[In which The Boy Who Wouldn’t Grow Up and Wendy meet Captain Hook, Editor.]
CEO Mark Zuckerberg had recently pledged to spend 2018 trying to fix Facebook. But even the company’s nascent attempts to reform itself were being scrutinized as a possible declaration of war on the institutions of democracy. Earlier that month Facebook had unveiled a major change to its News Feed rankings to favor what the company called “meaningful social interactions.” News Feed is the core of Facebook—the central stream through which flow baby pictures, press reports, New Age koans, and Russian-made memes showing Satan endorsing Hillary Clinton. The changes would favor interactions between friends, which meant, among other things, that they would disfavor stories published by media companies. The company promised, though, that the blow would be softened somewhat for local news and publications that scored high on a user-driven metric of “trustworthiness.”
Read the post on Wired.
[The 2nd Circuit provides a tutorial on drafting indemnity clauses.]
The producer of Madonna’s iconic song “Vogue” isn’t responsible for paying the publisher’s legal fees in connection with a copyright fight they won, a federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled.
Following a lengthy copyright dispute over a sample Robert “Shep” Pettibone used in “Vogue,” which the producer and Warner Music defeated, another fight broke out over who had to foot the bill for attorneys’ fees.
Read the post on the Hollywood Reporter
[Editor Charlie sez: Information is Beautiful does excellent infographics on complex issues, we recommend them for your regular reading list.]
Read the post on Information is Beautiful
[After Zoe Keating’s important post on how unrepresented songwriters are ill-served by the “consensus” mechanical licensing collective as proposed, SONA member Hélène Muddiman breaks ranks and makes an impassioned plea for fairness out of concern for the reportedly billion dollar black box that is becoming an increasing focus.]
Time is running out!
This is a truly momentous time in the history of music copyright.
Fellow composers and songwriters, and those who rely upon us for their living, our Digital Mechanical Royalties are about to be collected by a new Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC). There are billions of dollars at stake already, and billions more as the future moves towards on-demand streaming platforms where mechanical royalties become big business.
It’s confusing, because not everyone may realize that there are two submissions vying for the job of the MLC, which will collect and distribute these billions of dollars.
The NMPA-led application actually calls itself ‘The MLC,’ but it is not yet the MLC. The Copyright Office is asking for comments to help it decide whether to appoint the indie-led submission instead, called the AMLC (or American Mechanical Licensing Collective).
The Copyright Office could very well choose the AMLC if creators from around the world send in their comments to influence the decision before April 22nd (please use this link: https://www.regulations.gov/comment?D=COLC-2018-0011-0001).
Read the post on Digital Music News
[Editor Charlie sez every deadbeat has their day. Thanks to SoundExchange for standing up on artist rights!]
SoundExchange has filed a lawsuit against Music Choice, alleging that the music service has shortchanged it in millions of dollars of royalty payments from its business establishment music service. The lawsuit was filed in the Washington, D.C. District Court today.
In the complaint, SoundExchange alleges that while Music Choice pays royalties for the ephemeral licenses it uses for the more than 50 channels of music programming it provides to business establishment clients, Music Choice is not paying royalties on the ephemeral licenses it uses when its programming from its commercial cable channels are also provided to its business clients. SoundExchage further alleges that it has been shortchanged payments from Jan. 1, 2013 through Dec 31, 2016.
Read the post on Billboard
Read the SoundExchange complaint in the lawsuit
Companies often tell you that sharing your data is safe because they “anonymize” it by first removing or obfuscating your personal information. However, this depersonalization leads to only partial anonymity, as companies still usually store and share your data grouped together. This data group can be analyzed, and in many cases, then linked back to you, individually, based on its contents….
The only truly anonymized data is no data, so when asked to check boxes to share data “anonymously” — don’t.
Read the post on Spread Privacy