Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Blasts Google Book Deal
eldavojohn writes "With authors, scholars, the DoJ and publishers ripping apart the Google book deal, it's Microsoft's turn. They're claiming it's frankly an illegal 'joint venture' and not a settlement. According to ZDNet, Microsoft's four complaints against the deal are: 1) Future infringements are covered by the settlement, affecting the exclusive rights of absent class members for the life of their copyrights. 2) The deal gives away to Google vast rights that were not contested in the underlying litigation. The lawsuits dealt with Google's displaying brief excerpts. Instead of compromising on that infringement, the parties instead agreed to give away the rights to display entire books. 3) The publishers who negotiated this deal each have undisclosed side deals with Google, which will likely give them better terms than the class will get. 4) The publishers plan to exclude their own works from the deal. You might recall over a year ago Microsoft's own scanning effort died."
Microsoft sees Google as a major competitor. As such, it is only logical that they would attack something like this that will give Google a substantial competitive advantage. I hope the court will see it in that light...
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
With authors, scholars, the DoJ and publishers ripping apart the Google book deal[...]
Add to that list privacy advocates.
If M$ were offered the same deal, they would snap it up immediately & not have such objections to it. I would prefer to see Google running this than M$.
Google must be Really Evil (TM) to incur the wrath of Microsoft and the FSF at the same time!
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
It's hard to get excited about this deal one way or the other without feeling like it's getting annoyed at the bloodsucking tick you found on the sofa -- without noticing that the tick is on the back of a snarling rottweiler. The underlying problem is our broken intellectual property system -- or even the very idea of intellectual property -- and not the specifics of how one company or another takes advantage of it.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
As oppos
Is anyone else a bit worried about the precident that using a class action lawsuit in this way might set for the future? I mean, Google is essentially getting a court to tacitly agree that its settlement with a second party over rights held by unrelated third parties is valid (lets face it, its looking like the court will agree), unless the unrelated third party deliberately withdraws at this stage.
I'm not entirely sure I like the sound of that. It sounds like an abuse of the class action system for commercial gain.
Don't let your hate of Microsoft blind you from seeing that they're right in this case.
I really don't hate Microsoft, I'm not a G-fanboy. I just pointing out a fact: Microsoft dont act for The Cause... they do this because they scared of loosing possible market and cash... That's all...
right my ass. it is a matter of opinion first of all. secondly, it is just like any other type of published work, whether it be art, music, literature, etc. If I want to read a book, I rent it from the library for free. there is NO difference in the simple fact that people can obtain and consume the knowledge of any type of published work at not cost.
They didn't get a piece of the pie.
Whiners.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
A turtle that dies of exaustion in front a stop sign is technically "correct", but it doesn't mean the sign had anything to do with it.
Microsoft will piss and moan. It's no surprise really...
...to just see all these books vanish forever?
So, in this one paragraph, Microsoft says:
1. Competition and open/free markets are good.
2. The diverse interests of the many outweighs the greed of the few (a corporation).
3. Closed-door negotiations are bad.
4. Copyright law serves the public.
5. Joint ventures are bad.
6. We should be worried about the millions of unenfranchised who were left out of a back-room deal.
*boggle*
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Definately. It's notable that if Google manage to push this one through, Microsoft will make exactly the same deal with some other publishers so as not to be left out. If there's a market, they'll capitalize on it, even if they tried to stop the market from existing in the first place.
IE: If Linux becomes more popular, we'll see the full M$ Office suite for Linux.
mysql> SELECT * FROM `places` WHERE `place` LIKE 'home`; Empty set (0.00 sec)
Do Microsoft like or not like monopolies? They also seem a tad confused on the subject. On one hand they see no problem with their own monopolies being good for the customer, yet complain when it's other companies monopolies, that they're bad for the consumer. Is there an answer to this question that does not make Microsoft hypocrites?
The Economist has a short but good piece containing their take on the book deal. Includes criticism of where they think the agreement could be dangerous, but also how it those trouble areas could be dealt with:
The Economist
Everyone's talking as if Google stands to make immense profits from this, and that these are profits that would otherwise go to the authors of these books. But I don't see how that's really the case. Is Google really going to reignite the sleeping market for out-of-print books? Aren't they usually out-of-print for a reason?
It seems like the fact is that Google is going to eat its investment on this, and then some. (Why do you think Microsoft bowed out?)
And it's not like this is some sort of new thing for Google. They make money off search. Most of the other stuff is just for fun, and loses them money.
Yeah, but does the court have to even put Bill's whaaambulance call on the docket?
Probably not, unless the judge intends to bring Bill into court for the sole purpose of applying the infamous command, "Bailiff, whack his pee-pee!"
When copyright lasted a short time, you didn't need to keep archived records of who wrote what.
When derived works was limted by the technology and things like having the billboard in your movie because it was up in the street when you filmed there would not be cause for a claim for millions in licensing, requiring explicit consent worked.
It doesn't any more.
When something lasts for potentially 150 years, where copyrights and their transfer can happen off the radar, where something may enter the public consciousness without knowing the source and where lawyers will sit and wait while a work becomes expensive to change before pouncing on the "infringement", it HAS to be done this way:
You're allowed unless you're told not to.
For fucks sake, that's how the internet works!
A webpage without restrictions on it is open for copying.
But what should, in your opinion, be done?
No Google Books until every possible "owner" of each and every work has been asked?
Why?
It's the owner to police their work and its protection, not the public's.
and let Google get the money back.
Or allow anyone who has $125M to spare pay for the same rights as Google.
THIS IS NOT AN EXCLUSIVITY DEAL.
There is one, and only one, reason Microsoft is protesting this: they tried to do the same thing, and failed while Google can make it work. Period. End of story.
Microsoft has no moral qualms about anything that hurts non-Microsoft publishers, regardless of the societal damage it may or may not cause, if it would increase Microsoft's market power. The only reason Microsoft would even care about societal damage would be to calculate the spin needed to make their market rape look like feeding the poor.
As a general rule: if it's bad for Microsoft, it's good for the rest of the known universe.
Sounds to me like there own deal fell through, so they think google's should too, because its impossible for anyone else to actually come up with a business model for this that might satisfy not just themselves but others too...M$ are just sore losers.
Microsoft's own scamming effort? Strange.
Simply put, if you're affected, and you want to, you can put in a claim form and get some money from Google.. on an on-going basis. If you don't want, nothing changes.
True, but keep in mind that there's an opt-out requirement, so if you want out you have to let them know.
You have all the same (insanely restrictive) rights under copyright law.
Insanely restrictive things like "uhh, please don't make money off my books without my permission."
To quote your post?
If your documentation has (c) Fred Blogs, 2009 then Google won't bother.
If your document has no (c), or does but it's from 1931, then Google will take the book and, if you're still alive and even give a fuck, THEN you can ask it to be removed.
The alternative is to search for all Fred Blogs in the world who were alive and at least old enough to write in 1931 AND all their family, friends, debtors AND all the publishing companies that could have taken the copyright of the works since last registration, ask them all and WAIT until ALL of them have answered.
Or all works too old to have a current copyright properly assigned and owned by a big publisher disappears into abandonment swamp.
Google's plan to digitize and bring online all books is of immense value to society. All of the objections offer only to prevent this great service with no alternative. Therefore they are bad.
As noted in the summary, Microsoft had their own effort and abandoned it. Too bad for them. They don't now get to prevent somebody else from doing it. If they want to pick the effort back up they're welcome to provide a competing service - Google's deal is not exclusive.
Microsoft attempting to prevent Google from providing this great work is evil. In other words: if you won't lead get out of the way.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
You have to remember that Microsoft (and perhaps none more enthusiastically so than their legal team) pride themselves on innovation.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Of course it's about the arguments, not who makes them. Except if it's Bill. Normally, cases have to have merit to be heard. But if you have rich enough parents and grandparents, then exceptions can be made. If you or I whined like that to the court, we'd get offered a bit o' cheese to go with it.
Google deal gives it exclusive rights to books that are in copyright whose authors canâ(TM)t be found â" so-called orphan works â" and that any competitor who wants to try the same project could get sued for huge sums of money and this is totally wrong !!!!
... don't you understand? This is a class action lawsuit from the copyright owners. it *does* cover works that the publishers don't hold copyright on. You have to explicitly opt out not to be covered by the settlement and there is a time limit on the opt out too.
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
Those who'd like to all the objections, as well as a much smaller number of filings in support, can find them at The Public Index, which is run by the New York Law School:
http://thepublicindex.org/documents/responses
Filings in opposition tend to be substantial and weighty, citing both U.S. and international copyright law. Filings in favor tend to be of the "Gee, I like free books" sort. The most substantial of them is probably that from Sony, which is 20 pages long and filed by a NYC law firm, but, with one exception, it doesn't deal with the issues of copyright. Here's the closest Sony comes to admitting that authors have rights.
"The non-exclusivity provision of the Settlement--which makes plain that that the right given to Google do not permit copyright holders or the Registry itself from licensing e-book right to others--ensure that healthy, price-driven competition will remain after the Settlement is approved."
Yes, you read it right. The Google settlement gives Google and Google alone the right to display online for profit the contents of any book first published anywhere in the world since 1922 without the author's knowledge or consent unless they formally opted out by last Friday, September 4, 2009. Just heard about that? Tough luck. You've been screwed by Google with Sony's warm approval.
And to add insult to considerable injury, Google and Sony purr that Google's right is non-exclusive. What does that mean? Having brushed aside an author's copyright, they say, "Oh, well. We don't care if you sell someone else the right to publish your book. That is, if that someone else can compete with free." Under copyright law, of course, Google has no right to publish a book at all without the author's permission. They have no rights at all, much less exclusive rights. That's a good indication of ethically and legally clueless Google and Sony are.
Until I read this document, I felt sorry for Sony. They used to be so popular, now that aren't. But it helps to remember that much of their failure came from an obsession with protecting the copyrighted music they own. Now, in their zeal to sell their ebook readers, they're helping Google stomp on the copyright of several million authors. Color them hypocrites, very big hypocrites.
I no longer feel sorry for Sony. If they languish in obscurity, they're only getting what they deserve. Sony can't zealous defend their own copyrights by every nasty means available and run roughshod over the copyrights of others without deservedly getting sneered at.
The basic premise of the Google settlement is that any book not "commercially available" is effectively out of copyright. How would Sony feel if music fans regarded any music not available commercially at the moment as effectively out of copyright? That's what we are talking about here.
How is this any different than the large-scale book scanning that Ebsco does?
Anybody want my mod points?
Google's plan to digitize and bring online all books is of immense value to society. All of the objections offer only to prevent this great service with no alternative. Therefore they are bad.
The alternative, mentioned time and again, is for Congress to write an exception into copyright law for the republication of protected works that are not currently being published. This would guarantee residuals to the authors (possibly held in trust by the WGA or another organization for authors who aren't easy to locate). It would open the field up to any electronic publisher and would allow for the handling of future works. Google would have the advantage of the search technology they have in place and their brand recognition. However, it would prevent them from getting complacent knowing that nobody can compete - another publisher who better-manages their collection could become the leader. There might also be a market for smaller, specialized collections, but with the current settlement we'll never know.
Google's plan is of immense value to Google. I'll grant that it's better'n the standing system (nothing), but society would do well to have clear laws to handle the rights rather than a limited "first grabbed, first served, if you talk fast and have lots of money" agreement.
The Open Book Alliance started with Professor Raj Reddy at CMU and Brewster Kahle of the Internet Archive. They started their scanning and making public system about five years before Google cracked a single book. Brewster personally asked Larry Page to join them as they had a mature scanning system that had already scanned hundreds of thousands of books in India, Page decided that Google would go on it's own. (Google really doesn't partner with anyone)
In other words
"damn, why didn't we come up with this? Can we steal the idea?"
"no, it would be TO obvious"
"damn, what else can we do?"
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
your implying they are accidently correct. This doesn't fit when there argument is actually logical and well thought out, and dead accurate. unless you just happen to think they accidently wrote those words. no idea why anyone would have modded you up
Unfortunately, Google has no control over congress or copyright laws (otherwise, they probably would have pushed for copyright reforms to keep the project in its original form—instead of making it Google Obscure/Out-of-Print Book Search). What they do have is the ability to come to a private settlement with the parties that are opposed to Google Book Search. So they did that.
I don't know how you construed this as giving Google a monopoly on anything. Anyone else trying to provide a similar service has the same rights as Google and can negotiate a deal of their own with the Author's Guild (WGA is for TV/film writers). It's like if I were to make a movie and wanted to use music by a particular artist in the film. I would then have to negotiate a deal with that artist, and this deal would only be between myself and the artist. I have no authority to negotiate a deal between the artist and the rest of the world.
The idea of holding licensing fees in a trust is also a horrible idea. The music industry does just that. You have "not-for-profit" organizations like the SESAC, ASCAP, and BMI basically going around collecting protection money from public venue owners so that they can have the radio or any kind of music playing in their establishment. It doesn't matter what kind of music it is, who owns the rights to the music, or what the copyright status even is. They even collect fees on the "Happy Birthday" song, on international music whose authors they don't represent, and on classical music that's long since passed into public domain. Worst yet, you have to join and pay a membership fee in order to receive your royalties, but even if you don't, they will continue to charge venues a licensing fee for playing your music. This completely screws over musicians who just want to get their music out there and don't want to charge venues for playing their music. It also eliminates the incentive for venue owners to play music by independent musicians who appreciate the free promotion.
But you're probably right. Only things that can make people money are of any value. It's not like having a single free, digitally searchable online catalog for all the published texts in the world would be of any use to society; never mind the huge boon this would be to people who don't have access to a local library or can't read physical books.
Given the number of libraries that are dying - at least in this area - from the on-going damage from a certain Party's (whose name I will not mention lest I solve the energy crisis single-handedly by generating flame) policies I hesitate to attack anything that promises to provide access to books...
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"