Archive

Author Archive

You Furnish The Emotion and I’ll Furnish the Votes

August 9, 2017 Leave a comment

“You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.”

Attributed to an 1898 cable from William Randolph Hearst to Frederick Remington on assignment in Cuba before the Spanish-American War. 

yellow_kid_02829v

William Randolph Hearst was one of the original purveyors of fake news in the mass media.  (You may know him as Charles Foster Kane from the Orson Welles classic Citizen Kane.  And if you don’t know Citizen Kane, make time to watch it.)

In many ways, Hearst is an historical antecedent (and perhaps a role model) for Mark Zuckerberg.  And it should not be lost on you that Hearst was elected and re-elected to the U.S. House of Representatives as a Tammany man from the old 11th District.  He ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States in 1904 (which he resoundingly lost to Judge Alton Parker who resoundingly lost the election to the incumbent, Theodore Roosevelt).

I firmly believe that Zuckerberg intends to run for President.  If it turns out that I’m wrong, you can all snicker, but if I’m right….  Why do I believe it?  Because I also believe that the hangover from the Facebook Kool Aid kegger creates a pathological case of high functioning techno-fabulisim in which Zuckerberg believes that He Is The One to Save the World.  In short, delusions of grandeur on a global level.  And who at Facebook will tell him he isn’t The One?  He’s hired some political hacks to advise him who have worked on campaigns of successful candidates like President Obama for one.  Take this to the bank:  Candidates matter.  And this:  Lightning doesn’t strike twice.  These guys will be dining out on Barack Obama for many years to come.

Why do we care what Zuckerberg’s plans are?  Aside from the nausea of the possibility of a royalty deadbeat and purveyor of fake news sitting in the White House…ahem….there is actually a much more sinister reason that was well said this week in a USA Today op ed by Roger McNamee, who runs a venture capital outfit called Elevation Partners I have a lot of time for.

I invested in Google and Facebook years before their first revenue and profited enormously. I was an early adviser to Facebook’s team, but I am terrified by the damage being done by these Internet monopolies….

Facebook and Google get their revenue from advertising, the effectiveness of which depends on gaining and maintaining consumer attention. Borrowing techniques from the gambling industry, Facebook, Google and others exploit human nature, creating addictive behaviors that compel consumers to check for new messages, respond to notifications, and seek validation from technologies whose only goal is to generate profits for their owners….

How does this work? A 2013 study found that average consumers check their smartphones 150 times a day. And that number has probably grown. People spend 50 minutes a day on Facebook. Other social apps such as Snapchat, Instagram and Twitter combine to take up still more time. Those companies maintain a profile on every user, which grows every time you like, share, search, shop or post a photo. Google also is analyzing credit card records of millions of people….

Consider a recent story from Australia, where someone at Facebook told advertisers that they had the ability to target teens who were sad or depressed, which made them more susceptible to advertising. In the United States, Facebook once demonstrated its ability to make users happier or sadder by manipulating their news feed. While it did not turn either capability into a product [yet, that we know of], the fact remains that Facebook influences the emotional state of users every moment of every day. Former Google design ethicist Tristan Harris calls this “brain hacking.”

Roger McNamee just lost his membership in the Silicon Valley Tech Bros Club for violating the first rule of Fight Club.  But having said that, please appreciate the sheer balls it takes to do what Roger did in that op-ed (and you should read the whole thing for full effect).  I firmly believe he’s correct, too.

This makes Facebook’s manipulation of innocent customers actually worse than Ford with the Pinto’s exploding gas tank.  Ford’s acceptance of the cost/benefit analysis of fixing the gas tank was cold blooded and someone should have gone to jail.  But it wasn’t like they were trading on the gas tank as a feature.  What Roger is saying is what we all have suspected, which is that these people at Facebook–starting with POTUS wannabe Zuckerberg–know exactly what they are doing.  And what they are doing demonstrates that data lords are not that different than drug lords.  Except that drug lords never dreamed they could tap into a junkie market the size of the whole planet.

If you doubt the addiction, try this experiment.  Try only using your phone for phone calls for 36 hours.  Just check your email on your computer.  No email, Facebook, Twitter, Google on your phone for 36 hours.  See how you react.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM”) addresses a number of these Internet based addictions, including Internet gambling disorder and Internet addiction disorder.  Internet gambling disorder as a manifestation of the larger category of gambling disorder.  So when Roger says Facebook and Google “borrow” techniques from the gambling industry, they are playing with well known and documented addictive pathologies for profit.  And just imagine the private research that Facebook is able to conduct with over a billion users.  There’s a certain point with a very large sample size that the predictive power of probability may as well be certainty.

In fact, Facebook data lord Adam Kramer (more about him shortly) said in an interview that the large user base was one of the reasons he joined Facebook:

Q: Why did you join Facebook?

A: Facebook data constitutes the largest field study in the history of the world. Being able to ask–and answer–questions about the world in general is very, very exciting to me. At Facebook, my research is also immediately useful: When I discover something, we can use this to make improvements to the product. In an academic position, I would have to have a paper accepted, wait for publication, and then hope someone with the means to usefully implement my work takes notice. At Facebook, I just message someone on the right team and my research has an impact within weeks if not days.

Q: What are some of the interesting questions you’ve answered since you’ve been here?

A: Do emotions spread contagiously? What do the words we choose have to say about how we are and who we are?

DSM-5 (the 2013 edition of DSM) includes Internet addiction disorder in the appendix, which is where pathologies being studied start out in the psychiatric definitional world.  This essentially means that the editorial staff of DSM think there is something there, but there hasn’t been enough documentation to arrive at a uniform definition.

Roger cites to this 2014 study commissioned by Facebook “Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks” written by Adam D. I. Kramer of Facebook’s “Core Data Science Team” and two academics from Cornell.  (Cornell was one of the first campuses outside of Harvard to adopt the early version of Facebook.)

The study concluded:

Emotional states can be transferred to others via emotional contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions without their awareness. Emotional contagion is well established in laboratory experiments, with people transferring positive and negative emotions to others….

In an experiment with people who use Facebook, we test whether emotional contagion occurs outside of in-person interaction between individuals by reducing the amount of emotional content in the News Feed. When positive expressions were reduced, people produced fewer positive posts and more negative posts; when negative expressions were reduced, the opposite pattern occurred.

These results indicate that emotions expressed by others on Facebook influence our own emotions, constituting experimental evidence for massive-scale contagion via social networks. This work also suggests that, in contrast to prevailing assumptions, in-person interaction and nonverbal cues are not strictly necessary for emotional contagion, and that the observation of others’ positive experiences constitutes a positive experience for people.

Now what ever do you suppose that POTUS aspirant Zuckerberg did with this emotional contagion methodology, hmmm?  And remember, the only reason we know about this study at all is because it was published.  My bet is that the two academics probably demanded that the research be published.  I wonder which particular emotion Facebook was interested in measuring?

The twist on this particular study is that it was done on the sly.  Had the study been conducted purely in an academic environment, it would have to have been approved as human subject research by the Cornell Institutional Review Board.  Subjects are given the opportunity to opt out.  This is exactly the kind of thing that Mr. Kramer evidently found oh so frustrating about academic life.

The study’s subjects were Facebook customers–well, users anyway–and none of them were told that they were being observed, much less offered an opportunity to opt out of being studied like lab rats.  That made the study like the Menlo Park version of The Truman Show.  

I’m not the only one who found it disturbing.  The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published the paper, but also found it necessary to include an Editorial Expression of Concern regarding the underhanded nature of not informing the subjects that they were subjects.

Questions have been raised about the principles of informed consent and opportunity to opt out in connection with the research in this paper. The authors noted in their paper, “[The work] was consistent with Facebook’s Data Use Policy, to which all users agree prior to creating an account on Facebook, constituting informed consent for this research.” When the authors prepared their paper for publication in PNAS, they stated that: “Because this experiment was conducted by Facebook, Inc. for internal purposes, the Cornell University IRB [Institutional Review Board] determined that the project did not fall under Cornell’s Human Research Protection Program.” This statement has since been confirmed by Cornell University.

Obtaining informed consent and allowing participants to opt out are best practices in most instances under the US Department of Health and Human Services Policy for the Protection of Human Research Subjects (the “Common Rule”). Adherence to the Common Rule is PNAS policy, but as a private company Facebook was under no obligation to conform to the provisions of the Common Rule when it collected the data used by the authors, and the Common Rule does not preclude their use of the data. Based on the information provided by the authors, PNAS editors deemed it appropriate to publish the paper. It is nevertheless a matter of concern that the collection of the data by Facebook may have involved practices that were not fully consistent with the principles of obtaining informed consent and allowing participants to opt out.

Quick—when you signed up for your Facebook account, did you know you were agreeing to be a lab rat?

I am not an authority on IRBs and human subject research, but I have encountered it in the legal context.  My impression of that encounter would lead me to believe that Cornell got it wrong–the study should have been submitted to their IRB and should have followed the “Common Rule” which basically says you have to tell people they are being studied and allow them to opt out.  Based on the unusual editorial comment from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they have concerns, too, so it’s not just Roger and it’s not just me.

So here’s the question:  What if a candidate for President controlled “the largest field study in the history of the world”?  What if that candidate used that data for polling at a minimum and in an effort to control public opinion in an extreme case, all based on “Facebook’s Data Use Policy”?   How comfortable are you that any result that candidate produces isn’t somehow tainted by the exploitation of addictive behaviors that Roger McNamee describes in his op-ed?

Who needs Tammany when you’ve got the Zuck?

Please Vote for SXSW Panel Picker “Getting to Beta Without Getting Beat Up”

August 8, 2017 Leave a comment

We have proposed a panel for SXSW in the Panel Picker with some great speakers I’ll be moderating.  “Getting to Beta Without Getting Beat Up” will emphasize the importance of licensing strategy milestones that overlay a music-tech startup’s product development strategy milestones.

A well-executed licensing strategy is every bit as much a part of the supply chain logistics as any other element of product development, if not more important.

A buggy product can usually be fixed.  Failure to execute a bespoke licensing strategy can subject the entire company to crippling and endless copyright infringement lawsuits.  In fact, if you are unlicensed or insufficiently licensed, one thing is a pretty sure bet:  The more successful you are, the more likely it is you’ll be sued–a proposition ripped from the headlines.

That scenario can waste the stockholders’ money, be defocusing in the extreme for management and severely damage relationships with the creative community–the life blood of any music startup.

On the other hand, “over clearing” while less costly than litigation still syphons off resources that for the most part lie fallow.

Our panel are all experienced hands in the licensing and metadata world and are themselves entrepreneurs:

  • Keith Bernstein, Founder, Crunch Digital
  • Rahul Rumalla, Chief Technology Officer & Head of Product, Paperchain
  • Alan Graham, Co-Founder, Technical Architect, OCL 

Please consider voting for our panel in the SXSW Panel Picker at this link, we’d really appreciate your support!

 

 

Guest Post: Making Fake Art: “1984”, The New Rembrandt, and The “Fake Artist”

August 4, 2017 Leave a comment

By Laura Kobylecky

“It was only an ‘opeless fancy.
It passed like an Ipril dye,
But a look an’ a word an’ the dreams they stirred!
They ‘ave
stolen my ‘eart awye!

 The tune had been haunting London for weeks past. It was one of countless similar songs published for the benefit of the proles by a sub-section of the Music Department.”

From 1984 by George Orwell

In the dystopian world of George Orwell’s 1984, there is a machine called a “versificator.” The versificator makes what might be called “fake” music—songs that are “composed without any human intervention whatever.” In April of 2016, “A New Rembrandt” was revealed (1). The painting, like the songs of a versificator, was made by machines. In August of 2016, Music Business Worldwide (2) accused Spotify of “creating fake artists.” What is a fake artist? Can music be fake?

The world of 1984 is a grim place. Members of the “Party” have access to resources based on their rank. The rest of society are called “Proles.” The term is short for the “proletarian” and refers to the working class. The Proles make up the majority of society, and so the Party provides them with various sources of entertainment to keep them from getting too restless.

The versificator is one of the entertaining distractions made by the Party. A versificator generates songs that are “composed without any human intervention whatever.” The results range from insipid love songs like “Hopeless Fancy,” to the “savage, barking rhythm” of the “Hate Song”—designed to stir rage against political enemies.   The novel’s protagonist describes one of these songs as “dreadful rubbish.”

But the Proles like it fine. The song “Hopeless Fancy,” takes hold among them and “haunts” London for weeks. In this case, the art of the machine seems adequate for consumption.

The versificator is an element of fiction. However, “The Next Rembrandt” is real. (3) Microsoft, a participant of this project, describes it as “blurring the boundaries between art and technology” and states that the “project is intended to fuel the conversation about the relationship between art and algorithms, between data and human design.” The project used technology to make a painting that supposedly recreates Rembrandt’s style.

The portrait is a man. He has a black hat, tilted slightly. A goatee graces his face as a white ruffled collar draws the eye. His lips are slightly parted in the gesture of a half-spoken word and his eyes are inquisitive and bright. He has never lived. He is purely the manifestation of technological innovation and he exists as “a result of analysing data from Rembrandt’s body of work.”

The portrait took over 18 months. The project was based on access and study of primary data. All 346 of Rembrandt’s paintings were collected in “high resolution 3D scans and digital files.” With the art digitized, it could be studied. An algorithm searched for data points. From the data, various facial points were determined. The result was brought into the world with a 3D printer that recreated the layers and textures of paint on paper. The final product is a pleasant “painting.” It’s nice to look at, but it won’t fool the experts—yet. In the future who knows. Is it fake art? That depends on perspective.

What makes a “fake artist”? In August, 2016, Music Business Worldwide (2) accused Spotify of creating “fake artists.” However, this isn’t quite what it sounds like. Unlike “The Next Rembrandt,” these tracks are not being made by a machine—according to the post. The article states that Spotify has been “paying producers to create tracks within specific musical guidelines.” These producers get a flat fee.

So why does this bother anyone? It’s partially because of playlists. Spotify’s playlists are big money for some musicians. A “chill vibes” piano play list can be a great way to get plays for a composer. However, if Spotify chooses to drop “their records in the playlists in favor of its own masters,” that seriously shifts the balance of power and profit. Those same composers might have a reduced chance of profit and success on this platform.

There is another problem with the, hypothetical, “fake artist.” In a second article, (4) Music Business Worldwide addresses the issue of how these “fake artists” could be driving down the “per-stream income for everyone, while lowering the negotiating power of the labels/publishers/collecting societies.” The following chart illustrates that issue:

Royalty Allocation Ratio

The problem depends on the “allocation ratio,” or how people are getting paid. The bigger the “total plays” the smaller the “per play rate”. If the total pool of monthly revenue available for royalty payments is divided equally over the total number of plays, that determines the “per play” rate for that month. Each artist or songwriter would get paid for each of their plays based on that rate. (There may be complexities like minimum payments and country variations depending on negotiation power, but the basic math is pretty consistent.)

However, it doesn’t quite set right if somebody is watering down the “total plays” by including the “flat fee” folks. Flat fee artists already got their money and they aren’t getting more from the royalty pool no matter how many plays they got. Including their plays in the pool would serve no function other than to reduce the rate that the royalty artist gets per play.

It’s kind of like if you work at a restaurant and tips are your main income. You might have agreed to take a tip share. Everybody’s tips are added up and divided equally. So you make a salary, say, $2.13 an hour and expect to work for the rest in tips. But what if a co-worker has decided they’d rather not gamble on the tips. They agreed to take a flat hourly rate of maybe $11.25. Well if at the end of the day there are 6 waiters getting hourly plus tips and 4 hourlies, but the tip share is divided over ten people, things are strange. The six waiters are only getting a tenth of the total tips, but the extra money being held back from the tip share won’t be given to the hourlies. The extra money just goes to somebody else’s pockets.

Spotify has disagreed with this assertion. The Guardian quotes Spotify:

“[It’s] categorically untrue, full stop. We pay royalties – sound and publishing – for all tracks on Spotify, and for everything we playlist. We do not own rights, we’re not a label, all our music is licensed from rightsholders and we pay them – we don’t pay ourselves. We do not own this content – we license it and pay royalties just like we do on every other track….”

However, the Guardian indicates that even if the royalties are paid they might still be “much more favourable to the company than its standard deals with record labels.” A small change of fraction of a percent of Spotify’s reported $2.8 billion total royalty payout could add up to a great deal of saved money over time. Some of the same math of the above chart could still apply.

But in the end, these are still genuine human artists making the tracks, according to reports. The “fake artists” might be people with different names, but they are people nonetheless. Nobody has invented a versificator re-creating the “Next Rembrandt” of music. But could it happen?

The Next Rembrandt was based on a collection and study of data. Algorithms were used to apply the data points. So if the Rembrandt recreation took high res scans of all the Rembrandt works, then the versificator also would require a massive collection of data to work with, as well as the tools to use that data.

Spotify has made many recent acquisitions of companies that interact with data. Forbes addresses ( 5 ) some of these recent acquisitions. One of these startups that study data is Preact. The company is described “Learning everything possible about what makes subscribers happy, what they don’t like, what they’re talking about online.” Another acquisition is “Soundwave,” a startup that tracks “what songs people played on their phones and where.”

Another major purchase on the data front is The Echo Nest (6). This company “uses data analysis and machine listening to power song recommendation, audio fingerprinting and audio analysis.” Fast Company goes into further detail about The Echo Nest ( 7 ) . They describe the way that it:

“…devours data about the music, on both the “acoustic side”–tempo, key, etc. (Echo Nest’s system crunches that sort of data in about 10 seconds for a song)–and the “cultural side”–what reviewers are saying about the music for instance.”

So it seems like the Echo Nest has some capacity to study a song, the content of it, and also to study how those particular content elements affected people (the cultural side). This data is valuable. What could be done with it?

The New Rembrandt was a study of finding data in the work of Rembrandt, followed by an analysis of that data, and completed with an application of that data. It took massive amounts of data, and tools to study that data to make a genuine “fake” machine-made painting. If someone wanted to make a versificator, capable of producing genuine “fake artist,” how would they do it? Well, it might take access to a massive pool of music, tools capable of studying that data, some motivation and the financial backing to make it all come together.

This is where the science fiction side comes back.  What would motivate someone to make a versificator, one that could produce Prole-pleasing content? First, it must be examined how such a machine would affect the industry. What would a versificator do? If a machine could simulate the art of humans, with any degree of success, it would certainly shift some power in the music and tech industry. The mechanization could reduce individual bargaining power. Even the production of “filler music” could leverage negotiating power enough that major shifts occur. Who would be motivated to make this happen?

In the end, does it really matter? It’s still art maybe, just made by a machine. Does human-content have less value simply because humans didn’t make?

In 1984, the narrator watches a “Prole” prole hanging her laundry on a line. She hums “Hopeless Fancy,” a versificator song, but “the woman sang so tunefully as to turn the dreadful rubbish into an almost pleasant sound.” The song is appreciated, and it connects to this human enough for them to sing along. Is that connection enough, to elevate the product to art?

Would you listen to songs from the versificator?

 

 

REFERENCES

  1. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/apr/05/new-rembrandt-to-be-unveiled-in-amsterdam
  2. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/spotify-is-creating-its-own-recordings-and-putting-them-on-playlists/
  3. https://news.microsoft.com/europe/features/next-rembrandt/
  4. https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/why-spotifys-fake-artists-issue-like-so-much-in-streaming-comes-back-to-transparency/
  5. https://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2016/11/15/spotify-is-ramping-up-its-acquisitions/#501eedcd40d5
  6. http://variety.com/2014/music/news/spotify-acquires-the-echo-nest-1201126850/
  7. https://www.fastcompany.com/1734773/echo-nest-makes-pandora-look-transistor-radio

 

© 2017 Laura Kobylecky, All Rights Reserved

 

@philouza: New Bill Calling For Transparency In Music Is Surprisingly Opaque — Artist Rights Watch

August 2, 2017 Leave a comment

NPR’s Andrew Flanagan on the controversial Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act (TIMLAOA).

via @philouza: New Bill Calling For Transparency In Music Is Surprisingly Opaque — Artist Rights Watch

Controversial Bill On Music Licensing Has Nothing to Do with Small Business

August 1, 2017 Leave a comment

I dreamed up a startling new technique to attempt to divine whether the true purpose of the controversial Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act (or…”TIMLOA”?)  was intended to protect small business as advertised by the MIC Coalition.  I determined that the safe harbors  in the Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act (or as it’s been called, The Shiv Act) was actually designed to protect the biggest of big business.

What startling new technique did I utilize?  I read the bill.

What you don’t find in the bill is anything that limits its application to small business.  Is it common in music licensing legislation to find such protections?  Absolutely.   This wasn’t what I expected to find given the braying of the Disco Ducks.  But then you know what they say…

The Fair Play Fair Pay Act, for example, has special protection in great specificity for small business like noncommercial broadcasters, public broadcasters and small broadcasters.

The Performance Rights Act (from the 110th Congress) also had very clear exemptions for small broadcasters.

While as a matter of propaganda it ignores these protections, the Local Radio Freedom Act (aka “The Pay Your Rent With Exposure Bucks Act”) is very clear about protecting a particular class of broadcasters: “local radio.”

Exposure Bucks

Yet none of this protective language appears in the Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act.  Why doesn’t the TIMLOA have such limiting language if it’s actually all about protecting small business?  Maybe because it’s not about small business at all?  Maybe it’s about these guys in the MIC Coalition:

mic-coaltion-8-15

Realize some MIC Coalition members are themselves trade associations for companies with combined market capitalizations over $1 trillion.  When you see logos for Digital Media Association, the CEA (now called the Consumer Technology Association) and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (home of the Disco Ducks) these are themselves made up of massive companies like Apple, Amazon, YouTube and of course Google, not to mention Spotify.  True small business can’t afford these lobbyists and PR firms (like the Glen Echo Group) this starts to look like the astroturf plant it really is.

So don’t let them tell you that the Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act  is about small business, unless the MIC Coalition would like to include the kind of protective language in their bill that our business has always included to protect the real small business.

 

The Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act: The Domesday Book Meets A Unicorn — Music Tech Solutions

July 27, 2017 Comments off

Americans are freedom loving people and nothing says freedom like getting away with it.

Long Long Time, written by Guy Forsyth

Longtime PRO opponent Rep. Sensenbrenner introduced a bill entitled “The Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act“, a piece of work that is Dickensian in its cruelty, bringing a whole new meaning to either “newspeak” or “draconian,” take your pick.  It’s rare that the Congress can accomplish the hat trick of an interference with private contracts, an unconstitutional taking and an international trade treaty violation all in one bill.  But I guess practice makes perfect.  And since the MIC Coalition gave the bill a rousing cheer followed by a heaping serving of astroturf, we should not be surprised.  (Read the bill here.)

While this legislation currently applies only to songs and sound recordings, other creators should not feel that they’ve dodged a bullet.  I hear that the House Judiciary Committee staff is planning on closing the loop and making all copyright categories subject to the same “register or lose it” approach favored by Lessig, Samuelson and their fellow travelers.  If you thought that we are in an era of the triumph of property rights, that must be a different Congress you’re thinking of.

The bill perpetuates the myth of the “global rights database” that no one who understands the complexities believes will ever be created.  It sounds logical, right?  We have county recorders for real estate, the DMV for cars, why not a database for music?

That is an 11th century idea being welded onto a 21st century problem, the Domesday Book meets a unicorn.  The problem isn’t knowing who owns a particular work which evidently is either what they believe or want you to believe.

The problem is that the users don’t want to seek permission or beg forgiveness, either.  They want to get away with it.  This bill demonstrates that unassailable fact in colors bold as the Google logo.

Think about it–by the time you finish reading this post, 1000 songs will be written and 500 songs will be recorded somewhere out there in the world.  Or more.  (Not to mention photographs taken,  paintings painted, chapters written and so on.)

Do you think that songwriters around the world are thinking, now I know what lets do, let’s rush to go register that new song in the U.S. Copyright Office–in the database, the registration section, the recordation section?  Otherwise, I’ll never be able to afford the lawyer to sue Spotify if they don’t pay me.  I don’t think they’re thinking that at all and are about to fall into the MIC Association’s trap for the unwary.  Why the MIC Coalition?  We’ll come back to them.

mic-coalition-no-npr

MIC Coalition Members

In a nutshell, the bill requires the extraordinarily heavy burden of requiring all songwriters and recording artists (or their publishers or labels)–all, as in the entire world seeking to sue in the U.S., not just the US writers–to register numerous fields of data in a yet to be created database if they plan on suing for statutory damages:

[I]n an action brought under this title for infringement of the exclusive right to perform publicly, reproduce, or distribute a nondramatic musical work or sound recording, the remedies available to a copyright owner [ANY copyright owner] that has failed to provide or maintain the information [required] shall be limited to…(A) an order requiring the infringer to pay to the copyright owner actual damages for the public performance, reproduction, or distribution of the infringed work; and…(B) injunctive relief to prevent or restrain any infringement alleged in the civil action.

That means if you haven’t undertaken the formality of registering in this new database, then the user has no exposure to statutory damages and will not have to pay the victorious songwriter or artists attorneys’ fees.  And this new safe harbor applies apparently even if that songwriter or artist has filed a copyright registration under existing law.

There is nothing in the bill that actually requires the protected class to actually look up anything in this new database, or actually be in compliance with existing statutory licenses (such as the webcasting or simulcasting licenses).

So who is in the new protected class entitled to the Nanny State’s protection from those collusive and pesky songwriters and artists?  Let’s look at the victimology of the “ENTITLEMENT” paragraph.

Well, actually, there’s no “ENTITLEMENT” paragraph for the entitled, it’s actually called “APPLICABILITY” (see “newspeak”, WAR IS PEACE, etc.).  The connected class includes five different categories of cronies.

First, the defined term “An establishment” gets the new even safer harbor.  “Establishment” is a defined term in the Copyright Act (in Sec. 101 for those reading along at home):

An “establishment” is a store, shop, or any similar place of business open to the general public for the primary purpose of selling goods or services in which the majority of the gross square feet of space that is nonresidential is used for that purpose, and in which nondramatic musical works are performed publicly.

Like the members of this organization, the National Retail Federation:

mic-coaltion-8-15 Retailers

Then another defined term “A food service or drinking establishment”.  Kind of like these people:

mic-coaltion-8-15 Booze

That is, the National Restaurant Association, the American Hotel and Lodging Association  (aka those who put their kids through college thanks to SXSW) and their suppliers, the American Beer, Wine and Spirits Retailers.

Next, “A terrestrial broadcast station licensed as such by the Federal Communications Commission”.  I guess that would include the National Association of Broadcasters, iHeart, Salem and Cox (which of course raises the question of whether this entitlement also applies to Cox’s Internet group), kind of like these people:

mic-coaltion-8-15 radio

Don’t forget “An entity operating under one of the statutory licenses described in section 112, 114 [webcasting and simulcasting], or 115 [mechanical licenses].”  Note–not that the statutory license applies to the particular song or sound recording in the way it is used that is the subject of the lawsuit, just that the entity is operating some part of its business under one of those licenses regardless of whether the service that is the subject of the lawsuit operates under one of these licenses or not.  (Pandora’s on-demand service compared to webcasting, for example, could be out of compliance with its sound recording licenses but claim the safe harbor because it is “operating under” one or more of the statutory webcasting license in the radio service or the statutory mechanical licenses for songs.)

It appears that would include these people:

mic-coaltion-DiMA Members

and don’t forget these people who are DiMA members and need the government’s protection from songwriters and artists:

Amazon logo

white apple logo

Microsoft Logo

Spotify_logo

And then I guess you could throw the Consumer Technology Association and CCIA in there, too.

So I think that’s everyone, right?

Last but not least there’s this group as “belt and suspenders”:

An entity performing publicly, reproducing, or distributing musical works or sound  recordings in good faith as demonstrated by evidence such as [i.e., but not limited to] a license agreement in good standing with a performing rights society or other entity authorized to license the use of musical works or sound recordings.

Note:  The license need not be for the musical works or sound recordings for which the “entity” is being sued, just any license for any musical works or sound recordings.

There are loopholes in the bill that you could drive a fleet of Street View cars through, so you have to assume that the loopholes will be hacked given who is involved.  Don’t let anyone tell you “oh that’s just legislative language, we can fix that.”  The whole thing has to be voted down.

Let’s call this bill what it is:  Crony capitalism, the triumph of the connected class.  The Domesday Book writ large.

It’s some of the biggest companies in the world deciding that they don’t want to hear from songwriters or artists anymore.

So shut up and sing.

[This post originally appeared on Music Tech Solutions]

 

 

@repjerrynadler: Reps. Nadler, @DarrellIssa Pre-1972 Copyright Fix with Introduction of CLASSICS Act — Artist Rights Watch

July 19, 2017 Comments off
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) of the House Judiciary Subcommittee for Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet introduced bipartisan legislation to close a long-standing gap in federal copyright law. The Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, and Important Contributions to Society Act (the CLASSICS Act), H.R. 3301, resolves uncertainty over the copyright protections afforded to sound recordings made before 1972 by bringing these recordings into the federal copyright system and ensuring that digital transmissions of both pre- and post-1972 recordings are treated uniformly.

The CLASSICS Act serves as an update to the “pre-72 treatment” of the Fair Play Fair Pay Act – a broader music licensing bill introduced by Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Nadler earlier this Congress – and represents a broad consensus from a variety of stakeholders across the music landscape.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler: “For years, we have been working to ensure royalty payments for artists who recorded many of our great musical classics before 1972. The Fair Play Fair Pay Act set down a clear marker on the need to resolve the dispute over pre-72 music, as we worked toward a long-term solution that benefits multiple stakeholders. The bill we are introducing today updates this Pre-72 provision, once and for all guaranteeing royalty payments for our great legacy artists while providing certainty for digital music services. Hopefully, this new measure will serve as an example of the consensus that can be reached between the creators and distributors of music as we work to comprehensively update our music licensing laws. Many of these older musicians are past their working years and have no other way to make ends meet. I’m thankful to the supporters of this bill for recognizing that pre-72 recordings have value and that those who create it should be paid regardless of their age.”

Congressman Darrell Issa: “This an important and overdue fix to the law that will help settle years of litigation and restore some equity to this inexplicable gap in our copyright system. It makes no sense that some of the most iconic artists of our time are left without the same federal copyright protections afforded to their modern counterparts. This bill is the product of a great deal of work to build consensus across party lines and varying interests all-over the music and entertainment landscapes on how to best resolve this long-standing problem. I’m very proud of the work we’ve done here. It will go a long way helping bring music licensing laws into the twenty-first century.”

The bill is introduced with the support of stakeholders across the music and entertainment industry including American Association of Independent Music, the Recording Industry Association of America, Pandora, musicFIRST, the Internet Association, the GRAMMYs, SoundExchange, Screen Actors Guild‐American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, American Federation of Musicians, the Content Creators Coalition, the Future of Music Coalition, the Rhythm and Blues Foundation, and the Living Legends Foundation. The bill is also supported by several noted artists, many of whom spoke out in support of the CLASSICS Act.

In addition to Chairman Issa and Ranking Member Nadler, Representatives John Conyers (D-MI), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Tom Rooney (R-FL), and Ted Deutch (D-FL) joined as original co-sponsors to the legislation.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

Congress made sound recordings eligible for federal copyright protection with the Sound Recording Amendment of 1971, but the law as passed only applied to works created on or after February 15, 1972. Sound recordings made before 1972 were excluded from federal copyright protection

This gap has meant that different recordings made before 1972 have been subject to an inconsistent patchwork of different laws, creating significant uncertainty for rights holders music creators, and distributors, including digital streaming services, who wish to be able to fairly compensate artists and utilize these recordings.

The differing treatment of pre and post 1972 was an inexplicable and arbitrary oversight on the part of Congress. The U.S. Copyright Office has expressed their bewilderment with the decision, writing in their recent report on federal copyright protections for pre-1972 sound recordings that “Congress did not articulate grounds for leaving pre-1972 sound recordings outside the federal scheme and there is very little information as to why it did so.”

This gap has meant that updates to copyright law and new protections extended to sound recordings under the Copyright Act of 1976 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have excluded pre-1972 recordings. The most significant of these being the ‘safe harbor’ provisions for online piracy and ‘compulsory licenses’ made available for internet and satellite radio streaming.

Quotes of praise for the CLASSICS Act:

“This is a great step forward for legacy artists. Thank you to Representatives Issa and Nadler for recognizing that music made before 1972 is just as important and valued as post-1972 music.” — Mary Wilson, The Supremes

“I am overjoyed and extraordinarily grateful for Congressmen Issa and Nadler’s bipartisan relentless efforts to correct an inequality in the law that discriminates against myself and my peers– the legacy artists who recorded our hit records prior to 1972. It is has been unfair and outrageous that the artists, such as myself, who recorded some of our country’s most iconic music, have been forced to resort to lawsuits in order to get paid for the commercial use of their recordings. It is phenomenal that finally there is light shining at the end of this very long tunnel we’ve been looking at for so long. Knowing there is a consensus agreement to resolve any portion of this outrageous problem makes me proud and furthers my hope that I will still be alive to see the other issues Reps. Nadler and Issa have championed in the Fair Play Fair Pay Act come to similar positive bipartisan resolution and conclusion.” — Sam Moore

“I have found so much inspiration in the songs of the past, the songs I grew up with. The least – the very least – I could do is show them respect and honor them by urging Congress to fix the law so that they can get paid by digital radio. That’s why this bill is so important.” — Melissa Etheridge

“Every artist making music today stands on the musical shoulders of those who came before them. I would not be doing what I do if it weren’t for the heritage acts I grew up listening to, idolizing and trying to emulate. The fact that these amazing artists are not getting compensated for their indelible work and profound influence is simply unfathomable to me, and must be fixed. I am grateful to the sponsors of this bill for finally trying to even the scales, as there is no future in music without honoring the past.” — Dave Koz

“It’s a travesty that artists who shaped our creative minds and inspired us to want to play music in the first place are not being  acknowledged and compensated for the music they gave us.  I’m hopeful this important legislation will address this issue for all time.” — Carlene Carter, Singer-Songwriter, Daughter of country music legends June Carter Cash and Carl Smith, stepdaughter of Johnny Cash, and granddaughter of “Mother” Maybelle Carter of the original historic Carter Family

“The fact U.S., copyright protection does not apply sound recordings made prior to February 15, 1972 makes absolutely no sense.   Early rockers like me and my peers are on heavy rotation these days on popular oldies channels and on digital radio services.  And unlike many other platforms, we’re not compensated for it. How is that fair? It’s our music that attracting listeners and thus we should be paid.   I’m grateful for the leadership of Reps. Issa and Nadler and their efforts to fix this enormous injustice with this important bill.” — Steve Cropper, legendary guitarist, songwriter and producer

###

via @repjerrynadler: Reps. Nadler, @DarrellIssa Pre-1972 Copyright Fix with Introduction of CLASSICS Act — Artist Rights Watch

%d bloggers like this: