Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Nov 2011 23:05 UTC
Google "Google is considering ditching the U.S. Chamber of Commerce out of frustration with its support for legislation that would force Internet companies to police websites that peddle pirated movies and fake Viagra. The rumblings of a defection - a potentially serious blow to one of Washington's most powerful lobbies - come weeks after Yahoo left the Chamber in October, largely over its support of Sen. Patrick Leahy's online piracy bill, the PROTECT IP Act." What, the US Chamber of Commerce is a front for the pharmaceutical and content industries? I'm shocked.
Order by: Score:
v So What
by tomcat on Fri 4th Nov 2011 23:19 UTC
RE: So What
by JAlexoid on Fri 4th Nov 2011 23:44 UTC in reply to "So What"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Google is trying to make money on their backs, so it's not hard to understand why there's a conflict.

Google may be getting a lot of revenue off their backs, however it's not about Google protecting their revenue streams(as those wouldn't be affected in any way by PROTECT IP).

What they are against(and I agree with their position on this one) is that they shouldn't be forced to police themselves and protect other companies revenue streams.

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: So What
by tomcat on Sun 6th Nov 2011 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE: So What"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

What they are against(and I agree with their position on this one) is that they shouldn't be forced to police themselves and protect other companies revenue streams


Seems rather arbitrary. Is Google required to police itself against indexing child porn? Or hate speech in many countries? Uh, yeah, it is. And you don't see Google complaining about that -- but when it comes to upholding international copyright law, Google whines and bitches about being a responsible global citizen because, quite frankly, it has no respect for other peoples' copyrights. Rather than being completely arbitrary about what laws it follows and what it ignores, it should merely be consistent and follow all of them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: So What
by judgen on Sun 6th Nov 2011 02:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So What"
judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

i dislike the usage of the words "hate crime" or "hate speech" as it is not universal. In sweden a black person can not be sentenced for "hate crime" unless it is against gay people. Black gay people can pretty much get away with any of those "crimes". I just say crime is crime no matter whom you are doing it against and race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation does NOT matter.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: So What
by zima on Sun 6th Nov 2011 17:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: So What"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Is this somehow related to this Nordic cinematographic masterpiece? ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayniggers_from_Outer_Space (and to be fair, I wouldn't blame you if, additionally, you just don't personally like the basic premise of its plot ;) )

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: So What
by dylansmrjones on Sun 6th Nov 2011 17:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: So What"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Heey...! How come nobody can tell the difference between Denmark and Sweden (apart from virtually no difference, of course... ) ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: So What
by zima on Sun 6th Nov 2011 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: So What"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

But, I did differentiate... ;) ("Nordic" as a suitable term which covers them both)

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: So What
by dylansmrjones on Sun 6th Nov 2011 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: So What"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Yeah, lump us together with those pesky humourless swedes ;) - oh, don't take me seriously here. Give us a few millennia and we'll realize we're one people :p

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: So What
by JAlexoid on Sun 6th Nov 2011 15:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So What"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Rather than being completely arbitrary about what laws it follows and what it ignores, it should merely be consistent and follow all of them.

You are overly emotional on this topic.
It's Google's right to strongly disagree with a law and fight it. And if you have any proof of Google "ignoring"* then you should contact the appropriate authorities, otherwise stop making s***t up.

* - if you ignore the law - you're breaking it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: So What
by looncraz on Sun 6th Nov 2011 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So What"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Copyright laws change by country. Same as patent laws.

Google is protesting the fact that they will need to devote HUGE resources against something that doesn't otherwise affect them.

Google will be paying out a good chunk of money to protect the richest people in the world ability to make even more money...

Not to mention the damaging effects on Net Neutrality and a free web. You let the rich control the internet like they do the real world and you will lose your ability to fight them non-violently. The internet is the great equalizer, allowing those with knowledge to gain content (legal or otherwise) the rich can merely buy.

Besides, the internet and online search services are merely communications tools. ANY attempt to block access in the United States at the federal or state level should be considered a violation of the constitution which was setup EXPLICITLY to ensure that Americans can communicate freely without fearing their government.

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion, Assembly...

Music, movies, news, and other once valuable content is no longer as valuable on a per-sale basis because access has become so easy. Show me a web-site where I can legally buy digital movies with prices based on their quality!! The music industry is SLOWLY coming to understand the new dynamic, the rest just need to catch up! This isn't anything new, we've been saying the same thing on this web-site since '96...maybe earlier...

--The loon

Reply Score: 3

Everybody's doing it
by umccullough on Sat 5th Nov 2011 03:18 UTC
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26
The biggest issue
by twitterfire on Sat 5th Nov 2011 18:12 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

The biggest issue out there is that we let US control the Internet. I believe that Internet should not be controlled. In the worst case, I prefer mandating the UN to regulate the Internet.

Reply Score: 3

controlling internet..
by andih on Sat 5th Nov 2011 21:34 UTC
andih
Member since:
2010-03-27

controlling internet is an important step for creating an world facist regime (nwo)
Its not only for the money, but the power.. the power to keep the people ignorant.

We should never accept that any counntry or union control internet.

Reply Score: 4

Big Fish. But a bigger pond.
by westlake on Sat 5th Nov 2011 22:09 UTC
westlake
Member since:
2010-01-07

"What, the US Chamber of Commerce is a front for the pharmaceutical and content industries? I'm shocked"

The US Chamber of Commerce has 300,000 members and its regional affliates 3 million.

It is not in the least unusual for a hot button political issue to expose dissenting factions within any organization.

But you have to be realistic.

The ordinary member of a Chamber of Commerce shares nothing in common with Google other than the hope that an add click will translate into a sale.

Reply Score: 2