Carl Slaughter’s Open Letter to the CEO of Google

By Carl Slaughter:

To: Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google
From: Carl Slaughter [email protected] 86-18437781522

Congratulations on your recent promotion. Now shut it down.

Quick update: I registered these domain names: I HATE GOOGLE DOT COM, I LOVE GOOGLE DOT COM, I LIKE GOOGLE DOT COM. Your legal department threatened me repeatedly with legal action.

You fiercely protect your own property – or in my case, property you claim to own – but refuse to protect the property of others. And not only do you not fight piracy, YOU ARE COMMITTING THE BIGGEST ACT OF MASS THEFT IN THE HISTORY OF COPYRIGHT.

I am referring to your book project. You tried to publish 30,000,000 books without permission or compensation. The only reason you offered compensation later is because the Authors Guild took you to court.

The Authors Guild’s solution was to ask you for $3,000,000,000. Your solution was to offer them $125,000,000. My solution is for you to stop publishing someone else’s books. Or rather, everyone else’s books.

And make no mistake, what you are doing with Google Books is essentially publishing in spirit and letter. It’s obvious you intend to coop the entire publishing industry. It is furthermore obvious from your longstanding actions that you consider all material whatsoever fair game, plan to assimilate all of it, and don’t intend for anyone but you to profit.

Meanwhile, you let Hollywood talent agent Ari Emanuel (WME) take a beating in the media when he took you to task over piracy. Then you snubbed Chris Dodd (MPAA) and rebuffed Geoff Taylor (PBI).

Most of the books you’ve scanned are nonfiction and most of the people I network with write mostly fiction. But you will eventually start assimilating fiction. Movies, TV shows, music, sports, photos. You’ll eventually target anything that can be offered online. You are the Borgle.

But even before your pending invasion, piracy has long been a major problem in the fiction community. Why else would the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America have epiracy and copyright committees? Why else would speculative fiction matron Ursula K. Le Guin cancel her membership from the Authors Guild and publicly renounce their decision to (temporarily) compromise with you?

Authors routinely offer excerpts on their websites, as do publishers like Tor. At SF Signal, I have linked readers to as many as 9 sample chapters from one book. FreeSFOnline.de offers free short stories in print and podcast form. But they get the author’s permission. You can’t post or distribute scenes, chapters, or entire stories, much less entire books, without permission from the authors.

In search of authors to interview and books to feature, I have perused the catalogs of the major speculative fiction publishers and the major agencies with large speculative fiction clientele. I have read jacketcopy for thousands of novels. I did the same with the 300 and 900 sections of the library to get caught up on all those things my professors didn’t tell me in college.

So I can tell you from extensive personal experience that reading the jacketcopy of a book suffices for someone to decide whether to read a book. And Amazon is already providing that service. You are enticing people to your site by offering aggregate snippets that essentially gut the contents of the book and render a reading, i.e. purchase, unnecessary.

Just as aggregate news sites, with high Google ranking, gut news stories by offering readers the key paragraphs and a perfunctory link to the original source. Thus, they drive advertisers away from newspapers and magazines that rely on advertising revenue to generate news. These aggregate news sites use the same fig leave of “fair use” to justify the same parasitical process.

Furthermore, cyberlockers, which your search engine makes easy to find, delete advertisements, which underwrite television production costs; just as download sites cut deeply into ticket sales, which underwrite movie production costs.

Screen sci-fi is particularly sensitive to production costs because of the special effects, spaceship/extraterrestrial sets, alien prosthetics, varied costumes/uniforms, and so on, unique to this genre’s visual storytelling.

Big and small screen speculative entertainment – science fiction, fantasy, and horror – have long since gone mainstream. But if this trend continues, THERE AIN’T GONNA BE NO MORE SCI FI MOVIES AND SCI FI TELEVISION SHOWS CUZ THERE AIN’T GONNA BE NO MORE PRODUCTION FINANCING FOR NO MORE SCI FI ENTERTAINMENT.

As an example, I recently interviewed Matthew Warner, novelization author for Plan 9, the remake of Plan 9 from Outer Space. He gave me the username and password to access the reviewer copy of the movie. He needn’t have bothered.

I typed this formula into the Google search engine: “Plan 9” “watch.” With the help of Google’s auto complete, I drew up plenty of sites that offered pirated versions of Plan 9. I clicked on the first one and was able to watch THE ENTIRE MOVIE IN CINEMA QUALITY WITH NO TECHNICAL PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER COMPLETELY FREE.

I need to add that I’m talking about the 3rd or 4th pages of hits. Not those Asylum produced blockbuster copycats or those hideously unwatchable Kickstarter financed projects deep in the archive.

On one site, 18,000 people had viewed Plan 9. Amazon lists Plan 9 at $5 to rent and $13 to buy. Do the math. And that’s just one site.

Same site, Batman versus Superman: Dawn of Justice, 6 weeks after its release, 5,000,000 views. Captain America: Civil War, 3 weeks after its release, 700,000 views. Multiply that by a $10 cinema ticket.

Hateful 8 producer Richard Gladstein said a few weeks after its cinema release that it had been illegally downloaded 1,300,000 times. A few months later, same site, 1,870,000 views.

Expendables 3 producer Avi Lerner claims he lost $250,000,000 because of illegal downloads. Same site, 2,000,000 views. Gladstein and Lerner blame you and Lerner calls Obama a coward for not standing up to you.

Walking Dead producer Gale Anne Hurd claims her season 5 premiere was illegally downloaded 1,200,000 times. She Googled “watch Fear the Walking Dead.” The first hit you gave her was AMC. The second was a pirate site.

I emphasize most of these statistics are for one site. Multiply the views times the number of pirate sites, add DVDs to the formula, and you begin to see the magnitude of piracy.

After my investigation of piracy in the “Plan 9” case, I typed the search formula “download videos” into the Google search box and discovered that Chrome offers a video downloader accompanied by a disclaimer about piracy.

I have the screen shots to prove all this.

Thus Google facilitates piracy but gives lip service to copyright, all the while practicing far more piracy than anyone.

The director of Plan 9, John Johnson, whom I also interviewed, Matthew Warner, the actors, and the production crew at Darkstone have bills to pay, mouths to feed, careers to forge, college tuition to save up for. And you’re taking food out of those mouths.

Nor are my encounters with Google my first major encounters with large-scale piracy.

I travel extensively as an ESL teacher. So far, 18 countries on 4 continents.

I’ve seen movies, TV shows, documentaries, albums, and books on sale in every nook and cranny of Asia – subway stations, bus stations, compound gates, bridges, alleys, vans, even a restaurant. I’ve seen entire markets with numerous shops selling thousands of titles. (Yes, thousands.) More than once, I have found pirated versions of Hollywood movies on sale before they were scheduled to be released in American cinemas. When I was in a Beijing [CHINA] bus station, pirates were selling DVDs without fear. When I was in the main Greyhound station in New York City, pirates were brazenly hawking the leaked draft version of X-Men Wolverine. When I was in SAUDI ARABIA, they were selling copies of Fahrenheit 9/11 right outside the biggest bookstore in Jeddah. I am very sure the DVD shop in BURMA on the Thai border across from Mai Sot has no business arrangement with anyone in Hollywood. Same with the DVD markets on Beijing’s south side, in the Morning Market in Vietiane [LAOS] on the Lao-Thai border, and in MBK, Bangkok’s [THAILAND] biggest mall. If there is anyone you would not expect to sell pirated merchandise, it would be the major retailers. But in Beijing’s largest bookstore, I bought the complete Friends series, only to discover that the episodes were taped from Channel 14.

ESL is big in China. A slew of ESL MAGAZINES print dozens of articles per issue. Almost all of these articles are pirated from American and British periodicals and news agencies. In CAMBODIA’s ESL schools, pirating textbooks is standard operating procedure. Worldwide, it seems the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary [DICTIONARIES] is the pirated desk dictionary of choice. Windows is popular in China. American and British pop music is almost as popular as Chinese pop music among China’s youth. Every one of my students has a smart phone and every one of those smart phones has numerous American and British pop [SONGS].  International credit cards are not widespread in China, especially among high school/college students. I’ve traveled to and taught in so many cities in China, I’ve lost track. I’ve used countless computers in offices, dorms, and Internet cafes. I’ve yet to see a Windows [OPERATING SYSTEMS] or NOD 32 [ANTIVIRUS] program that isn’t pirated.

And piracy is not limited to western countries being the prey. Chinese students take an awful lot of standardized local and national academic and professional exams. Free pirated pages of Chinese written and Chinese published exam prep books are readily available online.

Back to sci-fi and piracy. Galaktika, a Hungarian magazine, has been publishing translated short stories without permission or compensation. The SFWA continues to challenge and expose Galaktika and its editor continues to spout increasingly sincere sounding spin doctor excuses.

Foreign language magazines and publishers represent a huge market for speculative fiction authors. Some authors draw more income from their foreign sales than their English sales. This investigation is only one magazine. Factor in the enforcement problem of not being able to read multitudes of languages. Also, the original magazine draws income from reprints until the copyright returns to the author.

I experienced this scenario too. A major science fiction magazine in China translated and published one of my best interviews. They promised to compensate me, quoted their rate, and asked for my bank account information. The money was never transferred. Thus I have joined the ranks of authors who have been burned.

For the record, I not only have never downloaded a pirated movie, I have never downloaded any movie. I am technology challenged. I’ve never used Bit Torrent. I don’t even know how.

I have a collection of 1500 movie DVDs carefully selected for language learning purposes. When I want to use a movie in the classroom to teach ESL – conversation, listening, idiomatic usage, report writing, cultural context – I never assign a student to download it from the Internet, although they are abundantly available through the Youku and Tudou cyberlockers. Instead, I buy the DVD.

The DVDs I have bought have half a dozen voice languages, 10-15 subtitle languages, and several bonus features. So they are obviously copied from the master. Pirated movies usually don’t have these extras. So these DVDs don’t appear to be pirated.

When I use a book excerpt as a classroom handout, I retrieve the handouts at the end of the lesson. I certainly don’t give them the book and a wad of cash and tell them to feast themselves at the copy store.

For several years, I was the editor of ESL Book Review, which used the domain name, you guessed it, ESL BOOK REVIEW DOT COM. The books I reviewed, I got from bookstores or publisher’s marketing agents, never the copy store, never the street.

(When I landed in Beijing, the translator for my host school said, “Where do you want to go?” I didn’t ask to visit The Great Wall, The Forbidden Temple, or the Summer Palace. I said, “Take me to the biggest bookstore in Beijing.” When I finished shopping, she said, “Where do you want me to take you next?” I said, “Take me to the second largest bookstore in Beijing.” And where did I ask her to take me after that? The foreign language bookstore, of course! Oh the money I spent in those bookstores; oh trail of book collections I left with school colleagues across the globe; oh the boxes of books I donated to my university English department and library. Not to mention time building a massive website and time typing a running list of titles.)

BTW, when I was in Washington DC, I went to the Copyright Office, which is inside the Library of Congress, and asked in person if my classroom activities violated copyright law.

The point is, whether discs or books, I took the high road. You haven’t taken the high road.

In response to criticism from Ari Emanuel, you came out with The Emanuel Update and The Emanuel Penalty. Or some such thing, I can’t remember the details. But it was all damage control.

With over 75,000,000 takedown requests per month and with the rate doubling on a yearly basis, it’s undeniable that you are not practicing preventative medicine on any significant scale. Instead, you are The Little Dutch Boy with too many holes in the dam and too few fingers. I can state categorically that you are not and never have been serious about piracy on any front except that which directly affects you.

And if you ever get serious about piracy, pirates will be in serious trouble. You built a driverless car. You designed arguably the first authentic AI. You mapped the world. And those glasses. I don’t even know what they do. But those glasses got an awful lot of buzz. And some people are intimidated enough by those glasses to ban them from their establishment. (What DO those glasses do?) This and much more coming out of your lab. It’s only a matter of time before you invent a brain chip that allows us to operate gadgets, type, and yes, hack technology –  right out of a sci fi story. And all this is in addition to a search engine that has eliminated the need for a second opinion.

In all the years I’ve been using Gmail, I honestly can’t recall receiving even one spam message. So why is Gmail utterly spam free while Yahoo and Hotmail are swimming in spam? Because one of your awesome geeks there in Mountain View designed it to recognize spam. Why can’t you give us software that can recognize piracy? You didn’t make excuses about spam, you just dealt with it. So why are you making excuses about piracy?

On the same note, when I subscribed to NOD 32 antivirus software, my virus problems completely disappeared instantly and I did not have even one virus problem during the entire subscription (and as part of my job, I use a lot of copy store, classroom, and office computers, so my USBs are virus magnets). Same explanation: Because an awesome geek at ESET designed it to recognize viruses. They don’t make excuses about viruses, they just deal with them.

You and the rest of Silicon Valley have given us STAR TREK TECHNOLOGY IN ONE GENERATION. But there is a conspicuous gap in this string of impressive technologies. To this day, you pretend you can’t design effective anti-piracy software. I suggest you can and would if Ari Emanuel wrote you a big enough check instead of asking you to do it out of moral obligation and civic duty.

For ESL Book Review, I used a pagebuilder that was as simple as Word. (Let there be Word and let there be only Word; let it be XP and let it be 2003; text-based command buttons, no freaking hieroglyphics.) Contributors to a couple of magazines I’ve written for are required to do their own pagebuilding and I’m ready to exile HTML to an alternate universe. So as I explained before, I am technology challenged. So correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t anti-piracy software as simple as comparing 2 lists and eliminating anything not on both lists?

Cinemas, DVD shops, bookstores, and agencies get their piece of the action. Retailers have documents on their front windows certifying they are authorized to sell copyrighted products. And they all sign contracts with studios, production companies, publishers, and authors. Pirates don’t want to settle for their piece of the action. They want everyone’s piece of the action. So they don’t sign contracts.

Copyrighted material is on file with the Library of Congress. Copyright owners have a list of people who have signed a contract to use their creative content. Pirates are not on the second list. Isn’t anti-piracy software as simple as comparing the 2 lists and eliminating from the search results anyone not on both lists?

Like I said, I’m not tech savvy, but it seems to me Silicon Valley, a community with the most talented, skilled, and experienced geeks in the world, could perform this task blindfolded, half asleep, and with one hand tied behind their back.

A talk show host who interviewed you and Susan Wojcicki counted 22 times Ari Emanuel criticized you during his notorious rant. This talk show host then posed a question to you about anti-piracy software, then posed a question to Wojcicki about customized advertising. You said Google technology is woefully inadequate, Wojcicki said Google technology is impressively precise and reliably predictive. We’re talking back to back comments. I laughed uncontrollably at the hilarity of this contradiction. Dude, you can’t have it both ways.

One minute, you’re saying to victims of piracy, “We have no way of telling you what you want to know.” The next minute, you’re telling advertisers, “We have the means to tell you exactly what you need to know.” What’s the explanation for this duplicity? Oh that’s right, advertisers are paying you lots of money for the information you provide them. How many zeros does Ari Emanuel have to write on that check before you stop indulging in this Pentagon style doublespeak?

Your legal department threatened me through an email address I was required to provide when I registered those domain names you demanded from me. So don’t tell me you can’t track down contact info for pirates through their domain name registration.

There was an awful lot of spin doctoring in the media in response to Ari Emanuel’s comments about Google. To the effect that Google has no control over the situation and that he and other entertainment industry leaders are responsible for piracy through their refusal to adapt. (I’m looking at you, Mike Masnick.)

Intellectual property is owned by the people who create it. Just as much as buildings, land, vehicles, livestock, jewelry, precious metals, insurance policies, stocks, retirement accounts, art collections, etc, belong to the people who buy them.

Protection of intellectual property is an inalienable, longstanding, universally recognized right. That right does not disappear just because technology changes. Any more than free speech, religion, assembly, redress, due process, etc, disappear because any other aspect of society changes.

You can’t publish my book without my permission. For the same reason you can’t sleep in my house, drive my car, wear my clothes, play my musical instrument, cook with my gas, wash with my water, make calls on my phone, or eat the produce from my garden without my permission.

If someone stole your coveted algorithm, you would press criminal charges. If that person was a Google employee, you would have them escorted out of Google headquarters in handcuffs. If a rival reverse engineered that algorithm, you would file a claim in civil court. You challenge anyone, including me, who registers a domain name with the word “Google” in it. If someone in your accounting department embezzled so much as $5, if one of your cafeteria workers walked into the parking lot with so much as a box of chicken strips, you would fire them. You would dismiss without any consideration whatsoever any spin doctoring they put on their behavior. You would take action to protect your company and you would do it completely unapologetically, as would any responsible CEO.

So you clearly have no reservations about applying property rights to yourself, but you have repeatedly refused to apply that same principle to the rights of others, whether it be defacto publishing or enabling pirates.

What do robbery, burglary, shoplifting, pickpocketing, carjacking, identity theft, embezzlement, extortion, blackmail, ransom, insurance float, welfare fraud, Ponzi schemes, scams, counterfeiting, and forgery have in common? They are all forms of theft.

Piracy is theft and theft is a crime. Google Books is a copyright violation and copyright violation is a crime. Pirates are criminals and protecting criminals makes you an accessory to crime. There, I’ve used the word crime 5 times in the same paragraph in reference to piracy and you.

Meanwhile, you have in your archives the entire contents of what will eventually become every book ever printed in every language, past, present, and future. As any honest geek will admit, anything in electronic form is hackable if it’s accessible; and if it’s accessible to you, it’s accessible to hackers. And you have made available a treasure more than one hacker will find irresistible. So don’t talk to me about your security protocols.

Seriously, haven’t you ever heard of Wikileaks? Hackers have gained access to massive government and corporate files and dumped the entire contents online. What’s going to happen when they hack Google Books? Or a Google employee steals them?

That’s right, they’re going make all those books available online, not in snippet form, but in their entirety, either for free on the light net or for sale on the dark net, depending on the identity of the hacker. Either way, the content creators will be left out of the financial loop and the investment of their time and energy and money will evaporate in the time it takes Bittorrent to do its thing.

Oh but wait, that means your investment in scanning those books will evaporate too. (How much money DID you spend on your book project?) Hmm, I suppose then you’ll get serious about piracy.

So I’m giving you a chance to shut it down. Shut down your threat of legal action against me, shut down your book project, shut down the piracy charade, and shut down the abuse of entertainment industry leaders who have addressed your involvement in piracy.

Otherwise, I will have to post this letter online and distribute paper copies to the media.

Postscripts:

Shortly before finishing this letter, I tested the password for I HATE GOOGLE DOT COM. (Curse you, Captcha!) If I don’t get the appropriate response to this letter, you and everyone else on the web will be able to access this letter online by typing I-H-A-T-E-G-O-O-G-L-E-.-C-O-M into your browser.

In spite of being technology challenged, about 5 minutes ago, I somehow figured out how to open a Twitter account and tried to tweet you this letter. Oh I see, only 128 characters per twit or tweet or whatever the terminology is. OK, how about this twit-tweet for under 128 characters:

I own these:

www. I Hate Google .com

www. I Love Google .com

www. I Like Google .com

@teachenglishab1

The twitter note was yesterday. Today, I read this headline in Yahoo News: “Google Wins Long US Court Battle on Book Scanning.” The Supreme Court sided with you, declining to even consider the Authors Guild’s case. The Borgle has just assimilated a very large sector of the galaxy. In light of the Supreme Courts decision, I decided to go live with this letter instead of waiting for your response.

No sooner than the Supreme Court authorized your assimilation of 30,000,000 books, Getty Images filed suit against you for pilfering their archive of 80,000,000 photos and illustrations. What’s next? I’ll tell you what’s next. You’ll target Getty’s 50,000 hours of stock film footage, that’s what. It’s only a matter time before you offer a service called VGoogle and find a “fair use” fig leaf for posting Hollywood’s entire collection of movies and TV shows. Whether the Supreme Court let’s you keep your hand in Getty and Hollywood’s cookie jar remains to be seen.

I consulted with Ari Goldberger of ESQWire.com, a domain name defense attorney with a track record for winning cases against high-profile corporate claims.  He told me I have a right to these domain names. I’ll take Ari Goldberg’s legal opinion over your legal team’s any day.

Authors Guild, MPAA, RIAA, BPI. Ari Emanuel, Kurt Sutter, Richard Gladstein, Avi Lerner. Lamar Smith, Bob Goodlatte. Too many people writing guest editorials about you, not enough people suing you.

Carl Slaughter has a degree in journalism and radio/tv. For several years, he was editor of ESL Book Review. He was a stringer for the Associated Press. He has written 300 reviews, interviews, features, profiles, news items, and essays for Tangent, Diabolical Plots, SF Signal, File 770, and Amazing Stories ezines, plus 200 critiques for the Critters online workshop. For the past 15 years, he has traveled the globe teaching ESL (English as a Second Language) in 6 counties on 3 continents. Carl has traveled to 18 countries and counting. (He’s tired.) His essay on Chinese culture was published in Beijing Review. His essay on Korean culture was published in The Korea Times, as was his expose on the Korean ESL industry. His travel/education reports about Thailand occasionally appear on the Ajarn website. When he’s not distracted with chronic visa issues or major culture clash, he enjoys interviewing famous science fiction authors, who by coincidence enjoy being interviewed.


Discover more from File 770

Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.

110 thoughts on “Carl Slaughter’s Open Letter to the CEO of Google

  1. Very interesting article. One minor nitpick – Galaktika is a Hungarian magazine, not German.

  2. I am absolutely no expert in software, hardware, or digital piracy. However, from what I understand, effective anti-piracy software is possible if you lock down all of the hardware on each part of the system. Ths makes end-to-end encryption possible. However, the owner would be legally forbidden from having complete control of their own computer, and exploits could use the encryption for nefarious purposes.

  3. My open letter to Carl Slaughter (as someone who wants as much information as possible to be available to as many people as possible):

    Bite me.

  4. as someone who wants as much information as possible to be available to as many people as possible

    Copyright law is not based on the desires, motivations, intentions, perspectives, opinions, and declarations of people who covet someone else’s property. Copyright is based on the rights of content creators.

    If I create it, it’s mine. No matter how much you want it, no matter how convinced you are that you should have access to it on your terms, it’s still mine.

    You don’t factor into the equation. Indeed, copyright was designed to prevent you from factoring yourself into the equation.

  5. Copyright law is not based on the desires, motivations, intentions, perspectives, opinions, and declarations of people who covet someone else’s property.

    Laws only work when the majority of people are willing to abide by those laws. The “war on piracy” will not be any more successful than “the war on drugs” or the US’s prohibition of alcohol, and for the same reason–not enough people give a damn about supporting the law and will break it with impunity.

    But feel free to tilt at those windmills.

  6. And anyway, my open letter wasn’t really about the concept of “piracy” in general, but that the idea that Google’s digitization project (and similar ones, like Microsoft’s aborted effort) is equivalent to piracy is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really silly.

  7. ‘Laws only work when the majority of people are willing to abide by those laws’

    Or only when there is a willingness to find ways to enforce those laws. In the War On Drugs the people who grow, make and sell the drugs still manage to get paid, and if it ends, God willing, and drugs are legalised, other people who grow, make and sell the drugs will get paid. War on piracy or no war on piracy it looks like it’s the people who make books, films etc who end up not getting paid, or paid considerably less than they should. Capitalist or anarchist, looks like everyone ends up devaluing Labour when it suits them.

  8. @Darren Garrison

    “Bite me”

    I’m convinced you have better ways of putting your case than that.

  9. the idea that Google’s digitization project is equivalent to piracy

    It’s not the equivalent of piracy. It’s piracy:

    — They scan the entire book.
    — They make the entire book searchable.
    — They make money off the project.
    — They don’t obtain the author’s permission.
    — They don’t compensate the author.

  10. Make the book searchable ooooooh! How dare google make it so that you can find if a book contains the information you need before buyng a copy!

    Just because you can search the whole book doesn’t mean that you can still see the whole contents of the book. Maybe, if the section you need is small, you might be able to see that whole part in the Google preview. In other circumstances, you would have to buy (or borrow, or pirate) a copy of the book to actually access what you need.

    (If you really are trying to say that it is wrong to deny authors the cash normally gained by people having to buy a pig in a poke just to find the book doesn’t actually contain the information they need, I really do mean something so much stronger than “bite me” that it would risk Mike lowering the ban hammer on me.)

  11. Google urged the justices to side against the writers because, in the end, their works would be more readily discovered.

    This is sophism. Google is not acting in the best interest of authors. Nor do they care what effect their action have on authors.

  12. War on piracy or no war on piracy it looks like it’s the people who make books, films etc who end up not getting paid, or paid considerably less than they should.

    Let me answer you in song.

    The media giants fought against pretty much every change in medium over fears that ease of copying would kill their business. Content providers survived photocopiers, audio cassettes, CDs, DVDs, MP3s, libraries, used book stores, etc, and they will survive internet piracy.

  13. Darren Garrison: My open letter to Carl Slaughter (as someone who wants as much information as possible to be available to as many people as possible):
    Bite me.

    Mere mastication is not an argument. You’re not covering yourself with glory today.

  14. Carl Slaughter on November 27, 2016 at 12:11 pm said:

    It’s not the equivalent of piracy. It’s piracy:

    — They make money off the project.

    Google sez:

    Do Google or the library profit when I buy a book?

    No, we do not. On Google Books pages we offer links to popular booksellers where you can buy the book and, in the case of out of print books, we offer links to used booksellers. These sites don’t pay to have their links included, nor does Google or any library receive money if you buy a book from one of these retailers.
    https://books.google.com/googlebooks/common.html#5

    Also ….

    We carefully protect copyright holders by making sure that when users find a book under copyright, they see only a card catalog-style entry providing basic information about the book and no more than two or three sentences of text surrounding the search term to help them determine whether they’ve found what they’re looking for.https://books.google.com/googlebooks/perspectives/

    So, I am curious … you’ve stated they make money off of this project … how?

  15. How dare google make it so that you can find if a book contains the information you need before buyng a copy!

    If Google wants to offer more information about the books, they can access the table of contents, index, glossary, foreward, introduction, bio, footnotes.

    Google could also offer reviews and sample chapters.

    But Amazon already offers jacketcopy, sample chapters, and reviews. And publishers already offer the table of contents and other auxillary information. All of this without accessing the creative content of the author.

    Long before Google started scanning books, readers used this information for book buying decisions.

  16. You’re not covering yourself with glory today.

    (Shrug.) I think a very concise response is perfectly appropriate when faced with a long, rambling, semi-coherent “man shouting at clouds” rant.

  17. So, I am curious … you’ve stated they make money off of this project … how?

    Their answer was to a much more narrow question than the claim he made. I don’t know how Google makes money overall, but one would presume that would be the place to look, not book sales.

    Do Google Books pages carry advertising? If so, that’s one way.

  18. If Google wants to offer more information about the books, they can access the table of contents, index, glossary, foreward, introduction, bio, footnotes.

    “If it was good enough for my great-grandaddy, it is good enough for me, dagnabbit!”

    I marvel at the number of people in the SF field (including Bradbury, William Gibson, and Asimov (with his fear of flying)) who are terrified of technological advances.

  19. ‘and they will survive internet piracy.’

    Having their work stolen won’t kill anyone – I hope – but it will deny them, y’know, remuneration.

    ‘who are terrified of technological advances.’

    They’re probably savvy enough to know that there are often things about technological advances one ought to be worried about. A lot of science fiction derives mileage from this premise.

  20. Google is one of the most profitable corporations in the world. They’re not the Library of Congress. They’re not Project Gutenberg.

  21. long, rambling, semi-coherent

    My writing is usually a lot smoother and tighter. In this case, thought it was important to respond immediately to the Supreme Court’s decision.

  22. Protection of intellectual property is an inalienable, longstanding, universally recognized right. That right does not disappear just because technology changes. Any more than free speech, religion, assembly, redress, due process, etc, disappear because any other aspect of society changes.

  23. I marvel at the number of people in the SF field who are terrified of technological advances.

    Technology isn’t violating copyright. Pirates are violating copyright.

    Google could use that same technology to form a partnership with content creators, just as bookstores and cinemas do, just as Amazon does.

  24. If I write a book, and you read that book, and anyone between makes money off you reading the book I wrote, I had better have made money along the way, even if it’s a pittance.

    Used bookstores? Well, the original book buyer bought the book and the publisher paid me. I made money along the way. Extra steps and extra additional moneymakers and readers do not negate that.

    Libraries? The library bought the book. You might be one of a hundred readers of that book, but I did get money along the way.

    Google Books? Pirates? The book was not given to them by the publisher, or by me. I make no money. All they offer to date is more possible exposure or a given book.

    Exposure is…

    … exposure *Can be* nice, actually. When done *right*, it can mean some person too poor for used bookstores, and ill-served by the growing defunding of libraries, can still enjoy a work. And often leads to some future sales.* That’s the reason a number of writers offer some works cheap to free as a taster, or use a donation model. But, and this is key, is there a reason *google* should get to decide when this is acceptable, and not I myself or a publisher on my behalf? That seems a misplacement of resources, rights, and responsibilities.

    Google books is not an entirely evil idea. It helps the frustrating life of out-of-print books, and is potentially a huge boon to orphaned works. But, when Google announced this, a number of writers asked how they would prevent piracy, and Google pretty much said it was up tot he authors and publishers to even find the pirates and point them out. Google would not police *its own project* to protect copyright.
    ________

    I am aware I look a bit hypocritical on this, as we have downloaded tv shows or movies we do not yet own on blu-ray/DVDS/legal download. We also buy those, when income allows.

  25. For the record, SFWA believes that the proposed Google Book settlement is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected by the court.

  26. I am not going to rehearse any arguments pro and anti the “Google settlement.” You decided to deal with the devil, as it were, and have presented your arguments for doing so. I wish I could accept them. I can’t. There are principles involved, above all the whole concept of copyright; and these you have seen fit to abandon to a corporation, on their terms, without a struggle.

    So, after being a loyal if invisible member for so long, I am resigning from the Guild. I am, however, retaining membership in the National Writers Union and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, both of which opposed the “Google settlement.” They don’t have your clout, but their judgment, I think, is sounder, and their courage greater.

    Ursula K. Le Guin to the Authors Guild

  27. The Copyright Committee leads SFWA discussion and action on copyright and related matters. Its members are Jim Fiscus (Chair) , Michael Capobianco, Cory Doctorow (Advisor), Ken Liu, Elizabeth Moon, C.E. Petit (Advisor), Jerry Pournelle (Advisor), Rosemary Claire Smith, Lynne Thomas, Emily Mah Tippetts (Advisor).

    The SFWA opposed the Authors Guild settlement with Google Books. Cory Doctorow endorses Google Books. Yet Cory Doctorow is an advisor to the SFWA’s Copyright Committee. Hmm.

  28. @Michael J Walsh: they make money off of this project … how?
    @Kurt Busiek: Do Google Books pages carry advertising? If so, that’s one way.

    I haven’t seen ads on the actual book pages, but apparently they do have the right to put them there, and they certainly appear on the initial search result pages.

    The other main intended source of revenue as I understand it, though I have no idea how much of this there’s actually been, has always been the sale of access to full scanned books in bulk. Under the 2009 settlement, Google splits this revenue with the Book Rights Registry, so they’re not getting all of it but still a fairly hefty cut. And more importantly, it means they can more or less unilaterally and permanently make themselves the publisher for a huge number of out-of-print copyrighted books; there is no mechanism for anyone else to get into this market (I mean separately, as opposed to working within one of Google’s affiliate programs), and it seems difficult for any non-Google publisher to bring an author’s work back into print once Google has picked it up.


  29. Kurt Busiek on November 27, 2016 at 1:01 pm said:

    [glowing electrons deleted]

    Do Google Books pages carry advertising? If so, that’s one way.

    Sort of in answer:
    “Does Google display ads on library books?

    No, there are currently no ads on library books. Please take a look at the Google Book Search Screenshots page or view the screenshots on the right of this page to see how we display books we scanned through our Library Project.” https://books.google.com/googlebooks/common.html#6

    What one sees on the results page of Google Books are links to various online resources to order the book.

  30. They make the entire book searchable.

    They don’t display the entire book. I see nothing in copyright law to indicate that providing a short excerpt in response to a relevant search is anything but fair use.

    As far as I’m concerned Google Books is one of the greatest things the company has ever done. I say that as an author of 25 books who thinks the research value of a searchable archive of the world’s books far outweighs the potential for harm to authors. I have trouble seeing how it harms me at all.

  31. @Michael, as I said above, and as they carefully put it in that statement, they are not currently showing ads on the book pages. They did not rule it out, and there’s specific language in the settlement allowing them to show ads. But, again, I don’t think ads are really the issue, since the settlement also makes it possible for them to sell books– the entire contents, either directly or through other retailers– without having to acquire the rights. They are very clearly positioning themselves to make money as, in effect, monopoly publishers in perpetuity for anything that isn’t specifically contested by a current publisher. If the “searchable archive for research purposes” idea, the part that everyone likes, were really the main goal, there would have been no need for such provisions in the settlement.

    It is very convenient for Google that so many people were impressed by the research aspect and have decided, like some of the commenters above, to discuss it entirely in those terms while ignoring the commercial aspect. I don’t see how anyone can think it’s at all plausible that Google invests in huge projects that it has no way to make money from. Every single thing they do that gets beyond early R&D stages has an associated revenue stream. They’re a business, and one with pretty obvious monopolistic ambitions. “Their product is useful to me” should not be the sole criterion for judging how they behave as a business.

  32. Making the whole book readable, that’s saved me a ton of money.

    Oh, except they don’t, just parts of it with a handy link for me to buy the whole thing, so it’s cost me money that goes to authors (or at least bookstores).

    They started this when ads were a big source of revenue; by the time they finished it, ads now aren’t. And Google’s pulled the plug on any number of up and running projects before when they become non-profitable, even when they still had a lot of users. You can tell ’em “But I like that! I’m using it!” but if it isn’t making them money, sayonara.

    Other addenda:

    The Author’s Guild isn’t really for authors, despite the name; they’re real big on propping up the big publishing house model of agents, advances, royalties when they feel like sending them, rights grabs, and all that giant corporate model that doesn’t work any more. It works fine if you’re a big name like their poster boy James Patterson, but bupkis for the vanishing mid-list, and less than bupkis for newbies. They’re all “waily waily o noez, ebooks and self-publishing will destroy reading!” and knuckled under to Hachette/rest of the Big 5, which is where they might have been able to have some effect to get more money into average authors’ pockets.

    Cory Doctorow believes everything ought to be free, so I have no idea why he’s on the SFWA copyright committee. Maybe the sensible people hear what he says, go “Uh-huh, Cory, that’s interesting” — and then vote the opposite way?

  33. @Carl Slaughter Copyright is based on the rights of content creators. . . . You don’t factor into the equation. Indeed, copyright was designed to prevent you from factoring yourself into the equation.

    This is so not true. ” To promote the Progress of . . . useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors . . . the exclusive Right to their respective Writings.”

    It’s a two-way street. The public benefits from the creativity of artists, and in order to make that happen, the public (through Congress) grants artists a monopoly on their work. The monopoly isn’t a “natural right” handed down from the heavens, it is an artificial construct that has only existed for a few hundred years.

    I do indeed factor into the equation, because if I didn’t benefit from your writings, you wouldn’t be given the right to prevent me from copying your writings. And the monopoly is contingent on whether it “promotes” the arts. The writer doesn’t get a complete monopoly for all time, because that wouldn’t promote the arts. There are lots of exceptions and limitations, and apparently the ability of Google to scan and index books is now one of them.

  34. Every single thing they do that gets beyond early R&D stages has an associated revenue stream.

    I can think of many Google projects that got past the early stages without a revenue stream. For example, Google Reader had millions of users and lasted for eight years. It was never monetized. FeedBurner has never been monetized either.

    I think Books exists to put Google into a new space for search — the physical world of books — and see what opportunities are discovered as a consequence. I don’t see it as a project Google believed would be a big revenue generator.

  35. — Everyone benefits because you violate my copyright.
    — Everyone benefits because Congress protects my copyright.

    You can’t have it both ways.

  36. Scanning, indexing, and making available 30,000,000 books, and eventually 120,000,000 books, requires a huge investment. If they didn’t plan on making a profit off the project, they would channel that investment toward an NGO, probably of their own creation and their own management, so they could cultivate their image as trying to “make the world a better place,” and get a massive tax writeoff in the process.

  37. They don’t display the entire book. I see nothing in copyright law to indicate that providing a short excerpt in response to a relevant search is anything but fair use.

    Exactly. A recent real-world use of mine of Google Books was looking up a reference (to post in a different forum) a link to a book entry traditional Japanese
    bobbing-head tigers. I looked for (and found) this link to a book that I already have in deadtree format.

    Note two things: 1.) the only “ads” are links for the purchase of the official ebook or the print edition 2.) you can view only limited sections of the book, with no easy way to download and save the preview pages that are displayed. Not remotely up to the sky-falling hyperbolic fears (and/or cynical moneygrab) of the writers unions.

    As far as I’m concerned Google Books is one of the greatest things the company has ever done.

    I agree with you 100%–which is why Carl Slaughter’s “open letter” rubbed me so hard the wrong way.

  38. I was curious to see just how badly Carl is being personally affected by Google Books, so I did a search. I’m finding only one brief reference that is almost certainly him, on page 200 of Life in China: My Story. (Less likely is being a pastor or a country musician who can play anything from washboards to mandolins to pianos.)

    So, Carl, are you expecting that there are works of yours on Google Books that aren’t actually there, or is this purely philosophical for you?

  39. @Carl
    — Everyone benefits because you violate my copyright.
    — Everyone benefits because Congress protects my copyright.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    I’m only trying to have it one way, which you failed to list:

    — Everyone benefits because you have a copyright; it is not infinite, but has defined limits and exceptions.

  40. Did you search Ursula Le Guin’s name when she publicly withdrew her membership from the Authors Guild to protest their compromise with Google? Did you ask her if any of her novels had been scanned by Google? Go ahead, tell Ursula Le Guin, “Bite me.”

  41. defined limits and exceptions

    Those limits and exceptions are within the context of permission. You don’t need my permission to quote half a dozen paragraphs in a review or a thesis. You need my permission to scan, archive, and make available the entire book for searching.

  42. Go ahead, tell Ursula Le Guin, “Bite me.”

    When you put it that way, maybe the “bite me” phrasing was too harsh. So I’ll amend my statement to this link followed by this one.

  43. You need my permission to scan, archive, and make available the entire book for searching.

    Unless I’m Google.

  44. You need my permission to scan, archive, and make available the entire book for searching.

    Why do you keep saying this when it’s not true? The issue has been decided by the Supreme Court when it upheld the unanimous decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

    Here’s Judge Pierre N. Leval writing for the majority:

    “The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals.”

    What Google Books does is fair use.

Comments are closed.