Archive

Archive for the ‘In a Goolag State of Mind’ Category

Hey Alexa, Where’s My Money? Address Unknown Update Courtesy of Paperchain

July 17, 2017 1 comment

We get an update this week on the total “address unknown” mass NOIs filed with the Copyright Office for the royalty-free windfall loophole.  This time we have to thank our our friends at Paperchain in Sydney for doing the work of decompressing the massive numbers of unsearchable compressed files posted on the Copyright Office website.  As you can see, there’s been an increase of approximately 70% since January 2017.   (For background, see my article.)

As you can see, Amazon is still far and away the leader in this latest loophole designed to stiff songwriters, followed closely by Google.  However, Spotify is moving on up.  Spotify does get extra points for starting late in March 2017, but they are catching up fast filing over 5,000,000 as of last month.

To put this in context–the Copyright Office as recently as September 2015 posted these “address unknown” NOIs in a single searchable PDF.  However, the Copyright Office  apparently changed the practice abruptly in early 2016 once the Big Tech hammer came down.  Based on the last PDF I could find, the total number of “address unknown” NOIs filed with the copyright office from January 2010 to September 2015 was approximately 4,800.

NOI 2015 Era Date Detail

Compare that approximately 4,800 in five years to approximately 45 million in 18 months.

Notable in its absence:  Apple Music has not filed a single address unknown NOI.  Somehow Apple seems satisfied with their licensing practice based on an absence of a single NOI.

NOI Table
Licensee Paperchain 4/16-6/17
Total 45,856,225
Amazon Digital Services 23,977,548
Google, Inc. 10,386,238
Spotify 5,020,002
Microsoft 3,522,100
iHeart Communications 1,565,763
Pandora Media, Inc. 1,316,512
The Overflow.com Inc. 66,326

@mbridge82 @whippletom @olivernmoody: Google pays academics millions for key support — Artist Rights Watch

Google has paid millions of dollars to academics at British and American universities for research that it hoped would sway public opinion and influence policy in favour of the tech giant.

A watchdog identified 329 pieces of research funded directly or indirectly by Google since 2005 in key public policy areas where regulatory changes could cost it a fortune in fines and lost earnings. The authors, who received payments of between $5,000 and $400,000, did not disclose Google’s funding in two thirds of cases. Emails suggest that some researchers shared papers with Google before publication, seeking suggestions for changes….

Much of the research made arguments in Google’s favour. Authors argued that the internet search company and publisher did not use its market dominance improperly, for example, or concluded that collecting huge volumes of personal data was a fair exchange for its free services….

The number of studies funded by Google has risen sharply at times when the company’s business model was under threat. Google-funded academics wrote more than 50 papers on competition issues between 2011 and 2013 when the company was investigated by the Federal Trade Commission for alleged anti-competitive practices. Google subsequently agreed to change some business practices.

There was a second sharp increase two years ago when the European Commission filed formal antitrust charges against the company. Last month, European regulators issued a record $2.71 billion fine against Google for unfairly favouring its own services over those of rivals in its search results. The company denies the charge.

Former Google employees told The Wall Street Journal that the firm’s officials in Washington compiled wish lists of academic papers, then searched for authors. Other academics approached Google to pitch ideas, according to emails obtained by the newspaper.

The sources said that Google promoted the research papers to government officials and sometimes paid travel expenses for professors to meet policymakers.

On one occasion Eric Schmidt, Google’s former chief executive, cited a Google-funded author in written answers to Congress to back his claim that his company was not a monopoly — without mentioning that it had paid for the paper, the investigation found.

Read the post in the Times of London

via @mbridge82 @whippletom @olivernmoody: Google pays academics millions for key support — Artist Rights Watch

@GTP_updates Report on “Google Academics, Inc.”

July 11, 2017 1 comment

Ever wonder why it is that some academics seem to be as close to Google as 1 is to 2?  The Google Transparency Project has released a fascinating report and searchable database of papers written by academics funded by Google (according to the group’s methodology).  This is particularly timely given the “fake news” hot topic and the new book by Sharyl Attkisson all about manufactured information in our astroturf culture entitled The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote.

Because make no mistake–Google’s multimillion dollar influence peddling campaign on campus is all about influencing regulators and lawmakers.  Yes, just like Big Pharma, “Google Academics” funnels big bucks to shape authority figures in Google’s image for 329 papers that the group was able to identify.  The epitoma suprema of factiness.

Indirect Funding

Direct Funding

Total

Funding not acknowledged

131

85

216

Funding acknowledged

29

94

113

150

179

329

Source:  Google Academics, Inc.

As noted in the Google Academics, Inc. research report (at p1):

[Google] has cultivated a college-like atmosphere, offering yellow bicycles for employees to ride around its sprawling campus. Its partnerships with Carnegie Mellon University are so extensive that a Google office is housed on the school’s campus.

Behind the scenes, however, Google has exercised an increasingly pernicious influence on academic research, paying millions of dollars each year to academics and scholars who produce papers that support its business and policy goals. An in-depth examination by the Google Transparency Project identified 329 research papers published between 2005 and 2017 on public policy matters of interest to Google that were in some way funded by the company.

In more than half of those cases (54%), academics were directly funded by Google. The remainder worked for, or were affiliated with, groups or institutions that were funded by Google. In the majority of cases, readers of the papers would not have been aware of the corporate funding: Academics did not disclose the Google funding in two-thirds of cases (66%). Authors failed to disclose funding even when they were directly funded by Google in more than a quarter (26%) of cases.

For example–take Jonathan Band.  Mr. Band is a registered lobbyist for MIC Coalition member the Computer and Communications Industry Association, the Library Copyright Alliance and Yahoo! Inc. and until recently was a lobbyist for Visa and the Net Coalition.  According to the Google Academics database, Mr. Band authored no fewer than ten academic papers supporting Google’s views, six of which mentioned Google in the title.

Remember Annmarie Bridy, one of the defenders of the current Librarian of Congress after what I believe was the retaliatory firing of the Register of Copyrights?  Professor Bridy has two papers in the Google Academics database.

Marvin Ammori of the Fight for the Future crowd?  Nine papers.

Mark Lemley of the Durie Tangri law firm (a go-to outside law firm for Google’s moves against creators (especially authors) and chief defender of the Goldieblox shenanigans)?  12 papers written or co-written in the Google Academics database.

We now have another valuable insight into Google’s influence peddling thanks to the Google Transparency Project.

It was Larry Page’s middle-of-the-night insight that hyperlinks could be used like academic citations to determine the usefulness of information that famously gave rise to Google. Now Google is creating a universe of paid-for citations with which to advance its policy interests.

 

 

.

@davidclowery: Does Google Use Dominance in Search to Steer Traffic to “Unofficial” YouTube Videos? — The Trichordist — Artist Rights Watch

July 2, 2017 Comments off

Admittedly this is an unscientific sampling. But it sure seems like Google search (especially in ex-USA markets) seems to return top search results for UGC (User “Generated” Content) videos instead of official videos. Often no royalties are paid on these UGC videos, and in the cases where royalties are paid, they are paid at a […]

via @davidclowery: Does Google Use Dominance in Search to Steer Traffic to “Unofficial” YouTube Videos? — The Trichordist — Artist Rights Watch

@bsookman: Worldwide de-indexing order against Google upheld by Supreme Court of Canada — Artist Rights Watch

June 29, 2017 Comments off

[Editor Charlie sez: The DMCA is still not an alibi…]

The Supreme Court of Canada released a landmark decision today ruling that Canadian common law courts have the jurisdiction to make global de-indexing orders against search engines like Google.

via @bsookman: Worldwide de-indexing order against Google upheld by Supreme Court of Canada — Artist Rights Watch

@fooyunchee @auchard: Google faces years of EU oversight on top of record antitrust fine — Artist Rights Watch

June 28, 2017 Comments off

tumblr_liawtqPPmT1qc7bl7-3

Beyond a headline-grabbing 2.4 billion euro ($2.7 billion) fine EU antitrust regulators have leveled against Google, the internet giant is likely to be shackled for years by Tuesday’s precedent-setting decision defining the company as a monopoly. The ruling opens the door for further regulatory actions against more crucial parts of Google’s business – mobile phones, online ad buying and specialized search categories like travel – while easing the standard of proof for rivals to mount civil lawsuits showing Google has harmed them.

via @fooyunchee @auchard: Google faces years of EU oversight on top of record antitrust fine — Artist Rights Watch

A must read post on @thetrichordist by @davidclowery: A Compromise Proposal to Fix Streaming Royalties,Licensing and Notification

June 28, 2017 Comments off

I have a feeling I’m about to wander off the reservation here. I say this because what I’m about to propose is essentially a modification of a potential legislative proposal that rumor has it the NMPA is floating. That proposal seems to be generating some negative backlash in songwriter/publisher community (whether it deserves it or […]

via @davidclowery: A Compromise Proposal to Fix Streaming Royalties,Licensing and Notification — Artist Rights Watch

%d bloggers like this: