March 6, 2007 1:49 PM PST
Microsoft chastises Google on copyrights
- Related Stories
-
Murdoch the latest media mogul to take on YouTube
February 8, 2007 -
Google reveals payment deal with AP
August 3, 2006 -
Nude-photo site wins injunction against Google
February 21, 2006 -
Google's battle over library books
October 24, 2005 -
Supreme Court rules against file swapping
June 27, 2005 -
Agence France Presse sues Google over news site
March 18, 2005 -
Google wins in trademark suit with Geico
December 15, 2004 -
Google cache raises copyright concerns
July 9, 2003
Now Microsoft, which is increasingly competing with Google in business software and other areas, is piling on its rival as well.
Thomas Rubin, Microsoft's associate general counsel, told an audience of book publishers on Tuesday that Google "systematically violates copyright" law. Rubin singled out Google Book Search and YouTube for specific criticism, saying the services take a "cavalier approach to copyright."
The audience was an unusually receptive one: the Association of American Publishers, which filed a lawsuit against Google in October 2005 claiming that the search giant violated copyright law by scanning and distributing books protected under copyright law. A trial will not take place before next year.
Google's very business model invites clashes over copyright, of course. As the company becomes more deeply interested in books and video, and expands its search domain beyond Web pages, it has found itself increasingly at odds with established content industries. In addition, its keyword advertising has antagonized some trademark holders, and last month drew allegations of profiting from movie piracy.
So far, Google's intellectual property foes have been scattered throughout industries and without any prominent allies among technology companies. Their complaints about the limits of copyright law being stretched or exceeded have attracted more derision than applause in Silicon Valley. And Google has been winning far more of its legal battles over intellectual property than it has lost.
What Rubin's speech seemed designed to do was compile and air many of the complaints about Google and copyright law--a criticism that has some additional heft because Microsoft itself operates the MSN.com search engine and benefits from legal flexibility when capturing and indexing Web content.
"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," Rubin said. "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. In doing so, it undermines critical incentives to create."
That kind of pointed attack may help to erect the scaffolding for a kind of anti-Google coalition. In addition to the book publishers and the Authors Guild, there's Agence France-Presse and its lawsuit over Google News, and Perfect 10 and its allegations over Google indexing its adult images. The American Society of Media Photographers, the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, and the National Music Publishers Association have already filed friend-of-the-court briefs before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals--siding with the adult photo site and against Google. (Listen to CNET News.com's podcast discussing whether Congress will take aim at video-swapping sites.)
What's remarkable is that the RIAA and MPAA had taken those positions in mid-2006, months before Google acquired YouTube and the vast numbers of video clips of dubious legality that appear on the service. Since then, big media companies as varied as News Corp. and NBC Universal have taken swings at YouTube for not taking adequate steps to block pirated content. In February, Viacom demanded that YouTube remove pirated clips from properties including MTV, Comedy Central, and VH-1.
For its part, Google denies any wrongdoing. The company circulated a statement on Tuesday from David Drummond, its chief legal officer, that said: "The goal of search engines, and of products like Google Book Search and YouTube, is to help users find information from content producers of every size. We do this by complying with international copyright laws, and the result has been more exposure and in many cases more revenue for authors, publishers and producers of content."
This week's potshots at Google over copyright invites comparisons to Microsoft's criticism of free software six years ago, which led company co-founder Bill Gates to characterize the GPL (the GNU General Public License) as having a "Pac-Man-like nature" that consumes other software. Other Microsoft efforts called GPL-released software "viral," and the so-called Halloween documents warned that Linux poses a serious threat to Windows' hegemony.
Yeah right!
Making the competition look bad doesn't make Microsoft look good. This is just a way for them to try and improve their dismal image. But it doesn't work for me.
Microsoft's motto is still "Do Evil".
xbox - copied playstation
msn messenger - copied icq
msn search - copied google
internet explorer - copied netscape
on and on ...
Give me a effin break MS! Oh, MS and their release of Vista has to be their weakest marketing effort to date!!!!!
Hopefully Google will market their office apps a little more and then we can all look forward to Bill Gates as a bad fading memory.
republican party
I don't see a lot of people raving about how great the Zune's crippled WiFi is or how great it is that Vista denies you the ability to watch legally purchased HD content if it doesn't like your hardware. I also don't see people happy about the fact Microsoft broke comptability with their Play For Sure brand for the Zune, so people have to re-buy all there music or spend time burn and ripping. As far as the three day limit on songs, there is plenty of content who's license forbids wrapping it in DRM (Podcast under Creative Commons licenses for example). The only thing DRM does is annoy the people who were honest and bought the content. The people who pirated it don't have to deal with arbitrary restrictions that go far beyond what copyright requires.
MicroSoft has chosen to make it dificult for users to legally use content in the public domain without repaying for the privilege again and again. In so it is depriving the public of what belongs to the public (and transfering public wealth into it's own and its partners deep pockets).
The first paragraph in this post is derived from MS's attorney's statement. I believe it is my fair use right to paraphrase his statement in this way. However if I am wrong, please erase the paragraph and replace it by a notice that copyright protected content was removed. Also please notify me about how I may obtain explicit permision for this derived work from the copyrighted content (presumably quoting it in a Cnet article means Cnet was able to obtain permision to quote) and how much it would cost me in payment to the copyright owner to purchase my right to free speech which obviously is becoming less important than the right of a copyright owner to prevent publishing of what is their's and what is not their's.
Kripes....open WINDOWS media player....and what is at the top?....duhhhh......RIP CD!!!
hmmm...isnt that taking advantage of the recording industry?....MS has seen fit to tell me I can copy a cd with one click....yet...slaps google for letting people put clips on their site and letting people watch them...for free....hmmmm
I have a clip on YouTube...and I DONT WANT TO BE PAID!!....that keeps my amateur standing....
Sorry microsoft.....but maybe google has the money to shove your accusations up your...uh...err....biass...
It's like the kettle calling the pot black!!!
What are the ulterior motives?
For Microsoft to hold onto it's 15-year dominance... that's it... nothing more... so why write two articles about the same crap.
Crap is crap is crap... least of all... it doesn't need to be reported TWICE!!!
That makes it double-crap!!! (* GRIN *)
Walt
- Mansons Decry J Dahmer's Table Manners !
-
by Sumatra-Bosch
March 11, 2007 7:55 AM PDT
- Sure, it would be interesting if mass murderers did condemn a cannibal's table manners, but it wouldn't be news.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 27 Comments >>MSFT search model is little different. They know their search products are pathetic, useless imitations of Google's so all that is left to them is to play legal angles.
Remember the MSFT rule. Never compete. Attack the competition by any means other than the marketplace. Establish a bottleneck MSFT's controls. Rake in the money.
In the case of Google, MSFT is having fantasies about leveraging the publishing industry against Google. While the publishers may be sympathetic, they know that whatever Google is doing to them is probably a European vacation compared to what MSFT has in mind for them.
Yes, like having Charles Manson suggest you and he take care of this Dahmer psycho before he eats you. . .