Re: Re: Re: Computerworld gives PK a D on transparency
> Try again? What, do I need to win the approval of every anonymous commenter in the tank for PK?
You do realize that I was ironically repeating the inane bullshit that you were spouting, right? As in, "That report was retaliation for the CO's STB comments. Try again."
Also, you're wrong:
> None of the documents you reference disclose the size of Google's payoffs.
The link that I posted showed which category Google is in as far as donation money is concerned (and, again, they are in the same category as AT&T and DirecTV). This would have earned them a "B" on the exact story you quoted.
Plus, you can always look at their form 990, where it is revealed that they got about half of their donation money from entities that donated less than 2% of their total donations. (If you really want to, I'll hunt this down, but really you should be searching this out yourself.) This is exactly the sort of numbers you see with a legitimate non-profit, and that you don't see with astroturf organizations.
That NYT article is interesting precisely because it describes what a 501(3)(c) is *not* supposed to be.
Still, it's a bit misleading to describe it as a "business model," since the goal of having a business model is to make a profit.
And, of course, there's no evidence that PK does this. For example, many of its "Platinum level" donors - the same level as Google - are companies who have been lobbying *against* the FCC's set-top box proposal. (Companies like AT&T and DirecTV.)
If PK is indeed trying to be a "pay-for-play lobbying group," these guys should get their money back.
It's funny that you're constantly seeking evidence for my claims but you're unwilling to accept anything but PK's own words.
Not true. I'm also willing to accept facts. So far you have provided none. You provide blind assertions based on nothing, and ad hominem attacks.
So far, you still have provided absolutely no evidence for the notions that:
Google saw Pallante, personally, as a "threat";
Google's being threatened by Pallante was the reason that PK "attacked" her by name; because
PK is Google's "puppet."
All three things are wild accusations, thrown around by conspiracy theorists who are running a smear campaign against Google (and others they disagree with). The fact that there's no evidence for any of this (and plenty of evidence against it, some of which I've posted) doesn't matter to them.
That's not how this game is played.
What game do you think you're playing, exactly? The one where you win political points through unsubstantiated smear campaigns?
> What's your point, that PK is Google's biggest critic?
My point is that PK is not a "Google puppet," as you put it.
That idea is a pure conspiracy theory, largely originating from people who believe that anyone who disagrees with them is part of some conspiracy or other.
My advice: don't listen to them.
The fact that PK and Google agree on many (not all) positions is not evidence of a "conspiracy." It's easily explained by the fact that both the public **and** Google benefit from things like an open Internet, or less stringent copyright laws.
If you read the articles, the "multiple" sources all involve Chris Castle.
Castle is the person who started and runs the Artists Right Watch website. Castle is also the person behind Music Technology Policy. Though started by David Lowery, the Trichordist site now features more content by Chris Castle than anyone else - usually reposted verbatim from Music Technology Policy (almost certainly by Castle himself). These sources were the only ones quoted in the DMN story as supporting this conspiracy theory.
And, make no mistake, Castle is definitely a conspiracy theorist. He calls Eric Schmidt "Uncle Sugar," claims that the EFF and Public Knowledge are both "shills" of Google, and consistently repeats any anti-Google story that he sees (and never retracts them when they turn out to be false). He's the main person behind the claim that the DOJ advocated full-work licensing only because Renata Hesse recieved her marching orders from Google. (Never mind that all music users who submitted comments to the DOJ said unanimously that they believed they had always gotten full-song licensing... or that Google didn't even submit a comment). There are plenty of other examples.
Essentially, all of this is just Chris Castle sock puppetry. It's a telling failure on DMN's part that they fell for it, and are essentially helping to spread the impression that this is more than just one guy's conspiracy theory. Please, don't fall for it yourself.
(As a public service, I'm going to post this as a comment on the DMN story as well.)
Sure, people can get fooled by fake news. But what's really delicious is this:
"I knew those weren’t real protesters, they were too organized and smart," said 59-year-old Tom Downey, a Trump supporter who attended the rally in Fountain Hills. "I knew there was something up when they started shouting all these facts and nonsense like that. The best we could do was just yell and punch em' and stuff." Downey continued, "I think we did a good job though. I was shouting at them the whole time, calling them losers, telling them to get a job or go back home to mommy’s house; I got a bunch of high-fives from my fellow Trump supporters. It was a great time."
Someone on the Trump campaign read that paragraph, and said to themselves "yep, that's exactly what our supporters are like."
Well, except they aren't. That's kinda the whole point.
According to nearly every review I've seen, they're basically single-level maps that would shame even a beginning Half-Life modder, using stock (some claim stolen) assets developed by others, with counter-intuitive and unexplained game mechanics.
You certainly have a point if we're talking about AAA games (or even good indie games), but this ain't them.
Have you checked out Lowery's Trichordist site lately?
Unfortunately, yes. I need something to get me angry sometimes.
You're right, they're basically an anti-Google conspiracy site nowadays. But that's actually not so much that they're in "crazyland." Some people who write for that site (but not Lowery, AFAIK) are involved with pro-copyright astroturf groups, and they're deliberately pushing propaganda.
On example: Chris Castle used to head up Arts+Labs, an astroturf group originally started by telecom lobbyists that also supported SOPA and PIPA (and disbanded immediately after they failed). Another frequent contributor, Ellen Seidler (also of popuppirates.com and Vox Indie), is on the advisory board of Digital Citizen's Alliance, the main mover behind the Project Goliath debacle.
Still, they're good to read just to see what they're angry about, so that you can know what to actually support.
There has been an interesting development in the "100% licensing" debate.
After the DOJ ruled that the consent decrees required full-work licensing (called "100% licensing" by publishers and PRO's), BMI asked the rate court for a declaratory judgement that the DOJ was wrong.
And, now, Judge Stanton has sided with BMI, and ruled that the consent decrees do not require full-work licensing.
His reasoning is really convoluted. He takes a passage in the consent decree that is essentially a savings clause, and interprets it to mean that copyright infringement itself is not any part of the consent decree:
If a fractionally-licensed composition is disqualified from inclusion in BMI's repertory, it is not for violation of any provision of the Consent Decree. [...] It does not address the possibilities that BMI might license performances of a composition without sufficient legal right to do so, or under a worthless or invalid copyright, or users might perform a music composition licensed by fewer than all of its creators.
It should be noted that one of the reasons songwriters freaked out about 100% licensing, is that it was reported inaccurately in a wide variety of places.
Here is just a sampling:
The DOJ decided PROs and Publishers must adopt "100% Licensing." This means the person or group that controls even just 1% of a song has the authority to license the full 100% of the song, without permission from the other songwriters/owners.
The DOJ made another decision that will displease publishers: It is moving ahead with its interpretation that the two PROs must use 100-percent licensing and can no longer engage in fractionalized licensing -- meaning that any rightsholder in songs with multiple songwriters, who may be represented by different PROs, has the right to license the entire song to a user, as long as he accounts to and pays the other songwriters. [...]
Also, some wonder if this ruling will hurt or help the PROs not covered by the consent decree, like SESAC and Global Music Rights.
On one hand, it could hurt those PROs because licensees of songs with multiple songwriters would likely rather cut deals with ASCAP and BMI -- whose rates are hampered by the consent decree and rate court -- than with the two PROs that have the ability to seek market rates. In the future, digital services would only have to agree to market rates for songs 100 percent controlled by SESAC and GMR, some sources suggest.
We regard the announced intentions of the DOJ [...] to impose mandatory "full work licensing" on a copyright co-owner or co-administrator if is so requested by a copyright user, as serious injustices that will further damage the ability of songwriters and composers to earn a living through our chosen profession.
Next, what about SESAC? They are not parties to the consent decrees. But to read the "new rule that is not really a new rule" correctly, would be that if a SESAC writer composed a song with an ASCAP writer, that ASCAP would not only have the right, but the obligation to license the SESAC share, making SESAC a party to a consent decree that they never were a part of in the first place.
This is a complete violation of due process.
And finally, what about my contracts? They say that no one writer can license the work without the consent of the other writer. The DOJ’s "new rule which is not really a new rule" completely abrogates my client’s contract rights, another violation of due process.
And what’s the point of all this? It’s to lower the fees that independent PRO’s like SESAC and Irving Azoff’s fledging GMR might demand, since 100% of the licensing might be obtained from ASCAP and BMI instead. This benefits, guess who? Pandora, Siruis XM, and of course, YouTube.
Well, apparently, they were making that stuff up. The "100% Licensing" provision does not require the PRO's to license works to which they have only been granted partial rights.
Instead, it requires the PRO's to have been granted the ability to issue licenses for 100% of the song by the copyright holders themselves.
If copyright holders can't or don't want to do this, then the PRO's cannot claim that they can do so, and can't offer licenses for those songs at all. That is completely different than what was claimed.
Of course, fueling this fire was the fact that the DOJ didn't actually release its ruling until the 4th, so speculation (and the biased claims of the PRO's) was all that anyone had to go on.