MPAA, RIAA Blast Google's Pledge to Fight Net Filters

[nsane.forums]

Call the move "baffling," and a form of a "corporate imperialism." Say proposed US net filter doesn't compare to China's "Great Firewall" because China's filter isn't "bi-partisan" or "narrowly tailored."

Soon after Google's executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, said the company would fight efforts to implement a US net filtering regime the MPAA and RIAA weighed in to criticize the search engine giant for opposing the plans.

Schmidt set net filters would set a "disastrous precedent" for freedom of speech online, and that even if legislation was passed into law it would still fight it.

"If there is a law that requires DNSs [domain name systems, the protocol that allows users to connect to websites] to do X and it's passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president of the United States and we disagree with it then we would still fight it," he said.

The MPAA expressed astonishment at the comment and asked if Schmidt believes Google is "above the law."

"Is Eric Schmidt really suggesting that if Congress passes a law and President Obama signs it, Google wouldn't follow it? As an American company respected around the world, it's unfortunate that, at least according to its executive chairman's comments, Google seems to think it's above America's laws," said the MPAA.

Plans for web filtering in the US are still in the early stages. Last week lawmakers submitted the "Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011," or the "PROTECT IP Act." The bill would give the Dept of Justice the power to force US based third-parties, including ISPs, payment processors, online advertising network providers, and search engines to either block access to infringing sites or cease doing business with it.

Schmidt added that he thought net filtering would set a "disastrous precedent" for freedom of speech online, and compared it to the "Great Firewall" of China.

The MPAA responded by claiming the two aren't the same since China's net filtering regime isn't "bi-partisan" or "narrowly tailored."

"And the notion that China would use a bi-partisan, narrowly tailored bill as a pretext for censorship is laughable, as Google knows, China does what China does," it said.

It's an odd criticism to make. Just because a bill is "bi-partisan" doesn't mean it's any different, and how can it say the "PROTECT IP Act" is "narrowly tailored" when it encourages voluntary filtering and sanctions against sites that third parties can arbitrarily determine are infringing?

The legislation also puts the US govt in the hypocritical position of telling other countries not to filter the Internet while we ourselves do. Last March the US State Dept criticized the Australia govt over similar plans in that country.

Even further damaging is a statement made by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging the private sector to "take a proactive role in challenging foreign governments' demands for censorship and surveillance."

"The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what's right, not simply what's a quick profit," she added.

Doesn't this apply to Google even if it is right here at home?

The RIAA called Google's comments "baffling" and said it couldn't believe the company doesn't care about creating a "civilized online ecosystem," but is it really all that baffling that a search engine would be concerned about govt attempts to filter its results? What's to stop every other country in the world from demanding a filtering regime of their own?

View: Original Article