201
General Chat / Re: Google's Quest for World Dominance
« on: May 23, 2011, 11:15:43 AM »
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/22/the-protect-ip-act-googles-eric-schmidt-squares-off-against-ri/
Google trying to stand up to a corporate sponsored law that would allow the government to step in and shut down any website it deems guilty of copyright infringement. As much as I would like to spout off about how corporations are unduly influencing the government, let's try to look at this only from a Google vs. The MPAA and RIAA standpoint.
What Google CEO Eric Schmidt said:
The MPAA response:
The RIAA response:
I'm glad to see Google (who does seem to be trying to take over the world) is on the side of the consumer, noncensorship, and technology. This Protect IP bill is way too far overreaching, and could potentially allow for the shut down of website who did nothing wrong at all. What if Youtube could be shutdown for sharing a copyrighted video, just when it so happens that another video was posted showing some sort of government misdeeds? It is a far too overreaching solution for what is a truly complex problem. Hopefully Google can use its influence and money to better this bill.
Google trying to stand up to a corporate sponsored law that would allow the government to step in and shut down any website it deems guilty of copyright infringement. As much as I would like to spout off about how corporations are unduly influencing the government, let's try to look at this only from a Google vs. The MPAA and RIAA standpoint.
What Google CEO Eric Schmidt said:
Quote
If there is a law that requires DNS [domain name systems, the protocol that allows users to connect to Web sites], to do x, and it's passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States, and we disagree with it, then we would still fight it...If it's a request, the answer is we wouldn't do it; if it's a discussion, we wouldn't do it.
The MPAA response:
Quote
In April, Google senior vice president and general counsel Kent Walker testified before Congress that ‘Google supports developing effective policy and technology tools to combat large-scale commercial infringement.’ That’s exactly what the PROTECT IP Act is designed to do – it creates a narrowly-drawn, carefully constructed solution to the threat to American jobs and America’s economy, a solution that protects and strengthens our right to free speech. As constitutional law expert Floyd Abrams wrote, ‘[c]opyright violations are not protected by the First Amendment.’
Is Eric Schmidt really suggesting that if Congress passes a law and President Obama signs it, Google wouldn’t follow it? As an American company respected around the world, it’s unfortunate that, at least according to its executive chairman’s comments, Google seems to think it’s above America’s laws.
We’ve heard this ‘but the law doesn’t apply to me’ argument before – but usually, it comes from content thieves, not a Fortune 500 company. Google should know better. And the notion that China would use a bi-partisan, narrowly tailored bill as a pretext for censorship is laughable, as Google knows, China does what China does.
The RIAA response:
Quote
The head of a multi-billion dollar leading American company openly suggesting they would defy the will of Congress AND the President? This on the heels of Google’s General Counsel’s testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives where he pledged his company’s commitment to fighting online theft. It’s no surprise creators’ rights groups have expressed outrage in response to his comments (see here and here). We’ve expressed our own bewilderment as well:
"This is baffling. As a legitimate company, Google has a responsibility to not benefit from criminal activity. In substance and spirit, this contradicts the recent testimony of Google's General Counsel that the company takes copyright theft seriously and was willing to step up to the plate in a cooperative and serious way."
I'm glad to see Google (who does seem to be trying to take over the world) is on the side of the consumer, noncensorship, and technology. This Protect IP bill is way too far overreaching, and could potentially allow for the shut down of website who did nothing wrong at all. What if Youtube could be shutdown for sharing a copyrighted video, just when it so happens that another video was posted showing some sort of government misdeeds? It is a far too overreaching solution for what is a truly complex problem. Hopefully Google can use its influence and money to better this bill.



I think it would be interesting if the Cafe controller was a console in and of itself, with a screen, RAM, and CPU/GPU capable of running apps, CafeWare, and pre-Wii VC games. Obviously, cost and battery life are the major hurdles, but that could theoretically be the fabled 3rd pillar. That could also potentially cannibalize 3DS sales so I'm not sure that Nintendo would want to do that. I'm not sure a 3rd pillar is sustainable, even if it was primarily a support pillar for Cafe. 