Google and Entrepreneurs: Reading Between the Lines

Google pulled out all the stops today to highlight all the great things they do for small businesses and economic growth.  It’s a nice story idea (and effective diversion from ongoing privacy concerns raised by domestic and international regulators) but we think there are quite a few entrepreneurs who’d disagree.

We’re talking of course about the thousands of small, independent writers whose works have been unilaterally and illegally Hoovered into Google’s data stash.  These are folks that depend on their writing to pay the bills and generate business.

Groups like the American Society of Journalists and Authors and the National Writers Union have fought the proposed settlement specifically because it puts their members’ livelihoods at risk.

So if Google wants to talk about what a great partner they are to small businesses, they should consider the impact on independent authors and publishers and even local libraries.  Or perhaps they could invite the hundreds of authors that signed Ursala Le Guin’s petition opposing the settlement to a fancy briefing.  We’re sure they’d love fancy notebooks and free coffee.

The GBS Makes for Angry Neighbors

Today, the Open Book Alliance released a comprehensive analysis that details how the proposed Google Books Settlement violates international laws and treaties.  A full version of the study can be found here.

Cynthia Arato, partner at the law firm of Macht, Shapiro, Arato and Isseries and a prominent litigator on intellectual property and copyright issues, finds that “numerous provisions of the proposed Google Books settlement would, if approved, violate the treaty obligations of the U.S.  If the settlement is approved, it may give rise to legal action against the U.S. before an international tribunal and will certainly expose the U.S. to diplomatic stress.”

For the first time, the proposed class action settlement between Google, the Association of American Publishers and the Author’s Guild has been fully evaluated to determine the claims and remedies that other nations may seek through the World Trade Organization (WTO) for the violations that an approved Google Books Settlement would incur.

Specifically, Arato found that:

“The settlement would (1) grant Google automatic rights to exploit digitally millions of books without requiring Google to obtain any authorization from any foreign copyright owner or author; and (2) require these foreign rights holders to jump through burdensome hoops simply to exercise a watered-down contractual right – that the settlement creates – to halt such use.”

Foreign nations that wish to challenge the U.S. over treaty violations of the settlement may do so before the World Trade Organization.  Violations can lead to financial penalties or trade sanctions against the U.S.  The governments of France and Germany have already formally objected to the proposed settlement.

But beyond financial penalties and trade disputes, we have to ask ourselves if we’re happy thumbing our nose at the rest of the world for the benefit of one company.  We suggest not.  There are alternatives to the GBS that will benefit a broader audience and welcome international partners’ contributions.

Open collaboration that rejects exclusive deals is the best way to create a true international library.