Home > Uncategorized > Did Google Finally Admit They Pay Criminals? Will Big Evil Show Us What’s Behind the Curtain?

Did Google Finally Admit They Pay Criminals? Will Big Evil Show Us What’s Behind the Curtain?

July 15, 2013

According to Searchengineland and Variety, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt tells us that he’s had enough of the DMCA notices, but with that extra special “Big Evil” spin:

Google’s Eric Schmidt says that the entertainment industry should focus on taking content pirates to court, rather than just trying to get Google (and other search engines) to remove pirate sites from search results.  [Schmidt says] “Our position is that somebody’s making money on this pirated content and it should be possible to identify those people and bring them to justice.

This latest dodge from Google’s Dodger in Chief is exceptionally absurd for a few reasons.  First,Schmidt is clearly trying to deflect, deflect, and then be sure you deflect attention away from Google and on to that bad guy behind the tree.  In Bulgaria.  Or China.  Or a Schmidt fav, North Korea.  Somewhere far away and difficult to prosecute.  And if someone is “making money” from bad acts during the time it takes to prosecute–why, Google should be able to continue to make its share of that money until the artists involved obtain a final, non-appealable judgement in the highest court of every nation state where the Internet obtains, yes?  Because how else would you know the thief was a thief?

No, international civil litigation, now there’s the ticket says Schmidt in his very best Harry Lime impression.  Don’t encourage advertisers to pull their advertising from pirate sites, don’t keep commercials for human trafficking from appearing on YouTube, and definitely don’t hold Google accountable for violations of its own $500,000,000 nonprosecution agreement with the US government for drug profiteering.

Piracy itself is a deflection, though, make no mistake.  Piracy is much easier to talk about than the really nasty stuff that Google wants to bury.  But thanks to Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and several other State AGs, it’s getting increasingly difficult for Google to deflect attention away from the nasty bits.

What Schmidt’s comments should tell us is that the man behind the curtain at Google is beginning to chafe under the attention in the form of irrefutable evidence–Google is a profiteer.  A drug profiteer, a trafficking profiteer, even a profiteer from jihadi videos on YouTube.  And then there’s the piracy.  If it moves, Google will slap an ad on it and wait to get caught.

It’s also absurd because a few Google shill listers foreshadowed Big Evil’s latest interest in law and order in their criticism of Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and his colleagues at the National Association of Attorneys General–“clueless” state Attorneys General, I believe was the term.  They would like AG Hood to prosecute the “criminals” rather than Google.  Of course, Google is the one with the nonprosecution agreement and the $500,000,000 forfeiture, so the idea of prosecuting “criminals” rather than Google may assume facts not in evidence.  AG Hood wants to prosecute the criminals, too, which is probably why he is interested in prosecuting criminals including Google.  It’s called racketeering if nothing else.

You should also understand that General Hood–based on evidence–has requested that the U.S. Department of Justice open an investigation into whether Google has violated its nonprosecution agreement with the Department of Justice–the one where Google paid $500,000,000 and promised not to act like Big Evil.  Some might say cynically, they actually promised not to get caught, anyway.  Not getting caught is what passes for justice in the Googleplex.

And General Hood has caused a flurry of activity from Google, not the least of which is nasty letters from Google’s lawyers at Wilmer Hale who represented Google in the $500,000,000 nonprosecution agreement.

This time, though, we may be seeing the person behind the curtain at Wilmer Hale–one Jamie Gorelick, Washington insider and former Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton.  Who retired from that job and was replaced by…Eric Holder, now the Attorney General of the United States and head of the Department of Justice (who reportedly apologized to Google over the drug settlement).  Among her many other accomplishments, Ms. Gorleick was reportedly a mentor to and hired one Beth Wilkinson as special counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, i.e., to Ms. Gorelick, during the Clinton Administration.  Always the talent spotter, Ms. Wilkinson was the outside lawyer brought in to manage the FTC’s antitrust investigation of Google.  Because the FTC doesn’t have enough lawyers among their professional staff.  No, the FTC needed to bring in a more reliable outside lawyer to determine that Google had no antitrust problems.  Who can be surprised given the stellar job Ms. Wilkinson did at a previous gig at Fannie Mae when she cleaned things up after Ms. Gorelick’s departure from her posting to that most admirable organization.

But I digress.

What is odd about Schmidt’s statement is its apparent admission that Google knows who is getting paid and how much.  If Google is so concerned about these matters, then why not just open their books like a good public company?  Let’s see who they pay, and how much.  Certainly state pension funds holding stock in the company could make that rather legitimate request?

But that’s not really what Google wants, you see. Google would very much like everyone to forget about the drugs, the trafficking, the mortgage products, the green card lotteries–and the piracy on which Google properties like YouTube is founded.  Just drift off to sandland, little artists.  Sleepy time, little songwriters.  Go spend the last of your money chasing the big bad boys in Bulgaria.  Forget about the past 10 years of being ripped off by a public company–Google is on your side, they are your friend.   They think only of your best interests.  That’s why they are trying to force each author in the Google Books class action to sue on their own, they care about you so very much.

And Google’s version of justice is rather tortured:  Google can do evil until they are caught, and then their only punishment should be to stop doing the evil thing in the future.  Google takes no responsibility for the past.  A construction worthy of Shūmei Ōkawa.  This is why the Google Drugs nonprosecution agreement is of such moment–it is one of the very few times that Google has accepted any meaningful punishment for truly evil behavior.

Remember the Treaty of Westphalia that ended the 30 Years War in 1648?  Article II sounds very much like Google’s “peace” proposal, doesn’t it?

That they shall not act, or permit to be acted, any wrong or injury to any whatsoever; but that all that has pass’d on the one side, and the other, as well before as during the War, in Words, Writings, and Outrageous Actions, in Violences, Hostilitys, Damages and Expences, without any respect to Persons or Things, shall be entirely abolish’d in such a manner that all that might be demanded of, or pretended to, by each other on that behalf, shall be bury’d in eternal Oblivion.

Or in the words of Harry Lime, “What did you expect me to do, give myself up?”

%d bloggers like this: