As a life-long Apple user (my first Apple was pre-Mac), I’ve definitely been one of those who demonized Microsoft. Today, I feel differently about that company. Why? Because, while I still think their operating systems are terrible for most users and can’t imagine buying a PC ever (though I will have to use Windows to take tests in law school), they are strong supporters of copyright and other intellectual property protections. They are even trying to reach the youth to educate them about copyright.
Google, on the other hand, is one of the worst companies when it comes to intellectual property rights. But it has felt like no one was saying it–like the emperor’s new clothes or something. Finally, someone with a strong media presence has said it: Jim Cramer of CNBC. While I’m not endorcing Mr. Cramer, a lot of people follow him and his advice, and so it is great that he is speaking out in this way. In a recent piece in the LA Times, there is this quote about Google:
“It’s just a parasite,” he says. “It doesn’t create content, it steals it, borrows it, shares it.”
Finally! Woo hoo!
Trouble is, of course, Google makes great tools (I, regretfully, use several myself) and is immensely popular. They make their products “friendly” and easy to use and (most importantly) mostly free to use (paid for by ads), so we easily forget or don’t even bother to ask about how they do it. As the old saying goes, we don’t want to see how the sausage is made.
But Google is arguably the biggest enemy to intellectual property rights out there. Their book scanning project alone threatens to destroy authors’ rights, but it is couched in the mantle of “freeing” knowledge. Everyone wants information to be free, right? That’s their argument, and on the surface it sounds great! But the reality is that all this will do is shift how/where the money goes. And the artist/author gets screwed.
Where the artist (author, etc.) now gets paid a bit for each book sold (staying with the book example), Google will eliminate a huge portion of books sales, offering the material for free to consumers (readers) online (so far–the future could include more portable reader-devices of some sort) and making money on the ads it sells which accompany the material. They will keyword (I bet) the texts so that, for example, when you read about Ford Prefect in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, you will get a Ford Motors ad. The author/artist will get bupkis, or maybe some one-time payment, but Google will get paid for every ad on every page of every text, over and over.
Google is one of the backers of the Orphan Works bills. They are also trying to argue “fair use” as a much broader thing than it (arguably) is. They are trying to break down copyright and IP law wherever they can WHEN IT HELPS THEIR BUSINESS.
And they are amazing at how they spin it “for the good of the people” and “freeing” etc.
My point? Well, it’s only that we need to look deeper and longer at things that seems good (or bad) on the surface. Sometimes the things we think are bad aren’t and the things we think are good are terrible. Sometimes we have to sacrifice the ease of, say, using GoogleMaps to protect our long-term interests (protecting IP rights) now and in the future.
Absolutely right! But unfortunately IP isn’t the only thing Google seems hell bent on undermining. I would argue that bringing down the entire capitalist system in general is what Google has its sights set on in the long run. To Google products and services have no value to people… only information has value. Would you have this blog (unique content) if it was not for Google? Yet the also seem intent on undermining the rights of creators of information. So who actually benefits? Only Google… thats it.
Regarding the book scanning project: to Google’s credit, they don’t allow you to read the entire book, though you can search through sections of it. This means that as a customer, I can quickly identify which books talk about what I need to know and then head over to my favorite bookshop to buy them — instead of not buying any books at all because I don’t want to spend hundreds of dollars to figure out which are relevant to some obscure topic. Testifying to the efficacy of a fully-searchable online book as a sales tool is that it’s also in use at Amazon.com. Yeah, that’s right–the world’s biggest bookseller with more experience than anyone else in optimizing the book-sales process did the research and figured out that letting people search through the whole book and read parts of it online made _more_ money for them (and in turn the author) than keeping it off the web.
In general, though, you’re correct. Google’s business model depends on their engine being able to search through content more efficiently than anyone else and/or being able to search through more content than anyone else. It’s therefore to their benefit when content of any sort becomes freely available online, as they can start indexing it and using it to make Google more relevant to the information consumer.
@Chad: Google is most certainly not interested in seeing the fall of capitalism. The AdWords/AdSense system that brings in the vast majority of Google’s revenue is a superb example of a free market system. They’ve done a very good job of designing a system where payment is indeed in accordance with productivity: the advertiser does not pay and Google does not earn when an ad is not helping the advertiser make money. They’ve even made a considerable effort to prevent information-arbitrage opportunities where experienced market participants gain an advantage due to their knowledge of high-performing keyword terms.
And that’s the _real_ problem with Google, from the photographer’s perspective. Google is or will be a major force towards eliminating the barriers-to-entry that have kept photography prices high. Why? Because being a “professional photographer” in the eyes of Google doesn’t require anything more than a couple of bucks for an AdWords account, a website that ranks highly for whatever reason, or an image library open to Google Image Search. Whereas you pretty much had to go through Getty or an agency that knew what the CODB was and knew what a fair price was, an inexperienced image buyer will now probably start with Google and end up who knows where.
(If you think about it from that perspective, it’s not Google that’s against capitalism. It’s photographers, with all their talk of undercutting neighbors and charging too little…)
Eric: Google is currently limiting the amount of readable material because the case is being litigated and they are clearly restricted by current copyright laws. They *want* to make it so that books can be read in their entirety. This is more about their “library” project which is different from the Book Search one I think you are referring to. See here for more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books_Library_Project
Oh, and I totally agree with the Google and capitalism thing–the last thing they want is to kill capitalism as they stand to make too much money in that system. They do, however, spin their publicity to make it sound like they want “free” and “open” and “sharing” to rule the market, but that is just their cover. They want to make money…and lots of it.
-Leslie
If I’m not mistaken, isn’t Bill Gates also behind the Orphan Works Bill? Also, while Microsoft might now have a program that educates youth about IP, their ownership of Getty has significantly changed the stock photography business and not for the better.
Sandra: You need to check your facts. Gates is connected to Corbis, not Getty, and while the Microsoft council has said that the Orphan Works issue needs to be addressed, I have not seen any factual evidence to indicate that Gates is “behind” either of the current bills. And they are right–OW DOES need to be addressed–there are serious problems there that need to be fixed. Whether either of the current bills are the appropriate fix, well, that’s debatable.
But please, don’t buy into the hype. There is a hell of a lot of totally inaccurate info out there.
-Leslie
In contrast of your book example, there’s Baen Publishing. ( http://www.baen.com/ )
Baen releases the text of all their books in screen format as teaser material. Every hardback of David Weber’s Honor Harrington series includes a DVD with the complete text of every novel previously produced in that series.
Their marketing strategy is based on a belief in the value of the book itself. People want to hold them in their hands, they don’t want to stare at a screen. The people who steal the content wouldn’t have bought the book anyway.
There format has certainly worked for at least one author. David Weber’s book sales have skyrocketed, and he went from a relative unknown, to a genre-specific celebrity in a very short period of time.
Now, I don’t think this model is a good argument for the image industry, where the standard output IS digital, but it’s an interesting comparison to your stance, and I’d be interested in your response to them.