[Congressional Bills 113th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] [H.R. 4079 Introduced in House (IH)] 113th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 4079 To amend title 17, United States Code, to ensure fairness in the establishment of certain rates and fees under sections 114 and 115 of such title, and for other purposes. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 25, 2014 Mr. Collins of Georgia (for himself and Mrs. Blackburn) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary _______________________________________________________________________ A BILL To amend title 17, United States Code, to ensure fairness in the establishment of certain rates and fees under sections 114 and 115 of such title, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Songwriter Equity Act of 2014''. SEC. 2. EFFECT ON ROYALTIES FOR UNDERLYING WORKS. Section 114(i) of title 17, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ``(i) Effect on Royalties for Underlying Works.--It is the intent of Congress that royalties payable to copyright owners of musical works for the public performance of their works shall not be diminished in any respect as a result of the rights granted in section 106(6).''. SEC. 3. APPLICATION TO SECTIONS 112(E) AND 114(F) SOUND RECORDING PROCEEDINGS. (a) Proceedings Not Affected.--Neither section 2 of this Act nor the amendment made to section 114(i) of title 17, United States Code, by such section 2 shall be taken into account in any proceeding to set or adjust the rates and fees payable for the use of sound recordings under section 112(e) or section 114(f) of such title that is pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of the enactment of this Act. (b) Decisions and Precedents Not Affected.--Neither section 2 of this Act nor the amendment made to section 114(i) of title 17, United States Code, by such section 2 shall have any effect upon the decisions, or the precedents established or relied upon, in any proceeding to set or adjust the rates and fees payable for the use of sound recordings under section 112(e) or section 114(f) of such title before the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 4. FUNCTIONS OF COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES. (a) In General.--Section 801(b)(1) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by striking ``The rates applicable under sections 114(f)(1)(B), 115, and 116 shall be calculated to achieve the following objectives'' and inserting ``The rates applicable under sections 114(f)(1)(B) and 116 shall be calculated to achieve the following objectives''. (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to any proceeding that is pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 5. ROYALTY PAYABLE UNDER COMPULSORY LICENSE. (a) In General.--Section 115(c)(3)(D) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by striking ``In addition to the objectives set forth in section 801(b)(1), in establishing such rates and terms, the Copyright Royalty Judges may consider rates and terms under voluntary license agreements described in subparagraphs (B) and (C).'' and inserting the following: ``The Copyright Royalty Judges shall establish rates and terms that most clearly represent the rates and terms that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller. In establishing such rates and terms, the Copyright Royalty Judges shall base their decision on marketplace, economic, and use information presented by the participants. In establishing such rates and terms, the Copyright Royalty Judges may consider the rates and terms for comparable uses and comparable circumstances under voluntary license agreements.''. (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to any proceeding that is pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of the enactment of this Act.
In the middle of an antitrust case about Silicon Valley hiring practices (which adds a whole new dimension to the antebellum business of Web 2.0), an interesting email exchange surfaced. This one is among ex-Googler Sheryl Sandberg (yes, that Sheryl Sandberg) and some of her former colleagues. (MTP readers will remember that according to some filings by Google stockholders, Sheryl Sandberg appears to be in the middle of the Google Drugs case that resulted in Google’s payment of $500,000,000 of the stockholders money to keep an unknown number of its senior executive team from being indicted. That didn’t come up on Sandberg’s book tours and is not part of her carefully crafted image.)
One heavily redacted email thread offers some insight into the relationship between Google, Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia, of all things, and even mentions child labor magnate Jimmy Wales (this was before the hiring of Wikimedia’s tech industry lobbyists in 2012). This exchange is from 2008, and may well have been the cornerstone of the lobbying partnership between Google and Wikimedia that blossomed in 2012. (The email exchange has the unfortunate distinction of being from Exhibit 666 in the litigation.)
Of course, Ms. Gardner omitted that her Wikimedia Foundation leased office space from Wikia, so El Jefe Jimbo was not the only connection between the two organizations.
And realize that “Wikia Search” was (according to Wikipedia) a potential threat to Google:
“Wikia Search followed other experiments by Wikia into search engine technology and officially launched as a “public alpha” on January 7, 2008. The roll-out version of the search interface was widely criticized by reviewers in mainstream media. After failing to attract an audience, the site closed by 2009.”
Now read this again:
I personally don’t believe any of this. I think Google and Wikipedia can and should have a complementary and positive relationship. And I gather Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin] feel the same: I believe they’ve told Jimmy [Wales] that Google has no ill will towards Wikipedia, and that they’d be willing to make a donation to us in order to signal that publicly.
No…say it ain’t so, Jimbo. Don’t break the Internet!
Originally posted on The Trichordist:
Music piracy is a subject that has been talked to death over the past decade. So much, in fact, that it seems scarce conceivable that we could say anything more of interest on the subject.
The fundamental point I’d like you to take away from this is: it’s a lot more important to keep a watchful eye on ostensibly legal services – recall that both Pandora and (perhaps to a lesser extent) YouTube are legit – than to agonize over overt piracy.
That pirate services should be hunted to as close to extinction as is feasible goes without saying, but we mustn’t lose sight of the fact that nobody deserves a medal for going legit. It’s what you’re f-ing supposed to do.
READ THE FULL POST AT THE CYNICAL MUSICIAN:
MTP: How was the audience reaction for your first 30 days on the I Respect Music petition campaign?
Blake Morgan: It’s honestly––and very happily––been above and beyond anything we could have estimated or ever hoped for. If you ask anyone who’s been working with me on this, they’ll tell you that the goal I’d set for us was to try to get 1,000 signatures in our first 30 days. A daunting number to try and reach for a petition to Congress about paying artists for radio airplay. But, it turns out that after 30 days we’re actually at 10,000 signatures.
A Huffington Post Op-ed of mine in December ["Art and Music Are Professions Worth Fighting For"] garnered a huge reaction going viral with over 44,000 likes and over 8,000 Facebook shares. That was the piece where I first wrote the words “I Respect Music.” So I knew there was a massive and untapped demographic of music makers and music lovers out there, but “liking” or “sharing” something is very different from putting your name on a letter to Congress. I wanted to see what would would happen if we gave people a concrete, universal, and positive way to affect change in the music world, and look what happened. I doubt seriously if the House Intellectual Property Subcommittee has ever seen anything like this.
And, this is the scariest thing the powerful forces who consistently stand against artists’ rights could possibly witness: a mobilized, united, grass-roots movement that is pushing for legislation to pay artists and musicians for their work. So that’s scary, as in awesome!!
MTP: I’m interested in the composition of the people responding to the petition. Based on my own very unscientific random sampling of the people tweeting about it, supporters seemed like a mix of fans and artists. Does that sound about right? Do you have any way to determine their background?
Blake Morgan: That’s exactly right. The I Respect Music petition begins with,”I join music makers and music lovers alike in urging Congress to support artists’ pay for radio play.” And that’s precisely who’s been supporting it, signing it, and Tweeting and posting selfies with “#IRespectMusic” written on a card or piece of paper. It’s those photos––and the variety of them––that has really moved people, both to sign the petition and to get involved in general. People are discovering that there’s something special about taking that particular photo and holding up those particular words. Something powerful. And empowering.
MTP: I saw that James Otto tweeted that he signed the petition, any other luminaries?
Blake Morgan: Yeah, you could say that! In addition to everyday working musicians, music fans, and music organizations, it’s been luminaries as diverse as Patrick Stewart, Gavin DeGraw, David Byrne, Gloria Steinem, Jean Michel Jarre, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Roseanne Cash, Mike Mills, John McCrea, Civil Twilight––even Jane Fonda. And thousands of others, with more every day. It really has been music makers and music lovers alike “getting it,” that artists should be paid for their work. Plain and simple.
MTP: Even the 40 Watt club in Athens! Imagine, nightclubs giving signage for free!
Blake Morgan: Imagine!
MTP: What’s the reaction been from Capitol Hill?
Blake Morgan: Well as I said before, I doubt seriously if the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet has ever seen anything like this before. And that’s exactly what’s been reported to me from multiple sources connected both to the subcommittee directly, and from others on and around Capitol Hill.
What really matters though is that there’s a real chance now that we’re going to see a bill proposed. And proposed in the very short term. Meaning possibly in a matter of weeks, not months. So there’s no question that we’ve moved the needle, and moved it big time.
Keep in mind that these aren’t lobbyists pushing the I Respect Music petition. These are voters, from every corner of the country with more and more joining every day. And, artists getting paid for radio airplay has become an issue that these voters are going to fight for––they’re going to use their votes and their voices to win this fight.
I mean seriously, the United States is the only democratic country in the world where artists don’t get paid for radio airplay? And in holding to this policy we’re standing with Iran and North Korea? You know, sometimes these things are tough to figure out or parse. And sometimes they’re um…really not.
So let’s win this fight. Let’s respect music. Let’s respect the people who make music, and the people who love it too.
100 million DMCA notices later, despite Google’s many protestation of the billions and billions links it;s demoted for violating Google’s various policies against bad stuff…no that’s millions and millions…or maybe hundreds of thousands…or maybe dozens…YouTube’s still going strong in the categories of raunchy, salacious, hateful and downright profitable videos.
Take for example a simple YouTube search for the word “jailbait”. Remember–this is YouTube, the most popular online video site for teens and preteens. (For our ex-US readers, “jailbait” is a common slang word describing (almost always) young women who are under age. A word slanted from the point of view of the over-age male who risks being charged with statutory rape if he has sex with the young woman and a word that carries with it the implication that the young woman is baiting the encounter (because, you know, she looked over 18). Hence, jailbait. And men, if this doesn’t make your blood boil, just wait til you have a teenage daughter, niece, cousin, or other relative. Trust me, there’s not one thing that is funny about it.)
Here’s what you come up with in a YouTube search for “jailbait”:
Yes, that video is just a series of still images of very, very young looking girls. Monetized with an embedded ad in the video as well as an ad from Kraft for…mac and cheese.
Continuing on the same theme, we have “Disney Jailbait Heaven”, monetized with a pre-roll ad for the Hannibal television series from NBC.
And as noted above, the “Disney Jailbait Heaven” video admonishes us as follows:
Not surprisingly, we find this video featured in the “if you liked Disney Jailbait Heaven, You’ll Love” index on the right hand side of the YouTube page (2nd from the top) next to NBC’s pre-roll ad:
You get the idea.
You can also pick a search term from Google Adwords Unapproved Pharmaceuticals List, let’s try Arimidex:
Here’s a video about Arimidex (just one of hundreds). This one features one of the benefits of the drug, “How to Get Rid of Man Boobs” and it’s from the Twin Muscle Workout channel (which looks to be a YouTube partner account). Now why would one need to do that with Arimidex? Oh, perhaps side effects from testosterone injections? Which I’m sure is exactly what Blue Cross wanted to advertise against. And since the BCBS ad is about the Affordable Care Act, one wonders if this campaign was paid for with some of the money that is appropriated in the ACA for the Obamacare public information campaign.
And speaking of injections, how about “Flagging the Femoral Vein” in case you had a question in that regard:
Not to mention “Bangin’ Up For Dummies” from a very cosmopolitan YouTuber:
In part 2 we will look at YouTube’s hate videos using the Antidefamation League’s “Bigots Who Rock” list, jihadi recruiting videos and the ever present “how to” dope videos.