Selena Gomez’s ‘Lose You To Love Me’ generated 600k views on Genius’ website on release day alone, generating a 75% click-through rate. Then Google added a OneBox for the track, which Genius says dropped its click-through rate from 75% to 5%.
There’s a case shaping up in the U.S. Supreme Court that I haven’t paid too much attention to–but suddenly realized it’s something we should all care about because it could set precedent for fair use cases for decades to come: Google v. Oracle.
[ARW readers will remember the Oracle case because Judge William Alsop required the parties (provoked by Google shills) to file with the Court a list of the then-current “advocacy” groups Google paid that were also engaged in commentary about the case to affect public opinion. We styled this filing the “Google Shill List” and it has been a useful resource that includes many of the same amici in the current SCOTUS appeal such as EFF, Jonathan Band, Public Knowledge, Engine Advocacy, CCIA, and so on to include the cozy and dedicated group of likeminded people.]
On the surface, the case is about the Java software code and certain Java libraries developed by Sun Microsystems, later acquired by Oracle. But digging a little deeper it is also about Google’s obsession with “permissionless innovation”, Newspeak for “theft.” And when I say “Google”, I don’t really mean Google as a company. I mean the insiders. This because of Google’s governance and dual class structure that gives Larry Page, Sergei Brin and Eric Schmidt control over the company and the ability to waste the shareholders money settling claims for their bad behavior and terrible management (such as $500 million for violating the Controlled Substances Act and billions in fines for competition law violations around the world)–and now this Oracle case.
So we will refer to “Google” but really we’re talking about the Google ruling class with 10:1 voting power: Larry, Sergei and Eric.
How did Google get sued by Oracle and not Sun? According to Google’s SCOTUS brief (at 3):
Sun originally applauded Google for using the Java language. But after Oracle acquired Sun, it sued Google for copyright infringement.
Let’s not just blow past that statement. That one sounds like Google would like to cut back the ability of a copyright owner to decide when and where to enforce their rights, including a subsequent purchaser of copyrights. Because Sun, you see, were behaving like right thinking boys and girls, and then the evil ones came along to challenge Google the Sun God…or something like that. Or said another way, 2+2=5. And don’t you forget it.
You can see that Google would like to push that angle.
If, for example, a music publisher lacking the means to sue Google for infringing their catalog was later acquired by someone with the means to do. That buyer then sues Google for those pre-acquisition infringements. A ruling for Google in the current SCOTUS appeal could easily send a message that protects Google’s massive infringement through search, YouTube and God knows what else.
But at the heart of the Google infringement of Oracle’s copyrights is the “verbatim” copying of certain Java code into the Java-based Android systems. As the amicus brief by the United States tells us, one of the questions presented to SCOTUS is:
Whether the court of appeals correctly held that no reasonable jury could find that petitioner’s verbatim copying of respondent’s original computer code into a competing commercial product was fair use….
[Google] created much of the Android library from scratch. For 37 of the 168 packages included in the Android library, however, [Google] copied the Java declaring code verbatim, while writing its own implementing code.
As we have joked for years, Google thinks a fair use is when a YouTube user makes a verbatim copy of a television program or concert and posts it on YouTube in a different file format–you know, transformative. Which is, of course, fair use. Or was it a parody, I forget.
The brief by the United States disagrees, and so do I.
So let’s be clear: This case is about Google getting away with verbatim copying that they then commercially exploit as only Google can. And then scream fair use.
You have to wonder why SCOTUS took this case. I suspect it has something to do with this absurd “transformative use” theme we have seen Google use again and again and again.
Over more than a decade, Google and foundations run by its leaders have given hundreds of millions of dollars to journalists and news organizations around the world, sponsoring drones in Nigeria and Kenya, and local news in the US. But according to a new report, these grants tend to be made in places where the company faces pressure from politicians, the public, and the press, raising questions about whether the tech giant is committed to social good or buying itself goodwill.
The report, written by researchers at the Campaign for Accountability’s Google Transparency Project, shows a spike in funding in Europe when Google was under pressure in the mid- to late-2010s, and a subsequent uptick in the US amid a backlash that’s led to a Department of Justice investigation and calls for its breakup.
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.
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.
[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”)…
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.
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.”