How To Win: Don’t Help DOJ Get Out Of Licensing Hole They Dug [David Lowery]
Although they started with a strong concept with 100% song licensing, the Department of Justice seems to be scrambling to get their decree to function within the parameters of the law, and their own set of rules, says David Lowery.
____________________________________
Guest post by David Lowery of the Trichordist
DOJ’s Renata Hesse appears to have started with desirable political outcome (100% song licensing) and is now working backwards trying to make it fit the law.
There is something very curious going on with the new 100% licensing rule. I mean aside from lobbying violations apparent in the fact a DOJ staff lawyer Renata Hesse forced through 100% licensing rule that seems to benefit her former client (Google/YouTube).
Ask yourself. Why hasn’t the DOJ released the text of the new rule? Why are they asking for more comments and questions from rights holders on how this rule will work? This is the highest law enforcement agency in the land staffed with lawyers from Harvard and UC Berkeley and they want us to ask questions about a new rule before the text of the rule is revealed? How exactly is that supposed to work? Clearly the DOJ antitrust division is a clown car loaded with political appointee clowns that have no idea what they are doing.
Here’s what I think. Certain DOJ staffers started with a concept (100% licensing, effectively extending consent decrees to songwriters not covered by consent decrees) and are trying to work backwards to make it work within the law, constitution and their own rules that govern the songwriter PROs.
If they were doing this based on real antitrust concerns and concepts based on the rule of law, the rule would naturally flow from the law. Clearly they started with an outcome designed to benefit digital services.
Given Renata Hesse’s background working for Google should we be surprised the process is so googley:
“We need rights holders to tell us what content on our services belongs to them” = “We need rights holders to tell us how to create 100% licensing rules even though this is the job taxpayers pay us to do”
Here is how we win: Don’t help them. They dug this hole let them figure it out. Save the challenges legal and otherwise until after they publish the rule.
How To Control Probability
The thermodynamic formula S=k ln W, where S is entropy, which is identical to polarity cancellation extent (entropy production rate is identical to polarity cancellation rate), k is a constant, ln is the natural logarithm, and W is the thermodynamic probability.
The relation of a sum to a product is the natural logarithmic curve. Entropy is a sum of polarities, and W is a product of probability, so that, the force of inductive resonance (vibrational) will exceed the force of the attraction of opposite polarities when the entropy is less than one, which is very improbable. It is a measure of the improbability field.
But measuring the force of inductive resonance, like the attraction between two transmission line cables transmitting the same frequency and modulation, and magnetic force, like between electromagnets in the circuit, you can measure the probability/improbability field.
By reversing the parts of this circuit, like changing a radio receiver into a radio transmitter, you may control probability. That can have many applications, like for example, take it into a casino.
Entropy is “the” sum of, for example -1+1=0, but it is a negative sum, which can be called a “subtraction”, for, the actual number of polarities has been reduced with a higher entropy. But, there are extant two kinds of entropy in this culture: thermodynamic entropy, which is a reduction of the number of polarities; and, “informational” entropy, which is an increase of polarities providing more things to get chaotic. “Informational” entropy is more chaos. “The”, a product of probabilities is, for example, pXq=W, where p is probability, and q is improbability.