Slashdot Mirror
Google Files Amicus Brief in Hotfile Case; MPAA Requests It Be Rejected
An anonymous reader writes "Google has once again stood up in court for the rights of users and services online, this time defending Hotfile from copyright infringement accusations. [Quoting the article]: 'Google takes a sort of hard-line approach via the DMCA, telling the court that however the MPAA may try to mislead them, Hotfile is in fact protected under safe harbor provisions. And furthermore, Google suggests that the MPAA's approach is contrary to the language in and precedents surrounding the DMCA. The onus is on copyright holders to alert a service to the nature and location of an infringement, and the service's responsibility is to alert the user if possible and remove the material within a reasonable period of time.'"
The full brief has been uploaded to Scribd. The MPAA, naturally, has requested that the amicus brief be rejected by the court: "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 — as well as an effort by Hotfile (whose counsel also represent Google) to circumvent its page limits. Google is acting as a partisan advocate for Hotfile, making arguments that Hotfile has or could have made in its own opposition to summary judgment. The parties here are well-represented and have the incentive and wherewithal to make all the arguments the court will need. Although Google purports not to take a position regarding summary judgment here, Google unmistakably seeks a ruling against plaintiffs. Google's motion should be denied"
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
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.
Corporations are people!
Astroturf?
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
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.
Can corporations serve jail time or be put to death?
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
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.
Which of their services infringe copyright?
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
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.
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.
Perhaps their efforts are fueled by a more private agenda
PERHAPS?!?!!
Great. Now I have coffee all over my monitor, thanks to you...
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?
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.
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.
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.
[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
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.
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.
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?
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
Not available in your country: Google didn't roll out gOvernment yet.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
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
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.
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...
Because when you elect politicians you are not indirectly electing an other set of companies?
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
More importantly, can corporations get gay married?
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.
"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?
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?
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.
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.
"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...
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.
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
[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.
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?
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?
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
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.
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
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.
Or teen pregnant?
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.
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.
Good for you. Hope that works out well for you in life.
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.
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.
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.
For shareholders and profit? That can't be right.
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.
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.
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.
More importantly, can corporations get gay married?
Technically yes, if you can find a suitable company for Apple to merge with.
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.
So worry about it if they try to change the law!
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!
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
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.
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.
Google should just change a few words and use the MPAA quote as a template:
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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
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!
> 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.
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...?
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
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.
Lord Palmerston (1784-1865): "Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests."
Perfect enough to not hide behind A.C.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
We need suggestions!
That is all.
"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!
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Such a marriage would not last long. They would soon file for divorce claiming that the other was screwing customers on the side.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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
==================
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?
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:
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.
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
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
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.
... people that can repair electronics ...
The cheese stands alone...
Ooh, so USA == Spanish Inquisition Land!
The cheese stands alone...
Information capture in real-time! That's scariest of all. Post a blog and get a knock at the door...
The cheese stands alone...
Citation?
The cheese stands alone...
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...
Yeah, morons...
The cheese stands alone...
Nice
The cheese stands alone...
Hold on, my last few comment have wound up under the wrong parent. How did I manage that? Bugger!
The cheese stands alone...
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
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!
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.
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
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.