-4.5 C
New York
Friday, February 3, 2023

Dissecting Microsoft Slams At Google As Copyright Infringer

Last October, Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer gave us a taste of how Microsoft was going to position Google as a copyright leech. Today, Microsoft launched a full-out assault on the company. Google deserves some of this, no doubt. But the idea as Microsoft as some altruistic
copyright savior deserves some critical analysis, as well. Below, I’ll dissect Microsoft’s slams against Google, pointing out where they can be redirected back at Microsoft itself. But overall, I remain in agreement that Google should shift book search to an opt-in basis when dealing with copyrighted works.

As noted, last October in BusinessWeek, Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer positioned Google as
“transferring the wealth out of the hands of rights holders.” In December,
Google came under more
fire
from the Open Content Alliance, of which Microsoft is part of, as
trying to create a closed book search system for only its benefit.

Those were only warm-ups to today’s broadside. Tom Rubin, associate general counsel for Microsoft, delivered a speech to the Association Of American Publishers painting Google as a copyright
infringer not to mention dastardly evil ad seller. You’ll find the entire speech

here
. Coverage also comes from the

Financial Times
, the

Associated Press
plus also see roundup coverage from Techmeme
here and
here. Below, I’ll go through the speech with his references to
Google and give you my running commentary on the accusations.

Google Creates Nothing

The second reason I’m pleased to be here is because we have much in
common. I recognize, of course, that the works that you help create and
publish, and the works we create at Microsoft, seem very different. Still, we
share a common understanding of the creative process. We both understand the
time and commitment it takes to develop the first germ of an idea into a
finished work. More importantly, we both understand the risk it involves –
that despite all of our best efforts, a book or software product can still
fall flat in the market. I suspect we share many of the same values when it
comes to preserving incentives for creativity, so that people will continue to
invest in creating works of the very highest quality, not just today, but long
into the future.

Remaining true to these values is particularly important as content
moves online. I think we can all agree that using the Internet to enhance the
market for works is a crucial endeavor and that doing so creates tremendous
new opportunities to reach customers. However, the reality, as many of you
know, is that authors and publishers often find it difficult just to cover
their costs, let alone make a profit, in this new online world. At the same
time, 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 IPOs.

This is the first slam. Google is suggested (you’ll see it IS Google later
on) as making no content and just cashing in on others. In contrast, Microsoft
creates content (IE, software). That’s not entirely so. If software is content,
Google makes plenty of it, such as:

Aside from that, assembling information from others IS content. It’s not easy
to do, and it is a real benefit to both consumers and content owners. When
content czar Lloyd Braun at Yahoo (now no longer there) “fumed”

that
Yahoo didn’t have its “own” content on Yahoo News about the Discovery
space shuttle mission in 2005, I
fumed that he
was missing the point:

Create your own programming [as a search engine], and people may not trust
you’re going to point them elsewhere. Indeed, that type of pointing IS
programming and worked to bring people to Google in droves back when search
engines became portals and decided they needed to have “channels” and their
own content.

Google’s Not Innovative

Microsoft, I’m pleased to say, has chosen the former path. At its soul,
Microsoft is an innovation company, and we’ve been working hard for many years
to develop innovative technologies that allow readers to experience books
online in new and exciting ways.

After this statement, Rubin then goes on to talk about the two main book
projects Microsoft has, both of which are reactions to preexisting and
long-standing products from Google. If the suggestion is Google’s not innovative
— as I take it — the reality is Microsoft is following in footsteps here. For
the record, the projects are:

Watch For Google Ads In Books!

What I find exciting about all of these initiatives is that they use
great advances in technology to dramatically expand access to works, yet in a
way that respects copyright. We believe this is the right path and is one that
adheres to the three principles I already mentioned. We also think this
distinguishes our approach from one that all of you are familiar with: the
Google Book Search project.

The stated goal of Google’s Book Search project is to make a copy of
every book ever published and bring it within Google’s vast database of
indexed content. While Google says that it doesn’t currently intend to place
ads next to book search results, Google’s broader business model is
straightforward – attract as many users as possible to its site by providing
what it considers to be “free” content, then monetize that content by selling
ads. I think Pat Schroeder put it best when she said Google has “a hell of a
business model – they’re going to take everything you create, for free, and
sell advertising around it.”

All of which can be entirely applied to Microsoft’s own projects. They don’t
“currently” carry ads either. But I don’t think Microsoft has ever ruled that
out. Remember, Microsoft has no problem selling

virtual billboards
in 3D representations in its mapping world — ads where
no ads actually exist. So let’s not pretend that somehow books would be
considered off limits, unless we see a pledge like that.

Tricking Libraries & Getting “Several” Publishers To Cooperate

To accomplish its book search goals, Google persuaded several libraries
to give it unfettered access to their collections, both copyrighted and public
domain works. It also entered into agreements with several publishers to
acquire rights to certain of their copyrighted books. Despite such deals, in
late 2004 Google basically turned its back on its partners. Concocting a novel
“fair use” theory, Google bestowed upon itself the unilateral right to make
entire copies of copyrighted books not covered by these publisher agreements
without first obtaining the copyright holder’s permission.

“Persuaded” suggests that libraries somehow can’t think for themselves. To my
knowledge, nothing prevents these libraries from also working with others. In
fact, I believe the University Of California, to name one, is working with both
Microsoft and Google.

Before this part of his speech, Rubin talked a lot about Microsoft’s
publisher program, the way it gets copyrighted content into its system:

The second source is our Publisher program, under which we receive books
still under copyright from publishers with their express permission, either in
digital form directly from the publisher, or scanned from hard copy.
Participating publishers have access to an online site – or dashboard – that
enables them to manage their publications on Live Search Books. They can
choose the amount of text that a reader may preview, create click-to-buy links
next to their books, edit metadata, and so on. Several major publishers have
signed on to the Publisher Program.

Google has a long-standing similar program, and that’s downplayed. Agreements
with “several” publishers for “certain” copyrighted books as Rubin describes is
a far cry from hundreds (I think perhaps thousands) of publishers that
voluntarily have contributed thousands of books to the Google program. But I
think a picture is worth a thousands words:

frankfurt book fair

That’s the Google both at the Frankfurt Book Fair that I
attended last September. I
believe the fair is the largest gathering of book publishers in the world. There
was massive building after massive building filled with publishers.

Notice the picket signs? Notice the angry publishers storming the Google
booth? Publishers are upset with Google, yes. But some of those same publishers
ironically are also partners in the program. And plenty are partners in the
program without being angry at Google. Google is actively involved in the
publishing community and has far more contributions than Rubin’s speech
suggests.

Microsoft Self-Rules On Copyright

Google’s chosen path would no doubt allow it to make more books
searchable online more quickly and more cheaply than others, and in the short
term this will benefit Google and its users. But the question is, at what
long-term cost? In my view, Google has chosen the wrong path for the longer
term, because it systematically violates copyright and deprives authors and
publishers of an important avenue for monetizing their works.

As a reminder, we have no idea if scanning books to make them searchable
(which is different from reprinting them online) is a copyright violation.
That’s the point of the current lawsuits against Google. For all we know, what
Google is doing is perfectly legal. As for the “deprive” argument, we’ve also
yet to see how this has happened. Google simply does NOT reprint books that are
in copyright online unless they have permission to do this.

Opt-In, Not Opt-Out

Rather than delve into this arcane legal issue, what we really should be
asking is whether it would be possible for Google to provide its Book Search
service in a way that respects copyright. The answer to this question is: of
course there is. How am I so sure? Well, because we at Microsoft are doing it.
And not just Microsoft. We and others are working on search-driven projects
that are proceeding with the express permission and support of copyright
owners. And then there’s Google’s own Publisher Partner program, which makes
book content available online only after obtaining the necessary
authorization.

So, what we really have here are two fundamentally different paths.
Google takes the position that everything may be freely copied unless the
copyright owner notifies Google and tells it to stop. Microsoft and most other
companies, by contrast, take the position that they should get the copyright
owner’s consent before they copy. The Copyright Act, in our view, supports
this approach. It’s hard to see any justification for exempting Google from
its requirements.

First, Google’s position is that everything may be freely copied to make a
searchable index. That’s different, as I’ve said (and read
in-depth here), from putting
the actual books online. Rubin at least acknowledges that “book content” is only
put online (IE — reprinted) by Google with authorization.

But let’s be clear. In general, Microsoft does exactly what Google does in
terms of taking content and indexing it without permission. That’s how most of
its search services operate. They index pages unless site owners specifically
opt-out. Microsoft doesn’t call up a site owner and say “Hey, we want to spider
your pages. OK?” It just does that. And over in Belgium, that group that sued
Google over indexing news content? Yeah, don’t forget they
went after Microsoft
as well.

Books Are Different!

Of course, I’ve long argued that any search engine asks for permission to
index content through things like the robots.txt blocking mechanism. Until
recently, I also struggled to understand why book publishers think they should
be so special. Time after time, I’d look at the site of a book publisher that was upset
with Google for “infringing copyright” by indexing books. Those same publishers
don’t block Google from spidering their copyright-protected web pages. So why’s it OK to copy a web page
for indexing purposes but not a book? What makes my content online somehow free
game but more protected just because it’s printed on dead trees?

Search Engines, Permissions &
Moving Forward In Copyright Battles
is a post I did last year where I
finally switched tothe side of book publishers against Google. I felt they were
special because unlike online, there’s no automatic way for them to opt-out:

Still, Google shouldn’t be scanning them, not the in copyright books, not
without permission. First and foremost, this is because unlike with the web,
there’s no automated way to ask permission. I fully support web indexing, but
I support it because there’s an easy way to get permission. That’s not the
case with books in copyright. Google can’t ask if indexing is OK. Since they
can’t ask, I don’t think they should do it.

Similar to with cached pages, I think Google should back down. Google
briefly paused scanning once before. I think they should again, say they feel
they’re on solid legal ground but again to be a good corporate citizen,
they’re putting things on hold until they can either work out an automated way
to seek permission or until they negotiate deals.

As you can see, I’m with Rubin here. Moreover, I’m with the idea that if
Google hadn’t started with what’s often seen as its typical arrogant “let’s just
do it” attitude and instead talked more with publishers, it might not be set up
as the copyright bad guy now. Having said that, any search player making such
accusations walks a dangerous line, because it’s easy to turn the focus back on
them and find similar examples — as we shall see.

Google’s Bad At Copyright Protection

From the perspective of your business, Google’s approach is troubling
for another reason. It assumes, in effect, that Google is the only game in
town. Google argues that authors and publishers should simply notify Google if
they want to preserve their rights in their works. But what if, as is
inevitable, other companies around the world start taking the same approach?
Should copyright owners be obligated to track down everyone engaging in
unauthorized copying in order to preserve their exclusive rights in their
works? Presumably, the desire to preserve these rights is why they asserted
copyright in the first place. This approach would be absolutely unworkable in
practice, which is probably why Congress in enacting the Copyright Act placed
the burden on those who want to copy to get the express consent of the
copyright owner, rather than the other way around.

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.” But Google’s track
record of protecting copyrights in other parts of its business is weak at
best. Anyone who visits YouTube, which Google purchased last year, will
immediately recognize that it follows a similar cavalier approach to
copyright. Since YouTube’s inception, television companies, movie studios and
record labels have all complained that the site knowingly tolerates piracy. In
the face of YouTube’s refusal to take any effective action, copyright owners
have now been forced to resort to litigation. And Google has yet to come up
with a plan to restrain the massive infringements on YouTube.

Google deserve huge slams over the issue with YouTube. At the same time, we
also know it inherited much of that mess, rather than created it. Had Microsoft
bought YouTube, it would be mum here.

But more important, does Rubin really want people to start searching on
Windows Live to see what copyright infringing content the search engine links
to? At least in the US, Microsoft — just like Google — isn’t required to pull
down links to such content until the content owners themselves raise issues. A
big problem here is that copyright law needs to change. But Microsoft is hardly
going to be as innocent as it sounds. No search engine will be. But their
nature, search engines can link to content that violates copyright without even
knowing.

Google Helping Copyright Infringers

Another example is equally disturbing. Microsoft was surprised to learn
recently that Google employees have actively encouraged advertisers to build
advertising programs around key words referring to pirated software, including
pirated Microsoft software. And we weren’t the only victims – Google also
encouraged the use of keywords and advertising text referring to illegal
copies of music and movies. These actions bolstered websites dedicated to
piracy and reportedly netted Google around $800,000 in advertising revenues
from just four such pirate sites. These are not the actions of a company that
has the interests of copyright owners as one of its priorities.

Ouch! And Google has that coming. My jaw certainly dropped to
discover it had some
ad account people actively suggesting that some sites accused of offering
pirated movies should buy terms like:

  • bootleg movie download
  • pirated
  • download harry potter movie

For balance, this sounds more like some bad reps rather than a Google company
policy. But still, Google deserves the slam. Then again, how does Microsoft do
on those terms? Let’s do

bootleg movie download
:

bootleg search on microsoft live

Hmm. Microsoft’s making money off the term. That’s not so bad, if the sites
are all legal. Are they? I suspect at least one of them might be iffy. What
about pirated software:

pirated software

I have to chuckle at that ad. Really, it makes me laugh. See, that ad is
making Microsoft money on a per click basis. When you click, you end up on a
page that is simply more ads from — Google! That page also contains scraped
search results for that search,pirated software, from Microsoft’s own search engine. Potentially, that’s a
copyright violation. So Microsoft is making money off someone making money off
Google with content that possibly is infringed from Microsoft.

Conclusion

Overall, I have to say it’s disappointing seeing Microsoft come out on an
attack stance rather than be positive about what it is doing. Google deserves
slams, and I wish they’d change to an opt-in policy for copyrighted books. But
for me, with perspective, Microsoft comes across as someone trying to play
catch-up and willing to be negative to do it. I don’t like that in political
campaigns, and I guess I don’t like it any more in the search wars. But most
important, it’s a dangerous game to play. The more Microsoft paints itself as
some type of pure protector of copyright, the harder it will fall as people find
examples where it fails to meet expectations.


Related Articles

Latest Articles