Archive

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

Watch Out Toronto, Robocop is coming to Googleville

November 17, 2017 Leave a comment
prime_directives_2

We started talking about all of these things that we could do if someone would just give us a city and put us in charge

You may have read that Google is building its own city inside Metro Toronto.  As reported by the New York Times:

Google’s founders have long fantasized about what would happen if the company could shape the real world as much as it has life on the internet.

“Years ago, we were sitting there thinking, Wouldn’t it be nice if you could take technical things that we know and apply them to cities?” Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Alphabet (now Google’s parent company), said Tuesday. “And our founders got really excited about this. We started talking about all of these things that we could do if someone would just give us a city and put us in charge.”

That is, of course, an outlandish idea. “For all sorts of good reasons, by the way, it doesn’t work that way,” Mr. Schmidt acknowledged. But there he was standing Tuesday before an array of Canadian flags, in front of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ontario officials, to announce the closest thing anyone has seen to a tech company that takes the reins in a major city.

Toronto has about 800 acres of waterfront property awaiting redevelopment, a huge and prime stretch of land that amounts to one of the best opportunities in North America to rethink at scale how housing, streets and infrastructure are built. On Tuesday the government and the group overseeing the land announced that they were partnering with an Alphabet subsidiary, Sidewalk Labs, to develop the site.

They want it to embody the city of the future, a technological test bed for other communities around the world, “the world’s first neighborhood built from the internet up.”

So whether you call it Trudeauville or Googleville, not since the Treaty of Westphalia has a private company more powerful than the British East India Company had quite such a choice opportunity.  (And no, they won’t call it the “Goolag”.)  Google gets a chance to fulfill the dream of every hacker since Peter Lamborn Wilson wrote Temporary Autonomous Zones, Bruce Sterling on pirate utopias, Napster thought of locating its servers on Sealand, or White House aide Susan Crawford sighed about how she aspired to “geek around the nation state.

Yes, Google gets its own city.  And who do you think will enforce the Laws of Google?  Why robot cops, of course.  Cops like Officer Atlas, from Google’s own Boston Dynamics subsidiary.

And of course, Officer Handle for those pesky foot chases:

Must Read: @oliviasolon: Ashamed to Work in Silicon Valley: how techies became the new bankers

November 11, 2017 Leave a comment

[Editor Charlie sez:  Meet the 1% of the 1%]

When Danny Greg first moved to San Francisco to work at Github in 2012, he used to get high-fives in the street from strangers when he wore his company hoodie.

These days, unless he’s at an investor event, he’s cautious about wearing branded clothing that might indicate he’s a techie. He’s worried about the message it sends.

Greg is one of many people working in tech who are increasingly self-conscious about how the industry – represented by consumer-facing tech titans like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Twitter and Uber – is perceived: as underregulated, overly powerful companies filled with wealthy tech bros and “brilliant assholes” with little regard for the local communities they occupy. Silicon Valley has taken over from Wall Street as the political bogeyman of choice, turning tech workers – like it or not – into public ambassadors for the 1% [of the 1%].

“I would never say I worked at Facebook,” said one 30-year-old software engineer who left the company last year to pursue an alternative career. Instead, at dinner parties he would give purposefully vague responses and change the subject. “There’s this song and dance you learn to play because people are quick to judge.”

Like Wall Street before, the tech industry is a justifiable punchbag. “MBA jerks used to go and work for Wall Street, now wealthy white geeks go to Stanford and then waltz into a VC or tech firm.”

Read the post on The Guardian

The New York Times Exposes Google’s Values Gap

November 6, 2017 Leave a comment

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

From Long, Long Time by Guy Forsyth

The good thing about the Internet is that it brought people together.  The bad thing about the Internet is that some of those people previously only met on Death Row.

The New York Times has caught YouTube up to their old tricks, none of which will come as a surprise to team MTP or anyone else in the music business.  We have fought Google (and Facebook, Twitter and essentially every business using user generated content) about what boils down to one basic problem:  Google doesn’t pay anything like sufficient attention to what is being uploaded onto their monopoly video platform.  Google monetizes that failure–looking the other way–and that failure creates easily foreseeable commercial harm.  We even have a name for it: the “Value Gap.”

street_art_money_three_wise_monkeys

But this time, the Times has surfaced how Google’s cavalier “see no evil” attitude is harming children.  This psychological and developmental harm isn’t about the value gap, it’s more about the depraved greed that produces another kind of gap altogether–a values gap.  And of course Google is trying to cover it up.

It was a typical night in Staci Burns’s house outside Fort Wayne, Ind. She was cooking dinner while her 3-year-old son, Isaac, watched videos on the YouTube Kids app on an iPad. Suddenly he cried out, “Mommy, the monster scares me!”

When Ms. Burns walked over, Isaac was watching a video featuring crude renderings of the characters from “PAW Patrol,” a Nickelodeon show that is popular among preschoolers, screaming in a car. The vehicle hurtled into a light pole and burst into flames.

The 10-minute clip, “PAW Patrol Babies Pretend to Die Suicide by Annabelle Hypnotized,” was a nightmarish imitation of an animated series in which a boy and a pack of rescue dogs protect their community from troubles like runaway kittens and rock slides. In the video Isaac watched, some characters died and one walked off a roof after being hypnotized by a likeness of a doll possessed by a demon.

Realize that Google has been pushing itself as a solution for cord-cutters for a while.  If you watched the World Series, you will have seen the ubiquitous Google ads for YouTube TV from Google’s partnership with Major League Baseball.  You’ll find YouTube on your Internet TV, easily accessed on your family television screen.  In case you hadn’t noticed, Google wants inside your house.

Google also launched YouTube Kids as another way to get into your house and tried to make everyone believe that it was safe for your children.  I knew this charm offensive was utter and complete crap and a prime example of Google’s values gap, but then I’m supposedly jaded and cynical.  You know who is also jaded and cynical?

In 2015, Senator Ben Nelson (D-FL) highlighted the flaws in the YouTube Kids app–remember, this is not the web version of YouTube, this is an app expressly targeted at parents of children “five and under”–FIVE AND UNDER.  As Senator Nelson describes them: “toddlers”.

Team MTP will, of course, know where this is going–the values gap.  Because Google refuses to take any responsibility for assuring that improper materials–materials that violate Google’s own policies and terms of use–get into places the materials are not supposed to be, a substantial amount of shocking stuff gets into the YouTube Kids app.

It must be said that challenging Google’s ability to keep bad things off of their service was also at the heart of Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood’s questions he asked of Google and for which Google and the Shills–EFF, Engine Advocacy, R Street–went into litigation overdrive.  They never did answer those questions.

The Times reports that a Google flack told them:

[W]hile YouTube Kids may highlight some content, like Halloween videos in October, “it isn’t a curated experience.” Instead, “parents are in the driver’s seat,” he said, pointing to the ability to block channels, set usage timers and disable search results.

Sound familiar?  Kind of like you are free to send Google a takedown notice–and rest assured, they will fight any lawsuits from parents with the Communications Decency Act Section 230 defense they are vigorously lobbying to protect by trying to defeat the SESTA bill that would try to stop online pimping.

Parents are also encouraged to report inappropriate videos, which someone at YouTube then manually reviews, he said. He noted that in the past 30 days, “less than .005 percent” of the millions of videos viewed in the app were removed for being inappropriate.

“We strive,” he added, “to make that fraction even lower.”

Ah yes.  Report the bad stuff.  That should sound familiar, too.  Is that before or after your kid’s brain is fried?  And notice one thing that the Times let slip by–the switch from hard numbers to percentages.  Google does this all the time when they don’t want to acknowledge the scale of the problem by attempting to trivialize criticism by saying that the problem is just a tiny fraction of their business and they are trying so hard to do the right thing.  But like Zeno’s Arrow Paradox, they don’t ever quite seem to eliminate the problem.

But it’s a very, very low percentage of the bad stuff–less than 1/2 percent of millions.  So let’s say “millions” means at least two million (although it’s probably more).  Doing the math, .005 of two million is 10,000.  Even if it were 100, are you willing to bet that your child, or your sister, brother or cousin will be in that 10,000?  Sounds like a lot.

Senator Lindsay Graham recently told the counsel for Facebook, Google and Twitter that their respective companies had “enriched America.”  And then he paused for a second–I was expecting him to say “and America enriched you.”  But he didn’t, although I swear he was thinking it.

The question is–will we let these people continue to profit themselves from exploiting children?  Will we permit them to profit from the values gap?

 

 

Must See Video: @SenJohnKennedy’s Blistering Questions for Facebook

November 5, 2017 Leave a comment

Beware of country lawyers.  U.S. Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana nailed Facebook’s smarter-than-thou lawyer during a hearing on the utter failure of Facebook, Google and Twitter to stop their platforms being leveraged by foreign intelligence services.  In addition to his many other qualifications and educational accomplishments, Senator Kennedy was a volunteer substitute teacher in the New Orleans public schools–sufficient training for dealing with the Valley brats on display.

article-2211492-154b9697000005dc-356_634x435

Your rubles are no good at Facebook.

Senator Kennedy boxed Facebook’s counsel Colin Stretch into claiming under oath that Facebook could not profile by name and personally identifiable information–which is, of course, false.  They may have rules they may have the much vaunted policies, but you’d be a fool to think that the company couldn’t put together a profile by name for their own use if Facebook wanted to, regardless of whether they sold that information to an advertiser.  The eponymous Mr. Stretch seems to think we believe otherwise.

Yes, Mr. Stretch, you have to watch those country lawyers like John Kennedy.  They’re just not as smart as ya’ll city fellers.

It’s all over except the boloney.

Google’s Racketeering Challenge

October 9, 2017 Comments off
schmidt senate

Eric Schmidt confers with some confused witnesses

According to a recent civil lawsuit, a plaintiff is suing Google for violating the racketeering laws (aka “RICO”).  (Attia et al v. Google et al, Cal. Sup. Ct. (Santa Clara) Case No. 1:14-cv-270143.)  I’ve been waiting for this since 2012 when it dawned on me one day that Google is running a criminal enterprise (see “Google’s Guide to RICO“).  So what does this RICO business mean?

If you’re even occasionally exposed to contemporary crime movies you’ll have heard of “RICO”.   The “RICO” statute is the acronym for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act which allows a criminal prosecution against the leaders of an “ongoing criminal enterprise”, particularly where the leaders of that organization order others to commit crimes, often called “RICO predicates”.  The loophole was that leader didn’t do the crime, but ordered or assisted others in committing it.  (Recall the Senate hearings in The Godfather II, and see the first major RICO criminal case, US v. Scotto, 641 F.2d 47 (1980) for those reading along.)  You know, that thing that happened with those guys down at that place we used to go back in the day.

Often overlooked is the civil cause of action that may be brought either by the government or by private citizens under both the federal RICO statute and the 33 or so state law versions of RICO.  This allows private citizens who have been harmed by corrupt organizations to sue for treble damages and attorneys fees.  The Department of Justice civil RICO manual is also instructive for government action under the statutes:

Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a), authorizes potentially intrusive remedies, including injunctive relief [typically sought by the government], reasonable restrictions on defendants’ future activities, disgorgement of unlawful proceeds, divestiture, dissolution, reorganization, removal from positions in an entity, and appointment of court officers to administer and supervise the affairs and operations of defendants’ entities and to assist courts in monitoring compliance with courts’ orders and in imposing sanctions for violations of courts’ orders.

RICO remedies are ample and were intended to be applied against white collar criminals as well as organized crime bosses.  The statute was drafted by Professor G. Robert Blakey–remember that name–now the William J. and Dorothy K. O’Neill Chair in Law Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame School of Law.  As Professor Blakey told Time magazine:

“We don’t want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas.”

Or whose collars are white, have Ivy League diplomas and live in Silicon Valley.

According to reports, Professor Blakey is advising Mr. Attia in filing an amended complaint in Mr. Attia’s case against Google alleging RICO violations in addition to the core claims of bad behavior by Google against Mr. Attia (The Verge has a good summary of the pre-RICO filing here).

What is particularly interesting about the RICO filing is that it turns on the RICO intellectual property theft predicate (at p. 28):

1. Defendants [meaning Google and certain Google executives and affiliates] have a long history of theft of others intellectual property which continues to date and which constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity 

112.  Defendants have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5), through the repeated, relentless, and purposeful theft of other companies’ IP and trade secrets. 

113. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in a pattern of activity whereby Defendants: 1) seek out inventors; 2) promise such inventors that Google will invest in, partner with and/or seek to acquire a license for any proprietary inventions of the investor; 3) sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with inventors; 4) upon inducing inventors to reveal trade secrets and other confidential information, Google disregards the NDA and misappropriates the trade secrets; and 5) Google then subsequently attempts to box-out the victim inventors from the market by filing numerous patent applications which result in the unauthorized disclosure of the inventors’ trade secrets and the subsequent granting of a monopoly on the technology by the issuance of the patent. Where no NDA is required, Google has simply copied and criminally stole other inventors’ copyrights….

115. Google, Inc. and its executives—among others—have repeatedly had criminal and anti-trust investigations brought against them by governments around the world for their repeated theft. For example:

• Google was fined $500 million by the U.S. government for its role in the promotion of piracy through illegal online pharmacies;

• In June of 2017, Google was hit with a $2.7 billion fine from the European Union for its anti-competitive conduct in skewing search results. Google is still under investigation for its conduct with regards to its AdSense and Android software and business model which may lead the company to face even further fines;

• The U.S. Federal Trade Commission concluded that Google “used anticompetitive tactics and abused its monopoly power in ways that harmed Internet users and rivals”;

• Google was charged by the FTC with engaging in deceptive privacy practices for stealing and publishing consumers email contact lists and was ordered to submit to regular independent privacy audits for the next 20 years;  and

• Google was investigated by numerous countries when it was learned that Google’s street-view illegally stole persons’ wifi information, passwords, names, addresses and emails among other personal information….

c. Theft of others intellectual property is the Google and Flux Factory Enterprise’s regular way of doing business 

153. Violations of RICO predicate acts (e.g. theft of trade secrets and criminal infringement of copyright) are the regular way of conducting Defendants’ businesses. The previous non-exclusive list of acts of racketeering evidences a pattern of racketeering, the acts of which are related, not isolated, and continue to date by threat of further operation of Defendants’ business and through Defendants continued use of already stolen trade secrets for profits. Based on all of the following, Defendants have demonstrated that their regular way of doing business is through racketeering (e.g. by theft of trade secrets and criminal infringement of copyright) such that they are liable for harm done to others by their acts of racketeering under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq.

6. Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Google, Inc., and its associates have participated in a criminal enterprise 

154. Each Plaintiff is a “person” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3); 1964(c).

155. Each Defendant is a “person” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1962(c)….

168. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate in the pattern of racketeering shown in ¶¶ 112–153. This pattern of racketeering evidences an intent by Defendants to continuously conspire to make income from acts of racketeering (e.g. theft of trade secrets) and to invest and/or use those funds within the greater Google Enterprise.

169. Moreover, Google, the Individual Defendants, and Flux Factory, Inc., conspired with certain venture capital firms (Does 1, 2, and 3) in order to assist in the development of the Flux Enterprise.

Sound familiar?  I’m not a RICO expert, but the RICO portion of the complaint seems to be very well-pleaded and a systematic application of the law and facts.  It’s also important to remember that Eric Schmidt, Larry Page and Sergey Brin have absolute control over Google (and Alphabet, the holding company) through Google’s bizarre voting rules as explained by the Motley Fool:

Google prevents activist investors from pressuring the company to do anything via its share class system.

There are currently three classes of Google stock — A, B, and C shares. Everyday investors can only buy A or C shares on the open market. A shares (GOOGL) are entitled to one vote, while C shares (GOOG) are entitled to zero votes. The C shares split off the original class A shares last year during its 2 for 1 split. Google uses A shares to pay its employees and fund acquisitions. Meanwhile, B shares, which are entitled to ten votes each, are only owned by Google’s founders and their inner circle.

Simply put, B shares give Google’s top brass the power to defend against any shareholder revolt. Shareholders united against that plan at a previous meeting, casting 180 million votes in favor of the elimination of share classes. Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt and others crushed the proposal with 551 million votes.

Not only does the voting structure mean that insiders can block any shareholder revolt, it also means that insiders are totally responsible for any of the company’s bad acts.  That may explain why Eric Schmidt essentially “took the 5th” under questioning by Senator John Cornyn about Google executives’ narrow escape from criminal prosecution for violating and conspiring to violate the Controlled Substances Act.  Schmidt later claimed neither he nor his legal team “understood” the Senator’s questions and were “confused.”

This is, of course, another reason why Google was sued by its stockholders after insiders authorized the payment of $500,000,000 of the stockholders’ money as a fine for the bad behavior of insiders such as Larry Page.  In fact, the U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island told the Wall Street Journal that Larry Page was directly implicated in profiting from illegal drug advertising–which may have something to do with why the RICO claim refers to the $500,000,000 fine.  That stockholder settlement has one bizarre requirement that may shed some light on the RICO claims:

2.7 Criminal Activity Reporting

Google’s General Counsel shall be responsible for reviewing every situation in which a  Google employee is convicted of a felony under U.S. federal or state criminal statutes in connection with his employment by Google and for reporting to the Board (or an appropriate committee of the Board) with respect to that violation. Presumptively, any employee convicted of a felony under a U.S. federal or state criminal statute in connection with his employment by Google shall be terminated for cause and receive no severance payments in connection with the termination. If the General Counsel determines that such termination is not warranted, he shall so recommend to the Board (or an appropriate committee of the Board), which will act upon his recommendation in its discretion.

Leave aside how strange it is to have such a requirement in the settlement of a shareholder lawsuit in the first place–if it turns out that any of the Google insiders have actually been or get convicted of felonies as part of the racketeering case, the shareholder settlement will require the company to terminate that insider’s employment and  that will be that.  Aside from the whole money laundering for ISIS thing.  But ISIS is another story.

Where does it go?  Before you laugh it off, remember this:  If you had told a room full of MBAs in the mid 1980s that in a few years time Master of the Universe Michael Milken would be in prison and Drexel Burnham Lambert would be bankrupt, you would have been laughed out of the room as a quixotic buffoon.  But on March 29, 1989, Michael Milken was charged with 98 counts of racketeering and fraud and was facing life in prison.  That’s right–racketeering under the RICO Act.  Milken copped a plea to six lesser included crimes of securities and tax fraud, paid a $600 million fine and served 22 months in a federal pen on a 10 year sentence.

mike252520milken

He’s still rich, just not as rich as he was.  But Drexel never would have claimed the “don’t be evil” brand.  Even though unlike Google and the drug case, Milken paid his fine himself.  Drexel’s stockholders didn’t pick up the tab.

Of course, Milken was being prosecuted criminally and Attia is a civil case.   Different proof standards, no doubt, and different remedies, but otherwise, making a civil RICO case and a criminal RICO case are not wildly different.

Watch this space.

google-defends-itself-before-senate-6ldggim-x-large

Holding the Line on Tradeoffs for Statutory Damages

October 1, 2017 1 comment

It is very likely that we will hear about a move to make significant amendments to the Copyright Act at some point before the beginning of campaign season in 2018.  There are a high number of copyright-related bills that have been introduced in the House of Representatives in the current session, so brace yourself for an “omnibus” copyright bill that would try to cobble them all together Frankenstein-style.

A Frankenstein omnibus bill would be a very bad idea in my view and will inevitably lead to horse trading of fake issues against a false deadline.  Omnibus bills are a bad idea for songwriters and artists, particularly independent songwriters and artists, because omnibus bills tend to bring together Corporate America in attack formation.

MIC Coaltion

The MIC Coalition

When you consider that Google and Facebook are part of Corporate America (not to mention Apple), the odds of the independent songwriter and artist, but really any songwriter and artist, just holding onto the few crumbs they currently have crash and burn.  The odds of actually righting wrongs or–God forbid–getting rid of the legacy consent decrees that protect Big Business vanish into the limit.

Of course, what certain elements of Big Tech would really like to do is push all licensing of music into one organization that they could then control through consent decrees or other government regulation and supervision by exercise of the massive lobbying and litigation muscle of the MIC Coalition and DIMA.  While I realize that may actually sound anti-competitive, it is typical of monopolists to use the antitrust law to destroy competition (as Professor Taplin has taught us).   That’s certainly what has happened with the PRO consent decrees–reduced competition and lower royalties.  Not to mention such a licensing organization would collapse under its own complexity.  This is probably why the Copyright Office envisioned a “Music Rights Organization” that would combine the PROs and mechanical rights licensing but provided the relief valve of an new opt-out right so that songwriters could escape the madness.  (“Under the Office’s proposal, except to the extent they chose to opt out of the blanket statutory system, publishers and songwriters would license their public performance and mechanical rights through MROs.”  Copyright Office Music Licensing Study at p. 9)

If you want some ideas about the kinds of property rights that Big Tech wants the government to take away from songwriters and artists, just read Spotify’s most recent filing in the songwriter litigation in Nashville where their lawyer tries to define away mechanical royalties (unsurprisingly, the lawyer is a long-time protege of Lessig).  Why?  Because they are being brought to a trial by their peers on statutory damages for copyright infringement and the potential for having to pay the songwriters’ lawyers due to a statutory right to recover attorneys fees.  (Statutory damages for copyright infringement has long been an attack point of Big Tech and we get a preview of where they want it to go in Pamela Samuelson’s “Copyright Principles Project”–essentially abolished.)

One way or another, the Big Tech cartel (which includes all the companies in the MIC Coalition and MIC Coalition member the Digital Media Association which itself has members like Spotify and, curiously, Apple) is very likely going to go after statutory damages and try to create yet another “safe harbor” for themselves with no burdens–a “friction free” way to infringe pretty much at will because the actual damages for streaming royalties will be pennies.

If the cartel succeeds in eliminating statutory damages and attorneys fees awards, this will truly make copyright infringement litigation toothless and entirely eliminate the one tool that independent songwriters and artists have to protect their rights.  It will neuter massive copyright infringement as alleged in all of the Spotify class actions, not to mention cases like Limewire.

Oh, you say–did you just switch from song copyrights to sound recording copyrights by referencing Limewire?  Yes, I did–because that’s exactly what I predict the DIMA and MIC Coalition have in mind.  Why do I say this?  Because that’s what these companies are backing in the radioactive Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership bill (HR 3350).  And if you blow up all the current separate bills into one omnibus copyright “reform” bill, the pieces may reconstitute in forms you didn’t expect.

But realize that in almost all the many copyright bills currently before the House of Representatives, the other side is trying to bootstrap unjust harm into a negotiation chip to shakedown creators.  And it’s not just pending legislation–the shakedown is especially observable with the millions of notices of intention to rely on statutory mechanical licenses for songs filed with the Copyright Office.  That’s a nice song you got there, it would be a shame if something happened to it.

Big Tech’s basic negotiation method is to rely on a loophole, bootstrap the loophole to build up the pressure on people who can’t fight back, then run the shakedown to get concessions that should never be made.  This is what Google has done with the DMCA and is the same shakedown tactic on mass NOIs taken by Google, Amazon, Pandora, Spotify, and others–but curiously not Apple.  Somehow Apple has made it work with the most successful digital music platform in history.

Let’s go down the issue list:

Bootstrapped Issue Fix Bill
Pandora and Sirius stopped paying artists for digital royalties on pre-72 recordings—because of loophole based on federal copyright protection for sound recordings Start paying artist royalties on classic recordings made before 1972 CLASSICS Act
Terrestrial radio created a loophole so they don’t have to pay performance royalties to artists on sound recordings; stop artists from opting out Start paying artist royalties for broadcast radio (with protection for noncommercial and small broadcasters) Fair Pay Fair Play Act, PROMOTE Act
Big tech suddenly started using a loophole to file millions of “address unknown” NOIs with Copyright Office after indie songwriters filed class actions Require Big Tech to use existing databases to look up copyright owners or don’t use the songs or recordings. None
No “central database” that has all songs (but no requirement to actually look up anything), requires double registration If songwriters and artists don’t register, then no statutory damages Transparency in Music Licensing and Ownership Act

Blown up into parts:

–Avoid raising mechanical royalty rate or paying artist royalties on terrestrial at all

–How to use the lack of the mythical “central database” as a bright and shiny object to avoid paying royalties and shirk liability for not doing copyright research, an absurd position for companies that owe much of their wealth to their unprecedented ability to profile people around the world and “organize the world’s information”

–Avoid paying statutory damages

–How to avoid paying royalties that should have paid anyway (pre-72, terrestrial, mass NOI) through distorted interpretations of the law or even safer harbors

–Avoid an obligation to actually look up anything (new databases)

–Use any work they want if all they have to pay is actual damages and no attorneys fees

–Keep songwriters and artists from opting out

–Create biggest black box possible

It should be apparent which way Big Tech is trying to push the creative community.  It is important for creators to understand that any legislative concession that the MIC Coalition or DIMA win against songwriters or artists they will then turn around and try to extract in the next shakedown–authors, photographers, film makers, all the copyright categories.

It is in everyone’s interest to support a healthy creative community that will continue to engage fans and do enough commerce to create value for the tech monopolies.  But–it is crucial to understand that it doesn’t work the other way around.

The purpose of the creative community is not to create value for tech monopolies.  It is to support compelling artists and help them engage with fans, and sometimes it is art for art’s sake alone.  If those artists throw off some commercial gain that the tech monopolies can turn to profit themselves, fine.  But creating profit for these monopolists is not the goal of artists.

Instead of creating fake problems to try to extract concessions that further undermine creators like offering ice in winter, the tech monopolies like Google, Spotify, Amazon and Pandora should identify real problems and work with us toward real solutions–and not a loophole-driven shakedown.

 

 

An Update from Dr. Robert Epstein

September 25, 2017 Comments off

I was pleased to have this comment from Dr. Robert Epstein on Google’s ability to throw elections through manipulation of its algorithm, not to mention Google’s ability to control public opinion about Google itself.   We posted his comment but wanted to call to your attention in its own post as an update on his important work:

Thanks for your interest in my research. I just thought you should know that we’ve gone way, way beyond where we were back in 2013. See, for example, http://bit.ly/1REqzEY or http://aibrt.org/index.php/internet-studies. The search engine is by far the most powerful mind control machine ever invented. See my 2016 essay, “The New Mind Control” here: https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts

 

%d bloggers like this: