@keithkup: Why is No One Talking About this Provision of the CASE Act? It’s Because It Benefits Users of Copyrighted Works

[Google shilleries are shifting into overdrive to attack the copyright small claims legislation–Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Engine have launched their FUD campaign (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) to create their usual maelstrom of half truths and outright fraud against consumers as directed by their corporate masters from Silicon Valley. The truth doesn’t fit the narrative.]

The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019 (the CASE Act), H.R. 2426 and S. 1273, a bill that would create an optional small claims tribunal within the U.S. Copyright Office, was introduced by Congress in May 2019. Before that, it had been introduced in different forms in prior Congresses as well. Over that time, and especially this year, just about every aspect of the bill has been held under a microscope, poked and prodded and discussed ad nauseum. There has been so much analysis and discussion of the provisions of the CASE Act that it’s hard to believe that there could possibly be some aspect of the bill that has gone unnoticed. But in fact, there is one aspect of the bill that has largely gone undiscussed. It’s time for that to change….

Anti-copyright groups like EFF, Public Knowledge and Engine counter that these protections are essentially ineffective because most of the recipients of takedown notices are individuals who do not have the money to sue in federal court [2] and because these recipients are often too afraid to file DMCA counter-notices because of the requirement in the DMCA that the counter-notice include a “statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located.…” [3] As a result, these groups argue that, despite the statutory protections and defenses afforded to recipients under the DMCA, the DMCA takedown process is being misused because users with meritorious fair use and misrepresentation claims are not able to avail themselves of them.

If only there were a solution for this—perhaps some legislation in Congress that might help address these concerns. In fact, there is and it’s called the CASE Act, a bill that would create an optional small claims tribunal to resolve the following types of claims by both copyright owners and users of copyrighted material…

Read the post on the Copyright Alliance blog.

The Coming Crisis: #SayNoToZoe on CASE Act Threats

The new copyright small claims court legislation (The CASE Act) passed the House Judiciary Committee, but not without thuggery from Rep. Zoe Lofgren and the Internet Association. Chris Castle narrates the issues and proposes a solution for Big Tech’s “Senate strategy” that inevitably includes Senator Ron Wyden, the grifter from Oregon and proud father of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  Lofgren’s threat comes about 8:27:00 on the YouTube video here.

Internet Association Statement on CASE Act

Michael Beckerman

Ron Wyden’s Teachable Moment: Should one Senator be allowed to stop 415 Members of Congress on the Pre-72 Fix

Did a Wyden Campaign Donor Fund Hedge Fund Operated Out of Senator’s Basement?

Are Data Centers The New Cornhusker Kickback and the Facebook Fakeout?

The Mother’s Milk of Algorithms: Google Expands Its Data Center Lobbying Footprint in Minnesota–Home to Senator Amy Klobuchar

ACLU takes a gratuitous swipe at the Copyright Office using a Google “study” to allege bias.  ACLU Statement on CASE Act

See: ACLU Gets $700,000 from Google Buzz Award musictechpolicy.com/2011/10/31/the-…r-the-company”/

ACLU Helps EFF With DMCA Delaying Tactics musictechpolicy.com/2010/07/07/aclu…laying-tactics/

ACLU Cribs from Google Lobbyists on Pro-Piracy Letter to Congress musictechpolicy.com/2016/05/04/why-…ns-from-google/

aclu cy pres

@jameshanley5: ‘It’s a better way’: Deezer unveils User Centric Payment System ambitions #irespectmusic

[Deezer is getting out ahead of the growing backlash against streaming service royalties with a blog post on the company’s site entitled “Deezer wants artists to be paid fairly.”  Deezer  becomes the first platform to commit to implementing a User Centric system (can we please not start calling it “UCPS”).  I’ll be interested to see their proposal in action.  Deezer does seem to have grasped the core issue of User Centric, whether it’s based on the ethical pool concept or otherwise:  There is no reason for the vast numerical majority of artists to stay in a system that results in fans paying for music they don’t listen to and an ever declining payout for those who are in it.  In the cold light of dawn, the science is in and the artists are out.

Streaming “Catalog” is any release older than 18 months–I cannot tell you how insane that is, but that is a topic for another day.  When you consider that “catalog” makes up a substantial majority of streams, it compounds the need for user centric royalty distribution instead of the current crisis.

Catalog Chart

And if songwriters were given a chance to abandon their legacy revenue share structure that they will be stuck with for years to come in favor of a penny rate as Apple proposed in the CRB Phonorecords III, they’d probably do it, too.]

[Deezer] CEO Alexis De Gemini said Deezer’s market-leading position in its home country had inspired the shift.

“We’re now a very important financier of the creation of music in France,” he said. “The streaming industry right now, through its paying system, generates more revenues towards specific genres loved by younger users, to the point that… important genres for people above 35 and 40 have their artists making less money than expected in the previous world, where each CD was sold, and the money was going artist by artist.

“We have started to take that mission to try and change the way the money is reallocated. It doesn’t have any impact on Deezer turnover in France, nor globally. But we believe it has an impact in the way we impact creativity, hence, the music we will bring to our users in the future.

“Just in France, UCPS is going to have the top streaming artists make, maybe, 10% less revenues. And on the other side, those who are making very weak revenues are going to be maybe making 30% more. We believe that this readjustment, which is tiny, can help a lot of artists who today are not getting any dime from the streaming business.”

Read the post on Music Week.

 

@alexeheath & @jtoonkel: Internal Facebook Memo Reveals Guidelines for Showcasing News

[Editor Charlie sez:  Looking more like a publisher every day!  Buhbye 230!  Buhbye DMCA!]

Facebook has said repeatedly that it isn’t in the journalism business, but a team of human editors responsible for an upcoming news initiative by the company will exercise significant control over the presentation of top stories, including judging them over their use of anonymous sources, according to internal guidelines seen by The Information.

While Facebook’s plans to hire human editors for an upcoming news tab have been previously reported, the guidelines, which Facebook recently shared with employees in an internal memo, offer the first insight into how the team will make decisions that could affect the news stories millions of people see. One person who has seen a version of the tab being tested by Facebook employees said it featured stories from The Wall Street Journal, ABC News, CBS News, National Geographic, BBC, The Huffington Post, and The Hill, though some of those publishers don’t appear to have officially struck agreements with Facebook yet.

Read the post on The Information (subscription required and well worth it)

Must read: @evgenymorozov: The Epstein scandal at MIT shows the moral bankruptcy of techno-elites

As the world wakes up to the power of big tech, we get to hear – belatedly – of all the damage wrought by the digital giants. Most of these debates, alas, don’t veer too far from the policy-oriented realms of economics or law. Now that the big technocracy wants to quash big tech, expect more such wonkery.

What, however, about the ideas that feed big tech? For one, we are no longer in 2009: Mark Zuckerberg’s sophomoric musings on transparency or the global village impress very few.

And yet, for all the growing skepticism about Silicon Valley, many still believe that the digital revolution has a serious intellectual dimension, hashed out at conferences like Ted, online salons like Edge.org, publications like Wired, and institutions like the MIT Media Lab. The ideas of the digerati might be wrong, they might be overly utopian, but, at least, they are sincere.

The Epstein scandal – including the latest revelation that Epstein might have channeled up to $8m (some of it, apparently, on behalf of Bill Gates) to the MIT Media Lab, while its executives were fully aware of his problematic background – has cast the digerati in a very different light. It has already led to the resignation of the lab’s director, Joi Ito.

This, however, is not only a story of individuals gone rogue. The ugly collective picture of the techno-elites that emerges from the Epstein scandal reveals them as a bunch of morally bankrupt opportunists.

Read the post on The Guardian

@musictechsolve: A Little Context: Texas Leads 50 State Coalition Investigating Google

By Chris Castle at MusicTech.Solutions

Google is finally getting some pushback from the nation state.  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is leading a broad coalition of state attorneys general into Google’s business practices starting with violations of state antitrust laws.

According to the Washington Post:

The states’ investigation is led by Texas’ Paxton and seven other attorneys general, four Democrats and four Republicans in total. Every state except Alabama and California, the home of Silicon Valley, so far has signed onto the bipartisan effort, as have Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. A spokeswoman for California’s attorney general did not immediately respond to a request for comment.  [Gee, I wonder why?]

…Another group of 11 state attorneys general — led by New York’s Letitia James — has begun their own probe against Facebook, exploring whether it violates competition laws and mishandles consumers’ personal information.

Google also disclosed in an 8-K filing with the SEC that they’d received a “civil investigative demand” from the Department of Justice:

On August 30, 2019, Alphabet received a civil investigative demand from the DOJ requesting information and documents relating to our prior antitrust investigations in the United States and elsewhere. We expect to receive in the future similar investigative demands from state attorneys general. We continue to cooperate with the DOJ, federal and state regulators in the United States, and other regulators around the world.

Sending a CID is how these things usually start.  A CID is a discovery request that is similar to a demand for production of documents, oral testimony or answers to interrogatories.  How did this whole state AG thing evolve?  A little context.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood tried a similar approach with Google in 2014 and was immediately set upon by Google’s lawyers and the “policy” groups it funds like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, R Street, Engine Advocacy and others.  While General Hood didn’t exactly win that, he didn’t really lose it either.

General Hood invited me to be on a panel he moderated at the 2013 summer conference of the National Association of Attorneys General.  The panel topic was “Intellectual Property Crimes Online: Dangerous Access to Prescription Drugs and Pirated Content”.  General Hood spoke on “Google Guiding Consumers Down Illegal Paths.”  My topic was “Protecting Consumers and Advertisers from Unfair Trade Practices,”  which was essentially a briefing on how Google played a central role in brand-sponsored piracy by duping advertisers on both pirate sites and Google’s own properties like YouTube (starting with duped advertiser #1, President Barack Obama).

I have to say that speaking to 50 AGs at the same time is a rather sobering experience.  As our panel presented the case against Google, it was probably the first time that I realized my standing joke that Google opposed the nation state actually wasn’t a joke.  At all.

After talking with some of the AGs who attended our panel, it became apparent that some of them were learning for the first time of the company’s profits from piracy and selling ads against recruitment videos on YouTube for salafi jihadism.  When Google called out all of the dogs on General Hood a few months later to get an injunction that stopped enforcement of Mississippi’s CID, the company’s antics only confirmed to the AGs that it would take a village to challenge the most powerful media company in commercial history.

That epiphany led to 40 attorneys general filing an amicus brief supporting General Hood in the appeal of the aptly titled case of Google v. Hood that crystalized the issue before the 5th Circuit:

This is a case about the authority of state Attorneys General to exercise one of their fundamental powers: the ability to investigate potential violations of state law. What should be a routine discovery dispute in Mississippi state courts, resolved under established state procedures…has instead evolved into a contrivance for a company doing business in the state of Mississippi to invoke federal jurisdiction by asserting potential affirmative defenses to claims that have never been filed.

The NAAG conference and General Hood’s efforts resonated with me, too.  Not to quote myself, but I think this 2017 post about then Missouri AG Josh Hawley’s consumer protection subpoena of Google captures what just happened:

One of Google’s worst policy nightmares is that state attorneys general will wake up to their obligation under state laws to protect both consumers and advertisers from Google’s overreach.  This would potentially force Google to answer for its actions in 51 jurisdictions–some state laws that are essentially common to all 50 states plus the federal government.  These state laws include consumer protection statutes and unfair competition or state antitrust rules that are not overriden (or “preempted”) by simultaneous federal jurisdiction.

Since General Hood got the Full Google (the only thing missing was the fake petitions and Open Media tools), there have been a few efforts by state AGs like Josh Hawley (now Senator Hawley).  While the current case may seem to come out of the blue, it is really the next step in the evolution of the response of dealing with Google as a white collar crime law enforcement matter.

Google is finally getting some pushback from the nation state.  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is leading a broad coalition of state attorneys general into Google’s business practices starting with violations of state antitrust laws.

According to the Washington Post:

The states’ investigation is led by Texas’ Paxton and seven other attorneys general, four Democrats and four Republicans in total. Every state except Alabama and California, the home of Silicon Valley, so far has signed onto the bipartisan effort, as have Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. A spokeswoman for California’s attorney general did not immediately respond to a request for comment.  [Gee, I wonder why?]

…Another group of 11 state attorneys general — led by New York’s Letitia James — has begun their own probe against Facebook, exploring whether it violates competition laws and mishandles consumers’ personal information.

Google also disclosed in an 8-K filing with the SEC that they’d received a “civil investigative demand” from the Department of Justice:

On August 30, 2019, Alphabet received a civil investigative demand from the DOJ requesting information and documents relating to our prior antitrust investigations in the United States and elsewhere. We expect to receive in the future similar investigative demands from state attorneys general. We continue to cooperate with the DOJ, federal and state regulators in the United States, and other regulators around the world.

Sending a CID is how these things usually start.  A CID is a discovery request that is similar to a demand for production of documents, oral testimony or answers to interrogatories.  How did this whole state AG thing evolve?  A little context.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood tried a similar approach with Google in 2014 and was immediately set upon by Google’s lawyers and the “policy” groups it funds like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, R Street, Engine Advocacy and others.  While General Hood didn’t exactly win that, he didn’t really lose it either.

General Hood invited me to be on a panel he moderated at the 2013 summer conference of the National Association of Attorneys General.  The panel topic was “Intellectual Property Crimes Online: Dangerous Access to Prescription Drugs and Pirated Content”.  General Hood spoke on “Google Guiding Consumers Down Illegal Paths.”  My topic was “Protecting Consumers and Advertisers from Unfair Trade Practices,”  which was essentially a briefing on how Google played a central role in brand-sponsored piracy by duping advertisers on both pirate sites and Google’s own properties like YouTube (starting with duped advertiser #1, President Barack Obama).

I have to say that speaking to 50 AGs at the same time is a rather sobering experience.  As our panel presented the case against Google, it was probably the first time that I realized my standing joke that Google opposed the nation state actually wasn’t a joke.  At all.

After talking with some of the AGs who attended our panel, it became apparent that some of them were learning for the first time of the company’s profits from piracy and selling ads against recruitment videos on YouTube for salafi jihadism.  When Google called out all of the dogs on General Hood a few months later to get an injunction that stopped enforcement of Mississippi’s CID, the company’s antics only confirmed to the AGs that it would take a village to challenge the most powerful media company in commercial history.

That epiphany led to 40 attorneys general filing an amicus brief supporting General Hood in the appeal of the aptly titled case of Google v. Hood that crystalized the issue before the 5th Circuit:

This is a case about the authority of state Attorneys General to exercise one of their fundamental powers: the ability to investigate potential violations of state law. What should be a routine discovery dispute in Mississippi state courts, resolved under established state procedures…has instead evolved into a contrivance for a company doing business in the state of Mississippi to invoke federal jurisdiction by asserting potential affirmative defenses to claims that have never been filed.

The NAAG conference and General Hood’s efforts resonated with me, too.  Not to quote myself, but I think this 2017 post about then Missouri AG Josh Hawley’s consumer protection subpoena of Google captures what just happened:

One of Google’s worst policy nightmares is that state attorneys general will wake up to their obligation under state laws to protect both consumers and advertisers from Google’s overreach.  This would potentially force Google to answer for its actions in 51 jurisdictions–some state laws that are essentially common to all 50 states plus the federal government.  These state laws include consumer protection statutes and unfair competition or state antitrust rules that are not overriden (or “preempted”) by simultaneous federal jurisdiction.

Since General Hood got the Full Google (the only thing missing was the fake petitions and Open Media tools), there have been a few efforts by state AGs like Josh Hawley (now Senator Hawley).  While the current case may seem to come out of the blue, it is really the next step in the evolution of the response of dealing with Google as a white collar crime law enforcement matter.