Scene outside Copyright Office roundtable during Fight For The Future’s protest.  So now regulations.gov needs to investigate how FIght For The Future generated 86,000 comments on Copyright Office consultation. Robots anyone? 

 

 

Fight for Future tried to organize a protest at the Copyright Office roundtable on “notice and takedown”  in San Francisco. Those attending report seeing ZERO protestors. Maybe they missed them somehow.   But then again according to their Facebook event they got 9 RSVPs.  I was one of the RSVPs so make that 8.   So based on the last two years of tax filings by FFTF  that is approximately $225,000 per RSVP.

To be fair 45 folks responded “interested.” But some of those that responded “interested” look like they may have not been able to get their parents permission to attend on a school day.  Those responses were likely generated by FFTF’s skeevy partnership with the teen oriented Channel Awesome on YouTube.  Anyone ever read the history of the “Children’s Crusade?”

BTW “progressive” NY-19 congressional candidate Zephyr Teachout is the director of this program.   Perhaps she should run for Manchurian Candidate?

 

To be clear, I don’t know the answer to this question.  But it just doesn’t seem right to me.

Lawyers on Board of Directors for  Fight For The Future Non-Profit:

What the law says:

Willful infringement? $2500? At $2.99 on iTunes the I Have A Dream Speech x thousands of copies =?

Commercial or Private Financial Gain?  They are clearly asking for donations. Does that count? 

References

http://www.internetfreedomday.net

https://www.fightforthefuture.org/projects/

https://www.fightforthefuture.org/aboutus/

Bad bad Sony!  Made you take down the video!

Oh wait no they didn’t.  And what’s up with that 2016 copyright notice?  Thought you uploaded the video in 2013? (see below)

Above you state you “published a political commentary about Martin Luther King’s I have a Dream Speech.”  Really where is the political commentary?  This is simply the entire MLK speech with a little voice over on the front that encourages mass copyright infringement.

Let’s ask a very simple “yes or no” question here?  Did you receive permission from the King estate to “share” the entire MLK speech on YouTube?

No?  Didn’t think so.

Did you get to keep your video up even though you are violating the MLK estate rights?

Yes.

So admit it.  You don’t really have anything to complain about here do you?  You are simply demagoguing using the legacy of MLK to stir up false moral outrage about something that never happened?    How is Fight For The Future any better than all the other low-life corporate funded astroturf organizations that peddle fear to keep their shitty little racket going?

Now go crawl back under your rock.

 

 

 

 

According to Federal tax documents these Corporations and “black box” foundations are massively funding the astroturf Fight For The Future.   These are the folks attempting to organize a counter-protest at the Copyright Office roundtables today in San Francisco.

 

CORPORATE MONEY FUNDING FFTF

Union Square Ventures (Twitter, SoundCloud, Tumblr, and a host of other DMCA abusing services).  Their website says they welcome feedback here info@usv.com.

SV Angel  ( ex Google: Partners Topher Conway & Brian Pokorny;  Ex-Goldman Sachs: Paul LaLonde) Here’s their twitter account: https://twitter.com/svangel 

London Trust Media AKA Private Internet Access  Nearly $200K from every TorrentFreak’s favorite VPN!

NameCheap (also funds the EFF another anti-civil rights organization)

Yelp  (tweet their CEO!)

Consumer Electronics Association AKA Consumer Technology Association (Google funding).

 

BLACK BOX  FOUNDATIONS FUNDING FFTF

What the f— is the Sixteen Thirty Fund?  According to it’s 501 (c)(3) it “promotes Environmental Quality, Protection and Beautification.”   Is Fight For the Future building nature trails on Cape Cod? Martha’s Vineyard?  I don’t know the IRS laws on non-profits but I’m pretty sure you can’t start a non-profit that claims to do one thing but does another.

Proteus seems mostly concerned with death penalty issues.  Good for them.   So why $100k for Fight For The Future? Wouldn’t that money be better spent on death penalty issues? Well, if you read in the fine print they brag:

Each initiative is uniquely structured and focused to achieve the goals of its funding partners, and led by experienced program staff. Our highly effective rapid response grantmaking function and ability to integrate support for lobbying activity are two key tools utilized by our collaborative grantmaking initiatives.

Translation:  We also do lobbying work for unspecified “funding partners”

I couldn’t find any way to contact them.  But I see that that one of the board members is this person:

You’d think the Director,ACLU of California Center for Advocacy & Policy would feel a twinge of conscience over funding ($100K) an organization which  willfully violated the rights of the King estate.    Imagine if it were 1960 and some Dixiecrat decided to encourage thousands of people to use Dr King’s copyrighted works without permission or payment?  What would the ACLU of 1960 say about that?

Obviously Chicago Instructional Tech Foundation is based in Boulder Colorado.  And naturally it makes sense for them to give $105,000 to Fight For The Future, because of their well known “instructional tech” expertise.   It of course follows that donations to this foundation are not tax deductible.  And naturally they don’t disclose funding.  If you’re a glutton for punishment read their 990.  It’s a maze of related entities paying each other money.  If anyone has any idea what this “non-profit” is doing explain it to me.

Finally how did the Knight Foundation get mixed up with this Organization?  I want to know how the Knight Foundation which claims to support the arts can supports a groups that favors the ability of corporations like Google to use artists work without permission or compensation? Heads should roll.

 

 

Americans are freedom loving people and nothing says freedom like getting away with it. From Long, Long Time by Guy Forsyth Facebook is unlicensed. Let’s be clear about that. We all know that Facebook profits from music, and some of us know that Facebook not only profits in a general sense from having music on […]

via Target Facebook: Is the Social Network Joining the “DMCA License” Group — MUSIC • TECHNOLOGY • POLICY

Fight For The Future a Massachusetts non-profit committed willful copyright infringement when they uploaded a copy of the “I Have a Dream Speech” and then encouraged thousands of followers to share it on for-profit social media platforms like Twitter and YouTube. Violating the rights of the King family estate while simultaneously generating page views for your Silicon Valley patrons is not “civil disobedience,” It’s positively Orwellian!

Any creators attending the Copyright Office roundtables on the “notice and takedown” provisions of the DMCA may see or hear from some “takedown abuse” protestors at this forum today in San Francisco.   These are not grassroots protestors but most likely operatives from an astroturf group called Fight For the Future.  This group has received massive funding from tech companies; venture firms (like Union Square Ventures); and a couple of mysterious “black box” foundations.

You probably have never heard of Fight For The Future, but back in 2012 they organized an “Internet Freedom Day.”   The key component of their campaign for “Internet freedom” was built around violating the rights of the MLK family.  Yes, these arrogant (and tone deaf) New Englanders organized a mass copyright infringement campaign against the MLK estate by posting  a copy of the “I have a dream” speech online and encouraging their thousands of followers to repost it on for multi-billion dollar for-profit platforms like Twitter and YouTube.

Fight For The Future blatantly misled the public into thinking the speech was not available or somehow being kept from the public by “bad copyright laws.” This was an absolute fiction, the speech was and continues to be available in many formats including a $2.99 iTunes download. (It was recently re-broadcast on the 50th anniversary by networks like CNN and MSNBC.)

So it’s tempting to choose the wrong moral outrage here:  A privileged and entitled group of Bostonians have an online temper tantrum because they want to watch the speech now and they don’t want to pay for it!

But that’s not the real moral outrage.

The real moral outrage is that this was a tech and venture capital funded anti-civil rights protest pretending to be a kind of civil disobedience.  This was a  protest designed to deprive the King estate of constitutionally protected intellectual property rights and allow multi-billion dollar social media, online video, tech and ad-tech companies to generate revenues from the I Have a Dream speech without compensating the King estate.

Disgusting isn’t it?

So who is funding this group?

According to Federal tax documents these Corporations and “black box” foundations are massively funding this organization.

 

CORPORATE MONEY FUNDING FFTF

Union Square Ventures (Twitter, SoundCloud, Tumblr, and a host of other DMCA abusing services).  Their website says they welcome feedback here info@usv.com.

SV Angel  ( ex Google: Partners Topher Conway & Brian Pokorny;  Ex-Goldman Sachs: Paul LaLonde) Here’s their twitter account: https://twitter.com/svangel 

London Trust Media AKA Private Internet Access  Nearly $200K from every TorrentFreak’s favorite VPN!

NameCheap (also funds the EFF another anti-civil rights organization)

Yelp  (tweet their CEO!)

Consumer Electronics Association AKA Consumer Technology Association (Google funding).

 

BLACK BOX  FOUNDATIONS FUNDING FFTF

What the f— is the Sixteen Thirty Fund?  According to it’s 501 (c)(3) it “promotes Environmental Quality, Protection and Beautification.”   Is Fight For the Future building nature trails on Cape Cod? Martha’s Vineyard?

Proteus seems mostly concerned with death penalty issues.  Good for them.   So why $100k for Fight For The Future? Wouldn’t that money be better spent on death penalty issues? Well, if you read in the fine print they brag:

Each initiative is uniquely structured and focused to achieve the goals of its funding partners, and led by experienced program staff. Our highly effective rapid response grantmaking function and ability to integrate support for lobbying activity are two key tools utilized by our collaborative grantmaking initiatives.

Translation:  We also do lobbying work for unspecified “funding partners”

I couldn’t find any way to contact them.  But I see that that one of the board members is this person:

You’d think the Director,ACLU of California Center for Advocacy & Policy would feel a twinge of conscience over funding ($100K) an organization that willfully violated the rights of the King estate.  Imagine if it were 1960 and some Dixiecrat decided to encourage thousands of people to use Dr King’s copyrighted works without permission or payment?  What would the ACLU of 1960 say about that?

Obviously Chicago Instructional Tech Foundation is based in Boulder Colorado.  And naturally it makes sense for them to give $105,000 to Fight For The Future, because of their well known “instructional tech” expertise.   It of course follows that donations to this foundation are not tax deductible.  And naturally they don’t disclose funding.  If you’re a glutton for punishment read their 990.  It’s a maze of related entities paying each other money.  If anyone has any idea what this “non-profit” is doing explain it to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The White House has a reputation for being remarkably cozy with Google lobbyists, but apparently this relationship also extends after-hours. The National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group, has released a video showing top Obama officials flocking to Google’s White House Correspondents’ dinner party earlier this month. Party attendees included David Edelman, the […]

via Google Party Celebrates Revolving Door to Obama White House — Artist Rights Watch

The latest excuse from Spotify (which strangely is being echoed by David Israelite (NMPA CEO) in a recent interview with Dale Kawashima  in Songwriter Universe) is that “most of the new music that gets released, you don’t know yet who owns it.”

Aside from being simply incorrect, this argument is simply unbelievable on its face.  First of all, every record deal has what’s called a “controlled compositions” license that covers songs written or co-written by the band or individual artist, the producer, or any co-writers who write with the artists.

That same contract requires the artist to deliver songwriter credits, publisher information and often “splits” or ownership shares in order to meet their contract obligations to their label (and get paid their “backend” advance).

Artists sometimes pass that obligation on to their producers.  The producers then have to get those splits and songwriter information (also called “label copy”).

If the song is not written by an artist, producer or co-writer (also called “outside writers”), most of the time the splits are also known and delivered by the artist or producer.

If the song is a cover, the splits and publisher information is usually easily findable through public databases maintained by ASCAP, BMI, SESAC or the Harry Fox Agency (“HFA”).  HFA was hired by Spotify to clear the publishing on songs used by Spotify.

If there is a sample, most of the time the recording won’t be released until the samples are cleared (the infamous “legal hold” on an artist’s release).

So it is simply false to say that “most of the new music that gets released, you don’t know yet who owns it.”  In fact, the opposite is true.  Most of the music that gets released, you do know exactly who owns it.

Even if you strain to try to make some sense of this statement, the most you could say is that the writers may be known but the splits may not be known on a handful of new releases day and date with the release.

This is a tiny handful of songs, and even those are irrelevant when it comes to Spotify because they could easily send the required notice to each of the known writers.

It is also irrelevant for sending the “NOI” or “notice of intention to use” the song under the compulsory mechanical license.  Here’s the regulations which confirms in a nutshell that “ownership” or “splits” are not required.  The rules require that the notice go to “A copyright owner of the work, if known”.  “A copyright owner”–not all–“A”.  As in at least one.  If known.

(d) Content.

(1) A Notice of Intention shall be clearly and prominently designated, at the head of the notice, as a “Notice of Intention to Obtain a Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Phonorecords,” and shall include a clear statement of the following information:

(i) The full legal name of the person or entity intending to obtain the compulsory license, together with all fictitious or assumed names used by such person or entity for the purpose of conducting the business of making and distributing phonorecords;

(ii) The telephone number, the full address, including a specific number and street name or rural route of the place of business, and an e-mail address, if available, of the person or entity intending to obtain the compulsory license, and if a business organization intends to obtain the compulsory license, the name and title of the chief executive officer, managing partner, sole proprietor or other person similarly responsible for the management of such entity. A post office box or similar designation will not be sufficient for this purpose except where it is the only address that can be used in that geographic location.

(iii) The information specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section for the primary entity expected to be engaged in the business of making and distributing phonorecords under the license or of authorizing such making and distribution (for example: a record company or digital music service), if an entity intending to obtain the compulsory license is a holding company, trust or other entity that is not expected to be actively engaged in the business of making and distributing phonorecords under the license or of authorizing such making and distribution;

(iv) The fiscal year of the person or entity intending to obtain the compulsory license. If that fiscal year is a calendar year, the Notice shall state that this is the case;

(v) For each nondramatic musical work embodied or intended to be embodied in phonorecords made under the compulsory license:

(A) The title of the nondramatic musical work;

(B) The name of the author or authors, if known;

(C) A copyright owner of the work, if known;

(D) The types of all phonorecord configurations already made (if any) and expected to be made under the compulsory license (for example: single disk, long-playing disk, cassette, cartridge, reel-to-reel, a digital phonorecord delivery, or a combination of them);

(E) The expected date of initial distribution of phonorecords already made (if any) or expected to be made under the compulsory license;

(F) The name of the principal recording artist or group actually engaged or expected to be engaged in rendering the performances fixed on phonorecords already made (if any) or expected to be made under the compulsory license;

(G) The catalog number or numbers, and label name or names, used or expected to be used on phonorecords already made (if any) or expected to be made under the compulsory license; and

(H) In the case of phonorecords already made (if any) under the compulsory license, the date or dates of such manufacture.

Nobody who knows anything about the real music business will give any credence to Israelite’s statement.  Particularly because it’s exactly the kind of statement that infringers have been hiding behind since the Napster case that somehow we don’t know what we own.

Not true, not legally required and not helpful.

(Errata: This post first referred to the interviewer as Dean Kay instead of Dale Kawashima.)