The law of protection IP:, Eric Schmidt of Google places against the RIAA and the MPAA

Protection of intellectual property sounds like a cause as noble as you would have to be an anarchist free-market extremist to be against the idea, right? In fact, we do not believe that CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt is particularly extreme in any definable way, however, this last week spoke with taste, handrails against the proposed law IP protection, which was designed to "prevent threats online economic creativity and intellectual property theft". If it becomes law, it would give the Government the right to turn off any "website dedicated to illegal activities" - "illegal activities", still largely type allowing friend download author point (b) of the guy (c) when it is not clear whether guy c also has legal rights to b in the first place.

So, you know, is aimed at the pirate bay and its ilk, giving to the higher government officials be able to sweep in and entangled in the domains of such sites. Schmidt calls this approach to a set of "solutions arbitrarily simple to complex problems" which "sets a very bad precedent". The precedent? That is good for democratic Governments go to kill any site who does not like, something Schmidt said only encourage restrictive policies in countries such as China. Although I do not think that China really need any encouragement to continue building on its great firewall, we tend to that this is a much more complicated problem that the law does agree. That being said, there are which would admit that the comments made by Schmidt necessarily something are attracted by the knowledge that any law of this type also have a negative impact in the business of search engines in general.

But of course that no such volley of words might go unanswered two brilliant gentlemen of protection of rights of author, the MPAA and the RIAA, that mounted to their corporate blogs, rode down two castles full of lawyers and collectively said Schmidt that it is full of it. The MPAA spun comments by Schmidt in some kind of Act of civil disobedience, saying that "Google seems to think that it is above the laws of the United States". Meanwhile, the RIAA called the statement "the one confusing step backward by one of the most influential internet companies." Obviously only going to get generate from here, so buckle your seatbelt, make their bets and cling to their BitTorrent clients.

View the original article here