As Predicted, Google Refuses to Comply with EU Copyright Directive #ThisIsWhatMonopolyLooksLike

richard_gingras_11-20-2011
Journalist enemy #1

The first time I met with the French Minister of Culture, we met at their offices at the historic Palais-Royal complex which is also home to the Comédie-Française, the oldest active theater group in the world (founded in 1630).  The French take their culture very seriously.  One would do well to remember that in your dealings with them.

But of course, Google doesn’t give a rip about France, culture, French culture or the French Minister of Culture.  And as predicted, Google are refusing to comply with the new European Copyright Directive as transposed into French law.  (Once passed by the European Parliament, the Directive must be implemented at the nation state level–Google has no time for the nation state, either.  The law goes into effect in France on October 24.)

Having suffered a spectacular loss in the European Parliament, the American multinational Internet company is now going to bring Silicon Valley justice to France.

Agence France-Presse reports:

Google said Wednesday it will not pay European media outlets for using their articles, pictures and videos in its searches in France, in a move that will undercut a new EU copyright law.

The tech giant said it would only display content in its search engine results and on Google News from media groups who had given their permission for it to be used for free.

The announcement, which will result in free content gaining higher visibility, comes after France became the first EU country to adopt the bloc’s wide-ranging copyright reform in July….Google had warned after the European Parliament vote that the change would “lead to legal uncertainty and will hurt Europe’s creative and digital economies.”

Of course what Google meant was that Google will do everything Google can to hurt Europe’s digital and creative communities because they’re pissed.  Make no mistake, it’s not Google’s compliance with the law that is producing harm in France, it is Google’s refusal to comply that does so.

French President Macron made the country’s position clear:

“A company, even a very large company, cannot get away with it when it decides to operate in France,” the French president insisted, during a visit to mark the centenary of the La Montagne newspaper in the city of Clermont-Ferrand in central France.

“We are going to start implementing the law,” he said.

According to Emmanuel Legrand’s excellent newsletter, Google is refusing to pay French news publishers for free-riding on their expensive news when delivered in Google’s massive monopoly on news aka search results:

French minister of culture Franck Riester was particularly incensed by Google’s decision. “I met with the head of Google News [Richard Gingras] this morning at the Ministry of Culture,” said Riester to journalists on the day Google made its decision public. “I sent him a very strong message about the need to build win-win partnerships with publishers and news agencies and journalists. The answer he gave me a few minutes later was stonewalling. This is unacceptable.”

Apparently this philistine from Silicon Valley not only has no respect for the law or the democratic process, he also has no respect for French culture.  Be clear on this–the French law was passed in the European Parliament over Google’s unprecedented astroturf lobbying campaign AND it was passed at the national parliament IN FRANCE.  The people were heard TWICE.

And if Mr. Gingras wasn’t insulting enough to Europeans and the French people from his cozy option-packed Silicon Valley enclave, he sure doesn’t know how to handle himself with the French minister of culture.  Here’s a hot tip–the Peter Pan thing is not a good look outside the Googleplex paedocracy.

But understand this–as I predicted, Google has no intention of complying with the Copyright Directive and will dump as much money as it takes in legal fees, PR campaigns, fake news and astroturf until it has exhausted all possible claims, trials, appeals, lobbying, the works.  Why?

Because THEY LOST AND THEY ARE PISSED.  What you are about to see play out is what happens when the richest and most powerful media company in commercial history strikes back.  What happens when the Silicon Valley company with control over the world’s newspapers says a people should know when they’re conquered.  No blow is too low.  And I keep saying, there’s only one thing they understand which is not fines.  You can’t get fines big enough to hurt them.

What gets their attention is anything that affects their behavior–and that means injunctions or prison.  They have no appreciation for anything we do to create music, movies, news, photographs, illustrations or any other work of authorship.  For them, it’s there for the taking.

In a prescient 2008 book review (entitled “Google the Destroyer“) of Nicholas Carr’s The Google Enigma, antitrust scholar Jim DeLong gives an elegant explanation of Google’s thuggish behavior:

Carr’s Google Enigma made a familiar business strategy point: companies that provide one component of a system love to commoditize the other components, the complements to their own products, because that leaves more of the value of the total stack available for the commoditizer….Carr noted that Google is unusual because of the large number of products and services that can be complements to the search function, including basic production of content and its distribution, along with anything else that can be used to gather eyeballs for advertising. Google’s incentives to reduce the costs of complements so as to harvest more eyeballs to view advertising are immense….This point is indeed true, and so is an additional point. In most circumstances, the commoditizer’s goal is restrained by knowledge that enough money must be left in the system to support the creation of the complements….

Google is in a different position. Its major complements already exist, and it need not worry in the short term about continuing the flow. For content, we have decades of music and movies that can be digitized and then distributed, with advertising attached. A wealth of other works await digitizing – [news,] books, maps, visual arts, and so on. If these run out, Google and other Internet companies have hit on the concept of user-generated content and social networks, in which the users are sold to each other, with yet more advertising attached.

So, on the whole, Google can continue to do well even if leaves providers of is complements gasping like fish on a beach.

What you’re seeing in France is the onset of gasping.

EU Turns Nastier for U.S. Tech & Media Giants

European Union’s (EU) anti-trust regulatory activities have been dealing a severe blow to U.S. technology companies. The flurry of investigations related to data privacy, anti-competition practices and tax avoidance have been taking a toll on these companies since quite some time now.

Notably, Alphabet’s GOOGL Google and Facebook FB are hurt by the implementation of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU.

Google was fined $57 million by French data protection authority under GDPR for not being able to disclose massive user data collection across its search platform, Google Maps and YouTube.

Meanwhile, the social media giant is allegedly storing millions of user passwords across its core Facebook app, Facebook Lite and Instagram platforms in an unencrypted format. Europe’s default privacy regulator is carrying out the investigation following which the company might face a fine of $2.2 billion.

Read the post on Yahoo Finance

Congress Calls on Google to Explain Content ID

Today Senators Blackburn, Coons, Feinstein and Tillis and Representatives Collins, Nadler, Roby and Schiff sent a letter to Google’s CEO requesting some answers on Content ID.  They asked some specific questions:

Google Hill Letter Excerpt

These are all good questions.  (The “but” is coming.) One other question that they might have asked is taking into account all of the costs of dealing with YouTube (claiming, registering, correcting, and accounting) imposed on both those who rate a Content ID account (lucky them) and those who don’t, does the YouTube royalty compensate rights owners large and especially indies for the great privilege of dealing with Google?

Or–does the cost of dealing with YouTube with or without Content ID exceed the royalty paid?  Taking into account the soup to nuts costs, I have to believe that the actual out of pocket costs to pay a claiming service, the productivity loss of sending DMCA notices and the endless chasing and policing of the YouTube platform MUST exceed the royalty.

If you take a step back and include the costs for dealing with Google’s other services, leaks, etc., the royalty MUST be negative.  (Which may explain why some rights holders get non recoupable payments from YouTube to offset those costs.)  And this is what the Congressional delegation is getting at with question #5 above.  Google could use a solution like Content ID to police its other services (the rights holders certainly do), but they don’t.

And here’s the “but.”  One of the big mistakes people make in negotiations is assuming that their opponent is motivated by some of the same events that motivate you.  What if they’re not?  What if they do not share your basic values, concepts, belief in private property or even copyright?  What if they just make so much money that they simply do not care?  Kind of like the ontological definition of an asshole.  Imagine an asshole greater than which there can be no asshole and you have imagined Google and its employees.

So Congress folks should understand that these people do not care.  Plus, it’s not like they haven’t thought about this day when they get caught with Content ID.  There’s no gotcha moment here.  Gotchas only work with people who care they’ve been got.  Polite letters that alternate sucking up in one paragraph with a nice series of questions in the next are not going to get it done.

 

The fact is, these are not very bright guys and you have to push things til they get out of hand.

Not that bright.  But they are that rich.  They are that narcissistic.  They are that cruel.  (Case in point–David Drummond.)  They do have 1:10 voting stock that means they have no accountability to anyone.

So until the Congress is willing to talk prison time, until they are ready to start adding zeros to fines until it hurts, until they are ready to drop the hammer on these people, understand this–Google will ignore you.  Oh, they may answer you, but they will treat you like idiots.  Which means ultimately they ignore you.  You may have the watch, but they have the time.

They’ll outlast you.  But thanks, it’s better than nothing.

@jennifer.blakely: My Time at Google and After

The #MeToo Movement has been the beginning of a sea change for women, exposing the double standard between women and men in the workplace oftentimes resulting in abuse toward women. I was moved to tears by the walkout of 20,000 Google employees after the New York Times published an article detailing how the company protects its “elite men.” I lived through it first hand and I believe a company’s culture, its behavioral patterns, start at the top. Rarely do we hear about what happens to women after they are forced out of their jobs but I can tell you what happened to me.

Read the post on Medium

[We’re thrilled to have a chance to publish an important Twitter thread by composer Kerry Muzzey that crystalizes a number of phenomena: How Kerry caught YouTube using Content ID as a tool to extend the period of time that they can profit from infringement (or the “piracy profit window”)…

via Must Read Guest Post by @kerrymuzzey: YouTube’s Latest Deceptive Tactic — Music Technology Policy

@NITASHA TIKU: THREE YEARS OF MISERY INSIDE GOOGLE, THE HAPPIEST COMPANY IN TECH

To all the world it looked as if Google—one of the most powerful, pro-immigrant, and ostensibly progressive corporations in the United States—was taking a unified stand. But that appearance of unanimity masked a welter of executive-level indecision and anxiety. It probably would have been more apt if Pichai had said that, over the previous 48 hours, he had been backed into a corner by thousands of his employees.

Read the post on Wired

@damclaugh: FTC Chief Says He’s Willing to Break Up Big Tech Companies

The head of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission said he’s prepared to break up major technology platforms if necessary by undoing their past mergers as his agency investigates whether companies including Facebook Inc. are harming competition.

FTC Chairman Joe Simons, who is leading a broad review of the technology sector, said in an interview Tuesday that breaking up a company is challenging, but could be the right remedy to rein in dominant companies and restore competition.

“If you have to, you do it,” Simons said about breaking up tech companies. “It’s not ideal because it’s very messy. But if you have to you have to.”

Read the post on Bloomberg