Author: Trichordist Editor

Trichordist Editor

@justinebateman wants to see AI contract terms in actor agreements and music folk should be checking, too

Chris Castle says: If you are seeing contract language that allows the other side to use your name, image, likeness, voice, etc., take a close look at the rights granted. It may not be that obvious. Like all other configuration changes in the past, artists, producers and songwriters need to look at their existing agreements and see how old language will be interpreted to cover AI.

Example: Label will have (i) exclusive record artwork merchandising rights; and (ii) exclusive rights to sell merchandise embodying three (3) exclusive designs per contract period, alone and in conjunction with Artist’s names and approved pictures, likenesses and other identifications, subject to Artist’s approval with respect to such matters as product design and manufacturing.

“in conjunction with”, “other identifications” and “approval with respect to such matters as” each take on new meaning.

Example: Artist acknowledges that Label is the exclusive owner of all rights of copyright in Masters and Records embodying the results and proceeds of Artist’s recording services made pursuant to the Recording Agreement or during its term, including the exclusive right to copyright same as “sound recordings” in the name of Label, to renew and extend such copyrights (and all rights in and thereto are hereby assigned to Label), and to exercise all rights of the copyright proprietor thereunder as provided in the Recording Agreement.

Recordings “made pursuant to the Recording Agreement or during its term” could mean AI works.

Example: As used in this agreement, “Other Entertainment Services” shall mean any and all entertainment industry activity that are not otherwise provided for in this recording agreement, including, without limitation, the following: (a) the exploitation in any and all media of the name(s) likeness(es), visual representations, biographical material and/or logo(s) of or relating to Artist or any member of Artist (all of the intellectual properties relating to Artist referred to above are sometimes referred to herein collectively and individually as “Artist Properties”), either alone or in conjunction with other elements, including without limitation merchandise for sale at the site(s) of any and all live concert engagements performed by Artist or any member of Artist, premiums such as products which bear a third party’s trademarks or logos together with Artist Properties, tie-ins, “bounceback” merchandising, and fan club merchandise, whether or not in connection with Master Recordings, including, without limitation, exploitation by any Person other than Label of any rights granted in this recording agreement; (b) endorsements, special marketing arrangements, sponsorships (including tour sponsorships), strategic partnerships or other business relationships with third parties; (c) live performance engagements as a musician, vocalist and/or performer by the Artist or any member of Artist in all media, including but not limited to musical performances on tour, in concerts, on television broadcast or cable casts (including pay-per-view telecasts), radio, “webcast” and all other means.

by Trichordist Editor

PRESS RELEASE: Copyright Alliance Applauds Nomination of Deborah Robinson as Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator

Washington, DC—Today, Copyright Alliance CEO Keith Kupferschmid issued the following statement in support of the Biden administration’s announcement that Deborah Robinson has been nominated to be the next Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC):

“The position of Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) is crucial to the United States’ continued strong and effective support for intellectual property (IP) laws and policies, both here and abroad. The Copyright Alliance is pleased to learn that the White House has nominated Deborah Robinson to be the next IPEC and urges the Senate to expeditiously consider and approve her nomination.

“Deborah Robinson is an accomplished attorney, experienced IP content and protection specialist, and former prosecutor who has real world experience. We are confident that, upon Senate confirmation of her nomination, she will do a tremendous job in this very important role as she works to further IP protections across the country.”

###
ABOUT THE COPYRIGHT ALLIANCE: The Copyright Alliance is a non-profit, non-partisan public interest and educational organization representing the copyright interests of over two million individual creators and over 15,000 organizations in the United States, across the spectrum of copyright disciplines. The Copyright Alliance is dedicated to advocating policies that promote and preserve the value of copyright, and to protecting the rights of creators and innovators. For more information, please visit our website.
by Trichordist Editor

Save the Date: May 2, 4:15pm Central European Summer Time (CEST), Tom Grey and friends on fixing streaming

Register for the panel here

by Trichordist Editor

Copyright Office Authorized a Star Chamber at the MLC to Hold Your Money

We knew this would happen. The Copyright Office has empowered the Mechanical Licensing Collective to decide whether a song (or a sound recording) can be copyrighted all under the guise of AI. If the MLC–not the Copyright Office–decides that your song is not capable of being registered for copyright, the MLC can hold your money essentially forever.

Where’s the regulation on this important subject? Did you get a chance to comment on these crucial regulations and precedent?

Ah…no. You didn’t miss any notices in the Federal Register. No, we know this because of this cozy “guidance letter” to MLC CEO Kris Ahrend from the general counsel of the Copyright Office. That’s right, a letter that we just happened to run across. That letter states:

More specifically, the Office advises that a work that appears to lack sufficient human authorship is appropriately treated by The MLC as an “anomal[y],” consistent with its Guidelines for Adjustments, and The MLC should “place [associated] Royalties in Suspense while it researches and analyzes the issue.” Such research could include corresponding with the individual or entity claiming ownership of the work or [could include] inquiring whether the Office has registered the work and whether there are any disclaimers or notes in the registration record.

If The MLC subsequently concludes that the work qualifies for copyright protection and the section 115 license, it should distribute any royalties and interest in suspense to the copyright owner. Alternatively, if The MLC believes that the work does not qualify for copyright protection following its research and analysis, it should notify the individual or entity claiming ownership of the work of its determination and that associated royalties will be subject to an adjustment. This conclusion and adjustment may be challenged by initiating an “Adjustment Dispute” consistent with The MLC’s policies. If legal proceedings are initiated to challenge The MLC’s actions, the disputed royalties and interest should remain suspended until those proceedings are resolved.

So just in one paragraph, the Copyright Office has effectively delegated its role in the U.S. government to a private corporation controlled by the largest music publishers and financed by the largest tech companies in the world (actually the largest corporations in the history of commerce). If the MLC decides that your song “appears to lack sufficient human authorship” The MLC can hold your money while they research the issue.

Note this doesn’t say who makes that decision, it doesn’t say when they have to notify you, it doesn’t say they have to give you an opportunity to be heard, it places no timeline on how long all this may take. “The MLC” (whoever that is) could sit on your money for years without ever telling you they are doing it and also keep invoicing the DSPs for your royalties while they “research and analyze the issue”.

The only time they have to give you notice if they “believe” (whatever that means) “that the work does not qualify for copyright protection” then “it should” (not the mandatory “shall”, but the permissive “should”) notify you of that determination. You can then file an “adjustment dispute” based on the MLC’s own guidelines which you will not be surprised to learn places no disclosure obligations on them, imposes no timeline and cannot be appealed.

Note that this guidance from the Copyright Office pretty expressly contemplates that the MLC may dispute a work that has already been registered for copyright without qualification–which raises the question of what a copyright registration actually means, and where is it written that the MLC has the authority to challenge a conformed Copyright Office registration.

It also places the MLC in a superior position to the Copyright Office because it allows the MLC to initiate a dispute resolution system outside of the Copyright Office channels. Is this written somewhere besides a burning bush on Mount Horeb?

The letter does seem to suggest that you can always sue the MLC or that the MLC could be prosecuted for state law crimes, perhaps, like conversion, but it would help to know who at the MLC is actually responsible.

This also raises the question of why the MLC is invoicing the DSPs in the first place and what happens to the money every step along the path. Because of the idiotic streaming mechanical royalty calculation, it seems inevitable that the royalty pool will be overstated or understated if the MLC is claiming works that are not subject to copyright (like it would for public domain works it invoiced).

Ever wonder what prompts letters like this to get written?

Play your part, dude. Go back to sleep.

by Trichordist Editor

Fans and Trust and Trust by Fans Are Essential for AI to Succeed

By Chris Castle

[This post first appeared on MusicTechPolicy]

We are told that artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that may end up being either the end of humanity through automated super soldiers making autonomous decisions regarding their own AI devised rules of engagement, or life saving medical procedures and diagnostic tools like House meets HAL. As usual–both outcomes are probably equally likely if humanity doesn’t keep the deus in the machina. We really don’t want them thinking “Hell is other machines.”

The question I have is how will we keep humanity around when companies like Google are hell-bent on achieving the Singularity ASAP. This is particularly true of creators–let’s not kid ourselves that the Google Books project was some altruistic motivation to build the digital library of Alexandria rather than a massive digitization project to build a large language model to train artificial intelligence through corpus machine translation.  And still is. As Kurt Sutter (show runner for Sons of Anarchy) taught us about Google, “[t]he truth is, they don’t give a shit about free speech, and are the antithesis of their own mantra, ‘Don’t be evil.’” That was 2014 and boy was he right. And he still is. It’s not just Google, but Google is emblematic of Silicon Valley.

One of the lessons we learned from the 1990s is the calvary is not coming. We have to take our own steps to work both cooperatively and defensively against a tech threat. The Human Artistry Campaign and its AI Principles effort is a hopeful indicator that the creative community and its partners are coming together to get ahead of both the threat and the promise of AI.

Let’s not forget that it’s not just about us, it’s also about the fan, our “consumers” if you will. The biggest threat to creators in my view is destroying the relationship of trust that exists between fans and creators. If AI can allow a machine to impersonate a creator, that deception harms the creator, surely. But it also harms the fan. 

One of the AI principles from the Human Artistry Campaign jumped out at me as addressing this vital issue:

  • Trustworthiness and transparency are essential to the success of AI and protection of creators. 

Complete recordkeeping of copyrighted works, performances, and likenesses, including the way in which they were used to develop and train any AI system, is essential. Algorithmic transparency and clear identification of a work’s provenance are foundational to AI trustworthiness. Stakeholders should work collaboratively to develop standards for technologies that identify the input used to create AI-generated output. In addition to obtaining appropriate licenses, content generated solely by AI should be labeled describing all inputs and methodology used to create it — informing consumer choices, and protecting creators and rightsholders. 

Informing consumer choices. For a moment forget the artistic integrity, forget the human intervention, forget the free riding, just for a moment because these are all vital issues, too. At the core of the AI problem is deception and that issue is as old as time. You can’t essentially deceive fans about the origin of a work and you certainly can’t build a machine that does this all the livelong day and pretend you didn’t.

In Book 2 of Plato’s Republic, he uses the legend of a magic ring that turns the bearer invisible to illustrate a dialog on the nature of justice. The ring turns the wearer invisible so that they are capable of doing all manner of things while invisible–or anonymous–that would clearly be both unjust and punishable without the ring. Plato asks if an act is unjust solely because you get caught or is it unjust regardless of whether you are hidden from sight or apprehension. Yep, those Greeks were onto this early.

Deception is not genius. At the core of our concerns about AI is keeping them honest to protect our fans and the bedrock of the creator-fan relationship. Consumers should be able to rely on the reality of what appears to be an artist’s work that it actually does come from that artist. 

We do this with almost any other product or service that is placed into commerce, so why not with creative works? After all, artist rights are human rights.

We were happy to endorse the AI principles and encourage you to find out more about it at the Human Artistry Campaign or Artist Rights Watch and sign the petition.

by Trichordist Editor

Press Release: Human Artistry Campaign Launches, Announces Artificial Intelligence Principles to Sustain Artists

40+ groups representing artists, performers, writers, athletes & more launch campaign for AI that supports human creativity and accomplishment

WASHINGTON, DC / AUSTIN, TX (March 16, 2023) – A broad coalition announced the launch of the Human Artistry Campaign to ensure artificial intelligence technologies are developed and used in ways that support human culture and artistry – and not ways that replace or erode it. With more than 40 members including major unions, trade associations, and policy experts representing individual creators and rightsholders from across the entire tapestry of creative endeavor, the Human Artistry Campaign is positioned to be a leading voice in the rapidly unfolding debate over the costs and benefits of different forms of AI.

The group outlined principles advocating AI best practices, emphasizing respect for artists, their work, and their personas; transparency; and adherence to existing law including copyright and intellectual property. 

The campaign urges supporters to sign a petition to advance these fundamental principles.

The launch was announced at SXSW in Austin today at an event featuring voice actor and prolific songwriter Dan Navarro, GRAMMY-nominated singer-songwriter Jessy Wilson and UT Austin professor and immersive technology expert Erin Reilly – and moderated by Rob Levine, Billboard’s Deputy Editorial Director.

Core Principles for Artificial Intelligence Applications in Support of Human Creativity and Accomplishments

  1. Technology has long empowered human expression, and AI will be no different.

For generations, various technologies have been used successfully to support human creativity. Take music, for example… From piano rolls to amplification to guitar pedals to synthesizers to drum machines to digital audio workstations, beat libraries and stems and beyond, musical creators have long used technology to express their visions through different voices, instruments, and devices. AI already is and will increasingly play that role as a tool to assist the creative process, allowing for a wider range of people to express themselves creatively. 

Moreover, AI has many valuable uses outside of the creative process itself, including those that amplify fan connections, hone personalized recommendations, identify content quickly and accurately, assist with scheduling, automate and enhance efficient payment systems – and more. We embrace these technological advances. 

  • Human-created works will continue to play an essential role in our lives. 

Creative works shape our identity, values, and worldview. People relate most deeply to works that embody the lived experience, perceptions, and attitudes of others. Only humans can create and fully realize works written, recorded, created, or performed with such specific meaning. Art cannot exist independent of human culture.

  • Use of copyrighted works, and use of the voices and likenesses of professional performers, requires authorization, licensing, and compliance with all relevant state and federal laws.

We fully recognize the immense potential of AI to push the boundaries for knowledge and scientific progress. However, as with predecessor technologies, the use of copyrighted works requires permission from the copyright owner. AI must be subject to free-market licensing for the use of works in the development and training of AI models. Creators and copyright owners must retain exclusive control over determining how their content is used. AI developers must ensure any content used for training purposes is approved and licensed from the copyright owner, including content previously used by any pre-trained AIs they may adopt. Additionally, performers’ and athletes’ voices and likenesses must only be used with their consent and fair market compensation for specific uses.

  • Governments should not create new copyright or other IP exemptions that allow AI developers to exploit creators without permission or compensation.

AI must not receive exemptions from copyright law or other intellectual property laws and must comply with core principles of fair market competition and compensation. Creating special shortcuts or legal loopholes for AI would harm creative livelihoods, damage creators’ brands, and limit incentives to create and invest in new works.

  • Copyright should only protect the unique value of human intellectual creativity.

Copyright protection exists to help incentivize and reward human creativity, skill, labor, and judgment -not output solely created and generated by machines. Human creators, whether they use traditional tools or express their creativity using computers, are the foundation of the creative industries and we must ensure that human creators are paid for their work.  

  • Trustworthiness and transparency are essential to the success of AI and protection of creators. 

Complete recordkeeping of copyrighted works, performances, and likenesses, including the way in which they were used to develop and train any AI system, is essential. Algorithmic transparency and clear identification of a work’s provenance are foundational to AI trustworthiness. Stakeholders should work collaboratively to develop standards for technologies that identify the input used to create AI-generated output. In addition to obtaining appropriate licenses, content generated solely by AI should be labeled describing all inputs and methodology used to create it — informing consumer choices, and protecting creators and rightsholders. 

  • Creators’ interests must be represented in policymaking. 

Policymakers must consider the interests of human creators when crafting policy around AI. Creators live on the forefront of, and are building and inspiring, evolutions in technology and as such need a seat at the table in any conversations regarding legislation, regulation, or government priorities regarding AI that would impact their creativity and the way it affects their industry and livelihood.

About the Human Artistry Campaign: The Human Artistry Campaign was launched at SXSW 2023 for open dialogue and guidance from the united creative community in shaping the AI debate. Visit HumanArtistryCampaign.com to join.

Members include: AFL-CIO; American Association of Independent Music; American Federation of Musicians; Americana Music Association; American Photographic Artists; Artist Rights Alliance; Artist Rights Watch; ASCAP; Association of American Publishers; Authors Guild; Black Music Action Coalition; BPI; Christian Music Trade Association; Church Music Publishers Association; Concept Art Association; Department of Professional Employees, AFL-CIO; European Composer and Songwriter Alliance; Folk Alliance International; Future of Music Coalition; Georgia Music Partners; Global Music Rights; Gospel Music Association; Graphic Artists Guild; IFPI; International Federation of Actors; #IRespectMusic; Living Legends Foundation; MLB Players Association; Music Artists Coalition; Music Managers Forum – US; Music Tech Policy; Music Workers Alliance; National Music Publishers’ Association; News Media Alliance; NFL Players Association; NHL Players’ Association; Professional Photographers of America; Recording Academy; Recording Industry Association of America; Rhythm & Blues Foundation; SAG-AFTRA; SESAC, Songwriters of North America; SoundExchange and The Trichordist.

***

www.HumanArtistryCampaign.com

contact@humanartistrycampaign.com

by Trichordist Editor

@davidclowery: Written Testimony to Georgia Legislature Against StubHub’s Bill

GEORGIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON REGULATED INDUSTRIES

ADAM POWELL, CHAIRMAN

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. DAVID C. LOWERY ON HB 398

My name is David Lowery and I thank the Committee for allowing me to testify today on the StubHub legislation. By way of introduction, I am the founder of the musical groups Cracker and Camper Van Beethoven and a lecturer at the University of Georgia at Athens Terry College of Business.  I have filed amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court in the cases of Google v. Oracle and Frank v. Gaos, testified before Congress on the topic of fair use policy[1] and I am a frequent commentator on copyright policy at the U.S. Copyright Office.  I advocate on artist rights in a variety of outlets, including founding and hosting the Artist Rights Symposium at the Terry College of Business (in its fourth year), my blog at TheTrichordist.com as well as Politico, the New York Times, Hypebot and other publications. Most notably I led the successful songwriter class action lawsuit against Spotify for failing to properly license and compensate self-published writers. Finally, I am a recipient of the National Music Council’s prestigious American Eagle Award “in recognition of his longstanding dedication to protecting the rights of music creators.” With this award I am in the company of such American music luminaries as Quincy Jones, Dizzy Gillespie and Stephen Sondheim.

In the interests of full disclosure, my wife has been a talent buyer at the iconic 40 Watt Club in Athens for many years and now works for LiveNation in a senior capacity.  My testimony today is my own based on my own experiences over many decades in the music business with my bands and my own research into ticketing.  My testimony today will focus on the effects of automated ticket scalping on Georgia’s many artists and resilient music ecosystem, but much of my concerns apply to all ticketed events from sporting events at taxpayer funded venues, to nonprofit fundraisers or even pledge drives for public broadcasting stations.

The Artist-Fan Social Contract Suffers When Bots Attack:  Artists and their fans enjoy a kind of social contract.  The vast majority of fans are small-dollar contributors that sustain their favorite artists.  Artist do not price their tickets at a face value that captures the present value of all revenue the artist will make on a single show.  Tickets are priced with the idea that the costs of sustaining the artist, paying the road crew, gasoline, sound, lights and vehicle equipment rental, housing, and promotion and marketing for an entire tour is amortized over an entire tour or leg of a tour. 

Pricing tickets must be decided so as to allow current and potentially new fans to see the band live which is the railhead of the artist-fan relationship and is one of the most delicate touch points of that relationship.  We do not want to price out loyal fans or new fans.

Ticket scalping has long been a problem that interfered with that social contract.  Like many other areas of our lives, when bots attack, humans suffer.  Companies like StubHub appear to allow or even welcome bot swarms as part of their business model and for all their Silicon Valley know-how, this Big Tech company seems to be unable to control their platform to avoid inflicting this suffering on fans and artists. 

Unlike the careful decision-making that goes into setting ticket prices for a tour in the pre-StubHub era, ticket prices set by these online market makers seem to play an arbitrage game that attempts to extract the maximum price that ticket traders are willing to pay for that one essential artist with the best seating and a well-heeled clientele, rather than the small dollar donor to the artist’s sustenance.  This arbitrage (some would say illegal market cornering) allows StubHub to free-ride on the artists reputation, marketing and other investments in their brand as well as the particular concert.

Ticket scalping has largely become another Silicon Valley racket in my view.  It is virtually impossible for artists to compete and it is impossible for all but the richest fans to get the tickets they want to see the artists they love at a price they can afford. I have come to the realization that it is impossible for artists and fans to fix the problem because it has become a free-rider problem. StubHub isn’t operating because of “fan freedom” or other feel-good bromides. They are drawn to the business for one reason.

StubHub wants to take a skim off the artist’s value and the fan’s love and enthusiasm by commoditizing this exchange at scale. StubHub’s platform is not that different than a commodities exchange; the good could be a Cracker show, a Bulldog’s football game, or a pork belly.  StubHub doesn’t seem to care; they do it for the money and just for the money.

Is StubHub Selling Securities as an Unlicensed Broker Dealer in Violation of the General Solicitation Rule?  I call the Committee’s attention to a phenomenon I discovered in my research for today’s hearing: StubHub appears to be making a market in selling opportunities to buy tickets, i.e., a commodity, that have yet to go on sale. In other words, StubHub appears to be selling an option to buy a ticket in the future that does not yet exist and that the seller doesn’t own. The careful wording of their boilerplate disclaimers is a little too clever, and suggests they are aware of this practice. (Please see Exhibit A that details the author’s purchase of what appears to be the promised delivery of a ticket in the future, rather than the purchase of an already existing ticket).

This practice appears to be selling an option to buy a commodity in the future by an unlicensed broker dealer in a general solicitation to the public without complying with applicable federal or state securities laws.

Paying it Forward: Resale Royalties for Scalpers:  StubHub may refuse to police itself but the State of Georgia can recover some of the value of StubHub’s free riding by establishing a resale royalty to be distributed to artists and venues for transactions occurring in Georgia. California already has a similar law on the resale of fine art. This is a very intriguing idea that would essentially force scalpers to return some of the value they have extracted from the artist’s brand to the state in which the transaction took place. I speak of the resale royalty as returned to artists and venues, but I am program-agnostic. The payment should also be returned to the performers, universities, or taxpayer funded venues around the state.

The resale royalty could be a way to continue to support communities that were hard hit by COVID and venues that survived based on the Save Our Stages funding.  It would be better to fund this support from parasitic free riders than from hard working Georgia taxpayers.

Anticorruption Protections:  When observing the amount of money and the number of high value transactions fixed by StubHub and other online marketplaces—effectively in cash—I am struck by the potential for bad actors to use the platform to hide cash transfers.  I see no reason why StubHub should be treated differently than a bank in reporting these transactions to authorities such as the Georgia Bureau of Investigation or the Department of Revenue.

I would encourage the Committee to work with these agencies to determine the need for more detailed reporting of the origin and destination of higher dollar transactions, such as $10,000 in a single deal or series of deals closed by StubHub and its progeny. It is also apparent that the Georgia Department of Revenue is not likely receiving proper short term capital gains reporting from StubHub.

Conclusion:  If this seems that these recommendations seem to advance the heavy hand of government, I will dispute that—these recommendations allow StubHub an opportunity to fix its own wagon.  As Judge Patel told Napster in 2001, you created this monster, now you fix it. Further as StubHub has come before this august body to urge legislation that would regulate the practices of its market competitors, artists and venues it’s only fair that StubHub receive the same treatment.

[1] See The Scope of Fair Use: Hearing before the Subcomm. on the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 113th Cong. (Jan. 28, 2014) (statement of David Lowery) [hereinafter Scope of Fair Use].

by Trichordist Editor

National Association of Voice Actors: AI/Synthetic Voice Rider–Don’t lose your voice forever

[Chris Castle says: It’s like the antichrist without the morals. Voice over actors are being attacked by purveyors of artificial intelligence so that the actor’s voices can be re-used without consent or compensation even if they didn’t consent or at least didn’t object. Not only that, but voices can be used to train AI to speak in a completely different context. This is way worse that Netflix composer buyouts.

Check your name/image/likeness clauses folks–voice actors will not be the only ones caught up in the AI hellscape.]

AN OPEN LETTER FROM NAVA AND THE VOCAL VARIANTS TO THE VOICE OVER COMMUNITY

AI or Synthetic Voices are on the rise. We’re a group of concerned voiceactors working with union and non-union performers alike to make sure we don’t lose our voices forever by signing away our rights to various companies. Long story short, any contract that allows a producer to use your voice forever in all known media (and any new media developed in the future) across the universe is one we want to avoid. 

So we have put together some things we can all do to avoid the decimation of our industry.

Read the post on NAVA Voices site and stay in touch with your unions.

by Trichordist Editor

Press Release: Texas Governor Abbott Announces Statewide Plan Banning Use Of TikTok — Artist Rights Watch

“Owned by a Chinese company that employs Chinese Communist Party members, TikTok harvests significant amounts of data from a user’s device, including details about a user’s internet activity.”

Governor Greg Abbott today announced a statewide model security plan for Texas state agencies to address vulnerabilities presented by the use of TikTok and other software on personal and state-issued devices. Following the Governor’s directive, the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas Department of Information Resources developed this model plan to guide state agencies on managing personal and state-issued devices used to conduct state business. Each state agency will have until February 15, 2023 to implement its own policy to enforce this statewide plan.

“The security risks associated with the use of TikTok on devices used to conduct the important business of our state must not be underestimated or ignored,” said Governor Abbott. “Owned by a Chinese company that employs Chinese Communist Party members, TikTok harvests significant amounts of data from a user’s device, including details about a user’s internet activity. Other prohibited technologies listed in the statewide model plan also produce a similar threat to the security of Texans. It is critical that state agencies and employees are protected from the vulnerabilities presented by the use of this app and other prohibited technologies as they work on behalf of their fellow Texans. I thank the Texas Department of Public Safety and Texas Department of Information Resources for their hard work helping safeguard the state’s sensitive information and critical infrastructure from potential threats posed by hostile foreign actors.”

To protect Texas’ sensitive information and critical infrastructure from potential threats, the model plan outlines the following objectives for each agency:

  • Ban and prevent the download or use of TikTok and prohibited technologies on any state-issued device identified in the statewide plan. This includes all state-issued cell phones, laptops, tablets, desktop computers, and other devices of capable of internet connectivity. Each agency’s IT department must strictly enforce this ban.
  • Prohibit employees or contractors from conducting state business on prohibited technology-enabled personal devices.
  • Identify sensitive locations, meetings, or personnel within an agency that could be exposed to prohibited technology-enabled personal devices. Prohibited technology-enabled personal devices will be denied entry or use in these sensitive areas.
  • Implement network-based restrictions to prevent the use of prohibited technologies on agency networks by any device.
  • Work with information security professionals to continuously update the list of prohibited technologies.

In December 2022, Governor Abbott directed state agency leaders to immediately ban employees from downloading or using TikTok on any government-issued devices. The Governor also informed Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and Speaker Dade Phelan that the Executive Branch is ready to assist in codifying and implementing any necessary cybersecurity reforms passed during the current legislative session, including passing legislation to make permanent the Governor’s directive to state agencies.

Governor Abbott has taken significant action to combat threats to Texas’ cybersecurity, including signing the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act in 2021 to fortify certain physical infrastructure against threats that include hostile foreign actors.

View the statewide model security plan here.

Press Release: Texas Governor Abbott Announces Statewide Plan Banning Use Of TikTok — Artist Rights Watch–News for the Artist Rights Advocacy Community

by Trichordist Editor

@alliecanal8193: Spotify CEO admits he got ‘carried away’ investing, will rein in spending this year

[From ArtistRightsWatch: Editor Charlie sez: There are no words for the arrogance.]

Speaking on the company’s fourth quarter earnings call, Ek said certain mistakes were made after the company heavily invested in high-growth areas like podcasts, telling investors: “I probably got a little carried away and over-invested.”

Ek, who called out a shaky macroeconomic environment, emphasized the company will be tightening investments in 2023 across the board as the music streaming giant doubles down on streamlining efficiencies “with greater intensity.”

Read the post on Yahoo! Finance

by Trichordist Editor