Is Google aganist copyrights?

Yes, it's true. Google hates copyright laws.

PortalIT has a commentary today about a Microsoft lawyer's accusation that Google has a "cavalier approach to copyrights." Microsoft chief attorney Thomas Rubin gave a talk to the Association of American Publishers and tried to turn the group against Google with his charges.

Google's Book Search project is a prime example, of course. Rubin says Google wants to digitize every book ever published and "and bring it within Google's vast database of indexed content." Although Google says it does not place ads next to them now, Rubin says its "broader business model is straightforward." Place ads next to the stuff it finds.

Further accusations: Google employees have "actively encouraged advertisers to build advertising programs around key words referring to pirated software... music and movies."

PortalIT says there is little evidence to support the accusations. Google has backed off on copyrighted books, and if Microsoft really had evidence of encouraging links to pirated works, it would sue Google and win.

Matthew Ingram at the Globe and Mail has a commentary that comes down more on the side of the publishers.

Well, Google DOES have a cavalier attitude about copyrighted works. And rightly so. Copyrights have gotten out of hand. I (and Google management) agree with Lawrence Lessig on this issue. Copyrights last virtually forever, even when the works are out of print and lost to the world.  Lessig points  out that 75% of copyrighted works are no longer in print, and those are the ones that Google is in dispute with publishers over.

Larry Page and Sergey Brin are idealists, and they infuse the company with their idealism. They believe that everyone has a right to information, not just the people who can afford it. Copyrights prevent that. Management also probably believes, as I do, that copyright holders use their protection as ways to make obscene profits. Big pop stars make a fortune and music companies sue anyone who tries to get a free copy. Struggling artists would actually benefit from free distribution, getting their names and tunes before the public. Once you have an audience, you can monetize it.

Does Google encourage searches for pirated work? I don't know. But I can readily believe that they have the attitude that people should be able to find it. And just wait and see -- I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft does sue Google over this. It has the right to, because if it's true, Google is breaking the law. It's probably hard to prove, though.

I'm all for a fair length of time for copyright protection -- say, 7 years. After that, write something else fer chrissakes. Or go on concert tours.

BTW, it was Google News that pointed me to articles about Microsoft's claims.

Comments

[Kevin]

Quite frankly, you are wrong on many accounts. Google relies on proprietary code for most of its products. That code is copyrighted. They rely on trademarks for their properties. They rely on patents for their services.

They are, however, fair use proponents. I encourage you to peruse my sit for more information.

[Richard Brandt]

You're right, Google does rely on intellectual property protection. But I assert that they disagree with the current structure of copyright law. Chief counsel has said "There are some areas where we have legitimate disagreements with others. Copyrights is one of those areas."

I'll check out your site.