h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This article suggests it is
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/05/google-internet-piracy

One, because it's an internet monopoly, and in true monopolistic fashion abuses its power:
"Google presents a far greater threat to the livelihood of individuals and the future of commercial institutions important to the community. One case emerged last week when a letter from Billy Bragg, Robin Gibb and other songwriters was published in the Times explaining that Google was playing very rough with those who appeared on its subsidiary, YouTube. When the Performing Rights Society demanded more money for music videos streamed from the website, Google reacted by refusing to pay the requested 0.22p per play and took down the videos of the artists concerned."

Second, they're shafting newspapers, which have to give content to google for free:
"In effect they are being held captive and tormented by their executioner, who has the gall to insist that the relationship is mutually beneficial. Were newspapers to combine to take on Google they would be almost certainly in breach of competition law."


So, what d'you reckon?

Why should Google be allowed to offer music for entertainment through You Tube for free (or reduced rates) when every other commercial organisation has to pay? When faced with a bill, they withdrew the content - which is what cafes, offices and other institutions do if they don't want to pay. If they had used this supposed monopolistic power to defy the PRS and play the music anyway, counting on artists to decide the exposure was worth the loss, *then* I would agree they were abusing their market position.

Do newspapers *have* to give content to Google for free? Do they not hold copyright over their own material?

The article argues that they more or less have to for commercial reasons. You shoulda read it.

Sorry, I just read what you posted. I'll have a look later.

Well why would we expect a commercial entity not to be evil?

Of course the newspapers are upset - they're being made obsolete.

I am also inclined to think that it is reasonable for Google to walk away from the negotiating table if it doesn't think it's getting a good deal.

I see the criticisms in that article as a sort of futile struggle against inevitability. Information is becoming free, and the flip-side of that is that your information is becoming free. I think this trend is likely to continue because it's so cheap to do now, and because the efficiency benefits are vast. Whether overall it is a good or bad thing I don't know, but I don't really give a stuff about the newspapers, whereas Google make applications that are nice to use.

That said, Edward is completely right - they are a for-profit corporation, if one with some very modern business techniques, and should be expected to act as one. Google have built a myth of being the ultimate place to work, somewhere that takes only the best and looks after them, and as such they have managed to get themselves much of the cream of the crop at discount rate. But they aren't a start-up any more.

I just stumbled upon this, which I think illustrates my point neatly:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/google-loses-on-appeal-will-face-adwords-trademark-suit.ars

On the one hand we have:
"Rescuecom, a computer repair and service company, objected to the fact that its competitors' ads would appear when consumers searched for it by name, and it sued Google for trademark infringement,"

And on the other:
"The EFF's concern is based on the fact that many noncommercial groups use Google's service, as well as similar technology from other companies, to make the public aware of their criticisms of products and companies."

If everyone can write what they like, and it all gets saved, there are benefits and drawbacks. Who knows where we're headed.

To be fair to the newspapers though, they are, at least to some extent, producing content, whereas Google is merely indexing it. (I say to some extent, because they mostly just minimally rewrite what the press agencies send them, who in turn mostly just minimally rewrite what government and corporate PR offices send them.)

I agree though that information is becoming free and the world will have to come up with a better solution than advertising. What will it be?

What a load of self-pitying tripe. Utter codswallop.

<>

Substitute "Government" for "Google".

<>

No they didn't. WMG pulled the content. Google complied with the requests of the copyright holders as it is required to do by law.

<>

There are hundreds of music video sites. Google "free music video"

Sod it, you could pull that article apart line by line with ease. Newspapers are suffering are they? Maybe they should pull down their own free online editions?

<>

Oh puh-lease Spare us the melodrama. Forget radio, tv and the internet, the Daily Mail is the glue that holds our society together

As has already been said, the paper news is redundant. Online sources and 24/7 tv news make the idea of paying actual money for news that is a day out of date an anachronism. Journalists would do better to utilise the plethora of new opportunities technology has made available to them than to write sanctimonious sh!t like this.

Oh and <>

What Jefferson is I think referring to is the free flow of information in the public sphere. Over 200 years ago, newspapers were pretty much all there was. I'm sure Cicero was a fan of paper notices nailed to posts. Jefferson would have wholly approved of the current situation where government is held to account at every turn by an informed citizenry drawing their information from multiple independent sources.

And that's the success of Google - making all that information accessible. The only reason they are so large and advertisers flock to them is because they do what they do so well. Is it evil to be good? Is it evil to provide a service that everyone wants free to the user?

I've no sympathy for music giants like Warner who have historically shown themselves to be greedy parasites, ripping off artistes with crooked contracts whilst fleecing the public at the same time. Google *were* paying for the content, but Warner Music Group wanted more. Good for Google, telling a bunch of greedy music executives and their paid stooges to get stuffed.

>> Well why would we expect a commercial entity not to be evil?

Because Google's founding motto was and allegedly remains "don't be evil".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil

Google/YT/WMG/whoever have been pretty petty and merciless about what they remove.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnsZLhI4zb4

This was my (utterly redundant) response

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaxS_wThH9U

>>Because Google's founding motto was and allegedly remains "don't be evil".

I did know that. What I was wondereing was why anyone would expect them to live up to it, Don't get me wrong, though. I don't buy into the idea of Capitalism as the work of a bunch of greedy bastards plotting nefarious plots. It's nothing personal. It's how business works.

Don´t forget their cooperation with the chinese government in censoring information for the chinese people.

Yeah...but that was only because if they hadn't, the Chinese market might've been cornered by someone more evil. See also 'If I didn't supply [insert nasty dictatorship of choice] with torture equipment, someone else would.'

Well, I wouldn't expect Google not to be evil, despite the motto, them being capitalists 'n' all.

What I find intresting is that the motto was thought up by someone other than Page and Brin, (in fact by the guy who created google mail), and that his explicit motive was to create a motto it would be hard to move away from - a hostage to fortune.

But, no, I assume that Google would follow the same path from idealistic naivete to world domination as the Roman Catholic Church, Penguin Books and the iPod.

I hate to say it, but isn't that just good business sense? (as opposed to good sense) to agree to the slightly unsavoury in order to maintain a contract you would otherwise lose?

morality has little or no place in that sort of a world. I dont agree with it, but there it is...

This is quite good on some of the compromises they've had to make, especially China:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.01/google_pr.html

What they did with China is probably good business sense. The problem is when people still see Google as some idealistic, benevolent corporation. They need to know what they are supporting when using Google.
Having read the article in the first post, it does seem to be just emotional drivel. I don´t see any of the points he makes to have any merit.