Sons of Anarchy Creator Kurt Sutter Responds to Google Shill Marvin Ammori, and boy is it good!

So Google shill Marvin Ammori wrote an Asperger’s ridden anti-copyright, anti-artist tirade on Slate. Of course in doing so Marvin failed to represent his past and current affiliations to Google. Slate, to their credit amended the rant with the following:

Update, March 11, 2014: Disclosure: The author represented Google and other companies fighting SOPA/PIPA in 2011 and 2012. He currently represents Google and other companies on several issues, including copyright reform. These views are his own.

googlepropagandaasnews

Of course, this isn’t the first time that those with a political agenda haven’t disclosed their affiliations. Who can forget Timothy B. Lee’s Epic Fail in the Washington Post on Piracy?

And so, we present the brilliant rebuttal to Google’s disingenuous attack on the rights of individual creators and artists by Kurt Sutter.

Not-So-Zen and the Art of Voluntary Agreements
Google’s anti-copyright stance is just a way to devalue content. That’s bad for artists and bad for consumers. By Kurt Sutter

It’s so absurd that Google is still presenting itself as the lovable geek who’s the friend of the young everyman. Don’t kid yourself, kids: Google is the establishment. It is a multibillion-dollar information portal that makes dough off of every click on its page and every data byte it streams. Do you really think Google gives a shit about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope. You’re just another revenue resource Google can access to create more traffic and more data streams. Unfortunately, those streams are now pristine, digital ones of our work, which all flow into a huge watershed of semi-dirty cash. If you want to know more about how this works, just Google the word “parasite.” And if you think I’m exaggerating, ask yourself why Google spends tens of millions of dollars each year to hire lawyers and lobbyists (like Marv) whose sole purpose is to erode creative copyright laws.

Do they do this because they hate artists? No. They do it because they love money.

READ THE FULL STORY AT SLATE:
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2014/03/sons_of_anarchy_creator_kurt_sutter_google_s_copyright_stance_is_bad_for.html

RELATED:

Google, Advertising, Money and Piracy. A History of Wrongdoing Exposed.|Trichordist

Why Google Really is Evil | Fox Business News

Google and Trichordist to debate piracy profits in London | Music Week

Google pretends to care about human rights | Vox Indie

It’s not the message, but the messenger–a hypocrite to its very corporate core.  If Google as a company truly believed in “human rights” why does it continue to disregard the rights of artists at every turn?  Perhaps those who doodle for Google might want to review the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 27, paragraph 2) which includes this passage:

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Why is Google so keen on “fair play” and the rights of athletes to compete, but when it comes to artists, not so much?

READ THE FULL STORY AT VOX INDIE:
http://voxindie.org/google-lgbt-olympic-doodle-opportunism

Why Google Really is Evil | Fox Business News

There’s an old saying, sooner or later the truth will out.

It’s also clear that, after Schmidt joined Apple’s (AAPL) board of directors, Android magically evolved from a BlackBerry-like device with a physical keypad into essentially an iPhone clone with a virtual keypad and multitouch display.

Right up until the Federal Trade Commission forced him off Apple’s board in 2009, Schmidt maintained that Google was not really a competitor to Apple’s iPhone. Of course, Google followed Apple’s next breakthrough device, the iPad, with Android tablets which, presumably, weren’t competitors either.

You just can’t make this stuff up.

There’s so much more in the Fox story it really is endlessly fascinating, and not that we’re surprised.

Besides having founders and top executives with the ethical flexibility to stab one of its closest partners in the back with a classic bait-and-switch while disingenuously attempting to maintain a superior moral high ground, there’s even more evidence that Google is the most evil tech company since Microsoft was, back in the day.

It now appears inevitable that, at some point, Google will know more about you than you do. If you’re at all concerned about privacy, forget the NSA; it’s Google you should be worried about.

READ THE FULL STORY AT FOX BUSINESS:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2014/01/17/why-google-really-is-evil/

Google Can Bite Me | The Illusion of More

Never wanting to lose an opportunity to be bizarrely two-faced, Google is sending around a little graphic today to all you GMail users implying that stopping SOPA in January of 2012 actually enabled creativity to continue to thrive on the Web. Never mind that nothing in SOPA could have stopped you or me or any other would-be creator from uploading our works, ideas, or captured events to the Web; that’s just pesky reality.

But Google isn’t satisfied just to effect public policy in its own interests, it also wants to behave like the abusive and negligent father, who creepily shows up with a smile and a hug when his kid wins an award or becomes famous.

After all, this week isn’t just the anniversary of SOPA Blackout Day, it’s also the week Google received its 100 millionth takedown notice from recording artists who would rather not have their works exploited without permission or compensation. So, the whole, “we protected creativity together” message just kinda makes the skin crawl. Y’know?

READ THE FULL POST AT THE ILLUSION OF MORE:
http://illusionofmore.com/google-bite-me/

Google’s Fallacious Piracy Self-Study (Part 1) | Music Tech Policy

The Context

Even if you discount the moral hazard involved with funding a study of yourself, the Google survey of Google’s involvement with piracy is a breathtaking document. I would suggest that the self-study rests on a number of core principles for Google’s business:

1. Nothing to See Here, Move Along: First and foremost is Google’s deep and abiding desire to deflect criticism in the press, avoid civil lawsuits and settle criminal investigations. It has both succeeded and failed at all three. The fact that a company tries to avoid these things is not special; the degree to which Google tries to manage them is quite special.

The self-study is itself an exercise in all three and supports the most important public perception that Google draws on daily to succeed in its consumer facing business: Sympathetic trust. To paraphrase an old California pol, you know all the bad they’ve done, but you like them anyway.

This magical thinking only lasts for so long. Whether its Eric Schmidt’s New York soundproof man-cave from which no scream can emerge, doing a favor for journalist Tom Brokaw by providing a private jet for a Silicon Valley speaking engagement with jet fuel subsidized by the American taxpayer, siphoning piles of data to the National Security Agency under circumstances the average citizen will probably never learn the details of, or paying a $500,000,000 fine for violating the Controlled Substances Act for indiscriminately promoting the sale of prescription drugs (e.g., to addicts and kids), the press and the public is starting to wake up to the game.

And not just the game, but the magnitude of the game. As a senior chief once said, sorry pal, the BS filter is full.

Read The Full Post At Music Tech Policy:
http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/googles-fallacious-piracy-self-study-part-1/

How Google (Doesn’t) Fight Piracy | Vox Indie

Claiming to be a “leader” in the fight against piracy is Google’s first mistake

This past week Google issued a report, “How Google Fights Piracy,” in which the tech giant attempts to explain what a great job it’s doing leading battle against online piracy. After reading it I think a more accurate title would be “Why Google Shouldn’t Have to Fight Piracy Because it Offers so Much Other Good Stuff.”

In an effort to burnish their tarnished image, the authors resort to repeating well-worn and disingenuous Google-spawned memes (which I’ve repeatedly deconstructed on this blog). These include:

* YouTube makes money for artists so there’s no need to provide a transparent accounting

* DMCA abuse is a considerable problem Search is “not a major driver of traffic to pirate sites”

* Google is committed to “rooting out and ejecting rogue sites” from AdSense

* Google quickly and efficiently terminates Blogger websites that feature pirated content

READ THE FULL STORY HERE:
http://voxindie.org/how-google-does-not-fight-piracy

The “Chilling Effects” of YouTube’s Internet Censorship and Lack of Transparency

We’ve been watching with interest a story developing over at Digital Music News. The site ran a guest editorial by Jeff Price promoting his new YouTube Content Management System Collections Service, Audiam.

It’s interesting to note how Price targets distribution companies as the black hats but does not criticize YouTube for their less than stellar “Openess and Transparency” with artists. East Bay Ray of The Dead Kennedys spoke to NPR about his frustrations with Google.

YouTube Shares Ad Revenue With Musicians, But Does It Add Up?

“Holiday in Cambodia” by the punk band Dead Kennedys has been streamed on YouTube over 2.5 million times. Guitarist Raymond Pepperell — also known as East Bay Ray — says, overall, Dead Kennedys videos have been watched about 14 million times. But the band has only seen a few hundred dollars.

“I don’t know — and no one I know knows — how YouTube calculates the money”

It’s easy to see why so many readers took exception to Price’s understanding of how YouTube monetization works (or actually doesn’t). One of those people wrote a response to Price’s editorial, Emmanuel Zunz of ONErpm.

Why Jeff Price Is Horribly Misinformed About YouTube Monetization…

If I understand Audiam’s business model correctly (I have tested the service), it’s a pure Content ID play.  So here is my first point: Audiam states that they pay artists 100% of the revenues they collect for them from their own channel.  But by generating UGC claims on their channels that pay out at 35% instead of the Standard 55% an artist can get on their own, they are actually reducing the amount of money a musician can make through a Standard direct deal with YouTube.

What follows is the real story about the lack of transparency and openess that Google claims is essential to a “free and open” internet. You know, the kind of “free and open” internet where you make the music, movies, books, photos, etc and Google is “free and open” to monetize it without restriction. “Permissionless Innovation” yo!

So apparently when Zunz was being transparent and open (um, without permission) about Google/YouTube payments and policies in his response to Price he got a little to close to home in revealing Google family secrets. The result was a panicked Zunz contacting Digital Music News to remove, retract and/or otherwise redact the information that Zunz had made public. Oooopsies…

YouTube Demands the Removal of a Digital Music News Guest Post…

According to ONErpm, YouTube has demanded that the entire guest post – here – be ripped down, which would obliterate nearly 100 comments and the knowledgebase that comes with that (not to mention the detailed information in the post itself).

But the story doesn’t end there. Zunz had already written a second a highly detailed post for Digital Music News detailing how YouTube monetization actually works! Unfortunately that “Open and Transparent” post is not going to see the light of day in educating musicians about the actual mechanics, percentages and payments by YouTube.

YouTube Successfully Intimidates a DMN Guest Contributor…

It’s called “the chilling effect”…

Despite serious threats, YouTube has been unsuccessful at removing an earlier article on Digital Music News about confusing royalty payouts and specifics.  But what they have been successful at is preventing the next one: a 4,000+ word, highly-detailed essay on YouTube best practices and royalties, from a company highly-specialized in YouTube distribution.

The company simply got spooked, and asked that we not print the piece for fear of having their MCN status revoked by YouTube.  So here’s what artists, labels, publishers, startups, and the industry is missing as a result.

So the next time someone wants to talk about the benefits of a transparent, free and open internet based in permissionless innovation it might be worth while to send them this post. After all wasn’t it Google Chairman Eric Schmidt who said, “If You Have Something You Don’t Want Anyone To Know, Maybe You Shouldn’t Be Doing It“?

So when Google protects it’s interests it’s “business” but when musicians protect their rights it’s “censorship”.

Where are the defenders of internet freedom when you need them? The crusaders against internet censorship are silent…

Ready The Clown Car : Kim Dotcom Contemplates Suing Google, Twitter and Facebook

Serious folks, we can’t make this up.

“Twitter introduces Two-Step-Authentication. Using my invention. But they won’t even verify my Twitter account?!,” Dotcom tweeted.

“Google, Facebook, Twitter, Citibank, etc. offer Two-Step-Authentication. Massive IP (intellectual property) infringement by U.S. companies. My innovation. My patent,” he added.

But it get’s better…

“I never sued them. I believe in sharing knowledge & ideas for the good of society. But I might sue them now cause of what the US did to me,” he said.

However, he said a more productive approach would be if the tech giants helped cover his legal bills to fight prosecution under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA), which he estimated would exceed US$50 million.

“Google, Facebook, Twitter, I ask you for help. We are all in the same DMCA boat. Use my patent for free. But please help fund my defence,” he tweeted.

So essentially he’s threatening to sue the very same people he’s asking for money. Interesting strategy. We’re not sure that Google, Facebook and Twitter feel they are in the same boat. It’s difficult to believe these companies would want to be anywhere near the imploding public spectacle known as Kim Dotcom.

READ THE FULL STORY HERE:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/technology/kim-dotcom-mulls-suing-tech-giants-for-c/685072.html

you may also enjoy…

UPDATE:
Kim Dotcom claims he invented two-factor authentication—but he wasn’t first | Ars Technica

Dotcom’s European patent was revoked in 2011 largely because AT&T had a patent on the same technology with a priority date from 1995. (Thanks to Emily Weal of patent law firm Keltie for pointing out Dotcom’s European patent travails in the IP Copy blog.)

While Dotcom’s patent in the US is still in force, AT&T also has a US patent pre-dating hisThe Guardian pointed out that Ericsson and Nokia also have patent filings for two-factor systems predating Dotcom’s.

Launch and Iterate: Google’s Permissionless Innovation.

Every once in a while Google will accidentally reveal their true  nature through some cute slogan or catchphrase.

There is of course their famous corporate slogan  “Don’t be evil”.

As noted previously, we at The Trichordist believe that  “Don’t be evil” is not their corporate slogan but secretly their  corporate reminder.  Eric Schmidt has this written on the back of his hand in black marker.

Then there is their Net Neutrality campaign slogan they farmed out to one of their astro-turf organizations:  “We are the web.”   Yes Google we are quite aware that you think that “you are the web”. That you believe you own the web and all of our personal data.  Sergey Brin recently became apoplexic when discussing the fact that companies like Facebook and Apple have “closed” ecosystems that do not allow Google to scrape all of their data.    “How dare they? We Are the Web!”

Like Germans Google is mostly unintentionally funny.   Last week’s howler came in hearings on Capitol Hill. Google’s Internet Evangelist  Vint Cerf let this slip out:

“Such proposals raise the prospect of policies that enable government controls but greatly diminish the ‘permissionless innovation’ that underlies extraordinary Internet-based economic growth, to say nothing of trampling human rights,” said Vint Cerf.”

Now I understand that Vint Cerf was talking about some specific  proposals  from authoritarian governments that would  really truly be a threat to free access to the internet.  For once I agree with a Google spokesperson. But what caused me to guffaw was the phrase “permissionless innovation”.   It slipped out so smoothly and seemed so well-worn it was as if  Google’s collective Id  was speaking directly to us all.

It  seems particularly significant when you combine that with Van Lohman’s ( Google Senior Copyright Counsel)  cheerful admission of  Google’s “Launch and Iterate” copyright contempt strategy.  As reported in the Huffington Post:

Fred von Lohmann, senior copyright counsel at Google, reflected on how copyright has been an issue since the earliest search engines. Asked how to address the various obstacles of digital platforms, he cheerfully sloganeered “As we say at Google ‘launch and iterate,’ ” by which he meant the best approach for digital media companies, since the waters of copyright will remain murky for some time, is simply to launch content, learn from the inevitable public and legal response and then improve. The “launch and iterate” mentality allows for experiments in freedom of expression as well as public participation.

This same wonderful “experiment” also allows google to make plenty of money by exploiting artists without compensation.  But I digress.

From the Google Permissionless Innovation Department:

Google Books:  Don’t ask the authors if we can digitize their books, let’s just  monetize search within those books?

YouTube:  Let’s just put all this video content on the web and we’ll deal with the copyright owners later.

Shareholder rights:  Let’s screw virtually everyone but the founders by issuing new  non voting class c stock.  We’ll deal with the SEC and shareholder lawsuits later.

And of course you can apply “permissionless innovation” to many other rogue companies in the web space. After all according to the largely google funded copyleft  file-sharing sites are more innovative than sites like iTunes that seek permission.  That’s why consumers prefer The Pirate Bay to iTunes.  Not because they get stuff for free but because  The Pirate Bay is a pioneer in “permissionless innovation”.

I suppose the ultimate in “permissionless innovation” are the human trafficking sites.  No wonder Google apparently  refuses to restrict the flow of advertising dollars to these sites.  They are fellow “permissionless innovators”.

All sarcasm aside.  This is the problem with Google. It has never grown up.  There is something juvenile and narcissistic about it’s corporate culture. It’s slogan should be “you are not the boss of me”.  They have perverted the concept of internet freedom to mean don’t tell Google what to do ever.  Think I’m exaggerating?

” If we could wave a magic wand and not be subject to US law, that would be great.” –Sergey Brin quoted in The Guardian UK. 

Permissionless Innovation.  We love this phrase.  Do you mind if we Artists For An Ethical Internet keep it?