Wall Street Journal Error Filled Editorial Buys Into Ridiculous Copyright Office Conspiracy Theory
from the that's-just-wrong dept
I thought we were done with this. After cooler heads prevailed, and people realized that the giant conspiracy theory over "Google's" supposed string pulling to get the Register of Copyright fired, actual reporters stepped in and discovered it wasn't true. The reasons behind the firing were much more mundane (and for what it's worth, one of our commenters has a credible explanation for how one longtime anti-Google propagandist was the key force in spreading the claim in the first place).But, the Wall Street Journal (owned by News Corp -- a company run by someone obsessed with made up stories about Google) has decided to try to put some legitimacy to the rumors by posting a ridiculous editorial fanning the already debunked conspiracy theory flames... but doing so in a hilariously uneducated fashion. Why, it's almost as if they just decided "let's bash Google" and didn't have even the slightest underlying knowledge of the facts to make their case. It starts right up top:
Most Americans think of Google as a search engine doing unalloyed social good, but the company also wants to make money and wield political influence along the way. So you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to notice that an abrupt change of leadership at the U.S. Copyright Office is good news for Google, which aims to pay less for profiting from the property of others.Actually, yes, you kind of do have to be a conspiracy theorist, because everyone who has any actual knowledge of what's gone on has said it's not even close to true. And furthermore, Google does not "aim to pay less for profiting from the property of others." Whatever legitimate complaints plenty of people may have about Google, it's focus is not on profiting off of others' content, but in "making the world's information accessible." But, of course, to a company like News Corp that has failed to adapt to the internet, and which has directly branded Google as "the enemy" it's no surprise that it would misrepresent what Google does and what it wants. But that doesn't mean it gets to make up facts. Though it tries.
There is some circumstantial evidence that Google’s lobbying influence was brought to bear in removing Ms. Pallante, though both Google and Ms. Pallante declined to talk to us. Google’s business model is essentially making money off other people’s content, and the company’s strategy has been to infringe on copyrighted material like books and fight it out later in court. The copyright office administers laws that protect owners.So, uh, once again we see the WSJ get basic factual things wrong here. "Infringe on copyrighted material like books and fight it out later in court." An honest publication would point out that Google easily won its lawsuit at both the district and appeals court level, with both saying that Google's actions were fair use and thus not infringement. For the WSJ to flat out lie and claim that Google was infringing is ridiculous. And suggests either a failure to understand the basics of copyright law, or a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts to slam Google.
And, once again, the claim that it's Google's business model to "make money off other people's content" is not true. It's not Google's business models. Google's business model is to capture people's attention by providing a search engine that gets people to reveal their preferences -- and then Google shoves ads that may be responsive to those preferences in front of them. Whatever you think of that business model, it's not what the WSJ says.
Hell, if Google's business model was really predicated off of making money on other people's content, shouldn't News Corp be beating the pants off them, since it has its own content first?
For example, Ms. Pallante’s office opposed a Justice Department interpretation of licensing that would have undercut collaborations. As it happens, that change was reportedly pushed by a former outside counsel for Google who had moved over to Justice. Ms. Pallante’s view won in court.This is a part of the propaganda myth that's made the rounds on a few sites. It ignores the fact that the fractional licensing debate was a big complex issue with many, many people arguing that the DOJ's interpretation of the consent decree was correct. Yes, one of the people at the DOJ had a very loose connection in the distant past to Google, but the idea that the DOJ was making decisions for Google is made up out of thin air. Also wrong is the idea that "Ms. Pallante's view won in court." The challenges to the DOJ's interpretation have just started. A judge has effectively put a hold on the interpretation for now, but it's far from litigated.
Again, it's as if the WSJ just got its talking points off of anti-Google conspiracy theory sites and ran with it, without bothering to check with anyone who actually understands the facts.
The conspiracy theories continue, trying to tie an offshoot Public Knowledge tweet into some sort of proof:
Something else happened in September: Ms. Pallante got a new boss when Ms. Hayden was sworn in as Librarian of Congress, a presidential appointment. Ms. Hayden formerly ran the American Library Association, which takes a permissive view of copyright law and accepts money from, you guessed it, Google. A month later Ms. Pallante was pushed out. The trade press had barely noticed the news when Public Knowledge tweeted: “Big news @CopyrightOffice today.”Um. This is ridiculous. First of all, the ALA is a widely respected organization, not one driven by Google. And Hayden was President of the ALA in 2003 and 2004 when Google had zero lobbying presence and almost certainly no direct connection to the ALA. More than two years after Hayden was no longer at the ALA the NY Times was reporting on how Google was finally taking its first baby steps (awkwardly) into the world of DC politics. The claim that her Presidency of the ALA means she's connected to Google is tripe.
As for the Public Knowledge tweet -- the very first reporting on the Pallante news included the claim that Hayden had called various trade groups (focusing on the pro-copyright ones) to let them know of her decision before the news broke. Hell, even I heard about it before the news broke from a friend in DC (who's not at Google and never worked for Google) who sent me a text message with the news about an hour before the news officially broke, and well before Public Knowledge's tweet. That's not evidence of a Google connection. That's evidence that the news of change at the Copyright Office quickly spread among the various folks working on copyright issues.
The plot here is familiar. In 2012 Google’s deputy general counsel and head of patents, Michelle Lee, was selected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to run its Silicon Valley branch—and less than two years later President Obama nominated her to lead the U.S. office. This tilt of power was remarkable: Apple’s Steve Jobs had vowed earlier to go “thermonuclear” over disputes with Google’s Android. In a strange coincidence, many such disputes were soon settled.No, it's not. Yes, Michelle Lee used to work at Google. And yes, she went to the USPTO. And since there I think she's been much better than her predecessor, but it's not like she's jumped on the anti-patent bandwagon or anything. The fact that Google's patent disputes settled (which, uh, isn't actually true) has nothing to do with Lee, who would have no power to get involved in litigation between two private companies over patents.
That's not how it works. And if the WSJ editorial board spoke to any human being who actually understood how the system worked, they'd know that.
... anyone tempted to write off the Pallante dispute as bureaucratic squabbling should remember: The company’s goal is to defenestrate laws that protect property. The guarantee to own what you create is the reason entrepreneurs take the risks that power the economy—a reason guys like Larry Page and Sergey Brin start Google.This is ridiculous. I've had plenty of conversations with policy and legal folks at Google working on intellectual property issues. And I'm much, much, much more open to the idea that we should drastically scale back those laws than anything anyone at Google has ever supported. The people I've spoken to at Google about these issues are mainly focused on making sure that copyright law doesn't get in the way of an open internet, mainly because that harms Google's search products, and not because of some innate desire to to "defenestrate laws that protect property."
Sure, this kind of conspiracy theory may make sense for silly News Corp.-owned conspiracy peddling sites, but the WSJ is supposed to be about at least moderately competent journalism, right?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: carla hayden, conspiracy theory, copyright office, library of congress, maria pallante
Companies: google, news corp., wall street journal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is an unsigned editorial, which basically means that this piece was decreed by Rupert Murdoch or some other high muckety-muck at Newscorp.
It's not an editorial so much as it is a position paper, and should be regarded as such. (The same goes for previous unsigned editorials.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, I wanted to look at it to see if there was a reference to "intellectual property" at all. From the quotes here it looks like a slant piece trying to frame people's understanding of patents and copyright to fall under normal property laws.
"Google is taking people's property, your house and car could be next!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There goes Mike "TheGoogle" Masnick getting one of his Freeloading Band of Pirates™ to try and sway blame with facts, figures, links and citations. Meh.
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok joking aside
"aim to pay less for profiting from the property of others."
Isn't that the labels whole business model?
Where is the outrage against them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok joking aside
"aim to pay less for profiting from the property of others."
So... Hollywood and the major labels then? Because those are the two that immediately come to mind when reading that line, not The Google.
Yeah, for all the 'outrage' over The Google 'trying to pay less for other people's stuff' I would certainly hope they spend just as much time going after the movie and music industry for their acts doing that very thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The WSJ's reporting section hasn't been competent since the News Corp buyout, and the editorial section hasn't been since ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the search engines can be crippled, then it becomes much more difficult for those people to find their audience, while the traditional publishers can make sure that their sites are well known to the public, via traditional advertising. This like the RIAA/MPAA constant beating of the piracy drum is an attempt to reshape the Internet into a form that they can control and use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google has several companies under the Alphabet-umbrella and the way they interact is rather underexposed. The real income-boon for Google is their advertisement as it feeds off most other parts of their internet business and they are certainly not known for being boyscouts or arguably even adhere to "do no evil".
There are other substantiated complaints against Google like the smartphone software monopoly on Samsung and how it keeps customers from uninstalling Googles bloatware, but that is not an argument here.
That Wall Street Journal are less than trustworthy is not news and that article is... Yeah, conspiratorial and extremely biased to a point where it doesn't even work as a discussion-article from a respectable source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Root your phone then install any version of android WITHOUT the google apps. Course it can make for a crappy experience but it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A CREEPY WEBSITE
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A CREEPY WEBSITE
It's just crappy scripts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A CREEPY WEBSITE
.
And one of the things I find most regrettable within a site (ANY SITE!), is "jamming" an audio/ video feed into my ears/ eyes, as soon as I come in!... and, thereby (and especially on 32bit notepad systems!), limiting one's ability to use one's OS tools! But!... even if such "wars" aren't apparent to a user... given the expansiveness of one's system!... should such "wars" be going on!
.
Not only do these sites fail to acknowledge that their preempting of my decisionmaking arbitrarily taxes my system's memory, it-- also!-- preempts my FREE CHOICE! Indeed!... IT SHOULD BE A BANNED PRACTICE! And... hopefully!... it soon will be!
.
And so... and to sum up!... in addition to third party "cookie wars" fighting for control over my system, there's this "SITE WAR" being waged against site users, in terms of netizens' control over their use of the site! STUPID! And!... this doesn't take into consideration, the protocol a Blog Hosting Service might invoke, with respect to LINKING, and, what one might offer up in commentary, respective of a given blog (e.g., invoking some BLACKLISTING PROTOCOL, because one's LINKING and/ or commentary, is viewed as "SPAM"!)! Or!... a site's denial of a given video, because you are automatically assessed as being OUTSIDE THE GEOGRAPHY OF A GIVEN SITE!! Really??
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A CREEPY WEBSITE
Wow.
based on the number of exclamations and all caps words, I think you're insurance would be screwed if this plan by insurance companies is allowed to go ahead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A CREEPY WEBSITE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A CREEPY WEBSITE
.
But!... more troubling than PTV, is a denial of one's Right to comment on a story, unless payment is received!... EVEN, IF ONE HAS PAID TO VIEW THE STORY IN QUESTION! That!... is a denial of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION!! And is something, that our "Net Gatekeepers" must SOON address!!
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A CREEPY WEBSITE
You are claiming a hecklers veto if you think that any forum should be forced to carry your speech. So long as you are free to set up your own forum, your freedom of expression is not being infringed. Also freedom of expression does not mean that anybody else has to listen to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A CREEPY WEBSITE
.
The next step, would be to address the Digital Human Rights breaches inhere within the very design of existing Clog windows within sites, that disallow linking, and "critical commentary (but, etc.!)"!... and, in addition, to putting a stop to IP address theft, and manipulation!
.
To sum up... some are of the view-- wrongly!-- that designing a P-U-B-L-I-C W-E-B-S-I-T-E, means, ONE CAN EXCLUDE WHOMEVER ONE DESIRES, FROM SUCH A SITE! And!... that whatever "rules" one wishes to I-M-P-O-S-E on "guests", are-- DE FACTO!-- J-U-S-T-I-F-I-A-B-L-E!... and F-A-I-R G-A-M-E!!
.
But!... such, would be D-E-L-U-D-E-D! And!... are no more "GUARANTEED" their "F-R-E-E-D-O-M T-O D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-E", than someone, who-- for example!-- desires to establish a restaurant, and then seeks to discriminate on who will enter their "fiefdom"!... and what the "rabble" will be "permitted" to do, in contrast to their "clique clientele"!
.
Fortunately!... and for the "S-O-U-N-D A-T H-E-A-R-T"!... such D-I-S-C-R-I-M-I-N-A-T-O-R-Y N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E is overcome, by sundry C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L S-A-F-E-G-U-A-R-D-S!!... and!... C-O-M-M-O-N S-E-N-S-E!! And although it may be the view of many-- yea, most!-- that website owners can do whatever the h*ll these desire!... that view, is-- soon!-- coming to an end! And!... in favour of C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L C-O-M-P-L-I-A-N-C-E!! It just requires a bit more time for GROWN UP THINKING... A-N-D T-O-R-T D-E-C-I-S-I-O-N-S!... to be received by "L-E-S-S-E-R M-I-N-D-S"!
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A CREEPY WEBSITE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A CREEPY WEBSITE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A CREEPY WEBSITE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The truth will out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defenestrate Laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a former periodic reader of WSJ, it pretty much hasn't been worth reading since they changed their format.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WSJ is largely correct
Google was gunning for Pallante and was out to get her fired. Hayden may have beat them to it by firing her for her own reasons - that's logically possible even if unlikely - but one way or another she was in the cross hairs.
And yes, making "all the world's information accessible" includes "profiting from other people's creations."
Who do you think you're fooling with that kind of hair-splitting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WSJ is largely correct
Can you cite any source that's not related to Chris Castle or the Trichordist?
Of course not, because Google never said anything that indicated that Pallante was a "threat."
> Google puppet Public Knowledge
The notion that Public Knowledge is a "Google puppet" is pure hokum.
The majority of their funding comes from foundations (not corporations).
And though Google does give them money, they are hardly the only ones to do so. There are about a dozen other corporations that give about as much as Google (many of whom are Google competitors, including Microsoft), and at least two dozen other corporations who give lesser but still significant amounts.
https://www.publicknowledge.org/about-us/sources-of-funding-for-public-knowledge/
> attacked her by name in its ridiculous defense of the FCC's proposed STB regulation
This is the only response I could find from Public Knowledge that is a response to the Copyright Office's attack on the FCC set-top box plan:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/press-release/public-knowledge-responds-to-copyright-office-att ack-on-set-top-box-competition
They do not attack Pallante by name. Nor is it "ridiculous;" it points out basic legal flaws with the Register's position, flaws that were pointed out by several other legal scholars:
https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/files/blogs/IP%20Professors%20Letter%20to%20Librarian%20of%20 Congress%207.22.2016_3.pdf
So, yeah, the WSJ article is still wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
• “Copyright is for the author first and the nation second.”23
• “I think the problem we have today in terms of imbalance that we might feel in the copyright statute is that we have gotten away from that equation that puts the
authors as the primary beneficiaries, followed by the public good.”24
• “Unfortunately, I start with enforcement because, if you don’t have exclusive rights in the first place, you can’t get to other questions.”25
• “The primary policy issue for us, in large part because of digital communication,
has got to be enforcement.”26
"These statements reflect the many specific examples, detailed in Section II, in which the Copyright Office has acted more as an advocate for rightsholder interests than an objective referee of copyright debates." - Public Knowledge attack on Copyright Office, https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/blog/Final_Captured_Systemic_Bias_at_the_US_Copyright _Office.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
BTW, Public Knowledge quoting her by name (and, given the quotes, deservedly so) still doesn't prove any of your points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
PK certainly didn't claim that it was "retaliation" for the set-top box comments, and the report covers much more than that.
So, do you have any actual evidence that it was "retaliation," other than vague hunches or unsubstantiated conspiracy theories?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
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:
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.
What game do you think you're playing, exactly? The one where you win political points through unsubstantiated smear campaigns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
Just for funzies, here's a list of organizations that the David Lowery and/or Chris Castle (Trichordist, Music Tech Policy, Artist's Rights Watch) have claimed are controlled by Google:
Of course, they have also claimed that NPR is in a criminal conspiracy with Vuze, that the LA Times is in collusion with Bittorrent, and that Billboard is "the PR arm of Pandora."
So, yeah, conspiracy theorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
P ardon me for citing a source that doesn't echo PK's press releases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Computerworld gives PK a D on transparency
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2838367/the-ratings-most-net-neutrality-groups-get-poor-gra des-on-transparency.html
PK gets a D from a friendly reporter. Any questions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Computerworld gives PK a D on transparency
An article from 2014, which gave PK a D back when they didn't have a working "Funders and Supporters" page...
...which they now do, which I've linked to, and here it is again:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/about-us/sources-of-funding-for-public-knowledge/
Meanwhile, in May of this year, Charity Navigator gave it 3 out of 4 stars:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12060
If you want, you can download all of their Form 990's from the NCCS:
http://nccsweb.urban.org/communityplatform/nccs/organization/profile/id/522336690/
Here's the one from 2014:
http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/522/522336690/522336690_201412_990.pdf
So, yeah, try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Computerworld gives PK a D on transparency
I guess Google is his friend mostly when it posts skewed results using search term combinations nobody else types in...
Hm. Whatever logs off to post and doesn't use his actual account for a month, and now Dick shows up. Curious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Computerworld gives PK a D on transparency
None of the documents you reference disclose the size of Google's payoffs. That's the information in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Computerworld gives PK a D on transparency
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.
So, again, you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Computerworld gives PK a D on transparency
Have fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WSJ is largely correct
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Since when was the WSJ better than this?
Declaration: I was a WSJ customer a long time ago, although still in this galaxy. When my subscription came due I didn't blink, I exited. Not one article in my field was accurate. God knows how many others were off. I thought I was getting the WSJ to learn more. Not to read more incorrect information. Hell, for that I can use the local paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Since when was the WSJ better than this?
I've never really read it, but common opinion seems to be that they were much better before Murdoch bought it. The drop in quality seems to have been rather predictable after that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"making money off other people’s content"
The bile and hatred is laid on so thick as to be laughable (not written by professional WSJ editors, I'll bet).
Google "wants to make money". As if that were unusual and evil (OMG a company that wants to make money while providing a useful service!) Horrors! What next - will they want to have fun while doing it?
They use the phrases "making money off other people’s content" and "profiting from the property of others", implying they'e doing something improper.
This from the Wall Street Journal, which like all newspapers, makes money from reporting on the activity of others!
Gah. The resentment and entitlement hurts to look at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You keep using that word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Help is on the way
http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2016/11/11/how-president-trump-could-boon-music-industr y/93558638/
Elections have consequences. Have fun, y'all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]