Russian Bureaucrat: Google & YouTube Should Be Shut Down For Facilitating Infringement
from the talk-to-the-boss dept
Russian president Dmitry Medvedev has been quite vocal lately about the fact that copyright is broken, and that the way to deal with it is not to get more draconian, but to open things up with more open licensing. However, it appears that not everyone in his administration feels the same way. TorrentFreak has a story on yet another recently leaked State Department cable, showing that Russia’s Deputy Minister of Economic Development, Stanislav Voskresenskiy, told US diplomats that YouTube and Google “do not conform to current Russian [copyright] laws” and therefore “should be shut down.” It’s unclear from the context if he meant this as an example of the absurdity of today’s copyright law, or if he actually thought that shutting them down would do some good (he admits upfront that it’s not “feasible” however). I’d like to believe he was just showing off the insanity of today’s copyright laws, but if that’s the case, it doesn’t look like the US got the message…
Comments on “Russian Bureaucrat: Google & YouTube Should Be Shut Down For Facilitating Infringement”
In Soviet Russia...
Copyright law is just as ridiculous as the rest of the developed world.
What? You were expecting a joke?
Re: In Soviet Russia...
No, the joke is that people expect American companies to change their ways.
Insanity of the copyright law, or just the insanity of thinking that business are too big to shut down, because the business model is “too big to fail”?
Re: Re:
I think in the case of Google and Youtube even more so, if any government were to shut them down, the immediate backlash would be swift and fatal to their political careers.
Re: Re: Re:
And by that I mean, it’s not an issue of Google and Youtube being too big too fail, it’s an issue of no politician (elected representative or unelected bureaucrat) would dare pull the plug on Google or YouTube.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what if they did? The genius behind google and youtube is that they are simply algorithms. If they were shut down, Sergey and Larry could start something else, use the same code, everyone would know just about right away where the ‘new’ google and youtube were, and boom, status quo. These aren’t manufacturing plants etc that take time to set up and get going. 200 KM north and theres a whole new country with just as much access.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Google and YouTube are both well more than algorithms (especially YouTube, which is almost all content). If we grant that all that is taken is just the domain name, those brand names have a lot of sway and Sergey and Larry would not be able to gain the mind share with a new domain name all that fast. All the web browsers would need to do updates, people would need to apply those updates, update home pages, etc, and they’d need to find out about those changes.
Re: Re:
The US companies that were “too big to fail” were FAILING, and thus government money was spent trying to break the fall.
Google is not failing, and that doesn’t mean that government money should be spent in MAKING IT FAIL.
Imformation for free?
Information in its very essence is meant to be released to the world. Imagine if cave men and women didn’t paint unless they were paid. Or if they didn’t communicate as what they say was said by another was infringement of copyright. They painted pictures on walls to illustrate their conquests. They told grand stories of beasts they killed and showed the pictures to members of their tribe.
What do we have now? The exact same thing. But we call them ‘museums’, and we have to pay to get in.
Why the hell even have information or communicate in the first place??? I say, we should support this very idea, while those who are open about information keep releasing.
So all those in favor of releasing information freely to the world, keep talking and communicating. All those in favor of locking up information, SHUT THE HELL UP AND STOP COMMUNICATING! PLEASE!!
Re: Imformation for free?
Don’t worry, you’re definitely NOT oversimplifying this issue.
TechDirt Manifesto:
Mike’s right. Copyright unnecessarily protects the rights of content creators.
To put it simply: all artists, screenwriters, musicians, artists and authors should simply connect with their audience and give them reasons to buy.
They need to do away with the tired notion that they’ll be paid fairly for their work – gone are the days of that model – they need to focus 80-90%% of their time on doing WACKY, ZANY things to get people to buy the product they can spend 10-20% of their time on.
And remember, if I download/access/obtain your art via illegal means, I’m not the one who’s in trouble, it’s YOU, because YOUR business model didn’t capitalize on my ability to illegally obtain your creation. It’s all your fault.
Re: Re:
Yawn. Can we get some more creative trolling?
Re: Re:
Mike, I hope you have a gun. I worry for you, the people that don’t like you have an almost ‘religious’ flair in their hatred for you.
Re: Re: Re:
In order to counterbalance the vast quantities of kool-aid that are ingested at this site, it’s necessary to do away with tact.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s fine. But I was unaware that the definition of tact included “a semblance of logical thought”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Translation: “I know what color underwear Mike is wearing at any given moment.”
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike, I think you should call the F.B.I. He just admitted to stalking you
Re: Re:
“They need to do away with the tired notion that they’ll be paid fairly for their work – “
Please show us with all your vast wisdom where (anywhere, please, anywhere at all) there is ANYTHING that gives creators “paid fairly for their work” in copyright law.
We wait with urgent need at your feet to be shown this.
Re: Re: Re:
*cricket*
Re: Re: Re:
Uh, the power to command $150k for infringement is a pretty powerful incentive for Big Content to toss some crumbs to the artists. Who knows what is fair, but it’s usually bigger than zero. In fact copyright law is the only reason that Google is even considering paying anything to the authors of the books they scanned.
(That is the big problem with this question. There’s no way to be truly fair about whether the marketing department or the creative department or the editing department or the cover designers or the the loading dock is really the most responsible. They’re a team.)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Uh, the power to command $150k for infringement is a pretty powerful incentive for Big Content to toss some crumbs to the artists. Who knows what is fair, but it’s usually bigger than zero. In fact copyright law is the only reason that Google is even considering paying anything to the authors of the books they scanned.”
*facepalms*
Look, I know Robin Hood was a great guy and all, but the fact remains that this “rob from the rich to give to the poor” idea that copyright seems to have going for it, just makes the system worse for everyone involved except the middlemen. Wielding the “power” of $150K per infringement is beyond stupid and getting blood from a turnip sure hasn’t helped in people respecting copyright law.
Just please, PLEASE… Show me a courtcase, or a method of business that involves going to court for supposed damages and is successful. Show something that says this “power” is effective. It’s been 10 years of copyright litigation through DMCA. How effective has it been?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
With live in an era where electronic sensors are cheap and ubiquitous and you are saying there is no way to be fair?
The government could have real data in real time about those things plastered all over the internet if it really wanted too.
Many countries are in the process of digitizing the whole process with central authorities to show how much collection agencies collect and how it is being distribute, with central databases to show what is copyrighted and to whom.
Besides $150K is nothing to big companies that is like half a day expenses, to be powerful deterrent and have an equal impact on everyone no matter how much they make the deterrent should be a fraction of ones income.
Furthermore piracy by consumers is nothing like piracy from a company that is trying to extract financial value from that material that is so true that labels give their music for free to everyone see radio, TV and Studios also do the same, and public libraries exist since the dawn of man to give free books to everyone.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also piracy actually earn artists money, that is better than zero right?
chillingeffects.org – Better to Switch Than Fight?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also piracy actually earn artists money, that is better than zero right?
chillingeffects.org – Better to Switch Than Fight?
Also if piracy was a real problem for anybody to make money open source would never be able to have multi million companies.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1635849/open-source-hardware-bucks
Re: Re:
“To put it simply: all artists, screenwriters, musicians, artists and authors should simply connect with their audience and give them reasons to buy.”
You should’ve stopped there.
Re: Re:
Some of you may not be aware, but “art” is at most a few hundred years old. Writers and authors have only been around since the Statute of Anne. Musicians appeared out of thin air with the invention of the phonograph cylinder. Actors, long though to have existed since ancient times, were simply expressive citizens until they were put to moving picture in the time of Lumiere. These things were impossible before copyright and distribution media. Live performances were simply people milling about noisily, and the paintings that adorned the houses of the wealthy were nothing more than “hobbies”. Because, you see, without copyright to restrict the spread of art, there is no art. Without a means to force constant, ongoing and prohibitive charging of money for the viewing, listening or enjoyment of art an artist cannot…. and never has… made a single dollar, franc, or shilling.
The so-called entertainment industry has by its own efforts CREATED the culture of the first world. It has helped to save this country from the path of productivity, inventiveness and progress…. and beneficently steered us towards a state of lazy and greedy entitlement; strong in the belief that a day of work should naturally equal a year’s worth of payment, strong in the belief that we can continue renting our so-called “intellectual property” to our own citizens and the rest of the world and they will graciously comply.
And they will fill imaginary museums with all the accomplishments and ideas and artistic expressions Anonymous Cowards DIDN’T create… because they spent their time posting satirical bile on someone else’s forum, without even a name.
Re: Re:
Insightful and funny are really cool buttons, but I have to insist that Mike add a “moron” button. Especially for posts like this “TechDirt Manifesto”
Personally Im sick of the posts from people whining about protection of the artists. It’s the MIDDLE MEN and GATEKEEPERS that are terrified of loss. The artists are just fine because the consumers actually WANT what they have to offer.
When the consumers want the content, then it can be monetized in some fashion.
Re: Re: Re:
Successfully trolled. Thanks for playing.
Re: Re:
WACKY ZANY like signing a contract with Facebook to give music for free for the masses?
Re: Re:
Idiot manifesto:
Mike’s always wrong, even when he’s just pointing out the facts reported elsewhere and the facts are undisputed.
To put it simply: the corporations need to make their money at all costs. The fact that they fail to connect with people, screw over artists and fail to adapt to market realities that didn’t exist in their halcyon days is irrelevant. No new business ideas can be accepted, our business has to be run in the same way as it was in 1997.
Artists and consumers need to do away with the tired notion that they get value for money, access to content and incentives to buy. They need to focus on WACKY, ZANY concepts like needing to pay for every single use of our products, which can only be used when, where and how we dictate. Artists also need to remember we own everything they ever do, and they get paid at our discretion, if ever.
And remember, even if you’re blocked from accessing content legally or we place restrictions that stop you from using your legally purchased product, downloading will result in you being sued into bankruptcy because you *might* have spent an extra $5 somewhere in a parallel universe.
(am I doing it right?)
Re: Re: Re:
IMO you did it much more correctly (right) than Anonymous Coward did it. In fact, that was pretty spot on. Kudos to you sir. I eagerly await his rebuttal. I do find them so entertaining. It’s like a game of pick and choose what few parts in what you and others say to respond to, in lieu of everything, because he only has “canned” responses to some things. Which is disappointing, but expected from some of the ACs on here.
Re: Re: Re:
Successfully trolled. Thanks for playing.
Re: Re: Re:
While I didn’t write the first post, I figure I should answer this one.
First off Paul, when I saw “Idiot Manifesto”, I thought you were going to explain your world view. But since instead you chose to attack someone with a collection of insane logical leaps and bogus interpretations, I guess you need an answer.
” The fact that they fail to connect with people, screw over artists and fail to adapt to market realities that didn’t exist in their halcyon days is irrelevant.” – a failing statement at it’s finest. First and foremost, the content that is more often pirated isn’t Cory Smith or Amanda Marshall, it’s the very content produced by “the industry”. They have long since connected with the fans at the most important level, fulfilling their desire for music. No, they aren’t in the hoodie or miniputt businesses, but they are doing exactly what they set out to do, provide the music that the masses want. Want more of a connection can exist in the music world?
“Artists and consumers need to do away with the tired notion that they get value for money, access to content and incentives to buy.” – A tired argument, one that is once again shot down by both sales and demand. Remember, they aren’t selling you a product, they are selling access to that product. You want more access? You pay for it. Buying a single airline ticket doesn’t give you the right to fly on any plane forever. Yet, you can still take a song, rip it to digital, put it on your MP3 player, play it on your computer, listen to it in your car (when you get old enough to own one), and enjoy it in many other ways without paying anyone again.
” if you’re blocked from accessing content legally or we place restrictions that stop you from using your legally purchased product” – please show an example of where this happens. I cannot imagine a situation where this happens, except perhaps if you want to rip a DVD and burn copies for your friends. You have the DVD, take it with you if you want to watch it somewhere else.
See, the original commentator stated Mike’s position very clearly and correctly. You on the other hand used old wives tales, misdirection, and outright lies.
How does it feel to be so full of shit?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“First off Paul, when I saw “Idiot Manifesto”, I thought you were going to explain your world view. “
It was sarcastic deflection, as per the original post.
“First and foremost, the content that is more often pirated isn’t Cory Smith or Amanda Marshall”
So? The people complaining the most about piracy aren’t them either. But they’re hardly starving. Nor are most artists who don’t depend on 1997 business models.
“provide the music that the masses want”
I can point out the hundreds of ways they’re failing to do this, from regional restrictions to refusing to offer requested formats, but that’s too complicated I suppose?
“Remember, they aren’t selling you a product, they are selling access to that product.”
Funnily enough, that was never a distinction until they started trying to defend their digital strategy and lack of supply for customer demand… Before iTunes, as far as anyone was concerned they were selling the music.
“Yet, you can still take a song, rip it to digital”
That’s technically illegal in my home country.
“listen to it in your car (when you get old enough to own one)”
I’m 36 and have been doing so, technically illegally, since I bought my first car.
“without paying anyone again”
For now. The industry seems to be heading in a different direction.
“please show an example of where this happens”
Ubisoft example above. The fact I can’t use the DVDs I imported legally from the US without a crack. The fact that I can’t buy a book I want for my Kindle from the UK store but I can from the US store, or the fact I can buy a CD from Amazon but not an MP3. The fact I can pay for a lovefilm sub when I’m in the UK but am not allowed to watch the content when I’m in Spain. I can go on if you want…
“How does it feel to be so full of shit?”
Since you seem to be the one deflecting and relying on incomplete facts, you tell me?
Re: Techdirt Manifesto
Well done, it sounds like you are finally getting close to understanding it. 7/10.
The Business model has changed and content creators do need to change with the times.
Copyright really does not seem to be working anymore as it has become totally one-sided and not really even on the side of the artists.
Riddle me piss
I think it might take some unknown country like Russia to fix the World Wide Copyright Cluster Fuck. They could point their nuclears at our Googles and Tubes and tell us “you better or else!” Now, Googles and Tubes must decide. Should they pull the plug and enjoy the fruits on the table or play roulette to get a coupon for a bigger pie?
/Fucked
Google should do this voluntarily, for a day, to get the average person involved in this debate. If you took away Google and all of their services, you would disrupt most peoples lives and there would be a huge backlash against whatever caused it. Why would Google do it? They can use it as a springboard to get the patent changes they want/need to keep Android going and dominating.
Re: Re:
Umm, we, among MANY others, have high availability contracts signed with Google. If they did this it would cost them an incalculable fortune. As a cloud service provider, they can never do anything like this, and we shouldn’t threaten them. If the fed were to seize the google.com domain, our Apps for Education accounts would start bouncing back emails, causing an international incident (I’m in Canada). I don’t think the Justice dept understands this, since they seem to be going after bigger and bigger targets, so eventually, this will happen.
Re: Or how about shutting down the torrent links for a day
How’s this for an experiment: they shutdown links to the torrent sites and the isohunts for a day. Then they only keep the official videos on YouTube instead of the ones that infringe on music copyrights. Then see if people really need all the extra piracy that Google facilitates.
Re: Re: Or how about shutting down the torrent links for a day
Silly rabbit, torrent searching is for kids
Re: Re: Or how about shutting down the torrent links for a day
“How’s this for an experiment: they shutdown links to the torrent sites and the isohunts for a day.”
Did you not realize that the Pirate Bay was shut down for a while and people found alternatives?
“Then they only keep the official videos on YouTube instead of the ones that infringe on music copyrights.”
Meanwhile the people that are putting up their own original content of games, remixes of music, and remixes of movies with new funny dialogue would go to Youbu…
” Then see if people really need all the extra piracy that Google facilitates”
And Google is not to blame for what people create. Good attempt at trolling. I give you a C-. It’s average, but your points are too easily refuted.
Re: Re: Or how about shutting down the torrent links for a day
Show us what is infringing. All of it. Reliably. Remember, if you make a mistake, you’re liable.
I have looked up some info on him and it does look like he was just making a point. Otherwise, he is known to be a progressively thinking deputy.
Some of his statements are: “I believe we cannot fight new technologies”, “we can go the legal way, …but the situation is comparable to the invention of a printing press in middle ages. The people were amazed how easy it had become to copy books!”, “Piracy is inevitable, no matter how much it shocks the society.”
Shouldn’t any search engine be shut down then? How will anyone fine any sites?
Re: How will anyone fine any sites?
By typing random IP adresses into the web browser’s address bar until the desired website is found. There are only 4294967296 IPv4 addresses and 281474976710656 IPv6 addresses – finding one you want can’t be too hard.
RE Fair Pay
I worked 20 years ago, that work is still productive today and making money, I want my paycheck now for all the days it has been working for the last 10 years.
I made “real” products, that did (do) “real” things, this is even more than any artists ever has done, so now I DEMAND real money.
/sarc
Tounge in Cheek perhaps?
He may be simply be trying to make a point. How many times have US interests tried to shut down a website in Russia because it didn’t conform to US copyright law?
I think “We’ll shut down our sites when you shut down Google” would have been my first response when confronted by the US.
Re: Tounge in Cheek perhaps?
not to mention the little problem they have with the opposition using those platforms for pesky free speech
I remember the early post-Napster days
Ah, yes. The heady days after the fall of the original Napster. A service sprung up in its wake, called Napigator, whose function was to locate “Nap servers,” which were decentralized mini-versions of the original. You had to hop from server to server and most of them held sh1t and many of them viruses, and it kind of died out. A brief dark age ensued until the rise of peer-to-peer. I remember BearShare well. You could snoop on people’s hard drives and it was always fun when people shared their whole c: drive. But it became less reliable and numerous spoofs of popular songs were released. Around 2005 I gave up and started playing around with paid services, e.g. Rhapsody. But anyone with half a brain could just go analog-to-digital on those, and of course the same can be done now with YouTube. Shoot, there’s even legit software that’ll digitally convert your .flv temp. files to mp3’s, iPhone video, etc. (I know, shhh!) If YouTube (with the collusion of RealNetworks) is allowing this, who he devil is minding the store? I myself uploaded a video with copyrighted track to YouTube. They sent me a tut-tut and told me it wouldn’t play in Germany, but other than that, they kept it up–till I got either paranoid or remorseful, and took it down!
It’s sad it takes Russians to say what American’s should be standing up for. I welcome a war with Russia as it will be quickly won and then we will actually have MORE freedom. It will be a breath of fresh air.
Americans are too lazy to fight for freedom. Their idea of freedom is free stuff.