No, actually everything’s not hunky-dory in the creative universe
The creative community has been buzzing this past week in response to the NY Times Sunday Magazine piece by Steven Johnson, “The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t.” Not surprisingly, feedback in the Times comments section was decidedly negative. As the week’s progressed we’ve also seen a number of thoughtful responses in commentaries published across the web. Some of the criticism, notably that found in a blog post,The Data Journalism That Wasn’t by the Future of Music Coalition’sKevin Erickson, took Johnson to task for his questionable analysis:
Alas, what ended up running was rather disappointing.NYT Magazine chose to publish without substantive change most of the things that we told them were either: a) not accurate or b) not verifiable because there is no industry consensus and the “facts” could really go either way.
Steven Johnson’s article “The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t” frames itself as a data-driven response to concerns about the plight of creative workers in the digital age. But Johnson’s grasp of the limitations of the data he cites seems tenuous, and he ends up relying on some very dubious and all-too-familiar assumptions. In its sweeping dismissal of artists’ various concerns, the article reads as an exercise in gaslighting.
Erickson’s criticism prompted Johnson to pen a follow up piece that was published in yesterday’s Times where he defended his reportage, and his examination of the “data.”
Amid the tit for tat, I suggest reading some other thoughtful responses to the original piece. Each questions the central premise of Johnson’s article–one that asserts that the business of creativity is thriving in the digital age.
The biggest problem with Johnson’s piece is that he’s asking the wrong question. He’s trying to figure out if creators as a group are making more money. There’s considerable evidence they’re not. What we should be looking at instead is whether creators can sell their work in a fair and functioning market that will reward them according to the demand for their work. That’s why we have copyright — because the best way to find out which artists ought to be creating what is to see who wants it and what they’re willing to pay.
Also taking issue with Johnson’s cover story was David Newhoff of The Illusion of Moreblog. In his post, Steven Johnson & A Thesis That Isn’tNewhoff dissects each of Johnson’s assertions point by point, and also views the issue of copyright as being central to having genuine debate as to whether creators can thrive in the digital age:
Ultimately, Johnson is supporting an anti-copyright — and even pro-piracy — argument; but he seems to want to have his Cake and eat John McCrea’s lunch, too. And I say this because so much of the evidence for prosperity he offers — both economic and anecdotal — is largely dependent upon the framework of copyright. So, after leading off with a thesis that fundamentally begs a question about the seeds of piracy (i.e. Did it hurt us?), he winds up painting some pretty pictures, but never quite answers the question because so much of the good news he alludes to is antithetical to a market that ignores, tolerates, or even extolls the permission-free use of creative works. Because, as we see with examples like MusicKey or with the Internet industry’s willingness to monetize infringement while lobbying hard against creators’ rights, many creators themselves continue to discover that the Web giveth shortly before the Web taketh away.
Chris Castle from the Music Tech Policy blog also chimed in with a critical response in a post Why is the New York Times Coverage on Artist Rights So Oddly Inconsistent?Castle notes that not only did Johnson co-opt the blog’s tagline“Your Survival Guide to the Creative Apocalypse”, but that suggests that many of the assertions made by Mr. Johnson are strikingly similar to well-worn tech industry talking points. Castle also takes the Times to task for not offering an opposing viewpoint:
The real question is what is the New York Times up to. On the one hand we have great reporting at NYT by journalists like Ben Sisario who has some of the best music business writing out there. He takes the time to actually talk to people, get both sides, and so some first rate analysis. Trying to get at the whatchamacallit..you know, that truthiness thing. This is what we expect from the New York Times, the newspaper of record.
But to have factcheckers cherry pick issues presented “how long have you been beating your wife” style and then to not even use the information in a side bar is really hard to understand as being anything other than agenda driven. How difficult would it have been to run a companion piece saying that people disagree?
If nothing else, Johnson’s assertions in his magazine piece stirred up the creative community. Apparently those working in “creative careers” are not “thriving” quite to the extent he would have Times readers believe.
If you would like to let editors at the Times know your thoughts, send off an email to the NY Times ([email protected]). Will Buckley Jr., founder of Fare Play sent a letter to Margaret Sullivan, the NY Times Public Editor. In his letter, titled “The Creative Meltdown That Is,” Buckley noted that Johnson’s piece was, essentially, a rehash of tired tech talking points:
First off the article is basically a rehash of Mike Masnick’s ‘The Sky is Rising‘, a much derided and criticized overview of the entertainment industry and how in January of 2012 things were actually looking up for artists. Many of the points made in Masnick’s Techdirt post and ‘The Creative Apocalypse That Wasn’t‘ are actually the same ones used by the proponents of online piracy attempting to make a case for the positive attributes of illegal free file sharing.
Well said Mr. Buckley. The more the creative community who join with him to push back and set the record straight, the better.
Google could learn a thing or two from VIMEO about how to run an efficient DMCA takedown system
Love it or hate it, for now the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is the law of the land when it comes to safeguarding creative content online. The law, passed nearly 20 years ago, is woefully outdated, but for now, it’s the only tool creators have to protect their work from online thieves. Unfortunately, not every company in the business of “user generated content” approaches DMCA compliance the same way.
Google, a company that makes billions each year in ad revenues generated via trafficking in dubious content, has set up a takedown system that ensures the sending of a DMCA takedown notice is an onerous and inefficient task. After all, the harder Google makes it, the more discouraged creators will become, and the more money continues to flow into its coffers…
Anyone who’s made music or a movie probably has had experience with sending a DMCA takedown request to Google in some form. Whether it’s removing pirated music on YouTube, or requesting the takedown of pirated movies off Blogger sites, creators must tackle a haphazard and convoluted patchwork of online forms in order to get their work removed from Google’s online products.
Not that Google will listen to me, but I’m going to offer some suggestions for simple ways the company could improve the takedown system. Part I will focus on Blogger, Google’s online website platform that’s become the favorite of many pirate entrepreneurs due to its ease of use.
As a creator, when you discover a pirate website hosted by Google’s Blogger (on blogspot.com) is offering pirated copies of your music or movie, to get it removed you usually have to send a DMCA notice to Google.
Here’s where Google turns what could be a relatively easy task into a huge time suck. First, in order to find the correct online form for Blogger you’re forced to click through a myriad of radio-buttons on Google’s Removing Content From Google page. When you finally do manage to click your way through to the proper form (it takes 7 clicks) you’ll waste more time carefully filling in each and every section. Note, your browser’s auto-fill function won’t work particularly well here. Finally, after you complete the form and click send, you can only wait (and hope) that the content will be removed. It can literally take weeks and sometimes it never gets removed.
Here’s where it gets particularly annoying. Many companies, take the video-hosting site Vimeo, for example, give rights holders several ways to send a takedown notice: email, a web form or snail mail. When sending a DMCA to Vimeo (and many other sites) I use a template I created (with an attorney’s help) that makes it easy to copy and paste infringing links into a DMCA takedown email. It’s not only quick, but I have a record of the notice in my sent email box. For indie content creators fighting online piracy, email is by far the most efficient way to send and record DMCA notices. As far as I’m concerned, Vimeo earns a gold start for DMCA takedown efficiency.
Vimeo provides a shining example of good DMCA takedown practices:
Vimeo accepts email submissions. It’s quick and efficient–a godsend if you have to send notices routinely (as many musicians and filmmakers do).
You have a copy of the DMCA notice you sent and proof of when it was sent.
You receive an email confirmation from Vimeo that the material has been removed and their message includes a copy of your original DMCA notice.
Vimeo provides a reference # so that if there are any issues with your notice, you can easily follow-up with the real person that signs the email receipt.
Meanwhile, over at Google, things aren’t so straightforward. Each time I send a DMCA takedown to Google via its web form, if I want to keep a copy, I’m forced to create a PDF copy of web form. Even then some of the entries don’t show up. For the rights holder it’s an imperfect and time-wasting process. Google has intentionally created a takedown process that impedes creators at every step.
Google’s Blogger takedown procedure is a joke:
Google requires users navigate through a series of buttons (7 clicks) to get to the DMCA web takedown form.
Google requires you fill in the entire form each time you need to sent a takedown notice.
Google does not give you a copy of the form you sent, only a brief acknowledgement that you sent something signed by the mysterious “Google Team.”
Sender never receives notification infringing material has been disabled.
Because of their business practices, Google does have to deal with tons of takedown notices every day. It’s a mess of its own making and they certainly have the financial resources to deal with it responsibly. Google reps insist a web form is the only way to make sure they receive the information required in a DMCA notice. However, their refusal to accept emails (that could be read by a bot) forces indie artists who routinely send takedown requests to its web maze.
Since users are forced to use a DMCA web form, there’s certainly NO justifiable reason Google can’t respond with an email confirmation that includes the original takedown notice. After all, that’s an automated process and would require ZERO resources on their part. Google chooses not to do so because they want to make the process as opaque and complicated as possible. While it complies with the letter of the law, Google has refined a system whereby creators are discouraged from exercising their legal rights at every turn.
Google’s DMCA practices are designed to impede rights holders every step of the way
Vimeo quickly sends an email confirming removal
Along with the email, Vimeo includes the original DMCA notice
Google makes users jump through hoops to send a DMCA notice, doesn’t provide a copy, and offers no confirmation that any action has been taken
Google includes a case number in the subject heading of the email, but don’t bother trying to contact Google using it. The “Google Team” won’t respond. So what’s the case number good for? Not much.
As for turnaround time-when I send VIMEO a notice within hours the content has been removed (and I receive an email confirmation along with a copy of my notice). With Google it can literally take weeks…and sometimes nothing happens…ever.
In order to improve the DMCA system on Blogger I would ask for the following:
Offer a direct link to the Blogger DMCA takedown form
Allow the form to be auto-filled and if one has a Google account information the form would be pre-filled with the appropriate information
Send an email receipt that includes a copy of the DMCA notice
Send confirmation when the infringing content has been disabled
Remove content in a timely manner. This means days, NOT weeks.
For a company like Google that can take us to the top of Mt. Everest with the click of a mouse it’s beyond comprehension as to why they can’t offer content creators a better way to utilize the DMCA process. Google periodically publishes puff PR pieces extolling the myriad of ways it supposedly tackles piracy, but in reality helps maintain the status quo where the rights of online thieves are held in higher regard than those of creators. Of course for Google impeding the legal rights of creators is good for business. Profits ahead of people is the key to Google’s success.
Next week-Part II-YouTube’s DMCA CMS takedown, another inefficient mess for rights holders.
Tim Wu, the legal scholar credited with coining the oft used term “net neutrality” was hired by Yelp to conduct research into Google’s search algorithm. Wu, along with Harvard Business School professor Michael Luca and researchers at Yelp, examined whether Google gives consumers the best results. The results don’t look good. Per Recode.net:
Google knowingly manipulates search results according to a research paper published Monday from several academics. The study presents evidence that the search giant sets out to hamper competitors and limit consumers’ options. The paper lands as Google prepares to release its response to the European Union investigation, which rests on similar claims about Google’s comparison-shopping product.
Meanwhile, in the EU a new website Focus on the User (http://www.focusontheuser.eu/) has been set up to publicize the issue, charging, “Google+ is hurting the Internet. Europeans have the power to stop it.” Along with a rundown of the various ways Google manipulates search results to favor its own product via Google+ the website offers a video explainer (below).
2. 40 State Attorneys Generals file amicus brief in support of subpoena process to investigate Google
Attorneys General from 40 states have filed in amicus brief in support of Mississippi’s AG Jim Hood’s efforts to subpoena Google. In the brief they ask a U.S. Appeals Court to overturn a preliminary injunction issued last March by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate that blocked Hood’s efforts to investigate Google’s anti-consumer business practices. From the brief:
As is evident from the letters of record signed by multiple Attorneys General, Mississippi is not the only state with concerns about Google’s consumer practices. (See ROA.1199-1200, ROA.1243-1244, ROA.1245-1246). Mississippi, like every state, is entitled to address these concerns through further investigation utilizing proper tools, including administrative subpoenas. Mississippi, like every state, also is entitled to review information gathered pursuant to its investigation and make decisions about actions to take—or not take—to enforce its consumer protection laws for its citizens. Google may challenge Mississippi’s Subpoena consistent with state law. But Google should not be allowed to bypass state subpoena review processes and derail a legitimate state consumer protection investigation by filing premature declaratory judgment lawsuits and obtaining sweeping preliminary injunctions in federal court. Both the law and public policy counsel against it.
3. Google accused of eavesdropping
According to an article published in The Guardian, Google is also under fire from privacy advocates for incorporating technology into its Chrome browser that allows eavesdropping.
“Without consent, Google’s code had downloaded a black box of code that – according to itself – had turned on the microphone and was actively listening to your room,” said Rick Falkvinge, the Pirate party founder, in a blog post. “Which means that your computer had been stealth configured to send what was being said in your room to somebody else, to a private company in another country, without your consent or knowledge, an audio transmission triggered by … an unknown and unverifiable set of conditions.”
Scott Cleland, a noted Google critic, points out that it’s business as usual in comments posted on his Precursor Blog:
This is not an isolated incident. It is a part of a broader Google pattern of behavior.
What should be big news and scandalous here is that the company that has gathered the most Internet users in the world based upon public representations of being pro-privacy and open — is secretly engaged in widespread wiretapping.
June Gloom for Googleiath
Earlier this month Google was slapped down by a Canadian appeals court, Its judges were not impressed by Google’s specious “free speech” arguments and affirmed a lower court ruling mandating Google remove certain search results (linking to illegal products) on a worldwide basis.
As regulators in Europe continue to tighten the vise, perhaps this summer will be a turning point in efforts to hold Google accountable for its bad business practices. Stay tuned…
Google’s global reach has global implications when it comes to the law
In a case that could have broad implications moving forward, a Canadian appeals court handed Google a rare legal setback when it upheld a worldwide injunction ordering the search giant to remove results linked to counterfeit hardware. The ruling was an affirmation of a lower court ruling that mandated Google remove certain search results (linking to illegal products) on a worldwide basis.
Reading the court’s decision, the plaintiff’s arguments–and Google’s responses–are familiar to anyone who’s gone toe to toe with tech behemoth and its shills like the EFF. What’s new is that the appeals court not only upheld the lower court’s worldwide injunction, but it also shot down the tired, oft-used “free speech” canard employed by tech apologists to attack rights holders:
[105] The plaintiffs made considerable efforts attempting to track down the defendants, and find ways to eliminate their websites. The judge’s finding that the granting of the injunction was the only practical way to impede the defendants from flouting the court’s orders amounts to a finding that the involvement of Google in this matter was necessary.
[106] With respect to extraterritorial effects, Google has, in this Court, suggested that a more limited order ought to have been made, affecting only searches that take place on the google.ca site. I accept that an order with international scope should not be made lightly, and that where an order with only domestic consequences will accomplish all that is necessary, a more expansive order should not be made…
[107] The plaintiffs have established, in my view, that an order limited to the google.ca search site would not be effective. I am satisfied that there was a basis, here, for giving the injunction worldwide effect. [emphasis added] I have already noted that applications can be made to vary the order should unexpected issues arise concerning comity.
[108] Finally, I note concerns expressed by Google and by the intervenors Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Electronic Frontier Foundation concerning the openness of the World Wide Web, and the need to avoid unnecessary impediments to free speech.
[109] The order made in this case is an ancillary order designed to give force to earlier orders prohibiting the defendants from marketing their product. Those orders were made after thorough consideration of the strength of the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ cases. Google does not suggest that the orders made against the defendants were inappropriate, nor do the intervenors suggest that those orders constituted an inappropriate intrusion on freedom of speech.
[110] There has, in the course of argument, been some reference to the possibility that the defendants (or others) might wish to use their websites for legitimate free speech, rather than for unlawfully marketing the GW1000. That possibility, it seems to me, is entirely speculative. There is no evidence that the websites in question have ever been used for lawful purposes, nor is there any reason to believe that the domain names are in any way uniquely suitable for any sort of expression other than the marketing of the illegal product. [emphasis added] Of course, if the character of the websites changes, it is always open to the defendants or others to seek a variation of the injunction.
It’s refreshing to see a court of a law look past EFF hyperbole and distinguish between legit websites and those engaged in criminal activity. Score one for common sense (and the law). It should be noted that in predictable fashion, the EFF characterized the decision as “dangerous precedent” and that allows an intermediate to “edit the internet” and warned that the ruling “lays the groundwork for nations with authoritarian restrictions on speech to also impose their own rules on the global Internet.”
I suppose we should consider it progress that instead of “breaking the internet” we are now only accused of wanting to “edit it?”
Over the years, Google has run roughshod over any effort to impede its take-no-prisoners business practices, but lately its veneer of invincibility seems to have cracked. As this latest ruling demonstrates, courts and regulators (outside the U.S.) are finally beginning to treat Google as the global beast that it is.
In May of 2014 the Court of Justice of the European Union found that EU citizens had the “right to be forgotten” and that search engines like Google must remove search results upon request. Last November, Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, the group charged with overseeing the ruling, issued guidelines on implementation that .com domains worldwide, not just those in the European Union should be included in requests for data removal.
7. Territorial effect of a de-listing decision In order to give full effect to the data subject’s rights as defined in the Court’s ruling, delisting decisions must be implemented in such a way that they guarantee the effective and complete protection of data subjects’ rights and that EU law cannot be circumvented. In that sense, limiting de-listing to EU domains on the grounds that users tend to access search engines via their national domains cannot be considered a sufficient mean to satisfactorily guarantee the rights of data subjects according to the ruling. In practice, this means that in any case de-listing should also be effective on all relevant domains, including .com. [emphasis added]
In April, the EU’s scrutiny of Google’s business practices became even bolder when it charged the company with anti-trust violations. From the Wall Street Journal:
The European Commission took direct aim at Google Inc. Wednesday, charging the Internet-search giant with skewing results to favor its comparison-shopping service. But the formal complaint may only be the opening salvo in a broader assault that prompts big changes at Google.
European antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager said she continues to examine other domains, such as travel and local services, where Google is accused of favoring its own services over those of others. She also opened a second front, intensifying a separate probe of Google’s conduct with its Android mobile-operating system.
Given Google’s growing influence as a Washington lobbying force, don’t expect to see U.S. lawmakers following in the EU’s footsteps any time soon. However, any crack in Google’s armor is progress. While U.S. authorities won’t hold Google accountable, it seems like the rest of the world just might.
The Florida legislature recently passed the “True Origin of Digital Goods Act.” The bill now sits on the desk of Governor Scott, awaiting his signature or, if tech interests have their way-the veto pen.
The proposed law would require any website operator selling digital downloads provide contact information (name and address) in order to do business.
A person who owns or operates a website or online service dealing in substantial part in the electronic dissemination of commercial recordings or audiovisual works, directly or indirectly, and who electronically disseminates such works to consumers in this state shall clearly and conspicuously disclose his or her true and correct name, physical address, and a telephone number or e-mail address on his or her website or an online service in a location readily accessible to a consumer using or visiting the website or online service.
Doesn’t sound particularly onerous does it? After all, any other (brick and mortar) business operating in Florida must do so. Why should online commerce be immune?
In predictable fashion, the usual suspects, like the (tech-funded) EFF, lined up against the bill with the usual hyperbolic warnings that it would “have disastrous consequences for anonymous online speech both inside and outside the state.” Sound familiar?
The CDT also sounded the alarm in predictable fashion, quoting a Supreme Court case: Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.
Ok, let me get this straight. Transparency is great when sites like Chilling Effect post un-redacted DMCA notices, but when Florida asks business owners engaged in financial transactions to disclose contact information, it’s a tyrannical threat?
Ironically the CDT post arguing against the law points to the DMCA as the reason such a law is not necessary. Meanwhile, when someone uses the DMCA, his/her attempt to remove infringing content is undermined in the name of transparency? Ok…
Selling digital content is selling, not speech. To conflate this law with concerns over free speech is ludicrous. Isn’t the online ecosystem mature enough for us to differentiate between the two? Not all online activity is the same. Should a person seeking a business license in Florida not provide a name and address in the name of free speech? There is language written into this law to safeguard those using excerpts of material for commentary or other non-commercial purposes.
Commercial recording or audiovisual work” means a recording or audiovisual work whose owner, assignee, authorized agent, or licensee has disseminated or intends to disseminate such recording or audiovisual work for sale, for rental, or for performance or exhibition to the public, including under license, but does not include an excerpt consisting of less than substantially all of a recording or audiovisual work. A recording or audiovisual work may be commercial regardless of whether a person who electronically disseminates it seeks commercial advantage or private financial gain from the dissemination. The term does not include video games, depictions of video game play, or the streaming of video game activity. [emphasis added]
The internet is now the center of all things–commerce, social discourse, communication and more. Not everything that happens online is sacrosanct. The time has come for reasonable measures to ensure online businesses selling digital downloads operate in a lawful fashion. That is not an extreme notion.
Governor Scott should do the right thing and sign this bill into law. Consumers in Florida will benefit. As Latin musician Monte Rosa wrote for a piece in the Tallahassee Democrat in support of the bill:
Transparency can be a powerful tool, both to arm Florida consumers with more information to better navigate the Internet and to deter an illegal website from peddling stolen music in the first place. Wouldn’t that basic information help Florida music fans better distinguish the scam sites from the licensed music services that actually compensate artists?
The only ones who will lose are those nefarious website operators whose business operations have something to hide. Please sign the bill.
“Balanced” copyright is really just code for killing it
The “ReCreate Coalition” is a jazzy, and kinda warm and fuzzy sounding name isn’t it? Yep, our favorite anti-artist groups are at it again, morphing into yet another anti-copyright potpourri whose mission is to demolish copyright in the name of protecting innovation or, as their press release glibly trumpets: “diverse coalition launchestopromote balanced copyright law, creativity and free speech.”
The internet has empowered everyone online to be a creator, opening up new audiences and markets for innovative people and businesses. We must work proactively to ensure that copyright laws keep up with our amazing technological advances, allow for creativity to flow to all corners of the world, and still respect the rights of content creators.
Let’s translate shall we? What’s she’s really saying is:
In order for big tech to continue to reap millions off creative content it doesn’t own it’s imperative that copyright law be neutered so that nothing will impede big tech’s ability to grow profits…
Notice the carefully crafted use of “innovative” as an adjective to describe both the people and the businesses she deigns to protect. Certainly copyright laws should “keep up with” technological advances, but not in the way I assume O’Conner means. She and her ilk hope to disembowel current copyright law in order to benefit tech’s bottom line, but if we are serious about transforming copyright law so that it remains relevant in the 21st century lawmakers should really begin by revisiting the woefully out-of-date 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act to better protect the rights of content creators.
True copyright reform should begin with questioning why it’s OK that creators have been on the short end of the stick for nearly two decades? Why not revise “safe harbor” so that it protects the innovative musicians, filmmakers, authors and other creators who routinely have their work ripped off and monetized online by others? If organizers of this shiny new coalition genuinely believed in “respecting the rights of creators” they would work to improve copyright law so that creators are afforded more protection, rather than less.
O’Conner asserts that everyone online is now a creator, but let’s face it–not every creation is equivalent. Just because I can upload a mashup video to YouTube doesn’t mean that the content I created is worthy of protection that trumps the rights of the creator whose creation made my mashup possible.
Sure, there should be an allowance for fair use when appropriate–but do members of the ReCreate Coalition really envision a world where someone who works 3 minutes on something should always have the same (copy)rights as those who spent 3 years creating the original work? Just because people can upload content online doesn’t mean their rights are equal to, or exceed the rights of those who originally created it. Innovation, in whatever form that takes, cannot be a license to steal.
Take a look at the list of groups that united to form this new, anti-copyright effort:
American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, Center for Democracy & Technology, Computer and Communications Industry Association, Consumer Electronics Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Media Democracy Fund, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge, and R Street Institute.
If you really want to understand what the goals of this nascent coalition are,simply follow the money. The same cast of characters–led by Google–seems to appear repeatedly. Whether it be through slimy, backdoor means or endeavors like the ALA’s Google’s Policy Fellowship, there’s no denying the ever-present funding (and influence) bought by big brother tech. Could their coalition be any more incestuous, or disingenuous?
While lobbyists for a number of these groups are actively working to dismantle copyright protections–and in the process undermine the livelihoods of filmmakers, musicians, authors and more–it’s worth noting many of these anti-copyright organizations seem to pay their employees pretty well–much better than non-profits where my friends work.
Take a look the Center for Democracy & Technology’s 990 tax filing for 2013 and note all ten of their ten salaried executives made over $100,000 per year, with the CEO at the time, the position now held by O’Connor, earned a pretty nice salary of $286,731 (plus $17,204 in other compensation). It’s worth noting that CDT appears to get the much of its funding from tech interests.
According to the 990 filed by the (Google/Facebook backed) EFF, for the tax fiscal year 2013, everyone but the accountant earned compensation in excess of $100,000 + (and its ED more than 200K). Those on salary at Public Knowledge in 2012 were also part of the 100K plus club with its president/co-founder earning compensation of $207,150 plus an additional 17,544 listed as “other.”
While I don’t begrudge these folks earning a good living, I do find it troubling that much of their work is so ardently focused on denying others that same right. I also find it troubling these organizations are not the grass roots organizations they purport to be. While some of their work, particularly that of the ALA, is laudable, for the most part the groups that make up this “coalition” spend a much of their time lobbying in support of initiatives promoted by tech-based corporations–and against content creators who depend on robust copyright law to protect their livelihoods. This latest phony alliance appears to be just another effort to push big tech’s profit-driven agenda to weaken copyright in order to grow profits.
It’s also worth that at the same time the ReCreate Coalition announces its stepping into the ring, another astroturf entity, The Mic Coalition sprouted up alongside. In lock-step with the ReCreate mission, this Music Innovation Consumers coalition pretends to have the interests of creators in mind, but of course it’s simply more disingenuous posturing.
Note how they deftly employ the magic tech abracadabra word “innovation” in their moniker. After all, who can argue with magic that is innovation right? To appreciate the true extent of the baloney proffered by the MIC coalition, excellent posts on the subject can be found on The Trichordist blog. Here’s just a sampling:
Gee this wasn’t coordinated at all. Two new Astroturf (squared) organizations in two days (with possibly the same web designer?) The day after the announcement of the the new ReCreate Coalition, an AstroTurf organization composed almost exclusively of Google connected Astroturf organizations, some of the same companies plus The National Association of Broadcasters, I Heart Media (Clear Channel) Pandora and NPR have announced the creation of the MIC-Coalition in order to lobby AGAINST fair digital royalties to artists; AGAINST terrestrial royalty for performers, and to keep songwriters under the oppressive and unconstitutional DOJ consent decrees. Read the website it’s unbelievable.
The real joke is on anyone, in Washington D.C. or elsewhere, who takes these groups seriously. I mean, if you’re a fan of Fringe you know that shape-shifters never had good intentions. My guess is the same could be said for these shiny new anti-copyright coalitions too. Apparently there’s a plentiful supply of b.s. to fertilize an endless supply of Astroturf in Washington D.C.
*Note, the above embedded video from the Fox series “Fringe” has been uploaded to YouTube and monetized by WBTV.
As an indie film and broadcast journalism veteran, I'll share my perspectives on issues of interest to the creative community and beyond--Ellen Seidler
