Google Files Amicus Brief in Hotfile Case; MPAA Requests It Be Rejected

Google Gov by lexsird · 2012-03-20 00:10 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Let's just elect Google.

--
Take the Red Pill.

Re:Google Gov by adamchou · 2012-03-20 00:16 · Score: 1, Interesting

Corporations are people!
Re:Google Gov by Monoman · 2012-03-20 00:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Can corporations serve jail time or be put to death?

--
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Re:Google Gov by rioki · 2012-03-20 00:23 · Score: 2

A corporation can be disbanded by a judgment, that is basically the death penalty. It does not mean much though, since if the real criminals (CEO & friends) are not convicted of some crime, they can simply open a new one.
Re:Google Gov by Monoman · 2012-03-20 00:37 · Score: 2

It is not the same. Penalties for breaking laws are established to discourage unacceptable behavior. I think most would agree that the death discourages behavior more than disbandment.

--
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Re:Google Gov by cpghost · 2012-03-20 00:49 · Score: 1

Not available in your country: Google didn't roll out gOvernment yet.

--
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Re:Google Gov by machine321 · 2012-03-20 01:01 · Score: 5, Funny

More importantly, can corporations get gay married?
Re:Google Gov by Artifakt · 2012-03-20 01:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

Let's push that whole analogy a little farther:
One of the arguments against the death penalty being a deterrent is that many of the people it gets applied to are not capable of looking ten years or so down the road and seeing themselves in the position of a condemned killer actually strapped into an electric chair or on a lethal injection table. Our worst criminals tend to be strongly socially stunted and fixated only on immediate gratification and immediate consequences. They severly lack the empathy to put themselves in another's position, whether it's with their victims, or with other killers who have gotten caught and punished.
Sounds like a corporation - relentless focus on a point no father away than the next quarter's profit statement, little or no concern for the long term consequences of their actions... The very act of calling disbandment a corporate death penalty says corporations have the mentality of criminals, and we are hoping we have come up with something severe enough to get them to look past the immediate gratification mode they are in.

--
Who is John Cabal?
Re:Google Gov by hideouspenguinboy · 2012-03-20 01:30 · Score: 2

Or teen pregnant?
Re:Google Gov by Monoman · 2012-03-20 01:42 · Score: 2

I'm not arguing for or against the death penalty. I see your point and agree somewhat. Yes, some corporations exhibit criminal behavior. However, corporations aren't people. Corporations are run by people that make the decisions and create the corporate culture yet the people in the corporations are too insulated from the punishment.

--
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Re:Google Gov by ciderbrew · 2012-03-20 01:43 · Score: 1

For shareholders and profit? That can't be right.
Re:Google Gov by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:55 · Score: 5, Funny

More importantly, can corporations get gay married?
Technically yes, if you can find a suitable company for Apple to merge with.
Re:Google Gov by Joce640k · 2012-03-20 02:22 · Score: 1

Let's just elect Google.
After reading this I'm seriously thinking of removing google-analytics.com from Noscript's banned site list.

--
No sig today...
Re:Google Gov by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 02:57 · Score: 0

No. Corporate marriage is defined as between a man corporation and a female corporation.
If you allow gay corporate marriage, before you know it, corporations will be marrying animal corporations.
Re:Google Gov by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 02:59 · Score: 2, Informative

I'd love to agree, except sadly, by the law, they seem to be people.
Mind, this also makes them immortals. They're basically Highlanders, really - only way to kill them is decapitation. Upon which, if you're a fellow corporation/immortal, you steal their power.
Re:Google Gov by Hatta · 2012-03-20 03:16 · Score: 2

Our worst criminals tend to be strongly socially stunted and fixated only on immediate gratification and immediate consequences.
True, but bankers never even go to jail, let alone get the death penalty.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Google Gov by mjr167 · 2012-03-20 04:08 · Score: 1

Out of curiosity, how do you know how many people have chosen to not commit a crime because of the death penalty? Wouldn't the people we are currently executing be the people who were not deterred, leaving the number of successfully deterred people a mystery?
Re:Google Gov by GuB-42 · 2012-03-20 06:03 · Score: 1

I don't see the death penalty as a deterrent but as a way to get rid of a danger. Some criminals are a death threat to anyone around them (including other inmates if imprisoned) and there is no way to change it.
The same reasoning can be applied to corporations.
Re:Google Gov by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 06:05 · Score: 0

That's easy. Many states have abandoned the death penalty. You can do a cross-comparison both between states and between the same state pre & post death penalty.
Re:Google Gov by dgatwood · 2012-03-20 06:12 · Score: 1

Even a corporate death penalty—an easier way to dissolve a corporation for committing crimes—would be a great win. Here's why: corporations are ultimately beholden to stockholders. If the government dissolves a corporation and seizes its assets, the stockholders are screwed. And unlike the greedy corporate CEOs who can't see anything farther out than short-term profits, most of the largest stockholders—mutual funds and the like—are looking to hold, not for a few weeks or months, but for years, ideally.
This means that a credible threat of dissolving a business for its crimes would result in those mutual funds becoming very, very careful about who they invest in, and exercising pressure on those companies through their bloc voting to put directors and CEOs in place who actually think long-term.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Google Gov by Darinbob · 2012-03-20 06:43 · Score: 2

Such a marriage would not last long. They would soon file for divorce claiming that the other was screwing customers on the side.
Re:Google Gov by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 06:48 · Score: 0

Corporations are made up of people. Those people, shockingly enough, can be punished.
Can groups of people serve jail time or be put to death?
Such inane dribble passing for insightful these days.
Re:Google Gov by Monoman · 2012-03-20 06:59 · Score: 1

I follow you but you need to realize that not every corporation is publicly traded or has stakeholders they are beholden to.

--
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
Re:Google Gov by Genda · 2012-03-20 07:14 · Score: 2

I need only point at the recent resignation of "Greg Smith" from "Goldman Sachs" that the men in charge of business today, this very day, in many areas of the public sector are interested in only one thing. Protecting their huge salary and stock shares (though the systematic process of squeezing profit out of any damn thing they can.) The will turn on their own customers (tell me that's not a sign of profound insanity), they will lie and cheat and steal to the ultimate death and dismemberment of their own stock holders. All inside the near bullet proof corporate veil.
The men that planned this in 80s, filled our courts with compliant judges and top colleges with ideological clones to teach our best business schools, and now Reaganomics and deregulation is the Koolaid everyone's drinking. The sad part is that when you wipe Ronny's smiling face off Reaganomics what you have left is simple Fascism. Today America passes virtually all the tests for a fascist state. We've demonstrated time and time again, that fascist states destroy human rights and ultimately implode... I'm sorry... suffer immense recessions. Even "Adam Smith" warned about the dangers of concentrated wealth and the destruction of a health working class. Sadly, we don't teach that anymore, that would be sanity, and we're fresh out.
Watching giant corporate interests fighting in court after the last scraps of IP and means of transporting it, seems more than a wee bit like everybody is loosing except the corporate interests.
Re:Google Gov by Genda · 2012-03-20 07:31 · Score: 1

The problem is that some places do a pitiful job of vetting candidates for the death penalty, and when they have virtual express lanes to the death house (like... uh Texas?) the number of almost certainly innocent victims of social execution begins to approach an embarrassingly large percentage. You can get precisely the same result by sticking a violent offender in solitary confinement, away from the general population. You can save anywhere from 3-10 million dollars as well. You can claim moral high ground, and Gawd forbid, if DNA should prove the guy you locked up was in fact innocent 10 years later, he's still around to pardon.
By the way, Texas just executed a man that is WIDELY agreed was almost certainly innocent. His trial was a joke. The only evidence, provided by the local Fire Marshall has since been proven by science to be complete and utter bovine feces, and armed with all of this information, the Governor of Texas still let them kill this man, because he's "Hard on Crime!"
A better solution against corporations, is to separate them from government like we do with church (or at least as we should do), then create a strong body of regulations designed to promote an empower enterprise by protecting small business against predatory practice, protect a healthy human environment, and a vibrant and happy middle class. Its not hard to see we are quick approaching social free-fall. This little 30 year experiment has run its course and the religious thinkers who keep chanting, don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up, need to be gently asked to sit the next few out. Let's all stop, and clean up the mess before we drown in it.
Re:Google Gov by Em+Adespoton · 2012-03-20 09:40 · Score: 1

I'd love to agree, except sadly, by the law, they seem to be people.
Mind, this also makes them immortals. They're basically Highlanders, really - only way to kill them is decapitation. Upon which, if you're a fellow corporation/immortal, you steal their power.
Surely they're Highlander Hydras?
Re:Google Gov by TENTH+SHOW+JAM · 2012-03-20 11:40 · Score: 1

I'm opposed to the death penalty. It would not be hard to confiscate profits for 25 years effectively making the company serve a 25 year penalty.

--
A sig is placed here
To display how futile
English Haiku is
Re:Google Gov by kqs · 2012-03-20 14:59 · Score: 1

You can get a good idea by comparing crime rates before and after laws change, and crime rates in otherwise similar locations with different laws. There are plenty of such studies available (in full or in summary) online; I encourage you to find them and decide on their accuracy for yourself.
Spoiler: the death penalty, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to have much effect on crime rates.
Re:Google Gov by mjr167 · 2012-03-21 03:06 · Score: 0

Listing of states with and without the death penalty
Violent Crime Rankings by state

According to those sources, 15 states do not have the death penaly and 35 do. The avg ranking in the violent crimes tables is 29 for states without and 24 for states with, supporting your claim that violent crime rates are not impacted by the presence of the death penalty. This data does not take into account any differences in application, only if the law exists.
Re:Google Gov by Rakarra · 2012-03-21 08:25 · Score: 1

Our worst criminals tend to be strongly socially stunted and fixated only on immediate gratification and immediate consequences.
True, but bankers never even go to jail, let alone get the death penalty.
It sounds like they thought ahead!
Re:Google Gov by lsatenstein · 2012-03-22 03:18 · Score: 1

I think your analogy is in error. Today, DNA is able to be analyzed whereas it was not 25 years ago. Prisoners who pleaded not guilty, have in some states, been executed, and have no recourse. Whats dead cannot come back to life. The MPAA wants to have the websites (ISPs) treat each file as a copyrighted item, owned by them, until proved otherwise. If they want that, they should hire policemen to check each file, and to put a seal on it that the file reviewed is "Kosher". Of course, if they err, and do harm, they want protection from responsibility.
There are way way to many lawyers in the USA. (One for 55k people may be a good ratio, not one for 20k). They have time to see how to destroy new business ventures. Sadly their salaries are paid for by the victims.

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada

Hypocrisy much? by Nidi62 · 2012-03-20 00:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage

Isn't this what the MPAA and RIAA have been trying to do with SOPA/PIPA and all these other bills? I guess it's only ok when they do it though.

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil

Re:Hypocrisy much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 00:17 · Score: 0

Yes, it is.
Re:Hypocrisy much? by firex726 · 2012-03-20 00:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's the part that stuck out with me too.
It's a nice microcosm of our current legal/political system.
"Accuse your opponent of the same bad shit you're doing"
Re:Hypocrisy much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 00:31 · Score: 0

Isn't this what the MPAA and RIAA have been trying to do with SOPA/PIPA and all these other bills? I guess it's only ok when they do it though.
To me, this sounds like the MPAA is trying to keep their pet DMCA theirs.
Re:Hypocrisy much? by 91degrees · 2012-03-20 00:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes.

The legal system isn't about fairness, and those who are involved don't even seem to pretend it is any more. The goal of the lawyers is to win the case. If that involves making an argument that contradicts the one they made the previous week in every way, that's just how the game is played.
Re:Hypocrisy much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 00:38 · Score: 0

The tone of Unknown Lamer's summary suggests that that would be wrong to do with an amicus brief.
Doing that using other means is fine, apparently.
(Frankly, I doubt the first. What would be the point of an amicus brief if you don't want to influence the outcome? Saying hi to the judge?)
Re:Hypocrisy much? by Trailer+Trash · 2012-03-20 00:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Isn't this what the MPAA and RIAA have been trying to do with SOPA/PIPA and all these other bills? I guess it's only ok when they do it though.
More to the point: This is what they did with the DMCA. The irony here is that the MPAA's lawyers are arguing against the law that they or their cronies wrote.

--
Do you have ESP?
Re:Hypocrisy much? by Col.+Klink+(retired) · 2012-03-20 02:56 · Score: 2

Isn't this the only reason everyone everywhere has ever filed an Amicus brief? I mean, how many lawyers are spending their time and money telling making arguments to courts on cases that they DON'T care about?

--
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Re:Hypocrisy much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 03:00 · Score: 0

EXACTLY!! They apparently need to take a little time and read up on an amicus brief... influencing the decision is the point!
Re:Hypocrisy much? by nahdude812 · 2012-03-20 03:33 · Score: 1

The irony here is that the MPAA's lawyers are arguing against the law that they or their cronies wrote
They're trying to make the case that the current law as it stands right now is insufficient to protect their industry. So yes, they're arguing against their own law, in favor of one that favors them even more strongly.

--
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
Re:Hypocrisy much? by MarkvW · 2012-03-20 03:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

The MPAA's brief appears to be more stupidity than hypocrisy (or they're just milking their client). Their argument against the amicus brief is a presentation of the best reason why the amicus brief should be accepted.
Re:Hypocrisy much? by JeanCroix · 2012-03-20 04:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

...Which has been their tactic all along with this kind of legislation. They start with the foregone conclusion that stricter copyright legislation is the solution. Once it's passed into law, things can go one of two ways:
1) If the MAFIAA's bottom line improves, then the stricter copyright law worked, so more/stricter laws are required to garner even more improvement for them.
2) If their bottom line continues to drop after the law is passed, then it obviously wasn't strict enough, so more/stricter legislation is required.
On a side note, how long until Disney blames the flop of John Carter on piracy, I wonder?
Re:Hypocrisy much? by frank_adrian314159 · 2012-03-20 04:32 · Score: 1

It never has been about fairness. The US has used an adversarial system since its founding. The process is fair only to the extent that all litigants have equal access to the process. That being said, what you and your attorney make of the process should not aim for fairness, but for winning. That's the whole point of an adversarial system.
If you want to argue against the use of an adversarial system and why an inquisitorial system (or some other system) would be more "fair", have at it. But the adversarial nature of the system and the lack of "fairness" is one that's been built in.

--
That is all.
Re:Hypocrisy much? by davester666 · 2012-03-20 05:30 · Score: 1

Well, here in Canada, everybody is filming it and posting it online as fast as we can...but the tubes are so slow here, and we have such limited ISP limits...

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Hypocrisy much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:54 · Score: 0

It's a nice microcosm of our current legal/political system.
Isn't that a permanent feature of every political system?
Re:Hypocrisy much? by Translation+Error · 2012-03-20 06:05 · Score: 1

You know, I can almost see where the MPAA is coming from... In their mind, Hotfile is a bunch of thieves and Google is just another bunch of thieves wanting to butt into the trial solely to further their own ends. Google has no place in someone else's trial and if they want to change laws to their advantage, they should go to Congress where the laws are made.

That being said, I think that's not the MPAA's actual viewpoint and they're simply trying every trick and maneuver to get the results they want, but their official stance does make a sort of logical sense.

--
When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
Re:Hypocrisy much? by Trailer+Trash · 2012-03-20 07:42 · Score: 1

Yes, I totally get that. What the next poster says is correct, too - they're always going to argue in favor of racheting the laws up.

--
Do you have ESP?
Re:Hypocrisy much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 11:41 · Score: 0

SOPA/PIPA weren't presented to courts as "amicus" briefs in specific cases.
"Amicus" means "friend" - specifically, friend of the court. An amicus brief cannot be submitted by one of the parties to a dispute, and by extension the submitter is supposed to be someone who is broadly non-partisan to it. All the MPAA is doing is saying that Google doesn't fit that description, so they're not qualified to make such a submission.
If Google just handed the brief over to Hotfile's counsel and told them to figure out a way to get it into the record, that would be fine. The issue is coming up because Hotfile wants the record to show that at least one major corporation is on their side.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but I know how to google "amicus".
Re:Hypocrisy much? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 14:47 · Score: 0

Who CARES if someone is trying to influence the law to their advantage? The pure and simple fact is this: Is what they're saying right and true, and accurate re conformity to known reality? If yes, then it doesn't matter that it helps them; in fact, GOOD! They SHOULD gain an advantage if that advantage is in resolving their own problems based on what is well and true policy and procedure, as the disadvantage would place known reality in flux--losing a copyright case where the law sides with you does not conform to known reality, as known reality dictates that you are within the bounds of the law and thus cannot lose.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by intellitech · 2012-03-20 00:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Perhaps their efforts are fueled by a more private agenda, but I still see Google as the least evil in the crowd.

--
vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Dr+Damage+I · 2012-03-20 00:18 · Score: 1

Astroturf?

--
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by an+unsound+mind · 2012-03-20 00:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

You mean "Google owns several services that allow user-submitted content".

Because this is the current angle the MPAA is attacking competitors from. And we all know the MPAA won't be satisfied until every site has either shut down or been bought by their members.

oh, ffs, slashdot, get some journalistic integrity by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 00:19 · Score: 0

An anonymous reader writes

Google writes. (But that's not important.)

Google has once again stood up in court for the rights of users and services online,

Bullshit. Google's data acquisition power is, to my mind, the biggest threat to a free Internet. And it's standing up for its "right" to collect, index and distribute as much data as possible, including data from these services.

Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage

Of course. That's typical of amicus curiae. A shame the submitter tries to twist this into some pro-Google propaganda.

Google should fight the Copyright Alert System... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 00:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

If anyone should be trying to protect their revenue stream on this one, it's google...

If enough users hit their 5th or 6th strike, that would impinge on googles money.

We need someone like Microsoft (antitrust experience) to help fight this crap. Also, it couldn't hurt Microsoft to gain a little positive press.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by hawkinspeter · 2012-03-20 00:23 · Score: 1

Which of their services infringe copyright?

--
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe

Re:oh, ffs, slashdot, get some journalistic integr by Theophany · 2012-03-20 00:23 · Score: 2

Whilst I agree with your post - Google as a corporate with significant business interests that could be affected by this case will incontrovertibly attempt to protect itself - if it comes down to a question of mafiAA or Google, I'll take the latter every time. Better the devil that knows you than the one that tries to stick your ass in jail.

Yessssss, Google... by RobotRunAmok · 2012-03-20 00:24 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Because when I think "Google," I think "Oh, hey, golly, THERE's a corporation that's looking out for my rights, yes-sir-ree-bob!"

Jeezus... you fanbois are starting to get dangerous...

Re:Yessssss, Google... by synapse7 · 2012-03-20 00:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google standing up for our rights is a side effect of Google picking indirect fights to protect their interests before the battle is in their own backyard.
Re:Yessssss, Google... by AliasMarlowe · 2012-03-20 00:44 · Score: 3, Informative

Because when I think "Google," I think "Oh, hey, golly, THERE's a corporation that's looking out for my rights, yes-sir-ree-bob!"
Your point is valid, unfortunately, when it comes to privacy rights (essentially nonexistent in the US).
I say "unfortunately" because it seems that on most other measures Google is probably the least evil of the large corporations (most are incomparably worse), and tries occasionally to do something we can cheer them for.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 00:56 · Score: 0

Name someone better to do the job or get out of the way and shut your mouth.
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Hentes · 2012-03-20 00:58 · Score: 2

Because when you elect politicians you are not indirectly electing an other set of companies?
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

When it comes to our civil liberties, we should have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests...
(10pts to anyone who knows where that line originates)
If this is an occassion that you find Google fighting in defense of your rights, support them with a cautious eye. If you find Google fighting against your rights, oppose them with everything else.
Re:Yessssss, Google... by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-03-20 01:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Exactly right, which doesn't change the fact that this is an argument we want Google to win because if the don't, we will lose along with Google and everybody else.
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Curunir_wolf · 2012-03-20 01:23 · Score: 1

When it comes to our civil liberties, we should have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests...
(10pts to anyone who knows where that line originates)
DuBois?

If this is an occassion that you find Google fighting in defense of your rights, support them with a cautious eye. If you find Google fighting against your rights, oppose them with everything else.
Which is brings to mind another old canard: "Politics makes strange bedfellows."

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Yessssss, Google... by DJRumpy · 2012-03-20 01:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

The only reason Google is doing this is because this could directly effect them. If they link to copyrighted content, they could be held liable. This has nothing to do with 'standing up for the rights of geeks everyone' or whatever drivel the summary is espousing.
I agree, the fanboi responses to this are sounding dangerous, if not outright delusional.
This is a business decision, and a smart one on Google's part. The fact that it's good for joe user is a side effect. Nothing more.
Re:Yessssss, Google... by El+Torico · 2012-03-20 01:30 · Score: 3, Funny

How about our elected representatives? Bwahahahaha...damn, I knew I couldn't say that with a straight face.

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Xest · 2012-03-20 01:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Isn't that why people on Slashdot often speak out in defence of victims of the MPAA's crusade too? Because they think it's unjust, and realise if it carries on then they could be a victim themselves one day?
Or what, you thought it was all goodwilled altruism with no vested interest in supporting a specific stance?
Or were you just trying to troll Google?
Let's be honest, the only reason most people support anything like this is for self-interest, but importantly that doesn't mean it's wrong. Sometimes an outcome backed for reasons of self-interest is still the right outcome regardless of reasons for backing it.
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Hierarch · 2012-03-20 02:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's the point to good legal engineering: laws are written such that greedy self-interest tends to work toward the common good. It's a pity most laws aren't written that way....

--
--Somebody infect me with a .sig virus, I'm too lazy to write my own!
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 02:44 · Score: 0

Don't Be Evil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Elrond,+Duke+of+URL · 2012-03-20 02:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

Let's not forget that, in general, Google must necessarily be involved in the matter at hand. You don't just start writing amicus briefs on a whim. If you want to have any impact at all, then it must be an issue that affects you and/or your company.
I'm sure Google could have their lawyers write up briefs and letters on any random topic, but if it is not relevant, why would the judge bother with it?
Oh, look! Google submitted a brief on the produce export restrictions. We'd better read it with the utmost scrutiny...

--
Elrond, Duke of URL
"This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 03:14 · Score: 1

I, for one, pay for all of the content I use. I pay for all of my ebooks, music, apps and movies. I also pay $118/mo for internet access and cable TV. I do not pirate anything whatsoever. However, I am against the MPAA and RIAA's campaign to criminalize our entire society in the name of protecting their flawed business model. Over the past decade, I have seen abuse after abuse of the US legal system, prosecuting INNOCENT people because they were suspected of digital "theft". The grandmother accused of downloading gangsta rap was particularly amusing and sad at the same time.
This industry, and through their corruption (campaign donations) of our elected officials, has cultivated a culture where ALL are guilty, until proven innocent! Their very existence now threatens the core of the American ideal in a way the Founding Fathers never could have imagined. We hear all kinds of excuses when our digital rights are violated: It's being done to protect us against terrorism. It's being done to catch child molesters. It's being done to save jobs. It's being done to keep us in compliance with international law. On and on, the list of excuses gets longer and OUR privacy and basic rights continue to shrink.
I am especially concerned with the Obama administration's continued push in regards to ACTA and other "trade agreements" that are undermining our freedoms in a backhanded way. We push the laws the entertainment industry wants (three strikes, ISP monitoring and enforcement of copyrights, etc) on the rest of the world, then, once they have those laws in place, we have to change OUR laws to be harmonious with theirs! This feels like the WORST kind of betrayal, after CANDIDATE Obama promised us so much change. Comments from Chris Dodd make it even worse with statements that politicians should stay bought once they are paid for! I am a registered Democrat and I voted for Obama, but I am still deeply disturbed by all of this.
I encourage all who read this post to BECOME INVOLVED in the fight to keep our rights! CONTACT your Congressman or Congresswoman, your Senator, your Governor, your STATE representatives, and let them know that enough is enough...it is time to bring some sanity back into the law, and let the DYING MPAA and RIAA die WITHOUT destroying our Constitution in the process!
Re:Yessssss, Google... by AJH16 · 2012-03-20 03:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Honestly, I don't even understand the privacy concerns. I realize that some people hold complete control over every action and breath they take to be sacred, but at the end of the day, we have always been advertised to and we have always had our behavior in public observed to a greater or lesser extent. Traditionally, we have gotten many pointless ads wasting our time and gotten very little if anything in return for observations of our behavior. I don't see how Google's attempt to alter that balance to give people a meaningful return of value in exchange for information about their activities, while also guarding that information and using it to provide better, more targeted advertising that is more likely to be useful to me, is evil.
You can go on and on about privacy and it's supposed sacredness, but at the end of the day, everything Google knows about me is information I freely gave them using services they provided to me for no financial cost. And what do they do with this information? They collate it to both better serve me and also to better generate revenue through advertising that is more meaningful to me than the advertisements I would have otherwise gotten. I am not saying they are some savior of humanity, but this is how corporate business SHOULD be done. Leveraging the size and power to try to improve the lives of customers while making a profit without getting in the way of your customers. It isn't like Google is trying to steal your information from you or even isn't clear about what they intend to do.

--
AJ Henderson
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 03:20 · Score: 0

ala Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand"
Re:Yessssss, Google... by rocket+rancher · 2012-03-20 03:22 · Score: 1

When it comes to our civil liberties, we should have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests...
(10pts to anyone who knows where that line originates)
If this is an occassion that you find Google fighting in defense of your rights, support them with a cautious eye. If you find Google fighting against your rights, oppose them with everything else.
Charles de Gaulle, I think. Also attributed to George Washington and Henry John Temple (3rd Viscount Palmerston), but I can't find any direct references. 5 points, maybe...?
Re:Yessssss, Google... by MitchDev · 2012-03-20 03:24 · Score: 1

The whole situation is a lot like the American Presidential and Congressional elections. We don't get to root for who we want so much as the lesser of two evils... Google in this case
Re:Yessssss, Google... by hullabalucination · 2012-03-20 03:24 · Score: 1

Lord Palmerston (1784-1865): "Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests."
Re:Yessssss, Google... by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-03-20 04:01 · Score: 0

And when they aggregate that information and sell it to a background checking company who manages to establish a near-monopoly that flags you as a high-risk employee because a photo that's identified as you that you can't get taken down includes a gun and a liter of vodka?
It doesn't even matter if the picture is of you. Your privacy doesn't even have to be violated for you to be harmed. All that's needed is a system that doesn't respect privacy in general, and lacks the checks and balances that would motivate it to use the masses of information it has responsibly.
You may call the scenario highly hypothetical, but only if you don't look at what's been achieved with the credit reporting agencies. Now picture Experian with more power, and without the heaps and heaps of regulations piled on it.

--
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
Re:Yessssss, Google... by 9jack9 · 2012-03-20 04:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here's the issue with the privacy thing.
Imagine that a corporation can track and inspect your every email, phone conversation, instant message, and footstep. They correlate it. They know who your friends are, what books you read, everything. That's an incredible amount of information. Even if you assume that the information is only going to be used for relatively harmless purposes, such as advertising. And if you think that's far-fetched, Google is trying pretty hard to get that level of knowledge of you. As are many others. And much of it is behind the scenes. Turn on Ghostery and see how many web sites pop up Google scripts. Even if you don't use any Google product, they are tracking you.
Now, imagine that they collaborate with other companies. What if they could use that knowledge of your every thought to raise prices in real time for the things you need most? Gas when you're about to run out? Use your imagination. Fair dealing is based on the notion of reasonably symmetrical information. If they other side knows everything about you, and you know nothing about them, you're at a disadvantage.
There is a legal right to privacy, which is being eroded. Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States.
Now, imagine that an organization knows everything about you. And let's say the government decided it needs some information. So now the government knows everything about you, too. Do you completely trust the government? Are you sure they'll never make a mistake?
Now, imagine that people come to power who do not share your enlightened views on humanity. They think that there's a problem with, oh, left-handed people, people who wear socks with sandals, redheads, people born in February, people not from around here, people with certain political leanings. And let's say they get their hands on the aggregated information about you. Maybe they won't lock you up. But maybe they will. Or maybe they won't lock you up today. If you behave.
Think about all of the organizations, both real and fictional, that want unlimited knowledge of the general public. Not one of them inspires confidence. Think Big Brother. Spanish Inquisition. Total Information Awareness.
In my mind, unlimited personal knowledge aggregation leads straight to political repression. It is, in fact, evil.
Re:Yessssss, Google... by KhabaLox · 2012-03-20 04:08 · Score: 1

You can go on and on about privacy and it's supposed sacredness, but at the end of the day, everything Google knows about me is information I freely gave them using services they provided to me for no financial cost. And what do they do with this information? They collate it to both better serve me and also to better generate revenue through advertising that is more meaningful to me than the advertisements I would have otherwise gotten.
They also share it with the government.
Part of the problem is that the average person does not understand the amount of digital breadcrumbs they leave behind when they use a computer and surf the net. All of these things we do - email, status updates, liking, +1ing, clicking on links, visiting websites, apps we buy - all of that information is slowly (or not so slowly) accumulating. Google has a pile, Facebook has a pile, Apple has a pile, your ISP has a BIG pile, and the NSA, DHS, CIA and FBI all have piles.
You may not care too much about this "freely shared" information (though in fact not all of it is truly "freely shared") today. But if something ever happens in your life that makes some official in some agency sit up and take notice of you, you can be sure that those piles of breadcrumbs will be pored over very carefully.

--
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-03-20 04:12 · Score: 4, Informative

And when they aggregate that information and sell it to a background checking company who manages to establish a near-monopoly that flags you as a high-risk employee because a photo that's identified as you that you can't get taken down includes a gun and a liter of vodka?
You know that new privacy policy they have that everyone has been complaining about? It says they can't do anything like that.
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 05:43 · Score: 0

(Wikipedia)
Lord Palmerston said:
“Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
This is often paraphrased as: "Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests."
Speech to the House of Commons, Hansard (March 1, 1848)
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Cinnamon+Beige · 2012-03-20 05:48 · Score: 1

It is probably worth noting here that, historically, self-interest is far and away the most reliable way to get people to behave in the interest of the common good. The one popular with lawmakers, however, is their own good--which basically means voting the way of whomever bribes them best & keeping the voters from noticing that they're not benefiting, since this hasn't been made something that can bar you from running again.
Re:Yessssss, Google... by AJH16 · 2012-03-20 06:08 · Score: 1

See, it's the imagine them cooperating with other companies that is where I run in to an issue. Google has no financial interest in sharing their data, they sell a product that depends on them being the only one that has the information and they take lots of safeguards to make sure they don't lose exclusive access to that information. They have a privacy policy that states basically the same thing that they will not disclose the info about you that they gain and will only act as a service provider to other companies seeking to use Google services that utilize the profile. They haven't given any reason to suspect that they would violate this. If it was a company like Facebook or Apple, I'd 100% agree with your concern as those companies have a track record of not giving a shit about the people providing them information, but I've never seen any indicators from Google that show anything other than trying to broker a mutually beneficial deal between customers and advertisers and make their money off the extra benefit they can offer both.
Do I think we should watch Google closely? You bet your ass I do. I trust them, but that doesn't mean I don't watch their behavior closely. They've earned my trust over the years by behaving responsibly and trying to "not be evil" as they say. If their behavior was to start to look more shady, I would move to distance myself from them and make sure that my profile was poisoned and out of date. As long as they don't start looking like they are headed in the direction you describe, I see no issue, and they currently offer a lot of legal protection (in the form of their privacy policy) to guarantee they don't.

--
AJ Henderson
Re:Yessssss, Google... by AJH16 · 2012-03-20 06:10 · Score: 1

I can see some legitimacy to that concern, but I see that as more an issue of government corruption than an inherent issue with Google as a company. As a private company, they have to obey the law in regards to requests for information from law enforcement and such. Is it something we should monitor, yes, but I don't link it to a problem with Google as an organization.

--
AJ Henderson
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Genda · 2012-03-20 07:55 · Score: 1

The "Them" that makes my hinny pucker most lives in Washington D.C. The NSA is now building the largest information management system in history so it can actually capture and evaluate every phone call, email, or electronic conversation you and every other American will ever have. No need for wire taps. No need for court orders, they just grab it all.
Who or what is to stop our government from coercing a corporation, to allow it to have access to its information. Who if anyone is in a position to protect us from our own government run amok?
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Genda · 2012-03-20 08:08 · Score: 1

That was Congressman; William Clay, Sr. and he also said; "I have no intention of representing those powerful interests who walk over powerless people." He had some interesting events (read controversies) in his career, but overall, was a strong champion for the environment, civil rights, and the advancement of black Americans.
Re:Yessssss, Google... by Curunir_wolf · 2012-03-20 08:25 · Score: 1

Yea, I'm pretty sure Clay stole it. Which is not surprising - he was a corrupt con artist and would steal anything - and often did.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Re:Yessssss, Google... by spazzmo · 2012-03-20 20:19 · Score: 1

... people that can repair electronics ...

--
The cheese stands alone...
Re:Yessssss, Google... by spazzmo · 2012-03-20 20:24 · Score: 1

Ooh, so USA == Spanish Inquisition Land!

--
The cheese stands alone...
Re:Yessssss, Google... by spazzmo · 2012-03-20 20:26 · Score: 1

Information capture in real-time! That's scariest of all. Post a blog and get a knock at the door...

--
The cheese stands alone...
Re:Yessssss, Google... by spazzmo · 2012-03-20 20:29 · Score: 1

Citation?

--
The cheese stands alone...
Re:Yessssss, Google... by AliasMarlowe · 2012-03-21 02:55 · Score: 1

Ooh, so USA == Spanish Inquisition Land!
Ahem, illegal Mexican immigrant Inquisition. It's all part of the fun/job for DHS/CBP folks!
Note: the "illegal" mostly applies to the "Inquisition" in the above statement...

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Re:Yessssss, Google... by 9jack9 · 2012-03-23 06:24 · Score: 1

Of course they want to cooperate with other companies. Businesses cooperate with other businesses all the time. And assuming they have massive amounts of information on everything I do, their statements regarding their efforts to safeguard it and their blandishments regarding their obligations to my privacy is merely marketing.
Oh, like they care a fig for your profile. Through browser tracking and embedded scripts, they know your every click on the internet. Through GPS they know your every step. Through email, they know your every word. And sure, you can poison your profile. But you can't do anything about the vast, vast flood of data they have on you. And maybe, just maybe, you personally have the skill and energy to defeat them. But the vast majority of people have neither.
No doubt this comment is too late to get much attention, but I had to answer.

Re:Google should fight the Copyright Alert System. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 00:25 · Score: 0

I'd +1 interesting you if I had points.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by RobotRunAmok · 2012-03-20 00:28 · Score: 2

Perhaps their efforts are fueled by a more private agenda

PERHAPS?!?!!

Great. Now I have coffee all over my monitor, thanks to you...

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by Shikaku · 2012-03-20 00:32 · Score: 2

Fine. Let's take it a step up:

Court fines and successful injunctions against Google relating to copyright infringement. With links to said cases.

Innocent until proven guilty, I believe that is what America is all about, right?

Really? by wbr1 · 2012-03-20 00:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

Google takes a hardline aproache to the DCMA? Why the hell don't they with Youtube takedowns then? I will answer my own questions, because DCMA takedowns are not threatening revenue streams there. Money with a facade of resppnsibility is all the are. Many companies have dispensed with the facade, google will too someday.

--
Silence is a state of mime.

Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:55 · Score: 1

Why the hell don't they with Youtube takedowns then?

Because goof balls that post content that is an obvious infringement of a copyright just use up their storage. Youtube has done more to get the truth out of Syria and other places around the world than the UN and the international media. In short with youtube Google has created something which can and has changed media on the WWW.
To suddenly force Google to suspend youtube for promoting the theft of property the way the MPAA, the RIAA and their shills at Microsoft and in Washington would have it would be a really stupid move. Most of the studios are actually putting trailers up on youtube and most likely have some interest in not having the MPAA get too aggressive with Google. The legal point that Google is trying to get across is that going after a service provider to punish those who use it in a way that they do not have the right to is not how to enforce copyright.
I watch and listen to Andres Segovia on Youtube and I am sure that if the European broadcast companies that originally broadcast the AV content or sold the DVDs that are now on Youtube wanted to take them down they could. However that would be just plain stupid as most of the content can be readily retraced and ordered if you use Google to hunt it down and then order it on line.
To my way of thinking Google and content providers can easily work together to make great content like some of the European broadcast AVs available for purchase by those who want it. I give you a for instance....there are great recordings done in 1965 of Wes Montgomery playing in Holland and England. The owners of the content put a snippet of the DVD "Wes Montgomery Live In 65" up on Youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrSqVnzonhI They even did it without having to pay google as you can see there is no add even though the snippet is obviously just a promotion for the dvd....I bought the DVD and the audio on the DVD is great because it was done by Naxos not some bunch of goof ball rocker engineers! Mind you the VID is not exactly HD...but who the hell buys a Wes dvd just to watch him other than someone who is tone deaf ;-)
however as you can see,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1N4FaquZTw
Google does not allow people to do this without permission then again some really great stuff is obviously done with permission
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZEUjDoji3Y&feature=fvsr
Essentially Youtube is great because it can do all of this as well as being a window on the world that dictators like Assad cannot control. Hopefully the asshats at the MPAA and the RIAA will finally wake up and smell the coffee before the real potential of what is happening leaves the great parts of industry they control in the dust. In short Google is fighting the good fight here and if it loses this round then Microsoft, their shills in Washington, the MPEGLA, the MPAA, the RIAA and all the other institutions that are currently working together on the Microsoft sponsored "screw Google" campaign will have one more bit of legal amo in the ongoing fight to lock down access to media on the internet.
Face it the whole strategy is to have Silverlight based DRM become the only legally acceptable form of digital media on the net.
These bastard have been working on this for years and are not about to surrender even though WMV is essentially useless the idiots are still trying to force it down our throats.
The war is far from over but you can bet it will heat up big time if Google loses this round.
Re:Really? by Hierarch · 2012-03-20 02:09 · Score: 2

The "hardline" is with respect to the 512(c) safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. That is, the "Neener neener, you can't sue our deep pockets" part. And in that, Google takes a very hard line indeed, since reinterpretations here could cost them tremendous amounts of money.

--
--Somebody infect me with a .sig virus, I'm too lazy to write my own!
Re:Really? by dkf · 2012-03-20 03:05 · Score: 1

Essentially Youtube is great because it can do all of this as well as being a window on the world that dictators like Assad cannot control. Hopefully the asshats at the MPAA and the RIAA will finally wake up and smell the coffee before the real potential of what is happening leaves the great parts of industry they control in the dust.
Why? They see the control exerted by the dictators and dream of a world where they have that power too.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 12:40 · Score: 0

Essentially Youtube is great because it can do all of this as well as being a window on the world that dictators like Assad cannot control. Hopefully the asshats at the MPAA and the RIAA will finally wake up and smell the coffee before the real potential of what is happening leaves the great parts of industry they control in the dust.
Why? They see the control exerted by the dictators and dream of a world where they have that power too.
So essentially you are saying you would rather see Microsoft and the MPAA control access to media on the net than have a company that simply puts paid adds into your searches as a method of obtaining revenue. I guess that Bing would be a better alternative and Microsoft would never try to profit in this evil manor. It is illegal for Google to collect and distribute any personal information about you and if you have read their statements at all.... they do not!
If you blank your cookies and desktop settings Google has absolutely no clue as to who the fuck is searching on their engine. So I just wish all this "evil Google, Microsoft and Apple good" bullshit being posted here on slashdot would stop once and for all!

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-03-20 00:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because this is the current angle the MPAA is attacking competitors from. And we all know the MPAA won't be satisfied until every site has either shut down or been bought by their members.

Yeah. Have you seen the argument they're using now? It basically goes like this: Sites where the most popular material is infringing are illegal.

Now let's think this through. The MPAA owns most of the copyrights on the most popular material. Which means all they have to do is not license it, and most of the most popular material users post will be infringing. What they are actually arguing, then, is that all user-generated content sites not licensed by the MPAA are illegal. They get a veto over technological innovation because all they have to do is do nothing, and not license their stuff to the new technology, and then the site immediately becomes illegal because the users post it anyway, and the MPAA can sue and destroy the site at will.

It seems pretty obvious why that should not be the law.

MPAA: Accusing others of what they do themselves. by s-whs · 2012-03-20 00:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage

Pointing out the facts is not a 'systematic effort to influence the development of the law'. In fact it's been the MPAA and similar organisations that have been doing that, and the only ones who have been doing that, not by pointing out facts, but by describing their own fantasies (about how much they could earn, of course without thinking that if more money is spent on MPAA stuff, less is spent on other sectors in society) , and nightmares (about how much they're getting ripped off), and with their bribes (a.k.a. lobbying).

And of course these people don't even understand their clients: The obnoxious 'don't copy' ads at the start of DVDs is almost enough to make me want to 'pirate' stuff.

Accusing others of what they do themselves is something I found to be a typical trait of sociopaths in humans, and corporations are designed and geared to be exactly that, which shows the problems involved with corporations. Reduce liability: If a corporations spout such nonsense as this, they should be held in contempt of court, i.e. everyone responsible: The lawyers, and the entire board of directors etc.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Ash+Vince · 2012-03-20 00:37 · Score: 4, Informative

[citation needed]

This whole thread is already overrun with AC's, all posting bad stuff about google in sync and their are only 19 posts at present. Please do not respond to them, it is a waste of time and if they had any real interest in posting here they would set up an account and make constructive contributions.

--
I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.

Re:oh, ffs, slashdot, get some journalistic integr by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 00:43 · Score: 1

Google's data acquisition power is, to my mind, the biggest threat to a free Internet.

Why?

No, seriously, I'm intrigued. How does the information Google may have on you make the Internet less free?

Does any information Walmart or Visa might have on you make you less free when you're in a mall?

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by TheRaven64 · 2012-03-20 00:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

I still see Google as the least evil in the crowd

Then you are delusional. Google is acting in the interests of Google. The MPAA is acting in the interests of... no one actually, but they think they are acting in the interests of the MPAA. The interests of Google at the moment align vaguely with the interests of the population at large (actually, so do the interests of the MPAA members, they just haven't worked this out yet so keep fighting themselves), but there is nothing altruistic about either.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 00:50 · Score: 1

Google acts in its self interest, nontheless what they have written in the brief is true. The DMCA safe harbor specifically puts the burden of proof of copyright works on the copyright holders. Who then inform the web service to have the infringing material cancelled. The MPAA instead wants the DMCA upholded and the revocation of the safe harbor provision. So yeah I guess every website that manages user generated content (Google in primis of course with youtube) isn't exactly cheering for the MPAA.

Poster beware: pasting here out of the filing... by American+Patent+Guy · 2012-03-20 00:57 · Score: 3, Funny

This is the MPAA you're quoting, after all. I recognize your right to a fair use of their work of authorship, but it's doubtful their lawyers would with the positions they take... A C&D letter might be in your future...

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by AliasMarlowe · 2012-03-20 00:59 · Score: 5, Informative

Perhaps their efforts are fueled by a more private agenda, but I still see Google as the least evil in the crowd.

In fact, the Google Amicus brief is quite candid about Google's interest in the case. It's clearly explained in the very first section, right after the tables of contents and authorities, and before any of the brief's arguments.

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Re:oh, ffs, slashdot, get some journalistic integr by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 00:59 · Score: 0

- Data mining homogenises culture. You find out what people seem to like and emphasise it, either for them specifically or in general, entrenching habits and interests and reducing the opportunity for admission of new ideas. This results in stagnation and, if history is anything to go by, decline. Hell, Google's very "Pagerank" is based on making you more likely to see what other people have already approved.

To raise your Walmart example, while it looks like you're awash with choice (lots of differently coloured shiny boxes), coming from Europe I couldn't understand just how little there was in the way of good quality fresh food in the average US supermarket. And how the same flavour enhancers were in so many things. The whole supermarket experience in the US seems to have been refined to addict people to particular eating behaviour - analyse, reduce, analyse, reduce. A couple of decades on, it's as true in some of Europe.

- A single powerful entity collecting information about you reduces your ability to make meaningful dissent. You will be ignored until you start making a difference, at which point it is only natural for anyone to use any means possible to collect information to use against you. This is already a real problem in the UK, where various "anti-terror" laws providing wide-ranging government powers at central and local level have been applied for trivial offences.

Put another way, 17 years ago on the Internet I would happily discuss anything and distribute anything, at the very most employing something like anon.penet.fi. Every idea and every method of implementing that idea was fair game - you were responsible for using the information responsibly. I can't do that today. Most people are too scared of the consequences not of their actions but of expression of their thoughts.

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by 91degrees · 2012-03-20 01:01 · Score: 1

I'm sorry? Are you really suggesting that there isn't huge amounts of copyright infringement on youTube? Google themselves may technically not be guilty of infringement according to the law, but since the OP wasn't suggesting they were, it's sort of a moot point.

Innocent until proven guilty, I believe that is what America is all about, right?

No, that's a principle in law. In terms of forming our own opinions, we can presume whatever we want.

Interesting legal argument by kikito · 2012-03-20 01:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Our opponents are trying to defend their interests, therefore their request should be denied"

Well played, MPAA lawyers.

Seriously. How much are these guys billing per hour?

Re:Interesting legal argument by UnknowingFool · 2012-03-20 02:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

One of the arguments that the RIAA and MPAA always make against amicus curae briefs like these is that they are not impartial. By definition amicus curae briefs are third-party. They are gambling that the judges do not know that third party is not the same as impartial.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Interesting legal argument by nomadic · 2012-03-20 03:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

Amicus curiae briefs are, from a legal philosophy standpoint, meant to assist the court in determining the correct approach, not one of the parties or the filer. In practice it usually doesn't work this way when there's a private party submitting it, but "this guy is using an amicus brief to help him in other cases" is a valid attack.
Re:Interesting legal argument by kikito · 2012-03-20 04:35 · Score: 1

> Amicus curiae briefs are, from a legal philosophy standpoint, meant to assist the court in determining the correct approach, not one of the parties or the filer
I'm sorry but I'm not following you.
AFAIK the amicus curiae contacts the court by his/her own will; it's not forced by any force or law. It's implicit that there is a personal motive behind that action. Are there other possible motivations?
Or are you arging that the "correct approach" is never the parties' or filer's?
Re:Interesting legal argument by UnknowingFool · 2012-03-20 10:24 · Score: 1

Not really. While some briefs support neither side, many parties have vested interests when their briefs were accepted. In this case, Google is bringing to the court's attention some of the arguments that the MPAA has used is not entirely correct, and the MPAA may have left out information the court needs to decide. They also spell out how this decision may affect them.
From wikipedia

An amicus curiae (also spelled amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae) is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it. The information provided may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief (which is called an amicus brief when offered by an amicus curiae), a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. . .The situation most often noted in the press is when an advocacy group files a brief in a case before an appellate court to which it is not a litigant.
It has never meant "this brief does not help me in any way."
From Capitol v Foster, this brief was submitted by American Association of Law Libraries, the ACLU, the EFF, and Public Citizen. In the brief, the groups argue that Capitol should be made to pay for attorney's fees as the the losing party and why it was important that they do so.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Interesting legal argument by nomadic · 2012-03-20 11:03 · Score: 1

Implicit in practice, but not in theory. The theory behind an amicus brief is that it is intended to assist the Court. That's it.
Re:Interesting legal argument by nomadic · 2012-03-20 11:11 · Score: 1

You're reading into what I said a distinction I did not make. Whether the amicus brief will ultimately help a third party is not really relevant; the point is, it is meant to set forth the law dispassionately and objectively. If a party can show the third party is filing the brief in order to gain a specific advantage in another case, that goes to the weight the Court may choose to give it.
Re:Interesting legal argument by kikito · 2012-03-20 20:58 · Score: 1

I'm still not following. Can you expand on that? What do you mean by "in theory", exactly?
Re:Interesting legal argument by UnknowingFool · 2012-03-21 01:42 · Score: 1

The MPAA specifically argues that Google will "influence the development of law to Google's own advantage". Nowhere is it against the rules of amicus that a third party filing one would never get an advantage later. Advocacy groups file specifically for that purpose to advocate for a party. And sometimes they are accepted. The MPAA argues also that Google isn't third party as their counsel is the same as Hotfile. That makes more sense.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Re:Interesting legal argument by nomadic · 2012-03-24 09:09 · Score: 1

Anglo-American law is built on the theory that there is an actual "right," objectively real answer for every question. The whole adversarial process is meant to get to that answer; the adversarial method is considered the best way to get to that objective truth. The role of an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") is to assist the Court in finding that "right" answer, in theory. In practice, of course, the vast majority of parties don't want the right answer, they want the answer that benefits them. But the Courts will expect everyone, including amicus curiae filings, to keep up the pretense that they are trying to get to the truth.
Re:Interesting legal argument by kikito · 2012-03-24 11:05 · Score: 1

I see. It's kind of funny and sad at the same time. Thanks for clarifying.

MPAA/RIAA becoming increasingly shrill by crazyjj · 2012-03-20 01:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

At this point they're starting to sound like a petulant child, repeatedly throwing temper tantrums and screaming "NO NO NO!!!" over and over again. Or would a better analogy be a guy standing in the middle of a flood, trying to stop the rushing waters by holding out his hands?

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:MPAA/RIAA becoming increasingly shrill by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:59 · Score: 1

They've become used to getting what they want, whenever they want it and being able to use the spectre of "piracy" - usually linked to terrorism and paedophilia - to have laws passed left and right to benefit them and now that people are starting to get wise to it they've run out of actual reasonable arguments.
All they have left now are ad hominem attacks and loudly raging about how it's unreasonable that anyone else should be allowed to exercise their rights in a way they don't like.
Re:MPAA/RIAA becoming increasingly shrill by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 03:16 · Score: 0

A better analogy is of course a car analogy: a guy driving down the interstate with two well worn tires, one is the spare, and the fourth on the rim with sparks flying.
Re:MPAA/RIAA becoming increasingly shrill by Em+Adespoton · 2012-03-20 09:36 · Score: 1

Or would a better analogy be a guy standing in the middle of a flood, trying to stop the rushing waters by holding out his hands?
I think a better analogy would be a guy with a whip standing off to the side of a flood threatening those in the middle of it to shore up the sandbags or he'll call someone to blow up the dam upriver.

Google or MPAA? by halfkoreanamerican · 2012-03-20 01:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

Choosing between two groups that may not have my best interests in mind... The MPAA never did, but google doesn't want to destroy the internet. In the future I cannot say this will be true, but for now I would stop at nothing to stop the MPAA. Bastards.

Re:oh, ffs, slashdot, get some journalistic integr by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:08 · Score: 0

Does any information Walmart or Visa might have on you make you less free when you're in a mall?

Actually were it not for the law then yes, Visa or Walmart could make you less free. Consider this, Visa already has a very good profile on its customers. Think about it, every time you use your magic card, the transaction is recorded and the item you have bought. Now what's to forbid Visa from datamining all those profiles and then selling the information to insurance companies ? Hey customer X just bought several medical books on cancer. After 2 days you get a nice message from your health insurance that your costs have just gone up 'cause you're now considered a risk.
What about if you buy gay literature ? The examples are infinite.

Google has many different services. As long as those services are INDEPENDANT no problem. But right now they're not and they represent a danger to every single user of their system. Unfortunately the law simply hasn't been fast enough to deal with these new situations. But yes if you use google or facebook be very afraid. Your freedom is just one step from being sold to the highest bidder. And once its done, you can't push the reset button.

Wow... by ilsaloving · 2012-03-20 01:11 · Score: 3, Funny

"Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage"

Talk about projecting your feelings...

Re:Wow... by Kleen13 · 2012-03-20 02:05 · Score: 1

How valid is the MPAA's statement? When I read this I see a kid in the playground with his hands on his hips saying "Not Fair!" to the teacher.

--
That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
Re:Wow... by Kleen13 · 2012-03-20 02:17 · Score: 1

Sorry, I'm redundant. crazyjj beat me to it.

--
That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Zeromous · 2012-03-20 01:12 · Score: 1

Or they work in the industry and don't want to get caught talking crap publicly about their competitors/vendors.

Just saying...AC has its place.

--
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START

Re:MPAA: Accusing others of what they do themselve by Jason+Levine · 2012-03-20 01:13 · Score: 2

Pointing out the facts is not a 'systematic effort to influence the development of the law'.

[Begin MPAA Mode]
Why, of course it is! How dare they bring up facts that run counter to the MPAA's case! Don't they know that piracy costs content creators eleventy bazillion dollars every nanosecond? Don't they know that piracy results in twelve thousand lost jobs per second, cancer of the ear lobe, muggings, global warming, and the hiccups? Google should be immediately turned over to the MPAA to operate for the good of us all!!!! (Is that enough exclamation points yet? No, I think it needs three more) !!! (There, perfect.)
[End MPAA Mode]

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:14 · Score: 0

several services that violate copyrights

Services can not violate copyrights; only people can.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:15 · Score: 0

So by your postulate ONLY registered users can make good comments? Hmm interesting idea, but wrong...

Re:oh, ffs, slashdot, get some journalistic integr by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:15 · Score: 0

Actually were it not for the law then yes, Visa or Walmart could make you less free.

Emphasis mine.

Your post was just a very long way of saying "No".

Google avoids prior knowledge by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:16 · Score: 0

Google are not defending the internet here, its purely profits, it's in this clause here:

"Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving disqualifying knowledge."
"Courts have consistently held that to disqualify an otherwise eligible service provider under the DMCA’s knowledge or awareness provisions, the plaintiff must come forward with evidence that the provider had knowledge or awareness of particular infringing material but did not expeditiously remove it"

See, Google accepts DMCA takedown notices from the copyright holder, as it's required to do. However if it ever had prior-knowledge of copyright infringement, it would lose DMCA protection if it failed to act on that. You don't get the DMCA protection if you have prior knowledge of the infringement.

So what Google does is REFUSE to be told about infringement outside of a DMCA request from the rights holder.

They could have the latest Harry Potter movie on Youtube, uploaded by 'Bobski1972' from Moscow you could try to report it, as you click through their website to find the form to report it, you'll find you cannot report the infringement, only the copyright holder can. You hit a dead end page saying they only accept copyright infringement information in the form of DMCA take down notices from the copyright holder.

They refuse to be told of the infringement to keep the DMCA provision intact. Without that they would have to accept a lot more copyright infringement notices and would have to evaluate each individually to see if they are plausible.

But that would be expensive and they want to avoid that expense.

Re:Google avoids prior knowledge by king+neckbeard · 2012-03-20 02:18 · Score: 2

Why the hell should they make a system where they have to take complaints from third parties that are not experts on copyright and don't know if any permission was given? We know that companies have a history of uploading files themselves to make films appear 'viral', and there are lots of idiots that don't understand what fair use is, meaning that Google would waste a lot of time on false positives.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Re:oh, ffs, slashdot, get some journalistic integr by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:17 · Score: 0

If you think it is not a loss of freedom for a gun to be held at your head merely because the law prevents a man from shooting it (just yet), then you are a fool.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:18 · Score: 1

It's the law because our society has decided that money=speech and that means those with money speak the loudest. You know, with Jack Abramoff out of jail and running around the country selling his book, I wonder what it will take for our country to figure out that his illegal activity was the LEAST TROUBLING compared to what he did that was (and still is) legal when it comes to lobbying our government.

Chris Dodd now out of Congress, represents the MPAA. Does anyone suppose Congressmen's, Senator's, and Staffer's future aspirations beyond government figure into the calculus of the laws they create to "regulate" who will in many cases become their future employers?

Re:oh, ffs, slashdot, get some journalistic integr by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:25 · Score: 0

Uh huh. Your life must be miserable. How can you function if you live in constant fear of someone doing hypothetical yet highly unlikely things all the time? Do you worry that the mob might plant a bomb under your car? Do you worry that a meteorite may fall from the sky and strike you dead? Do you worry that some crazy person might poison your water supply?

If the answer to the above is "No", then why do you worry about these other hypothetical scenarios that you've concocted with no evidence?

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by Curunir_wolf · 2012-03-20 01:26 · Score: 2

Innocent until proven guilty, I believe that is what America is all about, right?

Not anymore. Now it's "due process is not the same as judicial process", and you are free to go about your business until we drone you.

--
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Americano · 2012-03-20 01:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

http://www.youtube.com/
http://picasa.google.com/
http://plus.google.com/

Three enough?

Ah hell, I'll throw one more in for free: Google Music (specifically, the "locker" feature) - remember, they never got official signoff from the labels that the music locker service was legit and they were okay with it. Labels could still go after Google for that service, though it's not clear that they'd actually win.

You don't think Google is *intensely* interested in the outcome of cases regarding uploads of copyrighted materials to online sharing services, given that they own & operate sites intended for sharing, and which can - easily & trivially - be used to share copyrighted content?

It's cool that Google is advocating for this, but make no mistake: filing this brief is also serving their own interests.

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:28 · Score: 0

Oh yeah? Excellent. I just formed an opinion that the earth is flat.

What we have Google to THANK for... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

We have Google to thank for helping our congress figure out that the Entertainment industry isn't the only private interest with money to spend... er--uh-- contribute. When you have pro-corporate politicians on BOTH sides of the isle coming against SOPA and PIPA when both measures formerly enjoyed so-called elusive bipartisan support, that can only mean one thing:

It started raining money on the other side of the issue.

The tech companies are now large enough and rich enough to make themselves both felt and heard. It's only a matter of time before the entertainment industry stops their offense and goes for a negotiated settlement. Their business models are in jeopardy and as they lose their ability to rig the game in their favor their days are only going to get darker not brighter. They're scared and they should be.

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by 91degrees · 2012-03-20 01:32 · Score: 1

Good for you. Hope that works out well for you in life.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:33 · Score: 1

As the ...AA is quoted right in the summary: "to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage".

Reminds me of the saying about politicians: The only time when you can believe a politician is when he calls another politician a liar.

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by 91degrees · 2012-03-20 01:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

So are we just going to be nitpicking?

Let's rephrase entirely.

There's a whole bunch of stuff on youTube that is posted in violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights to do so. Google knows this. They are also aware that if this ruling goes against Hotfile, it will lead to a precedent that could cause considerable inconvenience for them.

Google's main concern is not about the morality, or finding who's responsible, or even reducing piracy. It's simply about mitigating a potential risk to Google's current business model.

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by Stormthirst · 2012-03-20 01:45 · Score: 1

This kind of analysis depends on experience, intuition, a knowledge of history, a knowledge of technology, a knowledge of business, an understanding of corporate relations and the impact of the law.

That is what a citation is - a demonstration that other people understand can relay experience, intuition, history, technology, business corporate relations and the law.
An example for you:
Chambers Online Dictionary:
citation noun
1 the quoting or citing of something as example or proof.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:47 · Score: 0

their != there are

Re:oh, ffs, slashdot, get some journalistic integr by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:47 · Score: 0

Are you stupid or just trolling? The issue is not one of fearing anything which might possibly happen, but with giving someone so much power that all that's required is a minor change in the law for you to be fucked. Anyway, it's commonplace for people to be found out selling medical records in a legally dubious manner (why do you guys think you have HIPAA - or, rather, why do you think it took such a long time for HIPAA to appear?) - if you concentrate hard enough you might also find some fairly strong government pushes to sell medical data to private companies, part of the reason there was such a backlash at attempts to NHS records.

And anyone with the most basic security clearance will know that you do disclose information on your purchases because they will find out and ask you about it anyway otherwise. It used to be that homosexuality was considered a liability for certain intelligence work (Martin+Mitchell, Cambridge Five...). In the UK for tax or welfare investigations various public bodies (not just the police!) have the power to obtain copies of financial transactions without your consent, and government has repeatedly tried in the last decade to use its investigative powers to discover and freeze the accounts of suspected terrorists and their families - although some such orders have fortunately been quashed by the courts after years of fighting (HM Treasury v. Ahmed (2010)). So, in short, centralised databases of everything are used to abuse power all the time.

Re:MPAA: Accusing others of what they do themselve by Asic+Eng · 2012-03-20 01:48 · Score: 1

Pointing out facts seems to be a perfectly reasonable way to influence the law. Preventing it to be bend out of shape by fantasies is also influencing it. Just in a reasonable way.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by MozeeToby · 2012-03-20 01:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Google's interests align with mine about 100x more often then the MPAA or RIAA's do, and this case is no exception. That may not make them less evil, but it does mean that in cases like these, where I feel they are unequivocally correct in their arguments, they'll have my support. In fact, the most evil thing Google's ever done to me is collect my information and use it to sell advertising space, which given the quantity and quality of the software and services I receive in return I fell is well worth it. If only congress would enact legislation that guaranteed my right to a delete button on that information (in case Google's behavior changes in the future) I'd be 100% happy with the arrangement.

Absurd statement by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 01:57 · Score: 0

"Google has once again stood up in court for the rights of users and services online"

Oh my God... I can't hold it back... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What an idiot.

Re:Google should fight the Copyright Alert System. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 02:04 · Score: 0

We need someone like Microsoft (antitrust experience) to help fight this crap.

Except they lost, and only got off easy due to a change in political leadership that was more friendly to large, monolithic, monopolistic companies that occurred right when the trial was over.

Re:oh, ffs, slashdot, get some journalistic integr by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 02:05 · Score: 1

The issue is not one of fearing anything which might possibly happen, but with giving someone so much power that all that's required is a minor change in the law for you to be fucked.

So worry about it if they try to change the law!

And anyone with the most basic security clearance...

What the hell has the UK government and security clearance got to do with data held and used by private companies? Of course your government want to know everything about you if you're being trusted with state secrets!

Hypocrisy as a pointer to particular bad behaviors by davecb · 2012-03-20 02:06 · Score: 2

That's amazingly common: IMHO, the folks who accuse others of X are often terrified that they will be accused of X, and strike out at other without realizing what they're implying.

This has the pleasant effect of making it easy to discover what they're doing, and afraid of being called on (;-))

--dave

--
davecb@spamcop.net

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by king+neckbeard · 2012-03-20 02:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Youtube and similar services have a legitimate business model. YouTube goes above and beyond what they should ever be required to do, and their current policies are unbalanced to the point that they have a chilling effect on clearly legitimate speech. That the MPAA et al are still asking for more and more is irrelevant.

Also, I have no idea why you brought up morality, because copyright is not a moral system, but a practical one, and practically speaking, there are no further benefits to the public that can arise from any strengthening of copyright, and a lot of benefits that would arise from weakening it or enfrocement.

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by king+neckbeard · 2012-03-20 02:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why does one need to be altruistic to not be evil?

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Proposed reply by msobkow · 2012-03-20 02:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

Google should just change a few words and use the MPAA quote as a template:

The MPAA's proposed prosecution appears to be part of a systematic effort by the MPAA, itself a prosecutor in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to the MPAA's own advantage. The MPAA is acting as a partisan persecutor of Hotfile, making arguments that the MPAA has or could have made in its own support of a summary judgment. The parties here are well-represented and have the incentive and wherewithal to make all the arguments the court will need. Although the MPAA purports not to take a position regarding summary judgment here, the MPAA unmistakably seeks a ruling in favour of the plaintiffs. The MPAA's charges should be dismissed.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Re:Proposed reply by msobkow · 2012-03-20 03:25 · Score: 1

Making a joke at the expense of the MPAA/RIAA on Slashdot is trolling?
Wow. We must have some RIAA/MPAA supporters with accounts logged in today. :D

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.

Yeah, but...Google is right by crndg · 2012-03-20 02:19 · Score: 2

There seems to be a lot of discussion about Google's motives and how the MPAA is acting. But at least from my understanding of the law, Google is right. The safe harbor provision to DMCA was made for exactly the reason Google says, and the MPAA is trying to grab more legal power, beyond the vast powers DMCA already grants them.

I'm not a knee-jerk Google fan-boy, and I understand Google has a dog in the fight, but in this case, Google is right.

Re:oh, ffs, slashdot, get some journalistic integr by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 02:20 · Score: 0

So worry about it if they try to change the law!

OK, you're stupid. 1) I gave an example of a present attempt to change the law on dissemination of health records; 2) waiting until "they try to change the law" is the worst possible apathy. If the law is successfuly changed then you're fucked, as you can't claw back that information.

What the hell has the UK government and security clearance got to do with data held and used by private companies? Of course your government want to know everything about you if you're being trusted with state secrets!

Well, let's see... firstly "security clearance" doesn't necessarily mean working as a CIA agent - it might mean something as trivial as working in a CCTV room for the police (to give an example from my family). And why should your government or, increasingly, a private contractor know the intended orifice of the dildo you bought three years ago? Why is this relevant?

Really, you ought to just sell me your full financial transaction and medical history for $5.00 on the condition that I sign a document stating that I will not reveal the information to a third party. After all, you now have the protection of the law, so there's no need to worry about everything I know.

Are you going to address the whole post or just a couple of sentences?

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by 91degrees · 2012-03-20 02:24 · Score: 1

Youtube and similar services have a legitimate business model.

Yes, but it seems the MPAA are trying to get a ruling that would put the legitimacy in question.

Also, I have no idea why you brought up morality,

I thought I was quite explicit that it's not about morality. I brought it up because the way people were arguing suggested that they felt Google's ethics were being called into question. I want to make it clear that this is not what the argument is about.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Hierarch · 2012-03-20 02:24 · Score: 2

There's still the compulsory licensing option. Not a great option, but it works around your argument. Even if we take your MPAA argument to the logical extreme, they can't engage in total censorship at will. They can just make speaking expensive.

--
--Somebody infect me with a .sig virus, I'm too lazy to write my own!

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 02:36 · Score: 0

Ur no expert on who's delusional. Ur delusional assuming u are.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 02:38 · Score: 0

The good thing about ACs is no one will read their stupid posts when they are already modded at 0, especially when the article has been around for 10 minutes or so and there are plenty of good modded up comments to read.

Posting as AC ironicly.

Re:oh, ffs, slashdot, get some journalistic integr by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 02:41 · Score: 0

Are you going to address the whole post or just a couple of sentences?

Just the few sentences. Because no matter what I say, your over-riding emotions are paranoia and fear. As I'm not a psychiatrist, there really isn't much I can do about that.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by hemo_jr · 2012-03-20 02:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

You have only taken one step in your analysis. I don't believe any of the services that you cite are big money makers for Google and, in fact, have a history of losing money. And it can be argued that Google got into these services, and continue them, out of altruistic principal -- to benefit the users.

I am realistic or cynical enough not to believe Google acts solely from altruistic principal. But I do believe that their motives are far closer to enlightened self-interest than that of the MPAA. The MPAA, in fact, is so singularly focused on their own immediate self interests that they fail to see that, in the long run, they are hurting themselves. Their actions alienate their customers and potential customers, they misunderstand the marketing benefits of widespread, cheap distribution of their product, they advocate laws that could be as easily used against their own interests as those they would use them against, and they act out of fear.

I have certain self-interests of my own to defend. In this I join with other users. And I welcome allies - even/especially corporate allies willing to spend money. And while I don't blindly embrace them without a thought to their motives, those would have too run significantly counter to my own self-interests for me to reject them out of hand.

I recognize that Google is acting out of self-interest, but fail to see any agenda on their part that even approaches the level of evil of that of the MPAA, RIAA and other such entities.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 02:44 · Score: 0

Perhaps their efforts are fueled by a more private agenda

PERHAPS?!?!!

Great. Now I have coffee all over my monitor, thanks to you...

Perhaps your monitor would be clean if you had a better grasp of the english language. Used in that context, the word perhaps isn't meant to focus on whether or not the first part of the sentence is true, but is meant as the setup for the second part of the sentence, the "but...still" part that is either more important or in contradiction to the first part, regardless of whether or not the first part is true.

Perhaps they are X, but they are still Y
They may do X, but they still do Y

It's actually a very common english expression, and the're nothing really humorous or absurd about it except that you somehow found it humorous or absurd enough to spit coffee. That, in itself, is the only thing humorous or absurd here.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Saint+Fnordius · 2012-03-20 02:52 · Score: 2

Agreed, it seems to be a lot of astroturfing going on here by people afraid to risk their karma. I also would bet that a lot of the AC's are from the MPAA or its client states.

Re:oh, ffs, slashdot, get some journalistic integr by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 02:54 · Score: 0

2/10. It would have been higher but that last post pretty much ruined your efforts.

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by jedidiah · 2012-03-20 03:18 · Score: 1

> So are we just going to be nitpicking?

The law is just like programming. The little details matter. You can't ignore a single comma or semicolon. You certainly ignore "bigger" things.

So, yeah those nits are important.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by jedidiah · 2012-03-20 03:24 · Score: 2

They own a number of storage locker facilities. Of course they don't want the power or the burden of rifling through everyone's stuff. It's a burden and the customers certainly don't want it.

A tenant rightfully expects some degree of privacy and control over the space they've rented.

That's a very dangerous thing for one particular tiny industry to push just for it's own benefit.

--
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by MitchDev · 2012-03-20 03:29 · Score: 1

Perfect enough to not hide behind A.C.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 03:30 · Score: 0

Why does one need to be altruistic to not be evil?

To avoid inconvenient facts disrupting a pre-set narrative and prejudice, obviously.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by MitchDev · 2012-03-20 03:33 · Score: 2

"They can just make speaking expensive." Which for the vast majority of human beings IS a form of Censorship. One of the most insidious as people like you use it to claim it isn't censorship.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Americano · 2012-03-20 03:42 · Score: 1

I don't believe any of the services that you cite are big money makers for Google and, in fact, have a history of losing money.

And they'd be even bigger money sinks if suddenly Google had to shut them down, or start paying fines, based on vague assertions by RIAA/MPAA and similar organizations about copyrighted material being uploaded to those sites. And Youtube at least was on track to be profitable by late 2010 or early 2011, last I heard. Google has spent quite a bit of time working ads into that service.

And it can be argued that Google got into these services, and continue them, out of altruistic principal -- to benefit the users.

No, it cannot be argued that they are operating these services out of altruistic principle, at least not with a straight face. If they only cared about the users, they'd offer ad-free versions of their services for a fee as an option, and they'd allow you to opt out of tracking - both things that would benefit users, but not Google. Instead you get the "benefit" of free services, in return for which you allow Google an ever-increasing view into your online activities, which it in turn uses as the basis for its advertising product. The *best* you could argue is that Google has a symbiotic relationship with its users, and I think it's possible to make a fairly good case for it being harmful (and thus parasitic) to the users.

I recognize that Google is acting out of self-interest, but fail to see any agenda on their part that even approaches the level of evil of that of the MPAA, RIAA and other such entities.

Which is precisely what I said, and why I said it: "It's cool that Google is advocating for this, but make no mistake: filing this brief is also serving their own interests." I never said "they're just as evil as the RIAA or MPAA for doing it." I don't think they truly care about the user, I think they're motivated to do this simply because it could set very dangerous legal precedents if the court decides in favor of the copyright holders. That doesn't mean there aren't ancillary benefits to the users as a result of them taking this stance, it simply means that I don't believe that those benefits are their primary motivation.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-03-20 04:01 · Score: 2

There's still the compulsory licensing option. Not a great option, but it works around your argument.

You're ignoring the part where it doesn't exist. If not, please name the compulsory licensing body for motion pictures so that I can start a Netflix competitor that has 100% of all copyrighted content legally.

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-03-20 04:19 · Score: 1

Yes, but it seems the MPAA are trying to get a ruling that would put the legitimacy in question.

Which is why we need to fight them, obviously. Because YouTube is useful to us, as people. Making it go away would be very bad for us, as people.

I mean what the hell is this "OMFG Google is evil because their interests align with ours and so they aren't helping us out of charity!" Who cares? They're helping us, aren't they? Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

DOJ will destroy Google someday soon.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 04:20 · Score: 0

cant wait for Google to be torn apart by the DOJ............. the days are coming!

development of the law by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 04:27 · Score: 0

"Google's proposed brief appears to be part of a systematic effort by Google, itself a defendant in ongoing copyright infringement cases, to influence the development of the law to Google's own advantage..."

The law has already been developed. Is Google helping to make sure it's not being perverted by the perverts of the MPAA/RIAA, yes. Is it to their benefit, yes, along with the rest of us.

Suggestions, people! by frank_adrian314159 · 2012-03-20 04:53 · Score: 1

We need suggestions!

--
That is all.

Re:Suggestions, people! by Andux · 2012-03-20 07:05 · Score: 1

Volkswagen.
You know it makes sense.

--
(Do not sign anything.) -- Fell, Planescape: Torment
Re:Suggestions, people! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 11:14 · Score: 0

Okay, Adobe.
Re:Suggestions, people! by V.+P.+Winterbuttocks · 2012-03-21 06:14 · Score: 1

No... Mini

--
I'm the real Vorokrytin P. Winterbuttocks.
Re:Suggestions, people! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-21 08:31 · Score: 0

Bad Dragon.
Don't Google unless you want to see terrible things.
Re:Suggestions, people! by Rakarra · 2012-03-21 08:34 · Score: 1

We need suggestions!
Pixar, maybe?
Re:Suggestions, people! by Rakarra · 2012-03-21 08:39 · Score: 1

Or wait... huh, would that be incest?

Fixed a mis-wording by Jerry · 2012-03-20 05:13 · Score: 2

"MPAA's lawsuit appears to be part of a systematic effort by MPAA, itself a plantif in ongoing lawsuits, to influence the development of the law to MPAA's own advantage."

There, fixed that for them.

--

Running with Linux for over 20 years!

Apple by ScooterComputer · 2012-03-20 05:17 · Score: 2

Where is Apple? They are no longer the poor, dying company they were so many years ago. They profit handsomely from both sides of this debate (selling content companies' media for a profit and selling devices to consumers at a profit). They have power, influence, and some money.

I think it is time for Apple to step up. For the company of record with the '1984' and 'Lemmings' commercials, I find it distasteful that Apple has seemingly only used their financial fortunes to engage in trifling patent wars. One letter from Steve Jobs changed the course of DRM on music. Yet Apple has sat quietly by as Google and Amazon have waded head-first into the DMCA battle royal. No, that's wrong, they have NOT sat by, in fact Apple has quietly worked to sign deals with the DMCA-abusing content providers that covers over the questions being debated. Apple is paying iTunes Match money as "streaming royalties" to RIAA on music that was already legally purchased and for which royalties were paid. Surely double-dip paying the RIAA isn't in the consumers' or artists' best interests. The basic assumption is that ALL music that gets matched (that wasn't from the iTunes store) was pirated...and that is both a lie and a dangerous precedent to Google's (consumer friendly) position. Apple cannot allow their animosity towards Google distract them from maintaining what is right for THEIR supporters and customers.

Apple needs to make their position on the DMCA known: does the consumer have fair-use rights or not? Because I, for one, known where my money goes based on the answer.

--
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 06:00 · Score: 0

"Also, I have no idea why you brought up morality,"

the same reason people bring up race when you disagree with someone of another race. they have no other way to respond so they throw out whatever card they have in their crappy hand.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2012-03-20 06:10 · Score: 1

can't engage in total censorship at will. They can just make speaking expensive

=> "I don't like the way poor people tend to vote; I can't totally ban them from voting, but I can just make voting expensive, a.k.a. poll tax"

No, that argument really doesn't hold water.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 06:16 · Score: 0

Shut the fuck up, Alex.

Sorry, MPAA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 06:32 · Score: 0

The law has already had it's Bar and Bat Mitzvah and it's fully responsible for its actions. It's you who try to suddenly change everything.

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by 91degrees · 2012-03-20 06:55 · Score: 1

I mean what the hell is this "OMFG Google is evil because their interests align with ours and so they aren't helping us out of charity!"

Did you read it as that?

I read it as a response to the exact opposite viewpoint. "OMG Google is a white knight on a charger who is here to save us all"

But I agree with you. Both extremes are wrong, and there's good reason to support Google here.

There Can Be Only One!!! by RobertLTux · 2012-03-20 07:36 · Score: 1

and after the battle The Watchers come in and dispose of the "body"

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-03-20 08:39 · Score: 1

Both extremes are wrong

The trouble is that you still kind of have to pick one. Google is like a dog that chases that rats and raccoons out of the yard. The dog doesn't scare off the vermin because it cares whether the raccoons get into the bird feeder or spread trash all over the driveway, it does it because it's a dog and that's what dogs do.

But you still have to make a decision as to whether you want to feed the dog and try to keep it around so that your yard stays free of vermin. And that seems like a pretty obvious decision, even if the dog leaves the occasional advertisement on your doorstep.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Atomic+Fro · 2012-03-20 08:54 · Score: 1

You don't think Google is *intensely* interested in the outcome of cases regarding uploads of copyrighted materials to online sharing services, given that they own & operate sites intended for sharing, and which can - easily & trivially - be used to share copyrighted content?

In the US, all content is copyrighted. From the funny photo your mother took of you as a young child in a compromising position, to the book report you wrote in 5th grade, all the way up to the recording of you drunkenly beat boxing at the St Patty's Day party last weekend your frienemy took and shared on the Facebook. Of course all these sharing services are used to share copyrighted content. All content is copyrighted.

The problem is the RIAA and the MPAA and their similes want consumers, content creators, and governments to believe that they are the sole Lords of Copyright. That if a work is copyrighted, then by definition it belongs to them. And since it belongs to them, then only they may distribute it and it may only be distributed how they intend it to be distributed and you must pay them for the privilege. Because if you don't, they will attempt to sue you for damages many times larger than the entire planet's GDP and win.

This includes that picture your mom took of you because you were wearing Micky Mouse underwear, the book report your wrote because Jurassic Park is a major motion picture, and the drunken beat boxing video because the RIAA has every beat that could possibly be created copyrighted multiple times over.

Statements like yours proves that they are winning by a large margin and it is very frustrating.

Google, hotfile, etc's interests are only in wanting to be another competitor in the distribution of content and they are doing it and no cost for the content creators. The RIAA and MPAA cannot compete with free. If they can win against a little guy like hotfile or get the United States government to close down Megaupload (didn't they have a commercial where content creator's were singing how they enjoyed using it?) then they can get rid of Google or more likely convince them that giving them an insanely large cut of their revenue like they get on blank CD/DVDs.

--

==================
Hippie Logger Jock
==================

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Americano · 2012-03-20 09:59 · Score: 1

In the US, all content is copyrighted. From the funny photo your mother took of you as a young child in a compromising position, to the book report you wrote in 5th grade, all the way up to the recording of you drunkenly beat boxing at the St Patty's Day party last weekend your frienemy took and shared on the Facebook. Of course all these sharing services are used to share copyrighted content. All content is copyrighted.

Would it make you feel less pedantic if I explicitly stated the implied disclaimer?

"You don't think Google is *intensely* interested in the outcome of cases regarding uploads of copyrighted materials to online sharing services, given that they own & operate sites intended for sharing, and which can - easily & trivially - be used to share copyrighted content FOR WHICH THE UPLOADER DOES NOT HOLD THE COPYRIGHTS?"

Better? Otherwise, I'm really struggling to understand why you wrote such a long-winded agreement:

The RIAA and MPAA cannot compete with free. If they can win against a little guy like hotfile or get the United States government to close down Megaupload (didn't they have a commercial where content creator's were singing how they enjoyed using it?) then they can get rid of Google or more likely convince them that giving them an insanely large cut of their revenue like they get on blank CD/DVDs.

Which is... precisely why I said what I said. Google is of COURSE intensely interested in the decision in the hotfile case, because it could impact huge portions of their services. Which is also why your comment that "Statements like yours proves that they are winning by a large margin and it is very frustrating" is so apropos of nothing as a response to anything I said, unless you really are nitpicking over the implied-not-explicit "copyrighted content for which you do not hold copyrights" clause.

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by LocalH · 2012-03-20 12:12 · Score: 1

Services like Hotfile have a legitimate use, and the ones who survive have also ensured that their business model is as airtight as the lawyers can advise them it is. There are lots of people out there who generate multi-gigabyte files in their work and for whom it's inconvenient (time, cost) to physically deliver the file to the client. For people like this, filesharing services like Hotfile and Mediafire can be indispensable.

--
FC Closer

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 16:27 · Score: 0

More like from people who aren't getting paid enough to set up multiple false identities so as to astroturf properly.

Re:They aren't "defending rights of users" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-03-20 20:21 · Score: 0

Lol 2006 called. Nowadays Youtube content is only there because the content owners let it be. It's flagged automatically on upload with the contentid system in place. Content owners have a choice to (1) have it taken down or (2) monetize it so it shows ads and they take the profits. For all their loud public complaints, guess which option content owners choose most often?

The system isn't even new; it's been around since 2007, around the time of the settling of the Viacom-YouTube lawsuit, and in fact was one of the primary things put in place to find a middle ground.

http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/latest-content-id-tool-for-youtube.html

As for Picasa and Google+, the former is mostly original content and the latter is mostly fair use (like any other [micro]blogging service). I don't know where you get the idea that they are massive infringement engines. Unless you work in the content industry, in which case you probably consider apache or http itself to be a tools of demons.

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by spazzmo · 2012-03-20 20:50 · Score: 1

Ha! You nailed it with "copyright is not a moral system, but a practical one". It was created to essentially force a means to an end, which was encouraging authors to create more works by enabling them to not be ripped of by UNSCRUPULOUS PUBLISHERS STEALING THEIR WORKS. The ultimate irony is that the unscrupulous publishers have now bought enough american (read USA) politicians as to be able to jackboot the rest of the world into enforcing the reverse. The USA knows full well why everyone but their corrupt lick-spittles (past and present) despise them, which is why they passed their internal law that allows them to offensively invade anyone they even think is developing equivalent military technology. Oh, and let's not forget the law they passed that requires them to invade the Hague if an AMERICAN (read USA evil-do-er) is ever indited for a war crime. Oops, I wandered off-topic...

--
The cheese stands alone...

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by spazzmo · 2012-03-20 20:51 · Score: 1

Yeah, morons...

--
The cheese stands alone...

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by spazzmo · 2012-03-20 20:52 · Score: 1

Nice

--
The cheese stands alone...

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by spazzmo · 2012-03-20 20:57 · Score: 1

Hold on, my last few comment have wound up under the wrong parent. How did I manage that? Bugger!

--
The cheese stands alone...

Re:This isn't Wikipedia. "Citations" are not neede by dave87656 · 2012-03-21 17:26 · Score: 1

The law is clear that the service can't be held reliable for the actions of those using it. Google has given the MPAA and others every possible tool to find copyrighted material and to have it removed. They've completed their end of the deal and gone above and beyond.

It is the MPAA who is being sneaky here. They are trying to create precedent by attacking a smaller service which can't defend themselves to the extent that Google can. And then, with precedence in hand, to force google to do their work.

Slashdot Mirror

Google Files Amicus Brief in Hotfile Case; MPAA Requests It Be Rejected

214 comments