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."

14 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 PhilHibbs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, there is that, but on the other hand they are absolutely spot on, the article is the best summary I've seen of the problems with the Google book deal. I dislike Microsoft, and I use Google all the time, but this deal really is a bad one.

    2. Re:Haul down the competition by Zibri · · Score: 5, Informative

      You summarize my thoughts exactly. And I would also add that this deal is flamed by another party: the FSF. (fsf.org seems to be down atm, but here comes the link: http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-09-google-book-settlement-objection )

      "But under the proposed settlement, works released under the GFDL and similar licenses are lumped in with works under full restrictive copyright. Google would therefore be given permission to display and distribute these works without abiding by the requirement to pass the freedoms guaranteed under the GFDL on to Google Books readers."

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    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."
  2. Privacy Advocates by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 4, Informative

    With authors, scholars, the DoJ and publishers ripping apart the Google book deal[...]

    Add to that list privacy advocates.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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 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.
    2. 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
  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