Archive
MTP Podcast:Fix Google’s Antitrust Problem by Fixing Its Supervoting Stock
All stockholders are equal but some stockholders are more equal than others.
HOW A CAREER CON MAN LED A FEDERAL STING THAT COST GOOGLE $500 MILLION
Google Nonprosecution Agreement with Criminal Division DOJ
Eric Schmidt Takes the 5th Under Questioning from Senator Cornyn
Eric Schmidts Written Answers to Sen Cornyn’s Request for the Record
Google Drugs Shareholder Settlement
Transcript Boris Feldman Appearance Chancery Court DE on DOJ apology to Google pp 11-12
AG Jim Hood’s Subpoena of Google
The Two Years War: Google’s Polish Footprint Behind Poland’s Lawfare Against Artists over EU Copyright Directive
Poland has the distinction of being the first country to tip Google’s lawfare strategy against the Copyright Directive–sue to have the whole thing overturned by Court of Justice of the European Union, the “CJEU.” The CJEU has, among other things, the jurisdiction to hear an “action for annulment” filed by a EU government like NATO member Poland.
So who is in Google’s Polish footprint? According to the Google Transparency Project, we find a few revolving door people. Want to bet one of them knows how Poland came to file their case so soon?
Sylwia Giepmans-Stepien: Former Junior Officer in Poland Ministry of the Economy
Marta Kokoszka: Project Manager, Polish Information and Foreign Investment Agency
Marcin Olender, Head of European Union and International Affairs Unit, Polish Ministry of Administration and Digitization
Big Door Keeps on Turning: Recent Departure from Google to (where else) Uber: Agata Waclawik-Wejman
But it’s not just the old revolving door. Google has made a substantial investment in Europe, but in particular at the University of Warsaw.
The Google Transparency Project describes Google’s investment in the University of Warsaw:
In early 2014, according to domain registration records, Google expanded its academic relationships in Europe further East, creating the Digital Economy Lab (DELab) at the University of Warsaw.
The program is described as an interdisciplinary institute funded by Google for the implementation of programs concerning the social, economic and cultural consequences of technology.
There is little public information about the extent of the partnership, or the amount of Google’s funding. However, the DELab website does offer some clues.
DELab’s director, Katarzyna Śledziewska, has a distinguished career in European policy and academic circles. She also serves as a member of another Google-funded initiative, the Readie-Europe Research Alliance for a Digital Economy….
Stay tuned, this case may turn out to be an excellent vehicle to find out more about the extent of Google’s investments.
Victory in Europe: The Two Years War over the Copyright Directive has Begun
[This post originally appeared in the MusicTechPolicy Monthly Newsletter.]
If you’ve heard about the new copyright law in Europe, you’ve probably heard that the new rules with either break the Internet or bring Big Tech to heel. I’d suggest neither proposition is true but not for the reasons you might think. The reason is that Big Tech has absolutely no intention of complying with the law unless they are made to do so and few-if any- governments have the stomach to make them.
Cynical much, you may think? Not really. Hardly a day goes by that some new horror story doesn’t break about some awful business practice at Google, Facebook, Amazon or Twitter. Lawmakers wring their hands, maybe fine the company concerned and everyone goes back to sleep until the next eruption. Those fines are in the billions, but the bad behavior continues.
There’s a simple explanation for why. It should be obvious by now that relying on good corporate citizenship is no more likely to produce a good outcome with Big Tech than it has been with Big Anything Else. You can dress them up in hoodies, they can tell you to lean in and that they won’t be evil, but “trust me” has not worked out very well so far.
Not only has “trust me” not worked out in terms of outcomes, it also hasn’t resulted in compliance with the law. And this is the real reason why the bad behavior continues. It’s not that these horror stories are “glitches”–no, the platforms that produce the inhuman results are working exactly as they are designed to do. Do you really think that companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon aren’t able to control their platforms, algorithms and applications?
No, these companies make things that work very, very well. For them. They wrap them in extraordinary spin and mythology and deceive their users into increasingly addictive behaviors. At their core, all these platforms are in two business lines–surveillance capitalism and addiction. They use access to music and movies and journalism as a honeypot to draw in users whose data they can scrape and resell in an unvirtuous circle.
Face it–the Amazon shopping jones is not that different that a Home Shopping Network addiction, and none of the engineered behavior addictions from Silicon Valley are that different that Brown & Williamson Tobacco chemically engineering their product to be physically addictive to smokers with the messaging to match.
Nowhere is the unvirtuous circle more obvious than in Europe during the run up to and final passage of the new European Copyright Directive. It cannot be overlooked that the European Commission fined Google billions of dollars twice during the period that overlapped with the ultimate passing of the Directive, for a total of $6.8 billion. Those fines seem large, but were barely discussed compared to the braying from YouTube over the Copyright Directive.
According to leading European newspapers, Google and Facebook in particular fought the Directive with tactics that are reminiscent of Russia’s Internet Research Agency that we have all become too familiar with. Bots, spam, interference lobbying and outright threats to Members of the European Parliament, the lot. YouTube used its platform to spread misinformation about the directive through “YouTube creators” and reportedly targeted the children of MEPs who supported the Directive.
In the end, Google and Facebook were able to turn certain parts of the Directive their way but understand this–the Directive is simply that. A directive at the “federal” level of the European Union. That directive now has to be put into national laws by each legislature in the 28 countries that are members of the EU before it has any legal effect. This can take up to two years Therein lies the rub.
If past is prologue, Google, Facebook and their Big Tech fellow travelers have absolutely no intention of ever complying with the Directive. They will lobby away as much of the Directive as possible at the member state level–that effort was already under way before the dust had settled much less the just concluded voting for Members of the European Parliament.
They then will sit back and wait to be sued. The courtroom is where Big Tech most excels in tying the wishes of voters into knots. By the time there is a final non appealable judgement from the highest court of competent jurisdiction in each member state including forms of appeal that no one has even thought of yet, Google will have probably backed new legislation and collected political IOUs that Google plans to use to reverse all ground gained in the Directive.
And in the meantime, the greatest income transfer of all time will continue as Google and Facebook suck the life out of creators for their fast buck profits and stock market largesse.
The only thing that will get their attention is action that affects their behavior-breaking up these companies in particular. But understand that any government that takes them on is essentially going to war with a corporate country that is probably better funded and nastier than any government.
Getting justice from Silicon Valley will be an apocalyptic story worthy of Skynet. But don’t think you can affect their behavior with your so-called laws that they have no intention of obeying. Kyle Reese is not coming.
Don’t get me wrong–I’d rather have the Directive than not. Just don’t deceive yourself into thinking the fight is over.
The fight is just beginning.
An Insult to the Heart: Lobbyists Organize Big Tech Rallies in Europe
The ghost of Edward Bernays walks the streets of the ancient capitols of Europe. As the man who wrote the book on propaganda (literally) Bernays made a chilling observation:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
In a post-Cambridge Analytica world, the battle for humanity will be fought over the equivocation of “freedom”—the basic human freedom of expression will be coopted by the corporate freedom from regulation to profit from surveillance by machines. It is the ad-man’s old challenge–make you think something that will kill you is actually good for you.
Descendant of Bernays’ “Torches of Freedom” Campaign
In turning the machines loose on the humans who are their product, corporations will use tools that Bernays foreshadowed–but these “men we have never heard of” will be playing with the very foundations of democratic institutions of the nation state. Who wins this battle is up for grabs right now and nowhere are we seeing this struggle for humanity more clearly rendered than in Europe in the battle over Article 13.
In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
Bernays described Google some 70 years before its time.
The offspring of Joe Camel proudly displayed at the Googleplex
We should understand that the “value gap” that sparked this extraordinary lobbying effort by American multinational corporations to bring Europe to heel was symptomatic of a more fundamental sickness. That commercial symptom could, and perhaps should, be more readily understood as a “values gap”–the perverse voyeurism of the surveillance capitalists to commoditize all that touched their networks and use artists to lure the humans whose data could be scraped, whose behavior could be monitored and eventually manipulated for even greater profit.
I’d suggest that is why this struggle in Europe resonates so deeply with artists around the world. It’s not just the commercial insult. It’s not the metaphorical Room 101 app where the winning answer is 2+2=5.
It is an insult to humanity. It is an insult to the heart.
The First Rule of Lawfare: Is Google’s Active Measures Campaign on Article 13 a Trial Run for Election Meddling by a US Non-State Actor?
Well, I wake up in the morning
Fold my hands and pray for rain.
I got a head full of ideas
That are drivin’ me insane.
It’s a shame the way she makes me scrub the floor.
I ain’t gonna work on Maggie’s farm no more.
From Maggie’s Farm, written by Bob Dylan
Google on the Back Foot with the Copyright Directive
Google and Facebook recently suffered a lobbying debacle in Europe over the European Copyright Directive. That legislation cuts back the European version of the what Americans call the DMCA safe harbor. A triumph for artists, Google’s European loss was the worst lobbying defeat that Silicon Valley has been handed in a long time—at least since the SESTA legislation cut back another safe harbor in the U.S. So it shouldn’t be surprising that YouTube’s CEO is trying to influence YouTubers to lobby on behalf of Big Tech—Google desperately needs some human shields, which is exactly what participating YouTubers would be. Once again scrubbing the floor for the House of Google.
At its core, the Copyright Directive cuts back the ability of services like YouTube to profit from infringing activities on their platforms. One would expect corporations profiting from that safe harbor to lobby against it, just like supporters lobbied for it. But Google and Facebook went well beyond simply lobbying by attempting to sow discord and undermine democratic institutions.
And they got caught—red handed. They were caught conducting active measures such as spamming, bot farming and overt messaging campaigns calculated to undermine the legislative process in the European Parliament. You can read about it in a number of leading European publications starting with investigations by both the Times of London and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
Google’s Article 13 Lobbying Campaign from Volker Rieck
Most importantly Google supporters like the Pirate Party promised—or more accurately “threatened”—that “constituents” would show up to protest, and very few did. So Google’s active measures campaign lacked a human face—the key component that brought it down.
German MEP Helga Truepel explained why the plenary vote on the Copyright Directive was so lopsided against Google at a press conference : “…[It was] due to this message spamming campaign. I talked to some of my colleagues here [and they] are totally pissed off, cause in the streets there were a maximum 500-800 people last Sunday [at Pirate Party protests]… and we were only deleting emails for weeks now.”
Plan B and the First Rule of Lawfare
Fast forward to today: Google needs a Plan B. Desperately.
Google’s problem today is the Members of the European Parliament (and some members of the UK Parliament) are wise to their jive after the plenary vote. My bet is that story is not yet concluded as it merits a criminal investigation. Because when a corporate covert influence operation is discovered and attribution is certain, it’s hard to put that genie back in the bottle (just like Internet piracy).
But while Google desperately needs a Plan B to retain its safe harbor, publicly acknowledging its influence operation is politically awkward, bread crumbs or no. Like fight club, the first rule of lawfare is that it does not exist.
Google and Facebook are struggling to find that Plan B as the EU lawmaking process continues with the “Trilogue”, the next step to the Copyright Directive becoming national law in the European Union. Google seeks another way to overwhelm the system by finding human shields to mingle with the bots. And that’s where YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki comes in with her recent appeal to YouTubers to protest the Directive.
Ms. Wojcicki may want us to overlook that Google just got caught running active measures against a democratic institution to meddle in the legislative process on another continent. But members of the European Parliament have not forgotten. She may be able to pull the wool over YouTuber’s eyes, but it just makes her human shields look even more duped and her methods look especially more alarming—if not terrifying—in a post-Cambridge Analytica world.
Safe Harbors, Addiction and Human Shields
Don’t underestimate how important these safe harbors are to Google, Facebook and its fellow monopolists. They were ready to be on the wrong side of child sex trafficking legislation to preserve their other safe harbor (Section 230 of the “Communications Decency Act”)—that surely strained Sheryl Sandberg’s performance as Wendy to Mark Zuckerberg’s “boy who wouldn’t grow up.” These safe harbors are crucial to Google, Facebook and Twitter—because it protects them as they snort up the addictive content and reward (if not sell) views, likes, follows, and “engagement.”
Remember—YouTube is not in the music business, or even in the content business at the end of the day. Google and Facebook are in the addiction business.
In particular the behavioral addiction business (see Irresistible by Dr. Adam Alter). If you’re in the addiction business, safe harbors are very, very important. Just ask the narcotraficantes. And don’t forget—the U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island investigated Google for violations of the Controlled Substances Act that resulted in a $500,000,000 fine and a non-prosecution agreement (not to mention a shareholder lawsuit).
Straight Outta Minitrue
But I suspect it is the embarrassing lack of human shields cited by MEP Helga Truepel that drove Ms. Wojcicki to issue a meandering tl;dr blog post trying to convince “YouTube creators” to fall in with the company line on the Copyright Directive.
Ms. Wojcicki manages to get through her entire appeal without coming clean about the point of the Copyright Directive—YouTube profits from piracy through the safe harbor that the Directive would cut back, especially Article 13. (There’s way more to the Directive than Article 13, but that’s another story.)
She would have YouTubers sign up to the “sky is falling” claims that “the unintended consequences of Article 13 will put [the highly profitable YouTube] ecosystem at risk”. Why? Because “[i]t would be too risky for platforms to host content from smaller original content creators, because the platforms would now be directly liable for that content.”
That is quite a leap—how is it that “smaller” YouTubers would be such a big problem? After all of YouTube’s “advertiser friendly” changes that severely hurt the earning power of many YouTubers, does Ms. Wojcicki really think that YouTubers—a pretty clever bunch on the whole it must be said—are so gullible that they will miss the irony?
And then she says this: “We are committed to working with the industry to find a better way. This language could be finalized by the end of the year [in the Trilogue], so it’s important to speak up now.”
Given the breadth of the coalition supporting the Copyright Directive and opposing Google and Facebook, it’s not immediately clear who is “the industry.” I can tell you that if she includes the music industry in that reference, I can save her some time.
Nobody in “the industry” trusts Google, YouTube, Facebook or Ms. Wojcicki. [Although the beachhead that Google scored with the MMA may make life interesting for publishers and songwriters wishing to protest against the hand that feeds the mechanical licensing collective.]
And, frankly, I’d be surprised if many YouTubers trust her either. Based on the vote supporting the Copyright Directive, there’s a wide swath of MEPs that have severe misgivings about all these Silicon Valley companies trying to run roughshod over Europeans. And then there’s the two and probably soon to be three competition prosecutions against Google by the European Commission. That’s a thing.
Ms. Wojcicki hasn’t learned (and I predict won’t ever learn) a simple truth that every record company and music publisher knows—don’t jack with the talent. YouTube jacks with the talent frequently, so it’s unclear how the talent is going to react to this latest request that they take time out of their day to help YouTube.
It’s not a good look and it will come back to bite. YouTube has been profiting from the safe harbor for its entire existence and wouldn’t know how to make an honest buck if their lives depended.
Is Election Meddling Next on Google’s Agenda?
Before Ms. Wojcicki tries to rally YouTubers as human shields to support Google’s billions on her bot farm, she needs to get her own house in order.
And members of the European Parliament need to get a grip on these active measures campaigns before Google goes beyond “lobbying” on an issue vote and moves on to meddling in campaign outcomes in a few months when the European Parliament stands for election.
In a post-Cambridge Analytica world, we all know it’s a short step from undermining opposition on a particular issue to undermining the election of a particular candidate. And Google is just as capable of meddling as any state actor if not more so.
Google’s European Campaign Contributions on Article 13
RITTER
They want what every first term administration wants…a second term.
From A Clear and Present Danger, written by Tom Clancy (novel), screenplay by Donald Stewart, Steven Saillian and John Milius.
MTP readers will recall that both the Times of London and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung have confirmed the efforts by Google to influence the vote on copyright reform in the European Union. We called for that investigation on MTP and were mocked for doing so by the usual suspects.
Getting mocked by the usual suspects is how you know you’re onto something big, by the way.
But we owe a big thanks to the really stellar investigative work of Volker Rieck and David Lowery that exposed how Google uses astroturf front groups to “push its views” and for which it no doubt pays well.
There is, of course, a political dimension to this exposé that has not been examined thoroughly yet. It’s an important dimenstion because the Members of the European Parliament must stand for election next year, less than a year away. And the Member of the European Parliament who certainly appears to be as close to Google as 1 is to 2 is the lone Pirate Party representative.
The Pirate Party is a creature of proportional representation, an interesting practice in Europe (and other places) that allows political parties with very small constitutencies to field candidates and sometimes get elected to legislative bodies such as the European Parliament. The Pirate Party has one European Parliament representative elected from Germany, which is interesting because Google has also dropped a pile of influence-peddling cash in Germany according to the Google Transparency Project.
First, Google’s academic influence program in Europe has gone beyond funding existing academic institutions, as it does in the United States, to helping create entirely new institutes and think-tanks in key countries like Germany, France and the United Kingdom. In those countries, executives from Google’s lobbying operation have helped conceive research groups and covered most, or all, of their budgets for years after launch.
Google policy executives have acted as liaisons to steer their research priorities and host public events with policymakers.
For example, Google has paid at least €9 million to help set up the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG) at Berlin’s Humboldt University. The new group launched in 2011, after German policymakers voiced growing concerns over Google’s accumulated power.
The Institute has so far published more than 240 scholarly papers on internet policy issues, many on issues of central importance to Google’s bottom line. HIIG also runs a Google-funded journal, with which several Google-funded scholars are affiliated, to publish such research.
The Institute’s reach extends beyond Germany, or even Europe. HIIG previously managed, and still participates, in a global Network of Internet and Society Research Centers [Silicon Valley’s answer to the Confucious Institutes] to coordinate internet policy scholarship. Many are in emerging markets where Google is trying to expand its footprint, such as India and Brazil.
So it must be said that when Google was caught with its hand in the cookie jar on Article 13, that astroturf effort must be viewed as part of a larger Google policy laundering operation that may include influencing elections. Certainly in a post-Cambridge Analytica world, one cannot simply ignore these dots and all are worthy of investigation for compliance with Europe’s campaign finance laws if nothing else.
For a minority political party representative of one in need of a message in the face of an imminent election, it simply cannot be ignored that garnering the finanical support of Google and Facebook’s astroturf operation for a campaign that directly or indirectly benefits a candidate may be welcome.
Getting Silicon Valley’s billions focused on motiviating the electorate around a particular issue of benefit to such a multinational bloc of monopolists might help motivate voters and guide them to the “right” candidate. As one of the usual suspects noted:
When the European Commission announced its plans to modernize EU copyright law two years ago, the public barely paid attention. This changed significantly in recent months.
Which was perhaps one of the electoral objects of the astroturf exercise.
Considering that political campaigns in Europe are typically of quite limited duration compared to the US (sometimes as short as 25 days before polling day), coming up with a an issue campaign that a political candidate–especially an incumbent–can leverage to increase their profile has got to be golden–particularly if that campaign may not rise to the level of a restricted political contribution or electioneering has got to be disclosed.
If that issue campaign can draw funding and support from U.S. based multinational corporations like Google and Facebook leveraging their user networks and advertising clout, all the better for a vulnerable candidate.
Because in the end, what every incumbent wants is another term. The Pirate Party already faces declining relevance and may lose the one seat they have in the European Parliament elections in a few months time. Especially if the the Pirate Party already struggles to field a winner. Faced with such an existential threat, who knows what compromises may get made and who knows what in-kind donations may surface.
Undisclosed compromises and in-kind donations.
Is YouTube The Lyor Show?
MIKE
Christof, let me ask you, why do you think that Truman has never come close to discovering the true nature of his world until now?
CHRISTOF
We accept the reality of the world with which we’re presented. It’s as simple as that.
from The Truman Show, written by Andrew Niccol
You’ll hear a lot of trash talk about Lyor Cohen, but credit where it’s due–he gave an interview that interested me about how he sees his role at YouTube. I actually think he’s got some old school ideas that may be fundamentally sound, but are not connected to the Google reality.
I submit that his problem is that either he’s getting paid so much money he doesn’t need to be attached to reality or he doesn’t understand that Google does not give a rip about us. Or maybe it’s a little of both.
Lyor’s main problem is that he either doesn’t understand or chooses to ignore Google’s exploitative business model. MTP readers will recall a prescient 2008 book review of Nicholas Carr’s The Google Enigma (entitled “Google the Destroyer“), by antitrust scholar Jim DeLong that gives an elegant explanation of Google’s mindset:
Carr’s Google Enigma made a familiar business strategy point: companies that provide one component of a system love to commoditize the other components, the complements to their own products, because that leaves more of the value of the total stack available for the commoditizer….Carr noted that Google is unusual because of the large number of products and services that can be complements to the search function, including basic production of content and its distribution, along with anything else that can be used to gather eyeballs for advertising. Google’s incentives to reduce the costs of complements so as to harvest more eyeballs to view advertising are immense….This point is indeed true, and so is an additional point. In most circumstances, the commoditizer’s goal is restrained by knowledge that enough money must be left in the system to support the creation of the complements….
Google is in a different position. Its major complements already exist, and it need not worry in the short term about continuing the flow. For content, we have decades of music and movies that can be digitized and then distributed, with advertising attached. A wealth of other works await digitizing – [music,] books, maps, visual arts, and so on. If these run out, Google and other Internet companies have hit on the concept of user-generated content and social networks, in which the users are sold to each other, with yet more advertising attached.
So, on the whole, Google can continue to do well even if leaves providers of its complements gasping like fish on a beach.
And that was the truth in 2008 and its still true of Google ten years later because that’s their business model. So when Irving Azoff says of Google that YouTube doesn’t pay artists and songwriters adequately–even the top songwriters in the world who are members of Irving’s Global Music Rights–that’s entirely consistent with the predatory business model Jim DeLong identified.
And when Lyor tries to flatter and deflect his way around Irving’s criticism, he’s missing the point entirely which is not surprising given that he works there. But it doesn’t change the fact that Irving is right—Google is built on an exploitative business model that depends on using the DMCA safe harbor to undermine basic private property concepts and complete one of the biggest income transfers of all time to the great detriment of artists and songwriters.
MTP readers will also remember my 2007 post, The DMCA is Not an Alibi, now called “the value gap.” That was the one that really started criticisms that I had a Google problem. I can’t tell you the number of times that people have come up to me and confessed that they didn’t see what I was driving at until years after. Not that it matters, but important years were lost when people in positions to marshal resources to combat them simply failed to do so.
Nothing has changed since Jim and I wrote those pieces and nothing will change until there are tectonic shifts in how Google is permitted to operate and the loopholes it relies on. We’re thankful of the victory in Europe, but as one loophole closes in Europe, another opens in the US through the Music Modernization Act’s inexplicable and likely unconsitutional reachback safe harbor.
In a recent Billboard interview, Lyor said:
“Prior, [YouTube would] make a deal with the industry, go away for a few years and then come back. And that, to me, is where misunderstandings happen,” he explains. “It’s really hard to find an artist and break that artist — I mean, it’s almost impossible. So if Google and YouTube understand how difficult it is, maybe they could think about ways to improve that part of the business….”
How did you alleviate the disconnect between YouTube and the music industry?
Just going back to back with them. Demystifying our intent. Understanding how hard it is to break artists and to go to work on behalf of the creative community and the labels.
I think Lyor is essentially correct in his old school assessment of Google’s “new boss” problem, but he’s treating the wrong symptom. It’s not that Google doesn’t understand anything, they understand just fine how hard we think it is to break an artist in the music business. They just don’t care and to the extent they think about it at all, they think that we don’t understand because they think they “break” YouTube “stars” when those “stars” get corporate sponsorships.
And that is because their business model is based on manipulating loopholes and not on “breaking artists,” if “breaking artists” means establishing artists as able to have successful careers apart from YouTube. And that dependency has become clearer in the years since Jim wrote his “flopping on the beach” post which makes Google’s commoditization even more insidious.
So while we’re happy that the Europeans have seen the light on the “value gap,” the DMCA is still not an alibi–unless the U.S. government continues to fail to address the underlying cause of the new algorithmic Darwinian music business that is gradually asphyxiating artists and songwriters.
And while we can appreciate Lyor’s old school view of his role in the Google Nation, no one should be persuaded that his approach will change anything as long as one of the largest corporations in commercial history is allowed to weaponize the DMCA safe harbor. The artists Lyor is focused on “helping” aren’t just flopping on any beach, they are flopping on Google’s beach, one way or another.
Register to Vote for Artist Rights! Click Here to Get Registered!
If They Want to Stay Elected, They Need Your Vote!
Click on the image to sign the #irespectmusic petition at irespectmusic.org
Sign the petition and tell Congress you want artist pay for radio play! 13,000 signatures and counting! (Thank you Rep. Jerry Nadler)
Artist Rights Watch
Follow Artist Rights Watch, the news source for the Artist Rights Movement
#irespectmusic Podcast by Karoline Kramer Gould
Subscribe to #IRespectMusic Podcast on iTunes and visit www.irespectmusicpodcast.com
