Google’s Home Page Will Lobby Against Hollywood-Supported Anti-Piracy Bills

COMMENTS (16)

• STOP SOPA!

  Comment by CC — Tuesday January 17, 2012 @ 1:14pm EST  Reply to this post

• This article mischaracterizes the White House’s official statement. The WH statement doesn’t say anything re “shares tech company concerns” AT ALL. That’s fiction. The WH statement is a call to compromise in response to all the noise that has been created by Big Tech’s anti-sopa sideshow… specifically the petition submitted to We the People. It also guarantees passage of some compromise legislation within a limited time frame.

  And re Google’s “smart, targeted ways” quote… That’s a laugh. They’ve had plenty of time to get involved and instead started a lobbying war primarily focused on disinformation. Murdoch ran a google search for a movie; the same types of search results come up for books and music. Google is the facilitator, and their stock has gone through the roof while enabling piracy.

  Comment by star jonestown — Tuesday January 17, 2012 @ 1:17pm EST  Reply to this post

  • Ok, so let’s say instead of using Google to search “Mission Impossible” I used it to search (some variation of) “recently paroled hitmen”. Then, also using Google services (or Google-linked services) I manage to look up their locations, obtain phone numbers and, using my Google Voice account, call them up and contract with them to kill someone on my behalf. Not really much different, is it? Do you think that sites selling DVDs/USB sticks with pirated content that must be purchased by mail should fall under this? The point is that it is a slippery slope and this bill, in its current form, is going to send censorship spinning out of control.

    Comment by Anonymous — Tuesday January 17, 2012 @ 6:14pm EST  Reply to this post

• Rupert Murdoch!!!! Are we seriously going to believe a man that helped destroy unions in the UK. A man who bullied his way into no 10 downing street and thwarted the British Police efforts to find the serial killer of a little girl. It is utter madness to believe that the Murdochs have any interest in protecting anybody but their own empire. He wanted and achieved not only to control British media but also British government. The Internet is owned by us all. It is up to us all to police what we download . Do not be fooled by this bill. Just look at what history tells us. They are not in trying to protect content providers.

  Comment by Simon — Tuesday January 17, 2012 @ 1:26pm EST  Reply to this post

• If anyone REALLY wants to protect U.S. jobs, they will take a considerable pay cut to keep their employees on the payroll.

  Comment by Sorry — Tuesday January 17, 2012 @ 1:34pm EST  Reply to this post

• Hey Rupe,

  Google is streaming MISSION IMPOSSIBLE for free? I don’t think so.

  You did a search on Google and it came up with websites streaming MI.. So you want the government to censor search engines? I guess that would apply to Bing, Yahoo, etc., too?

  By the way, did your Google search come up with any LEGITIMATE ways to stream MI for a fee? If I wanted to stream it and pay $100, could I do it? Hmm. So if I am in a remote part of South Dakota and I want to see it, my only options are to drive 200 miles, download a pirated copy, or wait 4 months? Seems like maybe the studios should focus on thier business model, not legislating that search engines narrow the scope of their search results. Then you could also use your lawyers and lobbyists to shut down the illegal streaming sites, instead of using that money to buy congressmen expensive dinners and vacations.

  By the way, what happens when you search Google for “News Corp illegal phone hacking”? Should we restrict Google’s results on that too?

  Just curious.

  Comment by Hypocrite — Tuesday January 17, 2012 @ 1:37pm EST  Reply to this post

  • Yeah, dude, you’re supposed to wait 4 months instead of stealing it. The fact that you can’t be bothered to wait or to pay is the problem.

    Your bizarre hypothetical about the one American who lives 200 miles from a movie theater is a perfect example of the tortured logic of the thief.

    No one is making you steal movies. You do it because you can and because you believe that you are entitled to.

    Comment by star jonestown — Tuesday January 17, 2012 @ 3:24pm EST  Reply to this post

    • star jonestown – you’re missing the point.

      Change the hypothetical to rural Pennsylvania and 25 miles. Or the suburbs where a kid will have to ride a bike 5 miles.

      People would be willing to pay and not steal if the studios offered it as an option. But they don’t. Instead, they willingly give a 4-month free window to the pirates, and then complain when a film is pirated.

      The technology is here. It’s not going away. There is a whole generation of kids (and some adults) that have grown up believing that there is nothing wrong with downloading IP for free. Instead of embracing technology and figuring out a way to best monetize their IP under the current realities, they are fighting technology and trying to go back to the old, broken business model. It will never work.

      Do you really think what congress is proposing will put a dent in piracy? C’mon.

      Nothing will change until the studios wake up and start adapting their business model to 2012 and beyond.

      Comment by Hypocrite — Tuesday January 17, 2012 @ 5:38pm EST  Reply to this post

• Shocking that with its history of Internet successes, Hollywood and the MPAA couldn’t write a bill that allows for the nuances of the Internet to survive without breaking the way it works. Explain to me why the DMCA suddenly isn’t enough again? I will support the people and companies who have actually used the Internet to its fullest and made the world a better place rather than the companies who wish it didn’t exist.

  Comment by Gee — Tuesday January 17, 2012 @ 1:50pm EST  Reply to this post

• That Murdoch quote is the gift that keeps on giving. How many tens if not hundreds of millions has Murdoch/News Corp poured into lobbying?

  It’s especially ironic that he is getting on a high horse after his company was accused of hacking people’s voicemails and then trying to cover it up.

  Comment by Jason — Tuesday January 17, 2012 @ 2:07pm EST  Reply to this post

• Google is not the enemy, it doesn’t host anything, it is an index of what is available online. Asking google to break the way it functions and hurt the public just because Viacoms’ CEO could only take an 150% pay raise is laughable. As several other smart commenters have noted, content companies have stupidly refused to innovate and use the Internet as an effective distribution tool. Instead, it punishes those who have succeeded (Netflix) and whines when it can’t legislate it’s way back into an old business model. All while refusing to give people a better product. It is appalling.

  Comment by Gee — Tuesday January 17, 2012 @ 2:55pm EST  Reply to this post

• Murdoch’s war on Google started long before this. I seem to recall him blaming Google (and organisations that put in-depth news online) for the increasing obsolescence of the print newspaper industry, and in particular, his print newspapers which are still a big part of his empire and sphere of influence. He appeared to object to the fact that people can simply Google for news and are not reliant on their daily paper.

  Murdoch reminds me of the blacksmith trying to hobble the motor vehicle or the monk burning the printing press and will probably continue to do so when it comes to the internet unless and until he has a big piece of it making him money.

  Comment by Inigo — Tuesday January 17, 2012 @ 3:26pm EST  Reply to this post

• Murdoch’s tweets are really insightful on how absurdly out of touch with reality these media moguls are when pertaining to the internet. They rather be in control of all the news, and sever entrepreneurship that takes a slice off their revenues from ads. No one is gonna stand for this and its certain the bill wont pass any time soon, whats needed is a bill that protects the internet from people like him.

  Comment by dioxholster — Tuesday January 17, 2012 @ 7:41pm EST  Reply to this post

• This reminds me of the major battle of the 80′s when the studios fought this new concept of renting videos. they said, “it will end the movie business as we know it”. It did. The studio’s lost their suit and they thrived like never before.

  Message to Studio’s: ADAPT

  Comment by disgruntled viewer — Tuesday January 17, 2012 @ 8:20pm EST  Reply to this post

• I feel sorry for the US when this bill will go through.

  It will be the final step towards a country that is no longer part of the first world; you’ll have all the third world problems again.
  You already have an escalating class problem, with this you will also have random goverment-controlled censorship. (It’s even debatable if you even have basic juridical human rights with all the anti-terrorist stuff popping up lately, including Manning.)

  Comment by M — Wednesday January 18, 2012 @ 2:24am EST  Reply to this post

• SOPA/PIPA down in flames! Rats are jumping off the sinking ship! Too many mixed metaphors, so let me just say: Fuck the MPAA!

  Comment by Jacob — Wednesday January 18, 2012 @ 2:28pm EST  Reply to this post