Unless you have a blog.

The Foothills Cities blog has retained counsel to defend itself against the attempts at intimidation by the City of Pomona.

The money quote from the Bostwick & Jassy letter sent to Pomona's City Attorney:

A response to any lawsuit will surely include a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure 425.16, which is designed to weed out SLAPP suits (SLAPP is an acronym for Stretegic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). Under that law, the defendants need to demonstrate that the targeted speech relates to a matter of public interest (which it clearly does here), and then the plaintiffs would have the burden of demonstrating a probability of success on their claims, without the benefit of any discovery. Your clients would not be able to satisfy such a burden. As a result, our clients would prevail, and they would be entitled to a mandatory award of their attorneys fees under the anti-SLAPP statute. Not only will any defamation plaintiffs waste the public's money paying their attorneys, they will end up paying our cleints' fees.

It's a beautiful thing. At least, I see it that way. Robert Hymers* may disagree, along with J.L. Kirk & Associates*, Enigma Software Group*, Infotel/Vericom/AmeriCorp***, the City of Pomona, and so many others.

There is a lovely passage in the coverage of this story by the Whittier Daily News (other than the fact that I—a hometown girl, whose four grandparents lived in that town for decades!—got a mention):

Pomona officials questioned the lofty aspirations of Foothill Cities [Blog] and challenged the need for anonymity.

"I could take a pseudonym of somebody that had more prestige or historical significance and be totally inaccurate," said Paula Lantz, a Pomona City Councilwoman. "Why would I give more credence or less credence to what they write by how they identify themselves?"

Lantz likened any Internet buzz over the posts, Alvarez-Glasman's letter and Foothill Cities reaction to spam chain letters that circulate from friend to friend via e-mail.

"It's like when someone forwards some cute, little anecdotal stories about Mother's Day, or Easter, or name the circumstance," Lantz said. "It went to a gazillion people because everyone that gets it turns around and clicks `send to all' and it gets sent to their entire directory of contacts and so on and so on and so on."

Pomona Mayor Norma Torres compared Foothill Cities coverage of Pomona to supermarket tabloids.

"They don't have the full picture of what's going on," she said. "I laugh at them. You know what? They are gossipers."

Lantz said she first became aware of the blog after receiving an e-mail on April 20.

"The e-mail said, `We thought you might be interested in a recent post. We're happy to publish your response or commentary on the topic," Lantz said. "It was signed, `best, Centinel."

So the officials in Pomona admit that they only know about the posts in question because one of the bloggers made a good-faith effort to get their side of the story. And blogs are, to them, simply gossip and innuendo—not worthy of notice. Except, of course, when it's time to send threatening letters on City letterhead.

Amazing.

Thanks to David Carr Harr for sending the link to the Whittier Daily News. My family—both sides, the Goodwins and Whittemores alike—will be thrilled/horrified.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 02:03 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 562 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Excellent. I hope you will be able to attend the Conservative Leadership Conference so we can meet you. I will use your post as a reference for that legalese that looks like it will get results discouraging a city council from persuing legal action against a blogger. It seems that the "arrogance of power" intoxicates many government agencies to keep pressing on against the "puny bloggers."

Posted by: Richard Disney at May 17, 2007 11:14 PM (T/pIw)

2 Bloggers do have a responsibility to verify what they claim is true. Otherwise, they can simply present information for public review, without further claims--which is what the good ones do. And I think most of us who surf the blogs can tell the difference. The City of Pomona would have been well advised to address the issues raised on the 'net. Boy, I bet that is what they are wishing they did, now.

Posted by: M.A. George at May 18, 2007 06:58 AM (kYfdk)

3 Well, sure. We're not just here to cause trouble; we're here to cause productive trouble. If we raise an issue, but can't discern what the underlying facts are, we have to disclose that we weren't able to fact-check the entry, and are hoping more info will come in.

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 18, 2007 08:24 AM (3F7vn)

4 Well, it is Harr, not Carr, but that is ok...:-) David

Posted by: David Harr at May 18, 2007 09:47 AM (X9kfa)

5 I'm sorry; I wrote the post once, complete with all the links, and was just going to write one more line--the credit to you. Then I managed to nuke the entire entry, and had to reconstruct it. (It was, of course, funnier the first time.) So on take two I started to hurry at the end. If my proofreading clients ever find this blog, I'm sunk

Posted by: Attila Girl at May 18, 2007 12:31 PM (3F7vn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

For those of you who are new to the issue, there's a nice background piece by Michael Minn here:

In 2005, the digital royalty was 0.07 cents per song streamed (per listener) and small webcasters were able to calculate royalties as a percentage of revenue rather than on a per-song basis. This made it possible for small, often niche, webcasters with limited revenue streams to be financially viable, although most webcasters did it for love rather than money and usually lost modest amounts of money on their webcasting ventures. A typical small Live365 webcaster paid around $600 per year in digital royalties.

On March 2, 2007 the Library of Congress' Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), which oversees royalty rates, got rid of the revenue-based royalty provision, mandated a minimum royalty of $500 per channel per year, and established a higher royalty rate that will increase to 0.19 cents per song streamed per listener in 2010. For a webcaster that broadcasts 15 songs an hour to 500 listeners, that will increase the royalty to over $72,000 a year in 2010. For the six largest Internet-only broadcasters (who are financially marginal, at best), the royalty increase will represent over 50% of their total income. Pandora.com's founder, Tim Westergren, told Newsweek, "If this stays, we're done. Back to the stone age again." My favorite station, JazzPlayerRadio, has already left the web because the new rates will be applied retroactively to the first of the year.

Lest you think that some stations could survive by webcasting music from independent labels and producers, the RIAA has secured legal authority to administer a compulsory license that covers ALL recorded music. This means SoundExchange can force a royalty payment for ALL webcast music, with the provision that an independent label or artist can then join SoundExchange (for a significant fee) and get the money that was extracted on their behalf.

And for you NPR fans, this affects you. NPR is spearheading the effort against the new royalty because they have a significant number of listeners via the web. The new rules would be an accounting nightmare for them because only a portion of their programming is commercial music, but figuring out who is listening when a Justin Timberlake bumper plays on All Things Considered is really hard. For more details on NPR's role in this, see this article on NPR's initial appeal of the royalty increase.

From Mary McCann, Radio IO's The Bone Mama (as well as my sister-in-law, and felow PT Cruiser owner) come these ideas for nullifying the Copyright Royalty Board's decision:

An Easy "How-To Guide" for Making that Fateful Phone Call:



On March 2nd the Copyright Royalty Board set the rates that internet radio must pay for the years 2006-2010. My company and similar-sized operations will go from paying 11% of our revenues to 294% of our revenues, which means we will be upside-down unless HR 2060 passes. The first payment is due on July 17th, so immediate attention is desperately needed!

This is a death match for the beautiful medium of internet radio. The issue is access to the net and audiences for artists—not to mention my access to rice and beans. I'm asking you to make a phone call. It really makes a difference!

We have 51 sponsors today; there were only seven 10 days ago, before we went to Washington, D.C. One rep from Arizona is on board, and thatÂ’s all from that state. There are a handful from California, including the representative for Marin County, and we have a good early showing from Illinois. The bill is bipartisan: it was started by a guy in Washington state, Rep. Jay Inslee. You can look here to see whoÂ’s on board.

Call your Representative's office in Washington, D.C.—or call your local office in the case of your own representative. Ask to speak to the staffer who handles copyright or Internet issues. (If you enter your zip code at http://www.congress.org, theyÂ’ll give you your reps name and numbers.) They are used to people who don't call them for a living, and they're very easy to speak with. On the other hand, we have word that certain senators with ties to big record labels are blocking the IP of our coalition site. This is one of the reasons that e-mail is not a good option for working on this issue.

Here are some of the coalition's script ideas. Mix it up, but the main goal is to ask the reps for co-sponsorship. You really will be saving Internet radio—and my job in this baby industry.

1) "I am a constituent, and IÂ’m calling to ask Congressman/woman ________ to save Internet radio by co-sponsoring H.R. 2060, the Internet Radio Equality Act."

2) "The Copyright Royalty Board's decison to increase royalty rates for webcasters is going to turn off my internet radio, and I do not want that to happen. Please ask Congressman/woman ________ to co-sponsor H.R. 2060, the Internet Radio Equality Act."

3) "I believe artists should be compensated fairly for the music they make, but putting my webcasters out of business will only hurt artists more. They depend on Internet radio to get their music out to fans and build new audiences. When the webcasters go off the air, so do artists. Please co-sponsor H.R. 2060, the Internet Radio Equality Act."

4) "Internet radio is one of the only bright spots of diversity for independent music. We need internet radio. DonÂ’t turn it off. Co-sponsor H.R. 2060, the Internet Radio Equality Act."

5) [If you are an artist] "Internet radio enables artists like me to reach fans throughout the country and the world, and enjoy exposure and airplay that we might not receive otherwise. I'm asking you to co-sponsor H.R. 2060, the Internet Radio Equality Act."

Or my least favorite: 6) "My friend Mary McCann will be out of a job unless H.R. 2060 passes, and then she won't be able turn me on to fabulous artists any more. I mean, where else can a person with the handle of The Bone Mama get a job? As a geisha?"

One of the artists who lobbied with us on the Hill, SONiA, had her manager run the numbers for promoting her next tour, should H.R. 2060 fail to pass. Without the support of Internet radio those costs would go up 600%.

Broadcast radio does not even pay this copyright fee. They are exempt; satellite radioÂ’s rate has been locked in at 7.5% of their revenue for this same time period. We arenÂ’t even asking for broadcast radioÂ’s rate, but simply parity with satellite radio—hence, the name: the Internet Radio Equality Act.

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

She is from Illinois, and our family members live mostly in the Upper Midwest and on the West Coast—that's why she focuses on Western States and Illinois in this guide. But the problem is national in scope—and, by implication, international, given the leadership role the U.S. has in internet development, and the fact that internet radio transcends national boundaries.

It is hard to see this as more than a naked power grab from those in broadcast radio who want to retain their monopoly. Please don't let them get away with it: support H.R. 2060. And hurry: this may come up for vote in the next few days.

More here.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 03:25 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1229 words, total size 8 kb.