EU Extends Copyright for Sound Recordings by 20 Years

In the European Union, popular music recordings from the 1960’s from acts such as the Beatles and the Rolling Stones were poised to enter the public domain as a result of the expiration of their 50-year copyright term.  In September 2011, however, the European Union voted to extend copyright protection for these works for another 20 years. 

 Perhaps to assuage critics who claim that record labels (and not struggling musicians) will benefit most from the extension, the new EU directive contains a number of accompanying measures to provide balance to individual musicians who may not directly benefit from the copyright extension, including the following:

•  rights to a sound recording may revert to the artist if the record label does not make the recording available for sale to the public (the “use it or lose it” clause);
• a “clean slate” provision that prevents the record label from making any deductions during the extended copyright term from the contractual royalties due to featured artists; and
• creation of a fund, financed by record labels with a percentage of benefits obtained from the copyright extension, for session musicians who signed away rights when a recording was made.

Details as to how some of these measures will be implemented or enforced is not clear from the language of the new directive.  Nevertheless, it seems likely that EU Member States will be expected to implement these accompanying measures in addition to the term extension. 

U.S. Supreme Court Restores Copyright Protection to Foreign Works

On January 18, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision watched closely by musicians, publishers, educators, orchestra conductors, upheld a federal law restoring copyright protection to millions of books, paintings, films and musical compositions by foreign artists that were previously in the US public domain.  In doing so, the Court rejected constitutional challenges to the law, holding that nothing in the Copyright Clause or the First Amendment “makes the public domain, in any and all cases, a territory that works may never exit.” 

 The case, Golan v. Holder (docket 10-545), involved a 1994 law enacted by Congress (which became Section 514 of the Copyright Act) to implement certain provisions of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.  Article 18 of the Berne Convention required member countries to accord other countries minimum levels of copyright protection and treat authors of other countries in the same manner as they treat their own with respect to that protection.  While the U.S. joined Berne in 1989, it did not implement Article 18, in effect, disregarding protection for foreign works.  In 1994, the Berne Convention specifically mandated implementation of Article 18, leading Congress to enact Section 514, which was challenged in Golan.  Section 514 granted copyright protection in the U.S. to foreign works on the same basis as enjoyed under foreign copyright law. 

 Since prior to the enactment of Section 514, the U.S. did not recognize the foreign copyright protection of these works, they were considered to be in the American public domain.  Thus, upholding the application of Section 514, with its equal treatment of works under foreign copyright law, has the effect of providing copyright protection to works that were previously in the public domain.  As noted by Justice Ginsberg, the law merely puts “foreign works on an equal footing with their U.S. counterparts.”

Other provisions of Section 514 take into consideration its impact and attempt to ease transition to the new regime.  In particular:

•  restored works will only be protected until the expiration of the full copyright terms, whether that expiration occurs in the U.S. or in the origin country;
• reanimation of copyright will be limited to only the remainder of the copyright term the work would have been entitled had it never entered the public domain;
•  “reliance parties” who used or acquired a foreign work in the public domain prior to the enactment of Section 514 will be allowed to continue to use the work until the copyright owner gives notice of an intent to enforce; and
• derivative works based on restored or reanimated work must only pay the copyright owner “reasonable compensation” to indefinitely exploit the derivation.

As the Supreme Court noted, unanswered questions remain about how Section 514 will be implemented, but the Court did not consider those questions significant enough to require rejection of the law.  In particular, the treatment of “orphan works” (when the copyright owners of the newly regulated foreign material cannot be identified or located), will likely be among the first issues for Congress to resolve next.

“Termination Rights” To Take Effect in the U.S.        

On January 1, 2013, the controversial “termination rights” provision of U.S. copyright law will be triggered, allowing authors (and their heirs) to begin regaining control of their original works from publishers and record labels to whom the works were previously assigned.  For works assigned in 1978 and thereafter, Section 203 of the Copyright Act of 1976 allows an original author to exercise an option to terminate the existing owners’ rights if 35 years have expired since the assignment. 

The wording of this provision suggests that termination rights are absolute for the original author or heirs, and thus would prevail over any written agreements assigning ownership, even if the agreements state that they are in perpetuity.  There is, however, an important exception for “works for hire,” which are deemed the property of the publisher or record label.     

Termination rights are a particularly hot topic for the music business.  Once a master recording reaches its 35-year mark, it is “game on” for the artists and songwriters who wish to reclaim ownership of qualifying songs from publishers and record labels.  However, it is likely that any attempt to recapture rights will hinge on the language of the applicable contracts between the artists and songwriters, on one hand, and labels and publishers, on the other, specifically whether there is clear assignment language (which would be subject to termination) or “work for hire” language (which would leave ownership of the works with the applicable label or publisher). 

One concern with “termination rights” is the lack of clarity in this provision as it may relate to musicians.  For example, it is unclear who exactly can qualify as an “author” of a sound recording, casting some ambiguity over who can share the rights after they revert.  The law is also murky for non-U.S. artists and whether those artists can exercise termination rights on American recordings.  What is clear, however, is that to enforce termination rights, authors (or their heirs) must comply strictly with the law.  Some of the provisions to be aware of include:

•  a requirement to file termination notices as much as ten years in advance of the effective termination date, but no less than two years before the date an author hopes to recoup their work;
• a provision stating that once a song or recording qualifies for termination, the author has five years in which to file a claim or else the right to reclaim the work relapses;
• a rule that, for works created post-1978 with multiple authors or heirs, a majority must agree to terminate; and
• a caveat that the law only has effect in the U.S., so that a publisher assigned a worldwide copyright will still retain control in foreign markets.

For publishers and other existing owners of copyrighted works who face pending terminations, there are certain considerations to keep in mind:

• time is of the essence to reach out to songwriters or their estates to attempt to negotiate a new deal; 
• if a notice of termination has already been issued, only the current publisher may try to enter into a new deal with the songwriter or his estate before the termination takes effect;
• opportunities may exist for new copyright acquisitions from authors who seek to enforce their termination rights against existing copyright holders, but who may be in the market for a deal with a new publisher; and
• consider whether the “works for hire” exception applies. 

We will keep abreast of developments in these areas, particularly as the new implementation and enforcement schemes are developed.  And we are available to assist any copyright stakeholder seeking to assess how these changes in the copyright law may affect their rights.

**  Betsy Pierce, an associate with the Firm, assisted in the research and drafting of this post.

A great deal of this growth stems from the increased access that children have to devices that are capable of supporting mobile applications, such as smart phones and iPads.  So perhaps it is not unexpected that the mobile app industry has started to attract some negative press, mainly from Congress on behalf of parents concerned about violent content and privacy issues. 

In an effort to preempt Congress from stepping in to regulate mobile apps, two industry groups, the Entertainment Software Rating Board (“ESRB”) and the CTIA (a wireless industry trade association), recently announced a voluntary rating system to help parents to make informed decisions about whether or not a given mobile application is appropriate for their children.  The ESRB has considerable experience in this realm, as they have been in the business of rating computer and console video games since 1994. 

The rating system will consist of two components.  First, there will be rating symbols to indicate age appropriateness.  This will be reflected through a menu of six possible rating symbols: early childhood, everyone, everyone 10+, teen, mature, adults only and rating pending.  Additionally, there will be content descriptors, which will pinpoint specific elements of the app that may have contributed to a given rating.  Content descriptors will include indications of: blood and gore, intense violence, language, sexual violence, and use of drugs.  Furthermore, the content descriptors will disclose whether the app shares personal information, utilizes user-generated content and/or connects to social networks. 

Ratings will be generated automatically based on a developer’s responses to a multiple choice questionnaire that is completed when the developer submits the app to a participating storefront.  The questionnaire is intended to assess the content of an app in light of the two-prong rating.  Developers will have the opportunity to appeal the rating for their apps should they disagree with the rating assigned.  The ESRB will also maintain oversight of the rating system by “routinely testing” the most popular apps and monitoring consumer complaints. 

The system has received a warm welcome in some circles.  AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular and Microsoft have all signed on as initial subscribers.  But significantly the two largest mobile app providers–Google, the maker of the Android, and Apple, the maker of the iPhone and the iPad–have declined to participate. 

The Google Android Market currently offers more than 300,000 apps which are rated using a four-tier system based on maturity level (everyone, low maturity, medium maturity, high maturity).  Google has publicly stated that they are going to retain their own system because it is well-known and understood by Android users and developers. 

The Apple App store is currently home to over 500,000 apps.  The apps are rated by Apple according to age appropriateness.  Apple has refused to comment on whether or not they will participate in the new rating system, but has not yet included itself as a participant, which is widely understood to mean that they are politely rejecting the invitation. 

The ESRB has stated that due to the Android and Apple rating systems already in place, they are not terribly concerned about this resistance, since “the goal is to get information to consumers.”

Many questions about the mobile app rating system remain and it will be interesting to see how they play out:  First, with one of the principle goals of the system being to establish a standard rating system across all mobile app platforms, will resistance by Google and Apple marginalize this rating system?  Second, can a system that relies on developers to characterize their own applications truly be considered fair and objective?  Third, can a rating system that codes each app be successful  at a time when there are so many apps already available in the market with hundreds being released every day? 

Lastly, will this type of rating system will actually change behavior?  Unlike the movie rating system, which is enforced at the purchase of point, this proposed app system is cannot prevent adult-oriented apps from being accessed by children.  In that regard, it is more like the television rating system, which can provide guidance for parents but is not intended as an “active” shield. 

Interestingly, Apple, as a storefront operator, acts as a gatekeeper at the point of purchase.  When a user attempts to download an app with adult-oriented content, Apple’s App Store forces a pop-up message for the user to confirm s/he is over 17.  Which begs the question as to whether a rating system that is not enforced by the gatekeeper will be effective.

We will keep abreast of developments as the system is deployed by stakeholders in the app landscape.

**  Alison Peyser, an associate with the firm, assisted in preparing this article.

Under the new rules, developers are no longer required to offer in-app purchasing for all content used in the app but they are free to charge any price if they do choose to do so.  However, the new rules still prohibit developers from linking to external stores from within the app.  Keeping with the Kindle app example, after June 30th, Amazon will still have to remove their link from the Kindle app, but Amazon is not forced to sell their books within the app, and if they do, they can charge a premium to compensate for Apple’s cut. 

Apple’s revised policies notably came just a few days after the Financial Times, which won an award last year for the design of its iPad app, announced its new web-based app.  The new app can be accessed through a browser, allowing users to bypass Apple’s app store altogether.  The Financial Times didn’t say that they would be discontinuing their iOS app, but they encouraged their users to switch to the web-based app immediately, stating that it would be the focus of their development efforts going forward.  With Apple’s revised policies, it is unclear whether other app developers will follow FT’s lead or if Apple’s new rules will placate the discontented developers.

**  Kate O’Donnell, an associate with the Firm, assisted in preparing this post.

A testament to the significance of this concern is last week’s victory of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.  Facebook was charged with violating Canada’s privacy laws, both with respect to the disclosure of personally identifiable information of Facebook users to over one million third party Facebook application developers, as well as keeping a user’s personal information indefinitely (including after deactivation of a user’s account).  Along with the attention of other social network providers, Canada’s investigation certainly elicited global attention, as it became the first country to legally examine Facebook’s privacy policies and procedures.  This investigation has also led the Canadian privacy commission to examine the privacy policies and practices of six other social networking sites.  The Privacy Commissioner’s chief complaint was that the way in which Facebook provides information about its privacy policies to its users is often confusing or incomplete.

As a result of the investigation, Facebook announced that it will implement new privacy safeguards and modify its privacy policy accordingly.  Among other things, Facebook has agreed to compel third-party developers to disclose to Facebook users the precise types of information they plan to access and use.  Under the current policy, users who want to utilize the third-party applications via their Facebook account are required to agree to share all of their data with such third party developers. 

The new procedures are intended to ensure that users are given the opportunity to consent to use of each type of personal information (such as date of birth, hometown, etc.), but more importantly have the ability to refrain from approving the use/disclosure of certain types of information while still being able to utilize the third party applications.  Facebook will also provide users clearer explanations and information in terms of deactivating their user accounts, specifically to make it clearer to users the difference between deactivation and deleting their information permanently.  Although Facebook plans to begin updating their privacy policy within the next month or so, implementing the technical changes will be performed over the course of the next year. 

While Facebook was the primary target of the investigation, we believe that the Canadian government’s actions, and Facebook’s response, will have a substantial ripple effect, with businesses carefully reconsidering their terms of use and privacy policies to ensure compliance with both the letter and spirit of privacy laws and regulations throughout the world. 

Click hereto subscribe to digitalhhr.

• Late last week,  Judge Louis Stanton of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that plaintiffs in the high-profile copyright class action case against YouTube could not seek statutory damages for videos that are not registered under US copyright law.   Judge Stanton also dismissed plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim, but did permit claims based on live broadcast footage, which were brought by the English Premier Football League, the lead plaintiff in the case, to proceed. 
• After a lengthy battle, record labels and online radio stations reached an agreement on new royalty rates for music streaming.  The new agreement treats web sites differently based on their size and model.  It only applies to sites making most of their money from streaming music, excluding webcasters that run online music services as a small portion of their total business.  Pure-play internet radio providers will have to pay the greater of 25 percent of revenue or a fee each time a listener hears a song.  The new per stream fees start at .08 cent for each song streamed in 2006 and increases to .14 cent in 2015.  Smaller sites will pay 12 to 14 percent of revenue in royalties.  The new agreement replaces a 2007 royalty rate decision. 
• Rosetta Stone, maker of the popular foreign language software programs, filed a trademark infringement suit against Google alleging that its AdWords program, which lets companies buy advertisements that show up as “sponsored links” next to search results, results in consumer confusion.  The complaint alleges that Google is letting companies attach their ads to trademarked words they do not own, as well as allowing companies to use those trademarked terms in the headlines of their ads.  As a result, a search for a trademarked company name may bring up that company, but it may also bring up results for the trademarked company’s competitors.  In recent years Google has been facing other similar lawsuits over its AdWords program but in April, the 2nd Circuit provided trademark owners with some clarity when it held that Google’s use of the trademarks were “acts of commerce”, reversing a trial court’s ruling and permitting trademark owners to proceed with their suits. 

Of course, in the alternative, AT&T claims that to the extent AT&T is not directly liable, secondary liability attaches via the doctrines of inducement, vicarious and contributory liability—essentially, liability for contributing to and benefiting from the unlawful performance of ringtones by AT&T customers. This argument is likely designed to cut against the exemption codified in the Copyright Act allowing the “performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work … to the public without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage… if there is no direct or indirect admission charge.” (see 17 U.S.C. § 110(4)). This would, in theory, prevent ASCAP from proceeding against individual consumers who, although they may be publicly performing a musical work according to Copyright Act, are doing so without commercial advantage and thus not infringing.

ASCAP also reveals in its motion that it has consistently licensed other mobile carriers’ sale and distribution of ringtones, charging “2% of revenue and an alternative usage-based fee calculation.” In fact, ASCAP claims that prior to the Second Circuit’s 2007 decision that digital downloads of sound recordings do not trigger the public performance right (see United States v. ASCAP, 485 F. Supp. 2d 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)) (the “Download Decision”), “very few parties ever questioned or challenged ASCAP on the question of whether ringtones required public performance licenses.”

For business people and transactional lawyers alike, perhaps the most notable takeaway from ASCAP’s motion stems from AT&T’s claim that the ringtone providers (e.g., Jamster, ThumbPlay, etc.), not AT&T, “bear contractual responsibility for securing public performance rights.” In other words, AT&T is stating that if public performance royalties are due, it is the responsibility of content providers, aggregators, and ringtone creators to make payments to the performing rights organizations, not distributors like AT&T and other mobile carriers/network operators. Put simply, this contention highlights the need for parties to these types of agreements to be more explicit than ever about which party will be responsible for performance royalties if and to the extent any public performance rights are implicated. Here, AT&T is pointing the finger at the providers, and to the extent this tactic works, the providers would be responsible for paying royalties based not only on their own revenue, but the mobile carriers’ revenue, which, according to the ASCAP’s standard licensing agreements, is deemed part of the provider’s “client revenue” that is included in the “royalty base” for calculating provider payments to ASCAP. Moreover, any party ultimately saddled with responsibility for making performance payments would not only be required to pay 2% of revenue to ASCAP, but would also be required to remit similar amounts to the two other major performing rights organizations in the U.S. (i.e., BMI, SESAC), raising the total performance royalty rate to more than 6% of revenue–a sizeable payment, and in addition to the mechanical reproduction fees due to those same publishers and writers that are members of the performing rights organizations.

Ultimately, ASCAP, in its attempt to receive royalties from AT&T, devotes the majority of its motion to arguing the extensive nature of ASCAP’s control over the ringtone in an effort to distinguish ringtones from full-audio downloads addressed in the Download Decision, as the outcome of this case may very well turn on the question of the party responsible for triggering the performance. In other words, if an ongoing connection is maintained or required whenever the ringtone is played on a consumer’s phone (e.g., similar to the connection required when a sound recording is streamed over the internet), then the second kind of public performance (i.e., the digital transmission performance) may be triggered. On the other hand, if AT&T can successfully argue that the ringtone is downloaded only once to a consumer’s phone (similar to an iTunes track) without simultaneous or near simultaneous playback and continues to reside on the device exclusively, then merely prompting the playback of same by AT&T for an incoming call should fall more squarely within the confines of the Download Decision.

No matter what side you come down on, ASCAP’s PR machine has been slammed in the past for seeking payment from less than profit driven adversaries, including campfire balladeers such as the Girl Scouts. This time around though, eager to combat a slew of negative news reports trashing ASCAP’s pursuit of ringtone monies, ASCAP moved quickly to address the matter with its own membership, dispatching the following clarification to its writers and composers:

“Bottom line, ASCAP is striving to license those that make a business of transmitting its members’ music. This holds true for any medium where businesses have been built by using this music as content or a service – whether terrestrial broadcast, satellite, cable, Internet or wireless carriers providing audio and video content. To be completely clear, ASCAP’s approach has always been to license these businesses – not to charge listeners/end-users.”

Also, noteworthy in ASCAP’s response, is the fact that ASCAP states that it is “in Federal Rate Court with the two largest U.S. wireless carriers,” evidencing that ASCAP will be staging this battle for ringtone royalties on multiple fronts, including with Verizon, AT&T and possibly ringtone providers supplying the mobile carriers.

Needless to say, this will be a long, hard-fought battle and the public performance organizations, still reeling from the Download Decision (which incidentally is still in the appeals process), will not go quietly when the mobile carriers continue to enjoy revenue in the billions from the sale of ringtones. As always, we will continue to closely monitor this case given the potential impact on our clients’ businesses and the need for licensing and distribution contracts that accurately delineate each party’s roles and responsibilities in this constantly evolving digital space.

• The Performance Rights Act, which was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on May 13th, would levy fees on broadcasters for airing artists’ recordings. An indication of the heat generated by the debate over the PRA emerged this week when the musicFIRST Coalition, however, filed a complaint asking the FCC to investigate whether radio stations have been boycotting artists that support the PRA. The coalition’s filing accuses broadcasters of airing deceptive spots by portraying the proposed royalty as a “tax” and not airing musicFIRST’s own paid ad endorsements. While musicFIRST did not identify any specific station or broadcaster withholding airplay, the coalition alleged that several stations have refused to play an artist’s music based on his or her remarks or affiliation with endorsing the legislation. Spokesman Marty Machowsky said it would only identify specifics if the FCC initiates the proceeding and agrees to keep the information confidential.
• Facebook is now allowing users to select plain-language domain names for profile pages, which up until now, has been delineated by a string of letters and numbers. Facebook plans on allowing trademark holders to protect their marks and mediating all disputes internally. This, however, may not be enough to prevent lawsuits from occurring. Tim Cole, chief register liaison from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, said that even careful mediation processes will not prevent skirmishes from breaking out. ICANN has been involved in quarrels over coveted web site names for more than a decade. We will be looking into this issue in depth in the coming week.
• The AACS Licensing Authority, which licenses AACS content protection scheme (DRM) used in high-definition Blu-ray discs, has included a provision in its Final Adopter Agreement which will lead to the eventual phase out of analog video output from hi-def discs. The goal of phasing out analog is to plug the “analog hole,” where digital content can be copied. The change, however, will not stop direct digital ripping. The efforts are being made in attempts to block means of casual copying, but may not be effective in thwarting commercial pirates.
• The second World Copyright Summit met in Washington, DC last week.  The conference agenda of four main points: New visions for creative industries, Challenges for creators and rights-owners in the digital era, Weather forecast on copyright climate, and Valuing the creative eco-system. Most of the concern was regarding copyright infringements on the Internet. The copyright owners and attendees also discussed the ongoing threat of internet privacy.

We would like to thank Jenny Liang, a summer associate with the Firm, who assisted in preparing this round-up.

• The Electronic Frontier Foundation released a “terms of service” tracker earlier this week. The tracker chronicles older and new terms of service agreements, side by side, and highlights changed provisions. The TOSBack.org site was created in part from an outgrowth of Facebook’s change in its service agreement in February that, under a broad interpretation, provided that Facebook with a license to its members’ uploaded content even after termination of membership. Following criticism in the media and by its members, Facebook backed down and provided for a termination of the license. But the episode revealed the difficulty end users have in evaluating how revised terms of service provisions can have real impact. The “terms of service” tracker currently tracks 44 sites, including Facebook, Google, WordPress, Data.gov, YouTube, GoDaddy, and eBay.
• For years, content providers have provided information to viewers for free by depending on advertising sales to support its websites. With the decline of the advertising market, advertisers have cut back on spending, forcing content providers to rethink their business model. Many websites are returning to previously used revenue models, including charging for premium services and selling real or virtual goods on its sites. GigaOM, a network of tech-oriented blogs, is one of the latest examples of this trend. GigaOM is charging for a premium subscription research service, which includes more content and analysis, while continuing to provide its basic content for free. We expect to see more business changes of this type in the future
• The increase in digital media possibilities has led traditional storefront retailers to make efforts to capitalize on digital space. Last September, Best Buy bought Napster for $121 million. Now, Best Buy is supplying capital for a new digital media investment fund managed by Fuse Capital. By doing so, Best Buy will be able to hedge its profit opportunities in this fast-changing economy with both its core retail business and its investments in digital media.
• Internet advertisers have been using trackers to follow around users. But now federal regulators are tracking the online advertisers around to ensure that they are being fair to consumers. According to Jessica Rich, the Assistant Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Privacy & Identity Protection (USPIRG) arm, “[t]he FTC is concerned that data collection is disproportionate to the benefits that are achieved.” In December, the FTC released a draft of behavioral guidelines, calling for more transparency and user control, and allowing opt-ins for sensitive data. Few people actually opt out, however, even when given the opportunity. Yahoo told Congress last year that only 75,000 users a month even visited its privacy page to opt out of targeted ads. Microsoft’s Mike Hintze says that it is unrealistic and that if users are not going to bother to opt out, they are unlikely to opt in. He suggests that more consumer education is necessary, but most consumers just do not care.
• A recent study confirms DRM technology sometimes it makes pirates of even those who are attempting to make legal uses of content. DRM does not discriminate between preventing illegal versus legal uses. As a result, even users who want to use the content for legal purposes must violate anticircumvention laws and in essence become pirates to accomplish their goals. Advocates of the DRM technology assert that despite the inability to accommodate legal uses, there is not an anti-piracy solution that would be able to accommodate all possible legal exceptions. Unfortunately, this has left even legal content users forced to find other means, including piracy, to get around the DRM protection.

• According to a new research study by Nielson Online, social sites like Facebook have surpassed e-mail as the number one online activity, with two-thirds of the world’s population visiting social networking or blogging sites.  What’s more, the “stickiness” of these sites is expanding, with one of every 11 minutes spent online being devoted to social networking activities.  And, in a finding to confirm the frustration and consternation of many teenagers, the fastest growing audience on Facebook is the 35-49 age group.  Which may explain such Facebook groups as “Cool Parents Who Have Facebooks”, although we at digitalhhr can proudly say we have avoided joining that one.)
• In perhaps one more sign of the ubiquity of social networking sites, Citigroup is rolling out a MySpace-branded Visa credit card.  Its marketing pitch is geared to fiscal responsibility-a bit of an ironic twist considering Citibank’s own (mis)adventures in that area.  But Citibank is also trying to preach to its intended audience, providing bonus points to be used for concerts, movie premieres and music downloads, as well as the ability to earn points for donations and charitable deeds.  Citi has also adopted a “manifesto” including such planks as “The environment, the economy, our very security …They’re the consequences of people not thinking about consequences.” 
• In the coming weeks, members of the Online Publishers Association (OPA) such as ESPN, Forbes.com and iVillage plan to roll out new, flashier, in-your-face, ad display units aimed at grabbing visitor attention better than the average banner ad.  While enabling advertisers to get more creative with their online ads, the new formats will hopefully help publishers make more money from fewer ads, since an abundance of ad inventory has been depressing revenue. 
• Continuing the social networking news, Hulu quietly added a new social networking feature that allows users to add friends, recommend videos or shows to one another and leave messages for one another, a la Facebook.  The site, which just celebrated its 1st birthday has even more reason to celebrate.  In just one year, it has become the number two site among the top online video properties, with 9.5 million unique viewers in February viewing 308 million video streams. 
• Google introduced its Google Voice integrated phone service, which was built on top of technology developed by GrandCentral, a company acquired by Google in 2007.  With its host of features, Google seems to be aiming less at replacing any one telephone service-such as VoIP or voicemail transcription or conference calling-and more at insinuating itself in as many aspects of telecommunications services as possible. 

• The FCC announced plans to impose more than $12 million in fines on 600 telecoms that failed to file paperwork last year detailing how they are going to protect the privacy of their customers.  The FCC is seeking the fines because many of the phone companies, internet telephone service providers and calling-card companies that are supposed to make the detailed annual reports are not complying with the current rules. 
• In a week where we’ve read so much about newspapers becoming obsolete, a new survey by The Rosen Group has found that the majority of Americans still consider print to be a vital source for their news and entertainment even though a third of us consider websites to be our number one source of information. 
• According to a report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, internet gambling, which was banned in 2006, could bring in over $52 billion in tax revenue over 10 years.  That may be one of the factors driving a decision to reintroduce legislation in Congress to overturn the ban. 
• A two-year old lawsuit filed by Eminem’s production company against Universal Music Group seeking about $1.3 million in unpaid digital music royalties finally went to court this week and its outcome could have a profound effect on the digital music business.  The issue is whether digital music downloads fall under “distribution” or “licensing” agreements — the latter giving artists a 50% take on royalties earned.