doctorow at December 18th, 2013 21:03 — #1
vavsrhsu at December 19th, 2013 06:17 — #2
Uh, the EFF is not a charity, it's a lobbying arm of Google. Any donations we offer will be tiny compared to the cash floated from the billionaires. Is it any wonder that they spend their time trying to destroy the rights of average people by hating on copyright whenever they can?
sdfrost61 at December 19th, 2013 06:59 — #3
I don't understand this comment. I checked EFF's last financial report and of $3.3m income, $0.46m came by way of corporate contributions. I couldn't even find Google in the corporate contributors list. What am I missing?
tuseroni at December 19th, 2013 11:35 — #4
an unhealthy dose of whatever he is smoking?
jardine at December 19th, 2013 11:55 — #5
vavsrhsu at December 20th, 2013 07:04 — #6
That's because it's not listed there.
Why don't you get a clue? The EFF is just an astroturfing organization to destroy the rights of average non-billionaires. By rights, I mean copyrights. Oh, they talk a good game about the other rights, but they fight any effort to support the artists and creators exerting the rights that get in the way of the Internet billionaires from making money.
Oh, it's not always directly from Google. Sometimes it's laundered through some foundation.
And then there are the private "mixers". What, you weren't invited?
howaboutthis at December 20th, 2013 08:27 — #7
The EFF destroying the rights of average people?
This Doublespeak has been brought to you by the MPAA, RIAA, Disney, etc.
vavsrhsu at December 20th, 2013 09:50 — #8
Actually no. I don't work for any of them. But the EFF is heavily subsidized by Google and Google's market cap is much bigger than all of the ones you cite. So if you want to cast this as a battle between David and Goliath, take a look at the numbers and figure out who the real Golaith is. And ask yourself, "Why do they want to spend so much money to expand the definition of "fair use"? Who are they cutting out of the equation?"
And if you do that, you'll come to the same conclusion I did: Google wants to stomp on the rights of everyone to avoid sharing any money with the creators. When the EFF is done with their evil, they'll have destroyed your right to control your hard work. Because that's what copyright is. It's the right for average joes to control their art, music, writing or whatever.
sdfrost61 at December 20th, 2013 21:03 — #9
Rudeness aside, thanks for the links. Very interesting.
sdfrost61 at December 22nd, 2013 01:41 — #10
I really have to thank you again for your initial links. I've spent a good number of hours over the last few days following Google's funding of EFF and can only conclude that the EFF is at best sensationally dishonest and hypocritical. At worst it's fraudulent. Whatever way you cut it, the EFF is lobbying for Google against creative artists. I find it worrying that almost nobody is writing about this financial relationship.
One of the first things you discover is the network of relationships between various players in this area from so-called NGOs or charities, Google and its corporate allies, lawyers, government policy advisers, and academics and public bloggers (like Doctorow). Fascinating stuff.
Perhaps the most interesting rabbit hole that I went down was the GoldieBlox/Beastie Boys face off. It was enlightening for me to go back and read Doctorow's initial postings about this (which portrayed the Beastie Boys as the evil party for asserting their rights over a toy company), and then consider how the law firm credited with Google's victory over rights holders in the Google Books case is now in the GoldieBlox corner.
Cory Doctorow is part of a push to provide the billionaire owners of Google unfettered ability to trample the rights of creators. It would be fascinating to analyse his posts with regard to this over the last five years. Boing Boing as a whole is playing a role, but it's also not well understood.
I really can't line up behind Google on the removal of rights from creators. And if that's the case, then I can't trust EFF or their allies on this aspect of their work either. And in the end, I can't trust much of what Doctorow writes when he turns his attention to IP rights.
I'd like to hear Doctorow's views. Have I got it all wrong?
doctorow at December 23rd, 2013 21:03 — #11
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.