

Google rips Senate's online piracy bill: 'This is what is wrong with Washington' - cwan
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/196385-google-piracy-bill-a-trial-lawyers-dream

======
nextparadigms
_“When Google and other piracy apologists start talking about free speech,
it’s completely disingenuous,” Harbinson said. “These guys don’t give a crap
about free speech.”_

Maybe they don't, but at least they are trying to stop this bill, while the
others are pushing for it, clearly not giving a crap about free speech either,
as it seems all they care about is the ability to stop piracy - at all cost.

~~~
roc
> _"while the others are pushing for it, clearly not giving a crap about free
> speech either"_

This, I think, is the problem in American politics. The best the citizenry can
hope for, given the amount of corruption that unfettered political donation
has brought, is for a corporate champion whose own economic interests just
happen to align with our liberty on this issue.

Because the legislators supporting this don't care about piracy any more than
Google cares about free speech. They care about protecting their share of
political donations by the industries whose economic interests are aligned
with pushing crap like SOPA.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_the amount of corruption that unfettered political donation has brought_

That's one side of the issue, and it's not inaccurate. But I'd ask you to
consider the other side as well.

Why do you think that businesses find it worthwhile to dump so much money into
political contributions? I submit that the reason is because, as the
government has assumed increasing amounts of power, it acquires the ability to
confer significant advantages upon those favored by the law. So it's necessary
for business to take extreme steps to ensure that they are, in fact, favored
thusly.

In these terms, I think that a more constructive strategy for solving the
problem isn't to attack political contributions (which is bound to get into
thorny First Amendment questions), but to strike at the root by limiting the
power that the government has to decide who is going to win and who is going
to lose.

If we take away the government's power, then there's nothing for corporations
to buy. If we give the government more power (to regulate the corporations'
contributions and other matters), then there is an even greater incentive for
the corporations to influence the goverenment -- which is exactly what we're
trying to get away from.

~~~
shadowfiend
There _is_ something for them to buy—each other. Arguably this is an even more
dangerous situation, because the result then is monopoly, or close. And then,
no competition. And then... Well, then the free market falls on its face, and
all of a sudden the answer is that one company wins and everyone
else—competitors and customers alike—loses.

There is no silver bullet, for this as well as other problems. Just a web of
interconnected aids that we can use to at least try to react when the
inevitable corruption arises.

~~~
TDL
Monopolies rise up in the scenario you describe only in a static marketplace.
Very few, if any, markets are static. There is constant change. Well healed
competitors from other markets will enter a market where they see monopoly
pricing power and begin to compete to grab a piece of a high margin business.
Disruptive technologies or methods are also in play. In order for a company to
successfully buy it's way into a monopoly, it requires that all other
competitors (and potential competitors) either acquiesce to being bought or
not enter the market after the monopoly has been created.

Certainly there can be barriers to entry, but those barriers will not be
permanent.

~~~
shadowfiend
A pleasant fiction, but a well-operated monopoly will move to crush nascent
competition by undercutting them in price or securing their supplies—and thus
their ability to produce at all—at prices that cannot be competed with by a
smaller entity.

This isn't to say that it wouldn't be possible to defeat a monopoly
eventually, just that it's not as straightforward as you make it sound.
Indeed, historically, monopolies seem to have required government intervention
to be dismantled (Standard Oil, AT&T, etc), though perhaps that's simply
defining monopolies as those entities that the government dismantled as such.

Regardless, I think this is one of the two “silver bullet”-style myths that
likes to float around the area of government regulation: one, that less
regulation is always better, the other, that more regulation is always better.
In essence, a refusal to acknowledge that regulation is and should be in a
fluid state, adapting to what the market is doing at any given moment—and
ideally ahead of the curve, rather than reacting after financial or other
disaster has already struck.

~~~
TDL
You are assuming that competition will only come from smaller entities. My
comment was simplistic because each scenario is different and I was speaking
in the general case. Standard Oil had lost a lot of market share by the time
it was broken up. AT&T existed as monopoly because government had heavily
regulated the telecommunications industry.

------
tomp
It seems that the main argument of the supporters of the bill is that piracy
is bad for the economy, since it causes job loss.

In reality, at least the way I see it, things could not be further from the
truth. Yes, there is a slight loss to the American economy when foreign
consumers are not paying for the movies and music (although mostly American
companies are to blame here - I cannot buy music anywhere on the internet even
if I want to, so TPB is my only source of 24/7 entertainment). However, when
it is the American customers that are "stealing", this is not really bad for
the economy, as no money is actually lost, it is simply redistributed when the
consumers use the money they saved when downloading to buy other stuff -
probably coming from the industries that make much less profit than the
entertainment industry.

Also, the entertainment industry seems unable or unwilling to face the fact -
the consumers aren't buying not because they can download for free, but
because the products are crap, not worth the money. Avatar was the most
commercially successful movie of all times, in the period of most piracy of
all times.

~~~
Natsu
> It seems that the main argument of the supporters of the bill is that piracy
> is bad for the economy, since it causes job loss.

The average politician sees IP related matters in purely economic terms. So
the most effective line of argument is to compare the economic cost of new
regulations to their benefit.

I suggest keeping that in mind when writing your representatives on this
issue.

------
click170
> “All players in the Internet chain who profess to care about copyright
> protections should come forward with meaningful solutions — not simply throw
> up unfounded charges and suggest they will ignore the will of Congress
> anyway," said Recording Industry Association of American senior vice
> president for communications Jonathan Lamy.

1) maybe they don't see a need for additional solutions like you do.

2) the will of congress? You mean your will, care of your lobbyists, care
congress, right?

------
BSousa
Ok, I'll admit I don't know much about the laws about US donations/lobbying on
the political trail, but I'm assuming you can run for a slot for Congress
using your own money for whatever is needed right?

Why not get Bill Gates, Larry Page, Sergey, Mark Zuckenberg (sorry about
spellings) and most all other internet billionaires to threaten to run for
congress if Congress keeps doing stupid shit like this? This would probably
scare Congressmen more than anything else as I doubt, anyone running against
these guys wouldn't have a chance of winning, and thats all they care about.

Because apart form threatening with force (a.k.a. as shooting them), only way
I see the people get their power back is if some of these billionaires stand
up and make it really hard for some people to be re-ellected again.

~~~
suivix
I think they have more important business to take care of than squabbling with
Congressmen all day.

~~~
orangecat
True. What if they selected a member of their staff to be the actual
officeholder?

~~~
BSousa
Exactly. I'm not actually saying they should be in congress, God knows they
are way too competent to be there. But if these smart rich people can threaten
to do something (run themselves, say they will do all donations to maximum
permitted by law to other candidate, support some aide of them, etc) that will
cost the election for the current candidate that is supporting SOPA, they may
think twice about being shells for some industries.

What I am advocating is actually fighting fire with fire. You have politicians
that get elected mostly by the donations made to them by these companies. So,
why not get other companies that matter (Google, Mozilla, MS and Apple (not
sure they stance on this) FSF, etc) together and start pushing the agenda as
well?

Again, I don't know enough about the US system to even think what I'm saying
is possible.

------
ddw
> "This will protect Americans’ intellectual property rights, which in turn
> boosts our economy and promotes American jobs,” Leahy said in a statement.

Besides lawyers, is there really any evidence behind this?

~~~
rayiner
There is way more money in catering to companies like Google that build
markets than there is in helping the RIAA keep grandma and cousin Timmy from
illegally downloading music.

I don't think there is any real money in SOPA for anyone involved. It just
seems to be a dying industry spitefully flailing about as it takes its last
gasps of breath.

------
firefoxman1
"Creating jobs" is just the post-2008 buzzword that is applied to just about
every political argument. Just because a company makes more money doesn't mean
they'll hire more people. There are clearly enough people employed by record
companies because the records are getting produced.

If the company is able to accomplish their goal (create content and make $$$
off of it) with the number of employees they have now, why would they hire
more just because they have more money? (Assuming, of course, that they will
actually make more money by "stopping piracy")

------
biot
This makes me wonder what it'd be like if Google ever goes bad: "Kill this
legislation or we release the entire search history of you and your family.
Then we'll see who the pirates (and worse) really are."

------
DanielBMarkham
_Protect IP and its House counterpart, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), are
strongly supported by the entertainment industry, organized labor and business
groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce._

Well there you go. If you made a list of the top ten groups that give money to
Congressmen these guys would definitely be in it. And because they support
both parties, guess what? It's biparisan! Something to vote on so you can say
that Washington really works. It's just not all gridlock. Hey, look at me! I'm
reaching across the aisle to get things done.

If you were some uneducated Congressperson, probably a lawyer/political hack
who came up through the ranks, this looks on the outside like just the kind of
vote to take home to the voters. I'm your man. I'm stopping internet pirates,
protecting the innocent. Think of the children!

I have to laugh, but in reality it's a sad mess we're in. These pressure
groups are going to keep at it until something like this passes, whether it's
this year or ten years from now. We are well and truly fucked.

I'm glad Google is speaking up on this. I only wish more folks would listen.
If you haven't contacted both your House and your Senate guys, now is the time
to do it.

~~~
tomkarlo
"If you made a list of the top ten groups that give money to Congressmen these
guys would definitely be in it."

Not sure that's true, esp. in reference to organized labor.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#L...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#Lobbying_expenditure_by_sector)
<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s>

~~~
nickpinkston
The dollar values may show this, and these numbers show you're right. However,
influence wise, unions have massive sway because of the breath / consistency
of their voter block - which provides a higher ROI on their lobbying money.

~~~
tomkarlo
You mean, because they have a bunch of people who vote for politicians? I'm
pretty sure that's how things are _supposed_ to work.

~~~
dsplittgerber
No. Because they are the biggest buyers of influence on the hill. It has
absolutely nothing to do with having a bunch of people, just a bunch of money.

13 out of the biggest 20 donors are unions.
<http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A>

~~~
tomkarlo
Sorry, but that's like looking at Hawaii and saying the US is a tropical
country. You're ignoring 90% of the money spent by organizations to influence
Congress.

Donations are only one small way that money influences the hill. If they were
as effective as lobbying, you wouldn't see 10X the money being spent on that.

------
redthrowaway
Those comments are downright depressing.

------
o2sd
I think this Bill will be good for the world. By the 'world', I mean anywhere
that is not the United States of America.

The US has outsourced it's manufacturing, rationalized retail into behemoth
monopolies and completely destroyed it's capital markets with rampant
corruption and incompetence.

The ONLY area in which the US still is a leader and an innovator is in the
internet/web, and now the US government is planning to destroy that as well.

Soon the rest of the world will be providing all kinds of services to US
citizens behind the silicon curtain, to allow them to illicitly access
information without fear of censorship or imprisonment.

Alternative DNS, proxies, darknets will spring up in the free world, giving
the disenfranchised and repressed USians a voice and access to otherwise
subversive websites that have forums with comments.

