I'm sure they do profit off it, via advertising.
I imagine they oppose the bill because it would probably give other companies latitude to go poking around in Google's business, though. I'm sure Google has dirty laundry they don't want exposed (since they trample all over privacy rights themselves), and it's Google, they don't play nicely with others when push comes to shove.
I am now known as Flyboy.@Maxima
I have actually.. while you were writing your post, I was editing mine. I added some stuff, and I'll add more:
concrete expressions is what copyright law covers.
EDIT: yes, a 'specific execution' is not an idea; it's an actual physical thing that was made with one or more ideas in mind.
PS. Of course what 'concrete expression' covers is becoming quite debatable; digitization raises the question of what exactly is the concrete part? The DVD containing the data, with fancy label and packaging, is copyrightable; whether the actual data found on the DVD is a 'concrete expression' is rather dubious, as the cost of reproduction is negligible. So the whole 'copyright' model breaks down when put in context of the modern world. Especially, it has resulted in disenfranchising of the artist, whom the concept of copyright was originally designed to financially encourage to continue producing — the modern situation is that the lion's share of profits go to producers and publishers, rather than the main creative forces behind a work. We now need a legal model for protecting these creations that genuinely incentivizes the actual creators, as copyright law used to in times when information reproduction was expensive.
To further elaborate: Copyright when it was introduced centred around books. Reproducing books en mass was an expensive proposal, and the government wanted to incentivize people to write books. The particular sequence of words found in a given book is what was covered by copyright, in a broad sense — with the aim of discouraging people from undercutting the original book publisher with inferior, cheaper books or manipulative pricing strategies. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#History
A sequence of words is not an idea, in the same way that this sentence is not an idea. You interpret it in a specific way based on the words in the expression and the content of your own mind, which is certainly separate from the idea I had in my mind when writing it. These sentences are concrete expressions of the ideas behind them, which exist only in people's minds. (Have you ever seen a picture of the famous painting which is captioned "This is not a pipe" in French? It's like that. This is an event of me talking to you (ie. something concrete) rather than being the idea of me talking to you.)
</rant>
edited 16th Nov '11 4:14:57 PM by SavageOrange
'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'Let's relax for a moment, today was just the first hearing, and some of the bill's sponsors are starting to have their doubts
, let's see how this turns out.
I'm ashamed that I just found about this today.
Regardless, I'm not really worried. This bill has successfully pissed off 90% of the internet. I'm guessing Anonymous is already on this?
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.
I think you're talking to [[tropers:Savage Orange the other savage]].
Oh, certainly. I'm just saying, he's partially right, Google almost certainly does profit off piracy. After all, nothing of theirs is being pirated, and those pirating sites need to host advertising—through the Google semi-monopoly, obviously—to survive.
I just don't think that's why they oppose it, and Google is far from a paragon of virtue, what with all the data they collect from people—with or without our permission—and then sell off for who knows how much.
I'm frankly uncaring about this. Either it won't pass (doubt it), or it will and it'll be unenforceable, and no matter what it won't really be a problem.
Though Anonymous is the last thing you want to introduce here, because their stupid antics could drum up misguided support for the bill. The thing is self-destroying. No need to add in unknown quantities and possibly fuck that up.
I am now known as Flyboy.Of course it's not why they oppose it, but if they're going to support blocking the bill then I (and most people against it, I imagine) would certainly support them in this case.
go ahead and do every stupid thing you can imagine@Maxima: What Savage Heathen said. When you addressed me as "Savage" the first time, I wondered if you were mixing up our identities. Neither of us is a sockpuppet account for the other. We just have similar takes on this particular subject.
'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'I highly doubt such a thing would happen. The corporations would waste their time with the Pirate Bay and other sites of their ilk.
Once again, I didn't say we shouldn't. I'm saying that the guy is at least half-right: Google is Only in It for the Money, albeit not quite entirely in the way he thought. That's all.
I am now known as Flyboy.Granted, though, the US is the home to Danbooru, one of the 'Net's largest imageboards, if I'm not mistaken.
People will get pissed if that gets messed with.
edited 16th Nov '11 5:00:44 PM by RocketDude
@USAF
Well, of course Google is at least mostly in it for the money.
Which honestly just points up how ridiculous this bill is, as it's going to screw over many, many legitimate law-abiding companies. The media conglomerates are literally the only people who would benefit from this.
edited 16th Nov '11 5:05:15 PM by Jeysie
Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)But of course.
Society wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want their near-post-scarcity supply product without having to pay for it even if the actual creation of said object is far from post-scarcity, and the socialized system necessary to even make such an idea realistically fair and feasible will be refused by them because that would cost money, oh teh noes.
It simply can't end well. This bill is a product of the relics of a by-gone age attempting to lash out at their killers. Soon, we'll probably be looking at equally extreme and equally stupid bills from the opposite side of the issue: people who wish to do away with patents and copyright and trademark and just have everything made free... while either not understanding or not caring that society would not function under such a system...
edited 16th Nov '11 5:11:22 PM by USAF713
I am now known as Flyboy.- reducing copyright duration to a reasonably short period (no more than about 15 years)
- pulverizing patent trolling
- banning software patents entirely
- eliminating the proliferation of trivially invalid patents and the practice of actively avoiding checking for prior art
- the general situation that leads companies to make reams of 'defensive patents'
- frivolous trademark lawsuits based on coincidences or very weak resemblances.
- huge licensing charges which the artists' bank accounts receive very little of.
- distribution and marketing people making much more money on creations than the artists behind them.
edited 16th Nov '11 5:37:16 PM by SavageOrange
'Don't beg for anything, do it yourself, or else you won't get anything.'@USAF 713
Uhm. No. Most people don't want to pirate. They just want a product that's easy to get at a fair price for what they're getting. The success of places like iTunes, Amazon's MP 3 store, Steam, Stardock, GOG, Spotify, Pandora, and so on has proven that.
If the media companies would stop with these sorts of idiot tactics and focus on actually giving the public what they want, things would work a lot better.
Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)No.
That... doesn't really make sense. Why shouldn't Microsoft or Apple be allowed to patent things they make? What should happen is that we should simply break up their monopolies and then have actual competition create lots and lots of different software types to choose from.
Until the anti-copyright fools work up the faulty "post-scarcity" argument and convince everyone to try and make everything "free."
edited 16th Nov '11 5:42:34 PM by USAF713
I am now known as Flyboy.@USAF
Yes.
I hate to say it, but copyrights do have to be reduced, at least for software or other technology-based things. I mean, there is software (mostly games) that are younger than I am that are basically lost forever due to rapidly changing hardware and copies of the programs degrading and the companies that made the software not even being in business any more. By the time the normal copyright time ends, it'll hardly matter, as there'll be nothing left for the public domain.
The same's happened to some TV and film as well, although film at least has a preservation society now to try to prevent more old films from being lost forever.
The current copyright length works fine for print media that can last forever as long as there's at least one paper copy somewhere, but with technology-based media we're advancing faster than our ability to archive and adapt things and keep them accessible until copyright fades.
As for software patents, the explanation is lengthy, but he's right, software patents are actually crippling software development and causing shitloads of problems, rather than aiding development like patents are supposed to do.
edited 16th Nov '11 5:47:22 PM by Jeysie
Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)Patents are useful because they describe how something works (which is important for history) and give the grantee a certain amount of control over the idea stated in the patent, but with the understanding that it has to be novel (if it turns out your idea existed before the patent was filed, they can either deny the patent or invalidate it after it's granted). The third thing is what the US patent office has been having so much trouble with; there's simply not enough examiners to consider the reams of patents companies crank out now.
Combine that with the pressure to rubber-stamp things without looking at them, because of the huge number of people betting on them, and it gets awkward.
online since 1993 | huge retrocomputing and TV nerd | lee4hmz.info (under construction) | heapershangout.com

And NOW I am majorly confused. Is there any way that's accurate??
It was an honor