Google Wants to Privatize the InternetAdded: Thursday, October 4th, 2012
Category: Bit Torrent Freedom > The Right To Share
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extratorrent.com
Consumer Watchdog claimed that the authorities should keep track of what international corporations like Google and Amazon are doing online, as well as to reject their applications to purchase new top level domains in bulk.
The watchdog outfit has recently written an open letter to ICANN and other relevant authorities. In the letter, John M Simpson, the Consumer Watchdog privacy project director, explained that there were plans by such giants as Google and Amazon to purchase enormous amounts of new top level domains. According to Consumer Watchdog, it is one matter for a corporation to have an intention to purchase associated domains like .google, .youtube, or .amazon, but it‘s not what the companies are looking to do.
Consumer Watchdog pointed out that the search engine is using its subsidiary named Charlestone Road Registry to spend almost $19,000,000 on such domain names as .eat, .buy, .web, .book, .free, and .family. At the same time, Amazon wants to own .shop, .free, .like, and .game. All in all, the companies are expecting to purchase 101 and 76 domain strings accordingly.
In its letter, the watchdog pointed out that generic words can’t be the property of any entity, because when such words are used in a generic way they belong to everyone. However, according to Consumer Watchdog, in case the companies are allowed to purchase generic names, they will be closing off common words that they have no IP rights over, nor are they even associated with the brand. John M Simpson has warned that ICANN will be allowing the international giants to bypass nation-states’ entrenched legal processes in order to get legal and recognized trademark protections.
In this happens, some argue that corporations like Google and Amazon will be doing nothing else than effectively privatizing parts of the worldwide web, which could later turn into the walled gardens. Consumer Watchdog claims that both Google and Amazon already position themselves as dominant players on the market and in the online space. That’s why if the authorities allow them further control, this would pose a real threat to the free and open web that the Internet users rely upon.
October 4th,2012Posted by:
Thursday, October 4th, 2012
|YAY thank you google, Love you guys.|
|posted by (2012-10-04 19:01:26)|
|@1shadowwolf: no not yay google, if they make the web privet you will not be allowed to use it.|
"the watchdog pointed out that generic words can’t be the property of any entity" LOL you can't claim ownership on ANY word or letter, morons. that's y when the US claimed ownership of .com, .net and .org and so one I just laughed really hard.
|I can't stand Google, all they do is track your search and browsing habits in attempts to cram relevant advertisements in your face. Idiots. More and more people are using Adblock and NoScript and Ghostery like add-ons so we don't see any lame ads. And Amazon just takes my money. So, big GRRRR to both of those multi-billion dollar corps. When they reach into their extra deep pockets to help make the internet ANONYMOUS then I won't be so GRRRR towards them. Those two bigwigs fighting for the privacy of users is a very unlikely scenario, though.|
@clamo - the internet was developed in the US and that's why they kind of called dibs on the .com, .net, .org, .us, .gov, etc. They each have a particular meaning, too. .com is for commercial sites. .org for organizations, .net for network, and .gov for government sites. Other countries get their own extensions like .au, .br, .uk, .ca, etc. They're not claiming ownership to letters or words, but claiming ownership to domains. I think these watch dogs are over complicating things. It helps distinguish what the site regards and where it originates from, too. For example: would you shop from buyfromhere.com.au when you live in Europe? No. Shipping charges would be insane. So you look for buyfromhere.com.uk. Anyway, back to work. Later all.
|I'm surprised that 1shadowwolf figured out how to get on the internet. kudos bro! next: tying your own shoes!|
|@at clamo you can copyright a word so stfu unless you know what you're talking about.|
|posted by (2012-10-05 00:47:31)|
|when you think about it, if you're not on google you're basically not on the internet anyway.|
|A tangental thought might be that Google specifically, and perhaps Amazon as well, are looking to own certain top-level domains in order to track specific users' purchasing habits and so forth, and mine more transaction-specific data/information.|
Who really knows, though both history and current times clearly show that for the most part, those with access to vast amounts of personal data tend not to behave responsibly with this information/data, so much like the snowball rolling down the hill, there is an inevitability to the end-result.
@SwinginNutSack: Have patience (a great deal) with clamo, as his/her natural state is one of a lack of factual awareness/data/information. Unfortunately.
|posted by (2012-10-05 02:31:24)|
|Then they will charge an arm/leg/lower torso for access to said domains.|
|posted by (2012-10-05 03:15:02)|
|@SwinginNutSack: um NO YOU CAN'T!! that's like trying to place a copy write on the word THE. if you could copy write words then there would be a load of suing for just using ANY word.|
a lot of people THINK this because of stupidity in the world.
|posted by (2012-10-05 03:20:34)|
|BTW I also forgot to mention TM is what you CAN do to a name or a word and that's NOT copy right.|
|posted by (2012-10-05 11:05:49)|
|Thanx Sam for the article, it doesn't amaze me that google is trying to own www- all they see are $ signs.|
@OpenMinder I know you recommend patience when dealing with clamo but it is soo hard!
@clamo Please use any search engine before you post comments. You can copyright a word and companies do sue each other over these copyrights. Cadbury even copyrighted the colour purple...
|posted by (2012-10-05 12:19:50)|
|and wat compamy would they want to privatuizse it with?? a usa company no doubt|
|Clamo is partially correct, in that one cannot copyright an individual word or phrase, though they can be trademarked.|
However, clamo is incorrect in both laughing off and dismissing attempts to claim ownership or even copyrighting a particular domain, as a domain suffix is not designated as a word or phrase, but a title or descriptor of the domain itself.
In other words, the domain content, and therefore the domain itself (and by logical extension the domain suffix/name itself) is possible to have copyrighted due to the very nature of the content contained within the domain, although to do so would be a lengthy legal procedure and likely set a new precedent.
All of that is conjecture, and in no way certain but clamo certainly has black-and-white views on many topics, not to mention an ego-centric mindset so patience (with clamo) is key.
@clamo: If you truly believe there is "stupidity" in the world, then why do you insist on perpetuating that with your continuous spreading of misinformation as facts? Why not be positively proactive (i.e. providing factual information) instead of adding to the issue, while being so ignorantly critical and dismissive?
I don't "get" you.
|your a bunch of morons. NO you cannot copyright a word. YES you can copyright multiple words or a phrase.|
Giraffe before you tell someone to "Please use any search engine before you post comments. You can copyright a word and companies do sue each other over these copyrights. Cadbury even copyrighted the colour purple..." Please use the search engine yourself and know WTF your talking about 1st. that can also go for OpenMinder too. JS
|posted by (2012-10-05 15:48:20)|
|@OpenMinder: Y do you persist that my pots MUST be positively proactive? its called free speech, also I am not the only one making mistakes on here but you insists on bashing me. GTH!|
BTW @giraffe: YOU might want to do some MORE looking in to actual copy wright, copyright.gov/circs/circ34.pdf this states that you can NOT copyright words, phrases names so on and so forth. I know people that have worked for law firms in the past and this issue was a major problem back in the 90's and I know this to be legit information. you also might want to read in to Cadbury owns the color purple statement because I have read the article and it does not say the own it, they just have the wrights to use the color for the packing. well of course they do LOL.
like I stated if you believe this copy right BS then you are just as dumb as the corporations that are lying to you.
|posted by (2012-10-05 17:21:05)|
|if google wants to make the web private wont that leave google without a job.|
|People (dieselsnake, clamo, etc) please. Cadbury did not copyright their purple-colored packaging; they TRADEMARKED it (Pantone 2685c to be exact). There is a difference between copyright and trademark, and the only way that groups of words or phrases may permissibly be copyrighted is if they are contained within an original work (read: content is unique), not for the sake of the phrase or words themselves.|
@clamo: Your freedom of speech is not in question, nor is even your negativity, rather your inept and ignorant adherence to non-factual information as being factual is the reasoning for my pointed comments directed at your posting(s) specifically.
I am not bashing you specifically, nor do I "bash" at all. I am simply stating the obvious, and factually so. If I state something incorrectly, then I expect that my peers will call me on my inaccuracy and (hopefully) I will learn and alter my way of thinking (or at least perform a self-analysis of my ideas and beliefs).
I point out your lack of this type of behaviour again, because it is both obvious and evident that you do neither (re-assess your beliefs nor re-evaluate the veracity of your "factual" information).
I fault no one in their expressions of their ideas and opinions, but I am a stickler for offering factual information to avoid the spreading of misinformation which plagues our world on a constant basis.
Would you rather drive ignorantly believing your brakes to be solid and "good" without ever having them checked or would you rather know for sure by having them checked and verified on a regular basis by a professional who has factual information/knowledge?
It just so happens that you often post non-sensical, non-factual information in response to articles I find interesting, and so you will find me refuting your "facts". This is not personal, and if you do your own due diligence (read my postings in areas you have not posted), you will find I have done the same for/to other posters.
Accuracy is key to understanding, which brings about positive change, and therefore your negativity does nothing for understanding so yes, you should try to be more positive in order to assist others in understanding your ideas and ideologies.
Use your mind for things other than self-ego-centric "strokings". There is an old saying "trust but verify" which goes a long way to avoiding wasteful arguments and inconsistencies.
Just because you believe something to be so, does not make it so (or factual/accurate).
|posted by (2012-10-05 18:28:19)|
|Don't really see the big issue with this. Its just about buying top level domains. I use Amazon frequently. It does not affect me if I go via Amazon.co.uk or Amazon.shop, it is the business behind the URL *whatever* that may be, that drives my traffic. If that same company was called Moon.com or ZZ80.com it would not matter. To me at least.|
If I was in the market to buy something, I would Google the product and not second guess a list of URL's I'd made up. Eg if I wanted a lightweight E-type Jaguar car I wouldn't be typing lightweightetypejaguars.shop doh! lightweightetypejaguarsttogo.shop doh! buylightweightetypejaguars.shop doh! lightweightetypejaguarsforsale.shop No No! No! Why isn't this working!!!
|Your all idiots, if Google makes the web Privatized, The governments cant touch it anymore, that stops the US and the UN, I trust Google over both of those.|
|posted by (2012-10-05 21:34:49)|
|@OpenMinder: "a professional who has factual information/knowledge?" LOL most Professional's are a JOKE now. so there really is no such thing. to much miss information BY so called pro's that's misleading everybody to thinking what THEY want you to think.|
|@Swingingnutsack I just have to point out you have the great avatar i've ever seen.|
@Shadowwolf You are a either a troll, or seriously retarded
@google stop being greedy cunts. the internet should be open and free.
|Lets keep this simple. I see this as another form of theft by the Corporations. Taxpayers paid for most of the infrastructure, and the Corporations figure out a loop whole in how to steal it from us.|
|posted by (2012-10-06 03:32:37)|
|Another poorly written article with an inaccurate/false headline. You also only name Google and not Amazon. Not only do they not make the point that Google "wants to Privatize the Internet", but they also do not name any sources that "argue" this point, which is not even accurate in the first place ("world wide web" does not equal Internet). They are simply mass purchasing domains, which will someday be worth much more. That not privatizing, that capitalism. They are not the first ones to do this.|
The journalistic reporting on this site is terrible. They always have huge errors and would never be allowed to be printed in a reputable site or paper for inaccuracies.
|posted by (2012-10-06 11:19:06)|
|@OpenMinder I was wrong about Cadbury, it is trademark and not copyright.|
@dieselsnake I did do a search before I replied- before you call people names, you should have done the same. In 10seconds I found that during the London games companies were sued for copyright infringement of 1 (ONE) word.
"The following words, their plurals, translations and similar meanings are protected by copyright: Olympic; Olympian; Olympiad; Paralympic; Paralympian; Paralympiad."
"Facebook seeks to copyright the word 'BOOK'"- though if you read the article they meant trademark.
The word "Jogi" which was copyrighted in 2011.
@clamo I have no interest in copyright law nor what your friends were doing in the 90's. I was wrong and miswrote about Cadbury having copyright when it is trademark. But I never wrote that they own anything nor that I believe in copyright. As to copyrighting one word check what I wrote above and look it up yourself. You also wrote "LOL most Professional's are a JOKE now. so there really is no such thing. to much miss information BY so called pro's that's misleading everybody to thinking what THEY want you to think." and "I know people that have worked for law firms in the past and this issue was a major problem back in the 90's and I know this to be legit information." So you only trust pro's when they are your friends?
|posted by (2012-10-06 13:49:19)|
|the word should be monopoly|
|@giraffe, i have a problem with people who google things and quickly come back with a reply, when all they did was read 1 page or even a paragraph and they feel they know enough to comment. Well it makes you look like a moron. Try googling again, this time read more then 1 passage take an average and you will see that you CANNOT copyright a single word but can EASILY copyright a group of words. SMH|
|posted by (2012-10-06 17:49:39)|
|@giraffe: you didn't read what I wrote to well, I said "most Professional's are a JOKE now" "NOW" was the key word and does not apply to the past? LOL correct me if I am wrong but isn't it 2012? LOL the term PRO back in the day meant something, now its just a tittle a lot of people call them selves. if you live in the US BEST BUYS GEEKSQUAD are soposta be a bunch of PRO's that know everything there is to know about how to fix a computer. well they are a complete JOKE. one time they left one of the so called software vd's in a friends computer and we took a look @ it. well needless to say we found out that they have software on this disk that allows them to pull up your windows CD key. so I did some looking in to....they are NOT soposta even have software like this, they got in trouble in the pas for it but still have the software. so how is this Professional? like I said the term PRO is a JOKE.|
Hmm dumasses @ facebook THINK they are gona copyright the word book, but I think not. now they can TM "facebook" providing NO ONE else has in the past already.
|People make mistakes, including myself. We all need to calm down and relax, and just stick to the facts, free of perceptual interpretations.|
Free of egos.
@clamo: You would rather not trust your mechanic?
|posted by (2012-10-06 21:39:25)|
|@dieselsnake As I have written before I have no interest in copyright law nor do I want to learn more about it. If you have a problem with the word Olympic being copyrighted- take it up with the IOC, it has nothing to do with me. First you call me out by claiming I'm not googling topics and now your calling me a moron for googling topics. Which is it to be? As you've written you're the one with the problem.|
@clamo I read your post fine and I'm sorry about your experience at best buy and hopefully you'll have better luck next time.
@OpenMinder Nice words.
|google wants to privatize the internet and when they are through with that they are gonna come after the penniless and homeless from the wall street crash of 2008.What? Oh! there are none they all work for Obama,Dam|
|LOL SO MUCH BITCHING|
|You won't stop them, there a law unto themselves, if they want to do it they will.|
|posted by (2012-10-08 03:21:10)|
|u can see how big online was with yahoo,aol,hotmail and others.|
if google and amazon try to change this world can figure it out how can live wealthy with the past they build.
europe tech companies complain why apple don't work together to get money from sales like theme and I did't here yet complains from companies if they are too from europe giving money to icann who until now it making money.
our life change with theme to see how they grow and our ass to fix what they give us or to buy what we need.
Most Popular Stories