Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It

from the well-that's-awkward dept

So, there's been this slightly weird tangent in the Oracle/Google patent & copyright dispute, in which Judge Alsup -- for reasons that are still not clear to anyone -- ordered both companies to disclose the names of any "authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in [the] case." Both sides made filings last week, with Oracle disclosing -- as was already public -- that it had blogger Florian Mueller on staff as a consultant, and mentioning an Oracle employee who blogged about the case. Google, on the other hand, told the court that it hadn't paid anyone to comment on the case at all, but did mention that in the course of its regular activities, it does give money to various companies, some of whom may have had employees who commented on the story. Judge Alsup came back earlier this week and told Google it didn't try hard enough and to find some names to name.

Earlier today, Google did its filing and apparently found some names... including mine! Yes, I know that we've had some haters declaring for years that I'm a Google shill, so this must be the confirmation of all their conspiracy theories, rumors and attacks, right? Well, no. I'm named in the section about CCIA -- the Computer and Communications Industry Association. Why? Because CCIA sponsored some research that we did. Here's what the filing states:
The CCIA has commissioned studies by Mike Masnick, CEO of Floor64. See http://www.floor64.com/about.php. Mr. Masnick has commented on the case on the TechDirt website and on his personal friendfeed.com account. See Ex. X (available at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120523/11050519050/boom-jury-says-no-patentinfringement- google-oracle-case.shtml and at http://friendfeed.com/mmasnick/a3a94012/jurygoogle- did-not-infringe-on-oracle-patents).
And, yes, CCIA has commissioned a study by my company (Floor64) which I co-authored. And that's, uh, public knowledge. Here's my post back in January announcing the Sky is Rising report, in which it says, upfront, that it was sponsored by CCIA. And, of course, you can go check out the Sky is Rising report yourself directly, which has a nice big CCIA logo on the front. Hell, if you want, you can also donate some money for the ebook version -- and it, too, will come with the CCIA logo.

I'm not sure how that has anything to do with Google. Google is a CCIA member, as are a bunch of other companies. And, honestly, if you'd asked me yesterday, I would have said that I thought Oracle was a CCIA member too, because it's an organization that represents a bunch of top tech companies, including Microsoft, eBay, Sprint, Facebook, AMD, Fujitsu, Dish Networks and more. However, it appears that Oracle is not a CCIA member, though I only learned this today from the filing, which also notes that Oracle and Sun used to be CCIA members. So, I'm not sure what any of that says about anything.

And, of course, if the point of this exercise is to uncover "shills" who are really speaking on behalf of companies without disclosing it, once again this argument falls down. My position on issues related to copyright and patents has been pretty damn consistent since before Google existed. And that continues up until today. I will regularly call out Google for patent and copyright behavior that I believe is bad. And that's because I say what I think. The editorial content of this site has never been for sale, nor will it ever be. Because the only way I survive in this business is with my reputation.

Also, I'm not sure what's with the Friendfeed link in the filing. To be honest, I'd completely forgotten about Friendfeed, which I thought was shut down after Facebook bought the company. But I believe my Friendfeed just sucked in my Twitter account and Techdirt's Twitter account into a single feed. And apparently it lives on without my knowledge.

Separately, because all of this struck me as interesting, I remembered that we did some work with Oracle too! And, just as with what we did with CCIA, it was disclosed publicly at the time. Oracle (along with Intel) sponsored a section of our site, and a series of webinars that we did. And yet, Oracle did not disclose me in their original filing and I don't believe that they filed a new filing here either. Of course, as with CCIA, our relationship with Oracle did not include them having any say in editorial either. In fact, with the order as broad as it was from Judge Alsup, I'd argue that there's a much stronger argument that I should be in the Oracle filing than the Google one. But, of course, Oracle didn't include us because it was a random blog sponsorship thing they did a while back which had nothing to do with editorial (or even intellectual property issues).

In the end, this comes right back to some of the concerns that were raised about Judge Alsup's broad order in the first place. If you want to find tenuous connections, they exist. In fact, Google's filing lists out a bunch of other names (including many people who I know or consider friends), almost all of whom have a long, long history of holding the exact same positions, and where the connection to "Google money" is, at best, weak.

Like many folks, I was curious to see who would be named on both of these lists, but the order was so broad that it seems to have swept me up into it (on one side, though a broad reading says it would make more sense for me to be on the other one!), and that's silly. I'm a big boy and I can handle people not understanding the details here and attacking me, but the fact that we did unrelated research for a different organization that Google is a member of -- and that gets me named on a list of "shills" just doesn't seem right.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 1:25pm

    What's stupid...

    What's stupid about all this is that the broad order from the Judge, after Google said they had paid nobody to comment on the case, caused them to simply sweep a bunch of people they had unrelated business with and throw them at the judge to shut them up.

    "You didn't try hard enough, Google". WTF????

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      GMacGuffin (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 1:38pm

      Re: What's stupid...

      Exactly. Nothing wasn't enough, your honor? OK, we'll give you some nothing with links then.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Atkray (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 1:55pm

        Re: Re: What's stupid...

        What's really stupid is that now the third graders are going to keep beating on the "I told you so, Masnick is a Google shill, Masnick is a Google shill, Masnick is a Google shill" drum until their arms fall off.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 2:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: What's stupid...

          No, what's really stupid is that Google wasn't even the one commissioning the study that got Techdirt listed on this filing. It's a tangential relationship at best.

          Oh well, I'm sure once this leaves Crystal Ball territory all the trolls in the world will want to put their stupdity on display for all of us to see.

          Sadly, I have yet to receive a check from Google, despite writing for the site. And, given that I, like Mike, have been critical of Google in the past, this is all much to do about nothing....

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          That One Guy (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 2:45pm

          Re: Re: Re: What's stupid...

          How is that in any way different than what they already do?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:37pm

      Re: What's stupid...

      As usual Mike... you seem to be the last to know...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 2:17pm

    The pull quote

    My position on issues related to copyright and patents has been pretty damn consistent since before Google existed.

    15 years. 40,000 posts. All of it archived right here on this site, completely searchable.

    It's probably too much trouble to ask anyone wandering in shouting "shill" to consider the evidence to the contrary but out of everything listed in this post, I'd point to that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mr. Smarta** (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 2:32pm

    This proves it...

    This proves it. The fact that Mike was completely open, candid, and transparent about this whole thing will be used as proof and indisputable evidence that he tried to hide it. If we use the same rationality as some of the RIAA judges, openly admitting and being transparent actually means you're trying to hide the truth. You can't have it both ways. Either you're hiding the truth, or you're transparent... and transparent means you're hiding it.

    Passing a law making running red lights illegal meant that the government who passed it actually meant that running them is legal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 2:38pm

    I KNEW IT!!!

    Pirate Mike and Pirate Google are in cahoots! Cahoots, I say!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:45pm

      Re:

      My god...if I use Google I can find Techdirt wherein I can find articles relating to technology wherein Google might be mentioned or discussed! It's a plot!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 2:39pm

    I don't usually like to jump in on typos and be off topic, but to be both....

    ...nice big CCIA log really sounds like a tasty campfire treat to me for some reason.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 2:41pm

    The judge obviously doesn't want to look like a fool to the internets so he wants to do some reading. It's a good thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Robert (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 2:45pm

    Google shill and more

    Now if only we could connect Pirate Mike to The Pirate Bay, then the AC's who frequently pop on to argue and drive people nuts, could have at total field day.

    *Begin Conspiracy*

    I suppose we could start the rumor that The Pirate Bay was originally called The Pirate Michael Bay, but then Michael Bay was brought to tears at the thought, so Pirate Mike went into hiding.

    He found a place, way up on the 64th floor and that's what brought the name, Floor64.

    Why the 64th floor? Because Mike is a geek and all geeks speak binary and 2^6 = 64. That's the connection to Google! It's so obvious. Two people started Google, Google has 6 data centers in their establishment of world control, starting with the entertainment industry.

    Now you see, Pirate Mike is making it clearly obvious he's a Google Shill. The connection is mathematically proven. It's all in the equation.

    /sarc/troll/tin-foil hat melted

    Sorry, it's Friday and I'm losing it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      xenomancer (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 2:57pm

      Re: Google shill and more

      My god; the prime factors of six are two and three...

      23!!! AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        xenomancer (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 2:59pm

        Re: Re: Google shill and more

        /bandwagon

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Robert (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:01pm

        Re: Re: Google shill and more

        Thank you, you made me laugh.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Karl (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:45pm

        Re: Re: Google shill and more

        My god; the prime factors of six are two and three...

        Not only that! As we all know, "Google" is a play on the mathematical term googol, which means one with one hundred zeros after it. In other words, ten to the hundredth power - or, ten to the power of (ten times ten).

        If you add 6 and 4, what do you get? Ten!

        It's just too obvious. But the conspiracy goes even deeper than that!

        If you raise three to the second power, you get 9. Now, if you multiply 11 by 2, you get twenty-two. Three raised to the power of twenty-two is 31381059609. BUT! This is also the power of nine raised to eleven!

        9/11!

        And there's more! If you actually divide nine by eleven, you get .81818181... that is, .81 repeating. Eight plus one equals nine, which equals two to the power of three - the very factors of six which you just mentioned!

        It gets even scarier! Take that two and three, factor in 10 for Google, and 1 for Mike "Lone Wolf" Masnick, and what do you get?

        2 * (10 ^ 3) + 1 = 2001! As in, September 11th, 2001!

        It's obvious, and sinister! A Google-funded Mike Masnick was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks!

        I keep telling this to the FBI, but they never listen. They never listen! It's obviously a government cover-up!!!

        Also, aliens.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:52pm

          Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

          two to the power of three

          Sorry, "three to the power of two."

          The rest is mathematically accurate, and also completely sane.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Robert (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

          Karl,

          Don't forget, there are 3 vowels in the word "Google" which significant, given Google has six letters!

          Google existed for 6 years before Joel T's alleged infringement, Google has 6 letters in their name, Google has 6 data centers -- ahhh 666, Google is the evil!

          But since Pirate Mike was the first Google Shill, before Google even existed, AND since he clearly has a time machine, he is really the Devil! Who else can jump through time, create an evil empire (Google), dare to stand up against government safety bills (PIPA/SOPA/ACTA/TPP), hate artists, encourage chaos (The Pirate Michael Bay - now renamed The Pirate Bay since Pirate Mike didn't want to be confused with Michael Bay), cattle mutilations, and Brittany Spears' head shaving incident!

          It's all there and we all fell more Pirate Mike's evil Googlation (Google Domination) plan!

          I'm ashamed of myself for not being smarter and seeing through such lies.

          The greatest trick Pirate Mike The Devil ever pulled, was convincing TechDirt readers that piracy didn't exist!

          /yeah, I know, overboard but still fun. No Offense Mike, I figured if we chimed in maybe we could take the wind out of the sails of the usual AC-conspiracy rants.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:17pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

            I figured if we chimed in maybe we could take the wind out of the sails of the usual AC-conspiracy rants.

            Conspiracy rants? Google put his name on its list of shills. No conspiracy theory, just a big time outting. Truthfully, it's widely known, and now it's public due to Google's legally required disclosure of who are its paid shills.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Leigh Beadon (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:26pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

              you keep calling this a list of shills, and i'd like to know where you're getting that from, since that's not what it is...

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                 
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:55pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

                you keep calling this a list of shills, and i'd like to know where you're getting that from, since that's not what it is...

                Oh, but according to the paid shill himself, it is a shill list:

                "I can handle people not understanding the details here and attacking me," Masnick writes, "but the fact that we did unrelated research for a different organization that Google is a member of gets me named on a list of 'shills' just doesn't seem right."

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Wally (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 6:13pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

                  First: I see there is no real reason to actually try to talk to you as you blatantly ignore the obvious. Also, you are using personal attacks trying to rebuttal mine and others' points. So I'm really not inclined to talk to you until you correct those behaviors.

                  Second: Notice I knew what you were by your comments...a troll. You do nothing but harrass people until they see as you do. Take a personal tip from me, and don't troll and maybe you could learn how to get a proper counterpoint.

                  Please keep in mind that I am only trying to help you make better at your arguments than your usual name calling. Name calling never works in a well thought put argument. If you know the answer, answer it the best to your knowledge. As it has been demonstrated below, an AC had stated his opinion without name calling and calling people out. People were inclined to help him clarify his statement for better understanding all around.

                  So if you really want to make a proper rebuttal, do it, but please do it without name calling (it is quite useless), and it only gets you labeled as a troll depending on how you use your name calling.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                     
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 6:20pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

                    Are you seriously so lame that you are obliged to cut and paste the same comment over and over? I know you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but if you want to curry favor with the Lord High Apologist some original commentary would probably help. Keep in mind that I'm only trying to help you rise in rank from toady to lickspittle. I think with a little work, you might even rise to the exalted rank of Unctuous Brown Noser, 1st Class.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Wally (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:32pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

                      It's called passive aggressiveness you little fuck.

                      Did you notice at all that I sometimes don't agree with the articles written on TechDirt? No, you just keep on name calling.

                      Stop repeting conspiracy theories you see in your mother's basement.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                         
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:38pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

                        It's called passive aggressiveness you little fuck.

                        Mercy me, that's not passive.

                        Did you notice at all that I sometimes don't agree with the articles written on TechDirt? No, you just keep on name calling.

                        Who can tell what you think, all you do is cut, paste and recycle the same tired shit.

                        Stop repeting conspiracy theories you see in your mother's basement.

                        What conspiracy theory. Google proclaimed Masnick as one of it's paid shills. Masnick is quoted bitching about being included on a "shill list".

                        I guess you don't have a canned response for this so you decided to go with the 'conspiracy theory' response. Swing and a miss, strike three.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Wally (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 8:33pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

                          Once again I offer you an out. You didn't focus on the facts to draw you conclusions in the past, which makes almost everyone not listen to you. I canned my responses because you canned your comments. You just found the ONE THING that you thought you could use, you over-milked it before you even remotely saw this article. You now think that this article confirms Mike being paid by Google. Mike wrote about Google back in 1997 and Google went online in 1998.

                          So as you can see, not all my responses to you are canned reactions. Maybe if you would cite where you get your information, avoid name calling, harrassing and trolling anyone who debunks your theories, have a well thought out logical and reasonable comment beyond the usual "Mike is a pirate shill" derping that you usually do people would be willing to help you.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            identicon
                            Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 9:39pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

                            I was wrong. You should go back to the cut and paste- free styling is not your thing.

                            What the hell does this even mean:

                            You now think that this article confirms Mike being paid by Google. Mike wrote about Google back in 1997 and Google went online in 1998.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Wally (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 9:07am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

                              The only reason Google put him on the list was for Mike writing about the then up and coming search engine giant Google. They claimed to have paid him and he honestly didn't know about it. So trolls like you assumed he was a shill without looking at his history.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Wally (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 9:15am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

                              Furthermore, you likely did not exist in 1997 so I'm not surprised you don't know your tech history as I do. It's called research young'n, use it, research it, draw facts to make your own conclusions and do not make your own facts and draw conclusions. It's simple to research.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:24pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

                  Are you really completely unaware of what putting quotes around a word means or just pretending to be unaware?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:49pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

              You are hilarious.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                 
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:39pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

                yes you are... as usual, Mike is the last to know what's actually going on... figures...

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:49pm

          Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

          Brilliant! (Also, you have too much time on your hands...)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Wally (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 10:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more

            No no no and no. If they had a lot of free time we would see actual intelligent responses. Mind you they still have free time after writing out the tripe that they convey to the public which comes out of thin air.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Groove Tiger (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:55pm

      Re: Google shill and more

      Google has 6 letters in its name. Coincidence? I Think Not!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:14pm

      Re: Google shill and more

      Now if only we could connect Pirate Mike to The Pirate Bay

      Maybe you can ask him how many times he's used the Pirate Bay.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Karl (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 6:31pm

        Re: Re: Google shill and more

        Maybe you can ask him how many times he's used the Pirate Bay.

        That would be exactly zero times.

        In fact, if you count the number of times he hasn't used The Pirate Bay, it would rapidly approach some very large number. Like, say, a googol!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      RD, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:18pm

      Re: Google shill and more

      This fantastic screed cannot be rated up enough, awesome!. And it makes about as much sense (and maybe more) than the usual ShillTroll(tm) bile that gets spewed around here.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rabid Troll, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 2:54pm

    Masnick shilling for Big Search AND Big Database!!! My god, how Far up does this Thing go down the rabbit hole?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 2:56pm

    I always knew Masnick was a PAID SHILL for Adventure Communications, Cascode Technologies, Data Foundry, Dish, eBay, Facebook, Fujitsu, Google, Intuit, Integra Telecom, LightSquared, Microsoft, Net Access System Technologies, nVidia, OpenConnect, Redhat, Sprint, T3 Technologies, Turbo Hercules, XO Communications, Yahoo!

    His opinions are always so one sided!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wally, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:03pm

    :-)

    I honestly still don't see Mike's "connection" to Google.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      That One Guy (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:50pm

      Re: :-)

      That's because you are both able, and willing, to actually think about it.

      Troll 'logic' in this case goes like this:

      Mike posts an article talking about something good google has done = proof Mike works for, and is shilling for, google.

      Mike posts an article critical of something google has done = proof that Mike works for, and is shilling for, google, because look, he's done articles talking about good things they've done in the past, so it means the article critical of them is just an attempt at misdirection!

      You may find this a little odd, but that's just because troll 'logic' works different than normal, namely backwards. Instead of looking at facts and evidence and arriving at a conclusion based upon it, they go with the conclusion they already want and work to find proof for it, and if lacking any, make it up as well as they can.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:12pm

        Re: Re: :-)

        Do you seriously think Google pulled his name out of a hat? And even if you buy the CCIA false flag, it's noteworthy that CCIA is an accused shill.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Wally (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:42pm

        Re: Re: :-)

        "Mike posts an article talking about something good google has done = proof Mike works for, and is shilling for, google."


        I have seen it when he's chastised Google as well.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          That One Guy (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 6:37pm

          Re: Re: Re: :-)

          As have I, hence the second part, describing how trolls explain such incidents away, where using troll 'logic' even when he's actually chastising them for something he's still(somehow) shilling for them.

          As I said this kind of thinking only makes sense(and I use that word very loosely) if you use troll logic, and start with the conclusion you want, and go from there. Using plain old 'normal' logic would get you a very different conclusion, as well as requiring actually reading, and comprehending, what is being posted.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 6:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)

            I'm sorry for you that Google named Masnick as a shill. I'm sure you find that very inconvenient, and has forced you into these tortured explanations that despite Google acknowledging him as a paid shill, he is not in fact a paid shill.

            Try applying logic to this: If Masnick is not a Google shill, why would Google say that Masnick is a Google shill? EFF, CDT and PK are also listed as shills. They criticize Google from time to time as well. Google understands that true shills need to maintain an appearance of impartiality so they tolerate occasional, superficial criticism from their shill army so they can say: "Look we said something negative about Google, we're not shills"..... right up until when something like this happens.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:30pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)

              One problem for your line of reasoning there, Google didn't name anyone as a shill.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                 
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:34pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)

                Funny, that's not the way the Shill-In-Chief sees it:

                .....gets me named on a list of 'shills' just doesn't seem right."

                I suggest you take that characterization up with him.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:52pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)

                  Again, are you really completely unaware of what putting quotes around a word means or just pretending to be unaware?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:54pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)

                  But just to be clear, if that's what Mike thinks it is I think he's wrong to and should take a closer look at the order and the response. It's not a list of shills, Google is adamant that it's not a list of shills, and that makes sense because the court order is far broader than just 'shills.' Under the court's logic if Google bought and piece of fruit and my fruit stand and I blogged about this case I'd be on that list.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
             
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:14pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)

            I'm sorry for you that Google named Masnick as a shill. I'm sure you find that very inconvenient, and has forced you into these tortured explanations that despite Google acknowledging him as a paid shill, he is not in fact a paid shill.

            Try applying logic to this: If Masnick is not a Google shill, why would Google say that Masnick is a Google shill? EFF, CDT and PK are also listed as shills. They criticize Google from time to time as well. Google understands that true shills need to maintain an appearance of impartiality so they tolerate occasional, superficial criticism from their shill army so they can say: "Look we said something negative about Google, we're not shills"..... right up until when something like this happens.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Karl (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:39pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)

              Try applying logic to this: If Masnick is not a Google shill, why would Google say that Masnick is a Google shill?

              Try applying logic to this: Google repeatedly denied that anyone in that filing was a shill.

              In fact, it appears that a big reason Google even mentioned their names in the filing, is that Oracle claimed in their filings that they were shills, and Google explicitly wanted to deny it. It's certainly the case with the CCIA:
              Oracle's [sic] falsely suggests that Ed Black of the Computer and Communications Industry Association ("CCIA") was acting under the influence of Google money when he wrote a column stating the position that APIs are not copyrightable. Oracle and its counsel had to have known that CCIA's position on APIs pre-dated Google’s membership in CCIA - and in fact predated Google’s incorporation in 1998. Mr. Black has publicly stated that Google did not ask him to write in support of its position, and that CCIA’s position that APIs are not copyrightable "goes back to the 1990s."

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2012 @ 4:17am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)

                Yeah, but the CCIA is much like EFF these days - Google's money get there in different ways, but the results are the same.

                CCIA is a group not owned by Google but certainly dominated by them. They are the 800 pound gorilla, plain and simple.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Wally (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)

            That One Guy, I totally agree. I just pointed out that I also have seen it :-)

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:40pm

      Re: :-)

      I honestly still don't see Mike's "connection" to Google.

      Perhaps, but Google does... and now so does the rest of the world.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Wally, Aug 25th, 2012 @ 9:38am

        Re: Re: :-)

        "Perhaps, but Google does... and now so does the rest of the world."

        Well, I don't quite know if you noticed, but I think there are a lot of people here outside myself who do not see the connection/conspiracy theory in that you do. The list was not a list of paid people as Oracle Systems had claimed. I'm pretty sure mike wrote about a then, up and coming search engine named Google back in 1997. But I'm sure you're too young to know about how Google started off.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Francisco, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:06pm

    I've been following Techdirt for God knows how many years. Its a great site full of valuable information and, more importantly, great insights.
    I work in IP with media related companies. I think that your position (you Mike Masnick)in the "IP wars" sometimes is superficial and silly: Media companies bad, Tech companies, good. But in general, as I said, this site is great and, at the very least, it has helped me to "sharpen" my arguments.
    As a regular of Techdirt I can attest that whenever you or your fellow writers have found Google or any other tech company in the wrong, in your opinion, you have been even harder with them.
    I have no doubts about your integrity and I only want to thank you for all your efforts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:33pm

      Re:

      I have no doubts about your integrity and I only want to thank you for all your efforts.

      I think that is a comment more on your own integrity than that of Masnick's.. It is clear to anyone who can read, that Masnicks integrity is somewhere well below zero at this point.

      face it he's been outted for all the things he waffles on about here..

      he is after all a paid shill and lobbyiest

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:15pm

    As soon as I heard about the judge's order, I figured you name would float to the surface like an overripe turd in a cesspool. Obviously Google has hundreds of similar relationships, yet they named YOU. From Oracle's filing on the matter:

    "Oracle notes that Google maintains a network of direct and indirect 'influencers'; to advance Google's intellectual property agenda. This network is extensive, including attorneys, lobbyists, trade associations, academics, and bloggers, and its focus extends beyond pure intellectual property issues to competition/antitrust issues." It alleges that "Google brought this extensive network of influencers to help shape public perceptions concerning the position it was advocating throughout this trial."

    So while you may not consider yourself a Google shill, apparently Google does and has named you as one of the influencers that are paid to advance Google's intellectual property agenda.

    So after all these years of denial, you've been outted by your paymaster in spectacular fashion. Pirate Mike; Google pissboy and paid shill. At least now, there's no denying it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rabid Troll, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:26pm

      Re:

      A touch! Well played Sir! He's on the ropes now! Reveal to the world now hhis Dirty Little Secret and finnish him! FINNISH HIMMMMM!!!!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Wally (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:32pm

        Re: Re:

        It is "Touché" my dear sir..... :-)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
           
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          This is appears to be right on:

          "So while you may not consider yourself a Google shill, apparently Google does and has named you as one of the influencers that are paid to advance Google's intellectual property agenda.

          So after all these years of denial, you've been outted by your paymaster in spectacular fashion. Pirate Mike; Google pissboy and paid shill. At least now, there's no denying it."

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:36pm

      Re:

      ...named you as one of the influencers that are paid to advance Google's intellectual property agenda

      That's neither what Alsup ordered, nor what Google listed... did you confuse Oracle's allegations with Google's response, or perhaps with the voice in your head?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:57pm

      Re:

      So, I assume you'll be moving on then? Your point proved conclusively? "My work is done here" and all that?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:27pm

      Re:

      Google pissboy and paid shill

      I did, but there was nothing really interesting:

      https://www.google.com/search?q=pissboy+and+paid+shill&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8& ;client=ubuntu&channel=fs

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Wally (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 6:15pm

      Re:

      First: I see there is no real reason to actually try to talk to you as you blatantly ignore the obvious. Also, you are using personal attacks trying to rebuttal mine and others' points. So I'm really not inclined to talk to you until you correct those behaviors.

      Second: Notice I knew what you were by your comments...a troll. You do nothing but harrass people until they see as you do. Take a personal tip from me, and don't troll and maybe you could learn how to get a proper counterpoint.

      Please keep in mind that I am only trying to help you make better at your arguments than your usual name calling. Name calling never works in a well thought put argument. If you know the answer, answer it the best to your knowledge. As it has been demonstrated below, an AC had stated his opinion without name calling and calling people out. People were inclined to help him clarify his statement for better understanding all around.

      So if you really want to make a proper rebuttal, do it, but please do it without name calling (it is quite useless), and it only gets you labeled as a troll depending on how you use your name calling.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:31pm

      Re:

      Well if Oracle said it it must be true...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Bill W (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:26pm

    Careful Mike

    You "may" be aware that if you make too much of a "big deal" about this then there is an Effect named after a certain popular singer that I am pretty sure you are aware of. Come to think of it, it may already be in effect at some level As We Speak. ;-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:28pm

    And, honestly, if you'd asked me yesterday, I would have said that I thought Oracle was a CCIA member too, because it's an organization that represents a bunch of top tech companies, including Microsoft, eBay, Sprint, Facebook, AMD, Fujitsu, Dish Networks and more.

    Not so fast chubby. Are you seriously suggesting that you were commissioned to perform a study for CCIA costing tens of thousands of dollars and you didn't know who all of the members of the group were? What total horse shit. Who on earth do you think is stupid enough to believe that?

    About the only way that is remotely conceivable is if you were hired directly by Google, who later had it published under the CCIA banner. And that's probably exactly what happened, I'll still never believe that you don't know who the members of the CCIA are.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      comp. ling. student, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:46pm

      Re:

      "...chubby."

      Ad hominem.

      "Are you seriously suggesting that you were commissioned to perform a study for CCIA costing tens of thousands of dollars and you didn't know who all of the members of the group were?"

      The amount of money doesn't have an effect one way or the other.

      Mike didn't say that he didn't know who all the members of the group were -- he said that he would have thought that Oracle was a member.

      "About the only way that is remotely conceivable is if you were hired directly by Google, who later had it published under the CCIA banner."

      As has already been pointed out, the CCIA includes amongst its members Microsoft (a competitor of Google) and Facebook (an ally of Microsoft). This group is hardly friendly to Google.

      "And that's probably exactly what happened, I'll still never believe that you don't know who the members of the CCIA are."

      I give up. If you'll never believe something, then what's the point of trying to determine the truth of things?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:28pm

        Re: Re:

        The amount of money doesn't have an effect one way or the other.

        Mike didn't say that he didn't know who all the members of the group were -- he said that he would have thought that Oracle was a member.


        You are either an even bigger idiot (if that's possible) or an enormously ingratiating lickspittle.

        A professional tech consulting firm performs an extensive study for the "CCIA" and it doesn't know who the members are or aren't. That is simply unbelievable and you should be embarrassed for trying to legitimize this bullshit.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Wally (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 6:16pm

      Re:

      First: I see there is no real reason to actually try to talk to you as you blatantly ignore the obvious. Also, you are using personal attacks trying to rebuttal mine and others' points. So I'm really not inclined to talk to you until you correct those behaviors.

      Second: Notice I knew what you were by your comments...a troll. You do nothing but harrass people until they see as you do. Take a personal tip from me, and don't troll and maybe you could learn how to get a proper counterpoint.

      Please keep in mind that I am only trying to help you make better at your arguments than your usual name calling. Name calling never works in a well thought put argument. If you know the answer, answer it the best to your knowledge. As it has been demonstrated below, an AC had stated his opinion without name calling and calling people out. People were inclined to help him clarify his statement for better understanding all around.

      So if you really want to make a proper rebuttal, do it, but please do it without name calling (it is quite useless), and it only gets you labeled as a troll depending on how you use your name calling.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    comp. ling. student, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:35pm

    The other side of the equation

    IANAL, but I wonder if Google shouldn't have stood more firmly by its original (truthful) answer. Google paid no one to blog about this case.

    Had Google stood by its original response, then the judge may have eventually conceded that he had no proof otherwise.

    But now, as Mike pointed out, Google has disclosed more detail than Oracle; and, as a result, a sheer greater number of names.

    Unfortunately, that sheer greater number of names may be all that the mainstream coverage focuses on. I fully expect to read about "Google's dirty list of secrets, the names of which far outnumber the single blogger and employee on Oracle's list..."

    Of course, the other side of the equation, is that this unfairly smears all the names listed as being nothing more than corporate shills. I think Google should have considered the effect on the identified companies' reputations, before (irresponsibly) listing their names.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:44pm

      Re: The other side of the equation

      Of course, the other side of the equation, is that this unfairly smears all the names listed as being nothing more than corporate shills. I think Google should have considered the effect on the identified companies' reputations, before (irresponsibly) listing their names.

      It's laughable to suggest that Google somehow got pushed into these disclosures or went too far. They have the expertise and means to fight and disclose as little as legally possible. Yet there it is, a list of paid shills will all of the likely suspects. A shill is a shill. They took the money in exchange for helping Google advance its agenda and now their reputations reflect that fact.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        comp. ling. student, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:01pm

        Re: Re: The other side of the equation

        "It's laughable to suggest that Google somehow got pushed into these disclosures..."

        This was not suggested anywhere in my post...

        "They took the money in exchange for helping Google advance its agenda and now their reputations reflect that fact."

        Simply not true. Mike Masnick was commissioned by the CCIA (not only Google) for that study, which he completed. There is no evidence that he is currently receiving payment from Google for his postings on Techdirt.

        And the EFF employee who blogged on this case, has held consistent opinion on API copyrightability that "long predates his association with EFF, and in fact predates Google’s existence".

        Also, for a shill, the EFF has had no problem criticizing Google in the past:

        https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/google-verizon-netneutrality

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:33pm

          Re: Re: Re: The other side of the equation

          Simply not true. Mike Masnick was commissioned by the CCIA (not only Google) for that study, which he completed. There is no evidence that he is currently receiving payment from Google for his postings on Techdirt.

          If that is true, then why did Google feel compelled to identify Masnick as a paid shill when so ordered by the Court?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The other side of the equation

            The court didn't order a list of shills. What the court actually ordered was for:

            all commenters known by Google to have received payments as consultants, contractors, vendors, or employees”; and (b) employee-commenters at organizations who receive money from Google.


            And it did exactly that, listing literally everyone who commented on the case who ever had any association with Google, even before the case or after they no longer were associated in any way with Google. If you think Masnick is the equivalent of Florian Mueller of FOSSPatents, as you clearly do, the evidence presented in the filings shows you couldn't be more wrong.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 6:07pm

          Re: Re: Re: The other side of the equation

          "It's laughable to suggest that Google somehow got pushed into these disclosures..."

          This was not suggested anywhere in my post

          Really, what does this statement of yours mean?

          ...I wonder if Google shouldn't have stood more firmly by its original (truthful) answer

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Divide by Zero (profile), Aug 26th, 2012 @ 7:02pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The other side of the equation

            Are you actually serious? It means exactly what it says, namely that maybe Google should have stood more firmly instead of just going 'fuck it, here's some names'.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
               
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2012 @ 7:33pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The other side of the equation

              "should have stood more firmly"

              so as not to get pushed?

              Thanks, keep it coming.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Wally (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 6:19pm

        Re: Re: The other side of the equation

        First: I see there is no real reason to actually try to talk to you as you blatantly ignore the obvious. Also, you are using personal attacks trying to rebuttal mine and others' points. So I'm really not inclined to talk to you until you correct those behaviors.

        Second: Notice I knew what you were by your comments...a troll. You do nothing but harrass people until they see as you do. Take a personal tip from me, and don't troll and maybe you could learn how to get a proper counterpoint.

        Please keep in mind that I am only trying to help you make better at your arguments than your usual name calling. Name calling never works in a well thought put argument. If you know the answer, answer it the best to your knowledge. As it has been demonstrated below, an AC had stated his opinion without name calling and calling people out. People were inclined to help him clarify his statement for better understanding all around.

        So if you really want to make a proper rebuttal, do it, but please do it without name calling (it is quite useless), and it only gets you labeled as a troll depending on how you use your name calling.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 12:42am

      Re: The other side of the equation

      "IANAL, but I wonder if Google shouldn't have stood more firmly by its original (truthful) answer. Google paid no one to blog about this case."

      Google is careful like that. They don't do very much of anything on this level directly, it's always through third parties, charitable trusts, and other ways of avoiding any direct connections.

      How was the EFF financed? A trust. Why do you think that the EFF went from being a defender of rights "after the event" to an organization pushing an agenda (one that just happens to fit almost perfectly with Google's stated intentions and desires")?

      What is funny now is that, since Mike admits to working for the CCIA, pretty much everything that he quotes or highlights from this group is now suspect. Does he quote it as truth, or did he write it himself, or does he know the authors personally, or is he quoting from it because he gets paid by them?

      Mike would hang the RIAA and MPAA types from their balls for something like this, but everyone here seems to think it's okay because it's Lord Masnick himself. The Emperor has no clothes!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:40pm

    Somehow, Masnick forgot to link the Google filing in this article. As expected, the professional apologist groups; EFF, CDT and Public Knowledge are there along with many other shills.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/103832136/12-08-24-Supplemental-Google-Disclosures

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Dark Helmet (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:45pm

      Re:

      What the fuck are you talking about, dumbass? The filing is embedded below the article. How do you expect anyone to take your dumb ass seriously?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:00pm

        Re: Re:

        Oh the shill's shill speaks. It must have been a problem on my end. No worries you can go back to work on the Step2 shill damage control project.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Wally (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 6:20pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          First: I see there is no real reason to actually try to talk to you as you blatantly ignore the obvious. Also, you are using personal attacks trying to rebuttal mine and others' points. So I'm really not inclined to talk to you until you correct those behaviors.

          Second: Notice I knew what you were by your comments...a troll. You do nothing but harrass people until they see as you do. Take a personal tip from me, and don't troll and maybe you could learn how to get a proper counterpoint.

          Please keep in mind that I am only trying to help you make better at your arguments than your usual name calling. Name calling never works in a well thought put argument. If you know the answer, answer it the best to your knowledge. As it has been demonstrated below, an AC had stated his opinion without name calling and calling people out. People were inclined to help him clarify his statement for better understanding all around.

          So if you really want to make a proper rebuttal, do it, but please do it without name calling (it is quite useless), and it only gets you labeled as a troll depending on how you use your name calling.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 6:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            One more time and it's spam.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Wally (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 6:59pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              It is a whole hell of a lot better than the spam you have been puting out.

              "Shill Mike derpderpderp Mike's a shill derpderpderp"
              Gets old after a while. I'm only offering you an out each time I post that comment after you.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 6:51pm

          Re: Re: Re: Getting a kick from these comments

          And now the shill complains about shills having shills.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Leigh Beadon (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:47pm

      Re:

      Somehow, Masnick forgot to link the Google filing in this article

      It's embedded right there in the post, smart guy.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:44pm

    he is a google shill, google shows you free stuff and as a pirate mike approves of this

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 3:46pm

    To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

    There aren't that many names on the list. So those on the list do stand out as people Google feels the need to mention, distinct from the masses of tech bloggers in the world that it doesn't mention. So as far as degrees of separation go, one might assume that those on the list are at least one degree closer to Google than all of those not on the list.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      art guerrilla (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:49pm

      Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

      ...or, since it appears the googs is indeed becoming evil (*sigh* its inevitable of ANY and ALL large, secretive institutions), it is not crazy-talk to wonder if those selected for this dubious distinction were media folk goo-goo-goggles wants to discredit as shills...
      you just can't be too paranoid these days...
      art guerrilla
      aka ann archy
      eof

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:22pm

      Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

      So as far as degrees of separation go, one might assume that those on the list are at least one degree closer to Google than all of those not on the list.

      Mike has exactly the same "degree of separation" from Google as he does from Microsoft, the Dish Network, eBay, Sprint, or Yahoo!, all of whom are CCIA members. Yet Mike is not even accused of "shilling" for them.

      And he has a more direct connection with Oracle, as he explained... yet Oracle didn't reveal this information in their filing.

      In fact, if you actually read the filing, you'll note that about half of the people on that list also worked for Oracle or their lawyers at one time or another. And none of them were listed in Oracle's filing.

      For a perfectly good reason. As Google explained, repeatedly, they did not pay any of those people (nor anyone else) to write opinion pieces on the lawsuit. They were simply told by the judge to list anyone who took money from any organization Google gave money to, who also wrote anything about the case at all.

      This, in contrast with Oracle - who did pay people to write posts about the lawsuit, including people who were directly employed at Oracle at the time.

      Frankly, it appears the reason Google chose those specific organizations and people is because Oracle directly accused them of being shills for Google in the case filings, and Google wanted to prove they were not. One of those organizations is the CCIA.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:43pm

        Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

        Mike has exactly the same "degree of separation" from Google as he does from Microsoft, the Dish Network, eBay, Sprint, or Yahoo!, all of whom are CCIA members. Yet Mike is not even accused of "shilling" for them.

        I lean in the direction of asking bloggers to disclose all corporate connections, be they financial, personal, etc. So I would probably say that if you are contracting with the CCIA, you do have a relevant association with its members. In other words, I don't think there can be too much transparency.

        If we want to extent the concept to say Mike is shilling for all the members of the CCIA, I'll go for that.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:48pm

          Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

          The fact that he did a study for the CIAA was public knowledge long before this court filing...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 8:03pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

            The fact that he did a study for the CIAA was public knowledge long before this court filing...

            Yes, no disagreement there. I was just pointing out that being on Google's short list does make you more visible. You have gained an association with Google that other bloggers not on the list haven't been given. Whether your wanted that association or not doesn't change the fact that Google has given it to you.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 8:13pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

              I'm not sure I agree at all that this is 'Google's short list.' This is a list of anyone that's ever done business with Google in any way that talked about the case. Calling it 'Google's short list' seems to imply the people on the list are 'closer' to Google than those not on the list but that's not actually accurate.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 8:43pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                I'm not sure I agree at all that this is 'Google's short list.' This is a list of anyone that's ever done business with Google in any way that talked about the case. Calling it 'Google's short list' seems to imply the people on the list are 'closer' to Google than those not on the list but that's not actually accurate.

                I'd love to see a bigger list of any bloggers who have received money from Google in some fashion. Not advertising generated by a machine, but any blogger who has been paid for work done for Google, or even the sorts of things like getting free entertainment/dinners, free or discounted trips/services, etc. The same sorts of things DJs, many journalists, and many government workers are supposed to disclose. Google, on the one hand, said, "We can't give you names because there are so many of them," and then, on the other hand, has just said, "Here are the only people who fall within this set of guidelines."

                I'm suspect there is a middle ground between those two extremes that Google isn't disclosing.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 10:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

          So you are suggesting that because I worked for AT&T for a time that I must be shilling for them? Honestly? I can't even begin to verbalize just how silly that sounds to me.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 10:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

            So you are suggesting that because I worked for AT&T for a time that I must be shilling for them? Honestly? I can't even begin to verbalize just how silly that sounds to me.

            Actually that is totally standard for many writers. If they were working on a piece about AT&T they would mention at the start of the piece that they had formerly worked for AT&T.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 2:11am

          Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

          I lean in the direction of asking bloggers to disclose all corporate connections, be they financial, personal, etc.

          Well, when Mike released the report, he explicitly said it was funded (in part) by the CRIA. And there is a big CRIA label on the front of the report. Seems pretty transparent to me.

          If we want to extent the concept to say Mike is shilling for all the members of the CCIA, I'll go for that.

          "Shilling" means that you are getting paid specifically to promote the viewpoint of the people that are paying you. There's no evidence whatsoever that Mike's opinions are anyone's but Mike's, as evidenced by the fact that he routinely contradicts many of the viewpoints of CRIA members.

          (To the degree that they even have a viewpoint - after all, this is an organization that has Dish TV, Google, and Microsoft as members, and they couldn't be more different in their opinions, especially regarding things like software patents or copyright laws).

          Suzanne, have you ever taken money from anyone, for your art or otherwise? If so, then by your own definition, you're "shilling" for them. Have you taken money from any organization? If so, then by your own definition, you're "shilling" for every member of that organization.

          Please tell me, I'd like to know. Exactly who are you "shilling" for? Who pays for your opinions, here in the comments?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 10:04am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

            Suzanne, have you ever taken money from anyone, for your art or otherwise? If so, then by your own definition, you're "shilling" for them. Have you taken money from any organization? If so, then by your own definition, you're "shilling" for every member of that organization.

            I used to freelance for national magazines (this was years ago), so if my work was published in them, it was a fair assumption that I got paid from them.

            In the Internet years, I have written blogs (starting back in 1993-94). At that time I was working part-time for Apple and getting paid from them until they dropped OneNet and started to fund an alternative project, eWorld, instead.

            I have done consulting projects for various companies, and I used to write for ColoradoBiz magazine, eMileHigh, and Courtney Pulitizer's CyberScene. Two of the three were paid gigs. I knew many members of the tech, VC, and entrepreneurial communities. They made a point of talking to me because I was media.

            Most relevant for my comments in Techdirt have been my experiences in music. Actually most of my work for musicians has been pro bono precisely so I could say I was volunteering my support because I liked them rather than because they were paying me.

            I started writing a music industry blog for Brands Plus Music. The founders of the company have gone on to other things, but I decided to keep writing about topics that interested me. It was my music manifesto, of sorts, because I was getting bored with most of what was coming out about the music industry. People kept saying the same things over and over again and I wanted to cover something on the fringes. Precisely because I knew a lot about the music industry but didn't care if I was paid from it, I felt free to give my honest opinions. I wasn't beholden to anyone and I wasn't trying to sell myself as a music consultant or as a speaker at conferences.

            My last big topic series for the blog was on the gift economy, which is how I stumbled on the P2P Foundation. About that time the shareable movement was also picking up steam. And then came Occupy Wall Street. They were addressing economic issues that went far beyond the usual IP arguments.

            Last year I became more aware of the huge amount of lobbying Google was doing, so that has shaped my opinions, too.

            In comparison to the P2P Foundation and the shareable movement, Techdirt does strike me as very Google-centric. Topics that get discussed over and over here have much to do with issues very relevant to Google. But issues that might affect corporate ownership, the value or non-value of the stock market, sustainability, etc., not so much.

            Whether or not Mike has a financial arrangement with Google (I assume he has received money or perks from the company over the years), I do see this as a forum that reflects Google's interests. Whether that is intentional or merely reflects the fact that Mike and Google are closely aligned on many issues, I don't know, but to point to other, more radical points of view, I routinely toss out the P2P Foundation. As I have said, I see the big tech companies moving toward consolidation of power much like big companies in the past have done.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Karl (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 12:28pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

              I used to freelance for national magazines (this was years ago), so if my work was published in them, it was a fair assumption that I got paid from them.

              Then you're (still) shilling for those magazines, and whatever your opinions here in the comments, obviously they are simply a reflection of those national magazines, who paid you to espouse their opinions.

              In the Internet years, I have written blogs (starting back in 1993-94). At that time I was working part-time for Apple and getting paid from them until they dropped OneNet and started to fund an alternative project, eWorld, instead.

              So, if you ever wrote something about Apple, even if it's negative, then obviously you only espouse that opinion because you were paid by Apple to do so. You were also paid by OneNet, so obviously you're just parroting OneNet's corporate press releases.

              I have done consulting projects for various companies, and I used to write for ColoradoBiz magazine, eMileHigh, and Courtney Pulitizer's CyberScene.

              More people who pay you to post their opinions? Good Lord, is there anyone who you won't take money from so you can espouse their opinions here??? You're a total shill slut, I tell ya!

              I started writing a music industry blog for Brands Plus Music.

              "Music industry blog?" Don't make me laugh! Obviously, you were really just shilling for Apple, ColoradoBiz, eMileHigh, and CyberScene. If you wrote anything in that blog, obviously you were just paid to regurgitate their press releases. It was simply an "astroturfing" blog, created for the sole purpose of pushing their agenda on the Internet.

              My last big topic series for the blog was on the gift economy, which is how I stumbled on the P2P Foundation.

              Wow! So a consortium of Colorado magazines, allied with Apple, are behind the P2P Foundation! I never knew that. Thanks for clearing that up! Now that it's confirmed, I'm going to spread it far and wide, and especially on any blogs associated with the P2P Foundation.

              ...Now, let's be clear here. This is obviously satirical, but it is in no way different than what the AC's here are saying.

              The fact is, you had much more of a relationship with those magazines than Mike ever had with Google. Mike has never "freelanced" for Google in any way. He has never done a consulting project for them. They have never paid Mike for anything he's ever written on the Techdirt blog. They have never sponsored a conversation here.

              Unlike Oracle (which Mike revealed upfront in the discussion itself). Or Sun, or AmEx, or IBM, or UPS (which Mike likewise disclosed upfront). You can see everyone who sponsored a conversation by going to The Insight Community Cases page. You'll notice that Google is not among them.

              I assume he has received money or perks from the company over the years

              Your assumption would be wrong. Here's what Floor64/Techdirt received over the years:

              1. The non-profit CCIA, of which Google is one of a dozen members (and of which Oracle used to be a member), co-sponsored The Sky Is Rising report. (The other sponsor was Engine Advocacy, a political non-profit that represents startup tech companies, not "big players" like Google or Oracle.)

              2. Mike said that years ago, when he (and others) were holding a roundtable discussion, Google donated space for that meeting. This would probably be around the time that you were freelancing for national magazines.

              3. Like 99% of the Internet, Techdirt has AdSense.

              That's it. No more money, no more perks. That is the extent of Mike's connection to Google.

              So why are the AC's harping on it?

              One (likely) possibility is that they're shills themselves. At least one AC posts exclusively during business hours, from a Washington DC IP address. Another revealed that he's an IP lawyer by profession.

              But it's also likely that they've simply bought what a number of high-profile conspiracy theorists have claimed about Google. People like Rupert Murdoch, MPAA head Chris Dodd, or everyone who writes for the RIAA blog. People like copyright lawyer Chris Castle (the man behind Music Tech Policy), major-label artist David Lowerey (the man behind The Trichordist), or indie filmmaker Ellen Seidler (the woman behind popuppirates.com).

              These are also the same types of people who actually believe Google orchestrated the SOPA/PIPA blackouts, solely because Google profits from piracy. The same ones who believe that Google controls the EFF, Demand Progress, the CDT, or any other non-profit that advocates for an open Internet. And now they're trying to do the same thing with Techdirt.

              So, why Google, and not (say) Microsoft's Bing or adCenter? Simple: Microsoft generally shares the MPAA and RIAA view on IP protection. Google has an opposing viewpoint, and they actually spend almost as much in lobbying money as the MPAA and RIAA do, so they're big enough to be a threat. If they can present Google as a "piracy apologist," then tar and feather everyone who has ever been vaguely associated with them, then they'll once again have a free reign in Washington.

              At the very least, they'll be able to demand that Google give them more money. Which they can then use to pressure all other tech companies into giving them more money.

              And, sadly, you appear to be falling for it. For your own sake, I hope you change your mind. Especially since you like something called the "P2P Foundation," which must be a piracy site, and deserves to be instantly shut down by the Government. Without the EFF, CDT, Demand Progress, etc. (all of which will be discounted as "piracy apologists" who are "shilling for Google"), then it'll be much harder to stop things like this from happening.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 12:41pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                You know, I am totally open to any of you asking me if my opinions reflect any past relationships with companies (I'm intentionally not taking money from anyone right now, so all relationships would be in the past). That's been my point. If you want to follow my dots to see my influences, I'm happy to provide that info.

                In terms of Mike, he hasn't actually said he hasn't received money or perks from Google. He has disclosed some, but hasn't gone on record about any others. Fans of his have assumed the only relationships are the ones that he has disclosed, but as far as I can tell, he hasn't said that there haven't been other relationships with Google. And that's been my point. Many bloggers do have connections with companies they cover. Sometimes they disclose that and sometimes they don't.

                At any rate, I think I have clarified my stance on things. I consider Techdirt to be Google-centric when compared to many other sites writing about economic issues. Whether that is coincidental or reflects a more formal arrangement with Google doesn't really matter to me. But if I want to see discussions on a wider range of issues, I have found other sites to be better. Some of the ones I enjoy are far more radical than Techdirt concerning IP laws and how they impact business and ownership.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Karl (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 1:07pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                  In terms of Mike, he hasn't actually said he hasn't received money or perks from Google.

                  Yes, he has.

                  The problem is, he said it in the comments the first time someone accused him of being a Google shill, which was years ago.

                  Yes, that accusation has been flying around for that long (at least).

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 1:10pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                    In terms of Mike, he hasn't actually said he hasn't received money or perks from Google.

                    Yes, he has.


                    Could you provide a link? I've done searches and could never find it. Has he actually said, "I have never been paid by Google for anything?" I know he has used their facilities for an event and he has said that. But has he said there have been no other exchanges of money, freebies, etc.?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Karl (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 1:34pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                      Could you provide a link?

                      I searched for it myself, but I couldn't find it. I believe it was back when Techdirt was first writing about how bad SOPA/PIPA were, and the usual A.C. SOPA/PIPA apologists claimed he was only saying it because he was paid off by Google.

                      But when he said that Google provided space for that meeting, he also explicitly said that was all she wrote (unless you count AdSense). I believe this was before The Sky Is Rising came out, but I can't be sure.

                      In any case, when any company has paid Techdirt for anything, Mike has always stated it upfront. He always reveals his sponsors for e.g. TED talks, speaking engagements, Insight Community conversations, etc.

                      There's a big reason for this: Mike's income and influence largely depend upon his transparency and integrity. He has a huge incentive to be honest about these things.

                      Which is why these A.C.'s attack him, publicly, in the comments here. Whatever their motivations, they're interested in nothing other than a smear campaign.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 1:56pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                        In any case, when any company has paid Techdirt for anything, Mike has always stated it upfront. He always reveals his sponsors for e.g. TED talks, speaking engagements, Insight Community conversations, etc.

                        That's what I am trying to point out. You can do selective disclosure and make it look like full disclosure. Unless you say, "Google has NEVER paid me or given me anything," there can be speculation about your relationship with the company because that is how deals are done in many cases.

                        If you are around politicians and business people long enough, you learn that some things are made public and some things aren't and there are ways to spin lots of stuff in your favor.

                        Think about all of those freebies you get at conventions. Yes, they are trying to influence you. Maybe you are influenced and maybe you aren't. If it is a dollar toy, it probably isn't worth citing. If it is something worth $200+, it might be worth citing if you are writing about the company or if you are asking your own company to do business with the giving company. It happens all the time overseas in the form of bribes. It's an interesting topic and one I think worthy of discussion here.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Karl (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 3:08pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                          You can do selective disclosure and make it look like full disclosure.

                          So, what, unless Mike specifically says a company never gave him anything, we should assume he's shilling for them?

                          Come on, Suzanne. This is really ridiculous. If he doesn't disclose financial information, then he's hiding something; if he does disclose financial information, he's still hiding something, and only "making it look like" he's not hiding something.

                          By this same logic, Mike is shilling for the RIAA. I mean, he never disclosed that the RIAA ever paid him a dime, but that's just "selective disclosure," since he never said the RIAA didn't pay him, either.

                          Unless you say, "Google has NEVER paid me or given me anything," there can be speculation about your relationship with the company because that is how deals are done in many cases.

                          There is no "deal" here. There is no "relationship with the company" to speculate on.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          •  
                            icon
                            Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 3:22pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                            There is no "deal" here. There is no "relationship with the company" to speculate on.

                            People are going to speculate unless there is a statement from Mike saying there has never been an exchange of money or freebies. Any tech blogger that writes about matters that tend to reinforce a particular company is subject to speculation. Happens all the time.

                            I think it is an interesting topic. I didn't start it. But since Mike brought up the concept of shilling for Google, I'm happy to explore just what "shilling" might mean and why people think there may be a connection between Techdirt and Google.

                            How taking money or freebies influences bloggers is a huge topic, so I'm not covering anything that hasn't been discussed in depth other places. Every blogger is subject to speculation about what they have or haven't gotten from the companies, artists, etc., that they write about.

                             

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              btrussell (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 3:43pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                              And I would like to hear that he has never received a dime from Kellogg's as well.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                icon
                                Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 4:43pm

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                                That's the nature of the blogosphere these days. There have been enough deals and influence peddling that unless a blogger states, "I have never received ANYTHING from company X," the assumption is there that something has taken place whenever there is a favorable blog.

                                Every blogger is under suspicion. You guys may not like that, but that's how it is now. It's kind of like Lance Armstrong saying, "I've never tested positive for anything." That's not quite the same as saying "I've never used any performance enhancing drugs."

                                And, in addition, there's a lot of gaming of the Internet. We have people who buy followers and friends. So yes, it does tend to be assumed guilty until proven otherwise.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                •  
                                  icon
                                  btrussell (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 5:39pm

                                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                                  If we were to meet at a party, how could I convince you I am not a rapist?

                                  Guilty until proven innocent right?

                                  I am going to assume you are single as no man would want to prove to you every-time he came home that they had not been with another woman.

                                   

                                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  •  
                                    icon
                                    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 6:00pm

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                                    I am going to assume you are single as no man would want to prove to you every-time he came home that they had not been with another woman.

                                    You don't know just how close you are to the messages being sent to women: Don't get drunk, keep your legs together, watch how you dress, don't go into certain neighborhoods, watch who you hang out with, don't give strangers your phone number.

                                    At any rate, you guys can keep protesting that suspecting bloggers of getting paid is unfair, but it is so common that it's not even up for debate among people who follow these discussions.

                                     

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    •  
                                      identicon
                                      Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 1:14am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                                      I am going to assume you are single as no man would want to prove to you every-time he came home that they had not been with another woman.

                                      wow, whoever said that !!!! take a long hard look at yourself, what you are, and how you conduct yourself..

                                      personally I find you disgusting, sexist and a moron.. let me guess, you make sure your wife is home, in the kitchen having dinner ready for you when you come home from your hard day and the bar ??

                                       

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                      •  
                                        icon
                                        btrussell (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 5:13am

                                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                                        Not quite, I don't come home from the bar.

                                         

                                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                  •  
                                    identicon
                                    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 1:16am

                                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                                    sexist scumbag...

                                     

                                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                                    •  
                                      icon
                                      btrussell (profile), Aug 30th, 2012 @ 3:31am

                                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                                      Eat your heart out.

                                      Turns out the most beautiful woman in the world prefers me that way.

                                      They say the best revenge is living well. I plan on lasting at least as long as my male predecessors. See you at my 100th birthday party.

                                       

                                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            •  
                              icon
                              Karl (profile), Aug 26th, 2012 @ 12:47am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                              People are going to speculate unless there is a statement from Mike saying there has never been an exchange of money or freebies.

                              Mike did make such a statement in the comments, though I can't find it now. But since you remember him saying that he used Google's facilities once, I guess you remember that he made that statement. And I guess that's not good enough for you.

                              How about a statement from Google, that said, under perjury of law, that there was no direct relationship between them and Techdirt? And that they did not pay Mike (nor anyone else) any money whatsoever to write about the case?

                              Because that's what you've got.

                              Google's filing has to divulge the extent of their "relationship," by law. If there was "an exchange of money or freebies," and Google didn't divulge it, they would be guilty of perjury in a high-stakes legal case.

                              The plain fact is that you, Suzanne, invented this "relationship" out of whole cloth.

                              What I can't figure out is why. I know why the various AC haters do it: they are rabid IP maximalists, and have a political agenda against Google. But I thought that you were smarter than that.

                              I guess I was wrong.

                               

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                              •  
                                icon
                                Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 26th, 2012 @ 1:27am

                                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                                Mike did make such a statement in the comments, though I can't find it now. But since you remember him saying that he used Google's facilities once, I guess you remember that he made that statement.

                                I only remember him saying he used Google for an event. I've never seen any comments from him about whether Google has been a client or if he and Google have had any business dealings, etc. Has he actually said this or have you interpreted what he has written to mean this?

                                The plain fact is that you, Suzanne, invented this "relationship" out of whole cloth.

                                Mike started this shill thread. Blame him for bringing it up.

                                What I have commented on is the fact that (1) I find Techdirt more Google-centric than other anti-IP blogs and (2) the fact that all bloggers are questioned about the relationships with the companies they write about. You don't seem to get that. Nearly every blogger who writes about tech is challenged about their relationships. For anyone to think Mike shouldn't get scrutiny is naive.

                                What I find odd is that you don't understand this. Because Mike has been a consultant in Silicon Valley, I would find it strange for him not to have dealt with Google, but perhaps that has been the case. Has there been a complete list of Floor64 clients posted anywhere?

                                There have been so many posts all over the Internet about which bloggers are mouthpieces for which companies that it has been inevitable for such talk to hit Techdirt as well.

                                 

                                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Gwiz (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 4:17pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                    The problem is, he said it in the comments the first time someone accused him of being a Google shill, which was years ago.

                    I think this might be one of the comments you were looking for Karl. (I remembered it also and my Google-foo was strong today):

                    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/00002616879/why-public-is-willing-to-rally-agai nst-sopapipa-not-it.shtml#c873

                    Unfortunately, the link in the comment Mike was responding to seems to point to Techdirt Insider Shop now, so it's hard to tell what it was referencing.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                 
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2012 @ 3:58pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                Karl, spin it how you like but Mike himself bristled over being named on what he called a shill list. Google put Mikes name on that list. There may be subtleties and nuances but those are the facts and it really looks bad.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  btrussell (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 5:33pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                  To who?

                  I wouldn't care if google has been paying him and I don't like google.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2012 @ 5:30am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                    To anyone who values transparency and objectivity.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Aug 29th, 2012 @ 10:17pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                      "To anyone who values transparency and objectivity."

                      Transparently and objectively, how much has the MPAA/RIAA paid you?

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 8:25pm

        Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

        Here's how I view all of this. Just as there has been a military-industrial complex, an "inside the Beltway" mentality, and a Wall Street elite, I see a big tech mentality solidifying. I'm not sure the Apples, Facebooks, Googles, etc. will willingly move out of the way or morph into something else if they are challenged by some business upstarts or a vast citizen awakening to decentralize business/ownership in the world.

        I am skeptical of an anti-IP movement if it doesn't push for bigger changes as well. If it strikes me as "what's good for Google," then I suspect it will stop short once it threatens Google's (or another big company's) stock price. Among big tech companies, I like Google more than some of the rest of them. But I have been hearing too many justifications coming from Silicon Valley that sound a lot like the old justifications from other industries that were once in power. Once you have a lot of people dependent on a certain system and especially when you have a few people making huge amounts of money in that system, a certain inertia tends to set in.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 12:52pm

          Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

          Here's how I view all of this. Just as there has been a military-industrial complex, an "inside the Beltway" mentality, and a Wall Street elite, I see a big tech mentality solidifying.

          The "big tech mentality" is a lot more fractured than you think, frankly. Issues like DRM, IP protections, etc. are not shared among larger tech companies, much less the entire industry. As I said, compare Google and Microsoft (both of which are CCIA members).

          In any case, nothing about Techdirt represents (or is intended to represent) "big tech" companies. Techdirt's main focus is, and AFAIK always has been, about startups. As I said before, the other sponsor of The Sky Is Rising is Engine Advocacy, which represents startup tech companies, not legacy players.

          I am skeptical of an anti-IP movement if it doesn't push for bigger changes as well.

          It's a simple matter of focus. IP reformers (not the "anti-IP movement" as you call it) exist in a wide swath of political viewpoints: leftists, centerists, Libertarians, etc.

          Of course, Techdirt does focus on far more than just IP issues. Tech-related immigration laws, cyber security, or privacy rights are also a big part of this blog. I (and I guess you) happen to be more interested in IP issues, but that just says something about us.

          If it strikes me as "what's good for Google," then I suspect it will stop short once it threatens Google's (or another big company's) stock price.

          The notion that Mike cares about Google's stock price is ridiculous. Google has some of the same opinions as Mike, but he's also routinely criticized Google in the past. And if Google went under, Techdirt would lose nothing.

          Once you have a lot of people dependent on a certain system and especially when you have a few people making huge amounts of money in that system, a certain inertia tends to set in.

          You should really read this blog more often. Because you're actually saying the same thing Mike has been saying for over a decade.

          I guess that means you're a shill for Google too?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 1:06pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

            I guess that means you're a shill for Google too?

            Among big tech companies, Google is the one I like the second best (I think Amazon is probably my first choice because it isn't trying to monitor everything I do). If that makes me a Google shill, so be it.

            I know that the tech companies aren't a united block. I have enjoyed the various legal battles they are inflicting on each other as a way to keep them in check.

            But in terms of thinking that tech solves all problems and that the Silicon Valley way of thinking is better than what comes from other industries or places, yes, I see a mindset and power influence settling in. I do see tech solving some problems (I hope technology knocks out fossil fuels and its infrastructure as soon as possible), but I roll my eyes at some of what is written by Silicon Valley-mindset bloggers. They sound so much like defenders of old industries used to sound.

            What I like about the P2P Foundation is that it has proposed using the connectivity of the Internet to break down old corporate structures. It is looking for solutions that truly put the power at the grassroots level. It is quite anti-corporate. Silicon Valley is not anti-corporate. In fact, most of the people there seem to be hoping to make money by growing big companies that can generate a lot of money for them.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Karl (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 1:22pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

              Among big tech companies, Google is the one I like the second best (I think Amazon is probably my first choice because it isn't trying to monitor everything I do). If that makes me a Google shill, so be it.

              In the interests of full disclosure:

              Since I'm a full-time college student now (studying computer science), my brother has had to loan me a lot of money.

              My brother is currently working for one of Amazon's subsidiaries. Before then, he was working for Yahoo! (a competitor of Google), though he didn't like it much. Before then, he worked for Digidesign (Avid/ProTools guys).

              Does that make me a shill for these companies? I don't think so. I have huge criticisms of Amazon (mainly regarding their non-open Kindle), I defend Google here (though I probably would defend Yahoo! if those same accusations were leveled against them), and I was openly critical to my brother about ProTools, especially their DRM (I wouldn't even use the MBox he sent me because of it).

              As far as the "thinking that tech solves all problems" bit: I don't entirely disagree with you, but that has nothing to do with Techdirt. Mike is not focused on whether "tech solves all problems." He's mainly interested in how businesses (including content creators) should adapt to market changes caused by disruptive technology, which in our lifetimes is the Internet.

              If you want more, then you're doing right by looking elsewhere. Just don't blame Mike when he doesn't live up to your particular political demands.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 1:42pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                Mike is not focused on whether "tech solves all problems." He's mainly interested in how businesses (including content creators) should adapt to market changes caused by disruptive technology, which in our lifetimes is the Internet.

                Yes, I don't find Techdirt disruptive enough. In terms of music, I think the Internet has disrupted the arts, but I don't think the solution is to tell artists to sell more stuff. Why don't I think that? Because I look at incomes, particularly among younger consumers, and I don't see the funds there to support the arts and artists. (A significant percentage are consumers who are living at home because they are underemployed and heavily in debt.) Therefore, I think we need much more expansive thinking in terms of how everyone gets supported.

                I have been lately reading about the increased use of robots, which has resulted in job layoffs. Yes, technology has traditionally resulted in new, better paying jobs, but the speed at which it is being adopted is perhaps faster than we can adjust. Therefore, we might need to look at different economic systems based on new realities. It's as significant as the Industrial Revolution.

                As long as people don't mind that I will not necessarily embrace some of the thinking here, I will keep posting on a few topics and will sometimes offer alternative view points.

                As for why I got involved in this discussion, it's because (1) I do see Techdirt as Google-centric and (2) I know how the media tends to work in terms of payments, sponsorships, freebies, etc. There are reasons why some people have assumed Mike has gotten payment from Google. I'm just pointing out why people might think that. Maybe he has gone on record to say he has never received anything from Google, but I haven't been able to find it, though I have looked.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Wally (profile), Aug 26th, 2012 @ 6:29pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy

                Karl, I respect you. It's just you are arguing with a woman. Women think more logically than us men and on average have more attention to detail and simplicity. We would not survive without them and would not even remotely get a clear thought out without them.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:08pm

    Oracle of Google

    And I dub this exercise by Alsup to be the "Oracle of Google" theory.

    I bet everyone in the blog-o-sphere can be linked to either Oracle or Google within 7 hops.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Wally (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 4:40pm

      Re: Oracle of Google

      Apparently you've never heard of Kevin Bacon :-)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      art guerrilla (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:53pm

      Re: Oracle of Google

      1. i use chrome/gmail/Big Search...
      Done in one...
      1. all my credit cards/banks/etc prob use some DB or another by oracle...
      Done in one...
      guilty! guilty! guilty!
      hee hee hee
      ho ho ho
      ha ha ha
      ak ak ak
      art guerrilla
      aka ann archy
      eof

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:01pm

    It's stupid that oracle only claims one blogger and yet it's hard to believe google pays none. Sense, the Judge makes none

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:05pm

    Of course, even more absurd than the idea that Mike's a shill is that the anti-techdirt shills call mike a shill as if somehow being paid by google magically delegitimized Mike's points.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:12pm

      Re:

      Oh, so you're a shill apologist now?

      Time and time and time again, authors of comments contrary to the TD narrative are derided as shills of the AA's, studios, labels, etc. And when the Lord High Piracy Apologist is publicly outted as a shill- all of a sudden the fact that he's a paid shill for Google doesn't "magically delegitimize" his points. Interesting.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:35pm

        Re: Re:

        perfect :)

        it's sunny day, (except for Masnick).. who has been outted

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:44pm

        Re: Re:

        The difference is that the MPAA/RIAA have discredired themselves already. By extension their shills are also discredited.

        Plus, my view on shills does not represent anyone esle that have claimed that a particular commenter is a shill. I only speak for myself.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Wally (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 8:00pm

      Re:

      I think it may be a couple of things:
      1. 4chan (doubt it, they are more mature than that).
      2. Oracle Systems...or their fans (butthurt over Google's loss and thinking Mike was not only paid but seem to think he was the only one).

      Or it could be just a bunch of 12 year old amateture programmers thinking they are clever but not realizing they will never leave their parents' basements.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:27pm

    hahaha MANSICK is a google shill LOL..

    we all knew it, now it's confirmed..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:36pm

      Re:

      This confirms nothing of the sort. Mike can get paid by google while still only speaking what he believes to be true.

      PLus Mike did state CCIA's involvement upfront in the sky is rising so this is nothing new.

      And again, even if Mike is paid on behalf of google that does not magially make his poijnts invalid. It just means Mike's views are google's views.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:50pm

      Re:

      hahaha AC didn't read the court order..

      we all knew it, now it's confirmed..

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:40pm

    all I can say is... hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... phew...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Gene Poole, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:48pm

    Methinks he doth protest too much...

    Seriously, though, why did this warrant a defensive post on Techdirt? Specifically, this could have been filed just as full disclosure, but it really feels like a defensive article after one's been attacked. Did I miss something in one of the comments sections?

    If Mike's done some work for the CCIA (As he has, I remember The Sky Is Rising) and the story checks out, then why would a post like this be warranted? Really the tone of the article does more to discredit Mike than the Google reference in my eyes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      art guerrilla (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 5:55pm

      Re: Gene Poole

      evidently indicating you are from the shallow end of the...
      art guerrilla
      aka ann archy
      eof

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 6:03pm

        Re: Re: Gene Poole

        ad hominem? Really?

        I'm not trolling, just saying I don't understand what's with all the hubbub, bub.

        Maybe I just don't read the comments sections enough, but I don't see why it really matters either way.

        If he was a Google shill (still don't like that, feels like it should be schill to me, but the internets tell me I'm wrong) then it hasn't stopped him from criticising Google in the past, so whatever. integrity not compromised, or something.

        If he wasn't a shill, then who cares, and why does it warrant an article on the subject? Truth will out, etc.

        Retarded, inbred moron or not, it doesn't make sense to me to make a big deal out of it. But maybe that's because I'm (apparently) from the shallow end of the gene pool. meh.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:36pm

    Paymaster throw masnick under bus

    what does it feel like to be outted publically by your lords and masters ???

    you must be expendible, disposable, feel good ??

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 8:53pm

      Re: Paymaster throw masnick under bus

      Except Mike was upfront about who was paying him in the first place.

      I love how you shills like to claim dishonesty where there is none.

      Plus, even if Mike is being paid to make specific google approved statements all that means is you're debating google's points and not Mike's. You anti-techdirt shills still haven't made good counter arguements againt those points be they Mike's or google's.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 9:08pm

        Re: Re: Paymaster throw masnick under bus

        ... even if Mike is being paid to make specific google approved statements all that means is you're debating google's points and not Mike's.

        That gets to the issue for me. I think Google's points aren't the best ones out there. I keep pointing people to the P2P Foundation (I have absolutely no connection to it, I just like it as a source of ideas) because there are much bigger issues than who is protesting copyright issues on YouTube. In other words, a lot of stuff that gets talked about here does revolve around Google, while there are vast economic issues that don't explored here and yet will influence the future of world economics. Whether Techdirt means to be Google-centric or not, it sort of is because of the topics that get discussed.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 9:24pm

        Re: Re: Paymaster throw masnick under bus

        Plus, even if Mike is being paid to make specific google approved statements all that means is you're debating google's points and not Mike's

        Good one.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 7:43pm

    I'm a big boy and I can handle people not understanding the details here and attacking me, but the fact that we did unrelated research for a different organization that Google is a member of -- and that gets me named on a list of "shills" just doesn't seem right.

    we understand completely, can you handle that ??

    lets face it, you are a shill, you are allready trying to defend yourself before anyone can comment..

    but you have to face the facts, that are clear, you would have attacked those people heavily if you had not been one of them..

    and your not even a man enough to admit it..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 9:23pm

      Re:

      I love how you try to dodge around the points made by trying to claim someone else made them. Even if Mike's paid to make the points he makes all that does is change "mike debunks RIAA/MPAA/BSA bullshit" to "Mike debunks RIAA/MPAA/BSA bullshit on behalf of google"

      Plus, Mike ALREADY REVEALED the studies were funder by the CCIA back when he first published them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 9:26pm

        Re: Re:

        Even if Mike's paid to make the points he makes all that does is change "mike debunks RIAA/MPAA/BSA bullshit" to "Mike debunks RIAA/MPAA/BSA bullshit on behalf of google"

        Another classic, thanks.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2012 @ 12:46am

          Re: Re: Re:

          What all you anti techdirt trolls don't understand is that debate out of self interest would not invalidate the points raised on this site.

          In fact all indications are that Mike would still say what he's saying for google never existed. With the obvious exception of the oracle versus google case since there would be no google for oracle to sue.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 24th, 2012 @ 8:01pm

    Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It

    no you knew it..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Bill W (profile), Aug 24th, 2012 @ 8:31pm

    Slow news day?

    When I first read this post it barely caught my interest. I am always interested in when the people I follow get mentioned in high (moderate?) profile cases. But really looked to be a non-issue.

    Never overlook the capacity for the extremists to, well, be extreme!

    Thank you all for the vicarious pleasure of wallowing in your extremism. I never could have experienced it without you!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2012 @ 12:34am

    The anti-techdirt crowd is hilarious.

    They can't argue against the substance of Mike*'s arguements so they resort to playing the "omg mike is google puppet game"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    G Thompson (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 12:43am

    OMGWTF Masnick..

    Next thing you'll be telling us you're a paid shill for Techdirt, really Bob in disguise, and every AC who has been and ever will be.

    And what's this with the number 7? Techdirt, Floor64, Masnick, Michael all 7 letters!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2012 @ 6:49am

    Six Degrees...

    This is simple. The judge obviously wasn't going to accept a list with no names so they resorted to playing Six Degrees in order to generate a list with some names. I expect that the weakness of the linkages in the list is BY DESIGN such that if the list is ever cited in the future to support claims against them they will easily discredit it. It's basically saying, "If the court won't accept a list with links to no names, we will give them a list of USELESS links to names to that can easily be discredited."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2012 @ 6:54am

      Re: Six Degrees...

      Baloney.

      Doing such a thing would invite a slander lawsuit by those Google named.

      To think Google doesn't employ lobbyists in the blogosphere is hilarious.

      The judge knew what was up and told Google to comply. And they did.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2012 @ 6:08am

        Re: Re: Six Degrees...

        How is naming someone on a court ordered list via a very loose definition of the word "link" exactly slanderous?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 10:16am

    Shilling

    People are going back and forth between two concepts:

    Are you saying what you are saying because a company is paying you, or are you saying what you are saying because it is what you believe, and the company is paying you in support of what you believe (in the form of sponsorship, contracts, freebies, ads)?

    In the most open circles, whatever the relationship, and whatever came first (the money or the opinions) all gets disclosed up front.

    And even more so, I have seen writers say things like if a wife or partner has a relationship with the company the writer is writing about and so on.

    And of course it is very standard for writers to say if they have stock in a company they are writing about. Many intentionally don't hold stock in companies they might write about so that their opinions can't be viewed as attempts to influence the price of those stocks.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 10:54am

      Re: Shilling

      Another thing that has is part of the writing/blogging realm, which I will mention here, is what writers get for free and whether it has been disclosed.

      If a writer is reviewing products, music, movies, books, etc., most likely the writer hasn't paid for those review copies. Some publications have a rule as to whether the writer can keep the review products or must send them back. So if you are a writer, you might end up with a lot of free stuff. Or your publication might. Or they might donate all the free stuff and disclose that.

      For stuff like restaurant reviews, some reviewers disclose that they are coming to the restaurant and then restaurant provides free food. In other cases, the reviewer pays for his own meals and doesn't disclose that he is there planning to write a review, so he experiences what the average patron would experience.

      Travel writing is a big grey area. Sometimes the writer's publication will pay, sometimes the writer will pay, and sometimes the entire trip is free, paid for by the airlines, hotels, restaurants, etc. hoping to get writers to come and cover them.

      Most music reviewers and photographers get free tickets to the shows they attend.

      As a writer who covered the Colorado tech scene, all the events I attended I got into for free. No one was paying my expenses, so if I had to pay for all the tech events I attended, I couldn't afford to do so. All of the events I attended were in Colorado, so it wasn't like I was getting big budget freebies -- I just didn't have to pay to get into a local conference or networking event. While attendees might pay $100, media would get in for free.

      So many bloggers have gotten into events for free or have received free products or trips that the FTC started to crack down and more bloggers are disclosing what they have gotten for free from the companies they write about. If a blogger is being flown all-expenses-paid to an amusement park in Florida to write about her great week there, she is supposed to disclose that in the related blog posts.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Michael Barclay (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 10:54am

    Eric Goldman suggests we have a "pretty cool party"!

    Mike,

    Eric Goldman suggests we have a "pretty cool party":

    http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/08/google_actually.htm

    What do you think? A "Google shill" party?

    --Michael Barclay

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 6:30pm

    This is a typical disclosure

    Steve Jobs Vindicated, Google Next Target - Seeking Alpha: "Disclosure: I am long AAPL, MSFT. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 6:47pm

      Re: This is a typical disclosure

      There is so much on this topic that I won't cite much. Here are the results of a quick search to give you a sample.

      Required FTC blogger disclosure - Overlawyered: "After all, the rules (to be precise, 'guidelines' backed by government lawyers with relevant enforcement powers) make clear that nondisclosure of a single minor freebie will not in itself suffice to trigger liability but instead will be counted 'among several factors to be weighed' in evaluating the continuum of behavior by individuals engaging in social media (it seems the rules also apply to Twitter, Facebook, and guest appearances on talk shows, to name a few). FTC enforcers will engage in their own fact-specific, and inevitably subjective, balancing before deciding whether to press for fines or other penalties: in other words, instead of knowing whether you’re legally vulnerable or not, you get to guess."

      A Screamingly Effective Blog Disclosure Policy: How (and Why) To Get One : @ProBlogger: "What does the recent FTC announcement mean for a humble, professional, freebie-accepting, affiliate-pimping, mostly-broke blogger eking out pennies or flats of free soda per post?

      It means you need to write a blog disclosure policy.

      What if you have nothing to disclose? (Pity the fool who has nothing to disclose.)

      No matter. Write one anyways. A blog disclosure policy is an opportunity to demonstrate your character. It is an opportunity to sell your character and even your soul.

      Because what else have you got to offer, really?

      Your blog disclosure policy is a vehicle for soul-selling, storyselling, storytelling, and maybe even making some cold hard cash – even if you’re not there yet."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        btrussell (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 7:49pm

        Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure

        "A blog disclosure policy is an opportunity to demonstrate your character. It is an opportunity to sell your character and even your soul.

        Because what else have you got to offer, really?"

        B.S.
        I am offering an honest opinion and you want me to sell my soul?

        I guess you can lie in a blog post but not in a disclosure statement eh? Yep. That is how I judge peoples character. By their (non-)disclosure statement.

        Talk is cheap.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      btrussell (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 7:39pm

      Re: This is a typical disclosure

      This is not a typical blog.

      Mike states that it is his opinion. If lawyers have convinced you that you need a disclosure agreement to state your opinion, I guess that is too bad.

      I feel sorry for you if you cannot believe anyone is honest.
      Maybe I am being paid by Floor64.

      Believe what you will, won't affect my life one iota.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 7:54pm

        Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure

        This blog post is about shilling for Google. I am addressing that issue. These days any blogger that doesn't bend over backwards to describe his relationship or lack of relationship with a company he writes about comes under scrutiny. It goes with the territory. Techdirt is not immune or protected from that, nor is any other blog.

        I'm just trying to explain the state of blogging today. Say whatever you want about me. It doesn't change perceptions of bloggers and their relationships with the companies they write about.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
           
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2012 @ 9:07pm

          Re: Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure

          Don't waste your time arguing with these mouth-breathing cretins. Maznicks army of bootlickers, toadys and lackeys are not here to discuss but to close ranks around the wounded Google shill. Whether its Jerry Mahoney, Charlie McCarthy or Howdy Doody it's the same hand up the back of the shirt making their mouths move.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Wally (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 9:46pm

          Re: Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure

          Thank GOD for the voice of reason in actually explaining this to everyone. You've earned my respect and trust.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
           
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2012 @ 10:02pm

          Re: Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure

          especially what the blogger is Masnick who delights in 'outting' people with ANY connection or history with a particualar group..

          he of all people needs to maintain a higher standard, not a lower one that is displayed by Masnick..

          I could not count how many times masnick has taken that path, stating that because someone used to work for company X that they cannot possibly then change to company Y.

          Now masnick hiself has been outted, your right his guard dogs are trying their best to run guard for him..

          but facts are facts, are they not masnick, plus the fact that you did not admit it yourself.. and are trying to 'act' all stupid and ignorant.. just goes to show your complition...

          your integrity is zero, but for most it has always been zero, so probably going well into the negative region now..

          did you really not know ?? I doubt it, you claim to be some kind of expert, of course you knew, but money payed for your silence.. until your overlords at Google decided you are expendible. the threw you under the bus.. compared to Google your are not to be trusted.. and so is google.. so you make a good couple..

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          btrussell (profile), Aug 26th, 2012 @ 4:35am

          Re: Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure

          If you think he is shilling for google, you have options.



          If I were to suspect Mike of being a shill, or of having a stake in any other company, it would be twitter.

          Everyone is biased one way or another. The sooner people realize this, the sooner they can quit reading disclaimers on every site they go to.

          "Say whatever you want about me."
          I am not a fan of yours but you have my apologies for making it personal. Sorry.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2012 @ 7:37pm

        Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure

        More likely a pat on the head and the ability to bask in the reflected glory of the Google Shill are enough compensation for you.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 26th, 2012 @ 1:36am

      Re: This is a typical disclosure

      Here's another example. This is the sort of thing many bloggers do. If you have some sort of connection with what/who you are writing about, you say so.

      Techdirt and the value of the velvet rope approach to media — Tech News and Analysis: "The site, which is run by founder Mike Masnick through a company called Floor 64 (Full disclosure: I consider Masnick a friend) has had an online store for some time now where readers and fans could come and buy the usual type of swag many publishers offer, including e-books based on the site’s coverage. But the store has now been updated with some new features, including the ability to buy lunch with Masnick (for $250) and to do a Google Hangout with him."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2012 @ 5:40am

        Re: Re: This is a typical disclosure

        yes, it's true that you would normally expect full disclose, but that usually only applies to professional with integrity..

        sadly masnick is neither of these things.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2012 @ 9:51pm

    how often has masnick come out against people with a far less tenuous connection with a particular group that Masnick clearly has with google, and based on that connection have claimed they are paid shills and therefore some kind of low life.

    how funny is it now that Masnick has to write about himself in the same position, and try to paint a rosy picture of it.

    somthing about throwing stones in glass houses comes to mind.. still damn amusing.. (except for masnick and his trolls/shills)..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 25th, 2012 @ 9:52pm

    Masnick Quote: (of his 'career')

    "I'm A Google Shill"

    way to celibrate 15 wasted years of your rutted life !!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Bill W (profile), Aug 25th, 2012 @ 10:32pm

    Dali would be proud!

    This has been te MOST surreal discussion on ANY blog that I have read. Most of the folks commenting here, on EITHER side of the "issue" have to be doing serious drugs, downers, uppers, whatever.

    Mike, does this qualify for some sort of record? Wow. I'm completely under/over whelmed with the hyperbole exhibited here.

    Wow. Just Wow.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), Aug 26th, 2012 @ 1:48am

    Here's how Wired put it

    Below is an excerpt from a Wired article.

    Google Outs List of People Not Paid to Comment on Oracle Suit | Wired Enterprise | Wired.com: Google has reiterated that it has not paid any authors, journalists, commentators, or bloggers to report or comment on its legal battle with Oracle over the Android mobile operating system.

    But in response to an order from the judge presiding over the case, the web giant has provided a list of individuals and groups who have commented on the case and have received money from the company, including Google attorney William Patry, Java creator James Gosling, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

    “Pursuant to the [judge's order], the required disclosure does not include advertising revenue, disclosed experts, or gifts to universities,” Google said in a court filing on Friday. “It does, however, include ‘all commenters known by Google to have received payments as consultants, contractors, vendors, or employees’ and employee-commenters at organizations who receive money from Google.”

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 26th, 2012 @ 5:45am

      Re: Here's how Wired put it

      So again Google clarifies who it included on the shill list and defines them:

      Paid consultant, vendors, employees or employee-commenters at organizations receiving money from Google. I'd venture that Masnick is regarded by Google as a paid consultant.

      I find it telling that in a video debate Masnick is called by a Google shill by his opponent who cited his CCIA study as evidence. There was no real pushback by him, obviously now I know why.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Aug 27th, 2012 @ 4:11am

    Late post but worth it:

    It is amusing how our regular critics have shown their lack of understanding in this post. Mike is clearly being transparent (with a hint of sarcasm) and he clearly did works related to both companies (including a collective where Google is part of).

    But doing a work that is indirectly for Google is proof enough despite the fact that many, many other companies are also his "customers" as part of the CCIA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 7:20am

    Mike Masnick: I must say, the whole Google filing from Friday has been a nice litmus test to clearly designate who is a pure troll and who has legitimately disagrees with me. Not surprising to see a bunch of pure trolls purposely misinterpreting Google's filing and th

    i keep forgetting this chat has a limit


    Oh right, so this just was a "drink the (fake) poison" test to find out who are the real faithfull and who are 'not sure'.. LOL..

    nice try masnick.. so according to you everyone with a valid argument is a "troll" and everyone else is in your pocket ?..

    but I do not see you defending the FACT you are a PAID GOOGLE SHILL, that has been outed by your paylords..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    adam, Aug 27th, 2012 @ 10:43am

    every cloud ...

    i think this could be a good thing, any publicity is good publicity. i was reading about events on the bbc website and it linked to this blog ... which im about to bookmark :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This