Book Publisher Has No Idea How Google Works But Pretty Sure It Could End Piracy If It Tried

from the just-do-the-thing!-THE-THING!-how-much-more-clear-do-I-need-to-be?!?! dept

Tue, Dec 29th 2015 9:33am — Tim Cushing

Here's the stupidest thing on piracy you're going to read today. Or this month. Maybe even this whole holiday season. Rudy Shur, of Square One Publishers, has a problem with piracy, which he thinks is actually a problem with Google.

After being contacted by Google Play with an offer to join the team, Shur took it upon himself to fire off an angry email in response. That would have been fine, but he somehow convinced Publisher's Weekly to print both the letter and some additional commentary. Presumably, his position at a publishing house outweighed Publisher Weekly's better judgment, because everything about his email/commentary is not just wrong, but breathtakingly so.

After turning down the offer to join Google Play (Shur's previous participation hadn't really shown it to be an advantageous relationship), Shur decided to play internet detective. Starting with this paragraph, Shur's arguments head downhill… then off a cliff… then burst into flames… then the flaming wreckage slides down another hill and off another cliff. (h/t The Digital Reader)

[W]e did discover, however, was that Google has no problem allowing other e-book websites to illegally offer a number of our e-book titles, either free or at reduced rates, to anyone on the Internet.

There's a huge difference between "allowing" and "things that happen concurrently with Google's existence." Shur cannot recognize this difference, which is why he's so shocked Google won't immediately fix it.

When we alerted Google, all we got back was an email telling us that Google has no responsibility and that it is up to us to contact these sites to tell them to stop giving away or selling our titles.

Yep, it's called the DMCA process. It's been in all the papers. DMCA notices are issued to websites hosting the pirated material. Google also delists search results in response to DMCA notices. What never happens is Google arbitrarily delisting sites just because someone notices piracy exists. Google is also not "The Internet" and lacks the power to shut down websites it doesn't own. It is not Google's job to police the web for infringement, no more than it's Yahoo's or Microsoft's.

Undeterred by this illogical conundrum, Shur heads into the "inadvertently comic analogy" territory previously reserved for Thomas Friedman.

Let me ask you something. If a store sells knockoff designer handbags, why is it okay for police to come in, confiscate the illegal merchandise, and arrest and fine the store owners? It’s because the store is profiting from the sales of these illegal goods, in the same way Google can increase its advertising rates because these illegal sites increase the number of users it attracts.

No, it's because the store is selling infringing goods. The store has infringing goods on the premises. It's not because the store is "profiting." It's because of what it's doing and what the store contains. A better analogy would be to point out that cops can't raid a business directory company just because it prints out pages that might contain names and addresses of stores selling illicit goods.

The fact that Google advertises on its own search results pages is beside the point. Ads will be served whether or not "pirate sites" show up in the search results. The ads are not tied to illegal activity. Whether or not some ads are "more profitable" (even if Shur's postulation is true) doesn't matter.

And that's not even the worst part of that paragraph. Shur actually is trying to claim that piracy attracts more people to Google's search engine. Normally, people (misguided people) try to argue that Google directs people to pirate sites. Shur reverses this theory and comes out looking even worse than many who share his viewpoint that Google should be in charge of stamping out infringement.

So far, Shur has been unable to be even technically correct. Now, he attempts to be morally correct.

As a long-time publisher, I’ve been reasonably successful in this business; I also have always attempted to do everything right. That approach has allowed me to work with such companies and groups as Macy’s, the National Science Foundation, Corning Inc., and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, to mention just a few. If Google wants to really work with Square One, I would first ask Google to do the right thing as well. But based on the fact that it would rather hide behind the doctrine of noncensorship, Google doing the right thing doesn’t seem likely.

Whatever. Taking the moral high ground is a terrible way to make a point. It's a way to make a point badly, but it's only going to resonate with those who sincerely believe companies are morally obligated to do whatever any aggrieved party feels they should. It's a non-starter, and it only serves to highlight the weakness of the surrounding arguments.

That's the original flaming wreckage -- all included in Shur's email to Google. What follows is Shur's successful attempt to shove his burning, demolished credibility off another cliff.

I wonder how the good people at Google would feel if one of their patented parts or products were to be knocked off and either given away free or incorporated into a cheaper copycat item. Judging from the Wikipedia entry “Google Litigation,” it seems that the company has no problem going after those it has judged as infringing its patents. I wonder if any of the companies it has sued thought of initially responding to Google by sending the following email:

Since we have nothing to do with the actual infringement of your product, we share no responsibility in making it available to the public. Rather, we advise you to take the matter up with the engineering firm that makes the offending part. In the meantime, we will continue to sell the product until the firm stops offering it to us.

To make this analogy work… well, actually you can't. You just cannot make this work.

All the litigation Shur "cites" (with a Wikipedia reference and no link) is defensive litigation. Very little of it has to do with patents. Google isn't filing lawsuits alleging IP infringement. Google is almost always the defendant, especially in patent cases.

So, Shur's analogy is completely dismantled by the very reference he cites in support of it. even before he tries extending it with his "what if" scenario. Even if we play by Shur's rules, the analogy still doesn't hold. The scenario here -- when applied to Shur's "why won't Google shut down pirate sites" argument -- plays out like this:

Google sues YellowPages.com because a company listed in its pages is infringing on its patents. YP gets itself dismissed from the lawsuit by pointing out that it has nothing to do with the alleged infringement. That's Shur's situation applied to his stupid analogy. And it puts him right back at square one, with Google telling him to contact the sites hosting infringing material, rather than Google, if he wants the content taken down.

This makes his attempt to pound the message home that much more pathetic.

Unfortunately for the publishing industry, under Google’s sense of fairness, copyright protection is not equal to patent protection.

Or, more accurately, a whole bunch of people think Google owes them something, especially when IP is involved. Shur thinks Google owes him a piracy-free ebook environment. In support of his theory, he has all these analogies that only make sense to others with the same mindset -- people who believe Google owns the internet and should always be policing it from pirated goods. (Or terrorist content, people saying mean things, etc.)

And finally, A CALL TO ARMS!

It is highly doubtful that the email response I sent to the Google representative is going to make Google rethink its policies, but if enough of us raise our voices loud enough, maybe someone at Google will sit up and take notice.

No offense, Shur, but maybe let someone else -- someone who actually understands the things they're talking about -- lead the charge. You can't win if you don't even know what game you're playing.

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

Filed Under: copyright, piracy, rudy shur, search
Companies: google

53 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 7:47am

Boy does this guy ever make a great argument for why we need to completely dump IP!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Violynne (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 8:47am

As a long-time publisher, I’ve been reasonably successful in this business; I also have always attempted to do everything right.
Shur you did.

The fact that, as a publisher, you raped the hell out of authors signed by your business isn't an accurate justification of "successful". All it means is you can legally fuck over your clients because if they refuse, you don't sign them.

In our society, that's call blackmail, asshole.

So your "attempt" translates to "I've seen other publishers get rich off the backs of others, so perhaps I will too."

Karma. Maybe it be delivered one e-book at a time, asshole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
beech, 29 Dec 2015 @ 9:50am

what a world
"hide behind the doctrine of noncensorship"

A publisher arguing FOR censorship? What a strange world we live in...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 9:52am

Re: what a world
You must use all your tools to fight those evil windmills!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 9:54am

Somebody should introduce Yahoo, Bing and others to this guy. And record his head exploding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John85851 (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 10:05am

All of Publisher's Weekly is now invalidated
It's all well and good that Tim can write a scathing essay like this, but the fact still stands that Publisher's Weekly thought this guy's article was so good that they published it, without any regard to the facts or how printing something like this could damage their reputation.
Wasn't there an editor (or 2 or 3) that said "wait a second, that's not how Google works" and told the guy to re-write his paper?

If this guy's article is the type of quality articles published in Publisher's Weekly, I doubt the validity of anything else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 10:08am

"You can't win if you don't even know what game you're playing"

If only this were true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 10:10am

I wonder if this guy is even aware that internet piracy predates Google?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 10:11am

Re:
Sounds like he doesn't even know the internet predates Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 10:18am

Actually for publishers I think his idea is great!

Have Google delist every publication on the internet and see how long it is before both publishers as well as the public has a problem with the internet not working.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ryunosuke, 29 Dec 2015 @ 10:20am

"After turning down the offer to join Google Play (Shur's previous participation hadn't really shown it to be an advantageous relationship), Shur decided to play internet detective. Starting with this paragraph, Shur's arguments head downhill… then off a cliff… then burst into flames… then the flaming wreckage slides down another hill and off another cliff. (h/t The Digital Reader)"

I immediately thought of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBpw1sdFu2w (spoilers, Groundhog Day)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 10:39am

Re:
You forgot the sarcasm flag :)

The internet was designed to be de-centralized. Google could disappear tomorrow and the internet - and all it's contents - would still exist. You would have to remember (or guess) web addresses, or search via Ask, Bing, DuckDuckGo, Dogpile, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 10:47am

Re: All of Publisher's Weekly is now invalidated
To be fair, if I were an editor, I'd publish it. The article parodies itself and makes the author looks like an ignorant idiot. I'd just make sure the article has a disclaimer that it's the opinion of the author only. It's in the opinion section of the website, so that's good enough for me. Why stop a fool from making a further fool out of himself when it gets you pageviews?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:00am

Re:
I don't even think he gets to that lofty plateau. He makes no coherent argument or even any sense.
You know it's going to be good when they start off with "Google=Internet", but this guy really does do off a cliff twice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:02am

Re: what a world
I thought the same. And right when he's arguing from a moral standpoint, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:03am

Re:
Hey, it worked in Spain, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Roger Strong (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:04am

By Rudy Shur's logic, any real-life crimes detailed in books published by Square One Publishers would make Shur responsible for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:11am

Dear Rudy Shur,
Dear Rudy Shur,

Have you heard of ISIS and terrorists? Were you aware that murderers exist right here within our own borders?

Yes?

How can you ALLOW these to exist? Why haven't you put a stop to it?

Patiently awaiting your response.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DannyB (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:19am

Re: All of Publisher's Weekly is now invalidated
Maybe Publisher's Weekly sincerely and strongly agrees with Rudy Shur.

One could reasonably infer such from their publishing of it.

Maybe they publish this to UPHOLD their reputation rather than invalidate it. Maybe the reputation they want is not the reputation we would think that they want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:23am

For what publishing house does he work? Authors need to know so they don't get stuck with a publisher who would rather argue (incorrectly and poorly) about petty viewpoints than get the best distribution deals for their authors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:32am

Re: Dear Rudy Shur,
Don't be too hard on him, he controls everything published by his company and thinks that Google can do the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:49am

I'd like to know....
who still uses Google and other similar search sites when looking for "evaluation" copies of books and other media? Everyone I know just goes straight to the torrent sources...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rick, 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:51am

I see that PW disabled and deleted comments on the article within the past hour.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:53am

Re:
First paragraph:

> Rudy Shur, of Square One Publishers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 12:01pm

He owes google
"When we alerted Google, all we got back was an email telling us that Google has no responsibility and that it is up to us to contact these sites to tell them to stop giving away or selling our titles."

I'm surprised Google didn't send him an invoice for the computing time and electricity used in creating the handy list of sites selling 'his' books. Talk about biting the hand that feeds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 12:07pm

Re:
Did you write the law book that Rudy Shur used to study?

It's not blackmail. It may be unfair the way that they contract with authors, but it is not illegal; and nothing is preventing those authors from publishing with another agency or forming their own publishing company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 12:24pm

fairness
Under Shurs sense of fairness, Apples are equal to Oranges...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 12:27pm

Someone needs to explain to this guy, that Google is to the internet what the Dewey Decimal System is to books. It just simply helps you look things up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 12:28pm

Re:
He's already met bing. Just in it's original form without the wrapper...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 1:36pm

Just what the world needs, more sucking of Google billionaire cock.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 1:43pm

"No offense"? I think you definitely meant offence there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 2:03pm

Re:
You mean publishers have naughty pictures of authors and threaten to publish unless authors sign unfavourable deals?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zem, 29 Dec 2015 @ 2:35pm

To borrow from a common phrase

Those who can write, those who cant publish.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 2:46pm

Re: Re:
HOW COULD YOU FORGET YAHOO LYCOS AND ALTAVISTA YOU MONSTER
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 3:02pm

"Google doing the right thing doesn’t seem likely."

Except they did do the right thing, they just didn't do the thing you demanded.
There is a difference.
If I hold you personally responsible for every man who sexually assaults a woman, you'd call me insane.
Yet you seek to hold Google responsible for the entirety of the internet.

The simple fact there are so many people in positions of "power" who deeply believe that Google is the internet keeps supporting my thought that power leads to a form of brain damage.

The law offers a recourse, but its hard so we need to make someone else do it for us. We sent 1000s of notices to Google but the content is still out there!!! It is Googles fault, not our fault for fundamentally misunderstanding basic concepts and expecting that everyone else needs to do the work to protect our rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 3:41pm

Re: what a world
A publisher arguing FOR censorship?

If it produces barriers to entry for his market, you bet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 3:43pm

Re: Re: Dear Rudy Shur,
Don't be too hard on him, he controls everything published by his company and thinks that Google can do the same.

They can, the problem is he thinks Google can control everything published on the internet by anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 3:45pm

Re:
The simple fact there are so many people in positions of "power" who deeply believe that Google is the internet keeps supporting my thought that power leads to a form of brain damage.

I think it's just that being really stupid doesn't preclude gaining power.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark Wing, 29 Dec 2015 @ 3:49pm

If Google won't build a wall around the pirates, then my friends, it's time to build a wall around Google.

Hah! Let's see you run those database queries through concrete 5 feet thick!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 4:08pm

Re: Re:
With all the published ebooks missing would go manuals for how to do, government documents, yada, yada, yada. The ebook market cratering would be a minor nuisance compared to the rest of it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 4:08pm

Re: Re:
I think it's that it takes a certain type of person to want to be in control of others, and that type of person just doesn't put much stake in understanding things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 4:12pm

Re: I'd like to know....
This is a point I've made many times. Blocking the search engine findings only effects the clueless. Those that are clueless, it only takes a few minutes to get them straightened out, if they just ask the question of 'how'.

Even if all the IP owners got their wish of eliminating the search engines from the internet, the move still does not make any serious sense. Before the internet was the sneaker net. I'm still waiting on finding out how they propose to find the IP of one of them on the sneaker net.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 5:18pm

Re:
Have a DMCA vote on me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Get off my cyber-lawn! (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 10:27pm

If a store is doling knockoff handbags
You go after that store. NOT the newspaper or phone book the store advertised in!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:09pm

Re: Re:
You'd think the stupid would have a hard time amassing power, in my mind it is much more likely that when they get power they start focusing on what they can use their power to do without considering if its a good idea or makes any sense. I can so I do!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2015 @ 12:16am

Um??
How is Google going to stop pirates on a raft?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2015 @ 1:17am

I dont know how rockets work
But I'm sure NASA can get people Mars next year if they tried.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 30 Dec 2015 @ 8:45am

Letter from Google...
Dear internet,

Please stop selling infringing copyrighted material. We mean it! A publisher is getting very upset. If you do not comply we will shut you off completely.

Sincerely,

Google

P.S. Get off my lawn.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 30 Dec 2015 @ 10:01am

You know nothing Rudy Shur about nowadays world, that is to say technology
[ link to this | view in thread ]
balanced, 30 Dec 2015 @ 10:23am

Re:
Are you speaking with actual knowledge of this publisher's dealings or just guessing from a stereotype?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dukrugger (profile), 30 Dec 2015 @ 4:49pm

How's this guy not in the congress yet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Jul 2016 @ 4:35am

I agree with you. The author who trashes Rudy Shur truly is missing the sincere support of Mr. Shur to writers and instead of trashing him could have suggested points he could have made better. Piracy is such a hardship for writers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 18 Jul 2016 @ 6:51am

Re: I agree with you. The author who trashes Rudy Shur truly is missing the sincere support of Mr. Shur to writers and instead of trashing him could have suggested points he could have made better. Piracy is such a hardship for writers.
I agree with you.

It doesn't sound like you do, because he's talking about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilting_at_windmills

Piracy is such a hardship for writers.

Lack of sales is a hardship, but don't assume that's due to piracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]