Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Attacks Google on Copyright
The Microsoft Corporation has prepared a blistering attack on rival Google, arguing that the Web search leader takes a cavalier approach to copyright protection. The attack, such as it were, came from Microsoft's Associate General Counsel who was giving a speech to the Association of American Publishers...who have a copyright lawsuit against Google for the last sixteen months. So, an audience ready to hear about how Bad Google is.
Let the chairs fly!
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
mmm... glass houses...
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
And Microsoft takes a "cavalier approach" to their users, to privacy, to the free market... so who's more evil?
If Google really didn't care they could do far far worse to abuse copyright than anything they've done so far. Microsoft is just placating an audience.
Developers: We can use your help.
Microsoft guy: "And... and... stop creating tools that people actually find USEFUL and giving them out for FREE, goddamnit! And... and... ummm... Google is a stupid name... and... ummm..."
Work smarter, not harder.
Is this submission even English? "The Microsoft Corporation", "The attack, such as it were", "who have a copyright lawsuit against Google for the last sixteen months"--none of these are right. And to top it off, it ends in a sentence fragment.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
'such as it were'?
I hate to join the chorus of people complaining about the 'editors', but... unfortunately, it is getting pretty silly, isn't it? Would it be that hard to just get some reasonably literate person with a bit of spare time and have them edit stuff?
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Yesterday: Microsoft watches with disdain while $company break through unknown waters
Today: Microsoft attacks $company initiative as being illegal, immoral and bad for business in general
Tomorrow: Microsoft try to embrace the very same business model of $company, only with a layer of DRM on top of it, and try to leverage it using the profits of the OS and Office division.
Nothing different from all other endeavors from our good old Microsoft. Who didn't have it coming?
What people like this fail to understand is that content is just one part of the puzzle. Content is cheap; just look at the number of books that are rejected for publication every year. If every author who got rejected said "fuck it!" and published their content online, Google would be swamped with free books. Having published content is also not even a sign of quality per se, as it is a sign that there is a possible market for it.
Google does create value, which is what the real issue here. Value is what matters in economic terms. They are increasing the value of the content that they index by making it more readily available to the public. If they are making money off of this without violating the exclusive right of copyright holders to control publication of their content (aside from fair use and mandatory licensing), then no one is being hurt, and no one is a leech. Being a leech implies that they are siphoning off value, a la file sharing, rather than clearly adding value by making the books more available and useful.
I'm not much of a Google defender, but the reality is that they are not mooching here. Mooching implies parasitism, which clearly they are not guilty of.
I am so excited that someone is finally taking MS on and not just competing with them, but afaik, coming up with a better product. I will be switching to Google's apps when they are live.
Just how is "Bad Google" these days? I haven't seen him in ages!
What is with the capital B?!
of two books that have sold upwards of 2000 copies (yipee I suck!) I have to say, STFU Microsoft. The day my books came out they were on the torrent websites (thanks to my publisher releasing the book in ebook format the same day). Google archiving the book would have ZERO effect on my sales (which are low because nobody knows who I am, and I suck at teh English) and in effect may actually help them if key passages are searchable.
If publishers want to stop piracy of texts, STOP RELEASING EBOOKS THE SAME DAY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
amazing that MS says these things when they are well known in and out of the industry for their large amounts of theft and patent/copyright abuse, let alone their total abuse of their monopoly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"In essence, Google is saying to you and to other copyright owners: 'Trust us -- you're protected. We'll keep the digital copies secure, we'll only show snippets, we won't harm you, we'll promote you,' "
Bad news, Rubin: Google is exactly right to say that. Fair Use Rule #4 evaluates "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." And I don't think it's hard to show that prominence on a Google property affects this potential market *extremely positively.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Companies that create no content of their own, and make money solely on the backs of other people's content, are raking in billions through advertising revenue and I.P.O.s," said Mr. Rubin, who oversees copyright and trade-secret law.
Is either buying out your competitors or putting them out of business "creating content"?
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Aren't the processes of indexing servers, and the exclusive right to make copies of information inherently in conflict? Same thing with a system that by default allows anyone to share any information publicly, like the phone system, open public speech, or, in this case, the Internet. I don't think the 'copy right' was originally intended to apply beyond books and blueprints anyway, but the way it has grown, I don't know how one would get a representative view of our world without breaking copy rights along the way in at least many small ways.
That's why there have classically been exceptions allowed for sampling information, why one case of illegal copying haven't been used to call every tangential person involved in the copy from being punished, and that the original intent of copyrights, to 'promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", has classically been the focus, rather than just blindly punishing people, who naturally tend to share information.
Ryan Fenton
Kafka said, "You become what you hate". The collorary is you hate what you wish you could be. The thing is I don't know which direction to apply these lemmas.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
That's nothing, it's probably only a third of what the /. editors reject in a day.
Far from displaying your superior intellect, You embarass yourself. "such as it were" is a traditional phrase in english literature and writing. Try to read more than "learning perl" and the "python cookbook", you might find it eye opening, such as it were.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Good.
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
Whining and throwing tantrums is not a "blistering attack".
This sounds like an April Fools article.
Next Article:
RIAA concerned about musicians being ripped off by lopsided contracts
After that:
Auto Makers insist Congress must tighten emissions and fuel economy standards.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
The really weird thing about the google lawsuits is that the publishers suing google are also google's business partners. It's basically a dispute between business allies that's being handled partly in the courts. There's speculation that the outcome will end up being harmful to fair use. Google has tons of cash, and can afford to pay the publishers a certain amount of money to end the suit, even if they really have a good fair use defense that might eventually have held up in court. If that happens, then everybody else's fair use rights could be diminished, because it will be seen as normal that you have to pay for what really should be fair use. Google could end up with a de facto monopoly on indexing books, because competitors wouldn't have enough money to pay the publishers what google paid. (This is mostly paraphrased from a long article in the New Yorker, IIRC.)
Find free books.
Why not? It works in politics.
GNU/Linux
Google
Personally am getting a feeling of: 'same bilge, different day' from Microsoft.
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
Wasn't it always Microsoft that accused competitors of fighting in the courtroom because they were not able to win in the marketplace?
- "They are earning cash we were craving, but are too uncompetitive to get".
Read radical news here
What's next?
Parents getting sued because they are telling a story from a children's book?
Me talking about a movie explaining how great the storyline is?
Am I still allowed to sing my favorite songs under the shower?
"Wed, 17 May 95 13:44:40 EDT"
The bad news, of course, is that I haven't seen a tangible sign of change in the intervening 12 years.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
The difference is that they're not the same. Microsoft is evil, Google isn't. Microsoft's approach to copyright and DRM is despicable, while Google's practices are to be admired.
We should all boycott Microsoft's products (if we can), like the Zune, Vista, the XBox 360, Office, etc...
Perhaps this comment is superfluous since the only person backing you up is an Anonymous Coward, and maybe that's you attempting to vindicate yourself. However, no reply attacking your intelligence, right though they were, gave the reason why the phrase is correct. "Such as it were" is an example of the subjunctive. It's a mood. Pick up a grammar book if you want further explanation. The selfsame mood is the reason for the phrase "Were I to go out...". What?? Were I? You don't say I were. You say I was! Yes, it's the subjunctive, and it's a part of so many languages and would still be important even if it were as little used as it is in English.
Microsoft can't beat Google with better products and services so they try to beat them with the law. It is pathetic. If Microsoft would spend all the cash they give to lawyers on R&D, they might actually produce decent product. Instead, they pump out crap after crap after crap.
The reason Microsoft does is to shake corporate faith in Google. I hope the corporations don't fall for it.
\
*cries while googling Microsoft's Associate General Counsel, Association of American Publishers, and copyright laws*
I will bend like a reed in the wind.
So... I can sue the library just a few miles away from here as well?
Perhaps a key factor in the minds of Google is the practical necessity in showing the level of consequential loss (at least under some richer legal systems). And as the small scale proofs of concept relating to books shows sales increasing it might be tough to achieve.
And also that the infringing act has to involve all or a substantial part of the work. Which from the brief play with google book search I've had you really don't see. I suppose the copying of it into the system to be able to search is the crunch point.
In fact the more I've just read (UK) copyright law and also thought about what the Google search offers I just think M$ are upset they didn't think of doing it first.
I'm glad you feel that you can correct francis bacon's english, but your response is unknowingly funny. You see Francis Bacon was noted for his discourses on the use of syllogism in argument. Your insult to Bacon is a pure example of syllogism. 1) I think the english phrase is bad 2) francis bacon used the phrase. 3) ergo francis bacon spoke bad english. Nice, bacon would be proud of such an elegantly bad example. I doff my quilled chapeau to you!
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The fact that threats against Google are being launched by Microsoft's legal team instead of their engineering department tells you all you need to know.
There is a spellbook here; eat it? [ynq]
Mod parent insightful. Good stuff.
Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
Our legal system, of course, is capable of very serious blunders, such as, refusing to break Microsoft up despite its anticompetitive and monopolistic practices. Investors in Microsoft stock would be much happier today if the courts had applied the law with full force. But, the law is, well, imperfect. So, maybe Microsoft and the publishers version of the RIAA will win the case, and not only help preserve the software monopoly, but also limit the ability of readers to find and read books. Yes if this happens the law would be an ass. Need I say more?
Microsoft might be preparing the ground to a software patents law suit against google. They patented evil after all...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
The past tense of "lead" is "led". When "lead" is pronounced with a short 'e', it's an element.
"Press to test."
(click)
"Release to detonate."
I take great issue with the statement:
"Companies that create no content of their own, and make money solely on the backs of other people's content, are raking in billions through advertising revenue and I.P.O.s"
For what it is worth, Google does make a lot of money on the work of others, but not by copying or stealing it. Google and other search engines analyze, categorize, and parse copyrighted material and create indexes that make it easy to search. Makes that one document in billions findable.
This is no small feat, and copyright holders are making more money with google than without. Google indexes about 8-10 billion documents. They make zero cash for the documents. They make money providing a service to the people searching for material. That service is finding documents. The copyright holders should count themselves fortunate.
It is a self serving argument that some of google's cash belongs to me because they use my documents. Google drives people looking for your data to you. If you don't want this service that is done for you for free, then you can opt out at any time.
let alone how to use google.
Those MS types don't use that IP pirating, copyright infringing evil empire's so called "search engine". No sir. Did you notice that those evildoers copied the original, innovative look and feel that msn search has pioneered since several weeks?
"Competition is heating up between Google, the world's dominant search engine, and Microsoft, which recently entered the Web search market."
OUCH! That's gotta hurt...
'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
Just what, exactly, do they expect Google to do with YouTube? Screen submissions by hand?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
And the next time that I need a spelling lesson from 40 years ago, I will look you up or at the least, think of you. In the mean time, this is the Internet and more specifically, this is /.. It would behoove you to get out of it what you can.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You forgot DOS which was a decompiled version of Digital Research CP/M for x86 that some guys sold to Bill Gates for 50 grand. The whole Microsoft edifice is built on stolen IP.
"and published their content online, Google would be swamped with free books."
r o&search=Search
1. Google goes into publishing business.
2. Google announces it will only publish copyleft books.
3. ???
4. Profit.
(??? might be puts ads on each page of the books which are online and pays the authors...???)
Hey, google and a slashdot business model. Does it get any better than that?
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zotzb
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
So how does that work, given that MS have stated in court that IE is an essential part of the operating system, and they sell the operating system for a lot of money?
All the books in the world are no good to you if they're all piled up in a heap.
Google is doing what the librarian did for paper books: tells you where the information you want lies.
Oh god, Copiepresse. Biggest pack of fucktards EVER. "You are allowed to drive people towards our websites and increase our readership, but you must PAY us for the priviledge of increasing our profits by increasing our readership. And no, that whole robots.txt thing isn't good enough, we should not have to go to an effort to stop your automated crawlers from seeing our site. We require money. Per click. In fact, pay us if someone even breathes in the direction of our member agencies."
Copiepresse executives need to go fuck themselves.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
The copyright law in the US is pretty old school.
On behalf of all Canadians, I invite you guys to move your great company to Toronto, Vancouver, or better yet, Montreal! We have cheap labour here, strong liberty and privacy protections, a great communication network, and best of all: modern copyright laws (which deal relatively well with the Internet).
Plus, hint, hint, executives, you won't get arrested under some random new anti-porn/gambling/freespeach law-of-the-day!
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
No, not for pr0n (grin), for banking and crypto apps. In the UK there's a law called Regulation of Investigative Powers Act which will eventually allow the Gov to ask for data under warrant, but without any obligation on their part to keep it safe.
:-)
:-).
I've come up with a solution for that, but setting up a company in Canada may be another approach. And you speak more languages
I've dealt with a fair number of Canadians and found them very pleasant (and their English accent is in most cases superb
Insert
Well, although some of all companies (and peoples) behavior could be defined as "evil", I very much doubt the wisdom of branding a whole on going business concern, that abides by most of the laws, pays its taxes, and competes robustly, as "evil".
Groups who manufacture and sell illegal drugs could be branded as evil.
People who swindle little old ladies out of their homes are, IMO, evil.
People who abuse small children are evil.
Some would say that politicians, lawyers, and used car salesmen, as a class, are evil.
But corporate entities? In my country, we have something called the "Tall Poppy Syndrome", which, I believe, we are seeing here. It's the desire for the Tall Poppies - the ones that lead the pack, show out in a crowd - to be pulled down to our level.
So, how about leaving the "evil" tag for the ministers of religion and the media, and accept that what we are talking about is the tall poppies in the industry.
Will those of you who think that you know what you are doing, get out of the way of those of us who know what we are doi
See my small cartoon: http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/03 /bill_hood.html
Bye,
Oliver
If I put it on the web, I can let Google index it (just send them the link, or have anybody else link to it), or I can prevent them from indexing it (robots.txt and/or (not send them the link + not let anybody link to it)). Thing is, if I choose the second route, nobody sees my page. Ever.
And if nobody's going to ever see it, why did I put it on the web? I want people to see my stuff - that's why I put it out there!
What Microsoft really wants to do is erect a toll booth and charge for what Google is doing for free. But if they succeed, they're going to put the brakes on the use of the Web.
Google is a great company with a lot of really good technology. Their search engine is the base of their business. It is their funding and their "shoe in the door" for other business.
Microsoft can't beat them.
So, create a semi-plausible legal argument that your competitor is somehow breaking the law. Come out with full guns.
This is such an utter and complete exploitation and perversion of copyright law it makes me sick. Why oh why, can't BillG and crew have a fateful day and a bad plane crash because of bad weather or something. Truly disgusting people unfortunately never seem to die in accidents. They seem to live long and despicable lives wreaking havoc in their wake.
I am so sick and tired of so many of these f&%ks gaming the legal system with mind bending interpretations laws in an effort to circumvent freedom and commerce.
I think we can contextualize the world evil in regards to companies and their actions, but thank you very much for patronizing us.
In the context in which we are talking about, a pattern of dishonest, immoral and even illegal actions can be classed as evil.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Chossing to pay a fine instead of adjust bussiness practices is not just an ethical choice.
Here where I live it is called "to brake the law".
Some folks should remember that MS has done this in several occassions and they do not show any regret or have ever apologized.
They will not stop until they are punished for real, not only middly reprimanded.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.