×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Sons of Anarchy Creator On Google Copyright Anarchy

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the samcro-hates-piracy dept.

Google 381

theodp writes "Over at Slate, Sons of Anarchy creator Kurt Sutter argues that Google's anti-copyright stance is just a way to devalue content, which is bad for artists and bad for consumers. The screed is Sutter's response to an earlier anti-copyright rant in Slate penned by a lawyer who represents Google and is a Fellow at the New America Foundation, a public policy institute chaired by Google Chairman Eric Schmidt that receives funding from Schmidt and Google. 'Everyone is aware that Google has done amazing things to revolutionize our Internet experience,' writes Sutter. 'And I'm sure Mr. and Mrs. Google are very nice people. But the big G doesn't contribute anything to the work of creatives. Not a minute of effort or a dime of financing. Yet Google wants to take our content, devalue it, and make it available for criminals to pirate for profit. Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom generate millions of dollars in illegal revenue off our stolen creative work. People access Kim through Google. And then, when Hollywood tries to impede that thievery, it's presented to the masses as a desperate attempt to hold on to antiquated copyright laws that will kill your digital buzz. It's so absurd that Google is still presenting itself as the lovable geek who's the friend of the young everyman. Don't kid yourself, kids: Google is the establishment. It is a multibillion-dollar information portal that makes dough off of every click on its page and every data byte it streams. Do you really think Google gives a s**t about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope. You're just another revenue resource Google can access to create more traffic and more data streams. Unfortunately, those streams are now pristine, digital ones of our work, which all flow into a huge watershed of semi-dirty cash. If you want to know more about how this works, just Google the word "parasite."'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sour grapes (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | about 8 months ago | (#46499831)

Anti-copyright does work for the consumer. It works against content creators that want a stranglehold on their so-called IP. Sounds like hes scared his gravy train might derail and have to start working again and create new content for people..

Re: Sour grapes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46499839)

You don't know much about him do you

Re:Sour grapes (5, Insightful)

The Last Gunslinger (827632) | about 8 months ago | (#46499887)

Actually it works against content *publishers* (not creators) who have traditionally been the purveyors of grossly unfair contracts and all manner of unsavory business practices (e.g. we own perpetual license to any works you create, etc.) that leveraged their knowledge and access to distribution channels in order to live off the creative efforts of actual content producers. See also: Payola.

For this no-value-added middleman clown to accuse any other operation of being parasitic is the apotheosis of laughable hypocrisy.

Re:Sour grapes (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 8 months ago | (#46500095)

"Actually it works against content *publishers* (not creators) who have traditionally been the purveyors of grossly unfair contracts and all manner of unsavory business practices (e.g. we own perpetual license to any works you create, etc.) that leveraged their knowledge and access to distribution channels in order to live off the creative efforts of actual content producers. See also: Payola."

It's not either-or. Many "content creators" are their own publishers, and are responsible for at least as much copyright abuse as publishers-only. (We're looking at you, Disney.)

Re:Sour grapes (5, Insightful)

The Last Gunslinger (827632) | about 8 months ago | (#46500259)

You illustrate my point. The suits at Disney responsible for lobbying and litigating IP rules are not the people creating characters and animating stories. And the fact that the company takes creative content (e.g. new stories) and uses their copyrighted character to act them out does not make them creators of content. It makes them thieves.

Show me the independent artist who is being serviced by today's 120-year copyright protections, and I'll show you a BitTorrent user who isn't pirating stuff.

Re:Sour grapes (5, Informative)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about 8 months ago | (#46499919)

Devalued content helps the consumer all the way up until the flow of new content stops, and there is no indication that it would, even in a world where all content was distributed for free. I might have more sympathy for the guy if the big content producers didn't also bribe Congress to extend copyright duration to a point where something produced in an average person's lifetime will not enter the public domain until after they're long dead.

Re:Sour grapes (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500215)

The point of copyright law, I think, should be whether it is good for 'society' or not. Whether it is good for the content producer, the consumer, or google shouldn't matter quite as much as whether it is good for society as a whole. Would creative people keep producing new and wonderful content it the protection of their efforts were more limited, if their distributors and heirs were less rich? I think yes, because I think artists are internally driven to produce. It would be more difficult for them to produce works beyond a certain scale (where they need mega-millions to do what they want to do), but that might not be a bad thing. Would the big-bucks producers (Hollywood, Bollywood, big studios) keep financing big works if the duration of their protection were more limited? Again, I think so, just that they would need to keep working, rather than relying on the sale of articles out of their library. The effect of copyright law on Google, Hollywood Studios, or even the artists should be secondary to it's effects on creative production. So, short-term protection should be the order of the day imo, not long-term protection.

Re:Sour grapes (1, Insightful)

west (39918) | about 8 months ago | (#46500309)

> I think yes, because I think artists are internally driven to produce.

Once they're no longer living in their parents basement, they're also driven to eat.

If you don't want to make provisions for your content creators to be paid, expect your music to be like the musician in the coffee shop, your books to be like fan-fic, and your movies to be closer to YouTube videos. Not all are terrible and some are excellent, but for most consumers, not a match for what they enjoy today.

I'm a programmer - I'd be upset if my Boss told me he was taking the code I wrote, but not paying me. And then told me it wasn't stealing, because I still had the source on my hard drive. So I understand if content providers don't see the difference between piracy and theft - I don't.

Re:Sour grapes (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 8 months ago | (#46500379)

Agreed. I think it's good for society when awesome people can make a good living by doing awesome things. Whether you're a programmer or a musician or whatever, it's bad for society when you put down your instrument of choice because you have to go do a shift at starbucks because you need to get health insurance or pay rent (let alone a mortgage or college tuition).

I do not agree with some countries that subsidize artistic endeavors. Cuz then you have a selection of bureaucrats deciding which art is "art". But the laws regulating creative content should build an economy that rewards good work. to expect artists to make art just cuz is not fair, because everybody wants to make a living. maybe the GP should go back to completing his TPS reports, "just cuz".

Re: Sour grapes (1)

peragrin (659227) | about 8 months ago | (#46500265)

My concern isn't content creators but all the middle men who get paid several times what the creators do. Why does an eBook cost more than a regular book and the author gets a smaller piece?

The authors work is unchanged. The publisher/editors work remains unchanged. Only the delivery mechanism changes. I have always had a hard time believing that prepress, printing and shipping, costs less than prepress and uploading to a bunch of servers.

Re:Sour grapes (5, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 8 months ago | (#46499923)

"Anti-copyright does work for the consumer. It works against content creators that want a stranglehold on their so-called IP. Sounds like hes scared his gravy train might derail and have to start working again and create new content for people.."

This.

Contrary to what OP and TFA say, the Google-lawyer article wasn't "anti-copyright" at all. It was anti-copyright-ABUSE, and anti-copyright-TROLLING. There is a pretty damned big difference. Leaving off those last parts is disingenuous to the point of lying.

Re:Sour grapes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500045)

Anti-copyright does work for the consumer. It works against content creators that want a stranglehold on their so-called IP. Sounds like hes scared his gravy train might derail and have to start working again and create new content for people..

The world doesn't continue operating on the concept of free stuff, you idiot.

If you ever created anything you would want to continue receiving benefits from jt too.

Of course you have never created anything, you just sit in your mom's basement and jerk off.

Re:Sour grapes (2)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 8 months ago | (#46500087)

No, some creators are quite happy giving away their stuff for free, especially when it's just a copy of 1's and 0's or IP.

Re:Sour grapes (0)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 8 months ago | (#46500153)

One of my first jobs after I graduated high school was building homes. I also want to keep receiving benefits from my work. Would it be reasonable for me to charge ten cents every time someone walked into the house? The architect could get five bucks, the contractor could get two and a half bucks, the foreman could get a dollar, and me, the lowly helper, could get a dime. Sounds reasonable to me!

Re:Sour grapes (2)

west (39918) | about 8 months ago | (#46500335)

That might be reasonable, if you weren't paid in the first place. In which case, you'd be working damn hard to make certain the house stood up long enough that you didn't starve to death. Might improve the build quality of most new houses!

Re:Sour grapes (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 8 months ago | (#46500211)

Human culture existed for thousands of years before copyright, and during that long expanse there has been no lack of music, drama, prose, poetry, painting and sculpture. Strangely enough "content creators" did make a living.

Re:Sour grapes (1)

west (39918) | about 8 months ago | (#46500353)

Indeed, the idea the absurd idea that artists might make based on what spoke to them, and if it appealed to enough people, allow them not starve, is an absurd misstep in history. Anyone with a brain knows that in order for artists to produce, they must produce only what appeals to those with money and power to patronize them, for *that* is the only way for an artists to survive.

No wonder the quality of the arts has dropped in the last 100 years. Time for this historical aberration to end.

Re:Sour grapes (0)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 8 months ago | (#46500293)

Anti-copyright does work for the consumer. It works against content creators that want a stranglehold on their so-called IP. Sounds like hes scared his gravy train might derail and have to start working again and create new content for people..

The world doesn't continue operating on the concept of free stuff, you idiot.

If you ever created anything you would want to continue receiving benefits from jt too.

Of course you have never created anything, you just sit in your mom's basement and jerk off.

I'm a creator of intellectual works. Some of my intellectual works help bring medicine to billions of people. I've never wanted to continue to receive payment for work I've done in the past.

If I want the creation to exist, I create it without being paid because I want it to exist, without compromise, exactly the way I envisioned it.

For example, I don't like seeing people in my community go hungry, so I helped build an urban farm where the volunteers feed themselves first and the excess goes to the food bank.

If I'm indifferent to the existence of the creation, I ask to be paid as I work, and when the problem is solved and the work is done, I move on, looking for other people who need my help.

But, you know... I'm just doing practical work that changes peoples lives in practical ways. It's nothing as grand as a fictional work aggrandizing a biker gang or anything like that.

It's really very straightforward. Sell what is scarce and you will get paid. Try to sell something that is naturally abundant and not only will you not get paid like you expect, but you will earn the justifiable scorn of your peers. And it will be your own stupid fault.

As far as Kurt Sutter is concerned... I'm not interested in contributing to support a police force that goes around shaking people down for money on his behalf. Based on the numbers, it doesn't appear that very many other people are interested either, and the law is slowly changing to reflect our views. So, it appears that he is pretty much fucked.

what? youre a cluless cunt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500103)

google contributes nothing good to society and freeloads off of all content creators period

yes I said it, google contributes nothing good to society. peroid.

all they do is make their money off of others hard work.

sounds like you work for google, or suck the shit out of their anus on the regular?

Re:what? youre a cluless cunt (0)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 8 months ago | (#46500173)

RIAA contributes nothing good to society and freeloads off of all content creators period

yes I said it, RIAA contributes nothing good to society. peroid.

all they do is make their money off of others hard work.

sounds like you work for RIAA, or suck the shit out of their anus on the regular?

Re:what? youre a cluless cunt (3, Interesting)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | about 8 months ago | (#46500327)

google contributes nothing good to society and freeloads off of all content creators period

I like my Nexus 5. I'm new around here, and I find it very helpful finding my way around the city. I hitchhiked all the way across the continent a few months ago, and Google Maps helped me find my way.

What did YOU contribute?

Re:Sour grapes (0)

kesuki (321456) | about 8 months ago | (#46500195)

the thing is anti copyright works for the small artist as well. there are thousands of 'youtube channels' where people get real money for doing youtube content, and google doesn't charge them a dime, but does have a license agreement. google dabbled in a crowd sourced tv channel (it might still be around not sure though)
with all we do over the web, why should dinosaurs who refuse to adapt from 'contracts' that give all the profit to copyright holders forever while the artist gets a few perks and a tiny amount of the profit. the system is broken copyright was 10 years originally and that was before computers, and yet publishers thrived, and e-publishing is almost a no brainer with writers using $200-$300 devices to do all their writing and the publisher should be able to make ebooks from that for less cost than real published books. and while ebooks are doing okay, they often sell higher than used books...
in a fair world there would be no copyright holders there would be artists and tip jars/royalties from distributors who do things like custom swag and custom cd-r or dvd+--r audio and royalties from corporations but not from individuals and while it sounds scary to the old guard people who actually create content would see massive profits if people actually used them. the record labels were against radio until copyright made it so they could charge radio stations huge fees. and now that anyone can download a movie and put it on removable media. with terrabyte hdds for $70 and dvd-recorders for $20 and dvd blanks for $6 for 25 discs home/indy distribution has never been cheaper... and make no mistake, the tools to create and edit content have never been cheaper or better than they are now, especially with many tools available as foss.
we don't need middlemen anymore and it scares them so they have pushed for internet radio and streaming as an 'alternative' to piracy, to take away ownership. and they won't stop there. smartphones are amazing, but people pay more fees for phones than before. they are meant as streaming devices with apis and apps unable it seems to even load a directory on a sd micro chip and build a playlist 'without syncing' and forcing it all over usb... i have a chinese tablet that can auto 'bless' a folder as long as it is the sd/tf drive but none of the android players i've seen are capable of auto detecting and 'blessing' a folder as a feature on my smartphone. so i have to 'sync' the phone to get music to play on it, and the phone has a crap usb chip that makes my 17gb music folder 6 hours to 'sync' when i can add a folder to the sd micro and it takes 30 minutes to copy to that and then no worry about useless DRM that route who can say with 'syncing' that they aren't adding drm to un drmed files as part of 'syncing' the music.

Re:Sour grapes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500269)

what content have you created ? I mean other than douchey comments on slashdot ? Creating television ain't no gravy train.

Re:Sour grapes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500437)

what content have you created ? I mean other than douchey comments on slashdot ? Creating television ain't no gravy train.

I've created as much content as his shitty series has contributed to society.

Re:Sour grapes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500299)

Sounds like he's scared his gravy train might derail and he'd have to get a real job.

FTFY

Re:Sour grapes (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500313)

Sigh - such sheep - don't even understand how you are being abused by Google.

First and foremost - there is NOTHING SUCH AS FREE. It doesn't exist. People have to be paid for whatever it is that they provide or they cannot afford to provide it. Google's idea of "free" is "we'll sucker you in and then mine you for every piece of personal data we can get and sell it off whether you like it or not". Google figures they will just suck other people dry, making a buck themselves along the way, and when the original content developers go bust and stop producing content, Google thinks they will just move on to suck other content providers dry. They are a parasite in the truest form of the word - trying to profit from other people's work without providing them any compensation for it.

Have no delusions, Google's revenue model is based on forcing people to deliver advertisements and reselling people's personal information. So Google is completely self-interested in trying to argue that they should be able to give away anyone else's work in order to sucker in people and make money off their naivete.

And sadly, all Google has to do is say "Free" (with a smirk) and watch the sheep start clamoring for more with no thought as to the consequences. The only people who benefit is Google and someday folks will wake up and find that the content developers have stopped. One can already see this happening now. How much of the "content" on the Internet is really new? Regurgitation of someone else's content is becoming endemic and the quality of much of that content is dropping rapidly. This is why paywalls are going up - because the people creating content need ways to ensure they are compensated for the work.

Unless, of course, you like the endless deluge of advertisements, SPAM and the inevitable wave of viruses/malware/trojans/phishing that comes with that...

Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46499857)

Of course Google is Evil, just like lobbies like MPAA.

What they don't understand is that, by their crazy behavior, those "content creators" and their irrealistic desires are actually helping Google, Amazon, Apple which are the new superpowers.
Above all, they are alienating and angering the people which are supposed to buy what they are creating.

Uhhh... no (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46499859)

The artist is not the one being gored by the presence of Google.... the impact is not to artists themselves but to the the antiquated business models of labels and studios.

The labels and studios are the whale oil salesmen at the dawn of the age of electricity. How well did the campaign's against electricity work for them? Adapt... or die in a Darwinian spiral.

Re:Uhhh... no (5, Interesting)

ThatAblaze (1723456) | about 8 months ago | (#46500055)

Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom generate millions of dollars in illegal revenue off our stolen creative work.

This is hilarious, coming from a guy who writes a TV show about a gang of convicted felons who make millions of dollars in illegal revenue selling guns. You would think he of all people might be a little sympathetic to the idea of people stepping outside the law to provide a service when there is enough demand to do so.

lets just agree completely with what he said (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46499879)

it doesn't matter. sure google is making money off of it. so is pirate bay with its porn ads.

if they didn't, a thousand other people would. unless you are seriously going to rewind the clock
to 1970 and only allow distribution and playback of analog, concrete media, you're just gonna
have to get paid some other way or go out of business

its perfectly fine to point this out, but are you saying there is some other option?

Re:lets just agree completely with what he said (2)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about 8 months ago | (#46500249)

unless you are seriously going to rewind the clock to 1970 and only allow distribution and playback of analog, concrete media,

I fondly remember my collection of concrete records. They had a uniquely gravelly sound that can't be duplicated by any digital technology. Sadly, I eventually got rid of them all because they were just too damned heavy to lug around.

Change your business model! (1, Funny)

drfuchs (599179) | about 8 months ago | (#46499883)

I'm sure if you just start selling Sons of Anarchy t-shirts over the web and ship them out of your garage, you'll be fine!

Is Kim Dotcom a Convicted Felon? (2)

BlueMoss (37383) | about 8 months ago | (#46499891)

Is Kim Dotcom a convicted felon, as Kurt Sutter claims? What case has he been convicted of, that makes him a felon? It seems he is still fighting extradition and other challenges in New Zealand. Where and when was he convicted of a felony regarding content, copyright or intellectual property?

Re:Is Kim Dotcom a Convicted Felon? (4, Informative)

casings (257363) | about 8 months ago | (#46500007)

Allow me to post the wikipedia article you were too lazy to search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]

In 1994, he was arrested by German police for trafficking in stolen phone calling card numbers. He was held in custody for a month, released and arrested again on additional hacking charges shortly afterwards. He was eventually convicted of 11 counts of computer fraud, 10 counts of data espionage, and an assortment of other charges. He received a two-year suspended sentence – because he was under age at the time the crimes were committed.[29] The judge in the case said the court viewed his actions as "youthful foolishness."[30]
In 2001, Schmitz bought €375,000 worth of shares of the nearly bankrupt company Letsbuyit.com (de) and subsequently announced his intention to invest €50 million in the company.[31] The announcement caused the share value of Letsbuyit.com to jump[32] and Schmitz cashed out, making a profit of €1.5 million. One commentator suggested that Schmitz may have been ignorant of the legal ramifications of what he had done, since insider trading was not made a crime in Germany until 1995,[29] and until 2002 prosecutors also had to prove the accused had criminal intent.[33]
Schmitz moved to Thailand to avoid investigation[12] where he was subsequently arrested on behalf of German authorities.[30] In response, he allegedly pretended to kill himself online, posting a message on his website that from now on he wished to be known as "His Royal Highness King Kimble the First, Ruler of the Kimpire".[30][34] He was deported back to Germany where he pleaded guilty to embezzlement in November 2003 and, after five months in jail awaiting trial, again received a suspended sentence (of 20 months).[33] After avoiding a prison sentence for a second time, he left Germany and moved to Hong Kong in late 2003.[12]

Re:Is Kim Dotcom a Convicted Felon? (1, Flamebait)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about 8 months ago | (#46500043)

He was convicted of insider trading and embezzlement, and some computer crime I don't really remember. Whatever it was, it was not relevant and used dishonestly by the crybaby idiot in TFA to imply that it was in the context of copyright. Reading this emotion-appealing hyperbole collection makes me kinda regret trying to defend copyright just yesterday.... I hate both sides of this `debate'.

Re:Is Kim Dotcom a Convicted Felon? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 8 months ago | (#46500057)

He was convicted of computer fraud and embezzlement. There was no claim made that he was felon due anything related to content, copyright of intellectual property.

Re:Is Kim Dotcom a Convicted Felon? (1)

rainer_d (115765) | about 8 months ago | (#46500063)

AFAIK: stock fraud. Back in Germany. A dot.com bubble thing. And before that, he got in trouble for hacking servers/networks (turned it into a pent-test business and sold it for big bucks - that's how he got rich the first time).
He's a colorful personality.

Re:Is Kim Dotcom a Convicted Felon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500077)

Everywhere I go. I get slandered, libeled. I hear words I never heard in the Bible

Re:Is Kim Dotcom a Convicted Felon? (2)

milkmage (795746) | about 8 months ago | (#46500101)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]

He rose to fame in Germany in the 1990s as an alleged hacker and internet entrepreneur. He was convicted of several crimes, and received a suspended prison sentence in 1994 for computer fraud and data espionage, and another suspended prison sentence in 2003 for insider trading and embezzlement.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]

he's kind of a slug, dude. he is not your anti-DMCA champion, he's a common fucking thief.

"Where and when was he convicted of a felony regarding content, copyright or intellectual property? ...hasn't been, but he committed Securities fraud - insider trading is a crime way beyond any kind of IP violation.

Re:Is Kim Dotcom a Convicted Felon? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500297)

If someone has done anything wrong, they can never do anything right! Thankfully, we have people like milkmage who have never done anything wrong in their lives to help us understand this.

Consoring (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46499895)

So basically what he is telling us is that google should be censoring for free and out of their kindness of their hearts for the benefit of the poor, poor honsest everyday man MAFIAA?

Non sequitur (5, Insightful)

Stellian (673475) | about 8 months ago | (#46499899)

It's so absurd that Google is still presenting itself as the lovable geek who's the friend of the young everyman. Don't kid yourself, kids: Google is the establishment. It is a multibillion-dollar information portal that makes dough off of every click on its page and every data byte it streams. Do you really think Google gives a s**t about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope. You're just another revenue resource

That may all be true, but that does not change the fact that Sutter is also part of the establishment and also looking at viewers as a revenue stream. Google vs Hollywood are two bears fighting over a beehive, and we are the bees. Pick your side carefully, when the fight is over someone eats the honey and it's not you or me.

Proof the Google Gives a s**t (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500113)

Do you really think Google gives a s**t about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content?

Yes! That is why they walked away from China.

Now let's talk about those lost Dr. Who episodes. Or would you rather address the copyright that every orchestra applies to their redition of a Mozart tune.

"stolen creative work" (1)

gIobaljustin (3526197) | about 8 months ago | (#46499901)

I would like to know how that's even possible, but this sort of person is one who relies entirely on emotion, and not someone who's capable of rational thought.

Interesting open book on the opposite side (4, Informative)

amaurea (2900163) | about 8 months ago | (#46499915)

This book [ucla.edu] argues quite convincingly, based on current and historical examples, that copyrights and patents are a net negative to society.

Software (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500141)

I've haven't gotten all the way through because ucla's server's are slower than shit, but from what I've seen, the author spends all of his time on software patents and copyright and explaining how those are wrong.

Since you've read the whole thing, how does he address music, fine art, writing (especially fiction), etc ...?

That seems the gist of all these arguments: they are only applicable to software.

googled (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46499917)

If I google parasite it gives me Kurt Sutter.

Attitude (1)

JamesA (164074) | about 8 months ago | (#46499929)

With an attitude like that it's no wonder the series got worse each season.

And should Google be your internet police? (3, Insightful)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 8 months ago | (#46499931)

And should Google be your internet police? Why should Google make sure YOUR content isn't being stolen. Sorry but that's YOUR jobs unless you PAY Google or anyone else to police your works. Nothing is free in this world that includes you hiring people to police your content. I don't steal or share stuff im not soposta i learned that from my parents at a very young age. Why do so many people today think its ok and fix it.

Re:And should Google be your internet police? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500117)

I don't steal or share stuff im not soposta i learned that from my parents at a very young age. Why do so many people today think its ok and fix it.

The issue at hand is a very subtle one that is not often found in Slashdot comments. I'll share the details below but it'll go over most people's heads so don't worry if you can't understand it.

*ahem*

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT STEALING.
STEALING IS NOT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

There have been so many lies by big copyright (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46499935)

There have been so many lies put forward by bit copyright, including the MPAA/RIAA, all of the trillionaire owners who fund them, and they have paid so many congress critters hundreds of billions to get elected just so that they can skew copyright to last a trillion millennia. And this article is one more of the same. They call people who use Google parasites; they even label Google a parasite, but who are the ones who take content, which is already in the public domain, and then turn around and lock it up? The MPAA/RIAA! And these groups do it on behalf of the *REAL PARASITES*. If copyright terms were sane (1 generation), then the artist would still get paid, the work would be appreciated by all, and the next generation could rightly create new content based on the old. NO! These rat bastards try to milk dead rocks. Artists who's grand children are already dead have their content locked up by these parasites "IP is Mine, mine, my precious". And until sanity returns to the world, these clown show outfits deserve to be reviled and killed off. They do nothing to society, and in fact are a parasite on the world.

"Anarchy" (2)

Oysterville (2944937) | about 8 months ago | (#46499937)

Funny coming from someone who does a show of that name. It's just pretend anarchy.

Establishment. (1)

jythie (914043) | about 8 months ago | (#46499947)

So why is being 'the establishment' such a horrible thing? As individual consumers, or even groups of consumers, we are pretty powerless. Our best stragety is generally supporting the established power who's goals align the best with our own. Yeah, Google is doing what is in Google's best interests, the MPAA/RIAA are doing what is in their best interests, and the combined media/ISP companies are doing what are in their best interests. As consumers we are not going to fight any of them directly, but we can get behind the one who we are served best by.

Not a minute or dime? (2)

tricorn (199664) | about 8 months ago | (#46499959)

Google contributes quite a bit, just because its software doesn't mean it's not creative.

I'd be willing to bet that he uses free software all the time. Why doesn't he think that's a worthwhile contribution?

Sounds like a whiner. (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 8 months ago | (#46499961)

Kurt Sutter seems to be a whiner that can't understand that they have to adapt and make the customers feel appreciated for purchasing the content.

One of the first things that must go away is those extremely annoying copyright warnings that we are forced to see when we have bought the film, but are nowhere to be seen on "pirated" movies. Only thing those warnings are good for is to know that now it's a good time to do #1 & #2 before I watch the movie.

Re:Sounds like a whiner. (0)

mobby_6kl (668092) | about 8 months ago | (#46500411)

>Kurt Sutter seems to be a whiner

You have no idea! He's a bitter asshole who's constantly butthurt over his shitty show losing out critically to Justified, as actors have input on the making of that show, unlike his baby which is a pure reflection of his stupid vision. He goes on asinine rants and recruits actors from other shows only to kill them off in humiliating ways.

You lost me at... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46499981)

You lost me at Kim Dotcom...

Doesn't pass the laugh test (4, Insightful)

Frater 219 (1455) | about 8 months ago | (#46499991)

But the big G doesn't contribute anything to the work of creatives.

You never use a search engine while writing? They're awfully handy for fact-checking, looking up sources, and so on.

But I suppose those sorts of activities are not required these days ....

Re:Doesn't pass the laugh test (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500253)

It's pretty obvious that you've never seen an episode of sons of anarchy so let me explain.
There is absolutely no need for googling anything while creating this show. If you had ever watched this so called tv show you would know that it has all the wit of a story written by a 4-year old with a crayon, completely flat one dimensional characters and to top it off law enforcement are all acting like they are severely mentally challenged and on top of that they are all corrupt so that the shows good guys (the bad guys) can always get away with pretty much acting like a terrorist organisation.
So you see, there is no need for google, just make sure that the actors are over the top with your version of what macho is and the rest doesn't matter.
The only mystery is why people watch this and enjoy it, but then again plenty of people watch soap operas.

Re:Doesn't pass the laugh test (2)

macemoneta (154740) | about 8 months ago | (#46500289)

Software / hardware development and design are creative processes as well. I guess that 'devaluing creative work' only applies to your own content. Google has figured out how to make money while giving the fruit of those creative processes away, something that the content industries have been fighting as long as they have existed.

What profit? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 8 months ago | (#46499995)

Yet Google wants to take our content, devalue it, and make it available for criminals to pirate for profit.

Who's paying for pirated content? Will piracy go away if no-one can profit from it?*

* Rhetorical. No, it won't.

Re:What profit? (1)

west (39918) | about 8 months ago | (#46500391)

Actually, if *no one* can profit from it? Then yes it will. (Okay, it would be highly diminished.)

Luckily, there are a *lot* of ways to profit from piracy. Provide bandwidth, blank CD's, blank diskettes, blank tapes, hard drives, computers, video players, on-site advertising, virus/worm infection vectors, etc., etc., etc.

Is the next stop how the drug trade would be undiminished if no-one made any money off of that?

Disruption works when evolution fails. (4, Informative)

Fringe (6096) | about 8 months ago | (#46499999)

The problem is Disney. The last Copyright Extension Act increased copyrights to 120 years. The original U.S. copyright length, in the Copyright Act of 1790, was for 14 years with the potential for one renewal for another 14, and only if the author was still alive.

Corporations have taken over copyright, and it's not currently fixable due to their power. We can destroy copyright and then rebuild more easily than we can wrestle the monied interests into compromise.

Google is a problem for both sides, but that isn't a bad thing... having two enemies duke it out, weakening each other without impacting you, is a good thing.

Re:Disruption works when evolution fails. (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 8 months ago | (#46500145)

While I agree that the extension of copyright terms is a huge problem in terms of things like remixes/rehashes/reimaginings of existing content (not that this has actually stopped people from Rule 34'ing every Disney Princess in a multitude of ways), for most "zomg piracy, our copyrights!" discussions it is not a factor; the vast majority of 'piracy' is of recent things with a very clear drop-off as you go further back in time.

In the case of Sons of Anarchy, season 1 of that series hasn't even passed some of the original copyright terms. ( Getting there, though, just another year or so ), so even if one were to argue that copyright duration terms should be limited to what they were way back when (5/7 years), he'd still be voicing his concern.

Re:Disruption works when evolution fails. (1)

hibiki_r (649814) | about 8 months ago | (#46500191)

Well, it's just as illegal to download an episode than is 1 year old, than it is to download one that is 50 years old. If the punishment is the same, why wouldn't you download the latest stuff?

He'd be voicing the concern no matter what, because he believes he is better served by infinite copyright.

um (0)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 8 months ago | (#46500005)

"Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom" Last I checked he wasn't convicted of anything and most crap they are trying to put him in jail was keeping stuff on megaupload servers he was asked to by the federal government. On top of that big corp music industry DMCA'ed a music megaupload paid for and owned copyright to cause they were asshurt.

Re:um (1)

casings (257363) | about 8 months ago | (#46500023)

Just because he hasn't been convicted in this current case, doesn't mean he isn't a convicted felon.

In 1994, he was arrested by German police for trafficking in stolen phone calling card numbers. He was held in custody for a month, released and arrested again on additional hacking charges shortly afterwards. He was eventually convicted of 11 counts of computer fraud, 10 counts of data espionage, and an assortment of other charges. He received a two-year suspended sentence – because he was under age at the time the crimes were committed.[29] The judge in the case said the court viewed his actions as "youthful foolishness."[30]
In 2001, Schmitz bought €375,000 worth of shares of the nearly bankrupt company Letsbuyit.com (de) and subsequently announced his intention to invest €50 million in the company.[31] The announcement caused the share value of Letsbuyit.com to jump[32] and Schmitz cashed out, making a profit of €1.5 million. One commentator suggested that Schmitz may have been ignorant of the legal ramifications of what he had done, since insider trading was not made a crime in Germany until 1995,[29] and until 2002 prosecutors also had to prove the accused had criminal intent.[33]
Schmitz moved to Thailand to avoid investigation[12] where he was subsequently arrested on behalf of German authorities.[30] In response, he allegedly pretended to kill himself online, posting a message on his website that from now on he wished to be known as "His Royal Highness King Kimble the First, Ruler of the Kimpire".[30][34] He was deported back to Germany where he pleaded guilty to embezzlement in November 2003 and, after five months in jail awaiting trial, again received a suspended sentence (of 20 months).[33] After avoiding a prison sentence for a second time, he left Germany and moved to Hong Kong in late 2003.[12]

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]

Re:um (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500237)

"Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom"
Last I checked he wasn't convicted of anything and most crap they are trying to put him in jail was keeping stuff on megaupload servers he was asked to by the federal government. On top of that big corp music industry DMCA'ed a music megaupload paid for and owned copyright to cause they were asshurt.

Apparently you were too lazy to do an internet search on Kim Dotcom. See his Wikipedia entry for his convictions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_dotcom#Criminal_investigations

Amusing that you were too lazy to use Google in an article about how Google makes it easy to find information and content.

Re:um (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 8 months ago | (#46500433)

None of his previous convictions have anything to do with copyright and they all happened over a decade ago (blah blah blah clean slate acts in dozens of countries etc)

programming isn't creative? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500019)

the big G doesn't contribute anything to the work of creatives. Not a minute of effort or a dime of financing.

Google has done a lot to help programmers and promote programming. G Groups, G Code, SoC, Talks, con sponsorship, Golang, GWT, and tons more free code to help you turn your dreams into reality.

Furthermore, I guess Kurt Sutter has never heard of YouTube or he thinks having a free, globally accessible, unlimited video platform with built in revenue generating capabilities (YouTube) doesn't help creatives in any way. Or maybe he thinks that storage and bandwidth are free.

wait wait wait (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 8 months ago | (#46500027)

'Everyone is aware that Google has done amazing things to revolutionize our Internet experience,' writes Sutter. 'And I'm sure Mr. and Mrs. Google are very nice people. But the big G doesn't contribute anything to the work of creatives. Not a minute of effort or a dime of financing.

I cant even begin to tell you how many items I would never know about if it were not for google and other search engines. To say they add no value is a joke Ive found more movies and music i never would have given a chance to from them, and yes paid for some of it!

The problem is ads, not downloading (0)

Animats (122034) | about 8 months ago | (#46500033)

What might solve the Google problem is to increase the penalties for attaching advertising to someone else's work. People who make content available for downloading but don't put ads on it are doing it as a hobby, and they're not going to become too big, because serving that data costs money. It's the ones who pirate material and add ads that are the problem. They're doing it as a business.

Like YouTube.

Re:The problem is ads, not downloading (3, Interesting)

BronsCon (927697) | about 8 months ago | (#46500171)

Yes, because YouTube searches for content to steal. Right.

Actually...

Wrong. If it's on YouTube, it's there because someone, somewhere, uploaded it to YouTube and, in doing so, certified that they had the right to do so and agreed to allow YouTube to attach ads to it. That person, the one who uploaded the content they had no right to upload the content, who had no right to agree to allow ads to be attached to it, is the one who is in the wrong; they are the one Kurt Sutter should be pissed at, not Google, who provides a service that allows people to upload their own content. YouTube works on trust, and that trust has been violated, but Google has kept up their end of things; if you see your content on YouTube and you did not authorize its presence there, Google will remove it, but you have to make them aware of it, first.

Re:The problem is ads, not downloading (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 8 months ago | (#46500409)

You can also tell Google it's yours and they'll give you a share of the ad revenue.

Re:The problem is ads, not downloading (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 8 months ago | (#46500405)

Except YouTube gives part of the ad revenue back to the content producer.

Like a content distributor

Who the hell ... (1)

PPH (736903) | about 8 months ago | (#46500049)

... is Kurt Sutter? I Googled the name, but nothing related came up.

Re:Who the hell ... (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 8 months ago | (#46500395)

The first hit I was was an excerpt from wikipedia

Kurt Leon Sutter (born May 5, 1960) is an American screenwriter, director, producer, actor and douche bag.

Flat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500075)

As a counter-argument, that falls completely flat. The lawyer's argument is relevant and well-reasoned, if a little on the abrasive side, while Sutter's argument only has abrasiveness on its side.

Lesser of two evils (1)

kaldari (199727) | about 8 months ago | (#46500079)

I would much rather have Google in charge of what is available on the internet than Hollywood and the MPAA. If the content mafia had their way, I'm sure the entire internet would be shut down by now. These are the same people who wanted to make VCRs illegal after all. The claim that Google is "anti-copyright" is ridiculous. Remember, Google owns YouTube, the site that gave all these content companies a back door to delete content at will. And what did the content companies do with this power? They blatantly abused it and deleted anything related to their copyrights regardless of whether it was fair use or not (even NASA videos). Now the content companies want that same power over the entire internet. No thanks.

Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500083)

"Not a minute of effort or a dime of financing."

http://www.youtube.com/yt/creators/creator-benefits.html

Re: Bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500179)

This entire article is flaimbait with a small group behind it with an agenda.. A bit mixed but there is some sort of agenda... A bit of propaganda.

Many reasons to hate on Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500105)

There are many reasons to hate Google (just the fact that they're in bed with the CIA/NSA is enough), but I don't think this is one of them.

I agree with

Everyone is aware that Google has done amazing things to revolutionize our Internet experience,' writes Sutter. '[...] But the big G doesn't contribute anything to the work of creatives. Not a minute of effort or a dime of financing.

but they don't do anything that requires them to!

Granted, Google is a juggernaut that should have been stopped years ago, but saying that "Google wants to take our content, devalue it, and make it available for criminals to pirate for profit" is just frothing at the mouth. Sutter is a nutter.

You want my sympathy? (1)

MikeRT (947531) | about 8 months ago | (#46500165)

Make it clear to me that you don't see my property rights as being in contention with your rights. You can start by disavowing any federal legislation that tells me what I can do with my property including tinkering, modifying and resale of the same. Get your DMCA-padded mits off my physical property and stop lobbying for restrictions on my computerized devices.

Until then all I hear is "blah blah blah I want to violate your rights for profit blah blah blah."

Tool (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 8 months ago | (#46500183)

What a tool.

Correction for you, Mr. Sutter. (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 8 months ago | (#46500187)

Do you really think Google gives a s**t about free speech or your inalienable right to access unfettered content? Nope.

Actually, yes. If we couldn't speak freely, Google couldn't index and profit from it.

Google is right for if everything i multi million (1)

Ralph Ostrander (2846785) | about 8 months ago | (#46500199)

I am sure not going to pay more for internet connection and in fact am thinking about cutting this cord too. I dont think any internet connection at all is worth more than 10 bucks.

Entitlement of The Wealthy (1, Interesting)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 8 months ago | (#46500225)

SoA bitching about Google [slashdot.org]

Google bitching about copyright [slate.com]

Apple bitching about Samsung [slashdot.org]

Microsoft and Google bitching about each other [slashdot.org]

Sprint ripping off the warrantless surveillance program [slashdot.org]

University of Phoenix poisoning the student loan program [slashdot.org]

The Koch brothers and friends are always bitching about the bottom 90% having a sense of entitlement for wanting to be able to afford health insurance when they work full time. I'm a lot more sick of the rich and their sense of entitlement to be a little richer, often with a little government intervention needed to get them there.

Re:Entitlement of The Wealthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500267)

I'm a lot more sick of the rich and their sense of entitlement to be a little richer, often with a little government intervention needed to get them there.

Now you've done it. You're gonna give some temporarily embarrassed* Slashdot millionaire a sad.

*I'm not misquoting Steinbeck, I'm correctly quoting me riffing on Steinbeck.

Re:Entitlement of The Wealthy (2)

stenvar (2789879) | about 8 months ago | (#46500373)

The Koch brothers and friends are always bitching about the bottom 90% having a sense of entitlement for wanting to be able to afford health insurance when they work full time.

I've never seen the Koch brothers "bitch" about "bout the bottom 90% having a sense of entitlement for wanting to be able to afford health insurance". Citation?

The Koch brothers, like most people who believe in classical liberalism, simply believe that government financing of programs like health care and retirement is simply not sustainable; what they are "bitching" about is Democrats pushing through legislation that is good for their short term political gains but in the long term will invariably result in "the bottom 90%" not being able to get good health insurance.

Re:Entitlement of The Wealthy (2)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 8 months ago | (#46500413)

Funny how the people who scream about the evil Koch brothers never have a word to say about George Soros and his puppet occupying the White House.

what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500243)

they copy write anarchy ,
as there's no defence to total anarchy ,
there's no control to anarchy ether ,
so why they expecting someone to pay for there anarchy that implies they should not
is that not what you would call a set up

yea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500357)

media grooming

Content has no value, only gatekeeping (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500305)

Content has no value, as any Amazon Kindle self-published author will attest. What has value is gatekeeping, the ability to create artificial scarcity and then charge for content. Precision is needed to frame this debate - what the person who wrote the article (who is this guy?) is saying is that Google destroys models of artificial scarcity by allowing people to bypass gatekeepers and their mechanisms for creating artificial scarcity. To make money off of content, corporations need to make people want it, and then make it scarce enough that people will pay for it. When artificial scarcity is removed, the result is a glut of content that has no value, such as the Amazon Kindle self-published slush pile - the "want" is not being created for this slush.

Primary Pleader (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 8 months ago | (#46500319)

Primary pleaders they are called sometimes by Congress. That is people who come before committees asking for some legislation that will benefit them directly.

Justifiably they are given a great dose of skepticism (but probably not enough).

Please, no more articles based on the writings of a primary pleader.

I'm sorry, you just lost your credibility (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 8 months ago | (#46500363)

Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom generate millions of dollars in illegal revenue off our stolen creative work

Yes, he's a criminal.
He sold stolen phone cards.
He was convicted of insider trading.
He was convicted of securities fraud.

But nothing he has been convicted, or even faced a trial for has anything to do with copyright.

Don't like google, start your own search engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500371)

It's amazing how the anti-copyright brigade insists on telling other people how to run their business and at the same time continue to feel entitled to the product of the said business for free. If you hate google, start your own distributed search engine, then don't go crying on Slashdot that the results suck and its overrun by spam. Gee who'd thought that running a search engine would be so hard. Quit bitching that Youtube is content-IDing the video of your cat doing the macarena. You paid nothing for youtube, you are entitled to NOTHING. If you don't like it, go on Kickstarter to fund your own video content site. But as usual the opponents of copyright are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is and fund content and a distribution system that doesn't violate someone else's intellectual property. They just like to steal content and whine how life is unfair when they get swatted down for it.

Google is not a villian in this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46500383)

Kurt Sutter may have "created" Sons of anarchy, etc, but he is part of an industry that believes one Mr or Ms writer has written their respective prose, and has been paid for their work-for-hire, that Mr. Sutter gets the exclusive rights forever.

Google provides an index to stuff, including copywrited stuff. DMCA requires that websites take down stuff when notified of violation. Kurt Stutter is just looking for another revenue stream.

"Convicted felons like Kim Dotcom" (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 8 months ago | (#46500401)

Bullshit. Your argument just went out the window with that line.

the creative folks of Hollywood (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 8 months ago | (#46500407)

That rant would be a lot more convincing if it came from someone who (1) actually produced something creative, and (2) who could make a convincing argument that he has actually been harmed by Google.

So far, I see the whinings of a third-rate author whose works aren't infringed by Google and who has probably benefited enormously from publicity due to Google, not to mention that he and others creating "his" show probably use Gmail and other Google tools.

Economics (1)

Mitaphane (96828) | about 8 months ago | (#46500421)

It sounds like Kurt Sutter has not thought about the economics of his industry. There is more media (tv shows, movies, albums, etc.) than ever before in human history. The tools to create and distribute are cheaper than they have ever been. At the same time, the amount of time people have to consume media has either stayed the same or shrank, if one considers other new forms of media created over the last few decades. The laws of supply & demand dictate than an ever-increasing supply with shrinking (or stagnant) demand leads to cheaper prices.

Google has no effect on these forces at work. It is a value added service that sits on top of the content ocean of the web. Even if it tried to be the right hand arm of US copyright enforcement, it couldn't stop people who have more time than money on hand (a big contributor to piracy demand) or the economics of piracy hubs. Where there is infringing copyright accessible through Google, it has mechanisms (e.g. YouTube Content ID, DMCA takedowns, etc.) in place to take it down. I don't see what else Mr Sutter expects from Google other than to be scapegoat for piracy on the web.

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?