Whenever it can, Google likes to have programmers solve its problems. But now it faces a dispute that even its ranks of lawyers and lobbyists are finding hard to smooth over.
A broad array of authors, academics, librarians and public interest groups are fighting the company’s plan to create a huge digital library and bookstore. Their complaints reached the ears of regulators at the Justice Department, which last month helped derail the plan by asking a court to reject the class-action settlement that spawned it.
That request led to a last-minute decision by Google and its partners, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, to redraft the agreement. A federal court hearing in New York on Wednesday was to shed light on their progress.
Some analysts say the broad-based opposition to Google’s lofty plans was unprecedented and a harbinger of the intense scrutiny the company’s ambitious agenda will face.
“This was the first issue through which Google’s power became clearly articulated to the public,” said Siva Vaidhyanathan, associate professor of media studies and law at the University of Virginia. “All sorts of people — writers, researchers, librarians, academics and readers — really feel they have a stake in the world of books.”
Google expressed confidence that a new agreement that could win court approval might be ready within weeks.
“I don’t think we need a lot of time,” said David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer.
This is not the first time Google’s ambitions have collided with the Justice Department. Last year, after advertisers and competitors argued that a planned ad deal with Yahoo would harm competition, the department said it would try to block the partnership in court. Google chose to abandon the deal rather than fight.
This time, the department’s lawyers heard from Google rivals like Microsoft. But they also heard complaints from a much broader group, many of whom shared the same fear: that the deal would allow Google, the 800-pound gorilla of digital information, to bulk up even more and lock out competitors in the nascent digital book market.
In a recent order, the judge who will have to approve or reject the settlement remarked on the number and breadth of objections the court had received.
“Clearly, fair concerns have been raised,” wrote Judge Denny Chin of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Justice Department told the court that it hoped the parties would be able to modify the agreement to address antitrust, copyright and class-action problems, while preserving some of its benefits.
Some experts say that even if a modified deal is approved, the dispute portends the kind of suspicion that Google’s plans will likely face.
“Google will have continuous challenges to major initiatives around consumer choice, security and trust, privacy,” said David Yoffie, a professor at Harvard Business School. “This will never stop. It will be a question of how well Google builds coalitions and lays the groundwork before they establish a fait accompli in a particular area.”
Google’s plan emerged from a sweeping settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed by authors and publishers in 2005 over the company’s effort to digitize books from major libraries. Google and its allies hailed the agreement as a public good: Millions of out-of-print books would become widely available, unlocking vast swaths of human knowledge, while giving authors new ways to earn money from digital copies of their works.
While Google’s corporate rivals fanned the flames of opposition, much of the resistance to the deal began in the confines of academia and spread gradually. In the end, more than 350 individuals, companies, nonprofit groups, academics, library associations, overseas publishers, states and even foreign governments lodged complaints in court against the agreement, in whole or in part. They outnumbered the filings in support of the deal by about 10-1.
Many academics initially sided with Google in 2004 when its scanning project, originally designed to create a kind of universal card catalog, drew lawsuits from the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. But the settlement transformed Google’s plan into something far more ambitious.
Online users of Google’s digital library and store would get free access to 20 percent of any book and be able to pay to read the rest. Every library in the US would be able to offer free, full access to Google’s library at one terminal. And universities would be able to purchase access to the entire collection. Revenue would be split among Google, authors and publishers.
Even before the agreement was signed last October, however, opposition began to brew. Harvard University, which along with a few other libraries had been invited to participate in some of the negotiations, withdrew. A few months later, Robert Darnton, head of the university’s library system, wrote an impassioned attack on the deal in The New York Review of Books.
Around the same time, Pamela Samuelson, a respected Internet law and copyright expert at the University of California, Berkeley, convened a meeting of concerned scholars who began spreading the word at universities.
At a conference at Columbia Law School in March, the outlines of the opposition began to emerge. Critics said the deal would grant Google quasi-exclusive rights to commercialize millions of orphan works — books whose rights holders are unknown or cannot be found. That would make it hard to compete with, potentially leaving Google free to raise prices.
Others said the deal turned copyright law on its head by letting Google profit from millions of books unless authors objected. Librarians grew concerned that Google wouldn’t adequately protect their patrons’ privacy.
Gail Steinbeck, daughter-in-law of John Steinbeck, received notice of the settlement shortly before a May deadline for authors to opt out. She thought most authors would not understand it.
“When I saw this come through, just a few weeks before the deadline, I flipped out,” said Steinbeck, who along with her husband has been involved in a legal fight over the rights to some of John Steinbeck’s works.
She quickly sent a letter to several influential authors laying out her fears.
“It would be a shame to have to go back to Congress and/or the courts in a few years to ask them to split up a monopoly, when we have the chance to stop it in its tracks right now,” she wrote.
As a result, a group of authors that included the musician Arlo Guthrie asked the court for a four-month extension, which was granted. The delay proved crucial, as it gave time for opponents to get organized, leading to a veritable deluge of last-minute filings.
Lawrence Lessig, an Internet scholar and professor at Harvard Law School, said Google’s belief that its actions and motives had been misunderstood reminded him of a frustration that permeated Microsoft in the 1990s.
“I’ve seen these big powerful companies filled with people who drank the Kool-Aid,” said Lessig, who initially supported Google’s scanning but later came to oppose the settlement. “I really get the sense in which these people feel they are doing good. But I am always surprised by their failure to recognize how they will be perceived outside.”
Drummond said Google anticipated that a deal so sweeping would generate criticism. He said support for it was far broader than the opposition, noting that the guild and the publishers association represented a large portion of the US book industry.
“The benefits far outweigh any of these criticisms that are being made, many of which are quite theoretical,” Drummond said. “We have a good process now for taking into account some of the objections.”
“The fact that there are some critics doesn’t mean you should be paralyzed and not do something that provides value,” he said.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers
Gogoro Inc was once a rising star and a would-be unicorn in the years prior to its debut on the NASDAQ in 2022, as its environmentally friendly technology and stylish design attracted local young people. The electric scooter and battery swapping services provider is bracing for a major personnel shakeup following the abrupt resignation on Friday of founding chairman Horace Luke (陸學森) as chief executive officer. Luke’s departure indicates that Gogoro is sinking into the trough of unicorn disillusionment, with the company grappling with poor financial performance amid a slowdown in demand at home and setbacks in overseas expansions. About 95