Google Boss: We?ll Fight Anti-Piracy Blocking Laws

[gideongallery]

During a speech on Wednesday, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt said that proposals from both the U.S. and British governments to block access to file-sharing websites would threaten freedom of speech. Google, he said, is opposed to such measures and will fight them, presumably in court, if necessary.

http://torrentfreak.com/google-boss-...g-laws-110519/

[Oracle Porn]

biggest porn and warez site in the world = google

[seeandsee]

google traffic would drop a lot , so they are fight not for free speech, but for themselfs

[gideongallery]

google traffic would drop a lot , so they are fight not for free speech, but for themselfs

and you think the copyright holders fighting for this law are doing it for the public good

if the copyright holders cared about free speech at all they would have put a counter clause within the proposed bill that put their content into the public domain if they made a bogus complaint.

that would have at least proven they took the free speech danger into account when they demanded all these new rights/protections.

only copyright holders who would abuse the new protections would complain about such a clause since it won't effect those copyright holders who do proper due dillegence on their complaints.

[iamtam]

its the old "no tits no hits" thing in a modern way. google finally admits they profit grandly from copyright violations.

[Klen]

He is idiot,google would have much much bigger profit if they would actually do something against piracy.

[Barefootsies]

Sweet justice.

This copyright battle will have Google on the forefront and a lot of how the web works if going to be redefined by the time it's all over. You think the Feds are going to crush Google with traditional copyright law rulings?

[L-Pink]

It's real funny to hear people talk about how the property of others should be theirs to easily access and use for free or base a business and turn a profit off of.

Maybe the people that need to adapt or die are the ones that need to creat/produce their own product or die.

[DamianJ]

He is idiot,google would have much much bigger profit if they would actually do something against piracy.

Yeah. Total idiot. Hasn't got a clue. That's why he's doing what he's doing and you're, well, not.

[woj]

He is idiot,google would have much much bigger profit if they would actually do something against piracy.

I'm pretty sure they know what they are doing...

[adamz]

He is idiot,google would have much much bigger profit if they would actually do something against piracy.

hahhahahaha

[Fletch XXX]

i dont care whos cock it is, as long as its fucking the government,

[merina0803]

janice dickinson so hot

[gideongallery]

It's real funny to hear people talk about how the property of others should be theirs to easily access and use for free or base a business and turn a profit off of.

Maybe the people that need to adapt or die are the ones that need to creat/produce their own product or die.

no what funny is when people who are protected by a law that takes away normal propery rights from buyers complain about their "property' rights being violated.

copyright law prevents people from doing all the shit they would normally allowed to do with any other piece of property they could buy.

Copyright law voids property rights completely replacing them with the concept of liciencing of USE of the property as an alternative income stream.

and it grants this new fucked up business model in exchange for the copyright holder giving up all rights for what the COURTS (not the copyright holders )define as fair use

[L-Pink]

No one makes you purchase their property. If you don't agree then don't buy it. MAKE YOUR OWN.

[CaptainHowdy]

janice dickinson so hot

[Caligari]

amazing how los ignorantes equate "freedom of speech" with theft. this issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech and google knows it, and they will eventually lose as they should.

[gideongallery]

amazing how los ignorantes equate "freedom of speech" with theft. this issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech and google knows it, and they will eventually lose as they should.

really so would you support adding a clause to the new law that put every copyright owned by the company making the complaint into the public domain, if they make even 1 bogus claim.

[woj]

really so would you support adding a clause to the new law that put every copyright owned by the company making the complaint into the public domain, if they make even 1 bogus claim.

are you serious dude? So some company makes 1000s of complaints per year... one of them happens to be a mistake, so then they should lose the rights to the content? that's ridiculous...

what makes you think they should lose the rights to content that they created under any circumstances? It's like saying you should lose your car if you get caught speeding once...

[gideongallery]

No one makes you purchase their property. If you don't agree then don't buy it. MAKE YOUR OWN.

IDIOT under copyright law you never purchase "their" property you purchase a licience to view.

I would love to purchase their property, i would have the right to do what i want with it if i could, just like any other property i could own.

the absurdity of your arguement is you clearly understand the difference,

if you bought a car you don't have to agree to terms of use for that car to make the purchase

no car manufacturer could demand that you make your own car, if you don't agree to our terms of use because the car is covered by normal property rights.


the only reason you can make such demand is because copyright law strips property rights away from the buyer of your content.

copyright changes that game completely, you need to stop equating it to property rights because it the exact opposite.

[marlboroack]

Hey Google, your being a cock block.

[gideongallery]

are you serious dude? So some company makes 1000s of complaints per year... one of them happens to be a mistake, so then they should lose the rights to the content? that's ridiculous...

your talking about the 1st ammendment right of free speech that is being hurt by such a bogus complaint.

your talking about taking away someone elses constitutionally guarrenteed right with a congress created law

and if you expect the law to be abused there no way you should grant copyright holders that 1st ammendment squashing power.

what makes you think they should lose the rights to content that they created under any circumstances? It's like saying you should lose your car if you get caught speeding once...

nope because when you speed your not taking away anyone constitutionally guarrenteed right.

[gideongallery]

what makes you think they should lose the rights to content that they created under any circumstances? It's like saying you should lose your car if you get caught speeding once...

oh and btw putting your shit into the public domain doesn't take the content away from you

you can still sell the content (just like anyone else)

you just lose the right to stop other people from selling it

in that sense it like losing your licience to drive (which you can do if your caught speeding in a residential area)

[L-Pink]

IDIOT under copyright law you never purchase "their" property you purchase a licience to view.

I would love to purchase their property, i would have the right to do what i want with it if i could, just like any other property i could own.

the absurdity of your arguement is you clearly understand the difference,

if you bought a car you don't have to agree to terms of use for that car to make the purchase

no car manufacturer could demand that you make your own car, if you don't agree to our terms of use because the car is covered by normal property rights.


the only reason you can make such demand is because copyright law strips property rights away from the buyer of your content.

copyright changes that game completely, you need to stop equating it to property rights because it the exact opposite.

I was using the term "purchase" like I just bought photoshop or the new Alice in Chains song, in everyday language no one uses the term "licensed" Way to dodge my point.


.

[blackmonsters]

It's real funny to hear people talk about how the property of others should be theirs to easily access and use for free or base a business and turn a profit off of.

Maybe the people that need to adapt or die are the ones that need to creat/produce their own product or die.

The thing is that they could do plenty without creating anything if they wouldn't go so
far overboard and actually do everything possible to prevent the original creators
from making a dime off their own stuff.

For example, the original Napster format; they insisted on not giving the music industry
even a penny per song. Then went to court and spent that much to get fucked.

The biggest problem with infringement is that the infringing parties are so selfish and
greedy that they turn "fair use" into "fucking abuse".

It's that "sense of entitlement", they are entitled to abuse your shit.
If they were not so arrogant and entitled then they would actually pay a penny
and there wouldn't be much of an issue.

Greedy motherfuckers ruin everything.

Look at adult :

- pay per click
- traffic trading
- gallery posting
- pay pal
- visa

All these things were either restricted or shut down because of greedy people
cheating and disrespecting the rules.

In the old days the only thing a webmaster had to do to make 1000's of dollars
was to put up some porn and not cheat. But that was just too hard for some people.

Greed, it's only good until every easy way to make money gets shut down to
stop the greed.

[blackmonsters]

no what funny is when people who are protected by a law that takes away normal propery rights from buyers complain about their "property' rights being violated.

copyright law prevents people from doing all the shit they would normally allowed to do with any other piece of property they could buy.

Copyright law voids property rights completely replacing them with the concept of liciencing of USE of the property as an alternative income stream.

and it grants this new fucked up business model in exchange for the copyright holder giving up all rights for what the COURTS (not the copyright holders )define as fair use

OK, then go buy a Corvette which is normal property.
Now take your new space age machine that can copy the corvette and spit out
a fully working 100% copy of it. Now spit out 60 million corvettes and give them
away for free and see what happens.

[merina0803]

[Robbie]

The thing is that they could do plenty without creating anything if they wouldn't go so
far overboard and actually do everything possible to prevent the original creators
from making a dime off their own stuff.

For example, the original Napster format; they insisted on not giving the music industry
even a penny per song. Then went to court and spent that much to get fucked.

The biggest problem with infringement is that the infringing parties are so selfish and
greedy that they turn "fair use" into "fucking abuse".

It's that "sense of entitlement", they are entitled to abuse your shit.
If they were not so arrogant and entitled then they would actually pay a penny
and there wouldn't be much of an issue.

Greedy motherfuckers ruin everything.

Look at adult :

- pay per click
- traffic trading
- gallery posting
- pay pal
- visa

All these things were either restricted or shut down because of greedy people
cheating and disrespecting the rules.

In the old days the only thing a webmaster had to do to make 1000's of dollars
was to put up some porn and not cheat. But that was just too hard for some people.

Greed, it's only good until every easy way to make money gets shut down to
stop the greed.

That is an excellent post that sums up well what has happened.

[gideongallery]

OK, then go buy a Corvette which is normal property.
Now take your new space age machine that can copy the corvette and spit out
a fully working 100% copy of it. Now spit out 60 million corvettes and give them
away for free and see what happens.

that a justification for having a different business model which strips away normal property rights in exchange for a licience to use

not a justification to misrepresent the licience to use model as a normal property issue.

[L-Pink]

that a justification for having a different business model which strips away normal property rights in exchange for a licience to use

not a justification to misrepresent the licience to use model as a normal property issue.

I'm not stoned enough to understand your answer.


.

[gideongallery]

I was using the term "purchase" like I just bought photoshop or the new Alice in Chains song, in everyday language no one uses the term "licensed" Way to dodge my point.


.

your point was that if you didn't like the LICIENCING terms you should just make your own


my point which you deliberately dodge was

no car manufacturer could demand that you make your own car, if you don't agree to our terms of use because the car is covered by normal property rights.


the only reason you can make such demand is because copyright law strips property rights away from the buyer of your content.

copyright changes that game completely, you need to stop equating it to property rights because it the exact opposite.

your arguing for property rights to exist for a context where the law takes property rights away for your benefit

[Caligari]

look gidiot, you're supporting theft and calling it freedom of speech or fair use or other phrases of complete bullshit. you will not successfully re-invent the meanings of words in a court of law. theft is theft. you either get permission to use a copyrighted work or get ready to suffer the consequences. its that simple.

they are beating file sharing websites right and left and eventually anyone stupid enough to go to court such as google. you are wrong and you know it.

get over it.

[Klen]

Anyway,when it comes to piracy,i dont support lawsuits and jail times for downloading pirated content,i would simply cut sources of traffic and seize all pirate domains.Going after users it's simply un affective,it's like busting a drug user while letting drug dealer to continue operating.

[L-Pink]

Anyway,when it comes to piracy,i dont support lawsuits and jail times for downloading pirated content,i would simply cut sources of traffic and seize all pirate domains.Going after users it's simply un affective,it's like busting a drug user while letting drug dealer to continue operating.

I do support prosecuting anyone who made money off of someone else's property.

[blackmonsters]

I'm not stoned enough to understand your answer.


.

Neither am I.

WTF?

This is what I looked like after reading his reply :

[Klen]

I do support prosecuting anyone who made money off of someone else's property.

Well yes but i was referring to ordinary users who download pirate content because they dont want to pay for it,not because they make money with it.

[blackmonsters]

Anyway,when it comes to piracy,i dont support lawsuits and jail times for downloading pirated content,i would simply cut sources of traffic and seize all pirate domains.Going after users it's simply un affective,it's like busting a drug user while letting drug dealer to continue operating.

Well let me know when the cops stop busting drug users and then I'll give a shit
about illegal downloaders.

[gideongallery]

look gidiot, you're supporting theft and calling it freedom of speech or fair use or other phrases of complete bullshit. you will not successfully re-invent the meanings of words in a court of law. theft is theft. you either get permission to use a copyrighted work or get ready to suffer the consequences. its that simple.

they are beating file sharing websites right and left and eventually anyone stupid enough to go to court such as google. you are wrong and you know it.

get over it.

the problem you have is that every law created by congress must comply with the constitution

as long as copyright holders like Woj admit that they could "mistakenly" use the powers granted to censor free speech there is no way the law will survive that appeals process.

the current policy of simply demanding that the penalty for making a bogus claim is the complete revocation of all copyrights is a really powerful technique because the act of objecting to that policy, proves that the act violates the constitution.

[Klen]

Well let me know when the cops stop busting drug users and then I'll give a shit
about illegal downloaders.

It's all about priorities ;)

[gideongallery]

Neither am I.

WTF?

This is what I looked like after reading his reply :

I'm not stoned enough to understand your answer.


.

i will speak down to you so you can understand

copyright and property laws are different so you should not use property law terms to justify your position


your insanely stupid arguement is because they are different (you can't copy a corvette like you can an mp3) they should be the same.


the fact that they are different is a reason why the laws governing their operation SHOULD be different.

[L-Pink]

Fuck off you cheap cunt.

[L-Pink]

Can we hear again how you once bought a FLOCK OF SEAGULLS 8 track so now you are entitled to download the same version digitally for free.

[kane]

Can we hear again how you once bought a FLOCK OF SEAGULLS 8 track so now you are entitled to download the same version digitally for free.

I'd like to hear that too. In the 80's I was in high school and bought dozens of cassettes. Over the years they were destroyed, wore out or got lost. This means I get to download all those albums free now right?

[L-Pink]

I'd like to hear that too. In the 80's I was in high school and bought dozens of cassettes. Over the years they were destroyed, wore out or got lost. This means I get to download all those albums free now right?

Only if you are to cheap/broke to pay for them.

.

[kane]

Only if you are to cheap/broke to pay for them.

.

Somehow I have a feeling Gideon will tell us that we are entitled to free downloads.

[halfpint]

I hope google fight this all the way and waste so much money on doing so that they can no longer dominate the search engines. It would be such a blessing because they are one of the biggest advocates of content theft. Iv said this before that google is one of the biggest problems of content theft and we all support google in one way or the other. I would dance naked on my keyboard and slap my balls on the screen when the mighty google falls. I know this will ever be likly to happen for a very long time, but one can always dream about it

So A Big Fat Fuck To Google

[blackmonsters]

i will speak down to you so you can understand


your insanely stupid arguement is because they are different (you can't copy a corvette like you can an mp3) they should be the same.

Hmmmmmm, anyone remember my earlier post where I mentioned that arrogance
was the problem?




>>"you can't copy a corvette like you can an mp3"

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH?

So the corvette design is not "copyrighted"?

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

God damn! I'm being "ed-jew-makated" today.




Please rap the following lyrics to a serious hip hop beat :

Gidiot is a Fidiot
Gidiot is a Fidiot
Gidiot is a Fidiot
Fuck Fuck Fuck

Gidiot is a Fidiot
Gidiot is a Fidiot
Gidiot is a Fidiot
Fuck Fuck Fuck

Yeahhhhhhhhh! Boyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

(add superfluous vinyl scratching here)

repeat verse.

Fade out:

Yeah yeah yeah.
Break it on down.

......

[gideongallery]

[

Hmmmmmm, anyone remember my earlier post where I mentioned that arrogance
was the problem?




>>"you can't copy a corvette like you can an mp3"

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH?

So the corvette design is not "copyrighted"?

......

your exact word

OK, then go buy a Corvette which is normal property.
Now take your new space age machine that can copy the corvette and spit out
a fully working 100% copy of it. Now spit out 60 million corvettes and give them
away for free and see what happens.

you will notice neither of us said corvette DESIGN

we both said corvette as in the physical good that actually has property rights associated with it.

the design is IP which is in the area of no property rights, but liciencing rights instead

btw

you might want to look up the differences between patent law and copyright law because even your misrepresentations are completely wrong.

[gideongallery]

Can we hear again how you once bought a FLOCK OF SEAGULLS 8 track so now you are entitled to download the same version digitally for free.

I'd like to hear that too. In the 80's I was in high school and bought dozens of cassettes. Over the years they were destroyed, wore out or got lost. This means I get to download all those albums free now right?

why is it so hard for you to understand that simply eliminating your "right" to stop me if i choose to do something does not represent me being entitled to do something

just because i can do something legally doesn't entitle me to benefit if it is not provided.

And there is nothing to stop as the copyright holder from fullfilling that need and collecting the revenue that the pirates are currently getting.

all we are talking about is eliminating the "Right" to stop people from doing it IF you choose not to.

[blackmonsters]

you will notice neither of us said corvette DESIGN

we both said corvette as in the physical good that actually has property rights associated with it.

Ok, so now we can copy a corvette without copying the corvette design?