Angry that President Obama indicated this weekend he would not sign the SOPA/ PIPA bills as they currently stand in the House and Senate, Murdoch took to Twitter to defend the bills and the old media companies who are backing them. He said that new media companies like Google “threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery.”
Clearly, however, “all software creators” are not aligned with Murdoch in support of SOPA. In fact a coalition of some of the most important software makers in the world are aligned against SOPA, saying the bills would threaten free speech and the very fabric of the internet, as well as important legal precedents like due process.
At the heart of Obama’s criticism of SOPA this weekend was the provision that would allow media companies, in association with the DOJ, to swiftly block access to sites via Domain Name System (DNS) blocking. Allowing this would tamper with a critical piece of the internet’s underlying architecture.
In fact, after Obama’s statement this weekend, SOPA’s author Lamar Smith relented on the issue, saying “After consultation with industry groups across the country, I feel we should remove Domain Name System blocking from the Stop Online Piracy Act so that the [House Judiciary] Committee can further examine the issues surrounding this provision.”
But Obama’s own trepidation on this one issue was enough for Murdoch to launch into a tirade against him and a new media landscape hell-bent on siphoning profits from traditional content creators: “Piracy leader is Google,” he tweeted “who streams movies free, sells advts around them. No wonder pouring millions into lobbying.”
Actually Murdoch’s argument here was a rhetorical device used effectively by conservatives on a host of issues, namely abortion rights. By framing the issue as a binary “pro-piracy” or “anti-piracy” split, Murdoch oversimplifies it and eliminates the possibility that a company may be anti-piracy but also concerned about preserving free speech and free access on the internet.
Google actually responded to charges that it’s a “piracy leader” in an email to CNET:
“This is just nonsense. Last year we took down 5 million infringing Web pages from our search results and invested more than $60 million in the fight against bad ads…We fight pirates and counterfeiters every day. We believe, like many other tech companies, that the best way to stop [pirates] is through targeted legislation that would require ad networks and payment processors–like ours–to cut off sites dedicated to piracy or counterfeiting,” rather than through DNS blocking, the company wrote.
Traditional movie and music companies seem to be losing the battle on SOPA/PIPA as Lamar Smith’s statement on SOPA today follows PIPA’s co-author, saying he was having second thoughts about some provisions on Friday after a massive outpouring of protests and petitions from internet companies and users. That didn’t stop Murdoch from trying to spin the story in his favor though. He tweeted this weekend: “Seems like universal anger with [Obama] from all sorts of normal supporters. Maybe backing pirates a rare miscalculation by friend Axelrod.” Right. It’s unclear who “all sorts of normal supporters” are—whoever they are, they’re definitely not speaking up loudly enough to save SOPA — but isn’t that kind of fabrication exactly what we’d expect from the man behind Fox News?
January 16, 2012 at 11:08 am, Philhood said:
Youtube’s entire business was built on copyright theft and Google knows that.
January 16, 2012 at 11:20 am, anon said:
you’re forgetting that the traditional media companies uploaded their own content to Youtube, only to complain that it was present on Youtube. bit of a conundrum, no?
January 16, 2012 at 11:20 am, Ian said:
@0e0bb205b450cf2d323bc8dfe6f8d91e:disqus got any more generic pro-sopa talking points? actually youtubems success is through user generated content. go back to the well of generic arguments and get something less tired please.
January 16, 2012 at 11:23 am, Burruk Ohrmsford said:
Nobody cares about a “has been”, nor what he thinks. The guy is too use to people being forced-fed what he personally believes, on all of his networks… that he has forgotten He’s only a man and what he does is of no interest to Americans.
Owner’s of business no longer matter, morality is on the rise.. only what you do with your company matters.
Lip service is easy… Rupert will die a sinner, because he has done nothing with his wealth to elivate human kind.
January 16, 2012 at 11:23 am, Jgranger said:
GoDaddy nearly got fried by taking a pro-SOPA stand. How can Murdoch’s interests escape?
January 16, 2012 at 11:23 am, Dave Filipiak said:
An old man that has no clue about technology and is so detached from current norms has no say in the matter, sorry Murdoch. Maybe you can have a say in prescription drugs, retirement homes, or bingo regulations
January 16, 2012 at 11:25 am, Chip Kempston said:
DNS blocking is useless. This would simply create a “black market” DNS system that could easily bypass any efforts to block via DNS. Black hole-ing a DNS name only works until someone figures out they can use an IP address.
January 16, 2012 at 11:46 am, Dave Filipiak said:
Right on, and those that pirate are usually the ones smart enough to get around any obstacles you set up. So really you are only hurting the majority of average users. The whole thing is stupid. You can never beat piracy. These bills have more to do with extending control of the government and media content providers.
January 16, 2012 at 11:33 am, Nunya said:
Rupert Murdoch can go to hell. Like we need that fascist telling us how to run the Internet.
January 16, 2012 at 12:09 pm, Steven said:
How can this odious cretin pontificate against internet piracy–taking the supposed ‘high moral ground’–after his years of pirating people’s private phone messages and engaging in illegal spying on private citizens?
Here’s a “man” who publicly disavows his Jewish roots as if he’s ashamed of them, proclaims himself a ‘Christian Conservative’, donates heavily to Rick Santorum’s campaign, then prints pictures of nude girls on Page 3 of his British newspaper ‘The Sun’.
Really–do they get any slimier, more devious or detestable than this pig?
January 16, 2012 at 1:08 pm, LittleBiggyGirl said:
this is a critically important moment for internet freedom. litttlebiggy is against #SOPA and #PIPA: http://littlebiggy.org/4709048
January 16, 2012 at 4:59 pm, JO said:
Rupert Murdoch is an evil force. On his MySpace site, I was victimized for over four years with graphic pornographic posted on a page created with the illegal use of my name and image. He made money by destroying my high reputation and preventing me from landing a teaching job. No one would hire me because of the gruesome photos that were seen on the site that popped up when they googled my name. May Murdoch burn in hell… .but unto until I get damages from him.
Martha Jo Peters, Ph.D., J.D., one of Murdoch’s innocent victims.
January 20, 2012 at 2:03 pm, Diane said:
The loop hole that prevents this from passing is that much of the content on the internet is used for educational purpose and copyrighted items can be redistributed for educational purpose as long as the creators are cited. Free movies are legal to share for educational purpose because the creators are included in the credits.
So, how can the government know if some is reposting for education or not. However, I do agree there is problems with art on the interner being reposted and not credited so the law should only include better citing.