“Progressive” Zephyr Teachout’s Financial Ties to Pirate Party and Bitcoin Promoters

PIA Falkvinge Andrew Lee


Earlier in the summer we reported heavily on the democratic candidate for NY-19 congressional seat Zephyr Teachout.  In particular we were very interested in her role as director of Fight For The Future because they have an extremely regressive anti-artist anti-copyright agenda.  Further under her leadership Fight For the Future organized a mass copyright infringement campaign directed at the MLK estate.  Only in a 90% white upstate New York district could this act be seen as “progressive.”  See more here.  (Fight For the Future has since removed her name from the website, but the candidate has failed to clarify if she is still director).

So what?  Just another fake progressive politician right?  Well we think it goes beyond that.  We dug deep into the funding for the Fight For the Future.  Of particular concern was something called London Trust Media.   They gave more than $200,000 to FFTF when Teachout was director.


Screen Shot 2016-05-02 at 10.02.30 AM


This is the address listed for London Trust Media on FFTF tax documents.  Does this look like a company that normally gives  $200,000k to non-profits?  It is apparently located in an industrial park in Michigan.   As it turns out, London Trust Media is some sort of holding or shell company, that appears designed to hide the true ownership of Private Internet Access.

However we know a lot about Private Internet access. Co-founder is Andrew Lee a long,  a long-time Bitcoin promoter.   He was also founder of Mt. Gox Live, that was subsequently sold to (or merged with) Mt Gox the primary bitcoin exchange.  Mt Gox of course spectacularly collapsed when they “lost” 700,000 bitcoin worth an estimated $460 Million dollars.   Bitcoin is the preferred currency of Anarcho-Capitalists and other fringe opponents of “fiat” currencies, not typically the kind of thing that a progressive typically endorses.  Especially progressives that want to increase regulation of financial markets and banks.  Does anyone else find this odd?

And BTW who is the “other” co-owner of London trust media?

Private Internet Access also lists Rick Falkvinge the founder of the Pirate Party as the “Head of Privacy at Private Internet Access.”  You can’t get more anti-copyright than the Pirate Party.

Teachout needs to come clean on her views on copyright.  Right now she looks like a Trojan horse candidate that will try gut artists revenue and rights when she gets into congress.    Why won’t she clarify her positions?   What is she afraid of?

Euro Perspective on Outdated DMCA: Cycling on the Autobahn


Cycling on the Autobahn

Would you cycle on a busy motorway? Probably not – and in most jurisdictions, you would promptly be arrested if you did. What does this have to do with the Internet? Quite a lot, actually. Road traffic rules and regulations are a prime example of rules which have adapted to changed circumstances over time.

Guest post by Volker Rieck

History is made very quickly on the Internet: eight years count as a generation. In real life, generations are significantly longer: family researchers see thirty years as normal, roughly the usual age gap between parents and children. So 20 years of evolution on the Internet, 2.5 generations, correspond to 75 years in human time.

Playing around with numbers like this may help us understand the limitations of current Internet regulations. Applying these regulations devised around 20 years ago (or two and a half Internet generations ago) today is (in analogue terms) like using rules from the time when radio was an emerging technology to regulate today’s streaming web radio and podcasts.

Am I online yet?

The US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and its European counterpart, the E-Commerce Directive (anchored in German national legislation in the Telemediengesetz [Telemedia Act, TMG]) were both drafted around 1997.

To understand the intentions of legislators back then, we need to turn back the wheel of history by around 75 analogue years. In 1997, the Internet was still learning to walk. It had not yet gone on to develop by leaps and bounds into a creative teenager and then into big business. Back in the late 1990s, the opportunities it offered were limited and easy to keep track of: Internet access was paid for by the minute. Some readers will, perhaps, remember finding CDs from AOL promising free minutes in their letterboxes on an almost weekly basis.

People mostly wrote emails offline and sent several once they were online again with their screaming 33.6k dial-up modems. Numerous Internet magazines existed: their website ratings could be perused offline in order to whittle down the number of sites to be visited online later and to avoid wasting expensive minutes on fruitless searches. Time was, quite literally, money.

Downloading a 100-MB file – corresponding to less than 10% of the volume of a Game of Thrones episode – took around an hour, and uploading the same quantity of data could go on for up to eight hours. Today, fibre-optic connections can handle the same volume in ten to twenty seconds. Using the Internet was fundamentally more complicated, more time-consuming and more expensive than we expect it to be now, in 2016. Desktop PCs, generally located in offices and home offices, were the gateways to the online world. Only visionaries could imagine accessing the Internet via smartphones or tablets.

Old times, old rules

The US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the European E-Commerce Directive aimed to remove stumbling blocks that threatened to slow the rapid evolution of the Internet and to choke off its promise.

American legislators, in particular, anticipated that the Internet would generate commercial opportunities and saw the need for particular regulations covering copyright infringements.

US legislators and their EU counterparts implemented a notice & take down process: if a website was in breach of copyright, the rights holder could simply notify (serve notice) to the site operator or web services provider. The process was designed to cater to the particular needs of providers handling user generated content. The operator or provider was only obliged to remove (take down) infringing material at this point – providers enjoy safe harbour protection under which they are not liable for infringements. Fair enough.

This made sense at the time and in the context of an Internet which was more like a child’s bicycle than a Formula 1 racing car. Copyright infringements were seen as unintentional, as unfortunate coincidences. As monitoring the online activity of citizens was an unattractive proposition, it made sense to exonerate their unwitting accomplices.

Today, we know that user generated content consists almost exclusively of user uploaded content, most of it protected by copyright. We also know that the actions of the users’ accomplices today are far from unintentional. The Internet, fortunately or unfortunately, does not consist entirely of home videos of cute cats.

New times, still old rules

The safe harbour privilege limiting provider liability has now governed web traffic for 20 years – two and a half Internet generations.

In the meantime, the Internet has got faster and noisier. It has also become a considerably more hostile environment for rights holders. But decisive legislative change or adaptations to this process of digital evolution have been lacking.

The consequences for the creative economy have been little short of disastrous in some respects. As data transmission rates have climbed higher and higher, ever more creative “business models” have also emerged, fostered not least by the robust legal protection afforded to players in this area in the form of the safe harbour privilege.

Kim Schmitz, for example, came up with the file hosting service MegaUpload. Schmitz sold access to his service and to servers jam-packed with illegal downloads. He generated an estimated 150 million EUR from this activity before MegaUpload was spectacularly put out of action by law enforcement in January 2012.


Criminal proceedings against Schmitz (aka Kim Dotcom) have yet to take place in the US. It seems unlikely that copyright infringements will play a significant role; it is more plausible that the prosecution will focus on customs offences and money laundering.

But platforms such as YouTube also draw considerable benefit from the dubious privilege freeing them from all responsibility for uploaded content. With liability excluded, YouTube can view content uploaded by its members with relative equanimity: if the content is protected by copyright, rights holders are free to get in touch with YouTube and have it taken down, and if nothing is heard from them, YouTube can assume that nothing is wrong.

Rights management has effectively been outsourced to rights holders, and YouTube can quietly get on with exploiting user uploaded content to generate advertising revenue without needing to monitor this content, pay staff to do so, or entertain troubling thoughts about its role. No watchdog duties, no tedious licensing and rights clearance enquiries.

The birth defects of DCMA and Directive 2000/31/EC

DMCA and the E-Commerce Directive have several serious flaws:

  1. No binding timeframe for resolving issues

No binding rules exist to specify the maximum time period within which providers must investigate reported infringements (notices) and remove offending material (takedowns).

  1. Uploaders protected, rights holders left defenseless

What happens when disputes arise? When, for example, the rights holder serving notice is not recognized as such? Or the uploader maintains that rights have been legitimately acquired and submits a counterclaim? Disputes involving YouTube footage regularly feature such claims and counterclaims.

Bizarre cases arise in which YouTube even advises the parties to seek judicial resolution. This advice is distinctly unhelpful, especially when the uploader in question is located in a different country, invulnerable to legal action – or, indeed, completely anonymous. Protected content can be uploaded to YouTube from an anonymous Gmail account.

  1. Up again! (Whack-a-Mole)

Cases relating to new uploads of works which have already been taken down are ignored in current legislation. The consequences of this flaw are severe: practically every work that can be downloaded from, among other sources, the file hosting services that have taken on the mantle of MegaUpload becomes available again and again. What is taken down rarely stays down, and once content is uploaded again, the entire process begins afresh for rights holders.

  1. Law that is not enforced might as well not exist

Failing to delete content has no consequences in either system;

stakeholders whose actions are illegal have practically nothing to fear.

Courts in Germany have begun to develop the law further and address its obsolescence. A number of recent judgements have demonstrated that judges are aware of this weak point and willing to impose monitoring duties on file hosting services.

But these hard-won judgements relate only to individual cases, and some of these cases have already dragged on for years. During that time, moreover, the mentality of users has changed: users are now utterly habituated to operating in a legal vacuum. Investments cannot be recouped in this climate. Value loss and value transfer result.

  1. Nobody is responsible for anything: diffusion of responsibility

In the (online) world which has been created in this way, the buck stops with nobody: neither platforms nor operators of web services/pages nor users are held accountable and liable for rights infringements.

To make matters even worse, legislators have expressly insisted that the anonymous or pseudo-anonymous use of such platforms and websites must be permissible.


The consequences of these five design flaws are well known. They have caused disruption to almost every sector in the creative economy. The process ultimately leads to value being siphoned away from originators and their marketing partners and transferred to platforms and website operators. The work of content creators and their partners is no longer recognized as valuable: the services of – legal and illegal – distributors are now rated more highly.

YouTube is a perfect example for this, as are the file hosting sites. It is estimated that the latter group comprises more than a thousand sites with millions of users spread across the world. These sites generate vast revenue through advertising and/or selling premium access. Only a tiny proportion of this revenue, if any, reaches content originators, who are usually left entirely empty-handed.

We can take to the streets to address this – let us return to our traffic analogy. What would traffic look like today if it were regulated with laws from 2.5 analogue generations ago – from, in other words, the 1940s?

After World War II, around 1.2 million motor vehicles were in use on German roads. Today, over 45 million motor cars are registered in Germany. Nobody had heard of zebra crossings 70 years ago – and cycling on the motorway, introduced when fuel shortages bit in 1943, was still allowed.

As traffic levels increased dramatically, road traffic legislation was regularly overhauled to address new hazards. Many regulations that seem self-evident to us today (30 mph speed limits, shoulders, traffic lights, blood alcohol limits, licence plates) have resulted from this process of continuously evaluating and overhauling traffic rules.

Astonishingly enough, however, the regulation of the Internet has not been tackled in the same way. We have relied on DCMA, the E-Commerce Directive and the national legislation implementing EU rules (such as the German Telemedia Act) for too long. Rules have not been adapted in a timely fashion to address new circumstances. The result is that the Internet, to stick with our traffic metaphor, is still full of people cycling on the motorway with no fear of being picked up by law enforcement. People who see red traffic lights as mere suggestions.

Levelling the playing field

Multiple sectors in the creative economy have already recognized and analysed the issue. The Motion Picture Association (MPA) has, for example, demanded that the DMCA provisions be overhauled.

The music sector, representing over a thousand composers and artists, has complained to the European Commission.


These different sectors are all raising their voices to insist that a long-overdue evaluation of liability rules must be carried out now that 2.5 Internet generations have already passed.

This evaluation is necessary to prevent the increasingly one-sided transfer of value and to ensure that legislators create clear and fair regulations capable of levelling the playing field and putting stakeholders on a more equal footing.

One of the main sticking points will be the safe harbour privilege. Liability rules urgently need to be completely overhauled and adapted to current circumstances. This will not be easy, but now that the digital equivalent of three-quarters of a century have already elapsed, it is time to grasp the nettle.

Everybody demanding revised copyright legislation should also, in the same breath, demand the overhauling of the area of liability.

Otherwise we will continue to encounter the digital equivalent of cyclists on the motorway – and the damage resulting from our inaction will continue to mount.


Volker Rieck is Managing Director of the content protection service provider FDS File Defense Service. He is an expert on issues pertaining to the unregulated distribution of content on the Internet. FDS is active on behalf of numerous rights holders and also supplies data to law enforcement authorities and to industry associations engaged in research in the area.

Curious Departures from DOJ Antitrust: Off to the GOOLAG?

Screen Shot 2016-08-13 at 2.28.54 PMScreen Shot 2016-08-11 at 1.32.21 PMScreen Shot 2016-08-13 at 2.23.38 PM

Two vacancies near the top DOJ antitrust division give former Google lawyer Renata Hesse direct control of antitrust oversight of Google. 

There is a tendency in the waning months of a two term presidency for political allies to cash in their favors; push through favorable rules and regulations; and set the clock ticking on those high paying private sector revolving door jobs.   So we can’t help noting two curious vacancies in the upper reaches of the US DOJ Antitrust Division. The Chief of Litigation Section III and Networks and Technology sections.

Litigation Section III oversees the entertainment business and in particular songwriters’ performing rights organization.  On August 4th this division released a controversial and devastating new rule which requires a single ASCAP or BMI co-writer to license and account on behalf of the other songwriters.  This caused widespread outrage among songwriters and legal scholars who noted the disruption to the music licensing marketplace, international treaty violations  and potential constitutional violations of the rights of songwriters.   Up until a week ago David Kully was chief of this section.  His position is now listed as vacant.   We find this very curious.   Especially as we are told Kully indicated in a communications to songwriters that he didn’t actually write the rule and refused to disclose who wrote the rule.

Meanwhile we notice that the Chief of Networks and Technology section is now also vacant.

Both of these sections have oversight over Google’s businesses.  Does anyone else find it suspicious that these two sections are vacant and are now directly controlled by a former Google lawyer (and Obama administration ethics rule violator and resume fudger) Acting Assistant Attorney General Renata Hesse?

Now the questions are:

Are these business as usual departures?   Or is something more sinister afoot?   Is Kully the fall guy for Google hatchet woman Renata Hesse?  Or is he off too Googleyer – oops I mean greener pastures?

After songwriters recent experience with DOJ ATR Litigation Section III Congress and/or the OIG should look into what is going on here.  Even if nothing improper is found, it should be done to restore public faith in the department.


Q. How Do You Know 100% Licensing is Good For Google? A. Techdirt Praises it

Screen Shot 2016-08-11 at 6.52.15 PM

Remember Mike Masnick appeared on the so-called  Oracle vs Google “shill list.”   See here:


Since Mike addresses the Trichordist directly,   let me answer directly.

I am all for the 100% licensing rule because it will break the exploitative and unconstitutional music licensing system. I will educate every songwriter on how to exploit this to our advantage.  We have nothing left to loose.  Why not cause absolute chaos for the music users?  Let them feel our pain.  And it’s all perfectly legal.  It simply requires us not do something the DOJ can’t make us do.   And it may even allow writers to selectively window their works on streaming services. Something that was impossible until now.  Stay tuned for that!

And it has also shined a light on corruption and Google control of DOJ antitrust division.

Kully who was nominally in charge of this DOJ rule is suddenly gone?   His position appears vacant.  This happened yesterday.

The chaos has started!

Screen Shot 2016-08-11 at 1.32.21 PM

(Editor note:  Masnick thinks so much of himself that he offers to shut down Techdirt forever if someone pays him $100 million dollars.  See below)

Screen Shot 2016-08-11 at 7.08.39 PM


Bring on the Chaos: The DOJ and Google Think They Want 100% Licensing? Let Them Have it

Songwriters should embrace the chaos.   The DOJ really thinks that BMI and ASCAP have always performed 100% licensing.  Even though they seem to contradict that by offering the  PROs one year to comply with 100% licensing.  Fuck these idiots just let them have it.

The new rule will force hundreds of thousands of songs, if not millions of songs to be dropped from the BMI and ASCAP catalogues.  Especially Hip Hop songs and songs with Samples because of private co-administration contracts.  Radio stations, television stations, bars, restaurants, malls, football stadiums, cable networks, interactive and non-interactive services will either have to drop the songs, buy direct license for these songs, or buy licenses from an alphabet soup of new PROs that will appear on the scene with none of them subject to consent decrees.  Even if the DOJ tried to managed to put 26 new PROs under the consent decrees it would require a vast expansion of their staff.

Careful what you wish for fuckwads.

Also imagine the calls to the DOJ, congressmen and the lobbyists that thought this was a good idea.

“Are you fucking telling me I need 26 PRO licenses instead of 3?  This is a fucking improvement?”

In the meantime it will be absolute chaos.. No one knows what they can or can’t play.

What have we got to lose anymore?  The DOJ hates songwriters.   They will never do right by us. They are making it impossible to make a living as a songwriter.

So let’s enjoy what we can.
I say just chill and enjoy the show.

Current DOJ Antitrust: Smarter Than Last 75 Years of DOJ Lawyers, Dangerously Stupid or Corrupt?

Screen Shot 2016-08-11 at 1.32.21 PM

Who IS running the shop over at DOJ Antitrust Litigation Section III? Really doesn’t it just makes a lot more sense for Google to directly pay/control the section rather than having to go through all the rigamarole of pretending to have an impartial and independent division, with revolving door Google lawyers? 

You got to wonder.

Why is it that for the previous 75 years of DOJ antitrust supervision BMI/ASCAP were allowed to fractionally license music?    Surely it didn’t escape notice that BMI/ASCAP were fractionally licensing songs?   Fo 75 years they allowed ASCAP BMI songwriters to write co-administration agreements that require fractional licensing.   I mean if the DOJ consent decree judge can issue a legal opinion that notes publisher Marty Bandier in a certain photo was wearing “short sleeves and smoking a large cigar” (clearly the judge intended this as a personal smear)  surely the DOJ and rate court judges should have noticed the fact that for 75 fucking years songwriters have been writing private co-administration contracts that require fractional licensing and BMI and ASCAP have been obliging.  Clear

So is the current crop of Berkeley/Harvard/Stanford/Silicon Valley DOJ antitrust lawyers just smarter than the previous 75 years of lawyers that were employed in the DOJ ATR Division?

Alternately are they more stupid?   Like dangerously stupid.  Like take their law licenses away because they don’t even understand fundamental things  like the constitution, separation of powers and private contracts.  Maybe I should be kinder. Perhaps the entire department suffers from a mass learning disability that makes it so they have a hard time understanding the Copyright Office report on the effect of 100% licensing on the existing music market. That the economic and structure of millions of private contracts concerning the administration of songs, would require pulling hundred of thousand if not millions of songs from BMI and ASCAP producing the exact opposite effect of what they intended with 100% licensing.

Or are they simply corrupt.  Occam’s Razor would suggest so.  It requires fewest assumptions to be added!  I’m only half joking here. Consider the facts. It does seem to only benefit Google.  This head of the Antitrust division is a former Google lawyer (Renata Hesse) and she appears to have pushed through the 100% licensing rule. And as Music Tech Policy notes in their devastating timeline of events, Google seems to have orchestrated a takeover of Antitrust division by Google friendly lawyers following the FTC investigation of Google.

So readers what do you think?



DOJ 100% Licensing Rule: An UnFair Tax on Hip Hop and Works With Samples?


Screen Shot 2016-08-10 at 10.35.22 PM

Let’s look at the implications of the  DOJ 100% rule for the writers of the 5th most popular Hip Hop Song in the US this week.

These are the four samples in For Free, by DJ Khaled featuring Drake.    Each of those sampled songs also has multiple writers.  Consequently the list of writers for the composite work is quite long.  In this case there are 13 Songwriters, 4 BMI publishers and at least 3 non BMI publishers.    6 writers use ASCAP to license performing rights.  6 writers use BMI and one writer is Canadian so they use SOCAN.   As is always the case with works composed of samples,  these writers have a co-writer agreement to spell out ownership percentages and then an agreement that specifies each party will license and collect it’s own fractional share.    “You do your business and collect your money, I do my business and collect my money”

Screen Shot 2016-08-10 at 10.17.59 PM

This is how the “Tax” comes in.   The DOJ 100% licensing rule says fractional licensing is “illegal” under the BMI/ASCAP consent decrees so two things could happen.

  1. All thirteen writers and 7 publishers must throw out the old agreement and come together and negotiate a new co-writer agreement that allows either BMI/ASCAP to license this song in full, and either pay writers directly or pass it through to the other PRO.  That’s 20 entities that may all have to agree on this final document.  What if one ASCAP writer will only accept payment from ASCAP  another ASCAP writer is cool with being paid from BMI to limit overhead deductions.    Imagine if each of these parties are represented by a lawyer?  What are the legal fees?  $20,000k?  This is the first tax on hip hop.
  2. If the 20 parties can’t agree?  Or what if one of the authors is deceased?  Maybe the heir can’t be found or the estate is unsophisticated and says “no re-negotiation?”  Then the work violates the DOJ rule and  can no longer be part of the ASCAP and BMI repertoires.  This song becomes “stranded.”  It will not be possible to perform this song in the US. No ASCAP or BMI royalties.  That’s the second tax on hip hop.

Further I worry that because Hip Hop uses so many samples and co-writer deals that require fractional licensing that music users (radio stations, tv etc) begin to avoid the entire genre because they aren’t sure which tracks are “stranded” and hence unplayable in the US.

Maybe that’s a third tax on  hip hop.


DOJ Engages Completely Juvenile Argument Against Copyright Office in Defense of Corrupt 100% Licensing Rule

Screen Shot 2016-08-10 at 4.37.53 PM

Getting the right result for our corporate masters.

We need to get the OIG to investigate or even recommend the disbanding of the DOJ Antitrust Litigation Section III over their handling of the 100% song licensing rule.  This is getting totally ridiculous.

First: there is the very real chance of corruption here as this appears to have been  rammed through at the behest of Google by former Google lawyer Acting Assistant Attorney General Renata Hesse.   See full timeline of Google takeover of Antitrust Division:

How Google Took Over the Justice Department Antitrust Division: Renata Hesse’s Timeline

The DOJ Antitrust Division Litigation Section III/AG Lynch/And WhiteHouse needs to get the shit FOIA-ed out of them on this alone. Everybody involved in this sorry episode needs to be investigated.

Second:  Look at how stupid/Juvenile the DOJ division is.  In a brief to Judge Stanton in defense of their 100% licensing rule they arrogantly take a potshot at the US Copyright Office because they dared to oppose the DOJ on this. In reference to this Kelsey Shannon says:

“the question at issue, however, is one of antitrust law and decree interpretation, not copyright law.”

The reason this is so arrogant is because the Copyright Office was not in disagreement with the DOJ on copyright issues!   The Copyright Office was weighing in on the structure of the music licensing market as it stands and the effect of the DOJ rule on private contracts between songwriters; administration costs; downstream licensing and loss of repertoire to BMI and ASCAP.   In short the Copyright Office noted it would be extremely disruptive and result in less competition and less efficiency.

The DOJ knows this.  But these idiots are now further disgracing themselves by trying to mount a false and misleading PUBLIC RELATIONS campaign against the US Copyright Office for opposing them.  (Appears letter was leaked to journalists before making publicly available, hence public relations campaign).

This is the bureaucratic  equivalent of telling the Copyright Office “Shut the fuck up we are the anti-trust division.”

The argument has no substance.  Who are these clowns over their anyway?

Investigate them.  Prosecute them. Fire them all.




The MTP Podcast: The Consequences of DOJ’s New Rule on 100% Licensing with David Lowery, Steve Winogradsky and Chris Castle

Music Tech Policy Podcast with David Lowery and Steve Winogradsky. Great stuff from Steve on how the DOJ 100% licensing rule will affect TV broadcast and syndication among other things.


David Lowery, Steve Winogradsky and Chris Castle discuss the implications of the new rule by the U.S. Department of Justice re-interpreting the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees to require 100% licensing and prohibiting partial withdrawal.

David Lowery is the founder of Cracker and Camper van Beethoven, leading artist rights advocate and writer of The Trichordist blog, and teaches at the Terry School of Business at the University of Georgia at Athens.

Steve Winogradsky is a senior music lawyer and co-proprietor of the music services company Winogradsky/Sobel in Los Angeles.  Steve teaches at UCLA and Cal State Northridge and is the author of a leading legal handbook Music Publishing: The Complete Guide.

Chris Castle is founder of Christian L. Castle, Attorneys in Austin, Texas and edits the MusicTechPolicy blog.  He is formerly an adjunct professor at the University of Texas School of Law, and lectures at law schools, music schools…

View original post 190 more words

No, The FCC Should Not Have the Power to Cancel Contracts

Some casual reading on set top box proposal. But it’s important to note that the issue here is remarkably similar to the DOJ 100% licensing rule.

1) non-legislative likely unconstitutional attempt to establish what is essentially a statutory license.
2) interferes with private contracts.
3) comes at the behest of Google int the 11th hour of Obama administration.

Truth on the Market

Copyright law, ever a sore point in some quarters, has found a new field of battle in the FCC’s recent set-top box proposal. At the request of members of Congress, the Copyright Office recently wrote a rather thorough letter outlining its view of the FCC’s proposal on rightsholders.

In sum, the CR’s letter was an even-handed look at the proposal which concluded:

As a threshold matter, it seems critical that any revised proposal respect the authority of creators to manage the exploitation of their copyrighted works through private licensing arrangements, because regulatory actions that undermine such arrangements would be inconsistent with the rights granted under the Copyright Act.

This fairly uncontroversial statement of basic legal principle was met with cries of alarm. And Stanford’s CIS had a post from Affiliated Scholar Annemarie Bridy that managed to trot out breathless comparisons to inapposite legal theories while simultaneously misconstruing the…

View original post 2,171 more words