Google’s Head Lawyer Accused of Intimidating Potential “Friends of the Court” in Oracle Case

This is one of the most astonishing lower lows, even for news from the Goolag.  According to Oracle’s head of government affairs:

Before we turn to the more than 30 amicus briefs filed in support of Oracle at the Supreme Court, we are obligated to highlight the conduct of Google’s head of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer, Kent Walker. Over the past few months, Walker led a coercion campaign against companies and organizations that were likely to file on Oracle’s behalf to persuade them to stay silent.  We are aware of more than half a dozen contacts by Mr. Walker (or his representatives) to likely amici, but we probably only heard of a small piece of his efforts.

Amazing.  Read the post on Oracle’s site.

We’re All in it Together: @USSupreme_Court Friend of Court Brief in Google v. Oracle by @helienne, @davidclowery, @theblakemorgan and @SGAWrites

[Editor Charlie sez:  The Oracle v. Google case is going to be the most important copyright case in a very, very long time.  Oracle won the case on appeal twice and Google got the Supreme Court to review.  The case is about two issues being copyright in software and whether Google’s taking of Oracle’s code is fair use and permissionless innovation.    Because of the fair use argument, this is not just some battle of tech companies because no one knows better than us that Google will take any win on fair use and push it even farther.

So all artists, songwriters, photographers, film makers, authors–all of us–are in the same boat with Oracle on this point.  Sure Oracle is a big company, but Google is an even bigger company with a trillion dollar market cap and Google is trying to roll over Oracle the same way they roll over us.

In a must read “friend of the court” brief, Helienne Lindvall, David Lowery, Blake Morgan and the Songwriters Guild of America make this case as independent artists, songwriters and labels all harmed by Google’s policies that are out of touch with the market starting with YouTube.

SCOTUS Brief Cover Page

As Beggars Group Chairman Martin Mills put it, “[P]olicing the YouTubes of this world for infringing content is a herculean task, one beyond all but the largest of companies. For my community, the independents, it’s a game of whack-a-mole they can only lose.”

Helienne, David, Blake and the SGA put that case squarely before the U.S. Supreme Court in this must-read friend of the court brief.]

Independent creators rely on copyright protection to safeguard their works. This is true not just of songwriters and composers, but of countless creators, including recording artists, photographers, filmmakers, visual artists, and software developers. Copyright is, in fact, of existential importance to such creators, who would be utterly lacking in market power and the ability to earn their livings without it.

Google’s business model is a prime example of the need for strong copyright protection. Since Google’s founding, Amici have experienced, observed and believe that Google has used its unprecedented online footprint to dictate the terms of the market for creative works. By tying together a set of limited exceptions and exclusions within the U.S. Copyright Act and analogous laws in other countries, and then advocating for the radical expansion of those exceptions, Google has amplified its own market power to the great detriment of copyright owners. Thus, where fair use is meant to be a limited defense to infringement founded on the cultural and economic good for both creators and the public, Google has throttled it into a business model.

Read the brief on the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

Must Read: @Unite4Copyright Creator Interview with @TheBlakeMorgan on #irespectmusic

[Editor Charlie sez:  Read this interview and it will but some beauty in your day.”

It still comes as a shock to some people that The United States is the only democratic country in the world where artists don’t get paid for AM/FM radio airplay. Stations are allowed to broadcast my music, without my permission, and without paying me. I’m not sure what your definition of “stealing” is, but that’s mine.

My best advice is to remember that copyright is a human right, supported by reason, history, and the United States’ Constitution. That like all human rights, it’s worth fighting for––even in the face of seemingly hopeless odds. The corporate and unethical forces applying downward pressure on artists’ ability to make a living may seem invincible at times, and the downward trajectory may feel inevitable. But it isn’t. Their side is only fighting on behalf of greed. We’re fighting on behalf of justice, and truth, and for an elemental part of what makes each of us human.

Read the post on Unite4Copyright Creator Spotlight with Blake Morgan

George Johnson is not a household name but he’s one of my heroes. If you are a songwriter you probably should pay attention to what this scrappy indie songwriter is doing. He may end up being a hero to you as well. The screen capture above says it all. he US federal government, Amazon, Google, Pandora, Spotify, The National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) and Nashville Songwriters Association International (NSAI).

via Who Is George Johnson? And Why Every Songwriter Should Thank Him — The Trichordist

Press Release: @FTC Unanimously Votes to Examine Past Acquisitions by Large Technology Companies

PRESS RELEASE

The Federal Trade Commission issued Special Orders to five large technology firms, requiring them to provide information about prior acquisitions not reported to the antitrust agencies under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act. The orders require Alphabet Inc. (including Google), Amazon.com, Inc., Apple Inc., Facebook, Inc., and Microsoft Corp. to provide information and documents on the terms, scope, structure, and purpose of transactions that each company consummated between Jan. 1, 2010 and Dec. 31, 2019.

The Commission issued these orders under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, which authorizes the Commission to conduct wide-ranging studies that do not have a specific law enforcement purpose. The orders will help the FTC deepen its understanding of large technology firms’ acquisition activity, including how these firms report their transactions to the federal antitrust agencies, and whether large tech companies are making potentially anticompetitive acquisitions of nascent or potential competitors that fall below HSR filing thresholds and therefore do not need to be reported to the antitrust agencies.

“Digital technology companies are a big part of the economy and our daily lives,” said FTC Chairman Joe Simons. “This initiative will enable the Commission to take a closer look at acquisitions in this important sector, and also to evaluate whether the federal agencies are getting adequate notice of transactions that might harm competition. This will help us continue to keep tech markets open and competitive, for the benefit of consumers.”

The Special Orders require each recipient to identify acquisitions that were not reported to the FTC and the U.S. Department of Justice under the HSR Act, and to provide information similar to that requested on the HSR notification and report form. The orders also require companies to provide information and documents on their corporate acquisition strategies, voting and board appointment agreements, agreements to hire key personnel from other companies, and post-employment covenants not to compete. Last, the orders ask for information related to post-acquisition product development and pricing, including whether and how acquired assets were integrated and how acquired data has been treated.

The Commission plans to use the information obtained in this study to examine trends in acquisitions and the structure of deals, including whether acquisitions not subject to HSR notification might have raised competitive concerns, and the nature and extent of other agreements that may restrict competition. The Commission also seeks to learn more about how small firms perform after they are acquired by large technology firms. These and related issues were discussed during several sessions of the FTC’s 2018 Hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century, and this study is part of the follow-up from those Hearings.

The FTC has a statutory right under the HSR Act to review acquisitions and mergers over a certain size before they are consummated, and the study will help the Commission consider whether additional transactions should be subject to premerger notification requirements. The orders will also contribute broadly to the FTC’s understanding of technology markets, and thereby support the FTC’s program of vigorous and effective enforcement to promote competition and protect consumers in digital markets.

The Commission vote to approve issuing the Special Orders was 5-0. Commissioners Christine S. Wilson and Rohit Chopra issued a joint statement.

The Federal Trade Commission develops policy initiatives on issues that affect competition, consumers, and the U.S. economy. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, read our blogs, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

Must read by @SenThomTillis: ALI’s proposed Restatement of Copyrights has the potential to harm the creative industries

[Welcome Senator Tillis to shining sunlight on the astroturf “Restatement of Copyright”, which in our view is a epitoma suprema of Silicon Valley shillery.  The letter that Senator Tillis refers to is the December 3 letter his colleagues and he sent to the American Law Institute asking some questions about the proposed Restatement (which isn’t all that proposed anymore as the drafting is moving along briskly).  I gather from Senator Tillis’s op ed that he hasn’t gotten a reply yet.  Which must mean that the mumbletank in the Silicon Valley policy laundry hasn’t quite figured out how to reply.  But here’s the question that no one seems to have asked yet:  Who is paying for the Restatement of Copyright?  I don’t mean which non-profit accountability blocker wrote the check, I mean who is the ultimate donor who is the source of donor directed funds?]

With millions of jobs and over a trillion dollars at stake, as lawmakers, we must ensure copyright laws continue to protect the livelihoods of our nation’s creators.

It is for this reason that we have sent a letter questioning the effort by a well-established legal organization to “restate” and reinterpret our copyright laws for the nation’s judicial system. Last time we checked, Article I of the Constitution specifically grants Congress the authority to make laws to allow for individuals in the creative industries to be fairly compensated – not law professors.

Read the post on The Hill

You might also be interested in these MTP posts from 2018:

Shocker: Is Spotify Lawyer Leading “Scholarly” Project to Create Fake Treatise?

The American Law Institute’s Restatement Scandal: The Futility of False “Unity”

A Look at Christopher Sprigman’s Recent Record

And from 2013 about the Copyright Principles Project, the precursor of the Restatement of Copyright:

The Copyright Principles Project: Selflessness, Valley Style Amongst A Dedicated Group of Likeminded People

 

@TatianaCirisano: @SoundExchange Asks @USTradeRep to Help Artists Get Paid Abroad

[I]n a new filing with the USTR for its annual “Special 301” review of intellectual property rights protection, SoundExchange says that six countries deny full national treatment to American producers and performers, because “those countries are not paying them for the same uses that these countries are paying their own national producers and performers” — specifically, for traditional broadcasts, public performances and some digital uses.

The countries are the U.K, France, Australia, Japan, the Netherlands and Canada.

Read the post on Billboard