Microsoft Launches Policy Offensive Against Google

[Hurmoth]

Continuing an extraordinary public relations campaign whose aim appears to be to position it as the champion of individuals' and publishers' rights in the information age, Microsoft today plans to blast Google in a public forum for having built its business model around what it calls a "systematic infringement of copyrights."

This morning, Microsoft released the prepared text of comments its associate general counsel, Thomas Rubin, plans to make later today in New York before a meeting of the Association of American Publishers. Along with it, the company released one of those prepared Q&As with Rubin, which the company puts forth in the opening stages of a major software strategy shift or policy initiative.

In Rubin's speech later today, he will put forth the proposition that society today finds itself at a crossroads. "What path will we as a society choose in making the world's books and publications available online?" he plans to ask. "Will we choose a path that nourishes creativity and innovation over the long term and that preserves incentives for authors to offer their best works online? Or will we choose a path that encourages companies simply to 'take' the works of others, without any regard for copyright or the impact of their actions on authors and publishers too?"

The speech will make mention of three Microsoft beta programs which will not be news to many publishers in the audience: its library archive search program, now being called Live Search Academic, which enables individuals to peruse the collected works from major libraries and institutions whose copyrights have often long since expired; the New York Times reader program, which presents a replica of the daily newspaper's precise contents on-screen; and the British Library's "Turning the Pages 2.0," which makes use of the new Windows Presentation Foundation for delivering rich content crafted around selected works, such as the notebooks of da Vinci.

But then, Rubin adopts a familiar sounding "good vs. evil" approach, and in this case the terrorists are Google Book Search, and the victims are the individuals whose incentive to create new content will be squashed in the process, Rubin argues.

"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," he reminds the audience. "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 [AAP President and former Colorado congresswoman] 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."'

Rubin will likely be speaking to a guaranteed supportive audience. The AAP sued Google in October 2005 after the company had announced the formation of its book search policy, in which publishers or rights holders who don't want to see their works indexed and presented for free - with accompanying ads - could "opt out" by contacting Google directly. Since then, the AAP has been a vocal opponent of Google's plans, speaking out last year when a university library chose to "opt in," apparently acting on behalf of the thousands of rights holders whose works belong to that library.

"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," states Rubin's planned remarks to the AAP. "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. In doing so, it undermines critical incentives to create."

The current version of Google Book Search's database does include the full texts of books; however, search results will only include a few pages of scanned text, limiting the user to that narrow window.

As Google explains in its online sales brochure, "Users get a taste of your book - but only a taste. We scan the full text of your book because we want people to be able to search all its content. But users can only access a limited portion of any given book each month. They can also only browse two pages backward and forward from any page where their search term appeared."

The avenue for monetization that Google attempts to create is through sharing its revenues from advertising with the rights holder. "When a user views one of your book's scanned pages, our technology 'reads' that page and adds text ads for related products and services," states Google. "And when people click on these ads, Google pays you."

All of which seems well and good on the surface, Rubin goes on, but if Google truly does respect copyright, then why did it purchase YouTube?

"Anyone who visits YouTube...will immediately recognize that it follows a similar cavalier approach to copyright," states Rubin, firing a warning shot toward Microsoft's other chief competitor online. "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."

In his prepared Q&A remarks this morning, Microsoft's Rubin tells the interviewer, "All of us need to be open to adjusting our business models to add value for the book customer. The software industry, and especially Microsoft, has three decades of experience of having its IP threatened by the effects of cheap copying technology. We have thrived despite this, in part through strong support of IP, but also through adapting our products and business models and by taking different approaches. This same flexibility will be essential as we move into the brave new world of online books."

It's important to note that the name for the category of technology that Microsoft is actually trying to sell - rights management - appears no place in Rubin's prepared remarks.

News Source: BetaNews

[cosine]

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."

I love how they act like preventing copyrighted content on Youtube is just as simple as flipping a switch or something.

In terms of the book thing, whatever. I don't really care if it goes live or not, but I don't see what the fuss is either. It's not like people can just flip through the entire book. Seems pretty harmless to me, but hey, give idiots the smallest reason to take someone to court and they probably will.

[Omegatron]

Sad.. Microsoft will destroy Google and we'll forced to use that crap Live Search..

[Pallab]

A Rant about Microsoft's Anti-Google Rant

by David A. Utter

The groundwork for the massive attack on Google Book Search as orchestrated by Microsoft's executives and PR handlers conveniently ignores Microsoft's tactics and history.

Gosh, where to begin? The full text of Tom Rubin, Associate General Counsel for Copyright, Trademark and Trade Secrets, Microsoft Corporation, offers a good starting point. Keep in mind the content of his "opportunity to speak" about copyright and book scanning was conveniently leaked to a number of news outlets. His address to the Association of American Publishers, a friendly party to Microsoft's own book scanning endeavors, criticizes Google in several places.

After touting the Microsoft Library program, restricted to public domain or out-of-copyright works, not to mention the New York Times Reader, he tosses in a mention of the Da Vinci notebook exhibit presented online by the British Library and Bill Gates. It's enough to make you wonder why Google would threaten not just authors and publishers, but everyone who's ever created some form of art. Rubin brings out the chestnut of Google indexing books, including the works of several libraries that willingly agreed to participate in their Book Search.

When Google started scanning works in and out of copyright, Rubin said, "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." But fair use doctrines do exist, and Google and Microsoft both enjoy their privileges every day when their search engines index online content. Did Steve Ballmer call up every webmaster and blogger when MSN/Windows Live bots hit their sites? Of course not, and it would be ludicrous to suggest he do so because fair use protects that usage.

Every search company that has ever tried to address the issue of finding content has benefited from that. With a lot of content in books that people might not ever see, indexing them makes sense from an informational standpoint. If someone made a point in a 1957 work that would support someone's research in 2007, why should it be nigh-impossible to find? Rubin continues the anti-Google verbiage, including a little cheap shot over Google's ad dealings with some websites that offered pirated movies. He also brought YouTube into the discussion, claiming it demonstrated Google's inability to protect copyright.

One question: can Rubin or any of the other Microsoft executives patting themselves on the back over their fawning little speech identify a single instance of someone assembling a whole work out of Google Book Search, and copying and distributing it? Waiting. Still waiting. May as well stop waiting, really. Rubin's got a better chance at leafing through Da Vinci's notebooks than he does of finding where this has happened.

Back to the cheap shot. When it comes to appropriating someone else's work for profit, Microsoft has built quite a reputation for itself. They have been forced to settle lawsuits and otherwise be held to account for their grifting. How about Microsoft tucking Kerberos into Windows NT, then tweaking it so that other Kerberos clients, as in non-Windows ones, couldn't access it? How about that little patent infringement deal that found, by the way, Microsoft had incorporated data-linking technology it did not own, but profited handsomely from, into Office for several years?

How about co-opting a nifty feature for Visual Studio that an academic had created, without crediting said creator? Microsoft would have gotten away with patenting it as theirs had it not become publicized. Authors and publishers, Microsoft has a long history. Before you wholeheartedly commit yours to Microsoft, learn more about theirs.