El Reg hack, Andrew Orlowski, recently posed the question "Why DOES Google lobby so much?"
It's a loaded question, of course, and the accompanying article is dripping with the sort of rhetoric one expects from a part-time Screw Googler, and a full-time right-wing extremist, like Orlowski.
I gave my answer in the comments:
"Why does Google lobby so much?"
Submitted on Tuesday 24th July 2012 03:13 GMT
Rejected on Wednesday 25th July 2012 12:11 GMT why?
As for Google's antithetical views on Intellectual Monopoly, they have my full support (in that matter, at least), along with several Nobel Laureates in Economics, so I wouldn't dismiss the "freetard" doctrine (as you put it) so readily, if I were you, especially as most of the Intellectual Monopolists who whine about IP "theft" only acquired said "IP" by "shamelessly stealing" it from others in the first place.
Personally, I'd much rather see Google spread the love, than suffer under the tyrinical regime of hypocritical and fraudulent Intellectual Monopolists.
Just my 2¢ (that's about 1p in English).
The BBC, which has been Microsoft's UK propaganda division since 2006, recently aired a programme that declares Nokia's Symbian OS is "not long for this world" because, according to BBC reporter Marc Cieslak, the market is allegedly "dominated" by, amongst other platforms, Windows Phone.
“While its camera is impressive, Nokia's choice of operating system is less so. The 808 is powered by Nokia's Symbian OS, an operating system that, in a landscape dominated by iOS, Android and even Windows Phone devices, is not long for this world.”
Exactly in what sense could Windows Phone, a platform with just a 1.9% global market share, be said to "dominate"?
ACTA is perhaps one of the most sinister developments in the history of the Internet, and beyond, not only because of the Draconian legislations it proposes, but also because of the manner in which they were proposed.
You see ACTA has never been democratically scrutinised or debated. It was created and negotiated entirely in secret by private corporations, not transparently by democratically elected representatives, and then ratified without any democratic mandate (by "executive order"). Indeed, the US government actually went so far as to describe these boiler-room "negotiations" as "a matter of national security".
Since when are petty civil legislation issues like copyrights "a matter of national security"? Since when should fundamental changes to the democratic process and criminal legislation be "negotiated" in dark basements by private corporations, then the details protected as "a matter of national security"?
It's incredible, but true. It's also profoundly disturbing.
Regardless of whatever else might be wrong with ACTA, when private corporations start making criminal laws (in secret, no less), clearly we have a serious problem. It's textbook fascism.
For reasons that are not all bad, we have turned 1939-45 into a kind of creation myth, the noble story of modern Britain's birth. We vote for Churchill as our Greatest Briton and revere the Queen in part because she is a direct link to that chapter in our history, the moment when we were unambiguously on the side of good. That, of course, is a key difference between us and our fellow Europeans, for whom that period is anything but simple or unambiguous.
Read this background summary of the Timbaland plagiarism controversy.
Basically, Mosley got off on a technicality.
AJE does not qualify as a United States work under § 101(1)(B) because at the time of first publication in 2002, Australia's term of copyright protection (the life of the author plus 50 years) was not the same or longer than the term of protection provided in the United States (the life of the author plus 70 years).