Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
People are going to speculate unless there is a statement from Mike saying there has never been an exchange of money or freebies.
Mike did make such a statement in the comments, though I can't find it now. But since you remember him saying that he used Google's facilities once, I guess you remember that he made that statement. And I guess that's not good enough for you.
How about a statement from Google, that said, under perjury of law, that there was no direct relationship between them and Techdirt? And that they did not pay Mike (nor anyone else) any money whatsoever to write about the case?
Because that's what you've got.
Google's filing has to divulge the extent of their "relationship," by law. If there was "an exchange of money or freebies," and Google didn't divulge it, they would be guilty of perjury in a high-stakes legal case.
The plain fact is that you, Suzanne, invented this "relationship" out of whole cloth.
What I can't figure out is why. I know why the various AC haters do it: they are rabid IP maximalists, and have a political agenda against Google. But I thought that you were smarter than that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
You can do selective disclosure and make it look like full disclosure.
So, what, unless Mike specifically says a company never gave him anything, we should assume he's shilling for them?
Come on, Suzanne. This is really ridiculous. If he doesn't disclose financial information, then he's hiding something; if he does disclose financial information, he's still hiding something, and only "making it look like" he's not hiding something.
By this same logic, Mike is shilling for the RIAA. I mean, he never disclosed that the RIAA ever paid him a dime, but that's just "selective disclosure," since he never said the RIAA didn't pay him, either.
Unless you say, "Google has NEVER paid me or given me anything," there can be speculation about your relationship with the company because that is how deals are done in many cases.
There is no "deal" here. There is no "relationship with the company" to speculate on.
Joel puts the file in his shared directory. 100 people download it and keep it in their shared directory. 100 people go to each of them and do the same.
So, Joel's act of infringement is infringement by copying. He also infringes by distributing those files to 100 people.
The notion that he should be held responsible for what those 100 people then do is ridiculous. The amount of actual damages can, should be, and are legally required to be the damages caused spcifically by Joel's infringement. That means caused by the infringement that Joel actually participated in.
Especially since there is zero evidence (and it's not alleged) that Joel was the sole source of those files. Joel got those files from somewhere else - and in your example, 99 other people did too. Those 100 people that got the files from Joel could have just gotten them from one of the other 99 sources instead. Or from Joel's source. Or, for that matter, from among any the other 99 people that (would have) downloaded from Joel, who are now sources themselves.
Despite your insistence, file sharing is not like a pyramid. Once the initial file exists anywhere in a file sharing network, any one of the downloaders can become a source. It's not a pyramid, it's a soup.
To say Joel "caused" or "enabled" those 100 people to also share those files is beyond ridiculous. He didn't cause those infringements; they would have happened even if Joel never existed. If Joel never shared files, there would be exactly one less infringing copy - Joel's.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Could you provide a link?
I searched for it myself, but I couldn't find it. I believe it was back when Techdirt was first writing about how bad SOPA/PIPA were, and the usual A.C. SOPA/PIPA apologists claimed he was only saying it because he was paid off by Google.
But when he said that Google provided space for that meeting, he also explicitly said that was all she wrote (unless you count AdSense). I believe this was before The Sky Is Rising came out, but I can't be sure.
In any case, when any company has paid Techdirt for anything, Mike has always stated it upfront. He always reveals his sponsors for e.g. TED talks, speaking engagements, Insight Community conversations, etc.
There's a big reason for this: Mike's income and influence largely depend upon his transparency and integrity. He has a huge incentive to be honest about these things.
Which is why these A.C.'s attack him, publicly, in the comments here. Whatever their motivations, they're interested in nothing other than a smear campaign.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Among big tech companies, Google is the one I like the second best (I think Amazon is probably my first choice because it isn't trying to monitor everything I do). If that makes me a Google shill, so be it.
In the interests of full disclosure:
Since I'm a full-time college student now (studying computer science), my brother has had to loan me a lot of money.
My brother is currently working for one of Amazon's subsidiaries. Before then, he was working for Yahoo! (a competitor of Google), though he didn't like it much. Before then, he worked for Digidesign (Avid/ProTools guys).
Does that make me a shill for these companies? I don't think so. I have huge criticisms of Amazon (mainly regarding their non-open Kindle), I defend Google here (though I probably would defend Yahoo! if those same accusations were leveled against them), and I was openly critical to my brother about ProTools, especially their DRM (I wouldn't even use the MBox he sent me because of it).
As far as the "thinking that tech solves all problems" bit: I don't entirely disagree with you, but that has nothing to do with Techdirt. Mike is not focused on whether "tech solves all problems." He's mainly interested in how businesses (including content creators) should adapt to market changes caused by disruptive technology, which in our lifetimes is the Internet.
If you want more, then you're doing right by looking elsewhere. Just don't blame Mike when he doesn't live up to your particular political demands.
Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Here's how I view all of this. Just as there has been a military-industrial complex, an "inside the Beltway" mentality, and a Wall Street elite, I see a big tech mentality solidifying.
The "big tech mentality" is a lot more fractured than you think, frankly. Issues like DRM, IP protections, etc. are not shared among larger tech companies, much less the entire industry. As I said, compare Google and Microsoft (both of which are CCIA members).
In any case, nothing about Techdirt represents (or is intended to represent) "big tech" companies. Techdirt's main focus is, and AFAIK always has been, about startups. As I said before, the other sponsor of The Sky Is Rising is Engine Advocacy, which represents startup tech companies, not legacy players.
I am skeptical of an anti-IP movement if it doesn't push for bigger changes as well.
It's a simple matter of focus. IP reformers (not the "anti-IP movement" as you call it) exist in a wide swath of political viewpoints: leftists, centerists, Libertarians, etc.
Of course, Techdirt does focus on far more than just IP issues. Tech-related immigration laws, cyber security, or privacy rights are also a big part of this blog. I (and I guess you) happen to be more interested in IP issues, but that just says something about us.
If it strikes me as "what's good for Google," then I suspect it will stop short once it threatens Google's (or another big company's) stock price.
The notion that Mike cares about Google's stock price is ridiculous. Google has some of the same opinions as Mike, but he's also routinely criticized Google in the past. And if Google went under, Techdirt would lose nothing.
Once you have a lot of people dependent on a certain system and especially when you have a few people making huge amounts of money in that system, a certain inertia tends to set in.
You should really read this blog more often. Because you're actually saying the same thing Mike has been saying for over a decade.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
I used to freelance for national magazines (this was years ago), so if my work was published in them, it was a fair assumption that I got paid from them.
Then you're (still) shilling for those magazines, and whatever your opinions here in the comments, obviously they are simply a reflection of those national magazines, who paid you to espouse their opinions.
In the Internet years, I have written blogs (starting back in 1993-94). At that time I was working part-time for Apple and getting paid from them until they dropped OneNet and started to fund an alternative project, eWorld, instead.
So, if you ever wrote something about Apple, even if it's negative, then obviously you only espouse that opinion because you were paid by Apple to do so. You were also paid by OneNet, so obviously you're just parroting OneNet's corporate press releases.
I have done consulting projects for various companies, and I used to write for ColoradoBiz magazine, eMileHigh, and Courtney Pulitizer's CyberScene.
More people who pay you to post their opinions? Good Lord, is there anyone who you won't take money from so you can espouse their opinions here??? You're a total shill slut, I tell ya!
I started writing a music industry blog for Brands Plus Music.
"Music industry blog?" Don't make me laugh! Obviously, you were really just shilling for Apple, ColoradoBiz, eMileHigh, and CyberScene. If you wrote anything in that blog, obviously you were just paid to regurgitate their press releases. It was simply an "astroturfing" blog, created for the sole purpose of pushing their agenda on the Internet.
My last big topic series for the blog was on the gift economy, which is how I stumbled on the P2P Foundation.
Wow! So a consortium of Colorado magazines, allied with Apple, are behind the P2P Foundation! I never knew that. Thanks for clearing that up! Now that it's confirmed, I'm going to spread it far and wide, and especially on any blogs associated with the P2P Foundation.
...Now, let's be clear here. This is obviously satirical, but it is in no way different than what the AC's here are saying.
The fact is, you had much more of a relationship with those magazines than Mike ever had with Google. Mike has never "freelanced" for Google in any way. He has never done a consulting project for them. They have never paid Mike for anything he's ever written on the Techdirt blog. They have never sponsored a conversation here.
Unlike Oracle (which Mike revealed upfront in the discussion itself). Or Sun, or AmEx, or IBM, or UPS (which Mike likewise disclosed upfront). You can see everyone who sponsored a conversation by going to The Insight Community Cases page. You'll notice that Google is not among them.
I assume he has received money or perks from the company over the years
Your assumption would be wrong. Here's what Floor64/Techdirt received over the years:
1. The non-profit CCIA, of which Google is one of a dozen members (and of which Oracle used to be a member), co-sponsored The Sky Is Rising report. (The other sponsor was Engine Advocacy, a political non-profit that represents startup tech companies, not "big players" like Google or Oracle.)
2. Mike said that years ago, when he (and others) were holding a roundtable discussion, Google donated space for that meeting. This would probably be around the time that you were freelancing for national magazines.
3. Like 99% of the Internet, Techdirt has AdSense.
That's it. No more money, no more perks. That is the extent of Mike's connection to Google.
So why are the AC's harping on it?
One (likely) possibility is that they're shills themselves. At least one AC posts exclusively during business hours, from a Washington DC IP address. Another revealed that he's an IP lawyer by profession.
But it's also likely that they've simply bought what a number of high-profile conspiracy theorists have claimed about Google. People like Rupert Murdoch, MPAA head Chris Dodd, or everyone who writes for the RIAA blog. People like copyright lawyer Chris Castle (the man behind Music Tech Policy), major-label artist David Lowerey (the man behind The Trichordist), or indie filmmaker Ellen Seidler (the woman behind popuppirates.com).
These are also the same types of people who actually believe Google orchestrated the SOPA/PIPA blackouts, solely because Google profits from piracy. The same ones who believe that Google controls the EFF, Demand Progress, the CDT, or any other non-profit that advocates for an open Internet. And now they're trying to do the same thing with Techdirt.
So, why Google, and not (say) Microsoft's Bing or adCenter? Simple: Microsoft generally shares the MPAA and RIAA view on IP protection. Google has an opposing viewpoint, and they actually spend almost as much in lobbying money as the MPAA and RIAA do, so they're big enough to be a threat. If they can present Google as a "piracy apologist," then tar and feather everyone who has ever been vaguely associated with them, then they'll once again have a free reign in Washington.
At the very least, they'll be able to demand that Google give them more money. Which they can then use to pressure all other tech companies into giving them more money.
And, sadly, you appear to be falling for it. For your own sake, I hope you change your mind. Especially since you like something called the "P2P Foundation," which must be a piracy site, and deserves to be instantly shut down by the Government. Without the EFF, CDT, Demand Progress, etc. (all of which will be discounted as "piracy apologists" who are "shilling for Google"), then it'll be much harder to stop things like this from happening.
Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
I lean in the direction of asking bloggers to disclose all corporate connections, be they financial, personal, etc.
Well, when Mike released the report, he explicitly said it was funded (in part) by the CRIA. And there is a big CRIA label on the front of the report. Seems pretty transparent to me.
If we want to extent the concept to say Mike is shilling for all the members of the CCIA, I'll go for that.
"Shilling" means that you are getting paid specifically to promote the viewpoint of the people that are paying you. There's no evidence whatsoever that Mike's opinions are anyone's but Mike's, as evidenced by the fact that he routinely contradicts many of the viewpoints of CRIA members.
(To the degree that they even have a viewpoint - after all, this is an organization that has Dish TV, Google, and Microsoft as members, and they couldn't be more different in their opinions, especially regarding things like software patents or copyright laws).
Suzanne, have you ever taken money from anyone, for your art or otherwise? If so, then by your own definition, you're "shilling" for them. Have you taken money from any organization? If so, then by your own definition, you're "shilling" for every member of that organization.
Please tell me, I'd like to know. Exactly who are you "shilling" for? Who pays for your opinions, here in the comments?
Try applying logic to this: If Masnick is not a Google shill, why would Google say that Masnick is a Google shill?
Try applying logic to this: Google repeatedly denied that anyone in that filing was a shill.
In fact, it appears that a big reason Google even mentioned their names in the filing, is that Oracle claimed in their filings that they were shills, and Google explicitly wanted to deny it. It's certainly the case with the CCIA:
Oracle's [sic] falsely suggests that Ed Black of the Computer and Communications Industry Association ("CCIA") was acting under the influence of Google money when he wrote a column stating the position that APIs are not copyrightable. Oracle and its counsel had to have known that CCIA's position on APIs pre-dated Google’s membership in CCIA - and in fact predated Google’s incorporation in 1998. Mr. Black has publicly stated that Google did not ask him to write in support of its position, and that CCIA’s position that APIs are not copyrightable "goes back to the 1990s."
Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
So as far as degrees of separation go, one might assume that those on the list are at least one degree closer to Google than all of those not on the list.
Mike has exactly the same "degree of separation" from Google as he does from Microsoft, the Dish Network, eBay, Sprint, or Yahoo!, all of whom are CCIA members. Yet Mike is not even accused of "shilling" for them.
And he has a more direct connection with Oracle, as he explained... yet Oracle didn't reveal this information in their filing.
In fact, if you actually read the filing, you'll note that about half of the people on that list also worked for Oracle or their lawyers at one time or another. And none of them were listed in Oracle's filing.
For a perfectly good reason. As Google explained, repeatedly, they did not pay any of those people (nor anyone else) to write opinion pieces on the lawsuit. They were simply told by the judge to list anyone who took money from any organization Google gave money to, who also wrote anything about the case at all.
This, in contrast with Oracle - who did pay people to write posts about the lawsuit, including people who were directly employed at Oracle at the time.
Frankly, it appears the reason Google chose those specific organizations and people is because Oracle directly accused them of being shills for Google in the case filings, and Google wanted to prove they were not. One of those organizations is the CCIA.
My god; the prime factors of six are two and three...
Not only that! As we all know, "Google" is a play on the mathematical term googol, which means one with one hundred zeros after it. In other words, ten to the hundredth power - or, ten to the power of (ten times ten).
If you add 6 and 4, what do you get? Ten!
It's just too obvious. But the conspiracy goes even deeper than that!
If you raise three to the second power, you get 9. Now, if you multiply 11 by 2, you get twenty-two. Three raised to the power of twenty-two is 31381059609. BUT! This is also the power of nine raised to eleven!
9/11!
And there's more! If you actually divide nine by eleven, you get .81818181... that is, .81 repeating. Eight plus one equals nine, which equals two to the power of three - the very factors of six which you just mentioned!
It gets even scarier! Take that two and three, factor in 10 for Google, and 1 for Mike "Lone Wolf" Masnick, and what do you get?
2 * (10 ^ 3) + 1 = 2001! As in, September 11th, 2001!
It's obvious, and sinister! A Google-funded Mike Masnick was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks!
I keep telling this to the FBI, but they never listen. They never listen! It's obviously a government cover-up!!!
Dear Writer,
You are not qualified to write a comment on an article like this, in this way.
I'm sorry for the ones reading and buying what you have stated.
Get professional.
They tried to stop that too, but because copying wasn't as easy and didn't have as large of a potential audience, it was struck down.
Actually, it was more than "struck down." The Audio Home Recording Act made non-commercial copying completely legal:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
It was considered a trade-off for requiring copy protection and royalty payments.
This could possibly mean only actions against manufacturers are prohibited, but it says explicitly "under this title," meaning "under Title 17," the entire copyright statute.
So making mixtapes, even digital ones, is legal (or at least not "actionable").
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Mike did make such a statement in the comments, though I can't find it now. But since you remember him saying that he used Google's facilities once, I guess you remember that he made that statement. And I guess that's not good enough for you.
How about a statement from Google, that said, under perjury of law, that there was no direct relationship between them and Techdirt? And that they did not pay Mike (nor anyone else) any money whatsoever to write about the case?
Because that's what you've got.
Google's filing has to divulge the extent of their "relationship," by law. If there was "an exchange of money or freebies," and Google didn't divulge it, they would be guilty of perjury in a high-stakes legal case.
The plain fact is that you, Suzanne, invented this "relationship" out of whole cloth.
What I can't figure out is why. I know why the various AC haters do it: they are rabid IP maximalists, and have a political agenda against Google. But I thought that you were smarter than that.
I guess I was wrong.
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
So, what, unless Mike specifically says a company never gave him anything, we should assume he's shilling for them?
Come on, Suzanne. This is really ridiculous. If he doesn't disclose financial information, then he's hiding something; if he does disclose financial information, he's still hiding something, and only "making it look like" he's not hiding something.
By this same logic, Mike is shilling for the RIAA. I mean, he never disclosed that the RIAA ever paid him a dime, but that's just "selective disclosure," since he never said the RIAA didn't pay him, either.
Unless you say, "Google has NEVER paid me or given me anything," there can be speculation about your relationship with the company because that is how deals are done in many cases.
There is no "deal" here. There is no "relationship with the company" to speculate on.
On the post: District Court: $675,000 For Non-commercially Sharing 30 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Re: Why obeying to the rules by this unfair film- and musicindustries?
Nobody here is interested. I'm not the site owner, but I'd personally appreciate it if you didn't post "how-to's" here.
This is not a site about getting away with file sharing; it's about how to deal with it, from a business perspective.
On the post: District Court: $675,000 For Non-commercially Sharing 30 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Joel's "Enormous" License
So, Joel's act of infringement is infringement by copying. He also infringes by distributing those files to 100 people.
The notion that he should be held responsible for what those 100 people then do is ridiculous. The amount of actual damages can, should be, and are legally required to be the damages caused spcifically by Joel's infringement. That means caused by the infringement that Joel actually participated in.
Especially since there is zero evidence (and it's not alleged) that Joel was the sole source of those files. Joel got those files from somewhere else - and in your example, 99 other people did too. Those 100 people that got the files from Joel could have just gotten them from one of the other 99 sources instead. Or from Joel's source. Or, for that matter, from among any the other 99 people that (would have) downloaded from Joel, who are now sources themselves.
Despite your insistence, file sharing is not like a pyramid. Once the initial file exists anywhere in a file sharing network, any one of the downloaders can become a source. It's not a pyramid, it's a soup.
To say Joel "caused" or "enabled" those 100 people to also share those files is beyond ridiculous. He didn't cause those infringements; they would have happened even if Joel never existed. If Joel never shared files, there would be exactly one less infringing copy - Joel's.
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
I searched for it myself, but I couldn't find it. I believe it was back when Techdirt was first writing about how bad SOPA/PIPA were, and the usual A.C. SOPA/PIPA apologists claimed he was only saying it because he was paid off by Google.
But when he said that Google provided space for that meeting, he also explicitly said that was all she wrote (unless you count AdSense). I believe this was before The Sky Is Rising came out, but I can't be sure.
In any case, when any company has paid Techdirt for anything, Mike has always stated it upfront. He always reveals his sponsors for e.g. TED talks, speaking engagements, Insight Community conversations, etc.
There's a big reason for this: Mike's income and influence largely depend upon his transparency and integrity. He has a huge incentive to be honest about these things.
Which is why these A.C.'s attack him, publicly, in the comments here. Whatever their motivations, they're interested in nothing other than a smear campaign.
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
In the interests of full disclosure:
Since I'm a full-time college student now (studying computer science), my brother has had to loan me a lot of money.
My brother is currently working for one of Amazon's subsidiaries. Before then, he was working for Yahoo! (a competitor of Google), though he didn't like it much. Before then, he worked for Digidesign (Avid/ProTools guys).
Does that make me a shill for these companies? I don't think so. I have huge criticisms of Amazon (mainly regarding their non-open Kindle), I defend Google here (though I probably would defend Yahoo! if those same accusations were leveled against them), and I was openly critical to my brother about ProTools, especially their DRM (I wouldn't even use the MBox he sent me because of it).
As far as the "thinking that tech solves all problems" bit: I don't entirely disagree with you, but that has nothing to do with Techdirt. Mike is not focused on whether "tech solves all problems." He's mainly interested in how businesses (including content creators) should adapt to market changes caused by disruptive technology, which in our lifetimes is the Internet.
If you want more, then you're doing right by looking elsewhere. Just don't blame Mike when he doesn't live up to your particular political demands.
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Yes, he has.
The problem is, he said it in the comments the first time someone accused him of being a Google shill, which was years ago.
Yes, that accusation has been flying around for that long (at least).
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
The "big tech mentality" is a lot more fractured than you think, frankly. Issues like DRM, IP protections, etc. are not shared among larger tech companies, much less the entire industry. As I said, compare Google and Microsoft (both of which are CCIA members).
In any case, nothing about Techdirt represents (or is intended to represent) "big tech" companies. Techdirt's main focus is, and AFAIK always has been, about startups. As I said before, the other sponsor of The Sky Is Rising is Engine Advocacy, which represents startup tech companies, not legacy players.
I am skeptical of an anti-IP movement if it doesn't push for bigger changes as well.
It's a simple matter of focus. IP reformers (not the "anti-IP movement" as you call it) exist in a wide swath of political viewpoints: leftists, centerists, Libertarians, etc.
Of course, Techdirt does focus on far more than just IP issues. Tech-related immigration laws, cyber security, or privacy rights are also a big part of this blog. I (and I guess you) happen to be more interested in IP issues, but that just says something about us.
If it strikes me as "what's good for Google," then I suspect it will stop short once it threatens Google's (or another big company's) stock price.
The notion that Mike cares about Google's stock price is ridiculous. Google has some of the same opinions as Mike, but he's also routinely criticized Google in the past. And if Google went under, Techdirt would lose nothing.
Once you have a lot of people dependent on a certain system and especially when you have a few people making huge amounts of money in that system, a certain inertia tends to set in.
You should really read this blog more often. Because you're actually saying the same thing Mike has been saying for over a decade.
I guess that means you're a shill for Google too?
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Then you're (still) shilling for those magazines, and whatever your opinions here in the comments, obviously they are simply a reflection of those national magazines, who paid you to espouse their opinions.
In the Internet years, I have written blogs (starting back in 1993-94). At that time I was working part-time for Apple and getting paid from them until they dropped OneNet and started to fund an alternative project, eWorld, instead.
So, if you ever wrote something about Apple, even if it's negative, then obviously you only espouse that opinion because you were paid by Apple to do so. You were also paid by OneNet, so obviously you're just parroting OneNet's corporate press releases.
I have done consulting projects for various companies, and I used to write for ColoradoBiz magazine, eMileHigh, and Courtney Pulitizer's CyberScene.
More people who pay you to post their opinions? Good Lord, is there anyone who you won't take money from so you can espouse their opinions here??? You're a total shill slut, I tell ya!
I started writing a music industry blog for Brands Plus Music.
"Music industry blog?" Don't make me laugh! Obviously, you were really just shilling for Apple, ColoradoBiz, eMileHigh, and CyberScene. If you wrote anything in that blog, obviously you were just paid to regurgitate their press releases. It was simply an "astroturfing" blog, created for the sole purpose of pushing their agenda on the Internet.
My last big topic series for the blog was on the gift economy, which is how I stumbled on the P2P Foundation.
Wow! So a consortium of Colorado magazines, allied with Apple, are behind the P2P Foundation! I never knew that. Thanks for clearing that up! Now that it's confirmed, I'm going to spread it far and wide, and especially on any blogs associated with the P2P Foundation.
...Now, let's be clear here. This is obviously satirical, but it is in no way different than what the AC's here are saying.
The fact is, you had much more of a relationship with those magazines than Mike ever had with Google. Mike has never "freelanced" for Google in any way. He has never done a consulting project for them. They have never paid Mike for anything he's ever written on the Techdirt blog. They have never sponsored a conversation here.
Unlike Oracle (which Mike revealed upfront in the discussion itself). Or Sun, or AmEx, or IBM, or UPS (which Mike likewise disclosed upfront). You can see everyone who sponsored a conversation by going to The Insight Community Cases page. You'll notice that Google is not among them.
I assume he has received money or perks from the company over the years
Your assumption would be wrong. Here's what Floor64/Techdirt received over the years:
1. The non-profit CCIA, of which Google is one of a dozen members (and of which Oracle used to be a member), co-sponsored The Sky Is Rising report. (The other sponsor was Engine Advocacy, a political non-profit that represents startup tech companies, not "big players" like Google or Oracle.)
2. Mike said that years ago, when he (and others) were holding a roundtable discussion, Google donated space for that meeting. This would probably be around the time that you were freelancing for national magazines.
3. Like 99% of the Internet, Techdirt has AdSense.
That's it. No more money, no more perks. That is the extent of Mike's connection to Google.
So why are the AC's harping on it?
One (likely) possibility is that they're shills themselves. At least one AC posts exclusively during business hours, from a Washington DC IP address. Another revealed that he's an IP lawyer by profession.
But it's also likely that they've simply bought what a number of high-profile conspiracy theorists have claimed about Google. People like Rupert Murdoch, MPAA head Chris Dodd, or everyone who writes for the RIAA blog. People like copyright lawyer Chris Castle (the man behind Music Tech Policy), major-label artist David Lowerey (the man behind The Trichordist), or indie filmmaker Ellen Seidler (the woman behind popuppirates.com).
These are also the same types of people who actually believe Google orchestrated the SOPA/PIPA blackouts, solely because Google profits from piracy. The same ones who believe that Google controls the EFF, Demand Progress, the CDT, or any other non-profit that advocates for an open Internet. And now they're trying to do the same thing with Techdirt.
So, why Google, and not (say) Microsoft's Bing or adCenter? Simple: Microsoft generally shares the MPAA and RIAA view on IP protection. Google has an opposing viewpoint, and they actually spend almost as much in lobbying money as the MPAA and RIAA do, so they're big enough to be a threat. If they can present Google as a "piracy apologist," then tar and feather everyone who has ever been vaguely associated with them, then they'll once again have a free reign in Washington.
At the very least, they'll be able to demand that Google give them more money. Which they can then use to pressure all other tech companies into giving them more money.
And, sadly, you appear to be falling for it. For your own sake, I hope you change your mind. Especially since you like something called the "P2P Foundation," which must be a piracy site, and deserves to be instantly shut down by the Government. Without the EFF, CDT, Demand Progress, etc. (all of which will be discounted as "piracy apologists" who are "shilling for Google"), then it'll be much harder to stop things like this from happening.
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Well, when Mike released the report, he explicitly said it was funded (in part) by the CRIA. And there is a big CRIA label on the front of the report. Seems pretty transparent to me.
If we want to extent the concept to say Mike is shilling for all the members of the CCIA, I'll go for that.
"Shilling" means that you are getting paid specifically to promote the viewpoint of the people that are paying you. There's no evidence whatsoever that Mike's opinions are anyone's but Mike's, as evidenced by the fact that he routinely contradicts many of the viewpoints of CRIA members.
(To the degree that they even have a viewpoint - after all, this is an organization that has Dish TV, Google, and Microsoft as members, and they couldn't be more different in their opinions, especially regarding things like software patents or copyright laws).
Suzanne, have you ever taken money from anyone, for your art or otherwise? If so, then by your own definition, you're "shilling" for them. Have you taken money from any organization? If so, then by your own definition, you're "shilling" for every member of that organization.
Please tell me, I'd like to know. Exactly who are you "shilling" for? Who pays for your opinions, here in the comments?
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: :-)
Try applying logic to this: Google repeatedly denied that anyone in that filing was a shill.
In fact, it appears that a big reason Google even mentioned their names in the filing, is that Oracle claimed in their filings that they were shills, and Google explicitly wanted to deny it. It's certainly the case with the CCIA:
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: To be on Google's short list probably is noteworthy
Mike has exactly the same "degree of separation" from Google as he does from Microsoft, the Dish Network, eBay, Sprint, or Yahoo!, all of whom are CCIA members. Yet Mike is not even accused of "shilling" for them.
And he has a more direct connection with Oracle, as he explained... yet Oracle didn't reveal this information in their filing.
In fact, if you actually read the filing, you'll note that about half of the people on that list also worked for Oracle or their lawyers at one time or another. And none of them were listed in Oracle's filing.
For a perfectly good reason. As Google explained, repeatedly, they did not pay any of those people (nor anyone else) to write opinion pieces on the lawsuit. They were simply told by the judge to list anyone who took money from any organization Google gave money to, who also wrote anything about the case at all.
This, in contrast with Oracle - who did pay people to write posts about the lawsuit, including people who were directly employed at Oracle at the time.
Frankly, it appears the reason Google chose those specific organizations and people is because Oracle directly accused them of being shills for Google in the case filings, and Google wanted to prove they were not. One of those organizations is the CCIA.
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice try, Same Anonymous Coward.
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: Google shill and more
That would be exactly zero times.
In fact, if you count the number of times he hasn't used The Pirate Bay, it would rapidly approach some very large number. Like, say, a googol!
On the post: Help Us Expand The Insider Shop By Voting On Ideas For New Techdirt Gear
Shilling?
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: Re: Google shill and more
Sorry, "three to the power of two."
The rest is mathematically accurate, and also completely sane.
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: Google shill and more
Not only that! As we all know, "Google" is a play on the mathematical term googol, which means one with one hundred zeros after it. In other words, ten to the hundredth power - or, ten to the power of (ten times ten).
If you add 6 and 4, what do you get? Ten!
It's just too obvious. But the conspiracy goes even deeper than that!
If you raise three to the second power, you get 9. Now, if you multiply 11 by 2, you get twenty-two. Three raised to the power of twenty-two is 31381059609. BUT! This is also the power of nine raised to eleven!
9/11!
And there's more! If you actually divide nine by eleven, you get .81818181... that is, .81 repeating. Eight plus one equals nine, which equals two to the power of three - the very factors of six which you just mentioned!
It gets even scarier! Take that two and three, factor in 10 for Google, and 1 for Mike "Lone Wolf" Masnick, and what do you get?
2 * (10 ^ 3) + 1 = 2001! As in, September 11th, 2001!
It's obvious, and sinister! A Google-funded Mike Masnick was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks!
I keep telling this to the FBI, but they never listen. They never listen! It's obviously a government cover-up!!!
Also, aliens.
On the post: Apparently I'm A Google Shill And I Didn't Even Know It
Re: Re: The pull quote
Mike is so forward-thinking, he was shilling for Google before Google even existed. (Techdirt: August 1997; Google: September 1998.)
On the post: District Court: $675,000 For Non-commercially Sharing 30 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Re: You don't know what you are talking about
You are not qualified to write a comment on an article like this, in this way.
I'm sorry for the ones reading and buying what you have stated.
Get professional.
On the post: District Court: $675,000 For Non-commercially Sharing 30 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Re: Re: Phew...
Actually, it was more than "struck down." The Audio Home Recording Act made non-commercial copying completely legal:
It was considered a trade-off for requiring copy protection and royalty payments.
This could possibly mean only actions against manufacturers are prohibited, but it says explicitly "under this title," meaning "under Title 17," the entire copyright statute.
So making mixtapes, even digital ones, is legal (or at least not "actionable").
Next >>