iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Protect IP Act: Eric Schmidt Suggests Alternative To Online Piracy Bill

Protect Ip Act

CHRIS WILLIAMS   11/30/11 07:29 PM ET   AP

MINNEAPOLIS — Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said Wednesday that it would be a mistake for Congress to approve Hollywood-backed legislation meant to combat online piracy because it would be ineffective and could fundamentally alter the way the Internet works.

Companion bills before the House and Senate would allow copyright holders to go to court to compel credit card companies and online advertising companies, including Google, to cut off websites dedicated to distributing pirated material. Prosecutors would be able to get court orders forcing search engines to drop the sites.

The House's Stop Online Piracy Act the Senate's Protect IP Act are backed by the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which estimates the cost of online piracy at $135 million a year. Internet giants Google, Yahoo, Facebook have come out against the legislation.

In response to a question after speaking Wednesday at the University of Minnesota, Schmidt said it would be a mistake to adopt the bills' approach to fighting piracy. "The problem with the two bills is that they go after all the wrong problems," said Schmidt.

Schmidt said some provisions in the bills were technologically difficult, including giving copyright holders the right to delete links from the Internet and criminalizing the indexing of the content by search engines.

"There are a whole bunch of issues involved with breaking the Internet and the way it works," he said.

Another big problem, he said, was that the bills won't work. He said the criminal activity would immediately move to different websites and continue.

"The correct solution, which we've repeatedly said, is to follow the money," Schmidt said. "Making it more explicitly illegal to make money from that type of content is what we recommend."

Finally, Schmidt said they violated free speech rights protected in the First Amendment. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the author of the Senate bill, disputed that in a statement released by his office Wednesday afternoon.

"There is no First Amendment right to steal," he said. "This (bill) will protect Americans' intellectual property rights, which in turn boosts our economy and promotes American jobs."

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has introduced a separate bill that would update current federal copyright law to make clear that streaming copyrighted material for commercial purposes can be prosecuted as a felony. A spokesman, Linden Zakula, said Klobuchar "hopes that Leahy and the House authors work to address the concerns about the larger bill."

Schmidt spoke at the university's Humphrey School of Public Affairs. The university is one of the biggest users of the Google's free applications in higher education in the United States, with more than 90,000 Google email accounts.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

MINNEAPOLIS — Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said Wednesday that it would be a mistake for Congress to approve Hollywood-backed legislation meant to combat online piracy because it would...
MINNEAPOLIS — Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said Wednesday that it would be a mistake for Congress to approve Hollywood-backed legislation meant to combat online piracy because it would...
Filed by Ramona Emerson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 23
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:07 PM on 12/05/2011
These bills are fundamentally illegitimate.

Here is a quote from the US Constitution:

"[Congress shall have the power] to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

According to the United States Constitution, copyright law must be for the sole purpose of promoting the progress of science and/or art. Benefits (if any) for copyright holders are just a means toward that.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html

For this simple reason, these bills, as well as the DMCA, and some other laws, are unconstitutional.
12:22 PM on 12/01/2011
So they can force search engines like Google and Yahoo to censor their search results but how will they censor search engines that are based outside of the United States. For example have you heard of Baidu? It's the Chinese equivalent of google. Yes it is censored by the evil Chinese Communist government. The great ciberwall of China blocks media that does not agree with the philosophy of the ruling party. However it is very easy to find pirate sites. The people will find away around SOPA because the internet has no border fence, not yet at least. It is our responsibility to fight unjust laws. Isn't it ironic that despotic China will allow something that our government would deny us.
11:34 AM on 12/01/2011
We should have the privacy laws of the European Union where laws like this would never happen.. there its just the opposite..
10:26 AM on 12/01/2011
Rather than blowing up a major beneficial aspect of internet usage, I too say "follow the money." Follow the money and severly sanction and fine abusers. The way Congress wants to clumsily deal with the problem is like, "killing the taxi cab business because a bank robber used a cab to rob a bank."
12:51 PM on 12/01/2011
That's because Congress has no clue. They have become so isolated that they have forgotten what it's like outside of Congress.
08:50 AM on 12/01/2011
As intelligent as the "internet" has become, I'm sure a process to scanning any website before it goes live to at bare minimum, raise a few flag could be accomplished.

This would mean a short waiting period before any new site, blog, etc...was launched (minutes people, just minutes) before it went live. If the site triggered certain "flags" it would automatically go into a deeper review. It can also determine whether the content has been changed and again, flag the site.

This can be done. It can actually be done quite easily but what companies like Google don't want to admit is they make millions off of these scam websites.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Danek Greori
11:02 AM on 12/01/2011
Wow, your comment illustrates a SEVERE lack of technical knowledge about how things like hosting, servers, and indexing are accomplished.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jesse Meyers
"Morality is moral, only when it is voluntary."
08:45 AM on 12/01/2011
I do not advocate stealing. I do not believe downloading copyrighted material is justifiable. However, Hollywood Production Companies, Artists, have placed the bar to which they'll allow anyone to stream material too high. No one will ever get me to buy the argument that Hollywood is terribly suffering because of a few illegal streaming sites. As for anyone who makes the argument, well this is good, it creates jobs. The only jobs, this bill would create in Hollywood is maid to a underprivileged whiny star who can't even decide who their married to. With Advertising on these sites that cause little to no proven harm to Hollywood, jobs are created, site maintenance, someone looks at an ad - wants to go to that restaurant, job. Hollywood has very little to complain about, and need to realize that if they had made this available, consumers wouldn't feel the urge to go to an illegal stream site.
07:24 AM on 12/01/2011
You have to create a means that's immune to piracy, like Inversearch. Talk about free speech? What about thou shalt not steal? The Webcrawler method and advertising revenue models are part of the root causes of all the problems the Web now faces. Inverse search.
04:23 AM on 12/15/2011
What about all the jobs that some websites provide...websites that have nothing to with hosting illegal content, yet due to the bill's poor wording, may put them out of business. How is that fair? How is that even American? This bill was created by (and I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone) un-intelligent, un-aware, and money hungry hollywood bigshots who happened to be backed by a couple raving lunatic politicians. This is pathetic that this bill is even in question. Stealing is wrong of course, but do you lock everyone up because one person stole? of course not. This is just like when you were in grade school and the teacher asked "Who took the chalk from my desk?" and no one answered, so everyone missed recess....except now, people lose jobs and businesses go under. Way to prove your complete incompetence Congress....good job.
02:49 AM on 12/01/2011
Wished Larry, Eric, and Matt would run for President, giving us all 3 choices, 1 Republican, 1 Democrat, and 1 Independent! That would put a scare in every spammer's pants, as well as every current politician.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:59 PM on 11/30/2011
But if you follow the money you'll find. . .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steelsil
Warren/Grayson 2016! Yes We Can!
07:30 PM on 11/30/2011
Google is making huge contributions to ultra-right organizations.  Don't click on Google's paid links, unless you want to finance the far right 1% that wants to make you a serf.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fredtoro
02:13 AM on 12/01/2011
Why post this, just not true. Wished it was so we could overcome the lefty groups trying to control us all.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nick Tarlton
04:29 AM on 12/01/2011
Are you serious with a statement like this, when for the last year we have dealt with nothing but nutcases coming from the right holding our country hostage and willing to destroy it out of hatred for a president based strickly on absolutely nothing but hatred. What about all the very well documented misinformation campaigns from the right?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:39 AM on 12/01/2011
Fred, I think you're off your meds....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ryan Schmidt
06:00 PM on 11/30/2011
This bill is dumb and will hinder the internet more than help.. And hindering will hinder us as ppl using the net..

"Congress should follow the money and go after those who post the material in the first place."
^^^^
They tried this Eric, remember all them bogus lawsuits against 50 year old mothers who didn't even know how to download???
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeremy Frasier
Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character
06:22 PM on 11/30/2011
He is not talking about the end user (ie: the 50yr old mother) he is talking about the suppliers, which are the sites that are selling the copyrighted works. The only way the mother would get busted is if she was providing a P2P network and allowing people to share her files.

No when it comes to spam, the only way to stop that, is to fine or punish the owner of the products that are paying the spammers to push into your email box. It would have to be an international law as well, not just in the USA. So any business pays a spammer to market their goods, then they are sanctioned for it severely. Once the money stops flowing, spammers will stop spamming.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ryan Schmidt
12:23 AM on 12/01/2011
He's not talking about selling copyrighted works.. He talking about posting it period like if you or I posted a music video by Eminem, Coldplay, etc on YouTube or anything other website..

And that 50 yr old woman had a grand total of 250 files on her hard drive when she was charged.. 250 is nothing considering many sites contain 100's of thousands..

On the spam note, this has nothing to do with SPAM..