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.
Thread beginning with comment 495944
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 10

RE[2]: So What
by tomcat on Sun 6th Nov 2011 00:50 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: So What
by judgen on Sun 6th Nov 2011 02:16 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 Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: So What
by JAlexoid on Sun 6th Nov 2011 15:25 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: So What
by looncraz on Sun 6th Nov 2011 17:00 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 Parent Score: 3