Le Tatou’s Excellent Explainer on YouTube’s Role in Article 13 Lobbying–from @TatouProd

March 18, 2019 Leave a comment

“What no one tells you about Article 13”

As we’ve read in recent reporting from Europe, Google’s Susan Wojcicki has been twisting arms among their “YouTubers” to put out videos not only opposing Article 13, but also using the Google party line.

Now that’s starting to backfire because Ms Susan doesn’t really understand how this treating the artist like they’re stupid thing always does.  Think about it–can you imagine Lucian Grange telling Taylor Swift, “Yo, Tay Tay, I need some help on Universal’s latest antitrust review so you can help Universal look cool and make me a video that toes the corporate line?”

Ah, no.  That would never, never happen.  Not only would it never happen, it would probably backfire.

Enter Le Tatou, who are significant YouTube stars in French.  They produced a very thoughtful and articulate (face it–these guys are YouTube stars who actually know stuff, like how to actually research an issue and present it to the public–if you’re wondering why, try applying to a French university some time).

Their Article 13 explainer demonstrates how YouTube has tried to manipulate YouTubers and deceive the public.  The video is in French with English subtitles and you really should take the time to watch the whole thing.

It’s also really funny.

 

“Purchased Protest” Bombshell: Germany’s FAZ News Uncovers The Seamy Underbelly of Google’s Article 13 Lobbying

March 16, 2019 Leave a comment

 

 

The usual suspects got caught again.  And you can’t have the usual suspects without Keyser Söze.

 writing in the top German paper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has uncovered the financial link between YouTubers in the paid service of Google to “protest” in favor of the multinational monopolist’s interests in the European Copyright Directive (aka “Article 13”).

In his story filed today “Gekaufter Protest?” or “Purchased Protest?”, van Lijnden’s reporting has turned up what appears to be proof positive that Google’s interference lobbying has sunk to new depths of depravity (translation courtesy of Google Translate, courtesy of Google Books):

According to research by this newspaper, several German Youtubers have been offered money by an interest group that appears under the name “Create Refresh” to position themselves in videos against Article 13 of the copyright reform, which is particularly relevant for the video platform. “I am writing for financial support available to content creators who want to protest against Article 13. Be it a video, memes or graphics – we are open to suggestions, “says Mirko Drotschmann, who trades on Youtube as “mrwissen2go “and has about 900,000 subscribers.

Similar offers have been received by the Clixoom Science & Fiction channels (over 500,000 subscribers), Pietsmiet (more than 2.3 million subscribers) and Jana Riva (around 50,000 subscribers). The latter were promised €2,000 for a critical opinion on Article 13. All four emphasize the finding that they have not responded to the offer and have wondered very much about it, as such attempts to collect money would otherwise be almost non-existent and money would be offered only for the promotion of products.

Google’s interference lobbying should come as no surprise.  As MTP readers will recall, German Member of the European Parliament Helga Truepel was threatened with interference lobbying by Google’s lawyers during a trade mission to Silicon Valley:

helga google interfere

 

MTP readers will also recall the humiliating failure of the pro-Google lobbying effort to turn out any actual humans to protest in advance of prior votes.  I warned at the time not to underestimate Google’s ability to deliver protesters–one only need remember how the homes of Germans who opted out of Google Street View were mysteriously egged by “protesters” all in one night who also hung signs on their target homes stating “Google is Cool”.

The opposition to Article 13 is organizing a protest for March 23 and claims to have a number of cities in Europe targeted, mostly in Poland and Germany (two countries where Google has invested heavily in their academic missionary outposts for a decade or more).  The efforts may be aided by the general waive of protests about a host of social issues sweeping Europe, not to mention a large Brexit protest scheduled for March 23–coincidentally.  It may be possible to create the impression that one protest is about another topic altogether, particularly if the propagandist shows pictures of a protest in a wide shot that has no readable protest signs in frame.

Still, the logistics of getting protesters from one stronghold to a weaker outpost at a particular date and time was striking challenge given the geography.  Van Lijnden addresses how Google’s lobbyists rose to the challenge in the FAZ article:

[T]he protest is financially supported: Under the name of “EDRI” [the European Digital Rights lobby shop] numerous net political NGOs has offered…to bear the travel and hotel costs of people who want to lobby in personal talks with the deputies of the European Parliament. According to EDRI, a budget of €15,000 is available, two-thirds of which would be provided by the Open Society Foundation founded by George Soros and one third by the industry association “Copyright 4 Creativity”.  [MTP readers will have seen that bunch before back in 2015.]

The latter is also one of the supporters of “Create Refresh” and is led by Caroline De Cock, also managing director of the Brussels-based lobbying company “N-square”. Its clients include Google which as a parent company of Youtube would be hit hard by the reform. Such indirect lines from Silicon Valley to the aggravation and whipping of the protest can also be drawn elsewhere, such as the “Center for Democracy and Technology”, which is also listed as a supporter of “Create Refresh” and “Save your internet” and led by Nuala O’Connor, the former lawyer of Google subsidiary DoubleClick.

We wrote about the N-Square group back in 2015:

While Google itself is not a member of Copyright 4 Creativity, the organization is run by a long-time Brussels lobbyist whose firm represents Google, and even a cursory look at the Copyright 4 Creativity materials reveals some of the same rhetoric we have heard for years from the Google-funded anti-artist crowd.  This, of course, is how the astroturf game is played.

“Purchased Protest?” is extraordinarily brave reporting by FAZ given the level of hostility that Google has ginned up in Europe through its interference lobbying efforts rivaled only by Russian bot farmers and Cambridge Analytica–if not inspired by them.  Ahem.  Vlad would be proud.

Bots 14-2-19 Edited

This isn’t the first time that a major newspaper has caught Google and its YouTube subsidiary faking an Article 13 protest or stirring the contagion pot complete with bots and Russomania.  And of course David Lowery and Volker Rieck have done important work in exposing the rot.

Dj_qcYOW4AAfyRy.jpg-large

But it’s the first time that Google money has been linked to YouTube “creators” engaging in lobbying efforts to assist Google’s political goals, attacking Google’s political enemies and supporting Google’s political allies–all of which smacks of electioneering requiring compliance with Europe’s election transparency laws.

And of course there’s no one who knows more about where to find individuals likely to carry Google’s water, knowingly or unknowingly, than the one company in the world that knows what you’re thinking before you do.  Unbridled snooping by the pervy Google data scientists produces unimaginable benefits when that information is turned to political profit.

The first rate reporting in these bombshell revelations are all the more reason why the European law enforcement authorities need to open a criminal investigation into the whole mess.  As van Lijnden concludes:

[Big Tech’s attempt] to buy critical voices in the channel that is relevant to the debate highlights the manipulative methods that have fueled or even generated parts of the protest.

Can I get an “amen”?

Guest Post by Iain Baker of @jesusjonesband: An update on the PledgeMusic Debacle

March 15, 2019 Comments off

[We’re pleased to provide a platform for Iain Baker of Jesus Jones to update MTP readers on the slow motion train wreck called Pledge Music.  This has turned into a real financial crisis for artists and their vendors as well as the fans.]

We are still no nearer a resolution, it would seem. And it feels like they’re running down the clock. Artists are told to dial back any criticism of Pledge, in order to make it easier to sell the company. The inference here is that it’s our fault if this process doesn’t progress smoothly.

Well, the longer this all goes on, and the more urgent it becomes for artists to pay bills and replace money that PLEDGE took from them, the more I just feel like saying: Well, was it my fault that the company seems to have been basically insolvent in 2016? Was it my fault the company never told anyone about that?  Was it artists that oversaw a culture of financial mismanagement? Did artists offer huge wages for people to come in and try and turn Pledge into an “industry leader”?

I can’t help feeling we’re being kept in the dark, and fed horseshit. And we’re not the ones who caused any of the problems–the only thing we’re responsible for is helping the company thrive. Pledge has a beautiful set of offices in a prime central London location, and it feels like they’re sitting around a conference table, trying to save their careers, while the artists are stood outside in the rain with our noses pressed up against the windows, hoping they’ll help us out [with the artists’ own money].

None of these problems were caused by us, yet we’re the ones being made to wait, made to pay, made to struggle. If nothing else, this situation is profoundly unfair.

Pledge’s continued lack of transparency makes it even harder for the artistic community. We’re more than stakeholders in this – the company thrived on the backs of all the hard work that artists put in

And of course, it’s a slap in the face for all of the fans that engaged with the artists and provided the cold hard cash to make this thing fly.

Business is an equation – a system that should be in a state of balance. Pledge allowed this to spin out of control, and they forgot about the people that made it all work. That’s you, and it’s me.

Now, as they try to make it all work – shouldn’t they be trying to balance the equation? To ensure everyone feels like a valued part of the business? Well, hands up anyone who thinks that’s the case, right now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@rachelrwithers: Amazon Owes Wikipedia Big-Time — Artist Rights Watch

March 12, 2019 Comments off

Amazon gave $1 million to Wikipedia–and gets way more out of the deal than the charity.

via @rachelrwithers: Amazon Owes Wikipedia Big-Time — Artist Rights Watch

A Cautionary Tale for Congress: Big Tech Uses Fake Grassroots Interference Lobbying In Europe

March 11, 2019 Comments off

There’s a sound policymaking reason why the European Parliament should ignore the bombardment of email and social media messaging it has recently endured for copyright reform.  That reason is well articulated in a 2010 memo by Professor Cass Sunstein (then Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) when he cautioned the Obama Administration against relying on social media for making policy:

“Because, in general, the results of online rankings, ratings, and tagging (e.g., number of votes or top rank) are not statistically generalizable, they should not be used as the basis for policy or planning.”

In a post-Cambridge Analytica world where social media platforms not only are ubiquitous but also have earned the distrust of policy-makers and voters as well as parents, Sunstein’s nine-year old admonition is especially prescient-but he could have added “easy to fake.” This would apply to the new boiler rooms of fake Twitter accounts with distorted ratios of tweets to followers, or followed accounts to likes–such as the infamous Internet Research Agency.

Sunstein’s memo is both ominous and also relevant given developments at the European Parliament over the last few months.  Big Tech’s interference lobbyists are fighting the last war against safe harbor reform using “fake grassroots” online campaigns against Members instead of legitimate advocacy.

Specifically, the reaction of multinational Big Tech legacy players to the European Parliament’s safe harbor reform effort demonstrates a toxic brew of corporations attacking Members.   That’s a dark turn to Sunstein’s analysis.  Crucially, it appears that bot farming techniques and mass email attacks verging on denial of service are weapons in Big Tech’s interference lobbying arsenal despite their hollow assurances to multiple governments about policing interference by state actors in national elections.

Think it can’t happen here?  Think again.

Europe’s Safe Harbor Reform

Known formally as the “European Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market” or informally as “Article 13”, the EU legislation is intended to update the law and, among other things, substantially cuts back the legacy safe harbor privilege that is so valuable to Big Tech. (See Emmanuel Legrand’s excellent summary.)  It’s understandable that they would–Facebook, Google, Twitch and others have based their trillion-dollar market caps on what otherwise would be called piracy–also known as the “value gap”.

Congress has yet to grapple with the US version of the DMCA safe harbor (referring generally to Section 512 of the Copyright Act), although the Copyright Office is beginning field hearings on the much needed overhaul.  Originally conceived in 1998 as a way to afford a little latitude to reasonable people acting reasonably, Big Tech and its acolytes have distorted the DMCA “safe harbor” beyond recognition in the last twenty years and converted into an alibi.

In the last session, Congress took an important step by cutting back a different safe harbor in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act with the SESTA-FOSTA package.  SESTA-FOSTA eliminated a safe harbor for sex trafficking which seems uncontroversial-but caused a huge lobbying counterattack by Big Tech.  If you caught any of the manipulated onslaught against SESTA-FOSTA, you have a taste of what the European Parliament is experiencing with their Copyright Directive.

There’s no question that Google and Facebook lobbyists interfered with the EU’s legislation–the companies threatened an MEP that they would interfere in the EU elections if they were challenged on Article 13:

German MEP Truepel gives a first hand confirmation of what happened.  Further, in an official blog post that has become controversial because it struck a little close to home, the European Commission commented conclusively on the MEPs’ experience with Big Tech’s “fake grassroots” campaign and interference lobbying tactics:

[T]here is ample evidence from respected sources, here and here and perhaps here or here or indeed here that ‘Big Technology’ has even ‘created’ grassroots campaigns against the Copyright Directive in order to make it look and sound as if the EU is acting against the ‘will of the people’….

Do Google, Facebook or others really need to pay to persuade?

Are we in a world where ordinary people side with the fire breathing dragon against the knight with a blue and yellow shield?

The Fake Interference Campaign

Yes, Google and Facebook attempted to pass off a blistering email spam campaign targeting Members as a spontaneous grassroots uprising.  Not just once, but three times on three separate votes in Parliament on the Copyright Directive-even after they had been caught faking and interfering by major news outlets.

The first “campaign” was around a committee vote that resulted in a win for Big Tech. Thanks to David Lowery and Volker Reick, the press called out the fakery in exposes by the Times of London and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung among others.  Big Tech attempted to counter that expose by organizing in-person protests after making online threats of the “we’ll show you we’re real” variety across Europe.

Far from setting Europe ablaze, some estimate that these protests drew fewer than a total of 500 across Europe in multiple locations.  Pictures taken at these “protests” suggest that they were primarily organized by the Pirate Party, a fringe political party with one MEP that supports piracy and safe harbors as its name suggests.

Expose or no expose, the “fake grassroots” and spamming were repeated as the Copyright Directive went through successive procedural votes-which Big Tech lost miserably.  Yet the multinationals keep running the same interference play and kept getting sacked.

Members and the European Commission Speak Out Against Interference

Members were not fooled.  One example is an odd Tweetstorm against reform by suspicious accounts.  Members were subjected to attempts to stimulate the documented “emotional contagion” that drives social media.  A typical bot-like Twitter account against the Copyright Directive would have followers in low double digits or fewer but tens of thousands of tweets and a disproportionately high number of “likes” (in some cases over 100,000).  That ratio suggests that the account was used to capitalize on the Twitter “ratioing” algorithm to drive the corporate message into user timelines.  One wonders what did Twitter know and when did they know it?

In addition to the Tweetstorm, interference lobbyists ran a near-DDOS level email campaign that was actually counter-productive.  When asked at a press conference why the vote tally switched from opposing the Copyright Directive in the first committee vote to overwhelmingly supporting it in the next plenary vote, German MEP Helga Truepel pulled no punches:

“I think it’s due to this message spamming campaign. I talked to some of my colleagues here [and they] are totally [angry]…”

The European Commission’s official blog echoes Sunstein:

So next time, when you get a sponsored message on your timeline, which says something like ‘the EU will kill the world wide web as we know it’, stop, pause and consider for a moment. Ask yourself: Cui Bono? Who really benefits from this message or this wider negative campaign?

We know the answer to that question.  Google and Facebook became the biggest corporations in commercial history by manipulating legacy safe harbors in ways that neither Congress nor the EU intended.  Despite assurances about policing interference by bad actors on their networks, the European experience suggests they are actively using similar interference techniques to protect their privilege.

Europe has shown the world that legacy Big Tech business models can be brought into the 21st Century through well thought-out legislation.  But Congress would do well to arm itself against comparable “fake grassroots” interference campaigns in making policy for vital DMCA safe harbor reform to close the value gap.

[This post first appeared in the MusicTechPolicy newsletter, sign up for free version here.]

@crispinhunt: Critics of Article 13 are Weaving a Narrative with No Relationship to Fact — Artist Rights Watch

March 7, 2019 Comments off

[An excellent post by songwriter and BASCA chair Crispin Hunt on the remarkable disinformation campaign being waged by legacy tech companies against safe harbor reform in Europe.] A recent article by Rhett Jones, which appeared in Gizmodo, perfectly encapsulated the feverish disinformation campaign around Article 13 being undertaken by US tech companies and their minions. […]

via @crispinhunt: Critics of Article 13 are Weaving a Narrative with No Relationship to Fact — Artist Rights Watch

@richardjburgess: The So-Called ‘Local Radio Freedom Act’ Is Actually an Anti-Creator, Anti-Property-Rights Bill — Artist Rights Watch

March 7, 2019 Comments off

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and its army of highly paid lobbyists are asking Members of Congress to cosponsor a bill that they have the nerve to call the Local Radio Freedom Act (LRFA). In past Congresses, many lawmakers have been deceived into cosponsoring this legislation, being told that it is a non-controversial sense-of-Congress resolution aimed at protecting local radio stations. In fact, it is an anti-creator, anti-property-rights bill.

via @richardjburgess: The So-Called ‘Local Radio Freedom Act’ Is Actually an Anti-Creator, Anti-Property-Rights Bill — Artist Rights Watch

%d bloggers like this: