<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On 6 May 2014 08:09, michael gurstein <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">The piece from Springer as I read it, wasn’t, at least overtly, concerned with the copyright issue.</span></p>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>No, but the comment speaks to the company's long-standing grudge against Google. So when you appeal to the gravitas of Springer as somehow being relevant to the authenticity (let alone relevance) of its claims, Springer's backstory with Google -- and this its subjective motivations -- also becomes relevant.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">What is becoming clear in most non-ideological (or self-interest) distorted analyses is that the Internet provides opportunities for global monopolies (and all of the distortions and inequities which are the result) and that if Internet Governance doesn’t deal with these then national governments in their various localized wisdoms most certainly will.</span></p>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I have no idea why you speak of this in the future tense. This is already happening. Or are the "great firewall of China", recent moves by Turkey to throttle Twitter, or even screwing with the DNS to implement DMCA "takedowns" in the US just myth?</div>
<div><br></div><div>I think most participants here are aware that Google is large, pervasive, and is itself into surveillance of personal information as a core business model. It needs be watched and regulated, and be the focus of as much attention regarding data abuse as any state; we didn't need Springer's fear-mongering to tell us that. However, Google is also a legitimate stakeholder, a recognized innovator, and one of the builders of the Infrastructure that makes the Internet useful to many.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Sure, we must not be complacent, aware that even companies that strive to "do no harm" exist to maximize value to their shareholders as a primary goal. We have also seen that every tech company that has historically been feared to be a pervasive monopoly eventually gives way to disruptive upstarts. Just as important as keeping an eye on the behemoth companies is nurturing the kind of environment that enables some future effort to do to Google what Google itself did to Microsoft's seeming impenetrable monopoly.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The issue IMO is not whether local governments have the authority to regulate the Internet (and companies such as Google) within their borders; they clearly do. The issue is to demonstrate and promote that it is in their joint national interests to have a free and open Internet, and come as close as we can to a treaty or sign-on convention that points them in that direction. Such openness, and the resulting atmosphere of innovation, is as necessary a check on the excesses of Google (or any other player) as much as any state regulation.</div>
<div><br></div><div>- Evan</div><div><br></div><div> </div><div><br></div></div>
</div></div>