Karl 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4260) comment rss

  • On the post: Why Ebook Portal Library.nu Differed From Other Filesharing Sites

    Karl ( profile ), 24 Feb, 2012 @ 10:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If you want to get entirely narrow, then yes, in some ways it is a monopoly - but not one that truly matters.

    Ah. So you admit it is a monopoly, you just don't care. Got it.

    By the way, it is a monopoly. This is not debatable. It has always been described as such by legislators, and that it is a monopoly has been reiterated many times by the Supreme Court:

    Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
    - Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson

    Monoplies tho' in certain cases useful ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness agst abuse. The Constitution of the U. S. has limited them to two cases, the authors of Books, and of useful inventions, in both which they are considered as a compensation for a benefit actually gained to the community as a purchase of property which the owner might otherwise withold from public use. [...] But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good.
    James Madison

    I believe, Sir, that I may safely take it for granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad. And I may with equal safety challenge my honorable friend to find out any distinction between copyright and other privileges of the same kind; any reason why a monopoly of books should produce an effect directly the reverse of that which was produced by the East India Companys monopoly of tea, or by Lord Essexs monopoly of sweet wines.
    - A Speech delivered in the House of Commons on the 5th of February, 1841, by Thomas Babington Macaulay

    The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.
    - Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios

    In enacting a copyright law Congress must consider . . . two questions: First, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public; and, second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public? The granting of such exclusive rights, under the proper terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly.
    - H. R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1909)

    The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.
    - Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal

    The most common error about copyright is the idea that copyright is property to be protected as other type property. Copyright, however, is "intellectual property," which means that it is not like other property. It is a series of defined rights to which a given work is subject for a limited period of time for the purpose of marketing the work. In short, copyright is a statutory monopoly to serve a public purpose, not a plenary property right.
    - Users' Rights in Copyright: An Interview with Ray Patterson

  • On the post: Chris Dodd Extends SOPA 'Olive Branch' To Silicon Valley… And Proceeds To Bash Them Over The Head With It

    Karl ( profile ), 24 Feb, 2012 @ 07:29am

    Re:

    The vocal minority tries to shut down the free speech rights of everyone else.

    This is exactly what SOPA and PROTECT IP were. Good for Godaddy's customer base, who exercised their free speech rights and stood against it!

    I mean, that must be what you're saying. You couldn't possibly think a consumer boycott is shutting down free speech rights, but the Government "disappearing" websites is not.

    'Cause that would just be idiotic.

    Though, if you were sympathetic to the RIAA/MPAA, I could see how you could believe that lie. In their mind, they're the only ones who provide "speech," and everyone else is just providing "noise." So, any loss to their business would then be an "attack on free speech."

    Especially a consumer boycott... which, when you get down to it, is what file sharing really is.

  • On the post: Trademark Lobby Wants To Help European Court of Justice Forget About EU Citizens' Rights

    Karl ( profile ), 23 Feb, 2012 @ 09:07pm

    Re: What about the citizens who have trademarks? Don't they have rights too?

    This blog continues to write about the citizens' rights as if the citizens never copyright or trademark anything. While I think that only citizens with small businesses use trademarks regularly, I think that most people rely implicitly on copyright for protection.

    You're lumping in copyrights and trademarks. They're not the same thing at all. Trademarks, for instance, do not arise from the Constitution; that clause is for copyrights and patents.

    Trademarks, by definition, can only apply to a mark used in trade. They exist to identify a company, and they exist to prevent consumer confusion. Also, trademarks must be actively used by a business, or they can be lost (unlike either patents or copyrights).

    Copyright prevents big businesses from just taking any photo they see on Flickr and using it for an ad campaign.

    Not really. Any company can do this; they can just be sued if they do. This means that companies only get in legal trouble if the photographer can afford to bring a lawsuit against them. If we're talking about Flickr users, that's probably not the case.

    And if they can afford to sue, they can sue for any use of the photograph, whether it's used by a company, or by some granny in Pensacola who used it as a pattern for her quilting. Subject to fair use, of course... and to how much of an asshole the photographer is.

    There are many, many more people who rely upon copyright to protect their creations than people who "share" others' works over P2P networks.

    There are many, many more people whose creations are censored because they infringe on someone else's copyright, than there are who get any tangible benefit from copyright protection.

    On balance, copyright hurts your average, everyday creator far more than it helps them.

    If you believe that shouldn't be the case, then you should agree with those of us that think copyright should be rolled back to prohibit commercial use alone. You should be in favor of Creative Commons licenses, and support non-profits like the EFF or FSF.

    Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen.

  • On the post: Trademark Lobby Wants To Help European Court of Justice Forget About EU Citizens' Rights

    Karl ( profile ), 23 Feb, 2012 @ 08:48pm

    INTA hopes that the European Court of Justice will make a considered and quick assessment of ACTA, acknowledge the serious threats that counterfeiting and piracy pose for the EU and provide the necessary clarity to pave the way for consent to the Treaty by the European Parliament and ratification by Member States.

    Translation: "The success of our business models are too important to let a little thing like human rights get in the way."

  • On the post: NSA: 'Anonymous Might One Day Hack Power Grids!' Anonymous: 'Huh?!?'

    Karl ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2012 @ 08:15pm

    Analog DOS Attack

    A stateless group like Anonymous "doesn?t yet have the capability to sneak into the Pentagon and flush all the toilets at once," officials say. But if the group?s members around the world developed or acquired it, "poo-covered Major Generals would become far more likely," according to cybersecurity experts.

  • On the post: How To Turn A Legitimate Buyer Into A Pirate In Five Easy Steps

    Karl ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 08:06am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    That exclusive market is what is driving demand.

    Exclusivity has never driven demand. Making a quality product is what drives demand.

    You have a point about the price. At present, HBO does not create these shows so that the shows make money; they create them as added value for their cable subscriptions, which is their income source.

    But if that added value won't drive consumers to their main product, then they won't spend the money on the added value.

    So, you've got it exactly backwards. Exclusivity isn't driving demand for the content. Demand for the content is driving their ability to exclude. And that's the only thing their product is; their ability to exclude. Their service, in and of itself, offers nothing whatsoever to consumers.

    Unfortunately for them (but fortunate for consumers), that exclusivity simply can't be enforced. Now, the demand for the show stays where it is - as demand for the show - and doesn't get translated into demand for their valueless, consumer-unfriendly product. In fact, the demand for their shows has to overcome the fact that consumers don't want to pay for something that offers no additional value to them. Unless the content is especially in demand, this won't happen - and, in fact, it doesn't in the vast majority of cases. Most people don't choose to pay for HBO (piracy or no).

    That business model simply isn't feasible anymore. If you want new programs to be produced, then you need to find another business model - because the one they have is failing rapidly. Given increased competition from other services that actually offer additional value to consumers - Netflix, Hulu, etc - the HBO model is bound to fail, even if piracy was somehow eliminated altogether.

  • On the post: How To Turn A Legitimate Buyer Into A Pirate In Five Easy Steps

    Karl ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 07:11am

    Ads

    The best thing about that Oatmeal comic was the ads on the "pirate site." MOAR TESTICLES!

  • On the post: RIAA Insists That, Really, The Music Industry Is Collapsing; Reality Shows It's Just The RIAA That's Collapsing

    Karl ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2012 @ 07:05am

    Re:

    Either the new systems are a cornucopia of wealth for those who embrace them, or they are just another case of the rich getting richer.

    This is what is called a "false dichotomy." There is a third option: that the rich are slightly less rich, those at the bottom are universally better off, and those in the middle are either better or worse off, depending upon how well they compete.

    This is, in fact, the case. As the report shows, it's the bands who are outside of the RIAA clients who have benefited the most by the democratization of communication and distribution models. They are also facing increased competition - as is everyone, no matter what "tier" you are.

    Here's a simplified version. Let's say there are 1000 active musicians. Under the old system, only 10 of those musicians had the opportunity to make any money whatsoever, and out of those 10, only 1 actually recouped and made money from record sales. That means there were 900 musicians who made nothing, and 9 musicians who made nothing from record sales (though they can earn wages from other sources) - and furthermore do not own the rights to their own music.

    Under the modern system, all 1000 of those active musicians now have distribution and promotion. Most still won't earn a living wage from music, but all 1000 will make at least a little money. That means that, even if though there's not "a cornucopia of wealth," that means that 900 active musicians are better off than they would be under the old system. And, even if only a slight percentage (say, 5%) of those 1000 artists make a living wage, that's still 50 musicians - a net increase of 5x from the old system (at least).

    And that's assuming that the total amount of money spent on music is flat. It's not. It's increasing, and has been increasing steadily for at least a decade.

    Are the small to mid sized bands really seeing more money, or (as you say) are they facing more competition, which drives down their revenue?

    Under the old system, small to mid sized bands were locked out of the system, for the most part. Only larger bands were allowed to compete at all. And those bands were competing, not for a living wage, but for "hits." Unless you created a platinum album, you didn't make money under the traditional system. You either grabbed the brass ring, or you failed; there was no middle ground.

    The new system is promoting a new, growing, middle class of musicians that could not exist under the old model. That's reflected in the fact that independent artists benefit more than those still creating under the traditional model. Their revenue is increasing, as the study demonstrates.

    This is hardly unique to music, by the way. YouTube in particular has created a new middle class of working video artists who would not have made any money whatsoever under the old model. And that's just one company; there are many more - and many more to come. We're still at the very beginning of this revolution... assuming we don't allow the RIAA/MPAA to create laws that quash it.

  • On the post: RIAA Insists That, Really, The Music Industry Is Collapsing; Reality Shows It's Just The RIAA That's Collapsing

    Karl ( profile ), 20 Feb, 2012 @ 12:03pm

    Re:

    The recorded music industry is dying, getting killed by piracy and perhaps the shorter attention span of people.

    This is ridiculous. The record labels are dying because of Amazon and iTunes, not because of piracy. In fact, the decline in label revenues correlates much more strongly with the ascent of digital sales, than it does with the ascent in piracy levels.

    That's because the only way the Big Six were ever able to make money is by selling physical products at an illegally inflated price. They even tried the same thing with digital sales, but their services failed miserably.

    Once songs became unbundled from full albums, consumers were able to buy only the songs they wanted, without paying for nine songs that they didn't. This is the primary reason that record labels aren't making money anymore. The record labels know it; that's why they tried to kill the CD single long before the internet even entered the picture.

    The labels' declining revenue has everything to do with their own terrible business decisions, and little to do with piracy.

  • On the post: Congrats, US Government: You're Scaring Web Businesses Into Moving Out Of The US

    Karl ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2012 @ 07:02pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    at least I dont just troll.

    Referring to me, or Darryl? If you're referring to me, feel free to look at my profile, and read the posts I wrote. I do not troll.

    If you're referring to Darryl... then never mind.

  • On the post: Congrats, US Government: You're Scaring Web Businesses Into Moving Out Of The US

    Karl ( profile ), 19 Feb, 2012 @ 06:56pm

    Re: Obama not mentioned

    Democrats supported SOPA more than Republicans

    Not really. Prior to the blackouts, support was about even on both sides of the aisle. Plus, the only two politicians who participated in the blackouts (Earl Blumenauer and Anna Eshoo) are both Democrats.

    IP laws are, sadly, one area of politics where the Democrats and Republicans are both equally insane.

  • On the post: Congrats, US Government: You're Scaring Web Businesses Into Moving Out Of The US

    Karl ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2012 @ 06:08pm

    Re: Re:

    +100, exactly !!!!!

    When Darryl agrees with you, you know you're in trouble.

  • On the post: Congrats, US Government: You're Scaring Web Businesses Into Moving Out Of The US

    Karl ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2012 @ 06:05pm

    Re:

    No..they are scaring away start ups who want to plagiairize and break laws.

    Except that they have been shutting down domains of people who have not broken any law.

    Exhibit A: Jotform. Absolutely nothing whatsoever that they did was unlawful in any way, shape, or form. Yet their domain was still shut down.

    If you can get shut down when you haven't done anything wrong, of course you're going to go somewhere else. It's hardly rocket science.

  • On the post: Directors Guild Boss Insists That Everyone Against SOPA/PIPA Was Duped

    Karl ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2012 @ 08:20pm

    Re: Re:

    "Facebook might be disappeared"

    I tried Googling that phrase, and this is what came up:

    No results found for "Facebook might be disappeared".

  • On the post: Directors Guild Boss Insists That Everyone Against SOPA/PIPA Was Duped

    Karl ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2012 @ 12:46am

    Re: Re:

    Some of the gems I have seen on this site - not necessarily the comments of Mike, but none-the-less the general attitude of many people here:

    Not mentioned: that every one of these "gems" is either a) factually true, or b) a perfectly valid viewpoint.

    Obviously you won't belive me, so let's go throug it:

    It's not piracy it's file sharing

    There have been a couple "piracy is for Somalian gangsters and Johnny Depp" posts, but I don't think that's what you're referring to.

    If you're talking about "piracy" as it's talked about nowadays, meaning "internet piracy," then "file sharing" is exactly the right term to describe it. The people who upload copyrighted content, by and large, are not making money off of the upload, are not charging for access to content, and are not selling content. "File sharing" is exactly the right term to describe such people.

    That statement has mainly been a response to the lumping together of counterfeiters, e.g. enterprises that sell counterfeit goods (such as handbags), and entities who charge for access to specific content, with people who simply upload stuff that they like to some Internet site. All of these entities are completely different, and act for completely different reasons. It is both practically and morally disingenuous to conflate those groups.

    Piracy isn't theft

    Objectively true. This is settled as a matter of law. The Supreme Court said, explicitly, that copyright infringement is not theft in Dowling v. United States. Piracy is not theft, and never was.

    Never buy another thing from the MFIAAs

    If you are against the "MAFIAAs," then a consumer boycott is exactly the right thing to do.

    Google doesn't profit from piracy

    True. They don't, and nobody, ever, has been able to successfully show that they do. They're a big company, and obviously some infringing content is bound to slip through the cracks. But they are incredibly anal about cutting off the AdSense accounts of infringers (notoriously so), and they have gone above and beyond what has been required by law do deal with infringement (including providing tools that remove non-infringing content, such as the MegaUpload song). The percentage of money that they earn from infringement is vastly less that even the major labels'.

    Infringing sites aren't making money

    By and large, they aren't.

    The technology industry saved the entertainment industry

    First of all, nobody claimed that. They claimed that the technology industry gave the entertainment industry the tools to save themselves, and the entertainment industry ignored them. Given the fact that the entertainment industry has been reluctant to adopt every single technological change that ended up making them money, this is not an unreasonable claim. (See, e.g., player pianos, radio, VCR's, MP3's, etc.)

    Step2

    I'm not even sure what that means. Yes, it exists, and its goal is to help artists make money. What's you're point?

    Copyright law was written to serve the people

    The truth is even stronger than this. Copyright law exists to benefit the public, and for no other reason. Copyright holders may benefit, but this isn't the purpose of copyright law, and such benefits must ultimately serve the public good.

    This is not even debatable. Not only is it explicit in the preamble to the Copyright Clause ("To promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts"), it has been explicitly stated, repeatedly, by the Supreme Court.

    Media companies don't help performers

    Media companies previously held a monopoly on the airwaves (radio, TV, etc). In order to get access to them, performers had to sign over their copyrights to the media companies, and usually did not get paid for that privilege.

    I have no experience with the movie industry, but I know from foolish friends that the music industry does not pay performers at all. If you are a performing artist, you do not own the rights to your performances. You are forced to pay back every penny of the recording costs out of your own royalties (they are around 15% - meaning that by the time you make your first penny, the record label has earned about five times the cost of the recording). According to the RIAA itself (in the 90's, when record labels were earning money hand over foot), 90% of performers on their labels were not recouped - meaning they did not make any money whatsoever from their recordings. Even among recouped artists (such as Paul McCartney), recorded music sales are only a tiny fraction of their total income from music.

    The labels never paid performers. That means the only way they "helped" was to make the music available to a wider audience... exactly like file sharing sites do today. But unlike media companies, file sharing sites don't require that you sign over your copyrights to them.

    And, even more luckily, there are businesses that realize that a better business model is to enable music rather than be a gatekeeper to music. Businesses like CD Baby, TuneCore, BandCamp, SoundCloud, or YouTube, which are actually treating artists like they should be treated, and have helped create a new middle class of artists that never existed before.

    Musicians need to get creative and stop trying to make their money from selling their music.

    Musicians never made their money from selling their music. At least, not if "selling their music" means "selling copies of their recordings."

    If "selling your music" includes B2B licensing, live performances, charging for direct access to the musicians, or any one of a dozen other things that involve selling rivalrous goods, then nobody here has ever had a problem with it. In fact, that's what Mike's business models are based upon: focusing on rivalrous goods, rather than wasting time, energy, and money trying to prevent public goods from being public goods.

    So, basically, you're criticizing this site for being absolutely correct.

    Kind of makes you look like a total asswipe, in my opinion.

  • On the post: How Do We Know That Piracy Isn't Really A Big Issue? Because Media Companies Still Haven't Needed To Change As A Result Of It

    Karl ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2012 @ 11:56pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    MegaUpload had hosted servers in Virginia

    And iTunes has hosted servers in Iran. I guess that means all iTunes songs must obey Iranian laws, right?

  • On the post: US Government 'Suspends' JotForm.com Over User Generated Forms; Censorship Regime Expands

    Karl ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2012 @ 08:41am

    Re:

    Without proof of who is actually uploading

    Jotform does not host uploads.

    The only thing they do is allow users to create forms to post in webpages and whatnot. They didn't have data storage, links to files, or anything like that.

    The fact that this site was taken down is beyond ridiculous.

  • On the post: Mass Protests Against ACTA All Across Europe

    Karl ( profile ), 14 Feb, 2012 @ 07:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I guess you firmly believe that the Office of the President has no original powers conferred upon it by Article 2 of the Constitution.

    It sure does:

    "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

    No other authority to enter into foreign agreements is granted in Article 2.

    The "sole executive agreement," where the President may sign an agreement without Congress' consent, is a statutory ability not arising from the Constitution. Sole executive agreements can only be entered into, when the subject of the treaty lies with the Article 2 powers.

    Copyrights and patents are not a power granted to the President in Article 2, but to Congress in Article 1, Section 8. Thus, any foreign agreements that influence copyright or patent laws cannot be the subject of sole executive agreements.

    BTW, the courts derive from Article 3. Guess under your view they too cannot do anything with respect to copyright law.

    They sure can't. They must enforce the law as written by Congress, subject to the Constitution.

    They could not, for example, sign an agreement with judges in foreign countries, "harmonizing" search-and-seizure laws.

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 13 Feb, 2012 @ 10:15pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Okay, one more reply, then I think we should let this drop.

    Karl, you're the one being dodgy.

    For the record, I never called you "dodgy." I think the conversation is getting off track, and you're muddling the issues a bit, but I don't think you're being dodgy.

    1. You cite a blog post I wrote quite awhile ago. I was giving reasons why the anti-IP folks haven't explained why IP reform should be a big issue for those of us who care more about other things.

    Here's the thing. IP reformers have been giving plenty of reasons. You barely touched on any of them. The only reasons you gave for IP reform were variations on "we want stuff for free." That's not even a small part of IP reform.

    Picture this: It's 1973. Someone writes an op-ed about feminism. Their argument: "I don't care much, but I know that if the anti-men folks want feminism to be a big issue for those of us who care about other things, they'd better do something other than burn their bras, leave their husbands, and grow their leg hair. I mean, c'mon, ladies! There's a war goin' on!"

    Would that be more reflective of feminism, or about the person who wrote the article?

    Obviously, your article is not that bad, and you did touch on some good points. But here are some places where you were obviously, staggeringly wrong:

    "Why, I think to myself, should lawmakers change current laws if a strong case hasn't been made to do so?" (Since the article was written, there have been four attempts by lawmakers to change current laws, all at the request of IP maximalists, none of whom have made a strong case to do so.)

    "Chances are that if they [concepts] are currently in the public domain, they will remain so." (Golan v. Holder took material out of the public domain.)

    "For example, poor nutrition and inadequate health care in Africa are not IP issues." (As I said in the comments, absolutely they are - and not just for Africans. IP is the only reason drugs are cheaper in Canada. That's why people like RxRights are against SOPA/PIPA.)

    "Rarely has the case for lessening IP protection been made so that it is relevant to the average person. When we go to vote, IP issues tend not to be a priority.If anything, the emphasis on copyright and music lessens the perceived relevance because most voters don't see that as a major issue in their lives." (Thousands of blacked-out websites, millions of signatures and phone calls to Washington, hudreds of thousands of protesters marching in the streets, and "most voters don't see that as a major issue in their lives"?)

    And, though it's in your comments (not the article), here's the real kick in the pants:

    "What I'd like to do is to get the anti-IP folks more involved in the political process. To get the laws changed, you can either lobby legislators or you can make it an issue with voters." (So, why exactly are you criticizing Google again?)

    Speaking of:

    I said that the PIPA/SOPA battle brought into focus the amount of money Google has spent on lobbying.

    You said that the PIPA/SOPA battle, and specifically Google's increase in lobbying spending to fight it, had negatively affected Google's public image, and brought the company under increased scrutiny.

    There is no evidence of any of that. Google has been under tremendous scrutiny for years now, and none of the complaints about them have anything to do with SOPA/PIPA. (Unless they're from Chris Dodd.)

    However, people like me do not necessarily therefore support the companies that were anti-PIPA/SOPA.

    That's OK. As long as you recognize that the companies that were anti-PIPA/SOPA did not drive the protests, then we're all fine and dandy.

  • On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA

    Karl ( profile ), 12 Feb, 2012 @ 07:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    No, it's that I don't really give a damn.

    So, you didn't give a damn enough to listen to IP critics, yet gave a damn enough to write a blog post criticising them?

    As for Google starting to get negative press, yes, I am seeing it from pro-tech people.

    Okay, now I'm confused about what you're trying to say. Are we still talking about SOPA/PIPA, or are you just trying to dredge up dirt against Google?

    Here's what you said: "The PIPA/SOPA lobbying did bring into clearer focus the business decisions driving these actions."

    Yet, most of the links you provided had nothing whatsoever to do with SOPA/PIPA.

    For example, Google acquired Motorola Mobility in August - two months before SOPA was introduced. (And, in fact, the criticism was not of Google per se, but their possible decision to continue in Motorola's footsteps.) The majority of complaints about Google's privacy concerns happened because Google recently integrated their TOS and privacy policies across their entire family of services. This had absolutely nothing to do with SOPA, or Google's lobbying in general.

    In fact, in the entire Wikipedia article about Google criticisms, their increased lobbying due to SOPA/PIPA was not even mentioned.

    I'd also like to point something out. This discussion has now turned away from the bills themselves, and the focus is now almost entirely on Google in general.

    This is exactly what the supporters of SOPA and PROTECT IP want to happen. They want to turn the narrative of the protests from one of a grassroots movement that spanned thousands of websites and dozens of organizations (most of them non-profits), and into a story of one company controlling minions. It is simply incorrect, but they believe if they repeat it loudly enough, people will listen - especially people in the Beltway.

    This highlights the reason why:

    the existence of that open Internet is not a direct concern of, say, the Entertainment Software Association (representing video game publishers, $4.6 million) or ITI (enterprise computing, $2.6 million). Even worse, one of the few major associations on the tech list, the Business Software Alliance ($2.1 million), actually supported SOPA, until outcry from the rest of the tech sector led them to back off.

    The BSA is actually an IP maximalist, representing as it does software companies who don't like piracy - such as Microsoft. (The BSA is known for publish bogus reports about losses due to piracy.) And, is Comcast a member of the "tech industry" for being an ISP, or a member of the "content industry" for owning NBC Universal?

    Because of this confusion, the IP maximalists can't paint it as entirely a picture of "tech" vs. "content." Nor can they afford to paint it as it really is: "content" vs. "everyone on the Internet." They need a scapegoat: someone powerful enough to be a threat, and for whom the existence of an open Internet is a direct concern. Someone whose business model you can discredit, especially if you can claim they have a financial motive for defending piracy.

    In their eyes, Google fits that narrative. This accomplishes two things. First, it allows them to portray the anti-SOPA/PIPA forces as being "misled" by a single, monolithic, self-interested entity. Of course, most of the voices against SOPA and PIPA were 501(3)(c) nonprofit organizations: the EFF, Public Knowledge, the FSF, Wikipedia, Demand Progress, and so forth. To make their narrative work, they need to spin public opinion (or, more importantly, D.C. opinion) to make it sound like these are all merely "astroturf" organizations, with Google in charge. Hence Bob's rantings, matching nearly word-for-word with Chris Dodd's, and repeated uncritically by Lamar Smith.

    The second thing it accomplishes is a plan of action. "If we can handle Google," they think, "the rest of the Internet will line up like good little soldiers." Hence, the public statements by the bills sponsors that they are willing to "work with Google" (yes, they mention Google by name) to work out problems with the bill. In this way, they can go back to business as usual - backroom deals, made outside the public eye, where Google represents the only one in the room who does not benefit directly from stronger IP laws.

    But Google had almost nothing to do with the blackout or the SOPA/PIPA protests. If Google had actually supported the bills, the protests and blackouts would still have happened, exactly as they did (and are). Consider the letter to Congress asking to completely halt work on IP-related legislation. Of the 70 groups that signed it, about half are nonprofits, and Google is notably absent.

    This revisionist narrative is a grave misstep, a huge miscalculation. It has already started to come back and bite them in the ass. If you actually believe it, I'd advise you to rethink your opinion.

Next >>