Microsoft
Attacks Google on Copyright
07. Mar. 2007
SEATTLE, MARCH 6:
Microsoft Corp is set to launch a blistering attack on rival Google Inc.
on Tuesday for what the software giant argues is the Web search leader's
"cavalier" approach to copyright protection. In remarks prepared for delivery
on Tuesday to the Association of American Publishers, the associate general
counsel of Microsoft, Thomas Rubin, argues that Google’s move into new
media markets has come at the expense of publishers of books, videos and
software.
In prepared remarks to be
delivered to the Association of American Publishers, Microsoft Associate
General Counsel Thomas Rubin argues that Google's move into new media markets
has come at the expense of publishers of books, videos and software.
The Microsoft attorney's
comments echo arguments at the heart of a 16-month-old copyright lawsuit
against Google brought by five major book publishers and organised by the
Association of American Publishers, an industry trade group.
"Companies that create no
content of their own, and make money solely on the backs of other people's
content, are raking in billions through advertising revenue and IPOs,"
says Rubin, who oversees copyright and trade secret law at Microsoft.
"Google takes the position
that everything may be freely copied unless the copyright owner notifies
Google and tells it to stop," said Rubin, noting that Microsoft takes the
position of seeking the copyright owner's consent before they copy.
Competition is heating up
this year between Google, the world's dominant provider of Web search services,
and software giant Microsoft, which recently entered the Web search market.
At the same time, Google
has recently expanded into the business software market with a set of Web-based
subscription services it sees as a major revenue generator which could
chip away at Microsoft's 15-year dominance of computer software.
Rubin invokes criticism that
Google has faced since its acquisition late last year of YouTube, which
has come under fire from several major media companies for allowing widespread
copyright infringement of professionally produced video.
"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,'" Rubin argues in his speech.
"But Google's track record
of protecting copyrights in other parts of its business is weak at best,"
he said.
David Drummond, Google's
senior vice president for corporate development and its chief legal officer,
said in response that Google works with more than 10,000 publishing partners
to make books searchable online and has recently added the BBC and NBA
basketball league as YouTube video partners.
"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."
Rubin cites anecdotal media
reports that a handful of Google sales people were caught encouraging advertisers
to capitalise on the demand for pirated software on the Web.
Rubin sides with publishers
in criticizing Google's ambitious plan to scan millions of published works
in the world's great libraries and make them available to consumers via
its Google Book Search system. He said by scanning copies of published
works without first seeking copyright holders' permission, Google opens
the door to massive infringement.
The attorney also says Google's
defense of 'fair use' is overly broad. "Concocting a novel "fair use" theory,
Google bestowed upon itself the unilateral right to make entire copies
of copyrighted books," Rubin argues.
Drummond replied: "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."
The publishers' lawsuit against
Google, filed in October 2005 in the US District for the Southern District
of New York, remains in the discovery process with no trial date set.
Microsoft's move bears parallels
to an attack five years ago by the Redmond, Washington-based company on
so-called "open source" software, which has emerged over the past decade
as the biggest alternative to Microsoft's Windows software franchise.
Microsoft argued then that
open source software jeopardized property rights and threatened to undermine
the software industry as it argued in favour of "shared source" software
that reinforced intellectual property rights.
|