Microsoft Attacks Google On Copyright -- Statements Will Come Back To Haunt Microsoft
from the not-such-a-good-idea dept
The press is having a field day over the fact that a Microsoft lawyer is trashing Google's position on copyright. These weren't offhand statements made in passing either -- but a clear statement from the guy that was released to the press a day before he actually plans to make the speech. It's clearly an attack, but it's an incredibly poorly aimed one, and it's likely to come back to hurt Microsoft a lot more than it helps them. The attack is pretty typical of the various attacks on Google concerning copyright from other corners. It suggests that Google's book scanning project somehow violates copyright law and then in an odd tangent tries to link the copyright issues of Google Library with YouTube. There are a variety of problems with this, and you would think that a practicing lawyer would understand them. These arguments sound like they come from someone in marketing, with no actual understanding of either the law or the technology being discussed. While it's still being debated in court, there is pretty strong support suggesting that what Google is doing in its book project is completely legal. It really is no different than what Google (or, for that matter, Microsoft) does with the web: creating a huge index of the content to make it more easily accessible. If Google's book scanning project is found to violate copyright, then Microsoft may be in a lot of trouble as well, as it will effectively outlaw Microsoft's search engine also -- and with it, plenty of the benefit that the internet provides.Second, tying Google's book scanning project to YouTube makes absolutely no sense, and is clearly used just to get attention. The situations are completely different. In the book scanning project, it's Google putting the content up on the site. With YouTube, Google is simply acting as a platform. As a lawyer (especially one working for a tech company) you would think that he would understand that the law very clearly protects service providers from what its users do -- and for a good reason. I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't be at all happy if it were suddenly liable for every defamatory message sent using its Hotmail service. Yet, if Microsoft's lawyer is right that Google is liable for copyright infringement on YouTube, then certainly Microsoft is liable for defamation via Hotmail. This argument will come back to bite Microsoft at some point.
Overall, the speech really doesn't make much sense from Microsoft's standpoint. It's clearly a pre-meditated media attack on Google, who Microsoft sees as a major competitor. But the arguments are incredibly weak, and can be equally applied to Microsoft. It also ignores increasing evidence (as was predicted) that Google's book scanning project is actually helping to sell more books. So the whole situation reflects incredibly poorly on Microsoft. Microsoft does little to no damage to Google, because most people recognize the arguments are weakly argued and supported -- and then it opens itself up to problems in the future when it needs to defend these statements over its own actions. It's not at all clear why Microsoft would do it, but it's not in the company's best legal, marketing, business or technological interests.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Bitterness
They had big plans to leverage Windows into every middleman opportunity they could, and they ended up without a single middleman market.
Now they launch Vista, the middlemans operating system requiring encrypted pathways for all media, supporting HDDVD encryption, special new hardware..... Finally they will own the media distribution channel and the media companies will HAVE to take them seriously!
But Vista doesn't sell, nobody wants it, the DRM is already cracked, and HDDVD keys are broken.
They end up with nothing but a very overpriced OS requiring hardware that serves no purpose, and an extremely precarious position with their core products, Windows and Office under attack.
The best form of defense is attack and that's what he's trying here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bitterness
It's obvious that Microsoft views Google as a major competitor. Google has moved into their native land and is taking over, piece by piece. Google is now even beating Microsoft to new advancements, such as the recent acquisition of YouTube. They're superior to Microsoft in everything they do. It's not surprising at all for them to be attacking Google.
Instead of wasting time and money on bringing frivolous lawsuits such as this against Google, they need to revisit the drawing board and rethink their direction as a business. Instead of spreading themselves thin, as they are, trying to cover every major market imaginable - Computers, Gaming Consoles, Portable Music Devices - with substantial products that are clearly lacking in quality and features as the major competitors already in that market, they need to focus on what they primarily are - a computer software company.
Their recently released Windows Vista Operating System is considerably lacking, bringing into their system features and options that have been available in competitor's software for perhaps years. Not only that, but the software itself practically demands the end-user to upgrade their hardware. Vista is nothing more than an overpriced, pumped up version of Windows XP with new fancy eye-candy and a very, very annoying security system that functions illogically.
But yeah, is anyone really surprised by this news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bitterness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unsuccessful
Microsoft need to learn to use marketing to their advantage, rather than making ineffective advertising campaigns and then complaining when they don't work.
Maybe if Microsoft put a little effort into marketing instead of trying to take legal action against anything that could be remotely deemed a threat they might actually be able to make some decent sales. Microsoft have built themselves a bad reputation, and unless they start concentrating on themselves rather than trying to attack their competition they are going to keep that reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you can't innovate, litigate
Netscape went belly-up, largely of its own doings and Microsoft dodged a bullet.
Now Google is poised to make the same threat with its Google Apps and this time, Microsoft is too late to respond. Not that it would do much good because it appears unlikely that Google will self-destruct like Netscape did. Ironically, it was Microsoft's-own "dot-NET" initiative (central server apps and thin-client access) concept that Google implemented. Talk about hoist on one's petard!
So now, with all innovation options taken away, Microsoft has to resort to the only weapon it has left - its lawyers and litigation. Litigation - truly the last bastion of the creatively challenged company. If they can get Google tied up in court (even better if they can get the Feds to tie Google in court), they might again jump out of the way of the fatal projectile hurtling toward them.
Gates' biggest fear has always been that someone would do to Microsoft what they did to IBM - that is, some young, nimble, hungry company with no legacy to tie them down would unseat and overthrow the incumbent, behemoth tech-market leader. Looks like Gates may be finally fulfilling his own prophecy!
Et tu, Billy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on comparing apples to oranges
"Defamation" is a barely prosecutable crime that doesn't infringe upon the supposed earnings ability of someone else's work.
I completely support Google in their efforts to make the Internet the new Library and doing for books what they do for information and individual islands that are websites. And I applaud them for aggressively challenging the broadcast television model in a seemingly viable manner, however small the baby steps are.
THAT BEING SAID - the argument attempting to link the abuse of the Hotmail service to "defame" people (or an actually relevant problem with the service's use - the spamming) with Microsoft's attack on Google's YouTube and Library sites is asinine and shows a loose, if nonexistent grasp on logic and equivalence.
True, MS shouldn't throw stones. False, no one would get anywhere in a copyright case saying "yeah, I may have stolen your book but you "defamed me" and run a service that sent me spam"
If you're going to irrationally hate a corporation do so intelligently and with arguments that actually make sense. If you want to compare apples to oranges - at least acknowledge the two objects actually have no bearing on each other in terms of the argument and state up front you're holding a bitch session, not a factual discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google = M$ = Evil Empire
YouTube is exactly like Napster. And did you look into that deal? Very shady if you look at the back story and players. Oh and waht do you know...over 30% of that deal is set aside for lawsuits. Gee...think Google knew they were sitting on a pile of stolen goods? Yup.
As for the book publishing, that is horrible. If the copyright owners say okay, let them do it (Google or anyone else). Otherwise---no way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see Google as evil..
I think the way a company is view is much the same way a ruler of a country might be viewed. If you a good to your people and benevolent, you will be adored. If your a tyrant, you will be hated.
I for one will never buy M$ office again. There just isn't a reason to. Our office is also looking into abandoning it. If there were a practical alternative for Windows, I'm sure we would change OS too, but there just isn't yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google = M$ = Evil Empire
***I am not for Google or against. They are a corporation that wants to make money like any other. That "Do no evil" slogan is nice PR but I know that it all comes down to the almighty buck. As for MS I openly admit I am not a big fan but I don't think they are "evil" either.***
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh dear...
It would seem that MS is trying to prevent Google from doing with MS itself has been doing for years, using almost but not quite illegal tactics to become a dominate force in the industry.
Like comment #3 said part of the reason behind this arugment is that MS has spread itself very thin trying to put its hands in so many cookie jars (namely game consoles and portable media players) and not clearly dominating in any of them like the almost stranglehold they have on the software market.
Kinda reminds me of high school girls. When one is outdone by the other she won't just work harder/smarter she'll just spread rumors about the girl that outdid her.
But like comment #5 says drawing comparison between Google's book scanning and Hotmail seems odd. Infringment and deformation aren't related. Unless Mike was just pointing out the legal hypocracy of MS's statements?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like you guys really care...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Like you guys really care...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Micro$oft, the Sleeping Giant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Making Money Isn't Evil!
Microsoft, on the other hand, seems to operate off brute force. As someone mentioned already, they stopped making products that truly intrigue the user. Rather than appealing to customers and giving them good reason to upgrade to their new products, they shove a new OS in our faces and say, "Well, you better upgrade or you'll be behind." What they failed to realize is that people are not going to take it any longer. Heck, I am a prime example: I now run Ubuntu Linux. I've had enough of Windows.
Along these same lines (and because I noticed some game console debate), Sony decided to go overboard with the PS3 and then charge $600 all because they felt they had an oh-so-loyal PlayStation fan base. Now, PS3s are seen on shelves of retailers everywhere while the "doomed-to-fail" Wii is nowhere to be found.
Anyway, one thing I noticed about this particular Techdirt article: I didn't see much mention of the fact that Microsoft is indexing content no longer protected under copyright. Google indexes all content regardless. As long as Google does not make the full book content available to the public, they really are not doing anything wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oof
I hate typos. >_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missed the best point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Increasing Book Sales Does Not Justify Copyright I
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Increasing Book Sales Does Not Justify Infring
Let's say I release an award-winning book called Flagz. If some guy on the street posts huge banners advertising Flagz to draw attention but makes more money than me by selling candy bars, is he really guilty of copyright infringement? No one forced those people to buy candy bars. The guy is just really enthusiastic about Flagz and tells people about it... he just makes a profit from his candy bar sales.
I'm sure you're all going to take a poke at my analogy, but I hope you see my point. I personally would be grateful that someone else would promote my book! :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Increasing Book Sales Does Not Justify Inf
On a more big picture theme though, copyright law secures to the author certain exclusive rights for a limited term. Congress has already made the public policy decision regarding how long everyone else had to keep their hands off. It is up to the author to copy, distribute, make derivative works, etc. Society gets to do whatever they want with the work, but only after the copyright expires. Google is saying "we think it is good for society to be aware of this now, so we are going to copy". Seems to me that judgement has already been made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Increasing Book Sales Does Not Justify Copyrig
Even if we conclude that Google's book scanning project is, overall a good thing for society, that alone does not make it legal.
I would argue the opposite -- if we (meaning us as a society, or, in particular, the Supreme Court) conclude that Google's project is good for society, then I would argue any law that makes that project illegal, is itself an invalid law, and superseded by The Constitution.
If I, a state legislature, pass a law that says the police departments in my state can do searches and seizures that are disallowed by the Constitution, what happens? The whole mess goes to court and the "lower" jurisdictions law is ruled invalid.
Reading the Constitution, it specifically states that laws passed regarding limited-time monopoly rights for authors exist FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of "Promoting the Progress of the Arts and Sciences" -- Though IANAL, I'd argue any rational person could conclude then, that any law the prevents the Promotion of Progress is itself illegal. Ergo, under the Constitution, if something Google does with books DOES promote the progress (and what better way, in the words of the MafiAA's themselves, to promote progress than to put more money in creator's wallets -- though they don't really believe what they say, of course ... but that's another topic) then it is, by the highest law of the land's own definition, inherently legal.
That's a point that I think is often missed in these discussions -- copyright law that is written for the purpose of turning ideas into property should be illegal under the Constitution. Further, there is really no empirical evidence to support the fact that the totalitarian "IP" regimes we've now created actually DO ANYTHING to "Promote the Progress" -- We've never tried to have a modern society that operated in the absence of these laws, so we really don't know -- even at that, the anecdotal evidence indicates all of us, and also content creators, might well be better off WITHOUT them (eg, look at record sales from before Napster was created, during its heyday, and afterwards).
Though I've little doubt the truth of this will never penetrate our bought-and-owned-by-big-business government and court system, I believe MOST of copyright and patent law right now IS illegal under the Constitution, precisely BECAUSE it is hindering progress of the arts and sciences, rather than promoting it.
As some famous guy once said, (paraphrasing), "There's nothing more difficult than making a man understand something when his job depends on him not understanding it"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Increasing Book Sales Does Not Justify Cop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google (YouTube) might not be safe
According to recent statements, Google said it has or would have programs to keep protected material off YouTube. To not do so would violate the first requirement of the safe harbor law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft lawyers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apples, Oranges, and Competition
For those who agree with #11, and think "X-Box sales will save M$ from the gutter", the problem is not competitiveness, but the fact that M$ has any competition at all. They are not used to it. They don't remember the bad old day of DR-DOS. They get insecure and frightened when they don't own 99% of a given market. As long as they don't have a lock on the (insert favorite consumer electronic category here) expect them to behave irrationally, i.e. paying suits to spout off silliness.
"The more things change" : honestly, if Google were in the same position, they would probably behave comparably. Power corrupts, end of line.
Vista, reminds me of something....Titanic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=1075
I am of the opinion that anyone who has to proclaim their credentials prior to make a statement is needing something to prop their point of view on.
"I hold an MBA from New York University Stern School of Business. No MBA necessary, however, to grasp the American way, the American capitalist way that is: You get what you pay for!"
She is trying to say that making money off search results is somehow illegal..
I have to say I find this point to be one of the most absurd..
"Google's free ride is being challenged by content owners around the world. Google corporate AdWords customers are challenging Google's dominion over their own properties, protesting that Google has become a "toll keeper" on brand names."
I was under the impression it was Google's service and you could chose to use it or not. Would these people that feel Google is acting as a "toll keeper" prefer that Google not provide search results? Or are they only pissed cause Google doesn't reserve the AdWords they believe they are entitled to for them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could it be... ?
At the same time, IBM was the undisputed computer/technology leader and, as someone noted earlier, Microsoft unseated IBM. One might say that a young, upstart company aligned with the next generation of computing displaced the old, established company associated more with main frame and mini computers and older generation devices (typewriters, etc.).
Microsoft is now the old, established company that continues to promote what has become older generation technology (how old is the kernel for XP?) and is acting like it's being attacked. In fact, Google isn't attacking Microsoft. Google is just the next generation, rising out of computers and computing into information distribution and management. What if neither Microsoft or Google were doing anything "wrong," rather they're just living out a pattern in the life cycle of business, technology, and human history.
Microsoft certainly has the resources to improve it's core products, and to have a secure place in the business world, but nothing will stop evolution. Microsoft also has the resources to innovate and continue to be an active, growing part of evolution. It appears Microsoft has elected to try and dodge the central issue and to make a lot of smoke and noise in a futile attempt to delay the evolutionary process. That's a most unfortunate choice. The results of taking such a direction will likely include falling farther and farther behind in terms of technology and core competencies, bringing unwanted scrutiny and hardship upon itself, and coming to a bad end all the sooner.
Of course it's impossible to know if what's happening is an evolutionary pattern playing out since we're smack in the middle of it. No matter, it will be so interesting to continue to watch and participate in the development of computers, computing, the internet, information handling and whatever comes next. I wonder how this current situation will be regarded ten or twenty years from now, and I wonder what comes after Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good example is Cisco. They were everyone's favorite when they were flying high, stock price at $85. In one year their stock went to $14 and everyone wrote about how much they sucked. Funny thing is, they wrote how great the management was, how their strategy was great, how their acquisitions were working, then one year later, they were writing about how bad they were.
Did management change that much in 1 year? Did their strategy become bad in 1 year?
Nope, just peoples perceptions of them changed. Look at Jet Blue, everyone said how great they were, then 1 ice storm hit. Now everyone is talking about how much change they will have to go through, how much they have to fix. Its actually kind of funny, if you think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rome Empire Rise and Fell at Some Points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]