On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Lagroue, Jared (student) < [email protected]> wrote:
> Just came across this post (via slashdot) from yesterday, supposedly > presenting a new research study sponsored by Google & PRS for music: > > http://googlepolicyeurope.blogspot.de/2012/07/follow-money-to-fight-online-piracy.html > > From the article: "Instead of imposing blocks or filters that might > damage fundamental freedoms, governments should construct coalitions with > reputable advertising networks, payment processors and rightsholders. > Together, these coalitions can crack down and squeeze the financing behind > online infringement." > > Can anyone clarify that this blog is Google-approved? > It sure is. To clear up any doubt, you can find it in the official Google blog directory: https://www.google.com/intl/en/press/blog-directory.html > Thoughts on this enforcement approach? Does this ignore non-commercial > copyright infringement? And does it remove the "need" for government > action against infringers? > I'm speaking as myself here and not representing the views of my employer, but this enforcement approach seems very problematic, especially in area where there are functional monopolies. There were "follow the money" provisions in early versions of SOPA that were actually pulled out due to early backlash. One major problem is who is responsible for determining the conduct of coalitions of advertisers and payment providers. Many "follow-the-money" implementations set up a vigilante system, where accusations of wrongdoing can choke off a site's revenue streams even before the site sees due process. The canonical example of this is Wikileaks: before any sort of legal proceeding, nearly every major payment provider was willing to voluntarily turn off payment processing to the organization. Some legal proposals for "follow-the-money" would grant immunity to the payment providers or ad networks in case they revoke access to the accused party, but not in cases where they allow access to continue. Obviously, that sets up a strong incentive to over-comply. As a tool for reducing unauthorized downloading, cutting off ad revenue streams may actually be effective. The problem is, it's effective against pretty much any sort of unpopular speech. Parker -- parker higgins san francisco, ca http://parkerhiggins.net gmail / gchat: [email protected] twitter / identi.ca: @xor skype: thisisparker please consider software freedom before reading this e-mail on a proprietary platform
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
