No, The Public Standing Up For An Open Internet Is Not A Criminal Google Conspiracy

from the the-public-is-not-google dept

Over the past decade, we've talked about music industry lawyer Chris Castle and his bizarre interpretation of reality a few times. He insists that anyone supporting the legal sharing of content via Creative Commons is "self-serving shilling for the self-absorbed on the short con," which I'm sure must have sounded clever in his mind. A key target for Castle and his friends is that Google is the representation of all that is evil in the music industry. It's a convenient foil. Castle and his friends see Google lurking behind anything that's not like the old days, similar to the way that adults freaked out that pinball machines were destroying the minds of the youths in earlier generations.

Castle's latest claim, however, is positively crazy. Not only is he upset about the EU Parliament has agreed to reopen Article 13 of the EU Copyright Directive for discussion, he's decided that the only reason they did so must be due to a criminal conspiracy by Google, for which he is demanding an investigation.

... there have been incredible and probably illegal uses of the Internet to overwhelm elected officials with faux communications that reek of Google-style misinformation and central planning in the hive mind of the Googleplex.

We saw this again with the Article 13 vote in Europe last week with what clearly seems to be a Google-backed attack on the European Parliament for the purpose of policy intimidation. That’s right–an American-based multinational corporation is trying to intimidate the very same European government that is currently investigating them for anticompetitive behavior and is staring down a multi-billion dollar fine.

Vindictive much?

Apparently, the idea that the public might actually speak out when they realize that a terribly written proposal would lead to massive censorship of the internet is unfathomable to him.

And let's be clear here. This entire claim doesn't even pass the slightest laugh test. Google already complies with almost everything in Article 13. The whole point of Article 13 is to try to force nearly every site that hosts user content to install a ContendID like system. Google already has ContentID. Indeed, if anything, Article 13 would cement Google's dominant position by making it nearly impossible for newer, more innovative startups to enter the space without spending the tens of millions of dollars Google spent on ContentID.

The idea that Google would lead some "fake" public protest against Article 13 is ludicrous. But, this Google Derangement Syndrome seems impossible for those in the RIAA set to get rid of. I've mentioned before that just weeks after a massive public protest of SOPA stopped that bill from becoming law, I ended up at a dinner with an RIAA board member, who simply refused to believe that the public even cared one bit about SOPA/PIPA and insisted that the only reason the bill failed was because Google stepped up (in reality, Google was much slower than a ton of internet startups to recognize the threat of SOPA).

Indeed, this same derangement could be found in the tweets of former RIAA top exec Neil Turkewitz, who hilariously responded to the impact of widespread public protests by insisting that it was obviously not the will of the people stating:

Does anyone think the people have spoken? I doubt it. Democracy, freedom of expression & common sense were upended by allowing a Pirate & a fantastically large company w/ something to gain to define the terms of our freedom. A freedom w/o justice. An infant’s version of freedom.

Got that? Democracy, freedom of expression and common sense were upended... by people speaking out about the massive problems with Article 13. This is especially hilarious coming from Turkewitz, who worked for three decades on policy issues for the RIAA, at a time when the RIAA did so much of its policy awfulness by hiding it away from the public, in particular by sneaking awful ideas into secretly negotiated trade agreements, and then turning around and demanding that democratically elected legislatures write laws to match what he helped the RIAA sneak into those agreements. Or how about the will of "the people" when Turkewitz's RIAA colleague, just months before taking his job with the RIAA literally snuck four words overnight into a bill that would help the RIAA member labels take away rights from all of its artists. Was that "the will of the people"?

The recording industry spent decades actively subverting the will of the people at every turn. Even though the Constitutional mandate for copyright be that it promote the progress of science and learning by providing more material into the public domain, the RIAA spent decades -- usually in secret -- pushing and changing the law to turn it into a welfare system for record labels. For decades, "the public" wasn't even aware of what was happening, in part because copyright directly touched their lives so little.

That changed with the advent of the internet, and the fact that copyright and the internet don't work all that well together. Now, these changes that the RIAA used to push through in a smokey backroom is likely to impact the tools and services that billions of people use to communicate every day. And the consequences of those changes will have a huge impact on them. So no one should be surprised when the public speaks out about this. It's not a criminal conspiracy by Google. It's the public actually caring about what the internet looks like and whether or not they'll be allowed to speak without first getting permission and a license.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Jul 2018 @ 10:20am

    Destroyed minds grew up

    "...adults freaked out that pinball machines were destroying the minds of the youths in earlier generations."

    Finally! An explanation for Congress.

    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, 25 Jul 2018 @ 10:47am

    BREAKING HOOTS! "Voksi ... raided by Bulgarian cyberpolice

    following a criminal complaint filed by Denuvo. His cracking days are now officially over."

    HINTED in that last piece you were jeering, kids: the Wild West phase is OVER, we now KNOW how much you'll steal despite easy access, and moneyed interests have lost all patience.

    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, 25 Jul 2018 @ 10:49am

    ... and in other fake news, you're not a Google shill.

    We'll see on this, Masnick.

    My bet is true and provably criminal.

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

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 25 Jul 2018 @ 10:57am

      Re: ... and in other fake news, you're not a Google shill.

      Somebody needs a crayon and a hug.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2018 @ 11:01am

      Re: ... and in other fake news, you're not a Google shill.

      "My bet is true and provably criminal."

      How about you don't bet then? I wouldn't want to break the law....

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2018 @ 11:11am

      AC doubles-down on bias; news at 11

      >Article notes how Article 13 would consolidate Google control of internet and would prevent competitors from intruding on Google turf

      >AC concludes article author is a Google shill

      >AC apparently only reads article headlines and doesn't bother reading articles or actually trying to think.

      >AC fails to convince anyone reading their comment, gets flagged, generally ridiculed, probably gets off on self-righteous anger at perceived persecution by everyone who sees through their idiocy

      >Pity the AC.

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

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 25 Jul 2018 @ 11:26am

      Re: ... and in other fake news, you're not a Google shill.

      Troll obsessing over Mike.

      My bet is psychiatric, provably OCD.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2018 @ 10:53am

    "self-serving shilling for the self-absorbed on the short con,"

    Read that in an Anthony Kiedis voice enough times and it totally becomes a line from Dani California.

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Jul 2018 @ 10:53am

    PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN! LOOK OVER HERE AND IGNORE THESE CEO'S GETTING RICH BY ROBBING ARTISTS!!!!!

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

  • icon
    brandonalessi (profile), 25 Jul 2018 @ 10:58am

    as logical as

    "We put a man on the moon, so why can't we make a salad from the cheese the moon is made for - THIS IS AMERICA!!!!"

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

  • icon
    zarprime (profile), 25 Jul 2018 @ 11:15am

    Trying to deflect attention?

    So apparently there's this thing called "guilt transference" when you accuse another party of the thing you're actually guilty of yourself.

    Not the RIAA, but it's not like they're too good to take a page from the MPAA's books.

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/06353329462/attorney-general-downplays-ties-to-mpaa -despite-letter-he-sent-google-revealed-as-written-mpaa.shtml

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150 515/23305631025/mississippi-attorney-general-jim-hood-insists-his-emails-with-mpaa-are-super-secret. shtml

    Anyone care to lay odds?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2018 @ 12:00pm

      Re: Trying to deflect attention?

      "So apparently there's this thing called "guilt transference" when you accuse another party of the thing you're actually guilty of yourself."

      Isn't that referred to as projection?

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

      • icon
        zarprime (profile), 25 Jul 2018 @ 12:31pm

        Re: Re: Trying to deflect attention?

        Could be. I might have the nomenclature wrong. I'm not a psychologist. Sorta beside the point though, almost like you're trying to deflect from the point I'm making by fussing over minutia. =)

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

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 26 Jul 2018 @ 12:52am

          Re: Re: Re: Trying to deflect attention?

          It would have to be projection, as 'guilt transference' would seem to imply that they have a feeling of guilt to transfer, and at this point I'm pretty sure that's flat out impossible for anyone working for the AA's.

          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, 25 Jul 2018 @ 12:43pm

      Re: Trying to deflect attention?

      Sounds like a page out the Democratic play book. You know, Hillary rigging the election against Bernie and Trump while paying for a fake Russian dossier on Trump to obtain a warrant under false pretenses. Yea, sounds a lot like that.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2018 @ 11:21am

    h**ps://torrentfreak.com/music-industry-lawyer-calls-criminal-investigation-article-13-vote-180723/

    t he sort of total and complete shit this asshole drops!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2018 @ 1:25pm

    Ah yes, the grand conspiracy by Google to prevent Google's competitors from being regulated out of the marketplace.

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

    • identicon
      Chick, 26 Jul 2018 @ 7:56am

      Re:

      It'd make sense if they're quietly supporting Article 13 out of the public eye.

      The big boys with all the data don't want to be unseated or have to share their gains in our lifetimes, thank you very much.

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

  • icon
    Bergman (profile), 25 Jul 2018 @ 1:32pm

    Definitions

    Most of the insanity spewed by people like Castle and Turkewitz actually becomes at least vaguely rational if you assume that the definitions of Democracy and the People they are using specify that only corporations are People and only corporations interacting with governments is Democracy.

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

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 25 Jul 2018 @ 4:20pm

    People expect of others what they would do themselves

    we've talked about music industry lawyer Chris Castle

    I suspect his obsession with the company and repeated insistence that The Google is behind anything he doesn't like is a mix of refusal to accept that the public could ever object to anything The Almighty Music And Movie Industry could want, denial in refusing to believe that the public could impact legislation on a large scale, and projection onto The Google the sort of actions that his bosses would do, because if he would do it, then clearly others would too.

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

  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Jul 2018 @ 5:06pm

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2018 @ 5:19pm

    Democracy works sometimes. Fuck you, music industry.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2018 @ 5:22pm

    Another paranoid whack job who gets paid to spread conspiracy theories about big tech companies is Fred Campbell. His articles on Forbes are always proclaiming Google to be this untold evil. I find Castle and Campbell to be sad rather than infuriating, having sold their dignity for sweet, sweet corporate money.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2018 @ 6:50pm

    Castle, the obvious answer is that you just didn't lobby hard enough. What, were you expecting to get the laws you wanted with less-than-acceptable bribing, I mean lobbying? What kind of cheapass are you? Are you a law pirate/freetard?

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

  • identicon
    Nemo, 25 Jul 2018 @ 7:57pm

    In order to save Creativity Village, the RIAA/MPAA

    appear to plan on carpet-bombing Creativity into oblivion with their abuses of copyright.

    After all, how can we have freedom of expression without the Industry there to tell us how to do it?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2018 @ 11:44pm

    Name Calling

    I love how those that are interested in free speech and uninhibited learning are "self-serving shilling for the self-absorbed on the short con", completely unlike this anachronistic parasite who insists that he deserves a right to another's creativity via something that looks a lot like a protection racket

    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, 26 Jul 2018 @ 12:03pm

    Fact: Google spent 36 million dollars to try and stop Article 13.

    Lyin’ Mike Masnick: The quintessential tech douche.

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

  • icon
    Karl (profile), 27 Jul 2018 @ 4:11pm

    Some interesting info about Castle

    Here's a nifty video interview from when Chris Castle worked as an advisor for Arts+Labs: https://youtu.be/bXIoJVFmKvQ

    And his statement about it on his MTP blog: https://musictechpolicy.com/2011/10/28/artslabs-coalition-statement-on-introduction-of-stop-on line-piracy-act/

    What was Arts+Labs, you may ask?

    It was an organization set up by telecom lobbyists, including Mike McCurry of "Hands Off The Internet" fame. Andrew "the Internet is killing our culture" Keen was also an advisor, as was Rick Carnes of The Songwriters Guild of America.

    It ended up mostly as a vehicle to support SOPA, at which point most of the usual suspects joined its ranks.

    Like most astroturf organizations, it totally folded after its political goals (here, SOPA) utterly failed.

    http://fredbenenson.com/2008/09/26/arts-labs-astroturfing-content-filtering/ https://a2im.or g/news/arts-labs-supports-stop-online-piracy-act-coalition-of-creators-and-technology-companies-debu nks-the-blogosphere-hyperbole/ https://www.bmi.com/news/entry/bmi_joins_artslabs_coalition https://w eb.archive.org/web/20131205061213/http://artsandlabs.com/about-3/people https://web.archive.org/web/ 20130114074448/http://artsandlabs.com/

    Just so we know exactly who we're dealing with here.

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

  • identicon
    tp, 30 Jul 2018 @ 2:07am

    Quite expensive...

    > Impossible for newer, more innovative startups to enter the space without spending the tens of millions of dollars Google spent on ContentID.

    This one if-statement in php which allows google to filter out copyrighted works is now costing tens of millions of dollars? And everyone need to pay the same amount for the technology? The php language already provides this feature. Hashing and all the necessary tech is already available in the php ecosystem, so I don't really understand how did you calculate this to take "tens of millions of dollars". Dollars are not worth alot around the globe, but I didn't expect it to be that low value.

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

    • icon
      The Wanderer (profile), 30 Jul 2018 @ 4:01am

      Re: Quite expensive...

      I'm sorry, what "one if-statement in php"?

      If you seriously know that there is in fact a single "if" statement which handles this, please do quote it here.

      ContentID is certainly not a feature which "the php language already provides", or which "is already available in the php ecosystem"; it's a sizable, complex, continually developing system, consisting of both nontrivial amounts of code and (of at least equal importance) a large database of reference data, and - unless I'm much mistaken - is available only internally at Google.

      Developing such a system in the first place costs a lot of money; continuing to develop it costs a lot of money; maintaining and operating it costs a lot of money.

      The difficult part is not in filtering out the copyrighted works; that might indeed boil down to a single "if" statement if you arranged your code just right (although, in that case, a lot of detection complexity would be concealed within whatever functions set the variable being tested).

      The difficult part is in identifying which works need to be filtered out. (Which is not the same as "which works are copyrighted" - or, thanks to things like fair use and the public domain, even "which works are neither copyrighted by nor licensed to the uploader". Neither of which is easy to determine anyway, at least not without an authoritative database of copyrighted works and licensing terms and agreements, which the rightsholders have consistently refused to even try to make available.)

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

      • identicon
        tp, 30 Jul 2018 @ 6:40am

        Re: Re: Quite expensive...

        > The difficult part is in identifying which works need to be filtered out.

        They have like huge array of hash values, and if your video matches any of the values in the array, it'll be filtered out. Content owners can buy their position in the array, and submit video hashes which need to be filtered out. Then it's just ordinary scanning of the video and calculating working hash number. The algorithm is O(n), i.e. linear time consumption based on how many elements are in the array. If you want to optimize it, you can divide hashes to different buckets based on the first hex digit or something.

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

        • icon
          The Wanderer (profile), 31 Jul 2018 @ 3:56am

          Re: Re: Re: Quite expensive...

          >They have like huge array of hash values,

          Which is far more than a simple "one if-statement in php".

          Even building the array (if so you choose to call it) in the software is more than that simple "if" statement, and actually populating it with meaningful data is well beyond even that.

          (And that's leaving out things like "detecting audio being played in the background behind other activities", where you can't just hash the audio stream because it includes so many things that aren't the copyrighted content, but where the copyrighted content is still present in the mix; you need to be able to do audio stream splitting and recognition, on a level that last I heard was at least partly still the domain of AI research. Not that having the radio on in the background while you do your video that should necessarily be considered a violation, but the RIAA et al. have certainly been willing to treat it as such in the past.)

          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
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.