Sunday, September 28, 2008
Google, Internet Users Push Back Against U.S. Copyright Treaty
Bloomberg.com: U.S.: "Internet companies led by Google Inc. joined groups representing Web users in challenging the Bush administration's bid to toughen international enforcement against copyright pirates."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I think it's great that companies are pushing the government to do something about this. Being that our country does so little for the arts and all they should at least make it so that people have to see or hear art. I am 100% positive that if I wanted an album pretty much any album I could use a group of words to find it using google. And even though I occasionally do this I still go out and buy cds. A lot of people I know just use this to get 100% of their music giving 0 money to the actual artists. I think however that even if google is able to make it so that people can't use it to find these pirate sites there are a hundred other search engines that people will just go to.
I love the line `There's this assumption that what is good for Disney is what's good for America' especially since Disney has historically had a strong influence on the way current copyright laws are.
I hadn't really thought about it but aren't Google, yahoo, etc just as entitled to provide or limit their services as they see fit. Especially with the idea of freedom of speech, information, etc. I'm not saying I don't believe things need to be done to curb piracy but Its just something I never thought of.
It's too easy to find files for free that you really should be paying for. All the music I have is legal (or close to it) mainly because I need good files. The fear I have is that if google limits searches, I won't be able to find thing in queries that are close to something that sounds pirated.
Why is Google responsible for what their search engine pulls up? They should not be responsible for monitoring what their search engine pulls up. The government and this trade agreement group should be going after and blocking people who have illegal content on their web sties. I am glad that Google has decided to fight this, for whatever their reasons. I think the copyright laws should be enforced, but not by the people who are not responsible for them. And the government is walking a very fine line of the free exchange of information... Lets see what they will do to mess that up too.
I agree in that it's wrong to want to force the search engine companies to work with the slime balls like the RIAA. The RIAA has become this radical phenomena. They just don't get that the internet is not owned by the US, and that the it should be open to all for use in anyway. Want to stop pirates? Show stuff for free and then sell the high quality versions. It's been working like a charm so far, why not just accept the model and move on. There are plenty of other models that work besides solely relying on shepherding art that is meant to be spread among the masses. /rant.
I may be interpreting this article differently from the other commenters here, but I'm more inclined to see the issue as one of internet openness versus the ability to pirate copyrighted material. Attempts to cut down on piracy have completely backfired when they attempt to throttle technology instead of embracing it.
Google and Yahoo provide a service; they are not in the business of marketing and selling copyrighted material and should not be forced to conform to the whims of those who do.
Attacking exchange of information is ultimately unhelpful to a creative environment. Fair use is all but forgotten under the DMCA. I don't want to see my ability to enjoy media completely dictated by a financial institution.
Internet search engines should not be held accountable for piracy laws. There are always goig to be those individuals who chose to defy the system. Putting the responsibility on the search engines seems like the government’s lazy solution to this very complex situation. I am happy to see that they are fighting back on this.
The internet is such an intangible and constantly changing landscape that it is hard for laws to clearly and cleanly apply to it. While I do agree that crack down on copyrighted material should remain under the control of the owner, I don't like the fact that this law seems to be geared towards a total clampdown that would hinder the creative abilities of the internet. The phrase "what's good for disney is what is best for america" is scary in the sense that the creative commons provided by the internet would die because one company want's to protect its own assets. The ideal solution would be some wort of treaty or a very well written law that allows for flexibility but still upholding the law. I hav no idea if such a thing is even possible.
It strikes me as scary that these closed-door negotiations might be establishing more direct paths between copyright holders and ISP's and others (previously "safe harbors") who merely act as a conduit. Without this channel going through the judicial system or a special agency, it seems likely that it could turn out like DMCA takedown notices again, with private companies often acting irresponsibly and over zealously and many fair use and legitimate uses suffering from side effects. If there's going to be yet another pathway for people to limit my speech on the internet, I would much prefer the government be involved with some level of transparency than giant multi-nation companies.
Post a Comment