Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Blasts Google Book Deal

Posted by samzenpus on from the shaking-the-corporate-fist dept.

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."

22 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Haul down the competition by bradley13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Haul down the competition by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft's motives should be completely irrelevant to the court.

      All the court should care about is whether this venture is legal or not.

      No idea why people are so keen on protecting Google though. This looks like they're trying to make a deal with a subset of publishers that will affect everyone, and give Google their own private version of copyright law.

    2. Re:Haul down the competition by supernova_hq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't Microsoft (EULA), Apple (MacOS hardware restrictions), the RIAA (private copying) and the MPAA (Bluray/DVD Encoding) already have their own private version of copyright law?

      It's like the new "in" thing, everyone wants one.

    3. Re:Haul down the competition by PhilHibbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The GFDL and GPL aren't about money, though, so being able to get money off Google in return for them stripping the document's recipient of the rights that you want them to have is not an answer.

    4. Re:Haul down the competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, because there are absolutely no legitimate reasons to be against Google or national health care. (Or at least I assume that's what you mean by health care machine.)

      This is a good thing because you get to read the books you want. Who cares about the rights of others when your own privileges (not rights mind you) are expanded. You don't have an right to read and enjoy another persons hard work without compensation, but you'll gladly walk over their right to demand compensation if it give you the privilege of cheap and easy access. Since it is your viewpoint that the betterment of a majorities privileges overrides the rights of the minority, it's okay to force it over other people. A tyranny is okay as long as it's good for people right?

      The same goes for the healthcare.

      I can't wait for the government to charge me for the right to choose my health care provider. It will be okay because this new form of taxation will only hurt people in the middle class forcing them to go onto the national system. There is nothing wrong with this because the government system is really good, and it's okay to force people to do things you want as long as you know it's good for them.

    5. Re:Haul down the competition by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but at least its a private version of copyright law that applies to what they themselves own.

      Google is being given a private version of copyright law that applies to what they don't own.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:Haul down the competition by ajs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's good if you want to read books for free, bad if you're a copyright holder who just saw your rights usurped.

      A library is good if you want to read books for free, bad if you're a copyright holder who just saw your rights usurped.

      These things are equivalent. Google sought to make this point, and the publishers apparently were concerned enough that they would win that a settlement was sought. The terms of the settlement are very valuable to publishers, opening up a new source of revenue for them.

      Will publishers then turn around and screw authors out of any of the benefit? Almost certainly, but to blame Google for publishers having treated authors like dirt for the past 50 years+ is rather an odd stance to take.

    7. Re:Haul down the competition by ajs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the basic idea is a good one, but it just needs to be non-Google-specific.

      Absolutely. There's no way that the publishers can justify not cutting other business looking to do a Google Books like system the very same terms. No one has really tried to do that yet, though, so Microsoft is having a hey day accusing Google of somehow preventing publishers from doing so in the future.

      Interestingly, Microsoft could have simply spun up their old book-scanning project and demanded the same terms as Google is getting from publishers. The problem is that Microsoft doesn't want to be in that industry. That's why they got out. They do, however, NEED to score some points against Google in the media, and that's exactly what they're doing.

    8. Re:Haul down the competition by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Any "evil" in this deal is the reflection of a broken copyright
      system and is not a reflection of Google megalomania. This is
      simply what happens when Media Moguls get greedy. The same thing
      happened with iTunes. The RIAA had a fit of artistic megalomania
      and handed Apple a future monopoly on a silver platter.

      Neither Google or Apple are the "problem" here.

      The real problem are the IP cartels.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:Haul down the competition by wordsnyc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, no, there are huge problems with this deal that have nothing to do with competition. If approved, the deal would modify US and intl. copyright law, subject rightsholders (many of whom have no knowledge of the deal and thus no opportunity to object) to compulsory licensing in perpetuity with no judicial recourse ("arbitration," anyone), and exempt Google from not just past copyright violations (the ostensible subject of the lawsuit) but all future ones as well.

      It's theft, pure and simple, and Google's operating principle throughout has been "Try and stop us."

      (I am a former longtime member of the Authors Guild, and I hold them even more responsible than Google for this outrageous deal.)

      --
      Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
  2. Sour grapes ? by DaveDerrick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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$.

    1. Re:Sour grapes ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NO one should be allowed to get this deal. That's sort of the whole point.

    2. Re:Sour grapes ? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Fine. But I don't have the money to file a lawsuit in the US, especially against Microsoft. Who has those sort of resources that isn't commercial, and if you are commercial, what's your justification to your shareholders to pursue an action against someone that isn't a competitor to you? The only parties other than commercial rivals that can do this are either (a) class action by members of the public (a slow and lengthy process to build this sort of momentum, though you can consider the FSF speaking out against it to be along those lines) or (b) the Government. I wouldn't hold out hope for (b).

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  3. Forest, meet trees by Angst+Badger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. I'm a bit worried... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I'm a bit worried... by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a bit worried about that lack of scepticism displayed by some people. If it was MS or a company we hadn't heard of, people would be a lot less trusting.

      Far too many people seem to ignore the detail that Google is a private company which has making money as a primary objective, and providing services is mainly a means to an end.

    2. Re:I'm a bit worried... by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you need to stop listening to the propaganda being spewed by the opposition and actually make up your own mind.

      Google is getting some "promise not to sue" agreements from publishers.. that's it. They can't enter into agreements with these publishers to get promises that cover works the publishers don't hold the copyright on.

      Is it too much to ask that people understand the subject before expressing their outrage? Oh wait, what am I asking.. duh.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:I'm a bit worried... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not from the publishers, from the copyright owners. As someone who has a copyrighted book registered in the USA, I am counted as a member of this class. Unless I explicitly choose to opt out, then I am counted as agreeing to the EULA, uh, I mean settlement.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:I'm a bit worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They can't enter into agreements with these publishers to get promises that cover works the publishers don't hold the copyright on.

      False. This is a settlement in a class action suit. The representatives of the plaintiff's class (these particular publishers) are court-appointed agents of every publisher and/or author who didn't withdraw from the class prior to the September 4th deadline.

      Google and the representatives can enter into agreements that cover works that the representatives don't hold the copyright on. The court must review the settlement agreement to ensure that the representatives have properly represented the class's interests, and are not simply using the class as leverage to recover a disproportionate share of any damages/recovery for themselves.

  5. Re:Microsoft Hate! by serveto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't let your hate of Microsoft blind you from seeing that they're right in this case.

  6. I'm dyin' here by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These competitive and transparent efforts affirm the benefits of an open market, and the Constitutionally mandated legislative process ensures that the diverse interests of the many stakeholders are considered and balanced, accommodating copyright owners, online services, libraries and the public. The proposed settlement, on the other hand, pursues an illegitimate approach. Following closed-door negotiations that excluded millions of copyright owners and the very public that copyright law serves, Google and the plaintiffs seek to arrogate public policymaking to themselves, bypass Congress and the free market, and force a sweeping "joint venture" - built on copyrights owned by a largely absent class - via this Court's order.

    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
  7. It's about preventing public access to these works by symbolset · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.