<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Table for two</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2012/07/13/table-for-two/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2012/07/13/table-for-two/</link>
	<description>Same old blog, brand new place</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 15:14:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Glass</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2012/07/13/table-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-302834</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Glass</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 03:15:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/?p=5295#comment-302834</guid>
		<description>Seth, Google spent relatively modest amounts of money fighting SOPA; its lobbying mechanisms were already in place and had resources to spare.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seth, Google spent relatively modest amounts of money fighting SOPA; its lobbying mechanisms were already in place and had resources to spare.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doc Searls</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2012/07/13/table-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-302828</link>
		<dc:creator>Doc Searls</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 00:37:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/?p=5295#comment-302828</guid>
		<description>Seth, I&#039;m not even sure what to say yet. So I&#039;m letting it slide for now, and just dealing with all the Q&amp;A on various channels other than this one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seth, I&#8217;m not even sure what to say yet. So I&#8217;m letting it slide for now, and just dealing with all the Q&amp;A on various channels other than this one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seth Finkelstein</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2012/07/13/table-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-302827</link>
		<dc:creator>Seth Finkelstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 23:45:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/?p=5295#comment-302827</guid>
		<description>Brett, do you really believe that Google spend all that money just to fight a bill that would only affect foreign sites, and not YouTube?

Doc, you&#039;re so modest. You haven&#039;t posted that you are, in the words of your past co-author, a &quot;WSJ centerfold!&quot; Or &quot;Actually, it’s more like Doc Searls: Wall Street Journal Cover Boy!&quot;

Oh, those &quot;Fat Corporate Bastards&quot;. They must be so stupid, in  making a &quot;centerfold&quot; and &quot;Cover Boy&quot; (not my phrases) out of someone who is just going to destroy their power. How do they even tie their shoes, much less amass vast amounts of wealth?
What&#039;s Wrong With This Picture?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brett, do you really believe that Google spend all that money just to fight a bill that would only affect foreign sites, and not YouTube?</p>
<p>Doc, you&#8217;re so modest. You haven&#8217;t posted that you are, in the words of your past co-author, a &#8220;WSJ centerfold!&#8221; Or &#8220;Actually, it’s more like Doc Searls: Wall Street Journal Cover Boy!&#8221;</p>
<p>Oh, those &#8220;Fat Corporate Bastards&#8221;. They must be so stupid, in  making a &#8220;centerfold&#8221; and &#8220;Cover Boy&#8221; (not my phrases) out of someone who is just going to destroy their power. How do they even tie their shoes, much less amass vast amounts of wealth?<br />
What&#8217;s Wrong With This Picture?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lisbeth jardine</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2012/07/13/table-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-302818</link>
		<dc:creator>lisbeth jardine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:34:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/?p=5295#comment-302818</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ll just add my two-cents worth--I was actually looking for some other thing--I have about got to the point where I am going to ditch the internet because I cannot stand the advertising.  There seems to be no way to escape it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll just add my two-cents worth&#8211;I was actually looking for some other thing&#8211;I have about got to the point where I am going to ditch the internet because I cannot stand the advertising.  There seems to be no way to escape it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Glass</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2012/07/13/table-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-302813</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Glass</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:55:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/?p=5295#comment-302813</guid>
		<description>In fact, those provisions, which were a bit murky, were modified -- and many of them removed -- during the markup process. And more clauses were added to the bill to emphasize that it was applicable only to foreign servers dedicated to piracy.

But Google is committed to fighting ANY bill that might strengthen copyright enforcement. This is because it makes huge amounts of money by encouraging, and then turning a blind eye to, the posting of infringing material. It also makes millions from AdSense ads on sites devoted to copyright infringement. And it WANTS to make still more by delivering copies of books without paying the authors (the Google Books case). 

Its latest move includes the formation, via the multiple lobbying shops that it funds and controls, of the so-called &quot;Internet Defense League.&quot; The purpose of this group is to allow Google to trigger knee-jerk, astroturf campaigns against anything that might be adverse to its business interests, including (but not limited to) laws that protect authors&#039; and creators&#039; rights. The group will point to whatever law is being proposed and falsely claim that it would &quot;break the Internet.&quot; A sort of supersized version of the old &quot;modem tax&quot; scam. Such reputable (not!) sites as TorrentFreak have enthusiastically supported the effort.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In fact, those provisions, which were a bit murky, were modified &#8212; and many of them removed &#8212; during the markup process. And more clauses were added to the bill to emphasize that it was applicable only to foreign servers dedicated to piracy.</p>
<p>But Google is committed to fighting ANY bill that might strengthen copyright enforcement. This is because it makes huge amounts of money by encouraging, and then turning a blind eye to, the posting of infringing material. It also makes millions from AdSense ads on sites devoted to copyright infringement. And it WANTS to make still more by delivering copies of books without paying the authors (the Google Books case). </p>
<p>Its latest move includes the formation, via the multiple lobbying shops that it funds and controls, of the so-called &#8220;Internet Defense League.&#8221; The purpose of this group is to allow Google to trigger knee-jerk, astroturf campaigns against anything that might be adverse to its business interests, including (but not limited to) laws that protect authors&#8217; and creators&#8217; rights. The group will point to whatever law is being proposed and falsely claim that it would &#8220;break the Internet.&#8221; A sort of supersized version of the old &#8220;modem tax&#8221; scam. Such reputable (not!) sites as TorrentFreak have enthusiastically supported the effort.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seth Finkelstein</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2012/07/13/table-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-302697</link>
		<dc:creator>Seth Finkelstein</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 01:45:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/?p=5295#comment-302697</guid>
		<description>Actually, no, SOPA had a provision that could have cost Google a huge amount of money, related to &quot;safe harbor&quot; rules. That&#039;s why Google opposed it so extensively. This is what&#039;s driving Internet politics, basically the &quot;Fat Corporate Bastards&quot; of the above.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, no, SOPA had a provision that could have cost Google a huge amount of money, related to &#8220;safe harbor&#8221; rules. That&#8217;s why Google opposed it so extensively. This is what&#8217;s driving Internet politics, basically the &#8220;Fat Corporate Bastards&#8221; of the above.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Glass</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2012/07/13/table-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-302658</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Glass</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2012 04:06:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/?p=5295#comment-302658</guid>
		<description>Boorstin&#039;s statement is an admission of what we already knew: YouTube encourages piracy and relies on it for revenue. However, SOPA would not have shut it down. Contrary to the lies promulgated by Google&#039;s lobbyists, SOPA only allowed foreign sites dedicated to piracy to be blocked.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Boorstin&#8217;s statement is an admission of what we already knew: YouTube encourages piracy and relies on it for revenue. However, SOPA would not have shut it down. Contrary to the lies promulgated by Google&#8217;s lobbyists, SOPA only allowed foreign sites dedicated to piracy to be blocked.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: computer repair sacramento</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2012/07/13/table-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-302652</link>
		<dc:creator>computer repair sacramento</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:48:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/?p=5295#comment-302652</guid>
		<description>&quot;The Internet is a table for two. Any two, anywhere. All attempts to restrict it and lock it down will fail to alter the base fact that the Net’s protocols are designed to eliminate the functional distance, as far as possible, between any two points, any two devices, any two people.

You might think the things that you do online are between you and your computer. Not so. Your cyber-privacy is constantly being chipped away: by your Internet provider, your cell phone carrier and lawmakers. Before you post to a social-media site or browse the Internet for that report you’re compiling on pedophiles, keep in mind how your actions online are anything but private.

At issue is the struggle to protect privacy rights while fighting the online theft of American intellectual property. Here is what you should know:

SOPA Shelved, or is it? Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives shelved its proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA (H.R. 3261). The legislation’s surface intent seemed sound: It would have given holders of music, films, books and other intellectual property copyrighted in the United States some teeth to stop its illegal distribution, even if that property was stored in an offshore server. But the bill required such sweeping enforcement that Google communications director Bob Boorstin said, “YouTube would just go dark immediately.” If you were caught unwittingly posting a video of your niece singing along with the latest Taylor Swift tune, you could be blocked from Facebook and by your Internet provider and you’d have the burden of proving your innocence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The Internet is a table for two. Any two, anywhere. All attempts to restrict it and lock it down will fail to alter the base fact that the Net’s protocols are designed to eliminate the functional distance, as far as possible, between any two points, any two devices, any two people.</p>
<p>You might think the things that you do online are between you and your computer. Not so. Your cyber-privacy is constantly being chipped away: by your Internet provider, your cell phone carrier and lawmakers. Before you post to a social-media site or browse the Internet for that report you’re compiling on pedophiles, keep in mind how your actions online are anything but private.</p>
<p>At issue is the struggle to protect privacy rights while fighting the online theft of American intellectual property. Here is what you should know:</p>
<p>SOPA Shelved, or is it? Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives shelved its proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA (H.R. 3261). The legislation’s surface intent seemed sound: It would have given holders of music, films, books and other intellectual property copyrighted in the United States some teeth to stop its illegal distribution, even if that property was stored in an offshore server. But the bill required such sweeping enforcement that Google communications director Bob Boorstin said, “YouTube would just go dark immediately.” If you were caught unwittingly posting a video of your niece singing along with the latest Taylor Swift tune, you could be blocked from Facebook and by your Internet provider and you’d have the burden of proving your innocence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dustbury.com &#187; Blast from the past</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2012/07/13/table-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-302531</link>
		<dc:creator>dustbury.com &#187; Blast from the past</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:00:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/?p=5295#comment-302531</guid>
		<description>[...] still pretty darned pertinent. Here&#8217;s Doc Searls&#8217; new intro:  The Web as we know it today was two years old in June 1997, when the page below went up. It [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] still pretty darned pertinent. Here&#8217;s Doc Searls&#8217; new intro:  The Web as we know it today was two years old in June 1997, when the page below went up. It [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Glass</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2012/07/13/table-for-two/comment-page-1/#comment-302470</link>
		<dc:creator>Brett Glass</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:48:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/?p=5295#comment-302470</guid>
		<description>In other news: Berkman is apparently being offered a $600,000 bribe -- er, settlement -- to accept weak privacy constraints on Facebook (and, by extension, Google+ and similar services). Given its past behavior, it seems likely to sell out: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/groups-get-facebook-millions/all/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In other news: Berkman is apparently being offered a $600,000 bribe &#8212; er, settlement &#8212; to accept weak privacy constraints on Facebook (and, by extension, Google+ and similar services). Given its past behavior, it seems likely to sell out: <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/groups-get-facebook-millions/all/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/groups-get-facebook-millions/all/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
