Rupert Murdoch’s latest tweets accuse President Obama of supporting Google — the “piracy leader” — and his “Silicon Valley paymasters”. The accusations follow a White House blog that expressed doubts about the Stop Online Piracy Act and similar bills.
His tweerade was posted right after three advisers to President Obama expressed doubts about the effects of SOPA on the internet. Obama’s advisers Victoria Espinel, Aneesh Chopra and cyber-security tzar Howard Schmidt believe that the bill could harm legal business and hurt free speech.
Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter and eBay — the object of Murdoch’s ire — have opposed the bill for the same reasons, claiming it could lead to legal abuse and urging Washington lawmakers to rethink the bills.
Meanwhile, Murdoch and his cronies are defending the bill, saying it’s needed to save US jobs. [Twitter, Twitter, Twitter]
HP
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 4:55 PMstill much better than supporting stone-age lover paymaster…
Vebi
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 5:09 PMMurdoch is a decrepit old man without a shred of credibility following NOTW, but I’ll credit him with not being Gerald Harvey.
Ozoneocean
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 7:07 PMHe’s worse. He takes successful online services and ruins them.
In the case of Myspace though, that wasn’t entirely a bad thing.
Murdoch needs to quit. He’s made a lifelong career our of ruining all entertainment and news media, everything from sports leagues, newspapers, social networking sites, TV shows and TV networks. Time for him to retire.
Andrew
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 7:17 PMEmperor Palatine has spoken!
Andrew
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 7:19 PMSigh. Palpatine.
EMH
Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 8:41 PMIf Murdoch is opposing Obama then we can be certain that Obama is not evil; because Murdoch is evil!
Jagji
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 12:39 AMSomeone is jelly that Google got there first. lolololololol
ogre
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 7:04 AMJelly? Really?
wsDK_II
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 8:58 AM- 1
wsDK_II
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 8:58 AM+ 1
Goddy
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 1:20 AMThis comment has been deemed inappropriate and has been deleted.
InformedGamer
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 9:20 AMThe worst part about censorship is ****** ***********
yt75
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 5:44 AMI don’ know SOPA in details, but for me regarding piracy, if the basic principles are :
1) against piracy centers and not end users (always centers in piracy due to the need for catalogs and search amongst other things, “peer to peer” also a lot of hypocrisy in the terms and everybody knows it)
2) No monitoring at all of end users flow, collect of their IPs a formal complaint from somebody about a user acting as a center
3) All procedures are legal and public
Then it clearly is the right way to do it, not to forget that if piracy doesn’t create any revenues for authors and creators, it does create some (and not a little) for some people :
http://owni.fr/2011/12/14/secret-megaupload-streaming-kim-schmitz-david-robb/
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10626044
Note : above more developed below (but in French) :
http://iiscn.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/piratage-hadopi-etc/
And “zero piracy” doesn’t matter in anyway (not more than school kids exchanging files), problem is when it becomes the default and easiest access method for works and publications.
But on this, in order to have a real “user experience” added value in buying instead of pirating, and this in a non quasi monopolistic environment (or with just 2 or three “monsters”), clearly something like below would be required :
http://iiscn.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/concepts-economie-numerique-draft/
Daniel
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 7:45 AMIf they started to charge reasonable prices for content then the majority of piracy would end.
just my 2 cents
Pariah
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 11:23 AMAs long as a free, easy alternative way obtain content exists, people will choose it.
Ozoneocean
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 2:31 PMYeah… not true. Your argument was the same one used by publishing companies that opposed public libraries. Same as the argument of the music publishing industry against music radio and recording tape decks. Same as Hollywood VS TV, Same as TV companies VS video recorders.
People WILL pay for content if it’s not a frigging hassle.
Edes
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 7:54 AMHe’s one to talk about privacy after the phone hacking scandals!
doubleDizz
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 11:31 AMbetween the lines = “support the bill, or we will cull more US jobs”
Andrew
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 12:54 PMWhat annoys me is that anyone who uses Steam a lot or has heard what Valve and Gabe say about piracy can see that a service like Steam for TV and movies would make a huge amount of money and probably a huge dent in piracy numbers as well.
Polymath
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 1:24 PMYa do know that’s a picture of Monty Burns in your article not Rupert Murdoch?
Or is Giz trying to tell us what to think?
Ozoneocean
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 2:57 PMEveryone knows that’s Burns and not Murdoch, this is why the image is used for obvious humour purposes and is not trying to tell people what they should be thinking.
bdc
Monday, January 16, 2012 at 7:02 PMBecause there are no similarities between Montgomery Burns and Rupert Murdoch at all? And there isn’t a crapload of results from a quick google search of Monty Burns is Rupert Murdoch.
But no, this is gizmodo telling people what to think, not a legitimate comparison that is actually likely intended by the writers of the show.