The twitter account used in this example is largely dormant. Except every once in a while it is used to promote some suspect contest or website. Thousands of tweets use this exact same template.
To be clear. This is not a robust statistical survey. It’s based on my random sampling of tweets to MEPs. But it looks like in any 24 hour period the majority of tweets to MEPs opposing article 13 are coming from suspect accounts. I encourage others to verify this. Once the July 5th voting date passes, I encourage the European Parliament to investigate the use of suspect twitter accounts to influence voting. Why? Because this is an attempt to subvert your democratic processes. MEPs and staff may contact me and I can suggest a couple approaches to rigorously analyze this. Remember that MEP Julia Reda, SaveTheINternet.eu, Copyright4Creativity and EDRI (An EC funded civil society) Is actively sharing links to robo tweet, email and call MEPs.
This account is newly created twitter account and links to a tumbler blog that was created the same day. The photo depicts the musical duo “I Don’t Know How You Found Me.” But this is not their official account. Hundreds of accounts used in the twitter campaign against Article 13 use other peoples photos as profile pics. This has marks of professionalism as they don’t actually claim to be “I Don’t Know How You Found Me.” But the account description is: “How did you find this account.” A little bit of thought went into creating this account.
Suspect accounts?
Newly created accounts
Very low number of followers
Claim country different than language used in tweets
5 out of 6 tweets directed at MEP Axel Voss are identical.
Automated generation of tweets.
The vast majority of the tweets are clearly coming from an automated source as they have identical formats.
Those operating the robo tweet operations seems to periodically target specific country MEPs.
Specific MEPs and Countries Targeted
The last 24 hours suggest that whoever is automating these sock puppet tweets has focused on Irish MEPs. Previously we saw Portuguese and Polish MEPs targeted. This is clearly not an organic movement. Some entity with vast resources is directing this campaign.
One of dozens of memes featuring “Pepe” urging calls to EU members of parliament against copyright directive. The image is recycled from a Southern Poverty Law Center listed group.
For those of you not familiar with meme culture and Pepe the Frog you might want to start here. The point of this article is not to debate whether every time some kid uses the Pepe meme it is racist. Indeed as the linked article notes Pepe began life as a harmless comic character. However there is no doubt that Pepe has been adopted by many far right groups as a kind of anti-PC signifier. Or worse. The creator of Pepe recently killed off Pepe in his comic strip because he was distressed by its recent association with racism and antisemitism.
That is why it is absolutely stunning that opponents of the EU Copyright Directive Article 13 seem to be cultivating support from the far right by using Pepe memes.
There’s always a possibility that the ever insular copyleft doesn’t realize that not all “meme” culture is cute kittens and doesn’t understand the significance of Pepe. Indeed Hanlon’s razor warns: never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence and stupidity.
SaveYourInternet.eu website allows anyone to repeatedly robo call MEP. MEPs of their choosing. So they can target specific MEPs. This is how they hack democracy.
However anecdotal reports show that the MEPs that have been targeted with automated robo calls have largely been Eastern European MEPs with significant anti-immigrant or white nationalist movements.
Further we have previously documented the Copyleft and Pirate associations with the far right.
See here:
German Pirate Party MEP harassment of the Anne Frank foundation.
What is clear is that the “don’t break the internet” crowd has cried wolf one too many times. And their attempts to raise a cybermob are falling short. As of yesterday there were only 800 #DeleteArticle13 tweets on twitter. And a cursory examination shows that about 80% of those tweets are from sock puppet accounts.
So is the appeal to far right trolls design or desperation? SaveYourInternet.eu are you purposely targeting far right twitter users?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Update. So it is not stupidity. It was plan all along. Looks like Pirate Party MEP has been reaching out to far right. See screen capture of tweet below:
[A brief word–TheTrichordist and MusicTechPolicy are always there to provide a platform for the songwriters, artists, musicians and vocalists when grassroots needs to be heard. We all have to thank the Content Creators Coalition, MusicAnswers and especially Maria Schneider for enduring the tactics used against them in their unwaivering fight for fairness and transparency for the creator community. The good protective changes to MMA in Senate Judiciary are due to their efforts and the kind willingness of Senators Grassley and Feinstein to listen to compelling ideas presented by effective advocates.
We also thank all of our readers and supporters for helping to get the word out and taking action. We would be nowhere without you. If MMA passes, the collective’s operations will require hyperdiligence from the grassroots creator community around the world, so we commit to keeping the heat on for fairness, transparency and honesty. In the end, the example set by these brave leaders C3, MusicAnswers and Maria teach us that community is the oversight. We commit to doing our share of these future tasks and then some if called upon. We invite you to do the same.]
PRESS RELEASE
[Washington, D.C.] – The Content Creators Coalition and MusicAnswers released today the following statement on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote in support of the Music Modernization Act.
C3 and MusicAnswers applaud the Senate Judiciary Committee’s vote to advance the Music Modernization Act, while incorporating key changes we had urged to make the legislation stronger, more transparent, and more equitable.
The MMA will strengthen the music ecosystem and all its participants, including songwriters, publishers, performing rights organizations, artists, record companies, music services and fans. It ensures digital music services will pay fair royalties for every song they stream, establish a better standard for determining royalty rates, and eliminate some out-of-date provisions of the PRO consent decrees. In return, digital music services get certainty, legal protection, and new streamlined tools to bring more music to more people at lower cost.
It’s a reasonable bargain, and, therefore, we have consistently and publicly supported the basic construct of the legislation.
We are especially grateful that the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), was willing to engage with our organizations on ways to improve the bill and include in the Managers Amendment approved today key protections for creators and the public.
As a result, the MMA now provides greater transparency, including rigorous audits to make sure that royalties are flowing to the correct parties, a commitment to educating all music creators about their rights and the royalties due them collected under the new Music Licensing Collective (MLC), a requirement to study and follow best practices in order to find the proper owners of unclaimed royalties, and increased clarity regarding who owns the data generated by the new system.
While we support the legislation and are proud of the changes we have achieved as artist and songwriter advocates, we continue to have concerns about three key issues: whether the entity that is designated as the MLC is being foreordained by the bill and precludes competition with the MLC; the composition of the Board of Directors of the MLC, which is unduly tilted towards major publishers; and the methods used to distribute royalties from works where even using best practices the authors could not be identified. We urge the full Senate and the House to consider further improvements to those flawed provisions and we call on the Copyright Office to ensure in implementation of the final legislation that no stakeholder group can dominate the MLC and that all royalties are distributed in a fair and equitable and non-self-interested manner.
The process leading to this moment has been strong in many ways. But it has also included its fair share of divide-and-conquer tactics and efforts by powerful incumbent forces to crowd out grassroots organizations like ours and to divide the music community within itself. We believe that we are strongest when we respect and support each other – a lesson too many in our business still have yet to learn.
We are deeply appreciative of the partnership c3 and MusicAnswers have forged. Together, we represent thousands of writers, producers, performers, and music business professionals, and over the past few weeks we have worked steadfastly to pursue improvements in the MMA. We look forward to future collaboration and welcome the involvement of other collaborative groups and individuals.
This blog normally concerns the rights and revenues of artists. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon has consistently been on the wrong side of these issues. Wyden opposes the “Classics Act” that corrects what is essentially a typo in copyright law. A typo that allows multi-billion dollar digital services like Google, Spotify, Pandora and Sirius to withhold royalties to performers that recorded before 1972 (the year sound recording copyrights were federalized). Unfortunately due to biases built into the music industry before 1972 this means that African American artists are disproportionately harmed by this loophole. That is why the Oregon NAACP has called out Wyden on his opposition to the classics act.
Wyden has falsely characterized the bill as a windfall to record labels. He also falsely claimed to his constituents that performers would not receive any money from the Classics Act. The Senator either did not read the bill or is lying. The terms of the classics act are as plain as day.
So since the Senator is so concerned with unearned windfalls, let’s turn the table and look at his own families finances. Let’s see if perhaps the powerful Senator and his family benefitted from unearned windfalls.
Wyden’s son Andrew Wyden went from interning at DE shaw (19 Billion in assets) to owning his own hedge fund in a matter of months. As the article notes David Shaw (Principle at D. E. Shaw) has been a frequent contributor to Sen Wyden and also supported his Super PAC:
Apparently it’s extremely rare for college kids to “get to intern on a D.E. Shaw portfolio for the summer,” said Brian Marshall, who used to run the fund.
But a D.E Shaw spokesperson assured Bloomberg, “Adam went through the same rigorous vetting and interview process as all other D.E. Shaw group interns.”
The reason observers might think otherwise is because David Shaw has donated thousands of dollars to Senator Wyden’s election and re-election campaigns in 2004 and 2010. Shaw and his wife each gave the maximum $4,800 each that they’re allowed to donate for any single election cycle, to Wyden.
Other articles report that Andrew Wyden (the junior) started with 3 million dollars. Who gives a 26 year 3 million dollars to run a hedge fund out of a Senators basement? It must be someone who knows the son very well. Perhaps a rich former employer like D.E. Shaw? To be clear I’m not definitively stating that D. E, Shaw gave the Andrew Wyden his stake. I have no evidence to support it. But the money came from somewhere. Both the senator and the son know where the money came from. They could clear this up. But if they continue to remain silent, I say it is fishy enough that it should be investigated by someone. This is above my pay grade, but here are some suggestions: Senate ethics? SEC? FEC? FBI? Any and all?
ESPECIALLY since Wyden the junior had an extraordinarily good first year. Up 90% in the first year. According to Absolute Return magazine:
Wyden’s best personal trade last year was an investment in IDT Corp. starting in February, when the Newark, New Jersey, telecommunications company traded at an average of $4.84 a share, he said. IDT now is at $23.90
Lucky bet? Could be. I mean the stock of many thinly traded telecommunications companies trade in a volatile manner. Especially if they they have patents or spectrum that are positively impacted by FCC decisions. Pop. But IDT is no ordinary telecommunications company. In fact it’s misleading to consider it a pure telecommunications play. Here are some highlights from their 2008 annual report ( I couldn’t find later annual reports):
There are three possible issues with IDT holdings. Senator Wyden is on the house Energy and Natural resources committee. IF (and that’s a big If), the Senator was privy to any information that would impact IDT’s two energy businesses (and hence stock price) what safeguards were in place to assure this kind of information didn’t go to his son? Fair question since his son’s hedge fun was operated out of the senators Washington DC townhouse. Second, the value of the wireless spectrum that IDT owned could potentially impacted by the Senators action or inaction. Wyden is no stranger to the wireless spectrum issues. He was instrumental in getting 3g spectrum freed up from the pentagon for use by commercial telecommunication companies. Advance knowledge of the senators action or inaction could materially affect value of IDT spectrum and hence the stock price of IDT.
To be clear. I have no evidence of wrongdoing, but there is something not quite right about letting a sitting senator’s son operate a hedge fund out of the senators home. It deserves further examination.
Finally I’ve heard the Senator is a fan of the movie The Big Lebowski. Might we remind him what “happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?”
This is, of course, the classic back stabbing we have come to expect from Public Knowledge, so is par for the course. What that means, of course, is that Google gets to screw the pre-72 artists andget their new reachback safe harbor that the songwriters and publishers gave up.
We need to move on this quickly. If you can call your Senator and ask them to oppose the Sasse amendment to the Music Modernization Act (bill number S. 2823), that would be great. You can look up your Senator’s information on Phone Congress at this link. Choose “Any Other Topic Not Listed Here” on the pull down “Topic” menu.
Think it’s a coincidence that Google’s search algorithm returns exclusively negative or outright fake news on EU proposed copyright revisions?
Google is the first imperialist power of the 21st century. It has no qualms about subverting democratic processes whenever those processes threaten it’s profits. Most of the time we see these power grabs in the US. For instance Google used stolen emails to derail a Mississippi State investigation into it’s advertising practices. Most recently Google used it’s pet Senator (Ron Wyden) to try to derail an anti child sex trafficking bill. Wyden was one of only two Senators to oppose the overwhelmingly popular bill. WTF right? Makes you wonder what they have on him.
There are so many cases of Google strong arming government officials it would take fifty pages to list them all. Suffice it to say that in almost all these cases Google upends the democratic processes when government actions in some small way threaten googles internet advertising and web hosting businesses. From Google’s perspective it makes sense as Google is willing to monetizes any and all web traffic with no oversight, and with no regard to how abhorrent that traffic may be. Google does not give a shit that it may be enabling child prostitution rings, the opioid crisis, or radicalizing lone wolf terrorists. Any regulation that requires even minimal oversight and might cut into Google’s $110 billion yearly profit(profit not revenue) is attacked by Googles vast network of lobbyists, astroturf groups, google-funded think tanks, paid bloggers, and academics.
The last few years we have seen Google turn their efforts towards subverting democratic processes outside the US. In some ways they have been more effective in places like EU where they are unaccustomed to the kind of subversive political/academic/NGO practices honed by Big Tobacco. In the U.S. we have been partially inoculated. Europeans fall hook line and sinker for this shit.
Case in point.
The EU parliament legal affairs committee recemt;u voted to approve a new copyright directive giving authors, performers and songwriters much more control over how their work appears online. The directive would require online platforms to pro-actively manage their platforms so that creators could decide when and if their content appears on digital platforms and under what financial terms.
This does not make Google/YouTube very happy because currently they enjoy an massive subsidy from creators because they essentially use whatever they want whenever they want. As usual they claim that it is their “users” who are doing the infringing. Not Google. Never mind that Google is making billions slinging ads against all this unlicensed content.
As the directive comes up for a vote in the full parliament, I now see Google deploying the exact same tactics against the Copyright Directive that they have used against copyright measures in the United States. For the EU readers let me give you some examples from the US and you can tell me if you see similarities in their attack on the copyright directive in EU.
Fake grassroots organizations. In the U.S. Google has consistently used groups like Fight For The Future. Fight For The Future purports to be a grassroots organization but it is actually run by a Google lobbyist. Despite claiming to have millions of followers, when they tried to stage a protest in San Francisco before a copyright roundtable they couldn’t get a single real individual to show up. Astroturf. Fake.
Twitter bots: During the last round of Copyright Office hearings on safe harbors we observed that the vast majority of tweets against copyright reform were coming from anonymous accounts that were only active when copyright issues were being considered. Fake.
Robo Emails/Comments: Fight for the Future the astroturf group run by Google lobbyist has repeatedly bombarded congress, and federal agencies with identical automated emails and comments. We demonstrated that the “tool” they provided from their website, didn’t verify identity; allowed users from outside US to vote; and allowed repeated voting by simply reloading page.
Paid Academic Research. This has got a lot of press in the US. But basically Google has been paying academics that then produce papers that it uses to lobby US and EU governments. Many of these papers are poorly researched and little more than opinion pieces. See here:
Robo Calls/Boiler Rooms: I was in a US Senate office in May when Fight For The Future was conducting a phone campaign on net neutrality. If you go to the Fight For The Future website you are eventually prompted to put in your phone number and then an automated system rings a (your?) senator and connects your phone to the call. The senate office can not verify your phone number, exchange or area code. Net neutrality is extremely popular policy and even an astroturf group like FFTF should have no problem finding people to phone senators. However… Two staffers were handling phone calls right in the lobby, and I could hear the callers. The Senator hails from a state in the deep south. Yet not a single caller seemed to share the Senators accent. I mentioned this to the staffers. Their reply: “Yeah we think these are professionals.” To be clear. I don’t know if these callers were part of the the Fight For The Future phone campaign. But it was during this period. And they certainly seemed to be reading from a similar script.
I just checked and these tools are still live. I sent the email above despite the fact it’s a fake email address. I then reloaded the page used my real email, phone number and zip code and I was able to place a call to congress. Strangely I was connected to a random congressional office ( Not related to my phone number, IP location or the postal code.) I told the polite staffer who answered the call that I was very concerned about Federal Emergency Management Agency using high altitude aircraft to spray mind altering chemicals on my hometown as it was producing strange behavior in my cats. All twelve of them. Poor staffers. ( I later identified myself and told the staffer I was conducting an experiment for a article I was writing).
I can almost guarantee you that Google is using the exact same techniques to overwhelm MEPs phones and emails at this very moment.
DON’T LET GOOGLE HACK YOUR DEMOCRACY!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UPDATE
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In fact there is at least one of the web pages producing robo calls. This is from the Google proxy Open Rights. I have not tested it but reports from readers is that it works and there is no limit on the number of calls. And email addresses are not verified.
One of the things the Music Modernization Act (MMA) does is fix what is essentially a typo in copyright law that allows a handful of digital services (Google, Sirius, Pandora etc) to not pay royalties to performers on Pre-1972 recordings. This part of the Music Modernization Act is commonly referred to as “The Classics Act” or “Classics Provisions.”
The Music Modernization Act passed the House without a single no vote. 415-0. Rarely do we see this sort of bipartisan consensus in the US Congress. Even the Dec 8th 1941 declaration of war against Japan was not unanimous. Part of the reason the bill enjoys such wide support in US House of Representatives is because the Pre-1972 loophole seems ridiculously unfair. It violates everyone’s – republican, democrat, liberal conservative- EVERYONE’s sense of fair play.
Except Senator Ron Wyden. He’s fine with unfair play. He’s fine with stiffing creators to benefit a few billionaires.
Yes, Senator Ron Wyden the progressive democrat from the bluest of blue cities, Portland Oregon.
You see Senator Ron Wyden is threatening to block the bill. Unless of course he gets his amendment that would gut the provisions that restore digital royalties for Pre-1972 performers.
Wyden is willing to go against his constituents, the unions and even the NAACP! (African American performers would seem to be disproportionately harmed by the loophole.) Metaphorically this is the hill on which Wyden is prepared to die.
What the fuck is Ron Wyden’s problem?
Is he just a blackhearted and cruel person? Is he lazy and just doesn’t understand the issues? My limited interactions with the Senator makes me think no. Is there a financial motive? Perhaps even good old fashion corruption? Seriously. He would seem to have put himself into a lose-lose position, with no political upside. It’s a question worth asking.
Consider this:
People think of Google as a California company, but Google has massive server farm operations in the state. Google is one of the companies that benefits enormously from the pre-1972 loophole. You think that it’s an accident that Wyden is the one U.S. Senator against the bill? I don’t. Has anyone looked at this? I mean investigate him.
Wyden’s son runs a hedge fund out of the Senators basement? What could possibly go wrong? I wonder who the “investors” are in that hedge fund? Maybe someone should look into that as well. I mean who gives a 26 year old 3 million dollars to start a basement hedge fund?
I mean that literally. Who gave the original 3 million?
SXWorks Announces New Services for Music Publishers and Songwriters
NOI Premium Expands on NOI LOOKUP Tools
WASHINGTON, DC – June 12, 2018 – SXWorks, a subsidiary of SoundExchange, today announced that it has developed two new services to expand upon NOI LOOKUP, the innovative new tool launched in January to help music publishers and songwriters search the more than 70 million address unknown Notice of Intention to Use (NOI) filings made with the U.S. Copyright Office.
NOI Premium Services, available beginning today from SXWorks, will give publishers and songwriters more opportunities to claim unpaid mechanical royalties from digital service providers (DSPs) and facilitate communication for creators with DSPs and the Copyright Office.
“Development of NOI Premium Services is a direct result of interest in our NOI LOOKUP service and the demand for more services from the publishers who use NOI LOOKUP,” said Michael Huppe, Chairman of the Board of SXWorks. “Since the introduction of NOI LOOKUP, songwriters and publishers have asked us to advance our efforts to help them get paid fairly and accurately.”
The new NOI Premium Services unveiled today are Works Claiming and Recordation.
Works Claiming helps publishers submit ownership claims and works shares to a digital service provider (DSP) for its use of a musical work. NOI Premium Services customers upload their works claims to SXWorks. SXWorks then sorts, formats and aggregates the uploaded file and forwards the rights owner’s claim and information to the proper contact at the DSPs identified by the publisher that filed NOIs for the musical work in question. A flat fee of $100 covers the cost of submitting up to three Works Claiming spreadsheets during a one-year period, each with up to 500 titles listed.
Recordation services take the Works Claiming tool a step further. If a songwriter or publisher requests the Recordation service, SXWorks will facilitate submission of the proper information and documents to the Copyright Office so the Office’s records are current and DSPs can locate a publisher’s contact information and ownership data. The recordation fee is $75 per submission plus fees charged by the Copyright Office.
“These new services represent the next step in the evolution of NOI LOOKUP. We know that giving publishers more control by creating new tools will help us chip away at the problem surrounding NOIs and unpaid royalties,” Huppe said. “It’s also important to note that NOI LOOKUP and NOI Premium Services represent the latest innovation – following our International Standard Recording Code (ISRC) Search and our new Music Data Exchange (MDX) program launched last month – to help publishers and songwriters by bringing transparency and efficiency to the music industry.”
To learn more about the new Works Claiming and Recordation services, read our FAQs here.
About SXWorks
SXWorks provides global services to music publishers to support multiple licensing configurations. SXWorks, a subsidiary of SoundExchange, is governed by a board consisting of leading music publishers and SoundExchange executives. SXWorks was created in conjunction with the 2017 acquisition of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Ltd. (CMRRA). CMRRA represents the mechanical rights of music publishers and administers the majority of songs recorded, sold and broadcast in Canada.
Sen Rony Wyden has just posted a medium blog in which he makes the rather astonishing claim he is helping artists.
Let’s look at how Ron Wyden has tried to “help” artists in the past:
He sponsored the Orwellian-named “Internet Radio Fairness Act” that would have slashed artists pay from digital services. In some cases would have slashed artist royalties 70%. The bill never got out of committee as it was so obviously a give away to Google, Pandora, Spotify and other digital services.
Ron Wyden opposed anti-piracy protections in the SOPA bill. Most people don’t understand SOPA. They fell for the “don’t break the internet” bumper sticker slogan rather than looked at the details of the bill. Since the SOPA act failed in 2012, many countries including the UK have enacted similar but much stronger anti-piracy provisions. None of the dire consequences predicted by Wyden and his google funded anti-copyright fellow travelers ever emerged. Wyden has never acknowledged he was demonstrably wrong on the SOPA provisions that would have helped artists.
Ron Wyden has consistently opposed all sensible and bipartisan reforms to the whac-a-mole DMCA takedown notice routine that companies like Google exploit. Whac-a-mole because they allow infringing files to repopulate their servers within minutes. Basically Google makes hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars by exploiting this loophole. (Remember Ron Wyden’s home state of Oregon hosts vast data centers for Google).
Although he will deny it, Ron Wyden tanked TPP because it’s intellectual property rights provisions didn’t weaken copyright sufficiently. There is no other reasonable conclusion. Ron Wyden will say he opposed TPP because it would hurt American workers, but if you look at the timeline, Wyden was a proponent of TPP until Google didn’t get what they wanted on copyright. Under mock pressure from astroturf Fight For The Future (an anti-copyright group led by a Google lobbyist) Wyden changed his position.
Ron Wyden opposes the Classics Act which would fix the Pre-1972 loophole which allows digital services and billionaire owners to avoid paying the royalties to performers that had the misfortune to record before Feb 15 1972. Unequal protection under the law.
On top of that the “progressive” Senator has not acknowledged what is a pretty ugly and obvious truth: the pre-1972 loophole disproportionately harms African American artists. Sad artifact of history, but a disproportionate share of songs were developed and popularized by African-American artists but the biggest hits were performances by white artists. The pre-1972 loophole freezes these unfair biases in place. For instance: Percy Sledge’s Sea of Love doesn’t get royalties; but Michael Bolton’s Sea of Love does. How can anyone with a conscience live with this?
Ron Wyden just proposed a bill called ACCESS (clever right?) It is essentially the Classics Act but it is laden with loopholes that would allow services like Google and likely even The Pirate Bay, to continue to exploit artists without pay. One clause requires the rights holder to notify the service they are infringing (like they don’t already know), and then allows the service 180 days to correct their behavior. 6 months of royalty free use? WTF? There are also impossible to fulfill recordation and notification requirements that create holes that again would disproportionately harm African American artists because they were more likely to record on small specialty labels without the legal and economic resources that the major labels enjoyed. There is a reason international treaties on copyright discourage registration formalities. Onerous formalities (like Wyden’s) end up disenfranchising independent and less sophisticated artists. Do you think those are white kids in the suburbs of Portland?
But even all this doesn’t really give you a sense of the deceit Wyden is willing to engage in to protect companies that have data centers in his state.
So let’s take a closer look at his blog post “A Better Way to Protect Artists”
The deceit starts with Wyden not explaining to the reader that all the protections he supposedly provides in his bill (ACCESS) are also in the Classics Act which he opposes.
“For absolutely every living artist who recorded before 1972, my bill would give you new rights and new revenue from digital streaming, while also creating a uniform copyright law across the whole country.”
This is what the Classics does. What Wyden is not telling you is that he has basically cloned the bill and inserted a billion dollars worth of loopholes into the act. ACCESS to legacy artists wallets is more like it.
But Wyden continues. Next he makes the spurious claim that the genuinely pro-artist Classics Act somehow “locks away” ideas.
Artists deserve to be compensated for their work, but at the same time, we shouldn’t lock up ideas for decades after the creator has passed away.
This is the #1 bogus argument that every anti-copyright dead ender makes. Seriously Senator, if there is one question you need to answer, this is it: How does paying artists for a stream of their performance lock away that work? Huh? We are waiting. I guarantee you that Wyden won’t answer because nothing is “locked up.” As a general rule when ANYONE in politics says they are doing something to “benefit the public” it almost always turns out that “the public” is a large corporation in their district. Quite progressive right. Really looking out for the little guy there.
The second obfuscation the Senator engages in,is the notion that copyright protects ideas. I only bring this up because Wyden is extremely educated on this matter and he has to know he is engaging in a deception on this point. Copyright does not protect ideas. Copyright only protects unique expression. Huge difference. There are hundreds of court cases and hundreds of years of academic literature that clearly lay this out. Shameless demogoguery designed to whip up hysteria never goes out of fashion.
Wyden continues:
“That’s why researchers like the Library Copyright Alliance (which includes the American Library Association), the Internet Archive and the Society of American Archivists all have endorsed my ACCESS to Recordings Act.”
All of these orgs are Google funded or rely on Jonathan Band for policy positions. Jonathan Band of course is one of the star academics in Google Academics Inc report. So, a bunch of orgs that effectively act as proxies for Google support your bill. Oh and Google just happens to have large tax exempt data centers in Oregon sucking down cheap electricity subsidized by ordinary Oregon ratepayers. Nothing funny going on here. The Senator might also want to note that the Internet Archive thinks they have some duty to distribute copies of Dabiq the official ISIS propaganda magazine. Brewster Kahle and his fellow Internet maximalist ideologues at Internet Archive are the worst kind of pseudo-intellectual bubble dwellers. They don’t give a fuck what kind of mayhem results from their irresponsible actions. (I’m from San Bernardino County I’d be glad to introduce the Senator to some people…) That’s a real winning coalition Next time maybe the Senator can get slightly more sympathetic astro turfers to support his bill. See if big tobacco has any.
But it doesn’t end there. Wyden continues with his corporatist oligarch friendly propaganda.
Wyden repeats the widely debunked claim that proposed Classics Act creates a 144 year copyright for sound recordings in 1923 that are covered by state copyright law. The 144 year copyright term, which applies to a very narrow class of sound recordings was created by the 1995 copyright legislation. It has nothing to do with the Classics Act. That ship has sailed long ago. Here Wyden seems to be engaging in The Big Lie tactic. Repeat a false claim until people think it’s true. And this is a sitting US Senator. Tellingly this line of attack was first trotted April 26th by Mark A. Lemley who was (is?) outside counsel for Google.
Rent-A-Senator™ Wyden?
Here are some more howlers:
“To be clear, I support one of the goals of CLASSICS, and the reason it is supported by artists — to open up the revenue from new digital streaming services to older artists. Due to pending litigation, or the threat of litigation, virtually all streaming services are making payments to the copyright owners — often record labels. But, without the safeguards in federal law, we don’t know whether or how distributions are being made to the artists.”
First. Does Wyden really think it’s a good thing that artists had to sue to get their money? It’s not like most artists have a couple hundred thousand dollars sitting around to file a federal lawsuit against Google or Sirius. Does he think they do? Wyden is such a corporate whore now he doesn’t even know when he’s saying completely tin eared shit like this. Dude get out of the bubble once in a while.
Second. Most artists have not received their money because the digital services are still appealing the class action. They won’t get their money for years. I expect that hundred of artists will pass away before the money is ever paid.
Third. This:
But, without the safeguards in federal law, we don’t know whether or how distributions are being made to the artists.
WTF? This is exactly what the Classics Act does. Safeguards to ensure the artists are paid directly via SoundExchange. You get it? He is opposing a bill that does exactly this. It’s total bullshit. He is simply trying to hide the fact his ACCESS Act simply inserts a bunch of safe harbors and loopholes into the Classics Act. And these are loopholes that will absolutely save digital services hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars; will result in artists being paid less; and these artists will be disproportionately African American.
Wyden is absolutely not a friend of artists. The record is clear.
Who took on the Standard Oil men
And whipped their ass
Just like he promised he’d do?
Ain’t no Standard Oil men gonna run this state
Gonna be run by folks like me and you
Kingfish, written by Randy Newman
If you’re one of the small group that has actually read the Music Modernization Act, I think you’d have to come away with the idea that this is legislation by the big boys for the big boys. Nowhere is this unfortunate flaw more apparent than in the way that digital media companies “modernize” the way they treat themselves. No wonder Digital Media Association (Amazon, Apple, Google, Pandora, Spotify) and the Internet Association (Amazon, Facebook, Google, Pandora, Spotify) love it so much–it’s just the same old story from Standard Oil or United Fruit.
But is MMA really intended for the biggest corporations in commercial history playing footsie or should we believe the sales pitch that it is intended for the innovative startups and new entrants?
It is not surprising that startups were apparently excluded from the legislative process that created MMA and are themselves silent–or silenced–observers.Given that Google, Amazon, Apple and Spotify are on the other side, startups know which side butters their bread and what will happen if they voice any criticisms.Like the python in the chandelier, nothing really need be said; startups know what happens if they challenge the big boys, particularly Google and Amazon who probably host their companies, serve their advertising or drive traffic to them.
The MMA permits these massive and aggressive incumbents to ultimately decide how much startups pay for access to the blanket license that we are told by DiMA’s CEO will unleash innovation and “fuel the next wave of creativity“. Yet–if startups can’t afford to buy in to the license, it won’t do them much good, and as drafted the MMA allows their incumbent competitors to decide how much that buy-in will cost any startups or other of the much ballyhooed new entrants. This all before a startup has to pay royalties to the collective–and in addition to any royalties.
How can this be fair? It’s easy when your lobbyists write the rules.
The Congress delegates the government’s authority under the Music Modernization Act by creating two main bodies around the new government-mandated blanket license: The “mechanical licensing collective” which is to represent those with songs to be licensed and the “digital licensee coordinator” which is to represent music users wishing to license those songs under the new blanket mechanical license. Music users will answer to the “digital licensee coordinator,” presumably under some membership agreement yet to be drafted.
Both these bodies are supposedly approved by the Register of Copyrights (the head of the U.S. Copyright Office), but the Register has the unenviable position of being constrained to appoint certain types of entities or people by statutory criteria in the MMA.
One of those criteria is very majoritarian, if not downright oligopolistic–and I would suggest that for both the collective and the digital licensee coordinator the math alone limits the Register’s choice to one entity. Here’s the relevant language for how the Register selects the collective:
“[The Register must choose an entity that] is endorsed by and enjoys substantial support from copyright owners of musical works that together represent the greatest share of the licensor market for uses of such works in covered activities, as measured over the preceding 3 full calendar years;”
And here’s the mirror version of the relevant language for how the Register selects the “digital licensee coordinator” (or “DLC”):
“[The Register must choose an entity that] is endorsed by and enjoys substantial support from digital music providers and significant nonblanket licensees that together represent the greatest share of the licensee market for uses of musical works in covered activities, as measured over the preceding 3 full calendar years”
So one thing seems true for both the collective and the coordinator: They can only be entities enjoying “substantial support” by at least a plurality if not a majority of their respective markets on either side of the same coin. I’m not quite sure how that definition presents a choice to the Register–more like it allows the biggest players to dictate the Register’s choice. (How can there be two pluralities much less two or more?)
I would submit that this structure is a long-term recipe for disaster.
Others have and are writing about the conflict-ridden aspects of the collective, so I will focus here on the digital licensee coordinator which is equally, if not more, conflict-ridden than the collective.
By definition then, startups–who are potential music users most in need of the blanket license without having to pay minimum guarantees–are evidently excluded from any possibility of becoming the digital licensee coordinator. The Congress effectively prohibits the Register from appointing one of them as the DLC, even if they were brave enough to raise their hand (see Yelp in the EU antitrust ruling against Google).
And don’t forget a main selling point of the MMA: The music users (i.e., the “licensees”) pay an “administrative assessment” to cover the costs of running the mechanical licensing collective. (An inherent conflict?) The MMA authorizes the DLC to “equitably allocate the collective total costs across digital music providers…but shall include as a component a minimum fee for all digital music providers.” (Although note that the assessment as a whole and perhaps the allocation ultimately has to be approved by the Copyright Royalty Judges–and good luck to startups being able to afford to appeal to the CRJs or a higher court.)
Plus the MMA authorizes the DLC to “[e]ngage in efforts to enforce notice and payment obligations with respect to the administrative assessment….” AND the DLC also gets to set the “dues” payment for each “member.”
So if a startup wants the blanket licence, they have to pay a share of the assessment apparently determined by a representative of their biggest competitors PLUS a membership fee. And then they get to pay royalties to the collective. Note that this is a radical departure from the current law and adds another gatekeeper in between songwriters and their money.
If a startup fails to make all these payments, they can lose the blanket license even if they have paid all royalties on time. No one can tell you what the minimum fee will be or the startup’s share of the assessment. In fact, as new startups will likely enter the allocation for “membership” all the time, a real time percentage allocation for each “member” of the DLC will likely change pretty much constantly. Plus the collective can enforce the blanket license royalties and the DLC can enforce the assessment payments and membership “dues” (aka rents).
It’s also important to realize that there is an exponential difference between the group of companies that the Register takes instruction from on the MLC compared to the group instructing the Register for the DLC. Candidates for the DLC include Amazon, Apple, Google and Spotify–three of the biggest companies in commercial history plus the streaming platform that is easily the dominant actor in its relevant market both in the U.S. and many other countries. This basically assures that no startup will ever be included as the DLC absent a government-mandated rotation.
The Music Modernization Act is a great opportunity to do something positive for the market rather than continue to reenforce the most dominant incumbents in history (see 60 Minutes, “The Power of Google“). After all, it was their own carelessness and “permissionless innovation” that got us to this point.
Here’s some free advice to Congress: Go wild. Require appointing a startup or two or three as the DLC from time to time. And since you’re dictating many attributes of the MLC’s board, if you really want to go truly off the reservation, require one of those startups to be from some place like Austin, Athens, Northern Virginia or Salt Lake–anywhere but Silicon Valley. Wouldn’t that be real modernization rather than real entrenchment?
As a wise old Member of the Texas Congressional delegation once told me, they get to climb the ladder to the American Dream like everyone else. What they don’t get to do is pull the ladder up behind them once they get to the top.
By limiting the choices of who can be the DLC, the government is mandating control to only the biggest of the big. And giving them an antitrust exemption as the cherry at the top of the ladder.
O
The Trichordist 
You must be logged in to post a comment.