Murdoch Slams Obama For Supporting 'Silicon Valley Piracy Leaders'

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]



    still much better than supporting stone-age lover paymaster...

    Murdoch is a decrepit old man without a shred of credibility following NOTW, but I'll credit him with not being Gerald Harvey.

      He'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.

    If Murdoch is opposing Obama then we can be certain that Obama is not evil; because Murdoch is evil!

    Someone is jelly that Google got there first. lolololololol

      Jelly? Really?

    This comment has been deemed inappropriate and has been deleted.

    I 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 :

    Note : above more developed below (but in French) :
    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 :

    If they started to charge reasonable prices for content then the majority of piracy would end.

    just my 2 cents

      As long as a free, easy alternative way obtain content exists, people will choose it.

        Yeah... 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.

    He's one to talk about privacy after the phone hacking scandals!

    between the lines = "support the bill, or we will cull more US jobs"

    What 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.

    Ya 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?

      Everyone 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.

      Because 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.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now