICA before it. It would continue until well after SOPA was introduced. In fact, the hosts and producers of various programs made it known to us that they feared that they’d face professional repercussions for airing any criticism of the legislation.

We ended up spending our ad budget by targeting the Klobuchar ad at Minnesota YouTube viewers. The episode was a perfectly-packaged microcosm of what we worried we’d face at a much broader scale if bills like these were to pass, or if Net Neutrality is undermined: the conglomerates that run the media very much want to constrain their viewers from accessing information that might be used to the detriment of corporate interests.

In spite of the various impediments, Klobuchar and many Minnesotans were now well aware of our concerns, and we learned that we had unwittingly generated some collateral damage: Klobuchar’s apparently (and completely understandably) mortified teenage daughter. And let that be a lesson to any Fortunate Sons and Daughters who might happen to read these pages: the rest of us rely on you guys to make sure your parents know what the Internet is, and to provide a check on their proclivities to let power go to their heads.

There’s perhaps no better way to know that you’re being effective than when you’re taken seriously by your antagonists. A friend later related this
( araphrased) vignette about a Klobuchar fundraiser that fall: the question-and-answer session at the $500-per-head happening was winding down when a man raised his hand and opened his query with a cheeky “Senator, I just have to ask your opinion on a matter of utmost import.”

She answered, “Well, let me guess—does it have anything to do with a certain Canadian pop idol?”

“Well, no—I have no idea what you’re talking about. I was going to ask if you agree with Republicans who think pizza should be considered a vegetable for school lunch purposes.”

But the damage was done, and now she had to address the mop-topped elephant in the room. And she did so by launching into an ad hominem attack against Demand Progress (even though FFTF deserved the credit for enticing Bieber into the fray).

The SOPA/PIPA fight became personal at various points in the legislative process. Industry groups accused Demand Progress of being in league with “rogue websites” or under the control of companies like Google. Demand Progress’ David Moon (left) later crashed a Copyright Alliance party on May 17, 2011. The event was held at Microsoft’s Washington office, and featured pop-in’s from SOPA Sponsors Rep. Lamar Smith (right) and Rep. Judy Chu. The fundraising auction at the event featured items from NewsCorp and the RIAA.

As we meandered through the awkward process of helping to string together an anti-PIPA coalition, we found comfort, and even great pleasure, in a number of public skirmishes we had with the bill’s major proponents: The Motion Picture Association of America and the Chamber of Commerce.

This blog post was one of Hollywood’s many attempts to discredit anti-SOPA/PIPA activism.

First, the MPAA accused Demand Progress of an inappropriate alliance with file sharing sites. On a May 24, 2011 blog post, the MPAA wrote: “in its latest campaign to generate attention, demandprogress appears to have allied itself with at least one—and who knows how many more—offshore rogue websites that promote the theft and illegal marketing of American products like movies, video games and software.” Never mind that their only proof of an “alliance” was that a link to our website was posted on the popular file sharing site Demonoid. The Techdirt blog pointed out how ridiculous the MPAA’s charges were: “[Demand Progress] has been doing a bang up job trying to point out problems with the PROTECT IP Act, and apparently the lovely folks over at the MPAA finally noticed, and decided that rather than respond with facts, it was instead going to smear the well respected organization in a blog post (which, of course, you can’t comment on, because the MPAA knows that very few people actually support its stance).”

We took this as further evidence that we were actually having an impact. We were a small, underfunded, brand new shop that was regularly told that we were taking on the Sisyphean task of fighting a bill that was certain to pass. Very often, that felt like an accurate assessment of our predicament, but we saw these attacks as demonstrations that our opponents weren’t so certain. Why else would they be taking swipes like these at the likes of us?

The sensational reactions to our work continued unabated. On October 28, 2011, an intellectual property attorney from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce posted an unusually screechy blog article criticizing us for characterizing SOPA as an Internet blacklist bill, as we had with PIPA and COICA before it. In his tirade against Demand Progress, Steve Tepp wrote:

This was posted on a blog belonging to the Chamber of Commerce, the big business behemoth, the face of corporate America—and it was completely unhinged. It raised a few eyebrows, and one journalist sought a reaction from us, noting that the full-throttle attack “seems a bit unlike what they usually do.” But with each wild swing in our direction we saw further evidence that our action campaigns were making the backers of SOPA/PIPA at least a little bit nervous. And thus we pressed on …