A. The Remedy Should Open Access to Google’s Datasets and Search Index.
B. The Remedy Should Prevent Google from Extending Its Monopolies into Query-Based AI Tools.
Good luck with that YC...
B. The Remedy Should Prevent Google from Extending Its Monopolies into Query-Based AI Tools.
Good luck with that YC...
It looks like this is a strategic case to prevent Google from getting into AI search space and even gain access to their search index data so that they can train their own models on it.
Wright brothers invited the aircraft but almost all their patents were cancelled when the Great War started. If we believe the AI race is indeed an existential threat then let's cancel all patents that prevent anyone from innovating.
1) Eliminate Google Play Services for android and the oem non-compete deals.
2) Right to privacy. All data collection and storage (even on customer owned hardware if used for targeting decisions) must be opt-in, by purpose and annually renewed. It must be easier to only opt in to data collection for use cases that provide application functionality / business transactions than it is to opt into blanket data collection.
Nor has Netflix had a monopoly on streaming.
That’s not to mention ChatGPT and other LLMs have built in search.
Should Google not evolve with the times?
This way, the public can access copyright works, and producers of works can be paid, but distribution is opened up. Creators still get paid, distribution isn't monopolistic.
Netflix can argue "this show is worth £5 per viewer" and only sell rights at that price, but they pay tax on that price, and crucially the rest of the catalogue then needs to add up so if viewers are paying £8 per month then the rest of the catalogue is marked down accordingly. There will be manipulation, but if it doesn't reasonably add up then apply the sort of penalties in the EU of 20$ gross profit fines; strike off directors for copyright abuse (can't be directors of media companies again).
I can't see that this would harm income for creators, only for distributors (who aren't needed, they're just duplicating using monopolistic practices), and it seems it would have broad appeal.
So, yes, I agree.
Capitalists have distorted it to be a means to pay the producers (ie capital holders) over-and-over whilst eroding the public domain.
The default position is if you (a creator) make a work available anyone can copy it, alter it, resell it for free. I don't think that is right, but what we currently have is IMO not a sufficient benefit to the public.
The open source movement didn’t ask to get other people to write stuff and give it away.
I’m assuming you don’t work for free, why should creators?