Trickle Down Innovation Alert: Mr. Pandora the secret censor
“Have you seen the bigger piggies in their starched white shirts
You will find the bigger piggies stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in.
In their sties with all their backing
They don’t care what goes on around
In their eyes there’s something lacking
What they need’s a damn good whacking.
Everywhere there’s lots of piggies
Living piggy lives… Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.”
Hidden in the deceptively named “Internet Radio Fairness Act” is one of the most insidious anti-artist provisions we’ve seen in many years. Don’t be fooled–these people are trying to silence artists and use lobbying power to cram down terms to satisfy Wall Street. And if they can outlaw speech by the AFM and AFTRA, just think what Congress can do to the rest of our industry and beyond.
Pandora’s Big Lie
So here’s the latest milk and cookies tripe from behind the Pandora curtain according to Business Week:
“We envision a future in which Internet radio can offer more as the sector grows and innovates — but this is only possible if Internet radio can compete on a level playing field with the other forms of digital radio,” Mollie Starr, a Pandora spokeswoman, said in an e-mail.”
The Ministry of Truth at Pandora would like you to believe that this is all for your own good, you see, and what’s good for Mr. Pandora is good for “middle class musicians” to borrow a phrase from One of the Most Influential People in the World, Tim Westergren. (You should also read the excellent reporting by Glenn Peoples “The Truth About Pandora’s Payments to Artists” where Glenn takes apart the latest heaping serving of bunk from the 1% in Pandora’s board room.)
Westergren and Pandora’s Ministry of Truth (or Minitrue as Orwell called it) wants you to believe that Less is More. Yes, the Chris Anderson crap pile under the Wrong Tail has returned.
This is a tough sell. Westergren is out there touting how much they pay to specific artists in a very questionable method of calculation according to Glenn Peoples (which makes perfect sense to me) and he’s wrapping Pandora’s name around the names of these artists while he discloses what he would like you to believe they will make–under the current rates.
Here’s the argument: Pandora is so cool because Pandora pays all this money to artists. And now Pandora is so cool because they want to cut those payments in half by spending big lobbying bucks!! And it’s good for the artists because the benefits to Pandora (and presumably Sirius and Clear Channel) will trickle down to “middle class artists”!
Complete mindless crap, right? Only makes sense on Wall Street in the confines of the 1%.
This line of argumentation is less insidious than it is pitiful. We feel for Pandora’s lifers who are now being forced to serve The Man 2.0. It doesn’t justify being a shill for the money, but we get it.
Pandora’s Thumb on the Scales of Justice
But what is more insidious than innovation trickling down their legs is what else is in the Internet Radio Fairness Act. The Molly Starrs of this world at Pandora’s Minitrue want you to stay focused on the glittering generalities about innovation trickling down and how less is more and so on. She holds the bright and shiny object in one hand and hopes you are too dumb to notice the knife in the other.
Pandora wants to fire the judges that rule on their rates and reinstall them with judges who they must think will be more pliable. We discussed Pandora’s court packing plan already. (And they must be pretty confident that they are going to win that part because if they lose those judges they wanted to fire will be ruling on them in a courtroom near them.)
Enter Pandora the Union Buster
But here’s another even more insidious part of IRFA:
Section 5(a)(1)(B): `Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to permit any copyright owners of sound recordings acting jointly, or any common agent or collective representing such copyright owners, to take any action that would prohibit, interfere with, or impede direct licensing by copyright owners of sound recordings in competition with licensing by any common agent or collective, and any such action that affects interstate commerce shall be deemed a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1).‘.
You would not necessarily catch this unless you knew about the efforts by Clear Channel and Sirius to enter into direct license agreements with record companies and bypass SoundExchange. Direct licensing is bad because it allows the record company issuing the direct license to collect the artist’s share of revenue and apply it against unrecouped balances. SoundExchange protects the artist from this practice and pays artists directly. Plus, direct licensing essentially guts the ability of artists to audit Pandora and Sirius because SoundExchange conducts collective audits. Which of course, is an innovation that Pandora and its fellow innovators do not like one little bit.
In fact, Sirius is actually suing SoundExchange and A2IM on this basis because they allege that SoundExchange and some labels had the temerity to stand up and advise their members about the bad effects of direct licensing. (So did we: See “Clutching Forks and Knives to Eat Their Bacon: How Sirius Wants to Gut SoundExchange“.)
So what Pandora’s lobbyists are trying to accomplish here is to make it illegal with the wave of a lobbyist’s pen “to take any action [including the action of speech] that would…interfere with, or impede direct licensing by copyright owners of sound recordings in competition with licensing by any common agent or collective…”
Aside from the fact that this provision is probably an unconstitutional burden on First Amendment rights of speech and association–you know, CENSORSHIP–this provision would directly prevent artists who own their own recordings from being represented by any collective, whether it’s SoundExchange or a collective they form on their own (unions have an anti-trust exemption under the National Labor Relations Act that not even Pandora wants to touch).
And as we’ve always said, what the tech companies really want is to break up any form of collective that empowers creators and keep us all weak and alone so they can treat us how they like. If you have any doubts about this, see the Google Books case where Google lawyer Daralyn Durie tried to force individual authors to bring individual lawsuits against Google instead of acting as a class against the Leviathan of Mountain View.
According to Business Week:
Google attorney Daralyn Durie told Judge Denny Chin in federal court in Manhattan that authors and photographers would be better off fending for themselves because their circumstances varied widely, especially since the copyright issue for authors involves the display of small snippets of text.
Never fear, she was laughed out of court. That time.
So you can see how the Pandora trickle down innovation approach would further this goal of weakening artists. In fact, I’d like to hear an explanation from the Congressmen who are proudly carrying this bullying tripe, Messrs Chaffetz and Polis, as to exactly what the purpose of this section is, and what the implications are. I think you have to be kind of sick to be proud of this obscene overreach.
This collective busting section of IFRA boils down to this formula:
[People who disagree with Pandora] + [cannot interfere or impede Pandora in what Pandora wants to do] + [and they can't form a collective bargaining group] + [to do things Pandora doesn't like] = [and if they do so, or conspire to do so, it may be a crime or a violation of civil law] (See DOJ Antitrust Division Criminal Enforcement Manual.)
For example, if Chaffetz and Polis are successful in passing this bit of collective busting overreach, why wouldn’t this kind of law be used by the National Association of Broadcasters to try to prohibit ASCAP, BMI and SESAC from protecting their songwriter members in negotiations? Or empower various employer groups (public or private) to run to Congress to try to prohibit unions or collectives from advocating for their members on central commercial issues in their industries?
And like the man said:
In their sties with all their backing, they don’t care what goes on around
In their eyes there’s something lacking, what they need’s a damn good whacking.