Thank you @presjpolk: Fight Crony Capitalism and Oppose the Local Radio Fairness Act

As every musician and artist knows, you don’t get paid for radio airplay in the US.  What, you say?  How can that be?

It’s true, the songwriters get paid but the artists do not.  This has been true from the very beginning of radio in the first few years of the 20th century when a strong radio lobby was able to beat up on what was then a very small recorded music market, and exempt themselves from paying royalties for the playback of recorded music.

Every day that goes by these days it seems like another artist dies without ever seeing that compensation.  Lesley Gore was the most recent one, but last year we saw Joe Cocker, Ian McLagan, Jack Bruce, many others.  These artists had the double deduction of recording before 1972, which is the year that the feds began protecting sound recordings with copyright except–you guessed it–for any compensation with the songs are performed on radio.

The National Association of Broadcasters is the super-powerful lobby for the broadcast industry that is pushing legislation in the Washington cesspool called “the Local Radio Fairness Act” a nonbinding House Resolution that it’s easy for unsuspecting Congressmen to sign up to, but it all comes down to the same thing–big radio and the special interests carving out a special exemption for themselves.

One of the best critiques of this crony capitalism I’ve ever seen comes from the always thoughtful Neil Stevens in Red State in his post “Oppose the Local Radio Fairness Act“.

The future of the GOP is in anti-cronyist shifts in policy that favor free markets, not specific companies or industries. This is one important way we can demonstrate to the American people that small government is for the little guy, and big government is for the big, well-connected guy.

One way to do this is to defeat the Local Radio Freedom Act, which is a massive giveaway to big, well-connected media companies, at the expense of their competitors as well as individual musical performers.

This all comes down to respecting copyright. Sometimes I get accused of opposing copyright. I don’t. I support it. And yet it’s the DC establishment, not me, that has created a massive copyright carve-out for one specific industry: radio stations.

Make sure you read this post, it’s critical to understanding how the National Association of Broadcasters and the special interests are trying to use the RINO leverage once again to quietly carve out a benefit for themselves.

Bring Out Your Shills: Google’s Shill Mill Attacking Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood for Having the Audacity to Investigate Google

The Trichordist

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood is conducting what looks to be a criminal investigation into Google’s business practices including whether Google complied with a 2011 “non prosecution agreement” with the U.S. Department of Justice that required Google to pay $500,000,000 of the stockholders money to keep their senior management team from being prosecuted for violating the Controlled Substances Act.

Yes, that’s right. A $500,000,000 fine.  Of course you read about that in news far and wide, right?  Not really.  The only mainstream media outlets that covered it were pretty much the Wall Street Journal and Wired.  More about that later.

Google has sued Attorney General Hood to try to keep him from investigating potential crimes at Google, and David was interviewed about that case yesterday in the Washington Internet Daily, so we thought we’d give you some background.

Google’s Plea Bargain with the United States

Of…

View original post 1,310 more words

That’s Profit not Prophet: How Liberal YouTube Promotes Jihad

When the Obama White House can’t get it’s act together on calling Islamic Jihad by its real name, it should come as no surprise that Google wants to make a buck off of the Charlie Hebdo assassins.  Google, Facebook and the rest of these tech oligarchs hide behind laws they created because they want the traffic, the data and most of all the advertising revenue from all forms of human activity, including Man’s inhumanity to Man.

Here’s an example:

This is a YouTube video with English subtitles of a recruiting speech by Abu Muhammed Al-adnani entitled “Oh Crusader”.  Who is Abu Muhammed Al-Adnani?  Let’s ask Wikipedia, Google’s favorite information source.

Shaykh Abu Mohammad al-Adnani al-Shami is the official spokesman and a senior leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and its primary conduit for communicating official messages. He is also the emir of ISIL in Syria.

The State Department has designated him a terrorist:

The Department of State has designated Abu Mohammed al-Adnani as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under Executive Order (E.O.) 13224, which targets terrorists and those providing support to terrorists or acts of terrorism. The consequences of this designation include a prohibition against U.S. persons engaging in transactions with al-Adnani, and the freezing of all property and interests of al-Adnani that are in the United States, or come within the United States or the possession or control of U.S. persons. Abu Mohammed al-Adnani was also included in the annex of the recently adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2170, which condemns the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and al-Nusrah Front, both designated by the Department of State as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, as well as all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with al-Qa’ida. Along with al-Adnani’s U.S. designation, he will be added to the UN 1267/1989 al-Qa’ida Sanctions list, requiring all member states to implement an assets freeze, a travel ban, and an arms embargo against al-Adnani.

The YouTube video is straight from the horse’s mouth.

There are literally tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of videos posted on YouTube from jihadi groups.  YouTube monetizes these videos in two ways that I can tell.  First is in search results.  Here’s a couple ads returned in response to my search for “Abu Muhammad Al-adnani” (remember–the State Department designated Specially Designated Global Terrorist):

aladnani2 Arab Women

This is a two-fer.  Not only is Google monetizing a search term for a known terrorist, they’re serving up an ad for what is likely to be a human trafficking site “Date Arab Women”, trafficking being something else that Google’s RINO Susan Molinari says that Google doesn’t support.

Yep, looks like Google knows the old sex and violence is a winner.

But wait, there’s more.  Here’s a refresh on the search term that serves up a different ad:

youtube aladnani osmo ad

This is the same search for the known terrorist, but this time Google serves an ad for something called “Osmo”.  I’d never heard of Osmo, so I looked it up.

osmo website

Osmo is a children’s toy company with an interesting and highly worthwhile product designed to combat Internet addiction.

What does Osmo have to do with a terrorist on the State Department Specially Designated Global Terrorist?  Nothing at all, I’m sure.  Did Osmo have any knowledge when they bought into the YouTube video monopoly that their ad would be served in response to a search for a Specially Designated Global Terrorist?  No.

And here’s the more interesting part–should Osmo have to pay for an ad served against search results that associate their brand with scumbags and bad guys who want to destroy our country?  Who actually murder children by cutting them in half?

So we wonder why it is that the Obama White House can’t seem to call a terrorist a terrorist?  Think about this angle–after the Charlie Hebdo assassinations many European governments are questioning whether social media platforms should be permitted to be the propaganda outlets for Specially Designated Global Terrorists like our boy Abu.  France in particular, but also the UK and Germany.

And it comes right here at home (Fox News):

The Investigative Project on Terrorism reviewed videos posted on the YouTube channels of Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his younger brother Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev.

Both brothers had YouTube channels in the United States and in Russia. Emerson’s group reviewed about half of the 22 videos posted on the U.S. channel. The videos were viewed by a small number of people. One video received 5,000 views, another just 1,000 views.

Based on the content of the videos, which feature Bin Laden, calls to kill Americans, Jews, Christians and exhortations to establish a world-wide caliphate, it is clear that these message are not directed just at Chechens. “They are directed primarily against all non-Muslims and are very similar to the Al Qaeda videos we’ve seen in years past.” 

The two brothers clearly want “to express a message that they totally sympathize with the jihadist cause. These were jihadists, they were not just Chechen separatists.”

When we read this kind of report as well as the stories about social media use by terrorists, why do we not question how these people manage to get access to YouTube in the first place?  And even if you willing to trade off giving them access to YouTube based on first amendment concerns–which I get and respect, kind of–should Google be able to profit from the prophet?

World governments are going to crack down on this stuff any minute.  Will the Obama Administration be leading from behind again on this issue, too?  When it affects their biggest campaign donors and the company that has filled so many jobs in the White House?  From the company that gets so many huge government contracts?   The company that gets a below market lease on Moffet Field to keep the Google private jet fleet in easy reach?