@Eric Olson: What "Doesn't Belong".
"As far as the profits to Google... I don't know. They make their money on click-through ads for the most part, so unless the law also mandates some kind of Google advertising on each data use app, I'm at a loss as to how this would improve Google's bottom line. But if you have evidence, I would love to hear it."
If you don't know how Google earns large sums of money from piracy, then you know nothing, and it's difficult to understand on what you are condemning my post. Unless your admitted ignorance gives you some sort of expertise. (And, incidentally, they make their money not only from click-through, but from mere views. When you google a word, and the first results are "sponsored links", Google gets paid for that without you having to click on them.) (http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/adsense/Hl0i_AjWXWQ)
"Wow... that's quite a statement there. I won't delve into whatever personal grudges you might have against Senator Wyden or the Democrats, but I'm pretty sure they don't have a place in this specific discussion."
Wyden is a cosponsor of IRFA, the Internet Radio Fairness Act, amongst the provisions of which was one which would allow anyone speaking against direct licensing schemes to be prosecuted. Chris Castle (MusicTechPolicy.com): "IRFA allows monopolists like Clear Channel, Google and Sirius to threaten any artist organization with an antitrust law lawsuit if the artists 'impede' Big Media’s lust for direct licensing." "Section 5(a), which allows Pandora, Google, Clear Channel and their fellow travelers to sue any group of creators acting jointly to license their rights."
See http://thetrichordist.com/2012/11/08/irfa-section-5/ - "Section 5 of IRFA is perhaps the most pernicious part of the bill, for it would make it illegal for anyone to criticize digital sound recording licensees. If IRFA becomes law, artists and artist organizations will need to watch what they say in public in opposition to Sirius and Clear Channel’s direct licensing efforts."
"This is not an exaggeration or hyperbole — it is already happening. The provisions of Section 5 seem to be a direct response to groups like American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), SoundExchange, and major record labels cautioning recording artists about the drawbacks to a push by Sirius XM to license recordings directly following the latest rate-setting proceedings." "Sirius XM essentially argues that various public communications concerning its direct license program amount to anti-competitive behavior - not anti-competitive conduct, just speech."
(Wait! Let me guess! You have no fucking idea what "direct licensing" is, or why Pandora and Clear Channel et al would want it, right? And you probably don't also know that Pandora and Google have the same lawyers, right?)
What we have here is Wyden sponsoring a bill that both abridges the First Amendment Right of musicians to free speech, and of freedom of assembly. If you think that this is is a mainstream Democratic position, let me know why you think so, okay?
Pandora pays FOUR PERCENT its revenue for royalties, and Wyden introduced a bill to LOWER that. In the meantime, Tim Westergren, head of Pandora, is selling one million dollars of Pandora stock PER MONTH and has been doing for many many months...)
So let's see: Wyden wants to curtail freedom of speech and of assembly for musicians, to prevent them from organizing against Pandora, Clear Channel, et al's attempts to cut royalties, and increase profits for a handful of huge multi-billion-dollar corporations. I don't know what YOU call it, but to me, "fascism" seems to be a pretty apt description.
When fighting against SOPA, Wyden introduced a bill to replace the current DMCA copyright violation notices with a process that would have been handled by the ITC - the International Trade Court in Washington DC! For a description see http://musictechpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/rogue-sites-legislation-enter-the-amendments-for-the-1-part-3/
Now, Google gets THREE MILLION DMCA NOTICES EVERY WEEK and Google admits that 97% are legitimate. Of course Google finds this a problem and so Wyden introduces a law that will eliminate the current procedure of DMCA notices, and will instead require that an action to be started in the ITC in Washington DC - a costly procedure requiring lawyers and, of course, money! So once again we have Wyden acting against the interests of huge numbers of people who take photos, write news stories, or comics, or stories or books, or make films or music, and proposes to make it harder for these people to claim the protection of law, at the same time making it even easier for Google to profit from piracy.
If Wyden isn't a fascist, then fascism doesn't exist.
And what "doesn't belong" is a) your sanctimonious ignorance in this discussion, and 2) Wyden in any democratic institution.