Chris Dodd proves conclusively why no one involved in politics, the entertainment industry or big business should be allowed anywhere near regulation of the internet. MPAA CEO (and former US senator) Chris Dodd said this:
"How do you justify a search engine providing for someone to go and steal something?" he asked rhetorically in a recent interview at the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers conference. "A guy that drives the getaway car didn't rob the bank necessarily, but they got you to the bank and they got you out of it, so they are accessories in my view."
This statement is either a complete misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what a search engine like Google is. Google is not the driver, they are the phone book where the robber looked up the address of the bank. Should we stop the phone company for publishing phone numbers and addresses?
Reshared post from +Patrick Beja
MPAA Boss: If The Chinese Censor The Internet Without A Problem, Why Can't The US?
Well sir, that's precisely the issue: the way you want to control the Internet would basically transform us into China. You don't see the problem there? Really?…
OR, in a more inflammatory style:
!!!EXCLUSIVE!!! MPAA Boss Dreams of Communist Amercia!!
Embedded Link
MPAA Boss: If The Chinese Censor The Internet Without A Problem, Why Can't The US? | Techdirt
The MPAA is getting pretty desperate, it seems. MPAA boss Chris Dodd was out trying to defend censoring the internet this week by using China as an example of why censorship isn't a problem. It's ki…
Google+: Reshared 1 times
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
If you think government regulation of the Internet is bad, just wait until your health care is at their mercy. The natural order of the world is for every person to be free to sell, buy, produce, trade, etc., anything they want on mutually agreeable terms. The government should not run around telling Google what to do or what not to do. I don't think that's an authority that the 13 states lent to the federal government in 1789.
+Anton Wahlman your analogy is fundamentally flawed. While a free market is good in principal, it really only works when there are a sufficiently large number of actors on both the supply and demand sides so that no one can unduly influence the price. Unfortunately today's world is very different from the one that Adam Smith lived in with large multi-national corporations that do limit how low prices can fall. The wrong-headed supreme court ruling that gives personhood to corporations only makes things worse.
We can not allow a limited number of media companies to control what happens on the internet without any recourse to due process because almost inevitably they will go too far.
Similarly health insurance providers don't really fit here because the business is now dominated by a relatively small number of large for profit providers that put undue limitations on the ability of individuals to get coverage at an affordable price. We also can't just apply absolutes about the free market to every area of society and economy. I believe health care is one such case. It's more important to make sure everyone gets reasonable health care than to ensure that a few huge companies can make enormous profits.