“It’s possible to make forgetting impossible, because we can all wear our Google Glasses that will store everything we see. Whereas if you actually thought deeply about the role of forgetting in enabling us to become who we are, perhaps you would actually find some redeeming features to that process.”
–Evgeny Morozov, quoted in the Globe and Mail

Riddle me this:  Would there have been a Street View without a Wi-Spy?  Or a Wi-Spy without a Street View?  If Google had sent cars around the world with just the Wi-Spy sniffers, would they have gotten away with it for as long as they did?  Which is the more valuable to Google long term?  Pictures of your house or the location of your wi-fi?  Which gives them more hyperaccurate (you know…innovative) maps?  Can they resell the pictures of your house to the National Security Agency, or would the government be more…

“It’s really important that we protect the rights of really good looking people in this society,”

Attorney Andrew Bridges of Fenwick & West quoted at Beautiful Person Derek Khanna’s SXSW “Fashion Week” Panel

In today’s News of the Beautiful, we find that the  founders of the very beautiful Pirate Bay–who are both beautiful and innovative–have discovered yet another law that must be reformed and “updated”.  Yes, we are of course speaking of the unspeakably out of date European Convention of Human Rights.  We, of course, commend the beauties to take their appeal to only the highest level of appeal for they are obviously Too Beautiful to be judged merely by their peers.  Yes, the Beautiful may only be judged by the European Court of Human Rights–but they unfortunately found that the reach of the running dogs of the MPAA penetrate even unto that august body.

The section…

In case you were wondering what ever happened to the so-called Internet Radio “Fairness Act”, here’s another little taste of what Big Tech has in store for artists–particularly “legacy” artists, meaning artists with strong catalog from the past.  Let’s say from before 1972.

What’s magic about 1972?  That was the year that the US Congress recognized a copyright in sound recordings (February 15, 1972 to be precise).  “Pre-72 masters” as the recordings are known were protected by state law before that.  So it is not that these older recordings are not protected–such as those by Ella Fitzgerald, Count Basie, Bob Wills, Duke Ellington, Louis Armstrong, Buddy Holly, Glenn Miller or Robert Johnson–it’s just that they are not protected by federal law.

True to form, Big Tech and their pals at the National Association of Broadcasters are busily trying to screw artists on pre-72 masters out of public performance royalties on…

Greg Sandoval is one of the great reporters on tech and music.  While I don’t always agree with him, I think he’s fair and one thing I know for sure–he is old school when it comes to getting facts and sources right.  So when Sandoval says Spotify is going back to the well to drive down artist royalties even further, you better believe that I believe him.

According to his story at the Verge:

About 70 percent of Spotify’s revenues pays music-licensing fees while another 20 percent covers customer acquisition, these sources said. That leaves 10 percent to pay all of the company’s other costs, including its much praised technology platform. Insiders have told The Verge that this cost structure zeroes out Spotify’s profits.

So brace yourself–Spotify is about to do a Pandora-style argument about how artists should take even less because Spotify’s “profits” are consumed by royalties.  (And…

MTP readers no doubt saw the coverage on last month’s installment of the USC-Annenberg Innovation Lab transparency report that identified ad networks that facilitated IP theft.  Now we see that this month’s report names brands.  You can read all about it here.

Here’s a sample of the top brands driving brand sponsored piracy and theft from artists:

Amazon

American Express

AT&T

BMW

Buick

Converse

Dropbox

Equifax

FingerHut

General Motors

Honda

K Swiss

Lenovo

Lexus

Mazda

Mercedes Benz

Nationwide Insurance

Nissan

Nokia

Progressive Insurance

Saks Fifth Avenue

Samsung

State Farm Insurance

Toyota

Transunion

Verizon

Victoria’s Secret

Visa

Volkswagen

WalMart

There are lots of people who have had lots of questions about Gmail, Google’s “free” email service.  You know, “free”–as in you give them your data and they sell it to advertisers to push ads to you in your emails based on–what exactly?

I haven’t met anyone who doesn’t believe that the ads get to your email by scanning your emails for keywords.  And therein lies the rub for doctors, lawyers and–world governments.  What does Google say about this?  Well, they don’t say they monetize your “information” (meaning your email correspondence).  They also don’t say that they read your mail, or at least not exactly.

Here’s what they say (or what they said today in response to criticism from Microsoft) according to Politico’s Morning Tech:

“‘Advertising keeps Google and many of the websites and services Google offers free of charge. We work hard to make sure that ads are…

We’re all mad here…

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll

The following are my initial comments to the current proposed rulemaking at the Copyright Office that would, in my view, give digital streaming services a pass on transparency and accountability for their extraordinarily low royalty payments.  The reporting on the ridiculously low royalty payments from services like Spotify assume one key fact that is not in evidence–that the royalty, however low, is calculated correctly.

Given the extraordinary sloppiness in the compulsory licensing system and the prohibition in the Copyright Act against songwriters and artists being able to audit statutory mechanical royalty payments, I have to agree with National Music Publishers Association President and CEO David Israelite (quoted again below): “It’s almost as if you had a tax system where there were no penalties if you didn’t file your taxes.”  First they take away the songwriter’s right to…