Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Publisher Is Pretty Sure Google Could End Piracy (techdirt.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the you-keep-using-that-word dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Techdirt is running a story about Square One Publishers Rudy Shur, and his confusion over the DMCA process, and exactly what Google has control over. The story goes: "After being contacted by Google Play with an offer to join the team, Shur took it upon himself to fire off an angry email in response. That would have been fine, but he somehow convinced Publisher's Weekly to print both the letter and some additional commentary. Presumably, his position at a publishing house outweighed Publisher Weekly's better judgment, because everything about his email/commentary is not just wrong, but breathtakingly so.

After turning down the offer to join Google Play (Shur's previous participation hadn't really shown it to be an advantageous relationship), Shur decided to play internet detective. Starting with this paragraph, Shur's arguments head downhill then off a cliff then burst into flames then the flaming wreckage slides down another hill and off another cliff. (h/t The Digital Reader) '[W]e did discover, however, was that Google has no problem allowing other e-book websites to illegally offer a number of our e-book titles, either free or at reduced rates, to anyone on the Internet.'

There's a huge difference between "allowing" and "things that happen concurrently with Google's existence." Shur cannot recognize this difference, which is why he's so shocked Google won't immediately fix it. 'When we alerted Google, all we got back was an email telling us that Google has no responsibility and that it is up to us to contact these sites to tell them to stop giving away or selling our titles.'"

7 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. What in the fuck? by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Informative

    Could someone explain the summary in plain English?

    It sounds like something bad happened to someone important but other than that I have absolutely no idea what it is saying.

    1. Re:What in the fuck? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Informative

      Could someone explain the summary in plain English?

      Crybaby publisher is scapegoating Google for for unauthorized distribution of works.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:What in the fuck? by Nemyst · · Score: 5, Informative

      From what I can gather: publisher is asked by Google if they want to put their books on Google Play. Publisher head refuses, does "detective work" and suddenly arrives in the 21st century, realizing that there are many pirate sites hosting their books. Since the guy used Google to reach those pirate sites, he comes to the conclusion that Google is doing the piracy.

      The TL;DR of the summary of the rant is that somebody in a tiny position of power doesn't understand the internet.

    3. Re: What in the fuck? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is one point in the DMCA claim that is given under penalty of perjury: The submitter of the claim must attest that they are the copyright holder, or empowered to act on behalf of the copyright holder, of the work in question. That part of the claim is given under penalty of perjury.

      There is, though, no requirement that the rest of the claim be accurate. This is intentional: It was expected from the very beginning that some level of automation would be required, so there was always the risk infringement would be mistakenly identified and a takedown sent where no infringement actually took place. That's why the counternotice procedure is also included. The sheer scale on which the DMCA would eventually be used was not anticipated though. The internet was a small place in 1998.

  2. Oh for chrissakes... by Chas · · Score: 5, Informative

    1: Google cannot make demands of third party sites to cease selling/distributing (POSSIBLY) copyrighted works.

    First off, Google itself, unless it's the actual publisher/author of record, has no standing to make such a demand (request actually).

    Second off, Google has NO way of knowing what other ebook sites have coterminous agreements with a given publisher or author.

    This is why it's up to the publisher/author to submit DMCA requests to the proper channels. And Google itself isn't a proper channel!

    2: This idiot tries to compare it to a store selling knockoff handbags.

    First off, these are ebooks, not handbags.

    Second off, Google is not "the police" of the Internet. They have no legal standing to do go in and shut these sites down. ESPECIALLY since they have no way of knowing if such a thing would interfere with another distributor's agreements with the publisher/author.

    3: Google has no problem going after people who infringe on their own patents.

    That's because they're GOOGLE'S patents.

    What this imbecile is asking for would be like Google going after you for violating Lockheed Martin's patents.

    For someone who is an ostensibly successful publisher, this person shows a SHOCKING lack of knowledge of one of the central legal protections available to him for internet distribution. And it calls into question what other mistaken notions this ignoramus is operating under.

    Oh! And now he's just jumped into a large, bright red crosshairs costume and strapped on a blinking neon "Kick Me" sign.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  3. Why are pirates bothering with their crap? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

    An earlier commenter pointed out that Square One publishes some books of medical lies, peddling false cancer cures and the like, but check this out:
    http://www.squareonepublishers...
    http://www.squareonepublishers...
    http://www.squareonepublishers...

    This is a publisher of lies and woo. They do not deserve to be pirated. They do not deserve to be read. They do not even deserve to be acknowledged, except for purposes of mockery.

  4. Re:Is that the new Netiquette? by RDW · · Score: 3, Informative

    Get a job offer, respond angrily for no reason in particular and start harrassing the company who offered the job?

    There was no job offer - 'join the team' is poor phrasing from Tim Cushing at Techdirt, in an article that's more distorted and melodramatic than the piece he's complaining about (which doesn't seem particularly angry). The publisher was approached by Google about selling their books via Play. The publisher declined, and pointed out that Google was at the same time making a profit from linking to pirated copies of the publisher's books in its search results. The publisher doesn't seem terribly well informed about how this whole Internet thing operates, but Techdirt's hyperventilating clickbait isn't exactly a model of clarity and accuracy either.