Australia Gives Up Any Pretense: Pushes Straight Up Tax On Facebook & Google To Pay News Orgs

from the how-dare-you-send-us-traffic-without-paying dept

Last week we wrote about France's push to force Google to pay legacy news organizations for the high crime of... sending them traffic. That was somewhat expected, as under the EU Copyright Directive, some version of this will show up in every EU country over the next few months (though France's first approach is particularly dumb). Down in Australia, they're not subject to the EU Copyright Directive, but it's not stopping them from taking the same ridiculous approach:

Facebook and Google will be forced to share advertising revenue with Australian media companies after the treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, instructed the competition watchdog to develop a mandatory code of conduct for the digital giants amid a steep decline in advertising brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.

As the article notes, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission had been working to get the media companies and Google and Facebook to come up with a voluntary plan, but since the media companies basically want it all, that hasn't worked out so well. Instead, the ACCC has now been told to just write up the plan. Make no mistake about this: this is the Australian government, at the behest of a bunch of legacy media companies that failed to adapt to the internet, now taxing Google and Facebook for sending media companies free internet traffic that those companies don't know how to monetize.

And it goes beyond just having to pay to send them traffic, it also requires Google and Facebook to let media companies know ahead of time if they're going to make any changes to their algorithms that might impact content rankings. That is ridiculous. It's basically giving news companies preferred placement in search rankings, and locking those legacy providers in. Why in the world should media companies get special access to the algorithm of either company?

Frydenberg said it was only fair that media companies that created the content got paid for it.

They do get paid for it. They decided to put content on the web. If they don't like the traffic, they can easily use robots.txt to block sites from scraping them. If they can't monetize the traffic, that's on them, isn't it?

“This will help to create a level playing field,” he said.

This is the exact opposite of a level playing field. This is basically tilting the playing field strongly towards legacy media companies in a manner that is not only silly for the internet companies, but in a manner that makes it nearly impossible for new entrants in the field, as the legacy players get an automatic boost from the free money they get from the internet companies that send them free traffic.

Filed Under: aggregation, australia, journalism, legacy, links, media, news, tax, traffic
Companies: facebook, google

RIAA Trashes Its Legacy As A 1st Amendment Supporter By Cheering On Global Internet Censorship

from the crapping-on-your-legacy dept

It appears that many people don't remember this, but the RIAA used to be a major force in protecting free speech and the First Amendment. It had many good reasons to do so, after all, since free speech is very important to all of the artists that the RIAA's labels work with. Artistic expression -- especially in the musical realm -- has frequently come under attack by politicians and, for decades, the RIAA was actually a really important player in standing up for the First Amendment. See, for example, this 1992 article in the LA Times from then RIAA President Jason Berman, in which he lists out all the ways that the RIAA has been fighting censorship. Yes, these are all specific in protecting musicians, but they were some really important First Amendment arguments to be made in these areas:

• In 1990, the RIAA kept lyric labeling legislation off the books in 22 states by implementing a state government relations program that became the RIAA's second-highest-funded program, dedicated a full-time RIAA executive, consumed more than 80% of the association's public relations efforts, mobilized grass-roots campaigns involving local retailers, artists, legislators and consumers and brought expert witnesses to testify before state legislatures.
• Again in 1991, the efforts of the RIAA's state government relations program defeated similar legislation in more than a dozen states.
• This year, the program has been broadened by recruiting local legislative councils in 14 states resulting in defeated measures in New York, West Virginia, Arizona, Illinois and Missouri while the battle continues in Massachusetts, Louisiana and Michigan.
• Throughout all of this activity, we've been a key player in opposing a federal bill creating third-party liability for sexual violence alleged to have been caused by music and other forms of entertainment.
• We are a founding member and the principal funder for Rock the Vote, the music industry grass-roots organization aimed at defeating censorship and promoting participation by young people in the democratic process.
• We formed the Coalition Against Lyric Legislation, an organization comprising more than 60 groups rallying to fight freedom of expression.
• In addition to our amicus brief on behalf of 2 Live Crew, which raised the key issues leading to their exoneration in the 11th Circuit appeal, we contributed to the cost of the defense in the case, and have also committed legal and financial assistance to retailers in Nebraska and Florida.
• Finally, we are proud to stand with the Washington Music Industry Coalition to seek a judicial declaratory ruling that the recently enacted erotic music statute is unconstitutional and should be stricken from the books.

And that's just one article -- the first I found via a quick Google search. If you were interested in these issues in the 1980s, the RIAA was very involved in protecting the First Amendment.

So it's fairly ridiculous (if entirely expected) that the modern RIAA is destroying that historic legacy of protecting free speech by now cheering on global internet censorship. As we've discussed, Canada recently launched a horrific attack on free speech, by saying that it can issue injunctions blocking entire sites globally on mere accusations of infringement. Let's repeat that: the Canadian court is saying that, even before a trial has determined if there is actual infringement, it can order sites (in this case Google) to block entire websites (not just pages involved in the infringement) -- and that it can do so globally. As we pointed out, this precedent is horrifying. What will happen when China demands all stories about Tiananmen Square be blocked globally? Or what happens when Saudi Arabia or Iran demands that pages supporting democratic reforms or LGBTQ rights must be taken down globally?

And yet, rather than condemn an overly broad ruling that will lead to global censorship, the RIAA sullied its own historical legacy and cheered on this global censorship ruling, claiming that it was "a win."

And, yes, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why the RIAA is so wishy-washy on free speech. Those earlier issues involved protecting musicians. Now, with the internet, it wants to stomp out free speech on the off chance that some of it might infringe copyrights and make RIAA members' business models somewhat trickier. But that's sad. A principled organization should stand up for what's right -- and not what's politically expedient. And, really, this ruling will almost certainly come back to bite the RIAA as well. Not only will it lead to new, helpful, innovative platforms facing global censorship, is it that hard to believe that some countries may try to censor RIAA-connected artists, using this ruling as precedent?

These days, the bosses at the RIAA have got so much "piracy-on-the brain" that they seem completely unable to (1) stick to a principled position on the First Amendment or (2) see how cheering on global censorship might come back to bite them as well.

Filed Under: censorship, copyright, first amendment, free speech, internet, legacy
Companies: equustek solutions, google, riaa

Ridiculous: SEC Boss Refused To Move Forward On Required Crowdfunding Rules To Protect Her 'Legacy'

from the her-legacy-is-a-joke dept

Earlier this year, the JOBS Act passed Congress with widespread bipartisan support, and was signed into law by the President. There were a few different pieces involved, but one that got plenty of attention was the opening up of crowdfunding for equity (i.e., owning actual shares in a company). In the US, you can't do a crowdfunding campaign that results in giving ownership in the company. Until the JOBS Act passed, that was considered a form of a public offering, which is a highly regulated area, in which you have to file all sorts of documents with the SEC, get an underwriter, go on a road show, all that fun stuff. But for smaller businesses looking to raise some money, this doesn't make much sense. The JOBS Act opened up a small sliver of space in which smaller companies could raise a little bit of money in exchange for equity. The SEC actively opposed the whole thing from the beginning, but once the bill was law, it was also tasked with setting up the rules for how it would work to limit possible fraud.

Back in August, we noted that the SEC's rules were due out any day, but had been pushed back at least a week as various state regulators argued that the whole thing was just going to be used for massive scamming. Since then the whole process has been fought over and changed numerous times. Newly released emails suggest that it wasn't because the SEC was struggling with setting the best rules possible... but because SEC boss Mary Schapiro was worried about her legacy. She's leaving the position in two weeks and apparently didn't want to put in place strict rules for fear that it would tarnish her reputation as being "pro-investor."

"I don't want to be tagged with an anti-investor legacy," Schapiro wrote in an e-mail to [Corporation Finance Director Meredith] Cross with the subject line "Please don't forward."

"In light of all that's been accomplished, that wouldn't be fair, but it is what will be said ..."

Whether or not you think the rules are good or bad, we should have SEC commissioners who focus on doing what's right... now how things are going to look on their resume when they go hunting for a job in the industry after leaving public service.

Filed Under: crowdfunding, investment, legacy, mary schapiro, sec

How IP Laws Have Locked Up Martin Luther King's Brilliance

from the sadness dept

Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day -- and there are many reasons to celebrate his legacy. But one thing that should not be celebrated is what his heirs have done with his words ever since. In the past, we've discussed how his heirs have done everything they can to try to use intellectual property laws to lock up MLK Jr.'s legacy -- and set up a toll booth to charge anyone for making use of them in any way, shape or form. The most recent episode of On The Media explored this... and also talked about how most of King's speeches were actually built off the works of others, but then (obviously) turned into something much more powerful through his detailed study and understanding of how to preach. It's a fascinating story... made ridiculously annoying by his heirs' desire to lock up and charge for King's legacy.

Filed Under: copyright, legacy, locked up, martin luther king jr.