5 ms·

GoDaddy's position doesn't strike me as malicious, but rather hopelessly naive. "We can't imagine the powers in this bill being abused" seems to be their positi

GoDaddy's position doesn't strike me as malicious, but rather hopelessly naive. "We can't imagine the powers in this bill being abused" seems to be their position.

rst 15y ago
Well, then, a few examples of malice and overreach (e.g., Universal's recent takedown of a video in which they admitted knowing they had no copyright, and then a daily newscast which excerpted that video) would be enough to make the point. Assuming they're not just being disingenuous. Takedowns described here: http://boingboing.net/2011/12/15/universal-music-uses-false-cop.html http://boingboing.net/2011/12/15/universal-music-uses-false-...
badkangaroo 15y ago
Naive to say the least. Mell Watt, one of congressmen present at the first hearing admitted to not knowing what a dividend was, and voted to allow banks to gamble on chaotic markets causing the 2008 crash. Now he's admitting to "not knowing anything about this technology" and saying "im no nerd, but..." and then continues to say that Issa was just wrong, and his experts are wrong, experts which include google. If you don't understand what you're voting on you're supposed to abstain.
- mehwoot 15y ago
  Can I just point out, there is no way google and any of their experts are going to be neutral in this. Google has everything to lose and nothing to gain from stricter copyright policing. Just because someone is an expert doesn't mean they are neutral. I'm sure there would have been very many financial 'experts' from the banks arguing why the banks needed the freedom to do what they did...
  - Klinky 15y ago
    I will agree to an extent with your point. An expert's neutrality can often be questioned. However, I bet you that the experts some in congress are relying on, write their opinions down on green pieces of paper with numbers on them.

5 ms·

GoDaddy's position doesn't strike me as malicious, but rather hopelessly naive. "We can't imagine the powers in this bill being abused" seems to be their positi

by breckinloggins 15y ago

GoDaddy's position doesn't strike me as malicious, but rather hopelessly naive. "We can't imagine the powers in this bill being abused" seems to be their position.

rst 15y ago
Well, then, a few examples of malice and overreach (e.g., Universal's recent takedown of a video in which they admitted knowing they had no copyright, and then a daily newscast which excerpted that video) would be enough to make the point. Assuming they're not just being disingenuous. Takedowns described here: http://boingboing.net/2011/12/15/universal-music-uses-false-cop.html http://boingboing.net/2011/12/15/universal-music-uses-false-...
badkangaroo 15y ago
Naive to say the least. Mell Watt, one of congressmen present at the first hearing admitted to not knowing what a dividend was, and voted to allow banks to gamble on chaotic markets causing the 2008 crash. Now he's admitting to "not knowing anything about this technology" and saying "im no nerd, but..." and then continues to say that Issa was just wrong, and his experts are wrong, experts which include google. If you don't understand what you're voting on you're supposed to abstain.
- mehwoot 15y ago
  Can I just point out, there is no way google and any of their experts are going to be neutral in this. Google has everything to lose and nothing to gain from stricter copyright policing. Just because someone is an expert doesn't mean they are neutral. I'm sure there would have been very many financial 'experts' from the banks arguing why the banks needed the freedom to do what they did...
  - Klinky 15y ago
    I will agree to an extent with your point. An expert's neutrality can often be questioned. However, I bet you that the experts some in congress are relying on, write their opinions down on green pieces of paper with numbers on them.