The Interwebs have been buzzing about a pair of articles on the once great Slate.com.
It began with the posting of a “news” article on Slate by Google Lawyer Marvin Ammori in which he compared entertainment creators to a stalkers. Adland.tv quickly pointed out to Slate Magazine that they had not made the proper disclosures. So slate added this to the article:
Update, March 11, 2014: Disclosure: The author represented Google and other companies fighting SOPA/PIPA in 2011 and 2012. He currently represents Google and other companies on several issues, including copyright reform. These views are his own.
Translation: oops we accidentally published a piece of corporate PR propaganda crap.
Next comes the hilarious follow up to this article by Kurt Sutter the writer/creator of Sons Of Anarchy. In a blistering and brilliant attack Sutter takes Ammori and Google to task for relentlessly undermining creators rights to enhance their bottom line.
“I Created Sons of Anarchy. Here’s Why I hate Google’s Stance on Copyright.”
This is a must read. And most importantly you better read it now because Slate has already toned down the title. It’s now pathetically titled “Not-So Zen and the Art of Voluntary Agreements.” How long will it bebefore they completely delete this article under pressure from their other Google lobbyist partner “New America Foundation?”
You read that right. The original piece by Ammori is in a special section of Slate, the very sci-fi-tabloidy (Omni Magazine anyone?) section called Future Tense. And according to Slates’ own website Future Tense is a “partnership” of Slate and New America Foundation.
And what is New America Foundation?
And where does New America get their money?
They don’t disclose that. It’s a 501 (c) (3)
Has the struggling Slate.com entered into some sort of financial relationship with New America/Google? It looks like it has to us?
Also I don’t really understand this whole 501 (c) (3) crap but since copyright review is before the House of Representatives isn’t New America violating IRS 501 (c) (3) rules on political lobbying?