Old Wine in a New Bottle: “Annotated” Lyric Sites Are Not “Fair Users” of Others’ Music

By Thomas D. Sydnor II*

On January 28, 2014, the Subcommittee on of the House Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on the fair-use limitation on copyright protection. During the hearing, recording artist, songwriter, and University of Georgia professor, David Lowery, (best known as the vocalist and guitarist for the bands Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven), offered—as an example of what is NOT “fair-use”—the case of unlicensed “lyric sites” that reproduce and “annotate” the lyrics of his songs. Lowery cited the example of Rap Genius, the now-reforming site that topped his last list of 50 Undesirable Lyric Websites.

The usual defenders of most all forms of Internet piracy may claim that this proves that Lowery doesn’t really “get” the affirmative defense of fair use. After all, if an unlicensed lyric site “annotates” complete copies of Lowery’s, some might argue that annotations that add new context could somehow “transform” rote copying of lyrics into a “fair use.” Indeed, this was defense of the unlicensed-version of Rap Genius offered by both its operators and by Techdirt ‘s Mike Masnick, who also made the even-less-credible claim that “the most obviously single-purpose lyric site that does nothing but post song lyrics is likely innocuous at worst and beneficial to all involved at best.”

Meanwhile, back on Earth, Lowery’s testimony re-proves that artists and those businesses that fund their work—because they are constantly on both sides of the “fair-use” equation—tend to instinctively understand fair use as well or better than the most learned scholars of copyright law or practicing copyright lawyers. The case of unlicensed “annotated” lyric sites proves this point. The lawyer or law professor who carefully researches the question of whether the appending of original “annotations” should rationalize otherwise unauthorized mass copying and distribution of complete copies of song lyrics should conclude that Lowery is right: this is copyright infringement, not “fair use.” Indeed, it is “old wine in a new bottle”—a 21^st-Century echo of a 19^th-Century trick that U.S. law has condemned as infringement for at least 100 years.

Long before we had the Internet—or even computers—would-be copyright pirates concocted the idea of adding original “annotations” to the works of others and claiming the reproduction and distribution of the resulting “annotated” work was lawful and “fair.” As a result—no later than 1914—the United States ratified, (and still adheres to), The Buenos Aries Convention (1910) (the “BAC”). Article 13 of the BAC thus condemned the by-then-familiar trick of appending annotations to rationalize the mass copying and distribution of someone else’s copyrighted work:

13th.–The indirect appropriation of unauthorized parts of a literary or artistic work, having no original character, shall be deemed an illicit reproduction, in so far as affects civil liability.

The reproduction in any form of an entire work, or of the greater part thereof, accompanied by notes or commentaries under the pretext of literary criticism or amplification, or supplement to the original work, shall also be considered illicit.

The BAC is still the law of the United States. The U.S. and many other Members of the BAC re-affirmed their intent to abide by it in the 1952 and 1971 versions of the Universal Copyright Convention. Today, the teaching of BAC Article 13 could be subsumed by the general “three-step test” for judging the validity of copyright limitations exceptions. See Berne Convention on the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, art. 9(2). (1979) (the “Berne Convention”). If not, then BAC Article 13 would be a “special agreement” under Article 20 of the Berne Convention. In either case, it would be part of the legal obligations arising under the WTO’s Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, art. 9(1) (1994) (the “TRIPS Agreement”).

This also means that U.S. courts interpreting the meaning of the fair-use defense under U.S. law would interpret the defense to respect BAC commitments were it reasonable to do so. As a result of what U.S. courts sometimes call “Charming-Betsy deference,” federal judges interpret existing U.S. copyright laws to conform to the international obligations of the United States whenever any reasonable interpretation of them would do so. See, e.g., Murray v. Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. 64, 118 (1804) (Marshall, J.).

To be clear, this does not mean that someone creating and distributing an unauthorized “annotated” version of a complete or mostly complete copy of someone else’s copyrighted work can never establish the affirmative defense of fair use under U.S. law. But the fact that the use of annotations to justify rote copying turns out to be “old wine in a new bottle,” does mean that unauthorized lyric sites are highly unlikely to be able to prove that the addition of “notes or commentary” can somehow transform the unauthorized, commercial rote copying and distribution of the lyrics of thousands of copyrighted songs into fair use. Both Mr. Lowery and Members of Congress were thus well-served by his research on lyric sites and his songwriter’s instincts.

*Mr. Sydnor serves as a Consulting IP Fellow to the Innovators Network, a 501(c)(3) organization that studies the relationships between innovation and intellectual property rights. The views expressed here are solely his own.

As reported by www.adland.tv  GoldieBlox was not disqualified despite their “permissionless” commercial use of The Beastie Boys song “Girls”.   This appears to be against the rules of the contest.  If true, they should have been disqualified in round 3 according to the rules as they were violating the content restrictions at that point.

https://www.smallbusinessbiggame.com/rules/

Content Restrictions:

• The Submission must not contain material that violates or infringes another’s rights, including but not limited to privacy, publicity or intellectual property rights, or that constitutes copyright infringement;
• Entrant must have permission from all individuals mentioned or displayed in the Submission (if any) to use their name and likeness in the Submission and to grant the rights set forth herein and if requested, entrant must be able to provide such permissions in a form acceptable to Sponsor;

Read Adland.tv’s excellent coverage here.

So big deal. Two Silicon Valley firms, Intuit and GoldieBlox, breaking the rules? Yawn. As we’ve seen with the “Google Bus” corruption scandal  this has become an everyday occurrence in the valley of permissionless innovation.

Well here’s the kicker. Public contests, lotteries and sweepstakes are strictly regulated by state and federal laws.  Some of which have criminal penalties.   If I had a small business in this contest I would look at those state and federal laws very carefully!  Who knows DairyPoop may already be a winner!

We all know that Goldieblox appears willing to do anything to garner publicity including what some commentators have suggested was  marketing by lawsuit. Why a generally sensible company like Intuit would put themselves in a position where they may be liable is a mystery to me.

House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet

“The Scope of Fair Use”

David Lowery Oral Testimony and Notes

January 28th 2014

Chairman Goodlatte, Chairman Coble, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is David Lowery and I am a mathematician, writer, musician, producer and entrepreneur based in Richmond, VA and Athens, GA. I also teach music business finance at the University of Georgia.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today about the scope of fair use. The rise of the Internet corresponds with recent attention devoted to fair use as an excuse for trumping the rights of authors established both in the U.S. and other countries. This attention comes from technology companies, commentators, lobbyists and some parts of the academy.

I am not concerned with parody, commentary, criticism, documentary filmmakers or research. These are legitimate fair use categories. I am concerned with an illegal copy that masquerades as a “fair use”, but is really just a copy. This masquerade trivializes legitimate fair use categories and creates conflict where there need be none.

These interpretations of “fair use” have become important to my daily life as a singer songwriter. There are attempts by certain websites and commercial services to pass off as fair use versions of my work that are indistinguishable from licensed copies of my work. As I will demonstrate, these unlicensed copies compete directly with licensed instances of my work. Yet, as a professional singer songwriter, I believe the “fair use” doctrine as intended by Congress is working in the music industry and should not be expanded.

Sampling and remixing is one arena where there has been a push for expanded fair use because of some urgent need. This defies logic as there is no emergency. For example, Hip Hop relies on samples of other artists works. There exists robust market based mechanism for licensing these samples and Hip Hop has become the most popular form of music on the planet without expanded fair use. Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke. I go into this in great detail in my written testimony.

Another arena is song lyrics. Some commentators have suggested that sites that reprint song lyrics with annotations or “meanings” may be covered by the “fair use” doctrine. I have personally experienced the unauthorized use of my lyrics in one of the most famous lyrics “annotation sites, RapGenius. Exhibit 1 shows an example from this lyric annotations site.

I research lyric sites as part of my academic work at the University of Georgia and produce the “UGA top 50 Undesirable Lyric Website List.” After I published my most recent update to the list which placed RapGenius at number 1, I observed that the account of “editor in chief” of RapGenius transcribed the lyrics of my song “Low” and began annotation of the lyrics. The annotations are invisible in the exhibit; they appear only as hyperlinks to pop up windows. Note these links could refer to anything.

How is this use any different from the use of my lyrics on a non-annotated and licensed site (Exhibit 2)? The RapGenius instance of my lyrics is nearly identical. How is it “Fair Use?” It competes directly with the revenue I receive from the licensed site. Following this logic I could reprint an entire book and occasionally provide a hyperlink to the definition of a word and that would be “Fair Use”.

Indeed the owners of RapGenius seem to agree that their use is not “fair use” as evidenced by their recently completed licensing deals with Sony/ATV Music and Universal.

My final point before thanking the Subcommittee for this opportunity to speak today, is, what’s so hard about asking permission? As an artist I only expect to be treated as I would treat other artists. I believe that permission, or the legitimacy of consent, and doing unto others are the foundations of civilization. The rights holders have never been easier to find. Millions of recordings can be identified with a smartphone app or looked up in a public database all at no charge. It just takes a little effort.

In conclusion, I respectfully request that the Members of the Subcommittee review the practical history of the application of the fair use defense to see that it is

working as intended. I hope you will agree with me that no legislative expansion or government intervention is needed at this time.

Thank you very much.

David Lowery.

Exhibit 1 and 2

“They know when you’ve been sleeping, they know when you’re awake”

Who needs the NSA when you’ve got Google?  Now they are in your home.

Google has announced that  they have bought “smart” (read spying) thermostat maker Nest.  As reported in the NY Times:

“Google likes to know everything they can about us, so I suppose devices that are monitoring what’s going on in our homes is another excellent way for them to gather that information,” said Danny Sullivan, a longtime Google analyst and a founding editor of Search Engine Land. “The more they’re tied into our everyday life, the more they feel they can deliver products we’ll like and ads.”

Nest’s products track not just a home’s temperature and the presence of smoke but also when people wake up, leave and return home. By incorporating hardware and software and using sensors and algorithms to learn behavior, they program themselves and can be controlled remotely with a smartphone.

Google apologists are already incorrectly reporting that Nest’s privacy polices won’t change.   This is wrong. Google privacy policies must and do extend to all of their products.  If Gmail will scan private attorney-client emails  to pitch advertising do you think Google will treat your Nest data any differently?

And when those privacy policies do change?  It’s gonna cost Nest owners a couple hundred bucks to get Google out of their houses.  When you bought that Nest product  you weren’t giving the NSA Inc -er I mean Google permission to enter your house.   But make no mistake Larry Page is now in da house. Permissionless Innovation at it’s finest.

Help Electronic Frontier Foundation!  Our privacy is being invaded by Google!   Oh wait. I forgot the EFF gets millions from Google and Facebook. They aren’t gonna help.

Some of you may be aware that Google and Microsoft don’t like each other (which probably explains why Eric Schmidt didn’t include Microsoft in his gift to antitrust regulators–the Gang of Four cartel interview).  They have been involved in some extensive wrangling for some time now.   But check this out: It seems that Google is purposely blocking the YouTube App on the Windows Phone, Microsoft’s smartphone.

Yes, when artists post your videos on YouTube, Google uses access to all of our videos through the YouTube app as a stick to beat up on competitors for Android–from which we do not benefit at all. (Granted there’s an iOS YouTube app, but Google also gets to be the default search setting on iPhones–which I’m sure they don’t get for free.  There’d also be a revolt if artists couldn’t get their own videos on artist-friendly Apple products.)

Bear in mind that Google has essentially created YouTube as a monopoly in video search (mostly using music and movies):

Artists need to be particularly concerned about inadvertently creating monopoly-like companies that leverage our music to their own benefit.  We’ve had lots of experience with what happens to our take home pay when in practice you end up with “one of everything”.  MTV? Clear Channel?  Live Nation?  Pandora?  and now YouTube?  We don’t need to make the Anti-Artist,  Wifi-spying, data gobbling,  privacy sucking Google any more powerful.   It’s particularly ironic that back in the day Microsoft was prosecuted for using similar tactics with Internet Explorer while Google gets away with it with Android (as well as search, YouTube, maps, Safari shenanigans…shall I continue?)  Artists should also note that Microsoft has a long history of respecting artists’ rights and paying us fairly.  Xbox music is one of the highest paying music services per stream on my statements.

Of course, Google will come up with the usual Google-de-goop, slow no answers to explain themselves–we know all about that since Google got over 200 million take down notices for links to infringing sites in search last year alone.  You would think that after telling someone 200 million times there’s something wrong with their product, they’d get it?  Not Google.

Here’ another beef on Google’s leveraging our music so that YouTube can’t be played on a whole class of smartphones:  We aren’t getting paid the YouTube crap royalty on those phones.  Not because of anything we did, but because Google wants to screw a competitor!  I don’t recall ever telling Google they could withhold my music on YouTube to line their own pockets–maybe that’s what Google’s famous “permissionless innovation” looks like.

Now I’m not a lawyer but I think I understand some of the basic purposes of anti-trust law.  It isn’t fair to use your dominance in one market (online video search/YouTube) to leverage your dominance in another market (Android OS).  Isn’t this what Google is doing by blocking YouTube on the Windows phones?  Why does Google get away with this kind of blatantly anti-competitive BS?   Is it their political connections?  Is it those frequent dinners at The White House?   Or we could call it what it really looks like:  Political Corruption and Crony Capitalism.

In this piece in the NY post about “independent”  artists gaining more market share,  there is a very misleading statement about what Pandora plays.  We can only assume that this information came from Pandora as the New York Post would have no knowledge of what Pandora’s spins or the contents of it’s servers.  Here is the statement:

  Songs from outside the major labels make up 50 percent of the content streamed on the 14-year-old service. On broadcast radio, it’s 13 percent.

So on first glance the  takeaway is that in aggregate 50% of the total spins on Pandora are by independent artists while 13% of the artists on commercial radio are independents.

Yay! Pandora!  The indie musicians’ true friend!

But wait. Did you read that really carefully?  This is a statement that you would expect a defense attorney to concoct. It’s very carefully constructed. The statement is not saying that 50% of the total spins on Pandora’s service are from independent artists,   it’s essentially saying that the content on Pandora’s servers are made up of more than 50% independent artists. And at some point they’ve been streamed.

Of course that’s true.  There are many more unpopular bands than popular bands. And an overwhelming percentage of these “unpopular” bands are independent.

But Necrophagist is not being played nearly as often as a Miley Cyrus. Comparing YouTube views I’d say Cyrus is probably being spun ten thousand  times more often than Necrophagist.  Yet Necrophagist and Miley Cyrus have a similar number of tracks on Pandora’s servers.  So we all see how this statement is totally misleading. Right? It’s not really saying 50% of the spins are indie artists.

Further the distinction between “independent artist” and “major label artist” is somewhat arbitrary and frankly no longer useful.   Although Taylor Swift might be considered technically “independent” it’s not exactly edgy underground DIY music.  Further like many of the “independent” artists in the count, these artists are promoted and distributed by major labels.   That is major labels are actively working these titles and taking large percentages of the revenue!

The more important distinction to look at is how much “unknown” or “non radio friendly” tracks a music service plays.

As I’ve demonstrated with my own catalogue Pandora doesn’t really play that much more music from my “Long Tail” of popularity than commercial radio.  For my catalogue it’s more like 20%.  That is only 20% of my spins on Pandora are songs that weren’t also hits on the radio. Looking at other artists’ royalty statements I have observed the same approximate percentage.

While it’s true with my catalogue Pandora does marginally better than commercial terrestrial radio, Satellite radio and college radio play more music from my “Long Tail” than Pandora.  A LOT MORE. 

We’d be really surprised if Pandora’s total spins are any different from any other 80/20 model where 80% of the spins come from the top 20% of artists/songs while the remaining 80% of artists/songs only account for 20% of spins. This is where Openess and Transparency by those with the data would truly be informative to artists and musicians. Maybe we’re wrong, and we’d like to be, so let’s see the actual numbers…

Oh, and one might also just look at the promoted genre’s on Pandora’s homepage, doesn’t look like indies to us (well, Contemporary Gospel, maybe)…

For the past 20 months or so the Trichordist has been almost exclusively focused on artists rights in the digital age.  In particular we have zeroed in on two main issues and suggested solutions.

#1 Government Mandated  Digital Uses and Pricing of Songs and Recordings Should be Ended

The Government and  institutional mechanisms that  limit artists’ choice over how to monetize their recordings and involuntarily collectivize their songs and recordings for the benefit of wealthy technology firms should be ended.

The compulsory licenses and antiquated DOJ consent decrees have become massive subsidies from songwriters (especially) and performers to webcasters and on demand streaming services.  Spotify and Pandora have market caps well in excess of $4 billion!  (EMI was recently sold for $2.1 billion.)  Apple and Google  recently started webcasting services and are the largest tech companies in the world.  Why do these companies need help from the US Government?

While many songwriters find it personally insulting that they are often paid micropennies per digital spin the truth is that no one  can really tell you the fair rate per spin for any particular song. Songwriters and artists can’t.  Spotify can’t. Pandora can’t.  Neither can BMG,  Sony nor the US Congress.  This is because  there is not really a free market in songs and recordings in the US to set those fair prices.  This is easily solved: Create one.

That is why we are simply asking our government to dismantle the regulations that prevent a free market in songs and recordings from developing.  We are asking our government to dismantle the biggest impediment to a free market:  The rate courts and consent decrees that keep a free market from developing for songwriters.   At a minimum, our government could at least allow an “opt out” for artists and songwriters so that compulsory rates become a “floor” rather than a “ceiling”.

It should be noted that contrary to what some in the  technology press have been saying, we are not  asking for special treatment,  handouts or subsidies for artists and songwriters.   We aren’t asking for special legislation to protect prices for our industry. We are not asking to be protected from the disruptions caused by technological innovations.  To the contrary, it’s the webcasters, broadcaster and Silicon Valley giants that have lobbied Congress for royalty fixing legislation to prevent “disruption” of their business models.

#2 Ad Supported Piracy.  Payment Processor Supported Piracy.

The second thing we have focused on is ad  and payment processor  supported piracy.   Virtually every major music piracy website seems to sell their inventory for some kind of advertising . Some sites proudly display advertising  from Fortune 500 companies.   Others sites charge premium subscriptions for faster downloads with the complicity of companies like Paypal, Mastercard, Amex and Visa.

This is ridiculous–massive banks and credit card companies (that got a huge taxpayer bailout which we’ve never asked for or gotten) profit from massive theft.  It is very easy to find out which sites are likely involved high levels of infringement–just ask creators if they ever licensed the site.  Credit card companies do all kinds of checking on creditworthiness, why don’t they check on dishonesty?

If asking doesn’t “scale,” Google helpfully provides The Google Transparency Report on number of DMCA takedown notices (copyright infringement notices) associated with each site–notices that Google has acknowledged are over 90% accurate.  An advertiser or payment processor need only look at this link.

I am not a lawyer but I understand  that mass copyright infringement is a predicate for federal prosecutors to bring a case under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or “RICO”–which is the law that the government used to take down white collar criminals like Michael Milken (a Gordon Gekko figure who may have done a lot of things but who wasn’t engaged in global advertising fraud).  I believe that at the very least the federal government should be investigating the online advertising industry and the payment processors  to see if they are knowingly involved in any criminal conspiracies associated with these sites. (Processing payments? Paying ad revenue to pirates? How could they not be? Don’t the accountants and bankers who “move” money for the mob usually go to jail? Orange Is The New Black?)

But this is unlikely to happen.  The Federal Government, in particular the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission seem unwilling to give even slaps on the wrists to the companies involved in these practices. In particular frequent White House dinner guest Eric Schmidt and his company Google.

While this may seem like a wild accusation to some,  it seems to be supported by objective facts.  If the federal government will  fine Google a measly $25,000 dollars in the NSA-like Google Maps “WiSpy” data vacuuming scandal why would they bother with a silly thing like RICO criminal acts? $25,000 dollars? Think about it.   This is a $370 billion company. They make $25,000 in seconds.

Well that’s just one isolated case right? Google doesn’t get special treatment.  Right.

Sadly it looks like they do.

Ever heard of the Google drugs case?   This was a CRIMINAL international drug trafficking case brought against Google by the Rhode Island US Attorney’s office.   Google paid a $500,000,000 dollar fine in that case to avoid CRIMINAL prosecution.

Well that sounds better. They didn’t get away with that!

Really? Since when do people pay fines instead of going to jail for being key part of promoting organized international drug operations?  Since when does the  DOJ purportedly offer an apology for prosecution, as the Wall Street Journal reports? 

This Is What Corruption Looks Like

So after 20 months of arguing for artists rights in the digital age I’ve come to the conclusion that this goes way beyond a few thousands artists losing 2/3 their revenue to shady websites with the complicity of multi billion dollar  corporations.  This is much worse.

We have monopolistic companies doing bad things on a scale we haven’t seen since the days of the Robber Barons. And getting away with it.   The most positive spin I can put on it? We have the same old “Pay to Play Democracy” except this time instead of picking our pockets they are only picking our data.  We should call it what it is:

Corruption.

We need a new Teddy Roosevelt to “Bust these Internet Trusts”.

Our love affair with the internet has left us blinded to the enormous power that these companies hold over our government and our daily lives.  It has blinded us to the massive invasions of privacy and and attempts to collectivize our private data, personal information and  even our photos with no protection from our federal government.

Why are we letting these giant monopolies develop?  Has anyone considered that a single search engine controls nearly 70% of all web searches in the US.   Recently Google “demoted” both JC Penny and  Rap Genius in search results for using “black hat”  search engine optimization techniques. These are not laws that were broken. This is a private company’s arbitrary rules (they “black hat” their own properties like YouTube)  What’s to stop them “demoting” one political candidate and “promoting” another one?  How would you ever know if they have already done it?

What’s to stop them from sharing their vast store of data on us with government spy agencies or the political candidates they favor.  How do we know they haven’t already done this, too?

My Songs = Your Instagram Photos.

Remember the Instagram Terms of Service changes?   They get to use your photos for advertising? Without your permission?  The Internets went crazy.   That’s exactly the same thing these Silicon Valley companies (that are essentially just big advertising agencies) have been doing with my songs and lyrics for years.   They slather advertising on sites that don’t ask my permission to use my songs or lyrics.  I don’t get any of the revenue and no one will stop them because they are too politically powerful.

If they can do this with my songs they WILL do it with your Instagram photos. Your FaceBook profile, your Google+photos.  (Heard of “shared endorsements”?)  It’s just a matter of time!

Oh, wait–they’ve already done it.  Facebook sponsored stories. And Google plus shared endorsements.  These “services” probably weren’t part of the deal when you first signed up for these “convenient” and “free” services.  Right?  Facebook and Google just changed their terms of service. And then helped themselves to your identity and photos. “Permissionless Innovation” is what the suits in Silicon Valley call it (as if that’s a good thing).

Here’s The Washington Post succinctly on the subject:

“But critics say tactics that further exploit the data people leave online amount to a bait-and-switch. People signed up for Google’s services because they were free and convenient. They probably never thought their words and identities would be put in front of strangers to sell a product.”

New Statement Of Purpose.

Well I’ve oversold this a little. There isn’t really a new statement of purpose.  Just simply we are expanding the blog to cover more than just artists rights.

Why?

Your average Internet user is being exploited in exactly same way that the artists are.  You are being exploited by exactly the same companies.  Ad supported piracy?   What’s the difference from “shared endorsements”? They take something that belongs to you without your permission.  They then sell advertising against it and keep all the money without letting  you set the price–much less paying you a share of the revenue.

It’s time that the average Internet user understands that the web is something we collectively created.  And when it doesn’t work the way we want it to?  We can change it. We can make it better.  We can upgrade it.  The web doesn’t belong to these multibillion dollar internet behemoths. It belongs to all of us.  And these companies need to play by the same set of rules that the rest of us play by.

Yes.  You read that correctly.

As I stated before I never wanted to see RapGenius.com go away or get shut down.  I just wanted to see them get licensed.  And I was pleased to see that they decided to sit down with The National Music Publishers Association and work out licenses.

But then I see this story.

http://valleywag.gawker.com/is-rap-genius-fucked-1489917137

RapGenius engaged in some “black hat” spammy SEO (search engine optimization) and they got caught.   And now Google has demoted them. Rather than ranking number #1-5 on lyric searches as they did in many searches I conducted, they are now on page 7!

Not search result #7!  Page 7!  Has anyone ever scrolled 7 pages into search results?

Industry pundits claim this is an effective “death sentence” for the site. And I bet they are right.  According to Vice and Quantcast they’ve lost 80% of their web traffic in days!!

So think about it.

RapGenius violated the Search Engine Optimization rules arbitrarily set by a private company Google.  A set of rules Google itself  appears to routinely violate to push it’s own property YouTube up in search results.

RapGenius didn’t violate any real law created by an elected legislative body when they did this.  But now they are considered “toast”

So do we really want a monopolistic über politically connected company like Google to be this powerful?  To have life or death power over any and all websites? No trial, no jury, no appeals process, no nothing.

Face it people the web is ruled by an autocratic, unelected and unaccountable search engine.

What happens to freedom of expression when you have a search engine that is this powerful?

Fuck that, what happens to democracy?  If a candidate proposes something that Google doesn’t like will that candidate’s website suddenly sink to page 7?  (And the first 6 pages are filled with links to negative stories about the candidate?)

Surely the internet free speech advocates have something to say about this?

<crickets>

Isn’t it funny that Google won’t noticably demote a site demonstrably and unequivocally involved in a RICO predicate like industrial scale file infringement. But you try to game their SEO and you get demoted to page 7.   Don’t be evil. Yeah right.

On the bright side Google just admitted that they can do more than they say they can about file infringing websites. They can demote them. Same with human trafficking and other exploitative businesses. And see the Internet didn’t break.

THE ENVELOPE PLEASE

<drumroll>

AND THE WINNER IS:

“If you criticize the amount that artists receive from digital services like Pandora, Spotify or YouTube you are anti-technology.”