You're joking right? Didn't Google team up with Verizon and sell out on Network Neutrality?
I think Verizon actually decided to voluntarily adopt 90% of Google's free open Internet demands. The small concessions were related to specialized services that did not in any way affect the public Internet. When first reported, inaccurate sensationalism was buzzing that Google had switch teams.Those false allegations were clogging up the media when in fact it was instead a win for net neutrality, not a loss. Through small compromises Google was able to establish enforceable standards which since that time Sprint has also agreed to.
Neither Google or the Internet using public has anything to gain from the carriers overturning net neutrality. Google needs fast access to the Internet without unfair restrictions placed on them by the carriers. The carriers are really a dumb pipe except they want to also play in the application game. It would be totally unfair for them to block traffic on the public Internet to gain a market position advantage. It is a complicated topic with a lot of stake holders but the US government is supposed to be looking out for the public interest not the corporate interest.
It just happens that in this case Google's interest align with the public interest, not by any compassion on Google's part but that they both would be harmed by carriers blocking selective Internet traffic.
To be fair Google was spending a lot of money trying to protect network neutrality and make sure that the sale of the 700 MHz band came with those conditions. Such as allowing any device and any application. I would be in support of those initiatives.
To be really fair, Google was also lobbying to take away author's rights under copyright laws.
To be really fair, Google was also lobbying to take away author's rights under copyright laws.
Well to be really really fair one would have to clarify that although they DID lobby the government on the book copyright issue prior to 2008, but it didn't help them and they lost a lawsuit with the book authors and had to pay $125 million in fines. Since that time they are working under a mutually agreed set of licensing arrangements that complies with the provisions of the ruling.
It's sad -- but I figure Google is being smarter here.
The course we'd like Principles to rule the day -- but it's clear that if everyone was a lobbyist or a layer for the crooks before they got their government appointment -- then money is going to "keep them honest" a lot more than depending on the facts.
Well to be really really fair one would have to clarify that although they DID lobby the government on the book copyright issue prior to 2008, but it didn't help them and they lost a lawsuit with the book authors and had to pay $125 million in fines. Since that time they are working under a mutually agreed set of licensing arrangements that complies with the provisions of the ruling.
They're still trying to get the government to legislate new rules that would require the authors to opt out rather than opt in.
They're still trying to get the government to legislate new rules that would require the authors to opt out rather than opt in.
I was just reading up on that. I think the opt in vs opt out only applies to orphan books where the copyright holder is unknown, otherwise the rules are in compliance with the original terms for books for which the copyright holder is known. Even in this case though Google lost so they are back to the original settlement rules.
I think Verizon actually decided to voluntarily adopt 90% of Google's free open Internet demands. The small concessions were related to specialized services that did not in any way affect the public Internet. When first reported, inaccurate sensationalism was buzzing that Google had switch teams.Those false allegations were clogging up the media when in fact it was instead a win for net neutrality, not a loss. Through small compromises Google was able to establish enforceable standards which since that time Sprint has also agreed to.
Neither Google or the Internet using public has anything to gain from the carriers overturning net neutrality. Google needs fast access to the Internet without unfair restrictions placed on them by the carriers. The carriers are really a dumb pipe except they want to also play in the application game. It would be totally unfair for them to block traffic on the public Internet to gain a market position advantage. It is a complicated topic with a lot of stake holders but the US government is supposed to be looking out for the public interest not the corporate interest.
It just happens that in this case Google's interest align with the public interest, not by any compassion on Google's part but that they both would be harmed by carriers blocking selective Internet traffic.
My understanding was that everything you say is true, but only for the wired internet, and that wireless (e.g. Cellular) internet access would be unrestricted. It doesn’t seem too hard to envision a world that has a higher reliance on wireless over wired internet access (particularly for the general public). I do seem to recall that some of the more staunch NN proponents being rather upset; it wasn't just media sensationalism.
It costs a lot more to defend lies, about lies, on top of lies, told about half truths. Google has turned into such a pathetic liar and poor excuse for a company.
Hey to add you guys are talking about lobbying, Google just sent a letter to the DOJ that says that if they rip off apples private patents and use them and they become popular then they should become a standards patent automatically and apple should be forced to license them to everyone for standards based patent fees or FRAND what a thief and carpet bagger company.
If that is the case then because googles search algorithm is so popular it should become a standard and they should be forced to license it to microsoft for bing, and yahoo for there search engine and anyone else who needs to use it.
My understanding was that everything you say is true, but only for the wired internet, and that wireless (e.g. Cellular) internet access would be unrestricted. It doesn’t seem too hard to envision a world that has a higher reliance on wireless over wired internet access (particularly for the general public). I do seem to recall that some of the more staunch NN proponents being rather upset; it wasn't just media sensationalism.
The agreement did recognize that wireless networks require much more management due to the limited availability of the spectrum but the stipulation was to leave it basically unregulated except with the provision that the FCC could easily step in with fines and restrictions should the carriers start behaving in an anti-competitive manner or unfairly blocking the public Internet.
Even through the initial request and final response could be over the air, the main speed factors that would limit a company like Google would be the bandwidth to its data centers where the application is actually running.
I was just reading up on that. I think the opt in vs opt out only applies to orphan books where the copyright holder is unknown, otherwise the rules are in compliance with the original terms for books for which the copyright holder is known. Even in this case though Google lost so they are back to the original settlement rules.
So you're admitting that they ARE trying to change the copyright laws in their favor - which is exactly what I was saying.
As for your interpretation, even if it's not correct, why should Google have the right to sell copyrighted work without permission? Even if they can't find the author, they don't have the right to steal the work. (Not to mention, of course, that the proposed rules allow them to make only the most cursory effort to find the author, anyway). Google sends their receptionist to holler out the front door "would the author of XXXXXX please come forward?" and if no one comes forward within 30 seconds, they can claim that they couldn't find the copyright holder.
As for your interpretation, even if it's not correct, why should Google have the right to sell copyrighted work without permission? Even if they can't find the author, they don't have the right to steal the work.
The argument they make is that if the copyright holder cannot be found with a reasonable effort then they should be able to reproduce the article based on the logic that withholding the academic information is a loss to mankind because the withholding of the documents does not benefit either the unknown copyright holder or the academic community.
Yes it is true that nearly half the books ever published fall into this orphan category which is the treasure trove they wish to exploit, nevertheless, I would be interested in reading and being able to search them.
OK. First explain why lobbying makes Google evil when there are few companies that don't lobby? Even Apple does it, just to less extent than Google.
Because Google spends so much and are so large that they should take all responsibility for lobbying. Kinda like Apple takes all the blame for labor policies in China.
Comparing the lobbying expenditures of the two companies is pointless. They are very different companies and have different interests to protect. All companies spend too much to influence legislators and stifle competition. Corporations are not people.
It is a complicated topic with a lot of stake holders but the US government is supposed to be looking out for the public interest not the corporate interest.
"Supposed to be" being the operative phrase. In reality, the US government looks out for the interests of the US government. The politicians and bureaucrats don't care about the public or corporations. They care about maximizing their personal power over everything else in the world, occasionally making speeches and issuing press releases designed to con you into thinking it's for your own good.
The government that governs best is the one that governs least.
$4 million buys a lot of postage stamps. Unless we're talking about corruption.
I remember the government a few years ago voting that giving money to politicians isn't corruption because "money is speech" and talking of freedom of speech. They can distort anything that works in their favor.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Unless the player walks around with the motto "don't be evil" tattooed on his chest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Someone has got to balance out all of the lobbying done by the RIAA and MPAA.
Apple did. The right way. That game is over. (Assuming you don't want to do illegal things, of course)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodstains
You're joking right? Didn't Google team up with Verizon and sell out on Network Neutrality?
I think Verizon actually decided to voluntarily adopt 90% of Google's free open Internet demands. The small concessions were related to specialized services that did not in any way affect the public Internet. When first reported, inaccurate sensationalism was buzzing that Google had switch teams.Those false allegations were clogging up the media when in fact it was instead a win for net neutrality, not a loss. Through small compromises Google was able to establish enforceable standards which since that time Sprint has also agreed to.
Neither Google or the Internet using public has anything to gain from the carriers overturning net neutrality. Google needs fast access to the Internet without unfair restrictions placed on them by the carriers. The carriers are really a dumb pipe except they want to also play in the application game. It would be totally unfair for them to block traffic on the public Internet to gain a market position advantage. It is a complicated topic with a lot of stake holders but the US government is supposed to be looking out for the public interest not the corporate interest.
It just happens that in this case Google's interest align with the public interest, not by any compassion on Google's part but that they both would be harmed by carriers blocking selective Internet traffic.
To be really fair, Google was also lobbying to take away author's rights under copyright laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
To be really fair, Google was also lobbying to take away author's rights under copyright laws.
Well to be really really fair one would have to clarify that although they DID lobby the government on the book copyright issue prior to 2008, but it didn't help them and they lost a lawsuit with the book authors and had to pay $125 million in fines. Since that time they are working under a mutually agreed set of licensing arrangements that complies with the provisions of the ruling.
It's sad -- but I figure Google is being smarter here.
The course we'd like Principles to rule the day -- but it's clear that if everyone was a lobbyist or a layer for the crooks before they got their government appointment -- then money is going to "keep them honest" a lot more than depending on the facts.
They're still trying to get the government to legislate new rules that would require the authors to opt out rather than opt in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
They're still trying to get the government to legislate new rules that would require the authors to opt out rather than opt in.
I was just reading up on that. I think the opt in vs opt out only applies to orphan books where the copyright holder is unknown, otherwise the rules are in compliance with the original terms for books for which the copyright holder is known. Even in this case though Google lost so they are back to the original settlement rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I think Verizon actually decided to voluntarily adopt 90% of Google's free open Internet demands. The small concessions were related to specialized services that did not in any way affect the public Internet. When first reported, inaccurate sensationalism was buzzing that Google had switch teams.Those false allegations were clogging up the media when in fact it was instead a win for net neutrality, not a loss. Through small compromises Google was able to establish enforceable standards which since that time Sprint has also agreed to.
Neither Google or the Internet using public has anything to gain from the carriers overturning net neutrality. Google needs fast access to the Internet without unfair restrictions placed on them by the carriers. The carriers are really a dumb pipe except they want to also play in the application game. It would be totally unfair for them to block traffic on the public Internet to gain a market position advantage. It is a complicated topic with a lot of stake holders but the US government is supposed to be looking out for the public interest not the corporate interest.
It just happens that in this case Google's interest align with the public interest, not by any compassion on Google's part but that they both would be harmed by carriers blocking selective Internet traffic.
My understanding was that everything you say is true, but only for the wired internet, and that wireless (e.g. Cellular) internet access would be unrestricted. It doesn’t seem too hard to envision a world that has a higher reliance on wireless over wired internet access (particularly for the general public). I do seem to recall that some of the more staunch NN proponents being rather upset; it wasn't just media sensationalism.
It costs a lot more to defend lies, about lies, on top of lies, told about half truths. Google has turned into such a pathetic liar and poor excuse for a company.
Hey to add you guys are talking about lobbying, Google just sent a letter to the DOJ that says that if they rip off apples private patents and use them and they become popular then they should become a standards patent automatically and apple should be forced to license them to everyone for standards based patent fees or FRAND what a thief and carpet bagger company.
If that is the case then because googles search algorithm is so popular it should become a standard and they should be forced to license it to microsoft for bing, and yahoo for there search engine and anyone else who needs to use it.
How would they feel about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodstains
My understanding was that everything you say is true, but only for the wired internet, and that wireless (e.g. Cellular) internet access would be unrestricted. It doesn’t seem too hard to envision a world that has a higher reliance on wireless over wired internet access (particularly for the general public). I do seem to recall that some of the more staunch NN proponents being rather upset; it wasn't just media sensationalism.
The agreement did recognize that wireless networks require much more management due to the limited availability of the spectrum but the stipulation was to leave it basically unregulated except with the provision that the FCC could easily step in with fines and restrictions should the carriers start behaving in an anti-competitive manner or unfairly blocking the public Internet.
Even through the initial request and final response could be over the air, the main speed factors that would limit a company like Google would be the bandwidth to its data centers where the application is actually running.
Google's new mantra: "Go ahead and be evil... in moderation."
So you're admitting that they ARE trying to change the copyright laws in their favor - which is exactly what I was saying.
As for your interpretation, even if it's not correct, why should Google have the right to sell copyrighted work without permission? Even if they can't find the author, they don't have the right to steal the work. (Not to mention, of course, that the proposed rules allow them to make only the most cursory effort to find the author, anyway). Google sends their receptionist to holler out the front door "would the author of XXXXXX please come forward?" and if no one comes forward within 30 seconds, they can claim that they couldn't find the copyright holder.
Apple already has Al Gore, former VP of the US, on its board. Steve Jobs was known to have been a close friend of the Clintons.
I don't see why Apple has to spend any money on lobbying when some of his buddies are also powerful political figures in US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
As for your interpretation, even if it's not correct, why should Google have the right to sell copyrighted work without permission? Even if they can't find the author, they don't have the right to steal the work.
The argument they make is that if the copyright holder cannot be found with a reasonable effort then they should be able to reproduce the article based on the logic that withholding the academic information is a loss to mankind because the withholding of the documents does not benefit either the unknown copyright holder or the academic community.
Yes it is true that nearly half the books ever published fall into this orphan category which is the treasure trove they wish to exploit, nevertheless, I would be interested in reading and being able to search them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival
OK. First explain why lobbying makes Google evil when there are few companies that don't lobby? Even Apple does it, just to less extent than Google.
Because Google spends so much and are so large that they should take all responsibility for lobbying. Kinda like Apple takes all the blame for labor policies in China.
All companies spend too much to influence legislators and stifle competition.
Corporations are not people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
It is a complicated topic with a lot of stake holders but the US government is supposed to be looking out for the public interest not the corporate interest.
"Supposed to be" being the operative phrase. In reality, the US government looks out for the interests of the US government. The politicians and bureaucrats don't care about the public or corporations. They care about maximizing their personal power over everything else in the world, occasionally making speeches and issuing press releases designed to con you into thinking it's for your own good.
The government that governs best is the one that governs least.
$4 million buys a lot of postage stamps. Unless we're talking about corruption.
I remember the government a few years ago voting that giving money to politicians isn't corruption because "money is speech" and talking of freedom of speech. They can distort anything that works in their favor.