OSNews

So it's not really that surprising that Google would oppose it then. "



And hardly surprising that Apple wouldn't. Microsoft maybe have something to stand up for. Actually the article was doing very well until that last sentence. Why did there have to be a dig at Apple and / or Microsoft thrown in, especially when it doesn't really impact one of them?

Are they mentioned just to get those names into the article for the crawlers?

I'd say because they are big supporters of DRM and therefore are also against free speech in a sense.

Although it's not really apple who wants the DRM, it's the music and film labels that demand it. Apple has to deal with the devil to deliver the content. Jobs has said multiple times if he had his way he would take the drm out and charge 20/30p a track. It was apple as well as the users that helped drive the current drm less music on iTunes. Any other company would have just left the drm on and not worry about it.

I do agree with the article, it's a short sighted view by the labels that is only to help speed up their demise, they will need to learn and adapt better and offer media a more fair prices both to the artists and to the consumer.

That's not entirely true. Apple and Microsoft have contractual obligations with media companies to protect distributed songs, movies, etc with DRM. They wouldn't have been able to sign those agreements without it.

Why? You'll find a lot of people agreeing with that assumption. It's no magic, a simple thought based on long time experience. It's no more invalid than saying they will oppose, but it has more history to back it up. It's to Apple and MS to prove it wrong by actually taking the right side for once.

Edited 2011-05-20 05:21 UTC

If this also affects Google's search engine it probably affects Bing too. So at least Microsoft is affected, and it'd be awesome to see them say "we'll also fight it".

It's not an "if", it's simply not possible for Microsoft to avoid this either. Any and all US-based search engines must comply with the law and thus filter the results. This means Bing, Google, Amazon, and so on.

Having to police the search results and filter them is indeed a form of censorship, I agree with them, but there's more reasons to fight this act than just that: having to police humongous amounts of websites and search results will just create lots of extra work for these companies while the benefit is.. well, negligible; the censored sites will just change names and domains and be back, and the round starts again from the beginning. It's an endless game of cat-and-mouse that search engine providers simply cannot win.

Google lost the high ground when they quit relying solely on algorithmic rankings to deliver results and started exercising editorial control by tailoring and filtering results to individual users.

They already are censoring results, they just arrogantly believe they are doing it for the good of the user.

There is after all an easier way around it: host search sites outside the U.S. The net will simply route around the "broken part". If they continue making such foolish laws it will eventually convince enough people that the U.S. and companies bound by U.S. law can not be trusted to handle any Internet infrastructure (DNS, search, etc). After all Google fought this battle in China already by redirecting to the Hong Kong site. They could do the same with the U.S.

When will the government learn that it's not that hard to route around their stupidity. The real losers by implementing these laws are the people in the country who loose their job because the datacenter is off-shored. I hope search engines take a strong stand on this one and send a clear message. This is very reminiscent of companies off-shoring encryption development due to U.S. export restrictions.
http://cryptome.org/cpi-survey.htm
http://www.infoworld.com/t/business/sun-in-talks-over-us-export-con...

We lost the power when the corporations started funneling money into the pockets of politicians which started passing more laws to make more money for the corporations which started funneling more money into politicians pockets which started passing more laws to make more money for the corporations which started funneling more money into the politicians pockets...

Actually it's:

.

fullstop, period. And that's the same cause why this practice can't be changed. Would you vote for taking a large part of your own cash pool away? Right.

There's no full stop, it's a viscous cycle that will keep repeating itself until we fall to our knees or we replace these self serving sons of ******* with someone who actually gives a shit about the country and its people instead of a bunch special interest thugs who can pad their pockets more.

And to answer your question, there's no excuses and no justification. To me, it's a clear matter of right and wrong and these people passing laws and calling shots keep doing it wrong.

I disagree in one important way. The primary issue isn't that the politicians don't care. The problem is if you give a group of people (Congress) unlimited control over everything imaginable and every aspect over everyone else's lives, down to how much salt they are allowed to eat and where their kids and go to school, you will not get a good result no matter how much the lawmakers "care."

They simply have too much control. Areas of private life and private business that had been "off limits" to government control for hundreds of years are now routine political decisions. As long as those politicians are controlling everything, businesses will always have a compelling reason to make sure the law comes out written in their favor.

In about 99.999% of cases nowadays it would be far better for the government to say, "I'm staying out of that -- that is none of my business," and not even pass a law. Does anyone need this law? Really? Each new law, especially the laws passed in the US over the past 12y or so, makes everything just one more step worse. Just stop already!

I agree with your disagreement, better said. Maybe one day we can fill this ever growing hole we've allowed back in without having to fall flat on our faces.

Yes it's called corporatism. Sometimes it starts as politicians essentially blackmailing corporations for their campaign money, lest they be regulated out of existence or a mafia hit with anti-trust laws. So what I'm saying is it's not always the corporations that initiate the cycle you described so well.

'Evil genes' exist not just in corporations, but all aspects of human society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Genes

What the hell? Why is this modded down? Might be a bit harsh but it's spot on. Google isn't against this because it's about free speech, it's because it affects their bottom line.

You don't get it.

Very few people will disagree with the laws you're breaking there. The situation's a little different for copyright laws, hmm?

I hope Google gives the content industry a proper bloody nose over this. People need to learn to be careful of who they piss off. What if Google were to suddenly stifle all search results on the RIAA's top selling artists, or the MPAA's top rating movies? Suspend the official record company and artist Youtube accounts? It's remarkable how short sighted people can be when they think they're better than everyone else. I work in a phone shop, and you'd think people would be careful of pissing me off since I can find their home address in five seconds. My motto: always be courteous, you never know who knows a great recipe for napalm and has access to a cellular carrier's entire customer database.... ... ... Wink.

They won't because Google aren't that stupid.

Ahem…


I doubt the public would be too happy if their favourite bands and movies started disappearing off search results. I think Facebook and Bing would be all too happy to pick up the slack. Also, don't underestimate the lobbying power of these halcyon entities; they've got lot of money and a lot of friends and actions like that would be pounced upon with every anti-trust accusation they can dream of.

There are countless eyes watching for anti-competitive, monopolistic behaviour in Google, and behaviour like the above would smack and quickly draw a "please explain" from many interested parties.

P.S. Boasting about your lax attitude towards customer's private data and your ability to create incendiary weapons is not very professional and is downright idiotic.

Note to self: don't joke on the internet.

While you will be on your way don't forget to steal a car and a handbag. A television and a movie might come in handy afterwards.

While you will be on your way don't forget to steal a car and a handbag. A television and a movie might come in handy afterwards. "

None of that is nearly as heinous as downloading a TV show episode, however... now *that's* serious...

You wouldn't steal a handbag, you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a baby...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

There's nothing inherently special about a domain registration. It's like a license to do business. And when companies violate the law, they lose their license to do business. Ergo, a website that consistently violates international law loses its domain registration in dns.

Google doesn't like this because, frankly, they see business benefits (e.g. driving more search, more more advertising, more profits) to indexing pirated content. THUS, I wouldn't take Google's opinion on search because they have an obvious conflict of interests here.



Um, I think that the average person would agree that making movies is a "real job". I'm not a big fan of many of the crappy movies that come out of Hollywood and elsewhere; but, at the same time, if they're going to invest $$$ in generating content, they deserve to profit from that content; ergo, international copyright law needs to be enforced.

Edited 2011-05-20 20:31 UTC

"He should get a real job" of course sounds a bit harsh. I ment a job that pays money instead of a hobby. Obviously Hollywood isn't making any money on their movies anymore or they wouldn't be crying to the govt to get involved.

Except there is no theft taking place.