

Google: A friend or the "new Evil Empire"? - ilamont
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/07/MNMF1AUFBM.DTL

======
cturner

        Google Books is a prime example
    

For the purpose of demonstrating that Google is an evil empire then Google
Books is an appalling example.

    
    
        But the consensus is the company fomented an avoidable
        backlash by forging ahead with its controversial plan
        without consulting the parties with the most at stake.
    

In the list that follows you may have missed that Temple fails to mention
'consumers'. His perspective stems from a common evil perspective - that the
world should rotate around the interests of the current elite.

~~~
fnid
Books is a good example, because Google violated copyright law without even
consulting the owners of the content. They didn't do this for consumers, they
did this to fight Amazon -- who _did_ obey the law.

------
27182818284
I understand Google has made some questionably evil decisions, but I'm
bothered by the number of articles written about Google's evilness just
because they have a recognizable brand. December 3 marked the anniversary of
the Bhopal disaster. An article on December 7 about Google maybe being an evil
entity seems like a joke when placed next to what Union Carbide did and
continues to do through inaction.

------
ErrantX
_Google Books is a prime example, Enderle said. It's an open debate whether
the plan to scan millions of books and make them searchable online will prove
the benefit to humanity that Google promises - or hand it a monopoly over
certain digital works, as opponents allege._

The issue I have with statements like this is that it is really _searching_
for the "evillness" in something. If "doing it first" is the new definition of
monopoly then that sort of sucks ;)

~~~
apowell
It's a monopoly because Google has been granted the exclusive right (via a
lawsuit) to digitize and distribute orphaned books. It would be a copyright
violation on a grand scale if anyone else were to try.

<http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/google_books/>

~~~
ErrantX
Reading the whole article I cant come to the same conclusion really.

As I read it Google has "sidestepped" the copyright violation via this
lawsuit; a step which any other company doing the same thing would also have
to do.

It's untested (and therefore somewhat difficult to assert with way) whether
anyone else could win a similar lawsuit to attain similar rights. Also it is
not yet tested whether publishers could be approached with a license model for
orphaned work without it having to go to the courts.

I think _granted the exclusive right_ is simple an opinion; because none of
the court documents appear to grant an exclusive right.

~~~
apowell
Today Google is the only entity with the legal right to do what they do with
the books. If I were to try it, I'd be sued into oblivion by the publishers.

For Google, forgiveness was easier than permission. For anyone else,
forgiveness won't be an option.

The settlement and ruling applies to Google and only Google. Perhaps in the
future some organization will slog through the legal system and change that
situation. If that happens, it won't be a monopoly anymore. But today it is.

[http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/the-fight-over-the-
wo...](http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/the-fight-over-the-worlds-
greatest-library-the-wiredcom-faq/) (Questions #17 - #21 make the point much
better than I am able)

~~~
ErrantX
> If that happens, it won't be a monopoly anymore.

I think the problem is the definition of monopoly. It's arguably a very good
thing (tm) [for consumers] that Google have done - if the fact they had to
fight the legal system in a way that is beyond the means of most companies
makes it a monopoly then that, to me, seems a bit screwy logic. What about the
argument they have now paved the way for much simpler lawsuits - or even
opened the way for people to convince publishers to license content without
needing the courts....

Till someone else bothers to try (note: bothers) this is impossible to judge
either way.

Also lets be careful here: monopolies aren't necessarily (in a legal sense)
"bad". Unfair monopolies are what we have to avoid - and evil ones. This was
evidence for Google being an evil corporation; to my eyes it seems hard enough
to argue this is really a monopoly let alone one with "evil" intent :)

(ultimately the argument does seem to come down to: Congress needs to fix a
silly situation)

~~~
lmkg
Specifics of the particular case aside, I do not like that Google has the
weight to simply buck the system if it disagrees with it. It sets a terrible
precedent. The legislative process for changing the laws is flawed, but there
are good reasons it exists: for example, multiple voices and interests can
express their concerns.

I think it's a rationally defensible position that, in the books case, Google
is substituting an democratic process for an enlightened dictatorship. If
nothing else, that's a problem because it's a single point of failure.
Obviously, that way of phrasing my viewpoint is rather severe and totally
loaded, but I think it's also a concise summary of both my opinions and my
feelings on the topic.

~~~
pohl
Given that the judiciary and the legislative branch have equal footing in the
founding documents, how is democracy being side-stepped?

~~~
lmkg
The judiciary branch had to intervene to prevent Google from sidestepping the
law, which they were attempting to do. If Google had gone to the courts to try
to upend copyright law, that would be using a democratic process. That's not
what Google did; they ignored the law, and the judiciary branch was invoked by
someone else to step in and stop them.

~~~
pohl
In the end, it is the court's opinion on the legality of their actions that
matters, not how the case came before it.

------
RyanMcGreal
> Google says it does recognize the threat. Like Microsoft a decade ago, it
> has dramatically scaled up its lobbying and public relations efforts.

Hmmmmm.

~~~
potatolicious
Lobbying and PR is a defensive measure that IMHO is justifiable without being
evil. There are plenty more competitors out there who _will_ use _their_ deep
pockets to curry politicians into doing things to harm you... having your own
lobbying strength helps defend against that.

------
marknutter
It depends on who's running the company. If they have someone at the top who
has strong ethics, they should continue to be benevolent.

------
compay
I worry more about Google's future than present - benevolent dictators are
great until they decide to stop being benevolent.

------
pchristensen
I don't see Google as evil, but I do see them as frighteningly hungry.

