Archive

Author Archive

Shocker: Is Spotify Lawyer Leading “Scholarly” Project to Create Fake Treatise?

January 18, 2018 Leave a comment

The anti-copyright crowd have a few different ways to turn astroturf into deceptively scholarly work product.  One way is to take over otherwise credible brands to insert their own truthiness.

In a highly predictable move, the American Law Institute, a reliable old brand in the law, appears to have had some sudden interest in writing up a “Restatement of Copyright” treatise.  The ALI’s restatements of the law have been around a very long time, but they mostly deal with bodies of law that rely heavily on judge-made law such as agency, property or contracts.

The advantage of having a Restatement that says what you want it to say is that those toiling against artists and songwriters can cite it as an authoritative source in legal briefs, scholarly writings, amicus briefs, etc.  Handy, eh?

The ALI Restatement of Copyright seems to have been the brainchild of one Pamela Samuelson, she of the Samuelson-Glushko technology and policy legal academic centers–Silicon Valley’s answer to the Confucious Institutes.  The project is nominally under the watchful eye of Professor Christopher Sprigman, from whose intellectual loins sprang Spotify’s defense of “sorry just kidding” in the Bluewater lawsuit for Spotify’s alleged nonpayment of mechanical royalties.  Sprigman is trying to convince the court that mechanical royalties don’t exist, don’t you know.

The Restatement of Copyright has been on the horizon for quite some time as it takes a lot of effort to produce one of these treatises.  So naturally, one must ask–why the sudden interest at the American Law Institute in such a costly project that we’ve struggled along without for a hundred years or so?  You don’t suppose someone is…paying for the costs of this work?  And who might be interested in picking up the tab for the project?

Perhaps the same company that paid for five–count ’em–five–research projects by Professor Sprigman.  That we know of.

sprigman google academics

According to the useful “Google Academics, Inc.” database created by the Google Transparency Project, Google funded these articles co-written by Sprigman (two of which criticize moral rights):

Valuing Publication And Attribution In Intellectual Property: Sprigman, Christopher, Christopher Buccafusco, and Zachary Burns. “Valuing Publication and Attribution in Intellectual Property.” (2012)

What’s A Name Worth?: Experimental Tests Of The Value Of Attribution In Intellectual Property:  Sprigman, Christopher Jon, Christopher Buccafusco, and Zachary C. Burns. “What’s a name worth?: Experimental tests of the value of attribution in Intellectual Property.” (2013)

What’s In, And What’S Out: How IP’s Boundary Rules Shape Innovation:  McKenna, Mark P., and Christopher Jon Sprigman. “What’s In, and What’s Out: How IP’s Boundary Rules Shape Innovation.” (2016)

Experimental Tests Of Intellectual Property Laws’ Creativity Thresholds, Buccafusco, Christopher, Zachary C. Burns, Jeanne C. Fromer, and Christopher Jon Sprigman. “Experimental tests of Intellectual Property laws‰Ûª creativity thresholds.” (2014)

Innovation Heuristics: Experiments On Sequential Creativity In Intellectual Property:  Bechtold, Stefan, Christopher Buccafusco, and Christopher Jon Sprigman. “Innovation heuristics: experiments on sequential creativity in Intellectual Property.” Ind. LJ 91 (2015): 1251

And speaking of astroturf, what’s also interesting is that Sprigman appears to have filed comments in Copyright Office moral rights study that incorporated concepts in Google-funded papers and cited to one of them without disclosing Google’s funding as far as I can tell. (https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=COLC-2017-0003-0019).

So a perfect lawyer to advance the interests of Spotify, the savior of the music business and to gift the legal community with the Restatement of Copyright, a crystalization of his genius.

Lucky us.

Big Tech Going to Capitol Hill to Explain How they Profit from Terror

January 17, 2018 Leave a comment

Facebook’s Monika Bickert, YouTube’s Juniper Downs and Twitter’s Carlos Monje will testify today at the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee to explain how their company’s profit from terror groups using their platforms.  The hearing, Terrorism and Social Media: #IsBigTechDoingEnough? at 10 am ET today.

As Ranking Member Senator Bill Nelson noted, the hearing is the first time that all three of Facebook, Google and Twitter have deigned to appear before the Commerce Committee at the same time:

[T]heir appearance is long overdue.  These social media platforms – and those of many other smaller companies – have revolutionized the way Americans communicate, connect and share information.

But, at the same time, these platforms have created a new – and stunningly effective – way for nefarious actors to attack and harm our citizens and our nation.  Frankly, it is startling that today, a terrorist can be radicalized and trained to conduct attacks all through social media.  And then a terrorist cell can activate that individual to conduct an attack through the internet – creating in effect a terrorist drone controlled by social media.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about what their companies are doing to make sure their platforms are not being exploited and manipulated by terrorists and criminals.

Using social media to radicalize and influence users is not limited to extremists.  Nation states, too, are exploiting social media vulnerabilities to conduct campaigns against this nation and interfere with our democracy.

We know that Russian hackers—at Vladimir Putin’s direction—attempted to influence the 2016 presidential election through cyberattacks and spreading propaganda and disinformation through paid social media trolls and botnets on Facebook and Twitter.

And, we also know that Putin is likely to do it again.

In its January 6, 2017 assessment, the U.S. intelligence community said that Putin and his intelligence services see the election influence campaign as a success and will seek to influence future elections, right here in the United States, and abroad.

This should be a wake-up call to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and to all Americans, regardless of party. This was an attack on the very foundation of American democracy and we must do everything in our power to see that it never happens again.

It would be interesting if Senator Nelson could ask Facebook, Google and Twitter if they could run a quick tape to tell the people how much they made, give or take, on selling ads against terror recruiting videos.

 

 

Is it Time for the Inspector General to Review the Copyright Office’s Administration of Address Unknown NOIs? — Artist Rights Watch

January 17, 2018 Leave a comment

If all a digital music service needs to do in order to claim they have a licene to reproduce and distribute a song is send a notice to the Copyright Office is send a notice saying they can’t find the song copyright owner, how hard do you think they’ll look? Particularly if they know that the Copyright Office won’t check? It is time for the Inspector General to review this untenable situation.

via Is it Time for the Inspector General to Review the Copyright Office’s Administration of Address Unknown NOIs? — Artist Rights Watch

Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Love Your Enemies” Sermon

January 15, 2018 Leave a comment

You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you in order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax-gatherers do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Gospel According to St. Matthew 5:43.

The Slippery Slope of Censorship: @HuffPost Pulls Story Critical of @Spotify Ahead of IPO — The Trichordist

January 9, 2018 Leave a comment

Artists Rights advocate Blake Morgan (#IRespectMusic) published a story in the Huffington Post this morning critical of Spotify. The story was rapidly gaining traction when it was suddenly deleted and Morgan received this email from the Huffington Post telling him he’d been censored From: Bryan Maygers Subject: Spotify’s Fatal Flaw Exposed Date: January 8, 2018 at 11:43:41 AM EST […]

Here’s Blake’s piece in its entirety.

Spotify’s Fatal Flaw Exposed: How My Closed-Door Meeting with Execs Ended in a Shouting Match

I love streaming.

I love making playlists, I love being able to download streamed music so I can listen when I’m offline, and I love being able to bring that music with me. In short, I think it’s a great distribution method.

What I don’t love is how little musicians get paid for all that streaming. It’s not fair––not even close. What’s more, middle-class music makers are the ones who are hit hardest, whose businesses are threatened, and whose families are put at risk. So how can I be against the way streaming companies treat musicians but not be
against streaming itself?

The same way I’m against the electric chair, but not against electricity.

Read the complete post on The Trichordist:  The Slippery Slope of Censorship: @HuffPost Pulls Story Critical of @Spotify Ahead of IPO — The Trichordist

@eriqgardner: Spotify Hit With $1.6 Billion Copyright Lawsuit Over Tom Petty, Weezer, Neil Young Songs [Music Modernization Act Fallout]

January 2, 2018 Leave a comment

In a curious twist, Eriq Gardner reports that the controversial Music Modernization Act has already prompted the inevitible litigation from a publisher seeking to beat the bill’s new safe harbor deadline applicable to lawsuits filed after January 1, 2018.  Wixen Pubilshing filed the new lawsuit on December 29, 2017, two years to the day after David Lowery filed the first class action against Spotify, but before the  Music Modernization Act legislation is even available on thomas.gov.

 

DSj2qcAWAAcqyqT.jpg-large

The new safe harbor on p. 82 of the Music Modernization Act

 

As the new year begins, the music industry could be set for an epochal moment. Hopes are running high for the first significant reform of music licensing rules in decades. The coming year may also see Spotify go public. But before any of this happens, the Stockholm, Sweden-based streaming giant must now contend with a massive new copyright lawsuit from Wixen Music Publishing, which administers song compositions by Tom Petty, Zach De La Rocha and Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, The Black Keys’ Dan Auerbach, Steely Dan’s Donald Fagen, Weezer’s Rivers Cuomo, David Cassidy, Neil Young, Sonic Youth’s Kim Gordon, Stevie Nicks and many others.

On Friday, Wixen Music Publishing filed a lawsuit in California federal court that alleges that Spotify is using Petty’s “Free Fallin’,” the Doors’ “Light My Fire” and tens of thousands of other songs without a license and compensation. The plaintiff is seeking a damages award worth at least $1.6 billion plus injunctive relief.

Wixen’s lawsuit is being revealed here for the first time, but the move will come as hardly a surprise to those who have been paying attention to Spotify’s growing copyright problem….

[T]he Music Modernization Act would impact copyright holders suing over mechanical reproduction after Jan. 1, 2018, which helps explain the New Year’s Eve filing.

“We are very disappointed that these services will retroactively get a free pass for actions that were previously illegal unless we actually file suit before Jan. 1, 2018,” said Wixen president Randall Wixen in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. “Neither we nor our clients are interested in becoming litigants, but we have been faced with a choice of forfeiting rights and damages, or taking action at this time. We regret that this otherwise admirable proposed bill has had this effect, and we hope that Spotify nonetheless comes to the table with a fair and reasonable approach to reaching a resolution with us. We are fully prepared to go as far forward in the courts as required to protect our clients’ rights.”

Read the post on The Hollywood Reporter

Read the Wixen complaint here

Read the Music Modernization Act here

hypebot: Songwriter’s Guild Sounds Alarm Over “Serious Problems” In Music Modernization Act of 2017

January 2, 2018 Leave a comment

[Important comments on the controversial “Music Modernization Act of 2017” which is essentially Take Two of the failed Section 115 Reform Act of 2006.  The bill was evidently under negotiation behind closed doors for months but was made public a few days before Christmas.  This confirms the long standing rumor that Big Tech is getting control over the mythical and debunked “global rights database.”  Independent songwriters were evidently essentially excluded from the process, which has raised concerns from songwriter organizations like the Songwriters Guild of America.  Extra points if you can figure out which pre-IPO DiMA member benefits the most from the bill!]

Rick Carnes, president of the Songwriters Guild of America, expresses his organization’s serious concerns with much of the Music Modernization Act of 2017, which seeks to reform music licensing, although not in ways which the SGA believes will benefit songwriters.

_______________________

Guest post by Rick Carnes, president of Songwriters Guild of America 

[Editor: Read The Music Modernization Act of 2017]

1

Dear Representative Collins:

I write as president of The Songwriters Guild of America, Inc., the nation’s longest established music creator organization run solely by and for music creators, representing thousands of professional music creators and their heirs.

Thank you for forwarding a copy of the draft Music Modernization Act of 2017 [the day before it was introduced] for our review prior to its introduction, which was much appreciated. We continue to believe that reform of the music licensing process is and must continue to be an exceptionally high legislative priority – second only to the need to raise music royalty rates to equitable levels that will sustain our community. We applaud your sincere efforts and the efforts of the many members of Congress who have been hard at work trying to fashion solutions to these challenges over the past several years, and hope to continue working closely with them until those worthy and important aims are met.

While it was impossible for us to fully digest and analyze the more than one-hundred-page draft legislation in the short amount of time provided, we wanted in fairness to point out to your office that while there are many good points about the draft, including the section 114 performance rights-related reforms, our initial review indicates that there are a number of very serious problems that will need to be addressed before SGA and thousands of its music creator colleagues can support the bill.

Just by way of example, enactment of the proposed bill as currently constituted would –to the best of our knowledge—represent either one of the first times or the very first time in history that any Government has acted to sanction the creation of a music copyright licensing and royalty collective over which creators themselves would not share at least equally in governance. That is a concept that we cannot support.

There are many other problems too numerous to detail in this short letter, but they include serious fairness, transparency and practical issues related to the proposed processes of setting up the licensing collective, the distributing of unidentified monies on a market share basis and the need to better protect music creator economic rights in that context, the vague nature of any optout mechanisms, the granting of relief from statutory damages liability to prior willful infringers, the scope of the musical composition database (including songwriter/composer information), the provisions concerning shortfall and other funding aspects of the collective, the absence of direct distribution of royalties by the collective to songwriters and composers, the vague nature of the audit activities to be optionally conducted by the collective, and the complications in that and other regards raised by obvious conflicts of interest issues.

Read the post on Hypebot

%d bloggers like this: