Why does fender support sopa

If someone comes along with any actual information it would be interesting to see, but so far any connection does seem to be the delusions of a small contingent of committed trolls - type of person who was attacking Mike's marriage yesterday because they disagreed with something he said.

I was just asking a question. You all have been going "there's no proof" as if it would be damning if Google had been a client of Mike or one of his companies. For anything I have ever written, I would be happy to respond to questions such as 1 whether I knew the people I was writing about, 2 whether they have compensated me in some fashion e.

I have travel writer friends and people always ask if they got a free trip to the place they were covering. Some do accept freebies, others pay their own way or have their expenses paid by the publication. I've done PR for some musicians and in nearly all cases I intentionally have done it pro bono so I can honestly say that I am touting these musicians because I believe in them, not because they have paid me. And so on. That's why many of them bend over backwards to let you know if there is any sort of connection, even if it wouldn't influence the story in the least e.

In fact, it's such a common discussion amongst writers that I'm surprised there is any sort of defensiveness here. If you guys don't know the answer, which it appears you don't, just let it go. Personally, there's nothing to "let go". I'm satisfied that Mike hasn't got ulterior motives with his post, and even if he did it's an opinion blog, not a primary news source. I do respond to the ACs but that's purely to ensure that new readers don't get swayed by their clear foolishness well, that and boredom during work downtime.

Otherwise, the issue means nothing to me. What I am saying is that if you don't know the answer, there's no need to respond. I'm learning how sensitive a subject this is for those you who responded. It would have been more of a non-issue for me if there had been no "in defense of Mike" comments.

This thread was about Google lobbying, and I have wondered what Mike's relationship, past or present, might be with Google. If it is touchy for me to even raise the question, it generates more questions in my mind than if there had been no responses at all.

There doesn't have to be a payment. It's about being in an old boys' network together with a likeminded ideology so that one hand washes the other. As modplan has pointed out, Green AC, AFL-CIO's perpensity [sic] to repeat widely-debunked statistics as if they were fact destroys their credibility and that of their member groups, who you listed as though they were separate when they are not.

The absurd assertion you continue to defend is that no non-profits other than those controlled by pro-SOPA forces oppose the bill. I shred that and then you proceed to move the goalposts all over the field.

I answered directly and gave a citation, which is far more than you have done. You're nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual poseur with an IQ not quite approaching room temperature. You're neither logical nor particularly bright- nor do I believe for a minute that you don't live with your mother. No way someone as pompous and self-important as you doesn't still live with Mom. The real world would eat you alive.

I agree, you've made your point that there appear to be organizations without any obvious vested interest though not as many as you seem to claim. Do you think they make your argument more convincing? Because it's exactly the opposite. Do you just not understand that it's OK to refute your opponent's argument without attacking him, or what?

Look, I realize the rhetoric got to be over the top. I simply refuted the bald-faced lie that all of the non-profits supporting SOPA were somehow funded or influenced by those who profit copyright.

Unfortunately, there are those who are such rabid zealots that no matter what reasoned argument and evidence you put before them- they simply ignore it. I have no use for such cretins, especially those who affect a laughable air of intellectual superiority when their true intellect is on par with Australopithecus afarensis.

Anyway, I am guilty of using words to gratuitously flail a hapless dullard. Admittedly not a nice thing to do, but under the circumstances quite satisfying.

Sorry if I offended you or others, my words were meant only for the wannabe Mr. Spock loser. This will be my last post on the subject. The Logician profile , 9 Feb am. And yet, AC 92, you still have not provided the actual statements of support from these non-profits you say supported the bills.

Do so, if they exist. Quote them here, with sources, for each one, or admit you are incorrect. As I said before, merely appearing on a list does not denote definitive support, merely that they were convinced to add a list. You have not said whether those non-profits you claim supported the bills actually understood what it was they were supporting, rather than being misled in supporting something they were not given an accurate explanation for.

Also, AC 92, you would be incorrect in assuming I do not live on my own. I could give you all the information necessary to prove it, but even then your willful blindness would keep you from believing it. And you have not answered my question: which law firm do you work for? Markus , 8 Feb pm. Hey Sherm!

Why are you insisting on running a steam engine business model in the electric motor era? And why do you tie down the pressure relief valve to get more power out of that creaky old steam engine? Go ahead, tie it down tight, but don't blame anyone else when the boiler blows to kingdom come and takes your creaky, obsolete business model with it.

You've fought tooth and toenail against every new technology that has come along, claiming it is going to destroy your entertainment industry, then when you've accepted and worked with that new technology you've greatly benefited from it.

And now that the Internet and sharing has come along, it's deja vu all over again. You'd save all of us a lot of grief if you'd learn to accommodate to changes and give people what they want, instead of fighting every new thing that comes along and making bogus, grossly inflated damage claims when all the facts show the very opposite. Oh, and suing your customers back to the stone age is no way to attract new business.

Suzanne: The reason we're so touchy about it, is that the people making the "connection" between Mike and Google are the same people saying that the EFF is a "front" for Google, that the SOPA protests were orchestrated from withing Google's offices, and so forth. Bob is the loudest and most crazy of these people, but he's hardly the only one. When you figure in the fact that at least some of these A.

IP addresses, you realize that it's part of an orchestrated smear campaign. These people may believe the smears, but smears they still are or are supposed to be. This also usually comes in the form of accusing us commenters of being "duped," usually throwing in the phrase "Techdirt kool-aid.

I don't think this is what you're saying, you just walked into the middle of an argument. Mike said so in one of his comments, but I couldn't find the actual comment to link to it. If you want to find out who is paying Mike, simply go to the Cases or Sponsor sections of the Insight Community site. By the way: Have you had a change of heart since you wrote your rather straw-man blog post about why people don't like IP laws?

I remember the news conference at Google, but saying there have never been any cases or sponsorship by Google doesn't really tell me anything. There are so many more ways to connect. As for the IP laws, I did feel a strong case hadn't been made about why they have been bad I'm not necessarily in favor of them, but some of the arguments against them haven't been well presented.

I think the "it's about freedom of the Internet" was a great spin and it did work. Personally it has never been my cause, so I have stayed out of the debate. I'm far more interested in stopping fracking across the street from my local elementary school and finding sustainable ways to keep the world going for the next years.

IP laws pro or con are very far down on my lists of concerns. They are a bother. If I were Google, I would be trying hard to stop them. There's another thought I have had recently as I follow along the news and the politics of it all. People are beginning to see Google, Facebook, and their mobile networks as utilities.

Telling citizens they don't want censorship works well to get them riled up, but it also gets them thinking about how they don't want these pipelines to be used to gather info on them. Sure you can point out that if they don't want to be monitored, don't use Google or Facebook, but these two companies have become so ubiquitous that people are thinking these are just public tools and shouldn't be used to spy on them.

Stories are coming out daily now picking apart any big tech company that isn't clearly disclosing everything it does. In other words, I understood the fight, but it has also raised my watchfulness over what big tech companies want to control.

I see them as business interests rather than companies looking out for me. But now I am watching to see what other issues will be pitched to DC and how I feel about it. I'd like a much more realistic stance on immigration, and I know many tech companies want that, so my interests and their interests will be aligned on that issue.

I also want DC to be supportive of clean tech. I hope Silicon Valley use its influence there, but I'm not sure it will. I would prefer than we eliminated paid influence of politicians and elections, but we can't, I hope paid influence supports the causes I care about.

But I have seen it being suggested. That assumes people care more about this than many other issues. If the Republican Party were a true libertarian party, sure I can see some people making the switch.

But it isn't and it will never be as long as money calls the shots. It will just be a battle of which laws favor which paid interests. It's become a big issue in Boulder. People want to stop GMOs from being grown on public land here. And for that matter, we're happy whenever a country bans GMOs or sues companies for selling them.

I hope the anti-IP crusade takes on this issue in a big, big way. Amongst my Boulder friends, anti-fracking and anti-GMOs are both big issues. I'd love to see Google take on Monsanto, for example. I doubt that it will happen because it's not a cause that affects Google's bottom line. I've had a strong distrust of Facebook for nearly as long as I have used it.

Now I am starting to watch my back with other Internet companies, too. That doesn't mean I have sympathy for big media. It's just that increasingly I have less trust in the "new" big companies, too. This kind of spontaneous uprising is almost certainly limited to issues that hit the Internet content providers where they live.

Take a step back, and it looks a lot like the kind of self-interested advocacy that has always dominated politics, with private interests on both sides miming the familiar symbolic tropes of the people and the public good.

The ones I know about are Techdirt and the Insight Community I believe, but don't know, that Step2 is part of the latter. His main source of income, from what he's said, is consulting. Many of his clients are artists and musicians. I don't know who they are, though. As for the IP laws, I did feel a strong case hadn't been made about why they have been bad As I pointed out in the comments, you were not listening to everyone. When your 1 reason is "I want stuff for free," you've already closed your ears.

Personally, the 1 reason I don't like IP is because it is used almost exclusively against artists themselves, and supports an industry founded on indentured servitude. But that's just me.

You really should take a gander at Google. That is the site for their official nonprofit organization. A major focus is on green energy. Other efforts include womens' education, STEM education, and eliminating human trafficking. I personally will never vote Republican. If the Democrats don't distance themselves from the bills' backers, and quickly, I'm afraid the Republicans may get a few fence-sitters.

Individual Democrats, of course, I would be more than willing to see lose over this issue. Biden is one guy who should have been voted out decades ago - pity we can't do that now. Suzanne Lainson profile , 10 Feb pm. As I pointed out in the comments, you were not listening to everyone. I was outlining arguments from least persuasive to most persuasive.

There are people who want content for free. I'm very familiar with what Google has done in terms of clean tech. I also know they have cut back recently. I have actually been a big fan of Google. I no longer need to keep massive amounts of print materials on hand for research because I can find so much online now. Google has enabled me to massively downsize my life.

And I think YouTube is the best thing that has happened to the music industry in recent years. The easier Google can make uploading music, the better. The licensing issues have been complicated and I think Google is pushing in the edge in that regard, which I think is good. But the privacy issues and the lobbying have taken the company down a notch in my mind. I actually don't blame them at all for the lobbying.

I've just become more aware of the self-interest element of their activities as the lobbying cranked up. I'm just as wary of what big tech can become as what I have seen other companies become in the past. The excitement over "big" in the stock market shows me that the players have changed, but the mentality hasn't.

Karl profile , 11 Feb am. You also left out most of the arguments altogether. There is no mention of DRM, region restrictions, laws against "jailbreaking" cell phones, laws making it illegal to view DVD's in Linux, or other anti-consumer practices that copyright currently allows. There is no mention of Veoh's elimination by lawsuit, the near-impossiblility of startups to license music, the bogus lawsuits against Google and YouTube, or other costs to media-related companies that happen when you grant a single industry a monopoly on culture.

No mention of the patent quagmire surrounding cell phones, damaging software patents, Intellectual Ventures, or the tremendous costs IP places on the economy in general. There is no mention whatsoever of the RIAA lawsuits, bogus takedown notices, Righthaven lawsuits, domain seizures, or other ways that copyright allows for the abuse of the court system, and the elimination of due process and free speech rights. No mention of Monsanto's lawsuits against farmers, patents on genetically-modified food, drug companies trying to eliminate generics, "grey market" drugs, or any other way IP laws damage public health especially in third-world countries.

And no mention of how higher-ups from the worst IP industries are being granted government positions at an alarming rate such as when Monsanto's VP was made senior adviser at the FDA, or how the Justice Department is staffed with RIAA lawyers in top positions. These are the major reasons that most people are against IP laws. And you didn't even mention them. It's like writing an article on people opposing drug laws, and saying they only want to smoke pot and do crack. I know IP issues aren't your major interest.

I know that a lot of this was new to you when you wrote the article. But you really should have at least listened to the actual reasons people are against IP laws. As it is, you're just arguing against a straw man. Where did you hear this? The privacy issues are why the EFF keeps suing Google. Personally, I think they're overblown, at least in this case. You don't want your info to be aggregated and used, don't put it on the web, simple as that.

Suzanne Lainson profile , 11 Feb am. I based it on the most common discussions I had read here and other places. I found many of them not very persuasive. My point was that if you want to over turn IP laws and make a case for the average citizen, you need more firepower.

In fact, I think it's fine if that is your goal. But do a better job at arguing it. From what I've seen, they've increased spending on green energy: Google quits plans to make cheap renewable energy Reuters : Reuters - Google Inc has abandoned an ambitious project to make renewable energy cheaper than coal, the latest target of Chief Executive Larry Page's moves to focus the Internet giant on fewer efforts. But this will be an issue. For the same reasons that "shutting down the Internet" got people stirred up, so will "they are spying on you all the time.

If you think it won't be an issue, see what happened with Path. The revolution that wants the Internet to be free also doesn't want corporations like Google to run the show.

They are now huge brands and their bigness and whatever actions they take are increasingly scrutinized. The perspective has been that big media is bad and tech is good. But now I see more awareness that there are still power grabs here and as older industries die out, you have new ones moving in to protect their turfs.

As this article points out, the new system looks a lot like the old one in terms of power dynamics. Yes, Hollywood has been at the influence game longer. But tech has been rapidly catching up the last few years. You know, the privacy arguments along the lines of "If you don't want your information shared, don't use the sites," isn't a lot different than, "if you don't want to pay a fine for illegal downloads, don't do it.

Perhaps there will be new companies to bypass them. Or perhaps there will be more hacker take-downs. But I think the "people should control the Internet" spirit will continue.

Anything big will potentially be a target. Once again, the meaningful arguments against the current copyright regime do not equate to "I don't want to pay a fine for the illegal downloads I'm doing". In the case of privacy, "don't use [fill in service]" is a viable though imperfect solution. Suzanne Lainson profile , 11 Feb pm. Yes, but so what? I wanted to add my perspective to that. I stay out of the IP discussions because I don't really care much.

The rest of you can do battle. If you can bring down companies involved in GMOs, I'm all for it, but otherwise, I'll focus efforts on issues of more immediate concern to me. Any company that is big, and especially one that is hiring lobbyists, is going to get increased public scrutiny. Google and the other tech companies have gone from being perceived as "one of the good guys" to "one of the big guys.

And there are grassroots efforts that will aim to take down any establishment entity. It goes with the territory. Big tech has gotten more negative press in recent months and I expect to see even more of it. Komen Foundation to Nike's labor rights failures in the s. Karl profile , 12 Feb am. Suzanne - I'm going to reply to various posts in this one. Hope you don't mind. I know for a fact that I personally expressed some of these concerns to you before you wrote the article.

You did not even mention them. I've also been surfing reading other blogs and sites about this issue, and nearly every criticism of copyright laws has to do with 1. Almost nobody gave any of the arguments you mentioned. You were arguing against a straw man.

I do not think you are lying or ignorant. I think this is a case of confirmation bias. You are not convinced that IP laws should be scaled back, so you only heard the arguments you wanted to hear. So, don't say that any of us need to "do a better job at arguing it" when you won't listen to the arguments. In fact, the biggest issue facing IP reformers is not that we're making bad arguments. It's that we were never allowed a forum to make them.

It was litigation that was so awful, that it negatively affected even those who don't care about IP at all. Not so much Google, at least not in the eyes of the public.

People hated these bills, even before the blackout. The blackout only made people aware of the issue, and once they were, they were absolutely livid. It's an interesting article. You left this part out: The contours of the audience paying attention to a policy usually determine whether that policy ultimately passes. When a broader public gets wind of a crude bill that would transparently benefit a narrow public, that bill is typically rendered toxic and thus politically finished.

It used to be the case that for this to happen, the mainstream media had to be involved in calling attention to the travesty. Those days are disappearing, and this is generally a good thing. By lowering the barriers to entry, the Internet has the potential to make political activism more democratic than ever before, and the SOPA turnaround is proof that it can work politically to engage a broad crowd in short order.

I understand their concern. But, frankly, I think it's completely overblown. It's rooted in the fact that prior communications mediums were controlled by gatekeepers.

Newspapers, television, and radio are not democratic in any way, shape or form. The Internet is. Google, Wikipedia, and the rest simply cannot be gatekeepers to the internet, even if they wanted to be.

If their claims are bogus, there will always be somebody calling them out - and the internet is always willing to go viral with that info. It's also not very accurate about the protests themselves. Not once, for example, do they acknowledge that the blackout idea did not come from any of the companies they mentioned. In fact, those companies only jumped on board after a grassroots movement had already started. Here's another, and I think better, article about the tech industry's lobbying efforts: The stop SOPA campaign is also noteworthy because it was not directed by a grand design launched by the large companies, but came from the bottom up, from small companies and independent Internet activists.

They started a wildfire of opposition with companies such as Google and Facebook adding their voice as the movement reached a crescendo. So, you are absolutely right to be concerned about lobbying efforts. You are wrong if you are singling out the tech industry. On the other hand, most sites Google, Facebook, even Myspace have tons of options to limit sharing of information that you may or may not want private. And if those sites have privacy policies you don't like, you're not forced to use them - because there is tremendous competition.

That's not true of "illegal downloads" - if you don't want to support the RIAA, for example, you can't go elsewhere legally for a song on one of their clients' labels. They have a monopoly. Google and tech industries in general do not. This makes them orders of magnitude more invested in keeping good faith relations with the general public. But you're right that it is a concern. It was and is a concern with Facebook's behind-the-scenes data gathering.

It was certainly a concern with Google Wave the program, which folded almost immediately, that prompted an EFF lawsuit against Google. What's also true is that the privacy issues are often blown out of proportion.

The bit last year about Google streetcars gathering data is an example. Also, keep in mind that sometimes these issues are deliberate attacks by competitors - such as when Facebook hired a PR firm to smear Google's privacy image. But if you want the largest threats to privacy, you need to look to Washington.

For example, the "Internet Snooping Bill" it actually has the unrepentently dishonest name of "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act" would require, by law, that all internet providers store records of user data and IP addresses, to be used by law enforcement for whatever purpose it wants. Its main sponsor? The same guy who said the only reason anyone was against these bills is because its opponents are "somehow benefiting by directing customers to these foreign websites" or "profit from selling advertising to these foreign websites.

In , there was the Comprehensive Counter-Terrorism Act, a bill that would require law enforcement access to plaintext emails and outlaw encryption. Its author? None other than our current Vice President, Joe Biden. The same Joe Biden who held a closed-door "IP Roundtable" to discuss copyright and the Internet - but only invited media conglomerates and high-level law enforcement officials, and completely left out anyone from the tech industry, public interest groups, or academics.

Then had the unmitigated gall to claim "all stakeholders were present. I'm not even sure they support them. I am saying that "big content" hates the Internet and the tech industry, and are funding politicians on that common ground. When that happens, they end up funding invasions of privacy by the government - at far, far worse levels than anything Google, Facebook, and so forth are even capable of.

All of your concerns are valid. They are, however, misdirected. At least right now. Google is not getting attention for it. The pro-SOPA forces are trying to throw attention onto them. These are the same people who call Ron Wyden "Google's pet senator," despite the fact that his 1 campaign contributor is Nike, a supporter of both bills.

You're right about the reason they chose Google: they are big - meaning they are successful. In their eyes, any company that is successful on the Internet is stealing from them. More importantly, Google is a threat. They keep winning court cases e. You think it wasn't a subtle threat against Google? But this "attention" isn't coming from the public. It is, and always was, a political ploy, pure spin and propaganda. At least as far as SOPA is concerned.

Bravo, Karl. Looking forward to your response Suzanne - not in a gleeful, can't wait to tear you apart way or anything, I just think the conversation is getting good. Suzanne Lainson profile , 12 Feb am. No, it's that I don't really give a damn. I definitely believe there are IP abuses, but it isn't my cause. I don't want to spend my energy fighting IP laws. I want to spend my time on other things. I haven't been convinced it's a more important cause to me than fighting fracking, for example.

What I said is this is what I hear from anti-IP people. Do a better job of reaching me. You haven't yet convinced me my life and future generations will die because of IP laws. Similarly, I am an environmenalist, but I think the global warming argument isn't all that effective. It's too removed from our day-to-day life so people don't think it's an immediate threat to them.

It's not the reason I care about the environment and I've said as much in global warming discussions. Sometimes, when people are passionate about something, they don't understand why they aren't getting through to those they need to convince.

As for Google starting to get negative press, yes, I am seeing it from pro-tech people. Some recent examples. I can give you many more. Here are a couple of other articles that might be of particular interest. Here, then, we find the real reason why tech was nearly sandbagged by SOPA.

Karl profile , 12 Feb pm. So, you didn't give a damn enough to listen to IP critics, yet gave a damn enough to write a blog post criticising them? Okay, now I'm confused about what you're trying to say.

And, in fact, the criticism was not of Google per se, but their possible decision to continue in Motorola's footsteps. The majority of complaints about Google's privacy concerns happened because Google recently integrated their TOS and privacy policies across their entire family of services. I'd also like to point something out. This discussion has now turned away from the bills themselves, and the focus is now almost entirely on Google in general.

They want to turn the narrative of the protests from one of a grassroots movement that spanned thousands of websites and dozens of organizations most of them non-profits , and into a story of one company controlling minions. It is simply incorrect, but they believe if they repeat it loudly enough, people will listen - especially people in the Beltway.

The BSA is actually an IP maximalist, representing as it does software companies who don't like piracy - such as Microsoft. The BSA is known for publish bogus reports about losses due to piracy. Because of this confusion, the IP maximalists can't paint it as entirely a picture of "tech" vs. Someone whose business model you can discredit, especially if you can claim they have a financial motive for defending piracy.

In their eyes, Google fits that narrative. This accomplishes two things. To make their narrative work, they need to spin public opinion or, more importantly, D. Hence Bob's rantings, matching nearly word-for-word with Chris Dodd's, and repeated uncritically by Lamar Smith.

The second thing it accomplishes is a plan of action. In this way, they can go back to business as usual - backroom deals, made outside the public eye, where Google represents the only one in the room who does not benefit directly from stronger IP laws.

If Google had actually supported the bills, the protests and blackouts would still have happened, exactly as they did and are. IIT Guwahati team removes micro-plastics from sea water using hollow fiber membrane.

Kaviraj Prithvi C. Unnat Bharat Abhiyan is inspired by the vision of transformational change in rural development processes by leveraging knowledge institutions to help build the architecture of an Inclusive India. As the academic year is coming to an end, many final year students leave many reusable items in their rooms Ishan Vikas is comprehensive programme to introduce school children from the North-Eastern states to high quality academia. A separate programme also provides summer internship for college students studying in educational institutions in the North-East.

Know more. Latest News. Upcoming Events. Dec 01 Dec 16 Dec 19 Feb 24 Message from Director. Research and Innovations View All. IIT-G develops modern technique to explore actions of Ayurvedic rejuvenating medicine. Scholarly Resources. Publications Patents Faculty Awards View All. Then Sopa and Pipa could become the foundation stones of a period of unprecedented media industry innovation that would finally recast the mould of media business models in the post-meltdown world.

The alternative is media industry failure. This article is, imho, a wise and balanced look at Sopa, Pipa and legislative efforts at curbing digital theft. As a songwriter, performer and author myself, I feel for all creators of intellectual property as theft of our work has become, for all practical purposes, socially acceptable behavior. There needs to be, as this article suggests, true innovation. The old days are gone, time to embrace the new if we are to continue working in our art.

We need to figure out how to make the new realities work FOR creators instead of against… and I fully believe that creative artists, music business and legislators can do so. I for one look forward to the future. Pingback: SOPA strickers! You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account.

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Sopa, Pipa and the Media Meltdown Back in my days at Forrester I helped develop the concept of the media meltdown to describe the process of media industries responding to the impact of digitization.

The media meltdown occurs in three key stages: Stage 1 : Audiences take control of their content consumption via new digital technology think CD ripping, P2P, on demand video streaming, iPads etc. Stage 2 : Traditional media industry business models crumble while media companies grapple with denial. Instead of comprehending that a paradigm shift in consumer behaviour has occurred they think they can turn back the proverbial clock by fighting online piracy and restricting the disruptive threat of legal services.

Stage 3 : There are two potential conclusions, either the media industries comprehend that user behaviour has changed for ever and that they need to embrace that change with new business models, or they fail. Mainstream Consumers Become the Effective Targets of Anti-Piracy The simple and unavoidable fact is that piracy will always move more quickly and more effectively than its pursuers. Legislation is Fully Necessary But Strategic Priorities Need Rebalancing To be clear, this is not an apology for piracy, nor is it an argument against legislation — indeed it is crucial that laws evolve quickly enough to keep up with digital change so they can establish the frameworks in which legitimate content business models can prosper and illegal ones cannot.

Legislators: Compel Media Companies to License to Identikit Legal Alternatives If the US Congress wants to ensure that Sopa and Pipa are balanced in a way that will help drive digital innovation rather than stifling it in favour of analogue-era protectionism, they should look to baking-in binding innovation commitments from media companies.