NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Google and ISPs
One other thing about Google's pages: when a page or site is changed by someone that is not the owner or authorized in writing by the owner to make certain changes (such as a web developer) it has a name - it's hacking. Hacking is illegal. Rogers became hackers when they changed Google's pages. Rogers had no specific legal permission from Google to make changes. > > ------- Forwarded Message > > From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> > To: Brett Glass <nnsquad@brettglass.com> > cc: Barry Gold <bgold@matrix-consultants.com> > Subject: Re: [ NNSquad ] Re: FCC paths to Internet network management? > (from IP) > Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:25:36 -0800 > > Golly, I didn't realize that you were such an expert on Google, Brett. > > And your certainty about so many complex issues, from your own > rights vs. the powers of regulators, to how courts will rule on > complicated technical issues, is sort of refreshing in a > bible-thumping kind of way. > > But your own analysis notwithstanding, both Google's public > statements and my own sources suggested strongly that Google was > "not amused" by the Rogers message insertion experiments (experiments > which I originally revealed last December in: > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000337.html ). Other unofficial > statements implied that they hoped ISPs would decide not to proceed > with broad deployment of such systems, which could render the need > for legal action moot. > > But if ISPs plow forward anyway, Google's actions in this regard > will be theirs to determine -- not yours, or mine. I will however > offer two free truisms: > > 1) Some of the smartest people I've ever known are now at Google. > It's unwise in the extreme to *ever* underestimate Google. > > 2) Google is very protective of their brand -- as I would be if > I were in their position. But that being said, anybody outside > of Google who really believes that they have such a handle on > Google's strategic planning that they can predict Google's future > actions with any degree of certainty is a fool. > > - --Lauren-- > NNSquad Moderator > > - - - > >> At 04:17 PM 2/29/2008, Barry Gold wrote: >> >> >Google will _make_ it their business, in one of several ways. One >> option, of course, is the courts. Their pages are copyright (at least, >> the logos and lay >> out are, and I suspect a compilation copyright would apply to the >> information). Read up on "derivative works". >> >> Google is too smart to pursue such a suit. >> >> First of all, it'd lose. A window with two things in it -- a notice and >> a Web page -- is not a derivative work any more than a desktop with two >> windows on it >> , or a framed Web page, or for that matter a shop window with two books >> in it, is. >> >> Secondly, Google is not in the business of harassing or antagonizing >> ISPs and would be ill advised to do so. ISPs are their customers and >> their way of reachi >> ng the rest of the world. Google -- which wants to avoid becoming an ISP >> itself -- needs them as allies. >> >> Thirdly, Google would lose a big advantage if ISPs were required to >> allow P2P. Right now, Vuze, Inc. is trying to compete with YouTube >> without buying the sor >> t of pipes that Google can afford. It's doing this by stealing the >> bandwidth from users' ISPs. If ISPs are required to allow this theft, >> Google loses its edg >> e. >> >> Finally, Google has more important fish to fry. It needs to fend off >> Microsoft. >> >> --Brett Glass >> > > ------- End of Forwarded Message > >