Hi there, Welcome to the site! Do make the required post so that you can post in our requests section for exclusive invites!

Hi there, Welcome to the site! Do make the required post so that you can post in our requests section for exclusive invites!

Hi there, Welcome to the site! Do make the required post so that you can post in our requests section for exclusive invites!

Hi there, Welcome to the site! Do make the required post so that you can post in our requests section for exclusive invites!

Hi there, Welcome to the site! Do make the required post so that you can post in our requests section for exclusive invites!

Hi there, Welcome to the site! Do make the required post so that you can post in our requests section for exclusive invites!

Hi there, Welcome to the site! Do make the required post so that you can post in our requests section for exclusive invites!

Minneapolis lawyer made millions from sham porn copyright scheme A Minneapolis attorney has admitted his role in a multi-million dollar fraud targeting people who had downloaded pornographic movies. Paul Hansmeier, 37, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court on Friday to orchestrating the sham copyright scheme that he used to extort payments from victims. Along with another lawyer, Hansmeier and John Steele – who has previously pleaded guilty – created a series of sham companies that they controlled to obtain rights to porn movies, some of which they filmed themselves. They would then upload these movies to illegal file-sharing websites like "The Pirate Bay" to lure people to download them, the U.S. Attorney's Office said. Once downloaded, the pair would file a bogus copyright infringement lawsuit that masked their role in distributing the movies, and used the courts to subpoena internet companies to reveal the identities of the people who downloaded the content. They would then use phone calls and letters to threaten them with potentially huge financial penalties "and public embarrassment" unless they agreed to pay a $3,000 fee. Between 2010 and 2014, the pair made approximately $6 million from the scheme. "Paul Hansmeier’s guilty plea today closes a sad chapter in the career of an attorney who abused his license to practice law and disgraced the bar," said Special Agent in Charge of the Minneapolis Division Jill Sanborn. "Hansmeier’s role in a brazen multi-million dollar fraud scheme exploited victims by misusing his position of trust as an officer of the court. The FBI will continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners to detect crimes such as this and bring the perpetrators to justice."

As part of its dynamic improvement efforts, US movie industry trade body the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has announced the first update of its Content Security Best Practices since the formation of the Trusted Partner Network (TPN), which was launched in April 2018 in a joint venture with the Content Delivery and Security Association (CDSA), to raise and standardise the quality of assessors and to improve efficiency by reducing wasteful duplicative audits. With the launch of TPN, current and future vendor assessments will be based upon the MPAA Best Practices, which are built into the TPN platform to create its core Common Controls. CDSA’s Content Protection Standard (CPS) remains in effect for previously audited facilities through March 31, 2019. Moving forward, the Best Practices will continue to be maintained by MPAA and will be updated regularly to reflect changes in the entertainment industry’s security landscape. “This new MPAA Best Practices update finalises the programme’s transition to the TPN and reflects our association’s continued, 30-year-old commitment to strengthening security processes across production, post production, marketing and distribution,” explains TPN Chairman and MPAA Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel Dan Robbins. “The MPAA Best Practices are designed to provide current and future third-party vendors with an understanding of general content security expectations, as well as a framework for assessing a facility’s ability to protect a client’s content,” says TPN Chief Operating Officer Kurt Fischer, “Understanding and applying the MPAA Best Practices is a great way for a facility and vendor to prepare for their TPN assessment.”

Earlier this year, we wrote about a thought-provoking article by Zeynep Tufecki discussing how some people were deliberately trying to use the open "marketplace of ideas" to effectively attempt to poison the marketplace of ideas. Also mentioned in that article was an excellent Yale Journal Article called Real Talk About Fake News by Nabiha Syed, which raised similar issues, and wondered if we needed a new framework for thinking about free speech online. We later had Syed on our podcast to discuss this further. Both Tufecki and Syed were raising important, thought-provoking issues that were not at all like the usual attacks on free speech -- because neither was an attack on free speech. Instead, they were attempting to protect free speech by pointing out that the way we often frame these discussions may not be the most effective way of thinking about these issues -- and that might actually lead to the silencing of voices. This has certainly spurred many more thoughtful discussions on these topics. But... it won't surprise you that some are now looking to exploit this open discussion in their own way. The MPAA recently filed some comments with the NTIA, and what's striking about them, is how they appear to be co-opting the language of Tufecki to attack free speech online, and push for legal changes that would lead to massive censorship. But, in doing so, they claim these changes are necessary to "protect" free speech. The MPAA's VP Neil Fried also put out a somewhat snarky blog post about the filing, in which the MPAA insists that CDA 230 and DMCA 512 must be changed because "the status quo does not seem to be working." Is that so? CDA 230 became law in 1996. DMCA in 1998. Let's take a look at how movie box office revenue has been over the years since (2018 numbers are projected based on tickets so far): I don't know, Neil, but it sure looks like Hollywood is doing just fine under these conditions. But, the MPAA has basically invested so much of its identity into the idea that infringement is an existential threat, that it has to keep going with it. Remember, this is the same organization that insisted the VCR was going to be "the Boston Strangler" to the movie industry -- and that was said in Congressional testimony just four years before home video revenue surpassed box office revenue. So, the MPAA does not exactly have a credible track record on claiming that the threat of piracy is a real problem for the industry. But, it just can't let things go. So now it's trying again with this comment to NTIA. And I find it notable that it appears to be trying to co-opt the framing that Tufecki used in order to argue for a regime that would stamp out free speech online: Responsible businesses refusing to facilitate such activity are not squelching speech. They are not stifling speakers wishing to communicate ideas, but thwarting culprits engaged in malfeasance. In fact, curbing such illicit activity promotes free expression by creating a safer, virtual forum where individuals feel comfortable to engage and communicate. In this sense, it is leaving lawlessness and bullying unchecked that is chilling free speech. But, of course, a large part of the problem is that the MPAA's entire framing here is simply incorrect. It claims that platforms have no incentive to clean themselves up -- which is laughable when you consider just how far various internet companies have bent over backwards to try to appease everyone complaining about the crap on their platforms. Many of the platforms are not living up to that bargain, shielded behind the broadly interpreted limits on liability that ensure few if any consequences, and failing to apply the same innovation to address internet harms that they do to other areas of their business. This statement has zero basis in reality. Of course all of the major internet platforms regularly moderate content, and these days are under tremendous public pressure from basically all sides, to "do something" about content deemed dangerous. In fact, the worries about over-censorship from this kind of pressure and motivation is already well documented. Hilariously, the MPAA pretends that the platforms don't have much incentive to do anything -- which ignores all of the pressure from their own users, the media, politicians and more. Bizarrely, later in the filing, the MPAA admits that platforms are, in fact, moderating content heavily (something that it spends pages insisting isn't happening). Yet, when it does so, the reasoning is equally perplexing: The rebuttal is often that there is a risk that efforts to combat illicit conduct online will be overbroad, and inadvertently chill speech. But the platforms appear increasingly willing to curb things like hate speech. As odious as such speech is, it is quintessentially expressive. Efforts to combat it are fraught with challenges of under- and over-inclusiveness. Such activity is more susceptible to a chilling speech argument than attempts to curtail clearly illicit conduct, which present a brighter line. So... let's get this straight. The platforms have no incentive to get rid of illegal content on their platforms -- even though all of them do so. And, to prove that there's no problem with overbroad censorship, we'll point to the fact that they do the kind of moderation we previously said they don't... and then admit that that moderation itself is chilling speech. Incredible. The MPAA seems so wedded to its desire to take away the DMCA safe harbor and the CDA immunity provisions that it really doesn't care that no mainstream platform is eagerly courting "illegal" content. But, in order to undermine the open internet, and push for one in which all things must be licensed, it has to keep up the charade that platforms encourage illegal behavior and refuse to deal with it. And it's adopting the language of those who were trying to have a more serious conversation about dealing with bad actors online. It's the ultimate troll move.

Hopes that the safe harbour reforming European Copyright Directive would be passed by the European Parliament earlier this month were scuppered in no small part down to some last minute lobbying efforts led by Google. Now over in the US the music community fears major copyright reforms in Congress could also be scuppered by some last minute lobbying efforts, though this time by someone closer to home. A number of the organisations involved in constructing American’s Music Modernization Act yesterday hit out at the owner of licensing firm the Harry Fox Agency and collecting society SESAC. Campaigners argue that very-late-in-the-day efforts by private equity outfit Blackstone to amend the copyright reforming legislation could result in the whole act falling down at the final hurdle, preventing much needed music licensing reforms. There are various elements to the MMA – which actually brings together a number of different music-related copyright proposals – but at its core are efforts to fix the mechanical rights mess that has hindered the streaming music market Stateside. Streams exploit both the performing rights and the mechanical rights of the song copyright. In most countries there are collecting societies (often a single society) that can provide streaming services with blanket licences covering both elements of the copyright. This means a service is fully licensed for all the songs streaming on its platform, even where it doesn’t have a direct deal with a music publisher. In the US, there are four collecting societies that together represent performing rights – BMI, ASCAP, GMR and SESAC – but there is no society for mechanical rights and therefore no blanket licence available. Which means that services need to have relationships with each publisher and songwriter whose songs appear on their platform. There is a compulsory licence covering mechanical rights in the US, so the process for licensing those rights and the rates services must pay is set in law. However, services still need to identify what songs they are using and who owns them, so they can provide the paperwork and payments required by the compulsory licence. With no one-stop central database of music rights ownership information available, streaming services (and US record companies, who license mechanical rights on CDs and downloads) often rely on third party agencies to identify rights owners and do all the admin required to make sure they get paid. Agencies like the Harry Fox Agency, which used to be owned by the American music publishing sector, but which was acquired by SESAC in 2015, which in turn was bought by private equity types Blackstone last year. It has to be said that HFA hasn’t done a great job in ensuring every music publisher and songwriter has been paid their mechanical royalties, resulting in multiple copyright infringement lawsuits against its streaming platform clients, most notably Spotify. The MMA, if passed, will set up a new collecting society that will be empowered to grant a blanket licence to streaming services relying on the compulsory licence to cover song rights. It will work a lot like SoundExchange, the US collecting society that administers another compulsory licence, in that case for the exploitation of the digital performing rights that come with the sound recording copyright. This new society and licence should go some way to sorting out the massive mess that is mechanical rights licensing in the US and bring the American system more in line with what happens elsewhere in the world. Though the creation of the new society and the new licence might mean a lot less work for companies like HFA. Although said new society will need suppliers and HFA – and its competitors – could compete for that work. Either way, current HFA owner Blackstone has been busy trying to get last minute amendments made to the MMA, which was passed by the House Of Representatives in a super speedy fashion, but which is getting more scrutiny in Senate. Although its proposals are seemingly designed to mainly protect HFA’s interests, Blackstone is appealing to the innate suspicion most American politicians have for anything that looks like a monopoly. Although negotiations continue, one of the organisations backing the MMA – Nashville Songwriters Association International – said in an email to its members yesterday that what Blackstone are currently proposing will likely cause the whole act to collapse. It states: “The Music Modernization Act provides a simple answer to a very complex problem in music licensing. One of the main reasons the streaming companies have agreed to a fair rate standard that will likely result in a royalty hike for songwriters is efficiency; so they won’t have to go to a large number of multiple sources to obtain mechanical licenses. Instead they will get one blanket licence from the new Music Licensing Collective (MLC) run by songwriters and music publishers”. Regarding the new amendments now being touted, it goes on: “Blackstone’s proposal would legally require each streaming service to hire another company to issue licenses, collect and distribute royalties in addition to the MLC. This added step would be costly to songwriters, who will pay nothing to the MLC and collect 100% of their royalties, because we’ve already negotiated with streaming companies to get them to pay the admin costs!” It then adds: “This proposed amendment is an attempt to make sure the Harry Fox Agency keeps their current business by forcing the death of the MMA, or gets more business because their proposal forces streaming companies to hire an agency in addition to the MLC to issue and administrate mechanical licences”. NSAI then confirms that the Digital Media Association, which represents the streaming companies, will not back Blackstone’s proposed amendments. “Neither will music publishers, record companies, NSAI or anyone else who worked for years to create a bill that Blackstone is trying to kill at the very last minute” it then adds. Another campaigning group which has been working hard on the MMA – Songwriters Of North America – also wrote to their members and supporters yesterday about the Blackstone proposals. It states in no uncertain terms: “The performance rights organisation SESAC, along with some other very recent players, is actively pushing an amendment in the US Senate that could effectively kill the Music Modernization Act”. Noting that HFA could pitch its services to the new society that the MMA will create, it goes on: “Nothing in the MMA precludes Harry Fox from competing to become a vendor of the MLC. Vendors will be required under the new law to curate data, match claims, locate rights-holders, etc. And if they can convince the board of songwriters and publishers that they can do the best job for us, then they will get the gig. But Blackstone doesn’t want to do that. They want to kill the MLC and have the playing field all to themselves”. Referencing the recent intervention of a certain Senator Ted Cruz on all things MMA, SONA then adds: “Lucky for [Blackstone], they found a friend in one senator from Texas who loves the free market and hates government-created entities, particularly ones with the word ‘collective’ in them”. “In their amendment proposal”, SONA continues, Blackstone “describe the MLC as ‘a single, European-style government regulated monopoly… antithetical to the free market'”. This, of course, ignores the parallels between the new society the MMA will create and the very American-style SoundExchange. SONA then points out all the negotiating that has gone on at their end to ensure that self-publishing songwriters have representation on the board of the new society. “In the Blackstone amendment, an MLC governing board has little to govern”, it says. “It practically mandates that the Harry Fox Agency take the place of the MLC, and without any of the oversight and accountability that we all fought so hard for”. Although Blackstone’s intervention is about protecting the interests of its HFA business, the fallout could have a negative impact on SESAC, which relies much more on its relationships with songwriters themselves. Most collecting societies are owned by their members, making SESAC’s ownership – by private equity – unusual. If Blackstone’s wheelings and dealings cause the MMA to fall, it could make songwriters allied to SESAC question whether the owners of their collecting society really have their best interests at heart. And it’s the timing of that intervention that is proving most controversial among MMA supporters. While there may well be compromises that can be made to allay some of Blackstone’s concerns without destroying the MMA entirely, many are asking why SESAC and HFA didn’t raise these issues previously. It has been much noted how lobbying efforts to push the MMA through has seen unprecedented collaboration between organisations representing artists, songwriters, labels, publishers and streaming services. There were therefore numerous opportunities, campaigners say, for Blackstone to join this conversation when the MMA was being drafted, so that HFA and SESAC could have been part of the music community consensus in Congress, rather than leading the charge against it. This was a point emphasised by another of the collecting societies involved in this debate, BMI, which yesterday said it hoped these last minute issues could be resolved. In a statement, the society stated: “The Music Modernization Act represents an historic opportunity to enact meaningful music licensing reform. The bill is the product of unprecedented collaboration among music stakeholders and passed unanimously through the House Judiciary Committee, the full House, and the Senate Judiciary Committee”. It went on: “BMI is disappointed that at this late stage, the MMA is being endangered by last minute asks. During the long process of drafting this bill, BMI, like many others, had to compromise on certain provisions in order to achieve a final result that benefits the industry as a whole. We hope that the parties currently in disagreement can work together to resolve their issues, allowing this important piece of legislation to move forward”. For its part, Blackstone told reporters yesterday that it “strongly supports music modernisation, and we are confident legislation will be signed into law this year as long as all parties continue working in the same cooperative spirit that has characterised the process so far”. Meanwhile a spokesperson for SESAC said it was “committed to working towards a version of the Music Modernization Act that retains all of the benefits for writers, publishers and [streaming services] and which will move music licensing into the 21st Century while supporting a competitive market in music rights administration. We expect that as the Senate continues to work through these issues with input from concerned and well-meaning stakeholders, an appropriate resolution will be reached and the MMA will be passed before the end of the year”.

Elsie Fisher appears in Eighth Grade / Photo Courtesy: A24 Is the MPAA rating for Eighth Grade the reason the movie underperformed at the box office? As Eighth Grade heads into its second weekend in a wide release, the question of how well Eighth Grade will do at the box office may boil down to who CAN see it without supervision – thanks to a strange move from the MPAA, which may be to blame for the low numbers. No matter how well or poorly Eighth Grade ends its theater run, it’s difficult to doubt the hard ad campaign A24 is conducting for the Bo Burnham drama-comedy. The film has been blessed to be one of the pre-video videos when you click on a random YouTube video that, more likely than not, you have skipped to get going. Bo Burnham and the film’s star, Elsie Fisher, have gone on a well-publicized campaign across America to promote the film. A24 has put the same amount of effort into promoting Eighth Grade as they have with the acclaimed commercial success Hereditary. However, Burnham’s film has not received nearly the amount of box office success as the Ari Aster horror film. In fact, the two are not even close in terms of box office appeal. Hereditary managed to nab an impressive $13 million in its opening weekend and its strong legs at the box office helped carry it past last year’s Lady Bird to officially be crowned the highest grossing A24 film ever at almost $80 million. Quite impressive for an art-house horror film, with a D Cinemascore, of all things. Despite its polarizing reception with the general audiences, people’s fascination with the film helped contribute to the film’s unlikely success. The same cannot be said for Eighth Grade, unfortunately. Although the premise of Eighth Grade is significantly less macabre than Hereditary, the box office numbers aren’t as kind, seeing as how the film expanded into a wide release last weekend and somehow only came away with just over $2 million. That’s not to say Eighth Grade is a bomb, which it truly isn’t. The film’s estimated low-budget could be beneficial in not losing money, and though this is the first week of its wide release, it’s far from a brand-new release. The film had a limited release in a few cities at first, which managed to nab it some fairly sizable numbers (Eighth Grade currently holds the record for the best per-theater average gross of the year so far with $63, 071), which may have faded away by the time the wide release came about. There are loads of factors that lead to Eighth Grade‘s numbers, but one that I haven’t heard much mention of might have to do with the MPAA themselves. The MPAA, which are responsible for the age ratings given to art such as films, TV shows, and video games, are notoriously strict with their ratings. They view any potential profanity and language as a legitimate reason for slapping an otherwise tame film with a surprisingly mature rating. It appears to be the same case for Eighth Grade, which is currently rated R for American audiences. R for restricted implies that the film you are about to see may contain strong language, heavy drug use, sexual content, nudity, bloody and gory violence, etc. This rating is typically reserved for horror films that push the envelope or incredibly violent action films. Hereditary itself had an R-rating, which could’ve been detrimental to its success, but with the majority of people interested in the film being young adults who are old enough to see the film without supervision, the film became a success nonetheless. Eighth Grade, A24. Photo courtesy A24 via EPK.tv If that film could experience loads of success, why isn’t it the same for Eighth Grade? For one, let’s look at the premise of the film: a young girl is heading towards the end of her middle school life as she tries to deal with the problems of eighth grade before she officially enters high school. Now I will ask this: who do you think this film will resonate with the most? Burnham may try to spin it by saying that everyone will relate to Eighth Grade, but let’s be real: the film is pretty much a hilarious cautionary tale for pre-teen girls who are currently going through the same thing. The film’s protagonist isn’t even in high school, so it’s pretty obvious that this is the case. Those pre-teen girls (and boys for that matter) that Eighth Grade is appealing to may very well be interested in seeing the film for themselves. Only one problem: they can’t go in by themselves due to the film’s R rating. If you try to get into an R-rated film by yourself, you WILL be turned away (I know from experience). Eighth Grade, A24. Photo courtesy A24 via EPK.tv But the kids’ parents can take them into the movie, right? Well, they can, but that doesn’t mean every parent is going to WANT to. Sometimes parents are busy, not around, and some even follow the MPAA ratings down to a tee. If the film is rated R, parents may simply assume that the film will be a profane mess that’s trying to corrupt their children’s minds. I mean, the film has the same rating as It, the scary movie about a clown master that eats small children. “That gave my daughter nightmares for weeks. Why would I take her to see Eighth Grade?“, a parent might say to themselves. You may be thinking the comparison is silly and lacking in logic. I’m here to tell you that it absolutely is, but it’s the logic that the MPAA is going by. Eighth Grade‘s most controversial scene is a sequence in a car that might hit a little too close to home for some people, which is understandable. But by slapping the film with an R rating, the MPAA is preventing an otherwise awkward and heartwarming coming-of-age film from being easily accessible to children. Without the children to support the film, Eighth Grade could unwillingly be left in the dust. Yeah, the movie business isn’t always fair, but this is just silly. BEVERLY HILLS, CA – JULY 12: Elvis Mitchell, Elsie Fisher and Bo Burnham attend Film Independent at The WGA Theater presents screening and Q&A of “Eighth Grade” at The WGA Theater on July 12, 2018 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Araya Diaz/Getty Images) To further illustrate the silliness of the rating, I’d like to bring up another unfairly scrutinized film. The film I’m referring to is the charming holiday buddy comedy known as Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. The film, which stars comedic legend, Steve Martin, and the late, great John Candy, focuses on a father trying to make it back to his home in Chicago for Thanksgiving, all the while dealing with a good-natured, but incredibly talkative and overbearing shower curtain ring salesman, played to perfection by Candy. The film is memorable for its many quotable lines, the heartwarming performance of John Candy, and the its message of positive karma and the importance of being kind to your neighbors and acquaintances. On personal terms, I even have an old friend from high-school who claims that she STILL considers this a holiday tradition with her family, akin to something like A Christmas Story. In many ways, it is the perfect family film and one that you can introduce your child to. Except if said child tries to purchase the film at a store, they would be turned away, because this charming and emotional holiday comedy is too profane for them. Yes, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles remains one of the most perplexing and downright baffling R-rated films in existence. I don’t feel I’m exaggerating at all because for the most part, the film is tame in terms of “profane” content. The language, for the most part, is relegated to a few cheeky lines, the violence, when it appears in the film, is cartoonish and not worth shielding your child’s eyes over it and no sexual content (apart from the bed sequence with Martin and Candy, which is more awkward than disturbing). But, Steve Martin’s f-bomb tirade in the middle of the film is too much for the MPAA to handle. An R rating it is! Steve Martin’s now-infamous scene at the car rental place, where he chews out the receptionist for not receiving the car he’d wanted to rent to drive home, is quite literally the only clear reason the film received an R rating. Martin continuously says the f-word time after time in a moment of hilarious anguish, but it’s because of that one scene that the film, much like Eighth Grade, received an unwarranted R rating. Here is the clip in full to see what I’m talking about, but warning, the f-bomb is thrown out a bit, so you’ve been warned. Now sure, the scene itself does contain a fair amount of heavy swear words (though understandable, given Martin’s situation and the overall context of the film), realize that this is the film’s ONLY instance of profanity, which was enough to get it slapped with a restricted rating. Films such as Jaws and Airplane!, which contain far more mature and adult-orientated content, still have a measly PG rating to this very day. But to drive the point home, I will show one more scene from Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, one which I feel encapsulates the tone and message of the film into a perfect ending for the family to enjoy. Viewer discretion is not advised, because why would it be? If you’ve watched the clip, then ask yourself: is this a movie truly deserving of the R rating it received? A movie about a man wanting to reunite with his family and making a friend along the way is less child-friendly than something like a bloody shark film? The MPAA rating system has been flawed way before then, but this is one of the instances where the rating is simply baffling and history is repeating itself with Eighth Grade. The film’s rating is so baffling that Burnham and A24 took it upon themselves to create a special one-night screening of the film this past Wednesday in theaters across America where the rating was not enforced and tickets were free. Children could get in without supervision and finally see what Eighth Grade is really about. It’s sad that this is potentially the only way for the film to be seen by many kids and it’s not even something the company could profit off of, given that the tickets are free. Makes one wonder what exactly is child-friendly anymore, you know?

The decision by the NCC prevented the copyright body from collecting royalties on behalf of artists in the country and was put in place after COSON declined a directive asking it to organise another election following the leadership claims of two persons, Efe Omorogbe and Tony Okoroji. A group has now asked for the suspension to be reversed even as the tussle for COSON leadership remains unresolved. The NCC has now been asked by the Music Publishers Association of Nigeria (MPAN) to reconsider its position in a recent statement signed by the board of trustees’ chairman, Olumide Mustapha along with its secretary, Isioma Idigbe. “MPAN recognises that the NCC’s actions regarding COSON are well intended especially in light of the fact that the NCC under the impressive leadership of Mr Afam Ezekude has been one of the biggest contributors to the significant positive developments of copyright administration in Nigeria. “However, we believe that the NCC can achieve its objective – of ensuring rights owners and creators are well represented by their designated CMO – without adversely affecting COSON’s members who are feeling the heat of NCC’s decision to suspend COSON’s license.” Other parties to have waded into the COSON dispute include Audu Maikori, 2Baba and Victor Uwaifo. A group within COSON itself demanded that Okoroji's actions as head of the body since its creation be probed. None of the interventions so far has proven effective at resolving the issues dogging Nigeria’s most well-known collecting organisation, which has been in the news more for the conflict than for paying out royalties over the past few months. MPAN's statement added that: “The continued suspension has created uncertainty about the stability of music business in Nigeria, and is ultimately driving away much needed foreign and local investment in the music industry as funding plans literally have to be put on hold pending the resolution of this matter. “MPAN thus firmly but respectfully calls for the NCC to not throw away the baby with the bathwater and lift the suspension of COSON’s licence without further delay as MPAN, investors and thousands of helpless copyright owners across Nigeria and beyond continue to suffer otherwise.” The Nigerian Communications Commission is yet to respond.

Hytera hit by new copyright infringement claim by Motorola Solutions In another twist to the long-running legal battle between Motorola Solutions and Hytera, the former has filed a motion to add a claim for copyright infringement to its litigation pending in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Hytera. A statement from Motorola Solutions says that “The new claim asserts that Hytera has unlawfully copied Motorola Solutions’ source code into the source code used in Hytera products in violation of US copyright laws, which only became known to Motorola Solutions during hearings related to the trade secret litigation.” The original complaint in this court was lodged by Motorola Solutions back in March 2017 and it asserts that that Hytera’s two-way radios, base stations, repeaters and dispatch systems, as well as its related commercialisation and sales activities, are infringing patents owned by Motorola Solutions and using stolen Motorola Solutions trade secrets. This new claim from Motorola Solutions asserts that Hytera illegally obtained Motorola Solutions’ source code for its software computer programs – which the claimant describes as among its most confidential and carefully guarded proprietary technology – and copied portions of it verbatim into Hytera’s digital two-way radio products. According to the statement, “Motorola Solutions believes this claim represents clear additional evidence that Hytera’s employees copied Motorola Solutions’ proprietary technologies.” “In addition to its egregious patent infringement and trade secret theft, it is now clear that Hytera also committed copyright infringement by illegally copying our original source code developed by Motorola Solutions’ world-class engineers,” said Mark Hacker, general counsel and chief administrative officer of Motorola Solutions. “We are confident the District Court will agree that Hytera is a serial infringer and misappropriator of Motorola Solutions’ intellectual property. Motorola Solutions has long been a pioneering leader in technology innovation, as evidenced by the approximately 5,000 patents we have developed. We remain committed to vigorously and fully protecting our intellectual property in the United States and internationally through all available legal remedies.” In response to this development Hytera issued the following statement: "...As usual, our competitor used a procedural move for public relations as opposed to making an argument on the merits, issuing to media yet another instalment in its long-running series of press releases about its legal manoeuvres. "MSI [Motorola Solutions] filed its motion almost a year after its attorneys were granted access to Hytera’s source code and after Hytera filed a summary judgment motion that would end the case. Given the timing of the motion, coming just before an expected decision on Hytera’s motion, this latest act shows desperation, and Hytera will oppose it. "MSI's motion is especially suspect because it follows on the heels of MSI’s failed attempt to convince the Court to allow it to examine computers at Hytera's offices in China. The Court called this request inappropriate and unnecessary: 'Parties are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to investigate the relevant facts—and no more,' the Court noted, adding, 'While the inquiry should have been uncomplicated, it has become a long, drawn out, pitched battle … to rival the Punic Wars — albeit without the elephants and the Alps and the sheer drama.' At Hytera, we could do without the drama. "MSI seems to have changed its strategic focus from innovation to litigation. Facing Hytera’s swift growth in technical innovation and market penetration globally, MSI is trying to strangle competition with series of sham litigations. And while the industry and today's LMR users are looking for innovative products, MSI seems to be seeking to distract the market's attention with its orchestrated lawsuits to defame its challengers. "We at Hytera remain committed to improving our products every year, even if we have to do so while continuing to battle MSI in court." Two initial decisions have been made recently in Motorola Solutions’ favour against Hytera – both in relation to patent infringement complaints

European Parliament building in Strasbourg, France. Image: vlastas/Shutterstock EU copyright proposals have run into trouble, but what will follow the summer controversy? In a few weeks, EU lawmakers are set to revisit the controversial digital copyright proposals that caused consternation in early summer. In June, MEPs initially voted to approve the new legislation, but pushback from the general public saw them decide to reopen the debate in September of this year. Article 13 (or upload filtering) was protested by many due to the changes it could spell for digital content creators and user-generated content, while Article 11 (the link tax) was criticised for its vagueness and potential for abuse by political administrations. Internet pioneers such as Tim Berners-Lee were critical of Article 13 in particular. EU copyright regulations are a contentious issue The events have polarised many, from musicians who say the new rules will create a fairer marketplace, to online creators who fear a stifled internet could be on the cards. Siliconrepublic.com spoke to Christiane Stuetzle of Morrison & Foerster about what might happen next. An expert lawyer in areas such as intellectual property, entertainment, media and corporate law, Stuetzle described the initial proposals as “half-cooked”. Christiane Stuetzle. Image: Ripp Media Article 13 needs work Article 13 is a particularly sticky element of the legislation, according to Stuetzle. “I think there are so many business models that it is hard to define under one article and to which models it applies to.” While she said it is important that originators of content are looked after, she noted that an examination of the various business models would be useful in creating a more practical solution. “A better outcome could be achieved.” Stuetzle said that lobbying by both sides is likely to continue and intensify over the next while, but those hoping for the book on the issue to be closed this coming autumn may not be pleased. According to her, “we won’t have a result in September”. The pivotal plenary session of the European Parliament will run from 10 to 13 September. The discussion of copyright in the EU and vote begins on 12 September, so it will not be long before we see whether more practical and usable systems have been created.

Music Copyright is one of the most important concepts for musicians. It’s how you get paid for your music and how you protect the music you’ve worked so hard on. But it’s also really confusing… Without the help of a music lawyer, the ins-and-outs of copyright are tough to figure out on your own. Which is why we spoke to music attorney Mark Quail to help clear up some of the confusion around music copyrights, and help you get a handle on your intellectual property. Quail has been practicing music law since 1990. He currently advises leading electronic musicians Richie Hawtin, Dubfire, Art Department, John Acquaviva, Matador, Pleasurekraft, Mathew Jonson and Shaun Frank. Quail also sits on the executive and advisory board for the Association for Electronic Music and hosts the successful The Music Law Podcast. In other words, he knows music law inside and out. Quail took time to answer the most important questions about music copyright and how they impact getting paid for your music. What is music copyright? Music Copyright is the set of rights granted by your country’s government for the intellectual property (music) you create. Each country has different variations on the rights granted. But they all exist to help you control what you’re able to do with your song or recording, who can and can’t exploit your work for profit, and how you get paid for your music. Music Copyright is the set of rights granted by your country’s government for the intellectual property (music) you create. What are the types of musical copyright? There are two separate forms of music copyright: The copyright covering the song (sometimes called the composition) The copyright covering the recording of that song (sometimes called the master) These two copyrights can be owned by two separate parties. For example: Bob Dylan wrote the song “All Along The Watchtower”, recorded it and released it via his record label. When people bought that record, Dylan earned royalties from the exploitation of his copyright covering the composition and the recording. Jimi Hendrix also made a recording of the song “All Along The Watchtower”. When people bought Hendrix’s version, he received royalties for the exploitation of his copyright covering the recording, while Bob Dylan got paid for the exploitation of his copyright in the song. By recording and releasing his own version of “All Along the Watchtower,” Hendrix was exploiting Dylan’s composition copyright. Dylan’s composition copyright ensured that he was still getting paid for his original work. How do I copyright music? In the US and Canada copyright applies immediately when you complete a song and “fix” it in some form like writing it out in sheet music or recording it on a physical medium like a hard drive or tape. Applying a copyright notice to your work isn’t mandatory (more on this below). But officially applying for a copyright registration can help if someone is looking for who to contact if they want to ask for permission to exploit your work. A copyright notice in the following format would be satisfactory for a song: © Songwriter name(s) and the year. A copyright notice in the following format would be satisfactory for a recording: ℗ Name of recorded master owner and the year. In the US and Canada copyright applies immediately when you complete a song and “fix” it in some form. If you want to get the maximum protection made possible by the applicable laws, (for example: court awarded money damages in an infringement lawsuit) you need to register your work with the applicable governmental office in your country. For more information visit the US or Canadian copyright registration resources. What rights does my music copyright cover? What your copyright covers depends on what your country’s copyright statutes and laws provide. Most copyright laws typically give you control over what you can do with your work, and what you can stop others from doing if they try to exploit your work without your consent. The most common rights covered are: The right to make copies/reproductions The right to sell your work The right to adapt your work The right to license your work The right to perform, broadcast or transmit your work For more information about intellectual property visit the US or Canadian copyright sites. Do I have to register my music copyright? Not necessarily. In Canada and the US copyright arises on completion of the work as long as you have it fixed in some medium—not just an idea in your head. In Canada and the US copyright arises on completion of the work as long as you have it fixed in some medium—not just an idea in your head. But if you want to get the maximum protection for your copyright, and provide a way for people to contact you about using your work, you need to register your music with your country’s copyright office. How does music copyright impact how I get paid for my music? A music copyright provides you with rights for your intellectual property that are similar to other property rights. Just like the type of property that you can hold in your hand, the concept of copyright permits you to sell your music, give others permission to use your music or restrict others from exploiting your intellectual property without your permission. Getting paid for your copyrights can take on many forms. Getting paid for your copyrights can take on many forms. The most common ways to earn money from the use of your copyrights is in the form of streaming royalties, downloaded files, appearances of the record as part of a movie or in a video game and performances on radio or at a live concert. Remember, the song that’s on those recordings also earns money from those sources. How do I make sure I’m getting all my royalties? How the money flows to you takes on many forms as well. There are many administrators worldwide who facilitate payment from these varying uses to you, the copyright holder. They include: Performing rights organizations like BMI, ASCAP, SOCAN, GEMA, SACEM and PRS depending on your country Music distribution companies Record companies Neighbouring rights societies like SoundExchange, CONNECT Music and PPL. These entities collect money from all parties who use music like radio stations, online music streaming services, digital download retailers, movie theatres, restaurants and disperse that money to the copyright owners. Learn more about Mark Quail’s practice here and listen to The Music Law Podcast for more info on music copyright law. Follow Mark on Twitter and Instagram. Learn about distributing your music online and how releasing with LANDR works for your copyrighted music.

from the mickey-mouse-is-a-hypocrite dept Here's one that might create a bit of a stir. The history of the 20th century and maximalist, ever expanding copyright is often associated with one particular company: Disney. I mean, the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) is regularly called the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" and Tom Bell once created this lovely Mickey Mouse Curve showing how copyright terms always seemed to expand just before the original movie starring Mickey, Steamboat Willie was about to enter the public domain: This pattern might finally (miraculously) end this year -- but not because Disney has become enlightened. Rather, it's mainly because Disney's lobbying influence is not what it once was, and SOPA seemed to make both Congress and the legacy entertainment industry realize that they would almost certainly lose another such fight on an issue like this (not that there weren't attempts to slip provisions into trade agreements that had the potential to expand copyright terms). However, it does seem notable -- as first spotted by Eriq Gardner at The Hollywood Reporter -- that Disney has now been put in the possibly awkward position of complaining about "overzealous copyright holders," and talking about the importance of user rights and fair use to protect free speech and the First Amendment. No, really. Disney, of course, owns ABC. Back in May (though the complaint appears to incorrectly state March), ABC aired a two-hour program entitled The Last Days of Michael Jackson. The Michael Jackson Estate was not pleased and sued for copyright infringement. The complaint itself is quite a read. It completely mocks the program in question: Although titled The Last Days of Michael Jackson, the program did not focus on Michael Jackson’s last days. Rather, it was simply a mediocre look back at Michael Jackson’s life and entertainment career. A Rolling Stone review described the program as “offer[ing] little in the way of new revelations or reporting and at times seems heavy on armchair psychoanalysis and unsupported conjecture.” The magazine was being too generous. The program contained nothing “in the way of new revelations or reporting.” It also digs deep on Disney's well-known history for maximalism: Disney’s media business depends on its intellectual property and, more specifically, the copyrights it holds in its well-known characters, motion pictures, music, and the like. Disney has never been shy about protecting its intellectual property. Indeed, its zeal to protect its own intellectual property from infringements, real or imagined, often knows no bounds. a. Disney has threatened to sue independent childcare centers for having pictures of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck on their walls, forcing them to remove all pictures of Mickey or Donald—and other anthropomorphized mice or ducks—rather than face ruinous litigation from one of the world’s largest corporations. b. Disney once sued a couple on public assistance for $1 million when they appeared at children’s parties dressed as an orange tiger and a blue donkey. Apparently, these costumes cut too close to Tigger and Eeyore for Disney’s tastes. c. Disney takes a very narrow view of copyright law’s “fair use” doctrine. For example, just a few years ago, it sent DMCA takedown notices to Twitter, Facebook, and other websites and webhosts, when consumers posted pictures of new Star Wars toys that the consumers had legally purchased. Apparently, Disney claimed that simple amateur photographs of Star Wars characters in toy form infringed Disney’s copyrights in the characters and were not a fair use. It's hard to deny any of the above. And thus, the complaint, with a healthy dose of snark, notes Disney's fairly blatant hypocrisy: Like Disney, the lifeblood of the Estate’s business is its intellectual property. Yet for some reason, Disney decided it could just use the Estate’s most valuable intellectual property for free. Apparently, Disney’s passion for the copyright laws disappears when it doesn’t involve its own intellectual property and it sees an opportunity to profit off of someone else’s intellectual property without permission or payment. It claims "at least thirty different copyright works" were used without permission. These included clips from songs and music videos, concert footage and the Jackson Estate's own documentary footage. So now Disney has answered and finds itself, quite incredibly, arguing against overzealous copyright holders and about the importance of protecting the First Amendment from being harmed by excessive copyright claims. Literally. This case is about the right of free speech under the First Amendment, the doctrine of fair use under the Copyright Act, and the ability of news organizations to use limited excerpts of copyrighted works—here, in most instances well less than 1% of the works—for the purpose of reporting on, commenting on, teaching about, and criticizing well-known public figures of interest in biographical documentaries without fear of liability from overzealous copyright holders. I agree with everything in that paragraph. I'm just shocked that it's Disney stating this. Disney is not the most credible defender of the First Amendment and fair use. Nor is it the most credible defendant to be yelling about overzealous copyright holders. Throughout the answer to the complaint Disney insists that its uses of the Michael Jackson works "were included in the Documentary on a transformative and fair use basis." Without having seen the documentary, it's impossible to say whether or not the uses truly qualify as fair use, though the argument that they are sounds reasonable. But the idea that Disney is the one fighting for fair use and against overzealous copyright holders remains stunning and bizarre. I'd like to believe this is Disney coming to its senses and making amends for the century of harm its done thanks to copyright, but it seems much more likely that this is just an opportunistic defense of fair use, and the company remains firmly in the camp of supporting ever expanding copyrights. I wonder how Disney would feel if someone showed up to future hearings in the case wearing an unauthorized Mickey Mouse costume?

Too often Techdirt writes about changes in copyright law that are only for the benefit of the big publishing and recording companies, and offer little to individual creators or the public. So it makes a pleasant change to be able to report that South Africa's efforts to update its creaking copyright laws seem, for the moment, to be bucking that trend. Specifically, those drafting the text seem to have listened to the callsfor intelligent fair use rights fit for the digital world. As a post on infojustice.org explains, a key aspect of copyright reform is enshrining exceptions that give permission to Internet users to do all the usual online stuff -- things like sharing photos on social media, or making and distributing memes. The South African text does a good job in this respect: A key benefit of the Bill is that its new exceptions are generally framed to be open to all works, uses, and users. Research shows that providing exceptions that are open to purposes, uses, works and users is correlated with both information technology industry growth and to increased production of works of knowledge creation. The solution adopted for the draft of the new copyright law is a hybrid approach that contains both a set of specific modern exceptions for various purposes, along with an open general exception that can be used to assess any use not specifically authorized: The key change is the addition of "such as" before the list of purposes covered by the right, making the provision applicable to a use for any purpose, as long as that use is fair to the author. In order to test whether a use is fair, the standard four factors are to be considered: (i) the nature of the work in question; (ii) the amount and substantiality of the part of the work affected by the act in relation to the whole of the work; (iii) the purpose and character of the use, including whether -- (aa) such use serves a purpose different from that of the work affected; and (bb) it is of a commercial nature or for non-profit research, library or educational purposes; and (iv) the substitution effect of the act upon the potential market for the work in question. Crucially, the legislators rejected calls by some to include a fifth factor that would look at whether licenses for the intended use were available. As the infojustice.org post points out, had that factor been included, it would have made it considerably harder to claim fair use. That's one reason why the copyright world has been pushing so hard for licensing as the solution to everything -- whether it's orphan works, text and data mining, or the EU's revised copyright directive. That rejection sends an important signal to other politicians looking to update their copyright laws, and makes the South African text particularly welcome, as the infojustice.org post underlines: We commend its Parliament on both the openness of this process and on the excellent drafting of the proposed fair use clause. We are confident it will become a model for other countries around the world that seek to modernize their copyright laws for the digital age. However, for that very reason, the fair use proposal is like to come under heavy attack from the copyright companies and their lobbyists. It remains to be seen whether the good things in the present Bill will still be there in the final law.

Years after his smash hit, 'One Time' was first released, rapper Kiernan 'AKA' Forbes is still facing a copyright lawsuit regarding the 1980's track he sampled for the song that was first lodged in 2016. According to a report published by Sowetan, Enos Thembinkosi Lubisi, one of the members of an 80s group called Future, claims that AKA's 'One Time' was adapted from his hit song, Party Weekend. Sony Music South Africa is also involved in the case because Lubisi alleges that they are trying to hijack the copyrights of the song by claiming that he signed over its rights to them. Lubisi has since filed papers at the South Gauteng High Court and asked the court to declare him the sole copyright-holder of both songs due to the fact that never gave anyone any permission to rework the song nor did he sign away his rights to it. Daily Sun once reported on AKA admitting to using some of Lubisi's work and offered to apologise to him for not crediting the 68-year-old producer. In the same report, AKA claimed that he wanted to credit the producer, but struggled to locate him. Despite the drama, Lubisi told Daily Sun that he loved what AKA did with his version of the song, stating "I like the way he sings. His song reminds me of the music made in the '80s. I am pretty impressed with him. But next time he must give credit where it is due." The pair eventually met and Lubisi stated that he and AKA entered into an agreement with Universal Music South Africa to share the proceeds generated by AKA's song in terms of violation of his copyright. The agreement was later reneged on after Sony Music South Africa approached Universal and claimed that the song belonged to them and that Lubisi signed over the song to MINC. According to Sony, MINC ceded all their rights to EMI, which was eventually taken over by Sony. Lubisi denies this, stating that he had never dealt with any of the aforementioned companies before. Universal Music's Managing Director, Ryan Hill, told Sowetan that they were under the impression that Lubisi had reached an agreement to give the artist 60% of the composer rights to the track. Hill went on to add, "this was signed by Universal and AKA and was sent to Sony for their [perusal] and Lubisi's signature. Universal has not been advised by anybody that the dispute was not resolved." Sony Music's legal department said they did not receive any court papers and could not comment.

By Chris Cooke | Published on Friday 17 August 2018 European Commission Before attention formally returns to the draft European Copyright Directive next month, the Pirate Party’s representative in the European Parliament – Julia Reda – is hoping to get opponents to the more controversial elements of the proposals out onto the streets. The copyright reforming directive has been in development for years, of course. For the wider music industry, the focus has been article thirteen, which seeks to increase the liabilities of user-upload platforms like YouTube. Such platforms currently claim protection under the so called copyright safe harbour, which means they can’t be held liable for copyright infringing material uploaded by their users, providing they offer copyright owners some kind of content takedown system. The music industry argues that YouTube has exploited the safe harbour to force record labels, music publishers and collecting societies into signing unfavourable licensing deals. The music industry’s multifarious trade bodies have been lobbying hard for article thirteen, which has proven to be (along with article eleven) the most controversial of all the elements of the new directive. Much ground had been made, first to get article thirteen included at all, and then to revise it in a way that the music industry reckoned would achieve its objectives. But MEPs like Reda forced the latest draft of the directive to a vote of the full European Parliament last month where it was voted down, 318 against versus 278 in favour. In the run up to that vote the tech lobby went into overdrive to try and convince MEPs to block the directive, mainly because of articles eleven and thirteen. Since the vote, the music industry has been very critical of tactics employed by the tech lobby, and especially big bad Google, in the weeks prior to the vote. Their campaigning, it’s argued, misrepresented what article thirteen is really about. Meanwhile opponents presented themselves as mere concerned internet users – when many were in fact funded by billion dollar tech giants – and used technology to artificially amplify their voice. David Lowery’s The Trichordist website has run a number of articles exploring these tactics, all of which make for very interesting reading. Meanwhile The Times reported earlier this month how “Google is helping to fund a website that encourages people to spam politicians and newspapers with automated messages backing its policy goals”. The newspaper put the spotlight on an organisation called OpenMedia, which counts Google as a platinum supporter, and which was also analysed by The Trichordist. The Times wrote: “The campaigning site is intended to amplify the extent of public support for policies that benefit Silicon Valley”, before confirming that “the tools were recently used to bombard MEPs with phone calls opposing EU proposals to introduce tighter online copyright rules”. Shortly before last month’s vote on the copyright directive, UK Music boss Michael Dugher hit out at Google’s behaviour amid various reports regarding the scale of the web giant’s direct and indirect lobbying efforts in Europe, including a direct 5.5 million euro spend on lobbying activity in the EU. He stated at the time: “Google has made vast sums of money behaving like a corporate vulture feeding off the creators and investors who generate the music content shared by hundreds of millions on YouTube. These EU copyright changes are aimed at ending an injustice that has seen Google’s YouTube and other big tech firms ripping off creators for far too long”. He went on: “These new figures expose the fact that Google is acting like a monolithic mega-corp trying to submerge the truth under a tsunami of misinformation and scare stories pedalled by its multi-million propaganda machine. Instead of mounting a cynical campaign, motivated entirely out of its self-interested desire to protect its huge profits, Google should be making a positive contribution to those who create and invest in the music”. Following last month’s vote, the directive is now heading back to the European Parliament for more debate on 12 Sep. Behind the scenes lobbyists on both sides are concurrently seeking a possible compromise while also rallying their troops and launching publicity campaigns in the run up to the next parliamentary session. With that in mind, those who oppose articles eleven and thirteen – which they usually respectively dub as the ‘link tax’ and ‘upload filter’ articles – are planning public protests on 26 Aug in various European cities, including Berlin, Ljubljana, Prague, Stockholm, Vienna and Warsaw. While calling on people to join these protests, Reda has also hit out at the claims that automated tools – like those offered by OpenMedia – were used to make it look like opposition to the copyright directive was much more widespread than it really is. She recently wrote on her blog: “We haven’t won yet. After their initial shock at losing the vote in July, the proponents of upload filters and the ‘link tax’ have come up with a convenient narrative to downplay the massive public opposition they faced. They’re claiming the protest was all fake, generated by bots and orchestrated by big internet companies”. She went on: “According to them, Europeans don’t actually care about their freedom of expression. We don’t actually care about EU lawmaking enough to make our voices heard. We will just stand idly by as our internet is restricted to serve corporate interests. People across Europe are ready to prove them wrong: they’re taking the protest to the streets”. It remains to be seen how many real people take to the bot-free streets of Europe later this month. Meanwhile, the music community should expect rally calls from their representatives and lobbyists in the coming weeks ahead of next month’s European Parliament debate.

In an endeavor to expedite the process of registration and to digitally empower its stakeholders, the Copyright Office has decided to process applications electronically which were received online on or after June 01, 2018. The Copyright Office will be now communicating the discrepancy observed during examination of the Copyright Applications to the Applicant on its Email ID registered with the Copyright Office. The Applicant can now upload the reply to the discrepancy letter on the website of the Copyright Office by using its Copyright Login Account. A detailed procedure of uploading reply to the objection letter is available on the website of Copyright Office at “Document upload Manual”. Link for the same is: http://copyright.gov.in/ The Public Notice dated July 06, 2018 can be accessed here.

It was Aretha Franklin’s first No. 1 hit, the cry of empowerment that has defined her for generations: “Respect.” ASSOCIATED PRESS A sign in memory of Aretha Franklin is displayed at Cobo Center in Detroit on Thursday. It was Aretha Franklin’s first No. 1 hit, the cry of empowerment that has defined her for generations: “Respect.” But for the roughly 7 million times the song has been played on American radio stations, she was paid nothing. When Franklin died Thursday at age 76, fans celebrated the song all over again as a theme for the women’s rights movement. But in the music industry, “Respect” has also played a symbolic role in a long fight over copyright issues that, advocates say, have deprived artists like Franklin of fair royalty payments. Under an aspect of copyright law that has long irked the record business, American radio stations pay only the writers and publishers of a song, not the artists who perform them. “Respect” was written by Otis Redding, who sang it as a man’s demand for recognition from his wife. Franklin turned the song upside down — or right-side up — and took it to heights Redding never dreamed of. But every time the song is played on the radio, Redding’s estate — he died in a 1967 plane crash — has been paid. Franklin never was. Efforts to change the law go back decades, with “Respect” often held up by the music industry as Exhibit A for why it was unfair. But broadcasters, a powerful lobbying group, have successfully argued that performers already benefit from the promotion they receive from radio play. “Some recordings more clearly highlight the inequity of the laws, and ‘Respect’ is one of the best examples,” said Mitch Glazier, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, a trade group representing the major labels. In recent years, “Respect” has also become a battle song in a fight over digital rights. Laws passed in the 1990s let performing artists collect royalties from internet and satellite radio, but songs were exempt if they were recorded before a change in federal copyright law took effect in 1972. A 2014 bill to change that was named the Respect Act in honor of the song, which Franklin recorded in 1967. A lobbying campaign was titled “It’s a Matter of R-E-S-P-E-C-T,” with Franklin’s approval. And a current bill in Congress, the Music Modernization Act, would force digital radio services to pay royalties for songs recorded before 1972. But as the bill has encountered opposition in the Senate, Franklin has again become a face for musicians’ anger. After Sirius XM announced a tribute to Franklin on Thursday, David Lowery of the band Cracker, an outspoken artists’ rights advocate, protested on Twitter. “Best way to pay RESPECT?” he wrote. “Pay her!” The satellite service Sirius XM agreed in a settlement three years ago to pay record labels more than $200 million for its use of songs created before 1972, and to enter into new licensing deals, which would benefit performers like Franklin. But it has opposed the bill because it exempts terrestrial radio from the payments. “Respect” entered Franklin’s repertoire at a pivotal moment in her career, as she was leaving Columbia Records for Atlantic, where she became a national star. Redding’s “Respect” had reached No. 4 on the R&B chart in late 1965. “I liked his version,” Franklin told The Washington Post in 1987. “Of course, I felt I could bring something new to it.” According to David Ritz’s biography “Respect: The Life of Aretha Franklin,” the song was already part of her live show by 1966. In the book, producer Jerry Wexler recounts a conversation with Ted White, Franklin’s husband and manager at the time. Wexler was looking for songs for Franklin, and was fine with “Respect” as long as she “changes it up from the original.” “You don’t gotta worry about that, Wex,” White replied, according to the book. “She changes it up all right.” Franklin made small but crucial adjustments to the lyrics. Where Redding sang, “Do me wrong, honey, if you wanna / You can do me wrong, honey, while I’m gone,” for example, Franklin sang: “I ain’t gonna do you wrong while you’re gone / Ain’t gonna do you wrong ‘cause I don’t wanna.” She also added what became the song’s signature line: “R-E-S-P-E-C-T / Find out what it means to me.” Franklin’s reinvention of Redding’s song has continued to fascinate critics. Peter Guralnick, author of books like “Sweet Soul Music Rhythm and Blues and the Southern Dream of Freedom,” noted that she transformed the original meaning “not so much by changing the lyrics, as by the feeling that she imparted on the song — so that ‘Respect’ became a proclamation of freedom, a proclamation of feminism, a proclamation of an independent spirit.” While the song has been used as a PR weapon in the industry’s policy wars, Franklin usually remained uninvolved. The song was lucrative for her in other ways, including record sales and concerts. In an interview today, Ritz said he was not aware of any opinion that she had about royalties for “Respect” but said “she felt exploited” by the industry in general. The Universal Music Publishing Group, which controls Redding’s songwriting copyright, declined to say how much the song has earned. But licensing agency BMI said “Respect” had been played 7.4 million times on commercial radio stations in the United States since it was released. Barry Massarsky, an economist who specializes in valuing music catalogs, estimated that over the past five years alone, “Respect” has earned about $500,000, about 40 percent of that from commercial radio and the rest from television and streaming services. For streaming services like Spotify, their use of songs, old or new, is covered by licensing deals that do generally benefit performers like Franklin. Those services have seen a surge in interest in her music since her death: “Respect” was streamed on Apple Music more than half a million times worldwide on Thursday, the service said. A spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents radio stations, declined to comment. But the organization has long opposed proposals to create a royalty for performing artists. A document on the organization’s website says that such new royalties “could reduce the variety of music radio stations play, and all but eliminate the possibility of new artists breaking onto the scene.” Redding’s heirs may profit from the song, but his estate — including his daughter, Karla Redding-Andrews — has supported changing the law covering pre-1972 songs. Jeff Jampol, who manages the estate, said that for artists like Franklin and Redding, unfair financial treatment was built into the fabric of their early careers, and the music industry has not fully made amends. “The record business has a long history of treating artists like chattel slavery,” Jampol said. “We’ve grown out of those dark ages a bit, but when it comes to actually paying them fairly, that is the last needle to move.”

Nintendo’s copyright lawsuit actions push the retro gaming site, The Iso Zone to shut down Last month, we had reported that Nintendo, the Japanese gaming company behind the popular game like Nintendo Switch, had filed lawsuits against two ROM-hosting websites, LoveROMs.com and LoveRETRO.co for copyright and trademark infringement. While LoveROMs closed down completely, LoveRETRO decided to “shut down until further notice”. Meanwhile, The ISO Zone, another retro gaming site, too decided to follow the footsteps of the above two ROM-hosting websites and pull-down curtains on its site, reports TorrentFreak. In fact, last week, EmuParadise, one of the web’s longest standing emulator and ROM (Read Only Memory) download portals, announced that it will no longer offer ROM downloads in light of Nintendo’s lawsuit against retro video game emulator sites. EmuParadise had been serving the retro-gaming industry for the past 18 years. In a statement released on its site, The Iso Zone said it wanted to “address the elephant in the room”. The statement by the company read: Hi folks, We thought we would issue a statement regarding speculation so everyone has the full picture. First of all, we would like to address the elephant in the room: Copyright Infringement Copyright infringement laws vary from country to country, but the premise in a nutshell is that copyright infringement is the cause of monetary loss or damage to the copyright holder. With retro gaming, there are no ways of purchasing the games – let alone the systems to play them on – in a way that would still generate the copyright holders revenue. None whatsoever. This is why retro roms have always been a grey area. The distribution of their works, although frowned upon, were never actioned against as in a court of law that is what they would have to prove – Monetary loss or damages. And they couldn’t – Because it’s simply not true. Trademark infringement is also another story, however we were also pretty strict when it came to this – as per our list of restricted trademarks. We had this in place long before many retro sites started panicking. HOWEVER – That stated – Times are changing. There are now growing ways of obtaining these retro titles through avenues which DO benefit the copyright holders and it seems clear due to recent events, that there are a lot more avenues in development. This is why we decided to throw in the towel of our own accord. It was a good ride and it was a just ride, however, it is clear that in the not so distant future, distributing retro titles could be a serious case of copyright infringement. That doesn’t mean they will get it right though – Chances are they wont. We have ideas on how the archiving of retro titles and the pleasing of the copyright holders should be done and would love to pursue it eventually. We think the webmasters of retro rom sites should come together and work with the copyright holders. It does not have to be this hard – And criminals should not be made out of passionate enthusiasts. Take Spotify for example. Spotify has dominated the music industry and they started with scene release MP3 files. Their affordability, selection and ease of use then pretty much stopped all serious cases of online music piracy. The similarities are astounding. It’s time there was a happy medium like Spotify for retro gaming. Moving on… We would like to explicitly state that we are not re-branding or moving, despite the general consensus. There is a new project underway by retro gaming enthusiasts to rebuild our original archive. And we wish them well. Thanks for playing! TiZ In other words, TiZ is hoping to see a medium like Spotify for retro games. Also, with retro gaming enthusiasts coming together for a new project, one could see The ISO Zone’s ROM archives getting rebuilt and made available to the public.

The "Rick and Morty"-themed pop-up bar that opened Thursday has been shuttered due to copyright issues. Drink Company, which ran the bar, said Turner Broadcasting and Cartoon Network, which airs the popular sci-fi show, wanted "exorbitant" fees to continue operating. The bar features decorations and imagery from "Rick and Morty," including wall paintings and hand-sewn plushes of characters, News4's first look showed. "Wubba Lubba Dub PUB was designed by fans for fans," a statement from Drink Company read. "We are fans geeking out."

Chefs and avid restaurant diners may want to follow an issue that has the legal community abuzz. A new and curious recent court ruling over cheese has broad ramifications for the food industry as we know it. The question at hand: is it possible to copyright taste? Although the subject matter of sensory copyright is vast and often confusing to those outside the legal community, the case of Heks’nkaas (“witches’ cheese”) is an interesting one. According to the company, Levola, who bought the recipe for the cheese spread from a local grocery in 2011, it should be allowed to copyright its cheese spread due to its unique taste. The case was initially dismissed, but has been brought before another court, The District Court in The Hague to revisit the ruling. What will a cheese ruling in the Netherlands mean for the larger idea of food copyright? Photo from Shutterstock. In the world of food, distinctions can be made in many ways. Designations of origin, such as France’s appellation d'origine contrôlée (AOC), Italy’s denominazione di origine controllata (DOC) or Spain’s denominación de origen (DO) is used to distinguish foodstuff that come from a particular region, such as champagne, parmigiano-reggiano, roquefort or some olive oils. Once the ingredient is used in a dish, however, the idea of copyright can get murkier. In the U.S., recipes that are lists of ingredients are not covered by copyright, but interpretations can be. “Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Nor does it protect other mere listings of ingredients such as those found in formulas, compounds, or prescriptions,” reads the website of the U.S. Copyright Office. “Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.” Add in the factor that copyright and intellectual property rules can be different depending on the country itself, and it’s a tall order for a chef to puzzle through. The idea of preserving the soul of a dish — an item meant to be enjoyed and destroyed — has gotten increasingly complicated as the world becomes smaller due to travel and obsessive documentation via social media, which can span countries and continents. A perfectly prepared plate (sometimes even designed to get Instagrammed immediately upon arrival at the table) can be made in New York and appear in Sydney (or vice versa) almost instantaneously. New ideas, whether it’s a stuffed avocado or salmon tartare cone, enter the culinary lexicon that can transcend the original chef or restaurant. In some cases, such as variations on cronuts or cold brew, these ideas even make it back to the retail level, further blurring the line between art and proprietary commerce. When it comes to ownership of food — whether it is through taste, appearance or composition — chefs are a part of a larger community. By nature, a restaurant’s creations need to be replicated and shared with cooks and the diner. Slapping copyrights or intellectual property restrictions on food removes the dish from the larger community, isolating the ingredient or dish from the larger evolution that comes about by sharing ideas. And in the rush to claim something first, sometimes what gets lost is the idea of doing it best.