According to a new report [PDF] from the Computer and Communications Industry Association, industries that rely on copyrights to drive their business contribute $1.3 trillion in annual revenue to the U.S. economy. Industries that rely on “fair use” exceptions to those copyrights contribute $4.5 trillion annually.

“Much of the unprecedented economic growth of the past 10 years can actually be credited to the doctrine of fair use, as the Internet itself depends on the ability to use content in a limited and nonlicensed manner,” said Ed Black, president and chief executive officer of the CCIA, who cautioned against “unintended consequences of perhaps well-meaning, but overbroad copyright regulation.”

Which is about what you’d expect from a computer-industry lobbying group whose membership includes companies like Google and Yahoo, both of which have benefited from unlicensed usage of copyright materials. But even discounting for trade group overstatement, the idea that fair-use-dependent industries account for a sixth of the nation’s GDP seems ludicrous, as Nick Carr caustically notes over at Rough Type.

Even by the woeful standards of the bespoke research industry, this study is a crock. It’s not just bad; it’s absurd. What the authors have done is to define the ‘fair-use economy’ so broadly that it encompasses any business with even the most tangential relationship to the free use of copyrighted materials. Here’s an example of the tortured logic by which they force-fit vast, multifaceted industries into the ‘fair use’ category: Because ‘recent advances in processing speed and software functionality are being used to take advantage of the richer multi-media experience now available from the web,’ then the entire ‘computer and peripheral equipment manufacturing industry’ qualifies as a ‘fair-use industry.’ As does the entire ‘audio & video equipment manufacturing’ business. And the entire software publishing industry. And the entire telecommunications industry. And–hey, why not?–the entire insurance industry. Stock markets and commodity exchanges? Sure, throw them in, too. … Can’t industry groups make their points without stretching the truth beyond recognition and, in the process, insulting everyone’s intelligence? Fair use deserves better.”

Patton Boggs has some pretty big legal guns in its antitrust arsenal, among them Antitrust Modernization Commission vice chairman and former Clinton White House attorney Jonathan Yarowsky.

Course Google’s packing quite a bit of lobbyist heat these days, too: The Podesta Group, Makan Delrahim (former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s antitrust division) and former Republican U.S. Sens. Dan Coats and Connie Mack–both partners in the Washington law firm of King & Spaulding–are all helping to steer the company through regulatory approvals in its proposed acquisition of DoubleClick.

It seems Martin is keen on the idea of setting aside some of the auction spectrum for an open wireless platform, something Google’s been pushing for–hard–inside the Beltway. “Whoever wins this spectrum has to provide … truly open broadband network–one that will open the door to a lot of innovative services for consumers,” Martin told USA Today. In practice, he said, “You can use any wireless device and download any mobile broadband application, with no restrictions.”

As you might imagine, Google was more than a little bit pleased to learn that Martin’s considering setting aside a portion of the available spectrum for an “open” network. “There is now potentially positive news coming out of the FCC,” Richard Whitt, Google’s Washington telecom and media counsel, wrote in a post to the company’s policy blog. “Chairman Kevin Martin apparently is about to circulate proposed auction rules to his fellow commissioners, and we’re hearing through the proverbial grapevine that his proposal includes several of the open-platform conditions we have recommended. If these reports are accurate, we are most encouraged by this favorable development. Obviously we’ll need to see the fine print, but such a proposal would represent a step forward for new, innovative entrants to the broadband market.”

It may well do just that–assuming it’s not strangled in the crib by incumbent telecom carriers first. Which is a distinct possibility given their clout in Washington. “FCC Chairman Martin’s net-neutrality regulation conditions amount to a multibillion corporate-welfare subsidy grant to Google, because the proposed rules apparently are specifically rigged to benefit Google’s Open Internet Coalition,” said Scott Cleland, chairman of Net Competition, a group that represents the telecommunications and cable industries. “If Google or any market player wanted to offer net neutrality/open access over this prime 700 MHz spectrum, Google could compete in the free-market auction, bid the most and offer a net neutrality/open access service. … It is outrageous that the FCC chairman fell for Google’s poverty plea for a de facto auction subsidy and price break that will shortchange the American taxpayer the billions of dollars that a free and open competitive auction would raise.”

“I’ve never seen a tech company ramp up faster than they have in the last year or two,” tech lobbyist Ralph Hellmann told the Mercury News. “They’re using all the tools in the lobbying tool kit.”

Indeed, earlier this week, Google announced the official launch of its “Public Policy Blog,” a mouthpiece for its views on government and politics. “We’re seeking to do public-policy advocacy in a Googley way,” Andrew McLaughlin, director of public policy and government affairs at Google, explained. “Yes, we’re a multinational corporation that argues for our positions before officials, legislators and opinion leaders. At the same time, we want our users to be part of the effort, to know what we’re saying and why, and to help us refine and improve our policy positions and advocacy strategies. With input and ideas from our users, we’ll surely do a better job of fighting for our common interests.”

And remember, “Don’t be evil” isn’t just a motto, it’s a way of life, right?

“Google is not a conventional company,” company founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin said when they announced Google’s Dutch auction IPO a few years back. “We do not intend to become one.” Except when it comes to wielding power in Washington. Then it’s politics as usual. And that’s the way it’s got to be, apparently.

“Like Microsoft and other companies before it, Google has decided it will have to start playing the Washington game,” Cato Institute Executive Vice President David Boaz wrote last year. “It has opened a Washington office and hired well-connected lobbyists. One of the country’s top executive search firms is looking for a political director for the company.

“What should concern us here is how the government lured Google into the political sector of the economy. For most of a decade the company went about its business, developing software, creating a search engine better than any of us could have dreamed, and innocently making money. Then, as its size and wealth drew the attention of competitors, antibusiness activists, and politicians, it was forced to start spending some of its money and brainpower fending off political attacks. It’s the same process Microsoft went through a few years earlier, when it faced the same sorts of attacks. Now Microsoft is part of the Washington establishment, with more than $9 million in lobbying expenditures last year.

“… And that’s what the parasite economy is costing America. The founders of Microsoft and Google and other innovative companies are going to waste their brains on protecting their companies rather than thinking up new products and new ways to deliver them.

“Google’s new presence in Washington is entirely understandable, but it is a tragic symbol of the diversion of America’s productive resources into the unproductive world of political predation and the struggle to resist it.”