Tag: copyright

@ArtistRights Institute’s UK Government Comment on AI and Copyright: Why Can’t Creators Call 911?

We will be posting excerpts from the Artist Rights Institute’s comment in the UK’s Intellectual Property Office proceeding on AI and copyright. That proceeding is called a “consultation” where the Office solicits comments from the public (wherever located) about a proposed policy.

In this case it was the UK government’s proposal to require creators to “opt out” of AI data scraping by expanding the law in the UK governing “text and data mining” which is what Silicon Valley wants in a big way. This idea produced an enormous backlash from the creative community that we’ll also be covering in coming weeks as it’s very important that Trichordist readers be up to speed on the latest skulduggery by Big Tech in snarfing down all the world’s culture to train their AI (which has already happened and now has to be undone). For a backgrounder on the “text and data mining” controversy, watch this video by George York of the Digital Creators Coalition speaking at the Artist Rights Institute in DC.

In this section of the comment we offer a simple rule of thumb or policy guideline by which to measure the Government’s rules (which could equally apply in America): Can an artist file a criminal complaint against someone like Sam Altman?

If an artist is more likely to be able to get the police to stop their car from being stolen off the street than to get the police to stop the artist’s life’s work from being stolen online by a heavily capitalized AI platform, the policy will fail

Why Can’t Creators Call 999 [or 911]?

We suggest a very simple policy guideline—if an artist is more likely to be able to get the police to stop their car from being stolen off the street than to get the police to stop the artist’s life’s work from being stolen online by a heavily capitalized AI platform, the policy will fail.  Alternatively, if an artist can call the police and file a criminal complaint against a Sam Altman or a Sergei Brin for criminal copyright infringement, now we are getting somewhere.

This requires that there be a clear “red light/green light” instruction that can easily be understood and applied by a beat copper.  This may seem harsh, but in our experience with the trillion-dollar market cap club, the only thing that gets their attention is a legal action that affects behavior rather than damages.  Our experience suggests that what gets their attention most quickly is either an injunction to stop the madness or prison to punish the wrongdoing. 

As a threshold matter, it is clear that AI platforms intend to continue scraping all the world’s culture for their purposes without obtaining consent or notifying rightsholders.  It is likely that the bigger platforms already have.  For example, we have found our own writings included in CoPilot outputs.  Not only did we not consent to that use, but we were also never asked.  Moreover, CoPilot’s use of these works clearly violates our terms of service.  This level of content scraping is hardly what was contemplated with the “data mining” exceptions. 

ARI Comment in IPO Consultation v F 2Download
by thetrichordist

Are You Better Off Today Than You Were Five Years Ago? Selected comments on the MLC Redesignation: Songwriters Guild of America, the Society of Composers & Lyricists, and Music Creators North America Joint Comment

The Copyright Office solicited public comments about how things are going with the MLC to help the Office decide whether to permit The MLC, Inc. to continue to operate the Collective (see this post for more details on the “redesignation” requirement). We are impressed with the quality of many of the comments filed at the Copyright Office. While comments are now closed, you can read all the comments at this link.

For context, the “redesignation” is a process of review by the Copyright Office required every five years under the Music Modernization Act. Remember, the “mechanical licensing collective” is a statutory entity that requires someone to operate it. The MLC, Inc. is the current operator (which makes it confusing but there it is). If the Copyright Office finds the MLC, Inc. is not sufficiently fulfilling its role or is not up to the job of running the MLC, the head of the Copyright Office can “fire” the MLC, Inc. and find someone else to hopefully do a better job running the MLC. Given the millions upon millions that the music users have invested in the MLC, and the hundreds of millions of songwriter money held by the MLC in the black box, firing the MLC, Inc. will be a big deal. Given how many problems there are with the MLC, firing the MLC, Inc. that runs the collective

The next step in this important “redesignation” process is that The MLC, Inc. and the Digital Licensee Coordinator called “the DLC” (the MLC’s counterpart that represents the blanket license music users) will be making “reply comments” due on July 29. The Copyright Office will post these comments for the public shortly after the 29th. These reply comments will likely rebut previously filed public comments on the shortcomings of the MLC, Inc. or DLC (which were mostly directed at the MLC, Inc.) and expand upon comments each of the two orgs made in previous filings. If you’re interested in this drama, stay tuned, the Copyright Office will be posting them next week.

If you have been reading the comments we’ve posted on Trichordist (or if you have gone to the filings themselves which we recommend), you will see that there is a recurring theme with the comments. Many commenters say that they wish for The MLC, Inc. to be redesignated BUT…. They then list a number of items that they object to about the way the Collective has been managed by The MLC, Inc. usually accompanied by a request that the The MLC, Inc. change the way it operates.

That structure seems to be inconsistent with a blanket ask for redesignation. Rather, the commenters seem to be making an “if/then” proposal that if The MLC, Inc. improves its operations, including in some cases operating in an opposite manner to its current policies and practices, then The MLC, Inc. should be redesignated. Not wishing to speak for any commenter, let it just be said that this appears to be a conditional proposal for redesignation. Maybe that is not what the commenters were thinking, but it does appear to be what many of them are saying.

Today’s comment is jointly filed by the Songwriters Guild of America (SGA), the Society of Composers & Lyricists (SCL), and Music Creators North America (MCNA), who advocate for independent songwriters in contrast to the powers that be. (For clarity, the three groups in their comment refer to themselves together as the “Independent Music Creators”.)

For purposes of these posts, we may quote sections of comments out of sequence but in context. We recommend that you read their thoughtful and detailed joint comments in their entirety. You can read the joint comment at this link.

[The Current Crisis with Spotify]

Prior to proceeding to the presentation of our Comments, we are compelled by recent events and circumstances to issue the following, important caveat. Just days ago, the National Music Publishers Association (“NMPA”) announced its apparent intention to seek fundamental legislative changes to the US Copyright Act in regard to the statutory mechanical licensing system established under the Music Modernization Act (“MMA”) (the legislation that resulted in the creation of the MLC and the DLC). This complete reversal in NMPA policy is the result of repugnant actions on the part of the digital music distributor “Spotify” to minimize its royalty payment obligations by identifying and exploiting alleged loopholes in what many view as the unevenly negotiated and drafted Phonorecords IV settlement. The Independent Music Creators previously voiced formal opposition to the details of that settlement prior to its ratification and adoption by the US Copyright Royalty Board at NMPA’s urging in December, 2022.

This morass, which threatens to deprive music creators of hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties over the next five years, is made even more complex by the fact that both NMPA and the MLC are served by the same team of legal advisors. Those same legal advisors also counseled NMPA on the negotiation of the Phonorecords IV settlement, which the MLC (albeit through another set of litigators) is now seeking to enforce against Spotify in federal court (an action we support), and which NMPA is now essentially seeking to vacate through Congressional action to eliminate statutory mechanical licensing via an opt-out system (which predictably favors the major music publishing conglomerates over creators and small music publishers).
 
The general idea of eliminating statutory mechanical licensing, the revival of which movement may now unfortunately be viewed as a fig leaf to camouflage poor NMPA decision-making and execution regarding the Phonorecords IV settlement, is one that the Independent Music Creators and many members of the music publishing sector have long believed should receive serious consideration. We will support such legislative reforms if fairly framed and developed with meaningful independent music creator input, along with pursuing our own legislative proposals expressed below. For now, however, this entire situation could hardly be less transparent or conducive to quick resolution than it currently remains.

In short, neither the Independent Music Creators nor any other groups of interested parties can possibly develop complete and cogent opinions on the issue of re-designation of the MLC and DLC without having greater access to the full body of facts surrounding this crucial new development regarding Spotify. These Comments, therefore, must be viewed against the backdrop of an unresolved and economically crucial dispute, the fallout from and resolution of which may completely alter the views expressed herein in the immediate future. As such, we look forward to making further comments on this issue as additional facts are disclosed concerning the Spotify/MLC/NMPA relationships and conflicts (past and present).

MLC Board Composition: It bears further re-emphasis that most if not all of these suggested changes have been necessitated by the actions of the corporate-dominated MLC board, including the structure established by the MMA that allocates ten board seats to corporate music publishing entities (which in practice automatically grants control of the MLC board and of the entire organization to the three “major” publishers that together administer more than two-thirds of the world’s musical composition copyrights) compared with just four music creator board member seats. Under such circumstances, music creator board members are virtually powerless to effect influence over the board’s actions and MLC policy, and are relegated to serving merely as an amen chorus in support of every MLC-related music publisher action and demand. This system of publisher majority rule is contrary to the structures and rules of government-sanctioned royalty collectives everywhere else in the world. To our knowledge, no similar royalty and licensing collective in the world is controlled by a board with less than fifty percent music creator representation.

The sound of this figurative rubber stamp within the MLC boardroom is further amplified by the fact that since inception, the non-voting seat set aside for music creator organizational input has been occupied by a non-creator whose organization’s allegiance to following in lock step with the music publishing industry is so obvious as to be beyond rational dispute. Thus, the current reality is total, corporate music publisher influence and domination of MLC’s rules and policies. This, despite the fact that the MMA as codified in section 115 of the US Copyright Act specifically mandates that the music creator organizational seat be occupied by the representative of “a nationally recognized nonprofit trade association whose primary mission is advocacy on behalf of songwriters in the United States.” This situation must change.

by Trichordist

Are You Better off Today Than You Were Five Years Ago? Selected comments on the MLC Redesignation: Monica Corton

The Mechanical Licensing Collective has its operations and functions reviewed every five years by the Copyright Office. That review is required by Title I of the Music Modernization Act as written by the lobbyists. The Copyright Office noticed the first of these five year reviews on January 30.

The statutory purpose of the period review is so that Congress, in the person of the Copyright Office, can determine whether the operators of the Mechanical Licensing Collective who the Copyright Office appointed (or “designated”) should be permitted to continue for another five years. If the Copyright Office determines that the operators of the Collective will do a good job in the next five years, the head of the Office may reward them with the equivalent of a valuable new government contract or a “redesignation”.

The current operators of the Collective are The MLC, Inc., but there is nothing that requires the Office to allow The MLC, Inc. to continue being the mechanical licensing collective–the the Collective and The MLC, Inc. are not the same thing. Be clear that the entity that is being considered to be “redesignated” is The MLC, Inc., not the Collective. The Collective is a statutory entity and The MLC, Inc. is the organization that is permitted by the Copyright Office to operate as the Collective. (That’s confusing because someone allowed The MLC, Inc. to take the same corporate name as the statutory entity which was probably an oversight by the Delaware Secretary of State if not the Copyright Office itself.)

The five year review is important because it is the only chance for songwriters and publishers as well as the public to comment on whether they support rewarding The MLC, Inc. with another five years of operations and the tens and tens of millions of dollars in operating costs and high salaries paid for by the users of the blanket license–the services themselves–in the conflict ridden process imposed on songwriters and publishers by the government.

For reasons known only to them, the Copyright Office has chosen to conduct this five year review as though it were any other rulemaking rather than engaging independent experts to conduct a technology, financial, operational, and personnel audit of The MLC, Inc. from top to bottom. That choice is presumably based on some guidance from somewhere, but would seem to inevitably substitute opinions–however astute–for an empirical review using at least industry experts with the power to compel answers if not managerial science.

While this rulemaking approach has the benefit of allowing the public to comment, it fails to offer independent expert review of the very thing that the Office is being asked to approve. Instead, that “redesignation” decision will be based on whether or not the public caught the “right” issues, expressed them the “right” way, and were able to communicate their ideas persuasively. Assuming the public even knew of the opportunity in the first place.

It must be said that if we are going to solicit opinions, the first opinion we would be interested in hearing is from the Copyright Office itself. The Register, after all, is the one making the redesignation decision, not the MLC, the DLC, or any one commenter. It seems that comments would be more compelling if informed by the Copyright Offices own views, including the opportunity to comment on the Office’s methodology. It doesn’t look like we will know about that one until the next step in the rulemaking. A “proposed redesignation” does not seem particularly apt, so we will look forward to finding out after the fact how a large chunk of songwriter income is to be managed.

We are impressed with the quality of many of the comments filed in the “Initial Comments” at the Copyright Office. As there will be an opportunity to comment again, including to comment on the comments, we will be posting selected Initial Comments to call to your attention. You can read all the comments at this link. If you are hearing about this for the first time, you have until June 28 to file a “reply comment” with the Copyright Office at this link.

You will see that there is a recurring theme with the comments. Many commenters say that they wish for The MLC, Inc. to be redesignated BUT…. They then list a number of items that they object to about the way the Collective has been managed by The MLC, Inc. usually accompanied by a request the The MLC, Inc. change the way it operates.

That structure seems to be inconsistent with a blanket ask for redesignation. Rather, the commenters seem to be making an “if/then” proposal that if The MLC, Inc. improves its operations, including in some cases operating in an opposite manner to its current policies and practices, then The MLC, Inc. should be redesignated. Not wishing to speak for any commenter, let it just be said that this appears to be a conditional proposal for redesignation. Maybe that is not what the commenters were thinking, but it does appear to be what they are saying. Perhaps this conditional aspect will be refined in the Reply Comments.

For purposes of these posts, we may quote sections of comments out of sequence but in context. We recommend that you read the comments in their entirety.

The first comment is by Monica Corton, the highly experienced and respected publisher. You can read her comment at this link.

The Top Unmatched Recording List
While I believe this list exists, I have never received an email asking me to review such a list. I recently learned that you could ask for the list, but it comes in the DDEX format (like the unmatched songs list) and as an independent publisher, I do not have the capability to change this to a CSV format. As I explained before, it can easily be converted to a CSV file if you have the
right software. I think that conversion from the DDEX format to the CSV format should be a service done by The MLC. Otherwise, the only people who can benefit from the Top Unmatched Recording List are the largest companies with the resources to convert this list.

Investment Policy
Why isn’t the investment policy made public and fully transparent to the membership? It is our money that they are investing, and I’d like to know the details as would many other publishers. Why did the board decide to not make the policy documents regarding investments available to the public?

IPI Number Use Not Mandatory
The MLC doesn’t require publishers to use IPI numbers of songwriters in their registrations. As a result, there are a lot of duplicate registrations at The MLC/HFA that never get linked together because different registrants used different names for the same writer (e.g. Eminem, Marshall Mathers) which creates different registrations for the same song. If IPI numbers for songwriters
were mandatory, this would clear up this problem.

Royalty Adjustments at The MLC
The MLC will not credit or debit a publisher for an incorrect royalty payment due to a change in registration unless they are directly responsible for the error. If you missed the snapshot because The MLC didn’t process a Catalog Transfer Form on time, the new publisher will not be credited, and it is their responsibility to contact the old publisher and get the incorrect royalty
payment paid between them rather than through The MLC. The MLC doesn’t consider a bad registration at HFA as the cause of an incorrect payment even though it is the HFA data that caused the incorrect payment. Every other PRO and CMO does internal debits and credits for incorrect payments and adjustments, especially when there is a transfer of a new catalog. The
minute The MLC is served notice of via a Catalog Transfer Form, all royalties should be put on hold until the transfer is confirmed and set up by The MLC.

by Trichordist Editor

What would Lars say? Artificial Intelligence: Nobel or RICO?

All the true promise of AI does not require violating writers, artists, photographers, voice actors etc copyrights and rights of publicity. You know, stuff like reading MRIs and X-rays, developing pharmaceuticals, advanced compounds, new industrial processes, etc.

All the shitty aspects of AI DO require intentional mass copyright infringement (a RICO predicate BTW). You know stuff like bots, deep fakes, autogenerated “yoga mat” music, SEO manipulation, autogenerated sports coverage, commercial chat bots, fake student papers, graphic artist knockoffs, robot voice actors etc. But that’s where the no-value-add-parasitic-free-rider-easy-money is to be made. That’s why the parasitic free-riding VCs and private equity want to get a “fair use” copyright exemption.

Policy makers should understand that if they want to reduce the potential harms of AI they need to protect and reinforce intellectual property rights of individuals. It is a natural (and already existing) brake on harmful AI. What we don’t need is legislative intervention that makes it easier to infringe IP rights and then try to mitigate (the easily predictable and obvious) harms with additional regulation.

This is what happened with Napster and internet 1.0. The DMCA copyright infringement safe harbor for platforms unleashed all sorts of negative externalities that were never fairly mitigated by subsequent regulation.

Why do songwriters get 0.0009 a stream on streaming platforms? Because the platforms used the threat of the DMCA copyright safe harbor by “bad actors” (often connected to the “good actors” via shared board members and investors*) to create a market failure that destroyed the value of songs. To “fix” the problem federal legislation tasks the Copyright Royalty Board in LOC to set royalty rates and forced songwriters to license to the digital platforms (songwriters can not opt out). The royalty setting process was inevitably captured by the tech companies and that’s how you end up with 0.0009 per stream.

TBF the DMCA safe harbor requires the platforms to set up “technical measures” to prevent unlicensed use of copyrights, but this part of the DMCA safe harbor were never implemented and the federal government never bothered to enforce this part of the law. This is the Napster playbook all over again.

1. Unleash a technology that you know will be exploited by bad actors**.

2. Ask for federal intervention that essentially legalizes the infringing behavior.

3. The federal legislation effectively creates private monopoly or duopoly.

4. Trillions of dollars in wealth transferred from creators to a tiny cabal of no-value-add-parasitic-free-rider-easy-money VCs in silicon valley.

5. Lots of handwringing about the plight of creators.

6. Bullshit legislation that claims to help creators but actually mandates a below market rate for creators.

The funny thing is Lars Ulrich was right about Napster. [See our 2012 post Lars Was First and Lars Was Right.] At the time he was vilified by what in reality was a coordinated DC communication firm (working for Silicon Valley VCs) that masqueraded as grassroots operation.

But go back and watch the Charlie Rose debate between Lars Ulrich and Chuck D, everything Lars Ulrich said was gonna happen happened.

If Lars Ulrich hadn’t been cowed by a coordinated campaign by no-value-add-parasitic-free-rider-easy-money Silicon Valley VCs, he’d probably say the same thing about AI.

And he’d be right again.

by Trichordist Editor

Guest Post: The Supreme Court Should See Through Google’s Industrial-Strength Fair Use Charade

[This post first appeared on Morning Consult. The US Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the Google v. Oracle case on October 7]

Google’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court of two Federal Circuit decisions in Oracle’s favor is turning into the most consequential copyright case of the court’s term — if not the decade. The appeal turns in part on whether the Supreme Court will uphold the Federal Circuit’s definition of fair use for creators and reject Google’s dubious assertion of “industrial strength” fair use.

I co-wrote an amicus brief on the fair use question on behalf of independent songwriters supporting Oracle in the appeal. Our conclusion was that the Supreme Court should affirm the Federal Circuit’s extensive analysis and hold for Oracle because Google masks its monopoly commercial interest in industrial-strength fair use that actually violates fair use principles.

The story begins 15 years ago. Google had a strategic problem. The company had focused on dominating the desktop search market. Google needed an industrial-strength booster for its business because smartphones, especially the iPhone, were relentlessly eating its corporate lunch. Google bought Android Inc. in 2005 to extend its dominance over search — some might say its monopoly — to these mobile platforms. It worked — Android’s market share has hovered around 85 percent for many years, with well over 2 billion Android devices.

But how Google acquired that industrial boost for Android is the core issue in the Oracle case. After acquiring Android, Google tried to make a license deal for Sun Microsystems’ Java operating system (later acquired by Oracle). Google didn’t like Sun’s deal. So Google simply took a verbatim chunk of the Java declaring code, and walled off Android from Java. That’s why Google got sued and that’s why the case is before the court. Google has been making excuses for that industrial-strength taking ever since.

Why would a public company engage in an overt taking of Oracle’s code? The same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks. Because that’s where the money is. There are untold riches in running the Internet of Other People’s Things.

Google chose to take rather than innovate. Google’s supporters released a study of the self-described “fair use industries” — an Orwellian oxymoron, but one that Google firmly embraces. Google’s taking is not transformative but it is industrial strength.

We have seen this movie before. It’s called the value gap. It’s called a YouTube class-action brought by an independent composer. It’s called Google Books. It’s called 4 billion takedown notices for copyright infringement. It’s called selling advertising on pirate sites like Megaupload (as alleged in the Megaupload indictment). It’s called business as usual for Google by distorting exceptions to the rights of authors for Google’s enormous commercial benefit. Google now positions itself to the Supreme Court as a champion of innovation, but creators standing with Oracle know that for Google, “innovation” has become an empty vessel that it fills with whatever shibboleth it can carelessly manipulate to excuse its latest outrage.

Let’s remember that the core public policy justification for the fair use defense is to advance the public interest. As the leading fair use commentator Judge Pierre Leval teaches, that’s why fair use analysis is devoted to determining “whether, and how powerfully, a finding of fair use would serve or disserve the objectives of the copyright.” You can support robust fair use without supporting Google’s position.

Google would have the court believe that its fair use defense absolves it from liability for the industrial-strength taking of Oracle’s copyright — because somehow the public interest was furthered by “promoting software innovation,” often called “permissionless innovation” (a phrase straight out of Orwell’s Newspeak). Google would have the court conflate Google’s vast commercial private interest with the public objectives of copyright. Because the internet.

How the Supreme Court rules on Google’s fair use issue will have wide-ranging implications across all works of authorship if for no other reason than Google will dine out for years to come on a ruling in its favor. Photographers, authors, illustrators, documentarians — all will be on the menu.

Despite Google’s protestations that it is really just protecting innovation, what is good for Google is not synonymous with what is good for the public interest — any more than “what’s good for General Motors is good for America,” or more appropriately, “what’s good for General Bullmoose is good for the USA.”

by Trichordist Editor

5 Seriously Dumb Myths About Copyright the Media Should Stop Repeating | John Degen @ Medium

Please read John Degen’s 5 Seriously Dumb Myths About Copyright the Media Should Stop Repeating at the link below.

There you have it. I hope this quick list has helped my friends and colleagues in the media who may be hurrying to file a story on World Book and Copyright Day. Here’s a final, simple, rule of thumb for writing about copyright.

If you want to understand how a working artist feels about copyright, talk to an actual working artist.

The last time I checked, ivory-tower legal-theory departments and digital-utopian advocacy groups were not the best places to look for actual working artists.

READ THE FULL POST AT MEDIUM:
https://medium.com/@jkdegen/5-seriously-dumb-myths-about-copyright-the-media-should-stop-repeating-a92e934f12a4

by Trichordist Editor

Grooveshark “Offline by Christmas”… | Digital Music News

Infringement should not be a business model.

On September 29th, the United States District Court in Manhattan found Grooveshark guilty of massive copyright infringement, and specifically named CEO Sam Tarantino and CTO Josh Greenberg as bad actors. Now, the curtains are starting to drop: just days after that decision was rendered, federal judge Thomas Griesa issued another decision that removed all doubt that the plaintiffs — a total of 9 recording labels — had triumphed in the case.

READ THE FULL POST AT DIGITAL MUSIC NEWS:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/11/21/grooveshark-offline-christmas

by Trichordist Editor

Copyright Critics Don’t Quite Get Artists | The Illusion Of More

A must read from David Newhoff for all creators with many points, well made.

Further, if it is true that a copyright-free future could shrink the pool of producers to those already financially secure (as predicted above), this suggests that all of the non-remunerative benefits of copyright might be of even greater value to those authors still willing and able to produce. And in the absence of those rights, we could easily see a reduction not only in the number of producers, but also in the number of works produced by that elite few. In a practical example, imagine the trustafarian artist working in the most altruistic manner, producing wonderful works solely to be experienced; he doesn’t care about money, but he does have to accept that McDonald’s can use his work to sell hamburgers, which betrays everything he is expressing. It is not farfetched to imagine the artist in this example will withhold works from public view, even if he continues to produce for his own pleasure.

READ THE WHOLE POST AT:
http://illusionofmore.com/copyright-critics-dont-get-artists/

by Trichordist Editor

New Adventures in Copyright Enforcement @SXSW #SXSW

Friday, March 14 | 2:00PM – 3:00PM
New Adventures in Copyright Enforcement
Austin Convention Center | Room 17B | 500 E Cesar Chavez St

lthough debates about how to protect copyright online might seem so 2010, they certainly haven’t abated. The current conversations aren’t as contentious as the SOPA skirmishes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean consensus. Current attempts to address piracy are taking place outside of Congress, and include efforts to establish “best practices” between stakeholders. From the recently-minted Copyright Alert System to voluntary agreements meant to curb unauthorized activity within ad networks and payment processors, new experiments in rights protection abound. What’s the thinking behind the various approaches? What does a “win” look like, and what are the parameters for oversight? How can artists get involved?

MMODERATOR
Casey Rae
Interim Exec Dir – Future of Music Coalition

Sherwin Siy
VP, Legal Affairs- Public Knowledge

Jill Lesser
Exec Dir- Center For Copyright Information

David Lowery
Musician/Internet Content Provider – Cracker

by Trichordist Editor