RSSMicrosoft Launches Policy Offensive Against Google
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published March 6, 2007, 10:19 AM
Continuing an extraordinary public relations campaign whose aim appears to be to position it as the champion of individuals' and publishers' rights in the information age, Microsoft today plans to blast Google in a public forum for having built its business model around what it calls a "systematic infringement of copyrights."
This morning, Microsoft released the prepared text of comments its associate general counsel, Thomas Rubin, plans to make later today in New York before a meeting of the Association of American Publishers. Along with it, the company released one of those prepared Q&As with Rubin, which the company puts forth in the opening stages of a major software strategy shift or policy initiative.
In Rubin's speech later today, he will put forth the proposition that society today finds itself at a crossroads. "What path will we as a society choose in making the world's books and publications available online?" he plans to ask. "Will we choose a path that nourishes creativity and innovation over the long term and that preserves incentives for authors to offer their best works online? Or will we choose a path that encourages companies simply to 'take' the works of others, without any regard for copyright or the impact of their actions on authors and publishers too?"
The speech will make mention of three Microsoft beta programs which will not be news to many publishers in the audience: its library archive search program, now being called Live Search Academic, which enables individuals to peruse the collected works from major libraries and institutions whose copyrights have often long since expired; the New York Times reader program, which presents a replica of the daily newspaper's precise contents on-screen; and the British Library's "Turning the Pages 2.0," which makes use of the new Windows Presentation Foundation for delivering rich content crafted around selected works, such as the notebooks of da Vinci.
But then, Rubin adopts a familiar sounding "good vs. evil" approach, and in this case the terrorists are Google Book Search, and the victims are the individuals whose incentive to create new content will be squashed in the process, Rubin argues.
"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," he reminds the audience. "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 [AAP President and former Colorado congresswoman] 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."'
Rubin will likely be speaking to a guaranteed supportive audience. The AAP sued Google in October 2005 after the company had announced the formation of its book search policy, in which publishers or rights holders who don't want to see their works indexed and presented for free - with accompanying ads - could "opt out" by contacting Google directly. Since then, the AAP has been a vocal opponent of Google's plans, speaking out last year when a university library chose to "opt in," apparently acting on behalf of the thousands of rights holders whose works belong to that library.
"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," states Rubin's planned remarks to the AAP. "In my view, Google has chosen the wrong path for the longer term, because it systematically violates copyright and deprives authors and publishers of an important avenue for monetizing their works. In doing so, it undermines critical incentives to create."
The current version of Google Book Search's database does include the full texts of books; however, search results will only include a few pages of scanned text, limiting the user to that narrow window.
As Google explains in its online sales brochure, "Users get a taste of your book - but only a taste. We scan the full text of your book because we want people to be able to search all its content. But users can only access a limited portion of any given book each month. They can also only browse two pages backward and forward from any page where their search term appeared."
The avenue for monetization that Google attempts to create is through sharing its revenues from advertising with the rights holder. "When a user views one of your book's scanned pages, our technology 'reads' that page and adds text ads for related products and services," states Google. "And when people click on these ads, Google pays you."
All of which seems well and good on the surface, Rubin goes on, but if Google truly does respect copyright, then why did it purchase YouTube?
"Anyone who visits YouTube...will immediately recognize that it follows a similar cavalier approach to copyright," states Rubin, firing a warning shot toward Microsoft's other chief competitor online. "Since YouTube's inception, television companies, movie studios and record labels have all complained that the site knowingly tolerates piracy. In the face of YouTube's refusal to take any effective action, copyright owners have now been forced to resort to litigation. And Google has yet to come up with a plan to restrain the massive infringements on YouTube."
In his prepared Q&A remarks this morning, Microsoft's Rubin tells the interviewer, "All of us need to be open to adjusting our business models to add value for the book customer. The software industry, and especially Microsoft, has three decades of experience of having its IP threatened by the effects of cheap copying technology. We have thrived despite this, in part through strong support of IP, but also through adapting our products and business models and by taking different approaches. This same flexibility will be essential as we move into the brave new world of online books."
It's important to note that the name for the category of technology that Microsoft is actually trying to sell - rights management - appears no place in Rubin's prepared remarks.
Wauuuuuu, I wondered with this note!!!, I love Microsoft !!!
Score: 0
|MS: Good iniciative
Score: 0
|What Google is doing is just fine. Hell, it's up to the author. I really don't see what grounds MS has to whine about it.
*shrug*
Kids in a playground....
Score: 0
|i like the way MS tries to make you feel like you're doing something illegal if you don't do it their way. (as per 3rd par.)
dirty tactics.
Score: 0
|I think as long as the arthor doesn't get cheated out of their money, all works should be provided by any and all services throughout the net who are willing to display and sell the material/product.
The idea is to find a unique method to provide and sell the material that is suitable for the consumers specific requirements or convenience.
The challenge is can Microsoft do a better job of it than Google?
Or is Microsoft whining because they want to copy Googles system for lack of innovation?
Score: 0
|I think Microsoft is whining because they want to copy Googles System for lack of innovation.
Thats what this world is comming to... Plagerizm and stuff... this artical is just a witness of the information created by the more intelligant indistrey. Microsoft may have more products for sale and have a better income, but I do belive that there wanting to overcome the google indistrey. But hey.. this is just an opinion comming from a grade 9 Student in his 3rd Period class
Score: 0
|Microsoft and RIAA sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G! This is laughable coming from a company that created OXML and continues to use IE against its own consumers.
My question is, can I sue Microsoft for gaining access to my files via its anti-piracy checks? I did not use Microsoft software to create my linux and open source files, and if Microsoft accesses my computer in any way, then maybe I should sue them for trespassing? Microsoft is not following MY license agreement inherent in my copyrighted files!
Score: 0
|Boo-hoo mommy, ...... Go Google Go...........
Score: 0
|Google is doing things absolutely right by now.
The artists best dream come true when their books are read, their words heard, their music listened, their paints/movies/acts seen.
It is true that artists should be able to live from their work (I am not a hippy), but the freaking copyright industry (RIAA, MPAA, etc) makes me hate all of their supporters and their blah blah blah.
F*ck them all! Shakespeare did not write to help Microsoft to get obscene amounts of money!
All my support will go to Google!
The closest to the Library of Alexandria the better. Information SHOULD be free. It will be allways better to read a paper book if you can afford it, but everyone should be able to access knowledge and Google is doing a great job with books and video. Proof of that is that the pestilent corporation is crying around, threatening as they used to.
Score: 0
|Microsoft who brought us DRM so they can monitor our music and videos, must go hand in hand with RIAA, MPAA,and now more than likely The library of Congress so more money can be generated on this new venture for all business concerns and screw the average person at the same time.
If they have anything to do with it, I feel my pocket book getting cleaned out.
Score: 0
|It's funny how Microsoft goes on the offensive when another company offers a better way/value on something like online books. Anyone who sells something cheaper than Microsoft, or gives it away for free, is suddenly labeled a pirate or simply doesn't respect copyrights and IP. Give me a break. Microsoft is just crying foul because they feel threatened by Google and about to lose a big piece of the online books pie.
Score: 0
|They forgot about MS-DOS + DoubleSpace/DriveSpace...
Or that Messager show us an ad...
Score: 0
|Remember when software companies competed based on who had the best applications, functionality wise?
Me either.
Score: 0
|When did Microsoft ever have the best applications, functionality wise?
Google must really be scaring them at this point.
Score: 0
|Office 2007
Score: 0
|with all due respect, the bias, cynicism and verbosity in this article is making it hard for me to read.
Score: 0
|Here we go again. I seem to be seeing these catch-words like "bias" and "cynicism" kicked up like dust, perhaps whenever a reader anywhere (not just BetaNews) doesn't understand the point of the article.
Now, saying "I don't get it" is without shame, so allow me to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you what it is about this article you might not be getting, and may be mistaking for cynicism.
-SF3
Score: 0
|Hey we can't beat them with our underhanded tactics so let's get legal about their underhanded tactics instead! Woo!
Score: 0
|lol
Score: 0
|Microsoft cant stand the overwhelmingly positive response to Google's policies.
Google was rated hands down the BEST place to work.
Google is the #1 company as rated by consumers.
Does that hit too close to home Microsoft? AWWW, Poor crybabies.
Maybe if you change your "screw the consumer for more profit" policies and actually help the end user for once, then maybe you wont be on the World's Most Hated Companies list.
Score: 0
|"Google was rated hands down the BEST place to work."
Where?
I know a few people that work there and they feel like slaves to the big corporate machine, like most I.T. workers.
Score: 0
|Hey Google Fan-boy. We need Microsoft to at least give "The" Google a chance to pause and consider their attitude to copyright issues, who else is big enough, has the will, or even cares?
So it's a GROOVY place to work, what's that got to do with anything apart from being pleasant for the drones who work there?
Score: 0
|How do you compare them? The only common ground they share is "search" products/services. And even then, only online search. Beyond that, they're entirely different. Don't even begin touting Google Apps, which is seriously lacking. Where's Google's OS? Where's their (own) web browser? Media player? Server products? Oh yeah, Google mini. Google has great stuff and they fulfill a need very well, but you can't really compare these two in any meaningful way.
Score: 0
|Ummmm....right here:
http://money.cnn.com/mag...tune/bestcompanies/2007/
Score: 0
|And.... BAM!
Exactly.
Score: 0
|I compare them by achievement.
MS has achieved total consumer backlash, while Google is rated the #1 company.
Score: 0
|Ok, MS fanboi.
Ask gates to take that copy of Vista out of your azz.
Score: 0
|Fightin' the fight against Ms fanboys huh...
Its impossible, as soon as you squish one, 2 more pop up like roaches.
Score: 0
|lmfao
Score: 0
|Good try, but that has nothing to do with the topic. Kindergarden playground language just doesn't cut it, though perhaps that's the Google way.
Score: 0
|Funny how that backlash only appears on tech forums and only seems to affect the folks who have always had a grudge against Microsoft.
All while the rest of the consumers (Read: Vast Majority) are just peachy with Microsoft.
You don't compare by achievement, you compare simply by bias.
Score: 0
|"Vast Majority" of people are ignorant of what MS does.
They only see computers running the software, oblivious to the company behind it.
Score: 0
|And for most folks, that's just the way it should be.
One of the things Microsoft *does* is keep the vast majority of their customers happy.
Score: 0
|Microsoft owns a large chunk of Apple...
Score: 0
|i also own chunk of apple, so what?
actually as of now i own full plastic bag of apples, but thats inevitebly about to change sooner or later. however the good news is that when i run out i can go and get me some moore right away :P
Score: 0
|It's strange that MS is taking an offensive approach like this. It is unlike their company to even mention another company's name. Take Apple for example: There is all kinds of room for MS to take shots at Apple and their nearly untruthful ads. MS just stands back - I guess they think they are taking the high-road.
Google must be perceived as the biggest threat to MS to date.
Score: 0
|Microsoft and Apple have had a long, twisted relationship for years. They need each other. Actually, in some respects MS needs Apple more than the reverse. MS has NO vested interest or need for Google. Don't forget, Office for the Mac is the biggest selling product for the Mac. Period. MS has stated many times that "application" revenue trumps OS revenue by a huge margin. Google doesn't provide any revenue stream for MS. Apple does.
Score: 0
|good point
Score: 0
|Additional to your point. Apple is hardware company not a software company. So it doesn't bother MS.
Score: 0
|