That's a gross misrepresentation of Google's position, which is significantly complicated such that it can't be easily distilled into two sentences.. Here's a more adequate summary of my interpretation of Google's position:

Other people's properties can be digitally distributed. When a property owner can be identified, that owner has the right to set a price for sale or opt their property out of further distribution. When a property owner cannot be identified, proceeds will be collected for each sale, and that amount less administrative costs for the distribution are held by a third party until such time as the actual property owner stakes their claim on their property. At that time, the property owner can gain the same rights over distribution of their property as anyone else who has been identified as a property owner, and all parties who make use of the unidentified property owner clearing house will be obligated to abide by the property owner's decisions.

Monopoly power doesn't exist, because any property owner may opt to use any other distribution channel for their property, and all property that is being copied and distributed by Google can also be copied and distributed by any other party who desires to take the effort to scan the original work and transmit proceeds to the third party property owner clearing house for any property which they haven't explicitly gained the right to distribute.

You're correct that this principle can be applied to any other media. I see no reason why it shouldn't.

Because they're busy not doing other things.

I guess this explains why so many "first post"s actually aren't...

Only if you're not a nerd. SlashDot is News for Nerds...

Let me get this straight...

You think it's good that competition is increased for a company so big as Google... by a company that is larger than Google with a monopolistic history?

That just doesn't seem logical to me. I'm all for increasing competition for Google and I don't even mind that some of the competition comes from former monopolies, but what I'd really like to see is the little guys out there innovating.

Ironically, I've yet to see a "white" person who was actually white. Even albinos are some shade of pink...

In order to follow someone on Google Buzz, the person you follow has to have a public profile. Try creating a new gmail account, opting out of Buzz, not going through with the profile setup, and then following the new account with the old one. Buzz won't let you do that last part.

But it doesn't create a profile for you, so even though you have a feed, no one can follow you. And if someone opts to skip the Buzz set-up process, are they really going to post something to your feed or begin following someone else?

So much buzz about nothing...

Yeah, I totally agree. The guy who designed that Buzz icon totally needs to be punished for contributing to the project. He had a responsibility to make sure that the launch went off without a hitch and in accordance with your desires that he didn't live up to. He definitely needs to lose his job.

Bah. Google's launch of Buzz broke nothing. It was your choice to try Buzz. When entering Gmail and given a choice, you clicked the "opt-in" button instead of the "opt-out" button. Followers weren't added until after you clicked the button. Did you read all the available, Google-provided information about what would happen when you opted in, or did you just say, "Oh neat! A new toy!"

You could have continued to use Gmail just as you were, with no changes and no Buzz.

Take some responsibility for your own actions and lack of investigation.

You blame Gmail for adding Buzz when it wasn't what you "signed up for", and yet you take no responsibility for the fact that you chose to click the "Yes, I'd like to try Buzz" button when entering Gmail. You had the option to click "No, thanks", but you didn't.

I have no sympathy for you. Perhaps you should first have tried to find out what turning on Buzz would do?

Well thanks, at the very least, for linking to the video of the quote, so people have a chance to see that you (and the parent) have used it entirely out of context.

Here's the full quote:
Interviewer: "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?"
Eric Schmidt: "Well, I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."

While the quote _is_ Eric Schmidt's opinion of privacy, specifically it's his opinion of how much privacy one should expect from a search engine in light of the Patriot Act.

Do you think any differently than Eric Schmidt does?

Well, if all data were instantly sent to one of several large data centers strewn about the world as opposed to one black box, it sure would bring a new meaning to the phrase "cloud computing"...