Obviously this video never should have been flagged. I wonder if there is a correction system so that whatever soundprint linked the sound in this particular video to Rumblefish can be removed from the Content ID system. A self-educating ID system would be interesting.
Chirping birds run afoul of YouTube’s automated copyright infringing system: We (Rumblefish) didn’t claim it as anything actually. The YouTube Content ID system, ID’d the song and associated it with one of our artists / labels. I found out about this a few hours ago, watched the video myself and there was clearly no music in it at all….only birdsong. I hit up the right person on our team to remove the claim and it was removed earlier tonight. We don’t know why YT claimed birdsong as one of our artists songs. It’s confusing.
Tech companies have been blowing off consumer concerns and are now starting to feel some pressure from the media and consumers. However, for fear of falling behind in the data collection game, many of these companies will do whatever their competition is doing. Since there hasn't been good industry self-policing, now comes a nudge from the White House. It also becomes a way for the companies to come together and have the same rules which they can then take back to investors.
The Internet has become a public utility and the companies that use it are now going to be held accountable by the public. You can have the directives come from Washington, or you can have the directives come from a citizen uprising. Either way, the people want to set the rules, and not leave it to the corporations, which are proving to be just as guilty of power grabs as all the other big entities over the decades.
Privacy is going to be a big battle. As people come to expect that the Internet is now theirs, they want it to run the way they want it to run. As the perception develops that the Internet is a big common, commons users are expressing opinions on how that common should be run, which includes limits on data collection.
Anyone on my "side" has to at least acknowledge the points I'm making, or at least be willing to discuss them.
Karl wanted to discuss something I had written several years ago. It wasn't specific to this discussion. I was focusing on discussing news articles I had found about Google in the last month (I intentionally limited my search to the last month). I take it some of you don't agree with my theory, which is fine.
I'll stand by my perspective and you can stand by yours and I'll agree not to be your ally. Now I should turn my attention back to trying to stop fracking and GMOs in my county.
Telling, I think, that you don't want to address all of his points, only the ones that seem more interesting to you personally and the general narrative you've been concentrating upon.
Oh, common on. I've said I didn't support PIPA/SOPA, I don't fight anti-IP forces, and I like Google, and you are still trying to attack me. You're kind of proving my point. I can support the cause and still question big chunks of it for reasons like this. You guys want to argue just to argue and I question the wisdom of it. If you want to turn on potential allies, you've got something to learn about coalition building.
There is no evidence of any of that. Google has been under tremendous scrutiny for years now, and none of the complaints about them have anything to do with SOPA/PIPA.
Here's the deal. I'm one of those people who didn't know Google had a negative image until recently. (Sure, I've read the stories over the years, but nothing stood out to me.)
I actually still like Google. I think Google's involvement with YouTube has provided a much needed push to bring music licensing/copyright into the 21st century. And I appreciate everything the company does to advance clean tech.
But my perception of Google has changed somewhat. Now I filter everything they do in terms of their self-interest. I didn't used to do that.
This sort of coverage has influenced me. You can blame Hollywood, if you want, for bringing it to light. But the PIPA/SOPA debate did end up pointing me to sources like this. Hollywood didn't invent the increase in lobbying money Google is spending. Just as the anti-SOPA/PIPA people were smart in saying it would result in censorship, the for-SOPA/PIPA people were smart to show how much tech companies have been paying to influence politicians, too.
1. You cite a blog post I wrote quite awhile ago. I was giving reasons why the anti-IP folks haven't explained why IP reform should be a big issue for those of us who care more about other things. I still feel that way. IP doesn't hit me in my neighborhood. I'd be perfectly happy if you eliminated all IP protection, but that doesn't mean I don't also spot BS arguments when they are given.
2. I said that the PIPA/SOPA battle brought into focus the amount of money Google has spent on lobbying. This draws attention to its corporate self-interests. In general people no longer see Google, Facebook, or Apple as underdogs. They are the new power structure. In this day of OWS, they are as suspect as other big entities.
3. I didn't see a need for PIPA/SOPA. It was badly written, unnecessary, and would just add more layers of legal complexity. However, people like me do not necessarily therefore support the companies that were anti-PIPA/SOPA. I'm actually in more favor of radical economic change than many of the people embracing the usual Techdirt approach. A lot of what I have read in defense of Google, Apple, and Facebook could have been said by the supporters of big corporate American 30 - 50 years ago. I see the same thinking now, just a different group of people representing a different group of companies, but still dancing for Wall Street and investors.
SOPA: the tech industry’s self-inflicted wound | Just Well Mixed: More tellingly, though, none of the major tech associations has as its primary mission the protection of the open Internet. Their members all benefit from an open Internet, of course, but the existence of that open Internet is not a direct concern of, say, the Entertainment Software Association (representing video game publishers, $4.6 million) or ITI (enterprise computing, $2.6 million). Even worse, one of the few major associations on the tech list, the Business Software Alliance ($2.1 million), actually supported SOPA, until outcry from the rest of the tech sector led them to back off.
Here, then, we find the real reason why tech was nearly sandbagged by SOPA. It wasn’t because tech is getting outspent by the deep pockets of Big Content; it’s because tech spends its lobbying money in dumb ways.
You are not convinced that IP laws should be scaled back, so you only heard the arguments you wanted to hear.
No, it's that I don't really give a damn. I definitely believe there are IP abuses, but it isn't my cause. I don't want to spend my energy fighting IP laws. I want to spend my time on other things. I haven't been convinced it's a more important cause to me than fighting fracking, for example. What I said is this is what I hear from anti-IP people. Do a better job of reaching me. You haven't yet convinced me my life and future generations will die because of IP laws. Similarly, I am an environmenalist, but I think the global warming argument isn't all that effective. It's too removed from our day-to-day life so people don't think it's an immediate threat to them. It's not the reason I care about the environment and I've said as much in global warming discussions. Sometimes, when people are passionate about something, they don't understand why they aren't getting through to those they need to convince.
As for Google starting to get negative press, yes, I am seeing it from pro-tech people. Some recent examples. I can give you many more.
Pseudo masochism is fuelling ACTA witch-hunt • The Register: In reality, it is hard to get excited about the very diminished world offered to us by Google and Facebook - the one they call an interconnect utopia - when it has the economy of a malfunctioning Banana Republic, where talent isn't rewarded, our private activities are catalogued and pathologized, and rational argument is closed down by roaming herds of nasty bullies.
Boulder is a college town, with a community that is very committed to start-ups and tech, to the environment, and to healthy living. I can't see much that would lead him in a direction that would not represent the voters' wishes.
Recently the community voted to run its own utility company so it could be more environmentally friendly. The power company that currently serves Boulder spent about 10 times as much as the grassroots campaign to persuade local voters this was a bad idea, but the voters supported the localization of energy control anyway.
Jared is independently wealthy, gay, and has a baby with his partner. I don't think he can easily be bought off. These are the committees and caucuses he serves on. If he is going to be approached by special interests, I'm guessing they would be special interests which already have approval among Boulder voters.
This post is about why Google is getting attention for lobbying against PIPA/SOPA when other companies and other organizations were also against it.
I wanted to add my perspective to that. (I stay out of the IP discussions because I don't really care much. The rest of you can do battle. If you can bring down companies involved in GMOs, I'm all for it, but otherwise, I'll focus efforts on issues of more immediate concern to me.)
Any company that is big, and especially one that is hiring lobbyists, is going to get increased public scrutiny. Google and the other tech companies have gone from being perceived as "one of the good guys" to "one of the big guys." Google, Apple, and Facebook are now the new establishment. And there are grassroots efforts that will aim to take down any establishment entity. It goes with the territory.
Big tech has gotten more negative press in recent months and I expect to see even more of it. Here's an example:
Apple’s Brand Is at Stake as Customers Demand Better Labor Practices - Business - GOOD: Apple ignores these demands at its own risk. Such assaults on a company's reputation—especially a company as brand-focused as Apple—have rattled powerful organizations before, from the recent controversy at the Susan G. Komen Foundation to Nike's labor rights failures in the 1990s.
You know, the privacy arguments along the lines of "If you don't want your information shared, don't use the sites," isn't a lot different than, "if you don't want to pay a fine for illegal downloads, don't do it."
I think privacy will be a big PR issue in the coming months because people want to think the entire Internet is theirs and will oppose attempts by Facebook and Google to have the pipelines run through them. Perhaps there will be new companies to bypass them. Or perhaps there will be more hacker take-downs. But I think the "people should control the Internet" spirit will continue. Anything big will potentially be a target.
What I see happening is that Apple, Google, and Facebook are moving into Walmart and McDonald's territory in terms of image. They are now huge brands and their bigness and whatever actions they take are increasingly scrutinized. The PIPA/SOPA lobbying did bring into clearer focus the business decisions driving these actions.
The perspective has been that big media is bad and tech is good. But now I see more awareness that there are still power grabs here and as older industries die out, you have new ones moving in to protect their turfs.
As this article points out, the new system looks a lot like the old one in terms of power dynamics.
How SOPA and PIPA did and didn’t change how Washington lobbying works - Sunlight Foundation: And, as the Center for Responsive Politics’ Viveca Novak reported, computer and internet companies hired 246 lobbyists to advocate on SOPA and PIPA issues, as compared to 241 lobbyists hired by the TV, music and movie industry. Companies lobbying on these issues spent $104.6 million combined on these issues in the fourth quarter of 2011. Yes, Hollywood has been at the influence game longer. But tech has been rapidly catching up the last few years.
You also left out most of the arguments altogether.
I based it on the most common discussions I had read here and other places. I found many of them not very persuasive. My point was that if you want to over turn IP laws and make a case for the average citizen, you need more firepower. In fact, I think it's fine if that is your goal. But do a better job at arguing it.
Where did you hear this? From what I've seen, they've increased spending on green energy:
Google quits plans to make cheap renewable energy | Reuters: (Reuters) - Google Inc has abandoned an ambitious project to make renewable energy cheaper than coal, the latest target of Chief Executive Larry Page's moves to focus the Internet giant on fewer efforts.
The privacy issues are why the EFF keeps suing Google. Personally, I think they're overblown, at least in this case. You don't want your info to be aggregated and used, don't put it on the web, simple as that.
I don't put my info on the web and I don't use services like Google+ and Foursquare or mobile Facebook because of privacy issues. But this will be an issue. For the same reasons that "shutting down the Internet" got people stirred up, so will "they are spying on you all the time." I'm just reporting trends here. If you think it won't be an issue, see what happened with Path. The revolution that wants the Internet to be free also doesn't want corporations like Google to run the show.
We need to never allow them to compromise. And when they do even one thing wrong, we need to remove them from office.
That's great, but there are differences in opinion in what the voters want. We've got Tea Party people demanding that their candidates not compromise. But what those candidates stand for, I won't support.
My ideal candidate will champion sustainability, but that's not the priority for every voter. A politician who won't compromise his belief that we should wage war on the rest of the world wouldn't be one I'd vote for. I don't care how much integrity he has. A crazy guy with integrity is still a crazy guy.
I'm not sure what you mean. I know Jared. I used to cover him as media and then I worked for an start-up he funded. The Democratic primary was hard fought and among Democratic voters he was not everyone's favorite. But once he won the primary, he was going to win over the Republican candidate. He was also one of the founders of TechStars. He's fairly well known in Boulder. He grew up here.
On the post: Guy Gets Bogus YouTube Copyright Claim... On Birds Singing In The Background
Re: Re: Content ID the problem?
On the post: Guy Gets Bogus YouTube Copyright Claim... On Birds Singing In The Background
Content ID the problem?
On the post: Could A Consumer Privacy Bill Of Rights Even Work?
It gets the discussion going
The Internet has become a public utility and the companies that use it are now going to be held accountable by the public. You can have the directives come from Washington, or you can have the directives come from a citizen uprising. Either way, the people want to set the rules, and not leave it to the corporations, which are proving to be just as guilty of power grabs as all the other big entities over the decades.
On the post: FTC Reminds EPIC That Suing The FTC To Get It To Investigate Google Might Not Be The Best Idea
Re:
On the post: Streaming Rights On Whitney Houston Movie NOT Pulled In Order To 'Make Really A Large Amount Of Money On DVD Sales' [Updated]
Re: Updated!
Dan McDermott - Google - Netflix is telling the truth. The rights were pulled before…
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Karl wanted to discuss something I had written several years ago. It wasn't specific to this discussion. I was focusing on discussing news articles I had found about Google in the last month (I intentionally limited my search to the last month). I take it some of you don't agree with my theory, which is fine.
I'll stand by my perspective and you can stand by yours and I'll agree not to be your ally. Now I should turn my attention back to trying to stop fracking and GMOs in my county.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, common on. I've said I didn't support PIPA/SOPA, I don't fight anti-IP forces, and I like Google, and you are still trying to attack me. You're kind of proving my point. I can support the cause and still question big chunks of it for reasons like this. You guys want to argue just to argue and I question the wisdom of it. If you want to turn on potential allies, you've got something to learn about coalition building.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's the deal. I'm one of those people who didn't know Google had a negative image until recently. (Sure, I've read the stories over the years, but nothing stood out to me.)
I actually still like Google. I think Google's involvement with YouTube has provided a much needed push to bring music licensing/copyright into the 21st century. And I appreciate everything the company does to advance clean tech.
But my perception of Google has changed somewhat. Now I filter everything they do in terms of their self-interest. I didn't used to do that.
This sort of coverage has influenced me. You can blame Hollywood, if you want, for bringing it to light. But the PIPA/SOPA debate did end up pointing me to sources like this. Hollywood didn't invent the increase in lobbying money Google is spending. Just as the anti-SOPA/PIPA people were smart in saying it would result in censorship, the for-SOPA/PIPA people were smart to show how much tech companies have been paying to influence politicians, too.
Lobbying Spending Database - Google Inc, 2011 | OpenSecrets
Q4 2011 Lobbying Report Shows Google Spending Skyrocketed | Consumer Watchdog
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. You cite a blog post I wrote quite awhile ago. I was giving reasons why the anti-IP folks haven't explained why IP reform should be a big issue for those of us who care more about other things. I still feel that way. IP doesn't hit me in my neighborhood. I'd be perfectly happy if you eliminated all IP protection, but that doesn't mean I don't also spot BS arguments when they are given.
2. I said that the PIPA/SOPA battle brought into focus the amount of money Google has spent on lobbying. This draws attention to its corporate self-interests. In general people no longer see Google, Facebook, or Apple as underdogs. They are the new power structure. In this day of OWS, they are as suspect as other big entities.
3. I didn't see a need for PIPA/SOPA. It was badly written, unnecessary, and would just add more layers of legal complexity. However, people like me do not necessarily therefore support the companies that were anti-PIPA/SOPA. I'm actually in more favor of radical economic change than many of the people embracing the usual Techdirt approach. A lot of what I have read in defense of Google, Apple, and Facebook could have been said by the supporters of big corporate American 30 - 50 years ago. I see the same thinking now, just a different group of people representing a different group of companies, but still dancing for Wall Street and investors.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Whether or not it influenced PIPA/SOPS, Google still spend a ton on lobbying
Lobbying Spending Database - Google Inc, 2011 | OpenSecrets
Q4 2011 Lobbying Report Shows Google Spending Skyrocketed | Consumer Watchdog
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
These Guys Aren’t Startups Anymore: Big Tech Lobbies Washington | InTheCapital
SOPA: the tech industry’s self-inflicted wound | Just Well Mixed: More tellingly, though, none of the major tech associations has as its primary mission the protection of the open Internet. Their members all benefit from an open Internet, of course, but the existence of that open Internet is not a direct concern of, say, the Entertainment Software Association (representing video game publishers, $4.6 million) or ITI (enterprise computing, $2.6 million). Even worse, one of the few major associations on the tech list, the Business Software Alliance ($2.1 million), actually supported SOPA, until outcry from the rest of the tech sector led them to back off.
Here, then, we find the real reason why tech was nearly sandbagged by SOPA. It wasn’t because tech is getting outspent by the deep pockets of Big Content; it’s because tech spends its lobbying money in dumb ways.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, it's that I don't really give a damn. I definitely believe there are IP abuses, but it isn't my cause. I don't want to spend my energy fighting IP laws. I want to spend my time on other things. I haven't been convinced it's a more important cause to me than fighting fracking, for example. What I said is this is what I hear from anti-IP people. Do a better job of reaching me. You haven't yet convinced me my life and future generations will die because of IP laws. Similarly, I am an environmenalist, but I think the global warming argument isn't all that effective. It's too removed from our day-to-day life so people don't think it's an immediate threat to them. It's not the reason I care about the environment and I've said as much in global warming discussions. Sometimes, when people are passionate about something, they don't understand why they aren't getting through to those they need to convince.
As for Google starting to get negative press, yes, I am seeing it from pro-tech people. Some recent examples. I can give you many more.
Two-Face: Will Google Become The New Patent Villain? | PandoDaily
Pseudo masochism is fuelling ACTA witch-hunt • The Register: In reality, it is hard to get excited about the very diminished world offered to us by Google and Facebook - the one they call an interconnect utopia - when it has the economy of a malfunctioning Banana Republic, where talent isn't rewarded, our private activities are catalogued and pathologized, and rational argument is closed down by roaming herds of nasty bullies.
Google privacy policy: The missing opt-out isn’t the only problem. - Slate Magazine
Watchdog sues FTC over new Google privacy policy - Los Angeles Times
Google's Privacy Blowback Helps Microsoft Gain Mindshare - Forbes
Consumer Watchdog Says Google's Lobbying Expenses Show Firm Has Adopted 'Cash and Carry' Approach to Politics; Spending Soars 87 Percent | Consumer Watchdog
Spending Plus Online Clout Put Google In Lobbying Class of Its Own|Inside Google
Google Lobby Tab Highest Ever – First Street Research Group
Google Overtakes Microsoft in Federal Lobbying Spend - Search Engines - News & Reviews - eWeek.com
Criticism of Google - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On the post: SOPA Strikedown Aftermath: Old Media Cannot Tell The Narrative Of One Million People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wouldn't it be great
Recently the community voted to run its own utility company so it could be more environmentally friendly. The power company that currently serves Boulder spent about 10 times as much as the grassroots campaign to persuade local voters this was a bad idea, but the voters supported the localization of energy control anyway.
Jared is independently wealthy, gay, and has a baby with his partner. I don't think he can easily be bought off. These are the committees and caucuses he serves on. If he is going to be approached by special interests, I'm guessing they would be special interests which already have approval among Boulder voters.
caucus - U.S. Representative Jared Polis
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This post is about why Google is getting attention for lobbying against PIPA/SOPA when other companies and other organizations were also against it.
I wanted to add my perspective to that. (I stay out of the IP discussions because I don't really care much. The rest of you can do battle. If you can bring down companies involved in GMOs, I'm all for it, but otherwise, I'll focus efforts on issues of more immediate concern to me.)
Any company that is big, and especially one that is hiring lobbyists, is going to get increased public scrutiny. Google and the other tech companies have gone from being perceived as "one of the good guys" to "one of the big guys." Google, Apple, and Facebook are now the new establishment. And there are grassroots efforts that will aim to take down any establishment entity. It goes with the territory.
Big tech has gotten more negative press in recent months and I expect to see even more of it. Here's an example:
Apple’s Brand Is at Stake as Customers Demand Better Labor Practices - Business - GOOD: Apple ignores these demands at its own risk. Such assaults on a company's reputation—especially a company as brand-focused as Apple—have rattled powerful organizations before, from the recent controversy at the Susan G. Komen Foundation to Nike's labor rights failures in the 1990s.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think privacy will be a big PR issue in the coming months because people want to think the entire Internet is theirs and will oppose attempts by Facebook and Google to have the pipelines run through them. Perhaps there will be new companies to bypass them. Or perhaps there will be more hacker take-downs. But I think the "people should control the Internet" spirit will continue. Anything big will potentially be a target.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The perspective has been that big media is bad and tech is good. But now I see more awareness that there are still power grabs here and as older industries die out, you have new ones moving in to protect their turfs.
As this article points out, the new system looks a lot like the old one in terms of power dynamics.
How SOPA and PIPA did and didn’t change how Washington lobbying works - Sunlight Foundation: And, as the Center for Responsive Politics’ Viveca Novak reported, computer and internet companies hired 246 lobbyists to advocate on SOPA and PIPA issues, as compared to 241 lobbyists hired by the TV, music and movie industry. Companies lobbying on these issues spent $104.6 million combined on these issues in the fourth quarter of 2011. Yes, Hollywood has been at the influence game longer. But tech has been rapidly catching up the last few years.
On the post: People Realizing That It Wasn't Google Lobbying That Stopped PIPA/SOPA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I based it on the most common discussions I had read here and other places. I found many of them not very persuasive. My point was that if you want to over turn IP laws and make a case for the average citizen, you need more firepower. In fact, I think it's fine if that is your goal. But do a better job at arguing it.
Where did you hear this? From what I've seen, they've increased spending on green energy:
Google quits plans to make cheap renewable energy | Reuters: (Reuters) - Google Inc has abandoned an ambitious project to make renewable energy cheaper than coal, the latest target of Chief Executive Larry Page's moves to focus the Internet giant on fewer efforts.
Google powers down its renewables drive
Google Chooses Web Investments over Green Energy
The privacy issues are why the EFF keeps suing Google. Personally, I think they're overblown, at least in this case. You don't want your info to be aggregated and used, don't put it on the web, simple as that.
I don't put my info on the web and I don't use services like Google+ and Foursquare or mobile Facebook because of privacy issues. But this will be an issue. For the same reasons that "shutting down the Internet" got people stirred up, so will "they are spying on you all the time." I'm just reporting trends here. If you think it won't be an issue, see what happened with Path. The revolution that wants the Internet to be free also doesn't want corporations like Google to run the show.
On the post: SOPA Strikedown Aftermath: Old Media Cannot Tell The Narrative Of One Million People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wouldn't it be great
That's great, but there are differences in opinion in what the voters want. We've got Tea Party people demanding that their candidates not compromise. But what those candidates stand for, I won't support.
My ideal candidate will champion sustainability, but that's not the priority for every voter. A politician who won't compromise his belief that we should wage war on the rest of the world wouldn't be one I'd vote for. I don't care how much integrity he has. A crazy guy with integrity is still a crazy guy.
On the post: SOPA Strikedown Aftermath: Old Media Cannot Tell The Narrative Of One Million People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wouldn't it be great
Rep. Jared Polis, Web entrepreneur, on SOPA (Q&A) | Privacy Inc. - CNET News
On the post: SOPA Strikedown Aftermath: Old Media Cannot Tell The Narrative Of One Million People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wouldn't it be great
Next >>