House Hearing On File Sharing Turns Into 'But Why Can't Google Magically Stop All Bad Things Online' Hearing

from the no-surprise-there dept

Wed, Apr 6th 2011 1:36pm — Mike Masnick

You kind of knew where things were heading when the House decided to have pre-COICA hearings on what websites can do to deal with copyright infringement -- especially when they titled it "Promoting Investment and Protecting Commerce Online: Legitimate Sites v. Parasites." The very fact that they're presupposing certain sites as "parasites," suggests this hearing was not about reasoned discussion (is any Congressional hearing ever really about that?), but about pointing fingers, and the key finger pointing was directly at Google. I'll have a separate post on the "prepared remarks" of the various speakers, but the Congressional Reps in attendance apparently focused most of their attention on Google, wondering why it's not magically stopping infringement online.

"The question isn't what Google has done," [Rep. Bob] Goodlatte told the audience. "But more about what Google has left to do."

He listed some of the accusations that some in the entertainment industries have leveled at Google, such as the ability of the alleged pirate sites to fund their operations by posting Google ads on their site, as well as an inability by Google to remove infringing materials promptly.

Note what he did not do, which is point out that Google has gone significantly beyond what the law requires to help copyright holders. It's even set up ways for them to directly monetize content when it's found to be infringing online. You would think that helping copyright holders monetize is more important than "stopping infringement," but somehow no one ever seems to think that way. Also note that Goodlatte simply took the (mostly false) accusations by the entertainment industry as fact -- and didn't seem to pay attention to the fact that almost none of the accusations were accurate.

Of course, the real crux of the argument is this belief that Google can somehow wave a magic wand and make infringement disappear online. It's technological cluelessness at its most extreme. Google has a long history of responding quickly to take down notices and (in our opinion) bending over backwards, far beyond what the law requires, to help copyright holders both defend their rights and to make money. The idea that Google "profits" from infringement has simply not been shown at all. The entertainment industry has this weird belief that anywhere AdSense ads are displayed, that massive profits follow. This is simply incorrect. But, even if it were true, how is Google to know what is and what is not infringing? It's a simple question and no one answers it, other than to say, "it's obvious." Then when it's pointed out that it's not at all obvious, they go quiet.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, hearings, infringement
Companies: google

66 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 1:41pm

You mean Google isn't the internet? Someone should tell Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 1:46pm
  
  Re:
  We've tried. They love their payola too damn much.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:04pm
  
  Re:
  but they are the government for the internet right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:25pm
  
  Re:
  Telling congress truth is like telling a ostrich it doesnt help when the head is in the sand.
  
  You cant reason with these people, they are bought to be ignorant and the people who pay them except them to do that job, they do it well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:40pm
  
  Re:
  What they really mean is that Google hasn't invited them enough expensive diners and paid holidays.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 1:52pm

Remember in the old days when nearly everyone accessed the internet via Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser? Back then, plenty idiots thought that IE was in fact the internet. Or at they very least, they'd equate it with the internet.

The same is now true of Google. Because people use Google to access sites, because they're too clueless to enter urls or save bookmarks, they think they're actually accessing materials on Google.

To the old idiots out there: Google is like the yellow pages. It just points you were to go and it's not responsible for anything you do when you get there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 6 Apr 2011 @ 1:58pm
  
  Re:
  I think your comment shows that people mistakenly equate the Internet with The World Wide Web (i.e., web sites).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:04pm
  
  Re:
  Read the comments on this article:
  
  http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - A Dan (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Sort by oldest first for best effect.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Steven (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Wow, just wow. I missed that one. Soooo damn funny.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - johnny canada, 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:19pm
    
    @ A Dan Post 9
    That is the best link that I have ever followed.
    
    I will make it through the over 3000 post but I may pee my pants first.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - wnyght (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 4:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    OMG! lol, this is great. (omg = "oh my google" now)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Justin Olbrantz (Quantam), 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:13pm
  
  Re:
  Google isn't like the yellow pages at all. The yellow pages are a short list of ads sorted and arranged by human beings. Google is (in theory) everything in the entire world, sorted and arranged by computer algorithms.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ron Rezendes (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "The yellow pages are a short list of ads sorted and arranged by human beings."
    
    Hmmm...I can see it now: a warehouse full of people arranging scraps of paper by hand until everything is just right. Then they call in the scrapbook experts to put it all together in a nice tidy package. NOT!
    
    That work is all sorted and arranged by computer software algorithms and/or databases which alphabetizes the items at the click of a button. It's called "publishing software". It requires a human to push some keys to indicate the desired output - very much like a Google search.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 6 Apr 2011 @ 6:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Google is (in theory) everything in the entire world, sorted and arranged by computer algorithms"
    
    Wrong
    The internet includes many things other than websites and there are many websites who use the robots file
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:21pm
  
  Re:
  I'll do you one better. Remember when people moved from dial-up to faster connection but still insisted that AOL was the Internet? At least the IE users were a step up from those folks...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - johnny canada, 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Now the open IE, go to Google and search for AOL to access the internet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sam sin, 6 Apr 2011 @ 1:54pm

seems reasonable to assume from the article that this particular Rep is an 'article' himself. totally clueless to all things internet related, not just Google related. why oh why dont these people do some research before opening their mouths and making absolute prats of themselves? why cant they see that the entertainment industries are using them? how often do we see entertainment industry 'high ups' come out with stupid statements, only to be shot down? these public representatives are supposed to know better, but in actual fact are much worse. they can ignore facts under the guise 'in the interest of the public'. what crap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 1:55pm

"What Google has left to do..."
Is code for "make significant campaign contributions."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:02pm

"They go quiet"
Go quiet? Never! Thats when they start repeating the things that they just said before and you just debunked, only usually much louder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matthew (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re:
  BUT...BUT...PIRACY!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:56pm
  
  Re:
  They go quiet because they realize you're batshit insane.
  
  Those layoffs at record labels because half of their revenue disappeared are real. Those are job losses.
  
  The fact that Mike Masnick ignores them and writes snarky hit pieces every day here, demonstrate how committed he is to supporting piracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous a-hole, 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:22pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Get it through your thick skull: The record labels are not the music industry in toto.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nicedoggy, 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Of course their revenue disappeared they sued everybody, called everyone a thief and thrown people in jail that have committed no crime, what did you expect a jump in sales?
    
    I don't believe the batshit insane person is the one you was calling.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Nicedoggy, 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I can tell you right now, that I didn't buy anything from them in more then a decade, I also didn't pirate anything, why when I can find legal free alternatives.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 4:44pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The only reply that your idiotic post could possibly justify goes something like this:
    
    "Sod off, you wanker!"
    
    There ya go, pinhead.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - RadialSkid (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 10:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    If I could vote "funny" 15 times for you, AC, I would. You're adorable!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws.org (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 11:06pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Right, the job losses have nothing to do with the fact that their products SUCK!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 12:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yet you're addicted to stealing it. Strong argument there, junior. LOL
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Colin, 7 Apr 2011 @ 6:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I look forward to your follow-up post with proof. Thanks!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 12:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    Dude, if current music was any more manufactured, it would have a "Made in China" label on.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - amerikan idol musick de-generation, 8 Apr 2011 @ 12:21pm
      
      Re: Dude, if current music...
      Hear, hear the eejit! I can't listen to the radio or turn on "music television" without the urgent need to purge from all orifices.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hephaestus (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 9:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Those layoffs at record labels because half of their revenue disappeared are real. Those are job losses. "
    
    You are so wrong ... its because of the Eminem lawsuit they lost half their revenue stream. :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 11:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I just realized ... we have a new target for RIAA to go after the artists!! Those bands and singers are stealers I tell you!!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwiz (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:07pm

This really make some sense. If they can equate Google with the internet as a whole, then Google can be blamed for EVERYTHING.

Think about it:

- Banks use the internet for transactions - Banking crises is Google's fault.

- Wall Street uses internet for transactions - financial crash was all Google's fault

- Google Maps displays entire world - earthquake in Japan was Google's fault.

- YouTube show videos of cats - any abuse of animals anywhere is Google's fault.

It's a magical, instantaneous scapegoat for everything!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nom du Clavier (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:33pm
  
  Re:
  That's not nearly absurd enough. Before Google you could blame Microsoft for providing the OS most people consume their internets from. Before them you could blame Intel and AMD for providing the processors. Before them you could blame the sand turned into silicon.
  
  Clearly they should blame the Earth, if not the entire universe. After all, these people do seem to argue that where reality disagrees with their point of view, reality is in the wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:09pm

The question is not...
The question isn't what Smith & Wesson has done to prevent armed robbery, but more about what they have left to do.

The question isn't what AstraZeneca has done to cure cancer, but more about what they have left to do.

The question isn't what Halliburton has done to stabilize the situation in the Middle East, but more about what they have left to do.

The question isn't what Ford has done to prevent accident fatalities, but more about what they have left to do.

The question isn't what Citigroup has done to prevent risky investments and outright fraud from destroying the economy, but more about what they have left to do.

The question isn't what tuna have done to ensure the health of the shark population, but what they have left to do.

Anyone want to guess which of these similar formulations the reps would be willing to stand behind? I'd say 1 - sharks are covered by the ABA's lobbying arm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:34pm
  
  Re: The question is not...
  To paraphrase Goodlatte:
  
  Ask not what Google can do for the country and the people, but what Google can do for the entrenched monopolies with lobbying power in Washington.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 5:55pm
  
  Re: The question is not...
  Is this the new #GladwellLogic?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:17pm

I wish it were possible for there to be a Google-less month to show folks that the next exists and that even without Google, things don't just up and disappear.

The line about determining what is or is not infringement is hampered on purpose by the entertainment industries themselves. You can't tell one from the next on which is or is not copyrighted by a file. Especially if the metadata was altered.

The entertainment industries don't want to tell exactly which is which. It serves their purposes far better to hide it all. This is one of the reasons the http://www.riaaradar.com/ site, is to determine which songs and albums are or are not those belonging to the big 3 labels. There is no reasonable way to tell.

The entertainment industries are milking this for all it's worth. They won't give you the names of albums and songs, they will instead sell you a filtering program they will control.

So it looks here as if they are pushing their market again as the hidden agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 6:49am
  
  Re:
  riaaradar is an independent site that's not associated with the RIAA. It tries to independently tell you what the Riaa does and what they don't have 'rights' to. The RIAA is too lazy to even do that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 6:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    (well, the RIAA does have a list of member labels, but it hasn't been updated in years, since 2007).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 6:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      and it's absurd to think that the RIAA can't even keep track of its own label members to display them on a website. If riaaradar can do it, and they're not even part of the RIAA, then the RIAA should be able to do it at a fraction of the price.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 7:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm sorry, 2007 is when that site was put up on Wikipedia. The RIAA site actually hasn't been updated since 2003, but for some reason that information was taken down from Wikipedia since I last posted it.
      
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091014/0128436520.shtml#c373
      
      But this is pretty common knowledge anyways, the reason the RIAAradar site exists is because the RIAA never updates their website. Many people have complained that they're not (or that they're no longer) members and they're still incorrectly listed on the site, and many people who are now members aren't listed on that site because it hasn't been updated in so long.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob563, 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:47pm

WTF!
Everybody with half a brain in their heads, and that surely includes our government, konws that anything that goes wrong on the internet is the work of either Microsoft or Google.

Isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bob563 (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 2:52pm
  
  Re: WTF! (oops)
  Everybody with half a brain in their heads, and that surely includes our government, knows that anything that goes wrong on the internet is the work of either Microsoft or Google.
  
  Isn't it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:09pm

Destroying My Searching....
I am so sick and tired of all this ballyhoo about what google displays for results and what they don't.

I miss the days where I could type in what I am searching for, and it would bring me back all sorts of strange and wonderful results. It was like peering into the brain of humanity, the weird, the gross, the funny, the serious, the entertaining...

Now all I get are ads, and 'properly filtered results based on someone else's idea of what is legit and/or not infringing'.

Well, screw your version of the Internet. I'm going back to my game, where we can invent/create/evolve/play/enjoy without someone demanding payment for every single little aspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:24pm
  
  Re: Destroying My Searching....
  Try Bing. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom The Toe, 6 Apr 2011 @ 3:30pm

Re:Re:
"Those layoffs at record labels because half of their revenue disappeared are real. Those are job losses."
Maybe so, but not because of piracy. People don't want plastic discs anymore. They will pay for the content if someone will provide it in a useful format. Hint:Cds aren't it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 4:48pm
  
  Re: Re:Re:
  Please don't shatter Zippy's delusion. The poor fellow will doubtless have to change his Depends as a result of that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 12:57am
  
  Re: Re:Re:
  All formats are available, and all songs are available to be previewed, anywhere on the net.
  
  Do you honestly think anyone falls for your BS?
  
  And you wonder how why the word 'Freetard' was invented for you? LOL
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 3:42am
    
    Re: Re: Re:Re:
    Find me a link to 'I've got a brand new combine harvester'.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 6 Apr 2011 @ 4:11pm

Hmmm.
A response like that from someone that high in the government should automatically enlist them into the Army as a private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 5:49pm

"Promoting Investment and Protecting Commerce Online: Legitimate Sites v. Parasites."

The purpose of copy'right' isn't about promoting investment and protecting commerce, job creation and job security is not the governments job, the purpose of copy'right' is about promoting the progress. This is practically an admission that the legal system does not intend for copy'right' to promote the progress, but to protect industry profits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 6 Apr 2011 @ 6:40pm

Massive profits
I love how you exonerate Google simply because the AdSense ads don't produce "massive profits". What a cute way to jump over the fact that they do profit from the sites. Just claim that the profits aren't massive so move along now. Nothing to see here.

And while I admit that Google's offer to monetize my video might be tempting because they're pretty talented at placing ads, I think it's more than a bit rude to offer the revenue afterwards. It's traditional to ask before taking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 11:10pm
  
  Re: Massive profits
  I love it how you try to paint Google as being unable to survive without those "massive" profits they allegedly make from these sites.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2011 @ 1:02am
  
  Re: Massive profits
  I think it's funny how these little droids have allowed themselves to be used as footsoldiers in more of the same when it comes to corporate greed.
  
  It's so obvious; it's like the classic dangling a lollipop in front of them...
  
  "Just promise them free music and they'll do whatever we want."
  
  You were so totally used.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 3:44am
    
    Re: Re: Massive profits
    And why not? IT's like dnagling a kilo of coke and a 19-year-old Filipino girl in front of Glenn Beck.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aerilus, 6 Apr 2011 @ 8:51pm

two words
atlas shrugged
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2011 @ 9:34pm

Like in most other cases, when someone is making money, Congress wants to take said money. Google is making money, and therefore they are the target. There is no other reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike allen (profile), 6 Apr 2011 @ 11:53pm

time to find another search engine mmm not bling that even worse its micro$.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-Silicon Valley Is Gonna Burn-, 7 Apr 2011 @ 1:29am

Mike Masnick Gets Owned By Floyd Abrams On Free Speech Issues
Today marks the beginning of the end of Google as we know it, and I couldn't be happier.

The tables have officially turned.

-Silicon Valley Is Gonna Burn-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 3:45am
  
  Re: Mike Masnick Gets Owned By Floyd Abrams On Free Speech Issues
  You keep saying this, but part of the Internet's charm is that it's deigned to be reroutable.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 6:33am
  
  Re: Mike Masnick Gets Owned By Floyd Abrams On Free Speech Issues
  Ordinarily, I would simply call you an idiot, but that would be very offensive to actual idiots. You seem to have accomplished an order of magnitude increase in idiocy that presently is in need of a new term to describe it. I'm sure someone will come up with the answer soon.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 6:16am

"It's a simple question and no one answers it, other than to say, "it's obvious.""

It is obvious though. Google needs to use the nuclear option. Ban search results containing content from RIAA, MPAA, etc. All search results that contain titles that match movie and album names. All websites mentioning TV shows, movies, and records from the labels. Remove all content from big content from YouTube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 7 Apr 2011 @ 7:57am

Where is Microsoft in all of this?
I can't find any reference to Bing being included in the hearings. Also no Yahoo, no Baidu. This actually seems like more of the same from microsoft, Microsofts unfair competition laws passed state by state, Microsofts EU harassment of google via the anti trust case and unfair competition complaint.

I wonder if Bing and yahoo are going to be exempted from these laws when they are passed?

Could the content industry and MS have gotten together to take on Google?

If so it makes sense from MS's perspective not from the content industry perspective. MS like GE (think NBCU sale) probably has a good idea that the price of content to the consumer is going to zero. That the content monopoly bubble is going to crash over the next couple years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]