You are here

Copyright

The Goolag Infopelago

 

Google's oft-stated goal to "change the world" and its famed mission to centralize all of the world's information to make it universally accessible, self-appoints Google to be the world's omni-information gatekeeper, distributor, librarian, publisher, editor, programmer, and broadcaster.

In building its Googleopoly, Google represented itself to everyone as unbiased and neutral in order to gain everyone's trust.

A core concern with Google's centralized information power and opaque black box system is that Google has the unaccountable power and constant opportunity to decide what information people around the world access, and also to decide what information Google does not want them to find.

Today in Politico's top story "Tech War: Google vs Microsoft" by Elizabeth Wasserman, I was quoted saying: "It's scary that the monopoly information access point of the world is going after voices of dissent."

 

  • What do I mean about going after dissenters?
    • Read Brian Deagon's Investors Business Daily 12-10 piece "When Analysts Look Over Their Shoulders," which chronicles how the Google Dissent Police bullies the press to not talk with, or quote, Google critics they don't like.

 

Regulatory Dissonance: FreePress' Tim Wu at FTC & Administration: No Burdensome Regulations

If ever there was a prime example of "regulatory dissonance" it would be:

 

 

Google: 'Settlements 'R' Us?' Is Google Choosing Regulation?

Has Google shifted its legal strategy from its scorched earth legal tactics to more brand-friendly 'Settlements 'R' Us' political tactics?

  • And is Google politically ramping up its lobbying against "search regulation" to try and minimize the restrictions it has to abide by in order to settle the phalanx of serious law enforcement investigations and lawsuits it is facing on antitrust, privacy and intellectual property?

I. There is emerging evidence that Google may be in settlement court-regulation-submission mode.

Glass House Google Throws Stones

The company that has copied all the world's information on its servers without permission and has a mission to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful," ironically has decided to be publicly indignant about the alleged copying of its public search information.

 

  • It is the supreme irony that "glass-house Google" has accused Microsoft of copying Google's public search results.
    • In a blog post Google shared its purpose behind its stone-throwing accusation: "...to those who have asked what we want out of this, the answer is simple: we'd like for this practice to stop."

It pathetically ironic that Google can comprehend that it does not like to have its own claimed private or proprietary information copied and made accessible to the world for free, but Google cannot comprehend why anyone else would not like Google to copy their private or proprietary information without permission and make it available to the world for free.

Let's review all of the other entities who like Google would "like for this practice to stop" -- by Google.

Could Google now possibly better understand why:

 

Wikileaks & Responsible Open Internet Boundaries

Julian Assange's reprehensible Wikileaks data breaches of secret, private and proprietary information to the web, endangering lives, diplomacy and peace, has thrust to the forefront of public debate: what are the responsible boundaries of an "Open Internet?"

 

  • It is an especially timely debate given that the FCC is proposing an "Open Internet Order" for FCC decision on December 21st, and given that the FCC is trying to officially define what an "open Internet" is for the first time, in order to restrict what competitive broadband Internet providers can and cannot do.

 

It is instructive that the term "open Internet" is found nowhere in law.

 

Google TV: Dumb Content vs. Content is King

Why are the Big Four networks Fox, NBC, ABC, and CBS, not flocking to Google TV, the largest digital video distribution network in the the world -- by far? And why did Forrester's analyst characterize Google TV's programmer sign-ups to date as "underwhelming?"

The core reason is a profound vision and business model clash between existing programmers/distributors and Google Inc. Why?

 

Google's search for a solution to the problem it is

In a comical defense of Google, David Balto of the Center for American Progress pleaded for the Government to not regulate Google in his HuffPo Op-ed: "Regulating Google: Searching for a solution without a problem." Let me count the ironies here.

 

First, Mr. Balto is attempting to shield Google behind the successful defense of the broadband industry against mandated net neutrality regulation that "net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem."

That defense works because it is true. The industry has only one official net neutrality violation that has withstood scrutiny and due process -- Madison River in 2005. Since then, the roughly 2,000 broadband networks in the U.S. have abided by the FCC's 2005 Broadband Principles and remain committed to work constructively to ensure that consumers can neutrally access and use the legal content, applications, and devices of their choice.

 

Googleopoly VI -- How Google Monopolizes Consumer Internet Media (41 page PowerPoint Presentation)

The link is here to: "Googleopoly VI -- How Google is Monopolizing Consumer Internet Media and Threatening a Price Deflationary Spiral and Major Job Losses in a Trillion Dollar Sector" -- It is a 41 page PowerPoint presentation with 18 pages of pictorial analysis.

Below is the Executive Summary: (The PDF link is here.)

 

Executive Summary

Googleopoly VI – Seeing the Big Picture: How Google is Monopolizing Consumer Internet Media

And Threatening a Price Deflationary Spiral & Major Job Losses in a $Trillion Sector

By Scott Cleland* President of Precursor LLC, September 13, 2010

Google kicks wrong beehive -- IAC -- which is now stinging over no search neutrality

Serial beehive kicker Google, just kicked the wrong beehive -- IAC.

  • Kudos to FT's Richard Waters for his outstanding front-page story based on an interview with Barry Diller, Chairman of IAC and Chairman of Expedia, on the implications of the Google-ITA deal and Google's lack of search neutrality.
    • Read the article and visualize the angry bee swarm, whose hive has been kicked and which is pursuing the kicker with a vengence.  

So fixated on stomping on the potential competitive threat posed by Microsoft's vertical search competitive differentiation strategy, i.e. by buying the dominant airline software supplier ITA, Google apparently did not look down to see that it was trampling on the honey pot of one Google's biggest and most important partners/allies -- IAC and Barry Diller -- in buying ITA and abruptly heralding its broader ambitions of invading and conquering the vertical space of its many online content partners.

  • Google made a very big strategic mistake on this deal that will be hard for Google's legendary PR machine to cover up.  

Why will the IAC sting hurt Google more than other beehives that Google has kicked? 

Why Viacom Likely Wins Viacom-Google Copyright Appeal

Viacom is likely to ultimately prevail in its appeal of the lower Court decision in the seminal Viacom vs. Google-YouTube copyright infringement case.

  • If one only reads either the lower court's decision or the press reports of it, without considering likely appellate arguments and the broader constitutional context of copyright protection, it is easy to missread the likely ultimate outcome here. 
  • Both sides agreed to an expedited summary judgment process in the lower court, because both sides fully expected this case to ultimately be decided at the appellate level, and most likely by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • Expect the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to decide Viacom's appeal in 2011 and the Supreme Court to likely take the case and decide it in 2012 -- given how central this case is to maintaining copyright protection in the Internet age.

Why is Viacom likely to prevail on appeal?

Pages

Q&A One Pager Debunking Net Neutrality Myths