Microsoft has told the Association of American Publishers that Google cannot be trusted to protect the copyright of books it is scanning as part of Google Book Search. 

Speaking at the Association of American Publishers Annual Meeting in New York, Thomas C. Rubin, Associate General Counsel for Copyright, Trademark and Trade Secrets at Microsoft, questioned Google’s longer term business model for Google Book Search.

“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. 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 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.’”

He also attacked Google for scanning books without the permission of the copyright holder:

“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.”

He then pointed out that Microsoft’s very own book search programs, Live Search Books and Live Search Academic, do seek the permission of the copyright holders before scanning books.

Rubin’s attack reached a climax when he said that Google could not be trusted with copyrighted content:

“In essence, Google is saying to you and to other copyright owners: ‘Trust us – you’re protected. We’ll keep the digital copies secure, we’ll only show snippets, we won’t harm you, we’ll promote you.’ But Google’s track record of protecting copyrights in other parts of its business is weak at best. Anyone who visits YouTube, which Google purchased last year, will immediately recognize that it follows a similar cavalier approach to copyright.”

Ruben pointed at allegations that Google had sold advertising around keywords linked to pirate software as another reason why Google could not be trusted:

“Microsoft was surprised to learn recently that Google employees have actively encouraged advertisers to build advertising programs around key words referring to pirated software, including pirated Microsoft software. And we weren’t the only victims – Google also encouraged the use of keywords and advertising text referring to illegal copies of music and movies. These actions bolstered websites dedicated to piracy and reportedly netted Google around $800,000 in advertising revenues from just four such pirate sites. These are not the actions of a company that has the interests of copyright owners as one of its priorities.”

The ferocity of Rubin’s attack on Google is quite astounding. The main thrust of his attack is not against what Google is doing at the moment, but at what it might do in the future.

Google doesn’t make the full text of copyrighted books that it scans available; it actually points people to links to buy the book that is being searched. As a published author, I would be really pleased if my books were being promoted in this way.

I find it a bit tedious that Microsoft, which is not exactly an angel itself, is so openly attacking the competition. If Google’s “fair use” is so flawed, the issue will, in due course, be decided by the courts. And there are different opinions about whether Google is actually infringing copyright anwyay. 

Clearly, Microsoft is agitated by Google, but I can’t help wondering whether the venom in Rubin’s attack comes from the fact that Google is so much better at search (in all its forms) than Microsoft. Windows Live Search anyone?

Related:

Entry was posted on Thursday, March 8th, 2007 at 11:31 am under Google, Legal, Microsoft.

Read more entries by John Pospisil.
Stumble It!