"We must forcefully reject any business model that is based on the systematic infringement of copyrights," Microsoft’s associate general counsel of Copyright, Trademark and Trade Secrets, Tom Rubin, plans to say in a speech reminiscent of those heralded American revolutionaries at the Association of American Publishers Annual Meeting, held at The Yale Club of New York.

The AAP has been tied up in litigation with Google for the past year and a half.

Specifically critical of Google’s Book Search project and the search engine company’s controversial practice of scanning copyrighted books without author or publisher permission. Rubin says Google "that takes a unilateralist or ‘opt out’ approach where the practice is to simply to ‘take’ the works of others, without any regard for copyright or the impact of their actions on authors and publishers. Microsoft doesn’t believe that is the right approach."

Rubin calls Google’s fair use defense, which seeks to justify the scanning and indexing of books by allowing only snippets of material to be shown, a "novel" theory that raises serious questions. The heart of the issue is not the benefits of promotion authors receive, or the amount of copyrighted text used, but that Google assumes the right to copy these books without permission in the first place.

It sets a precedent, he argues, that allows any online player to do the same. If approached this way en masse, it puts undue burden on publishers to track down those similar services in order to prevent unauthorized material from being indexed. 

"Presumably, the desire to preserve these rights is why they asserted copyright in the first place. This approach would be absolutely unworkable in practice, which is probably why Congress in enacting the Copyright Act placed the burden on those who want to copy to get the express consent of the copyright owner, rather than the other way around."

Rubin then does what a lawyer does best: he piles it on with other examples of Google’s "cavalier" approach to copyright.  "Since YouTube’s inception, television companies, movie studios and record labels have all complained that the site knowingly tolerates piracy," he says. This has "forced" copyright owners to resort to litigation.

And then, it’s personal: "Microsoft was surprised to learn recently that Google employees have actively encouraged advertisers to build advertising programs around key words referring to pirated software, including pirated Microsoft software."

This is also an excellent opportunity, while he’s illustrating how not to do it, to mention Microsoft’s new Live Search Books Publisher Program, which enlists the aid of The British Library, the University of California Libraries, Cornell University Library, the University of Toronto Library, and The New York Public Library for out-of-copyright works.
 
For books in copyright, Microsoft waits for express permission from copyright holders, and offers them access to an online dashboard that allows them to manage the amount of text a reader may view, and create click-to-buy links, and edit metadata.

In essence, says Rubin, Google "cannot ‘opt out’ of the law’s obligation to respect the rights of others." And that, in the sparring business world, is what we refer to as a "cheap shot."

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

Brad Hill pointed out that tonight’s “The Battle Over Books” has been sold out. However, a webcast of the festivities will be available online.

The fun starts at 7 PM ET. Google has its general counsel and VP of corporate development, David Drummond, attending, while Authors Guild president Nick Taylor and Allan Adler, Vice President for Legal Governmental Affairs at the Association of American Publishers, will represent the plaintiffs, um, authors and publishers, respectively.

Event sponsor Wired’s Chris Anderson will be in the middle of the event, where the two sides will debate whether Google is either going to enhance the lives of people globally by opening up thousands of closed books to its search engine, or if Google is committing copyright infringement on a massive scale.

One viewpoint we’re looking forward to reading after the event will be that of Lawrence Lessig, also attending the debate. Lessig is the founder of Creative Commons, a nonprofit organization that provides flexible copyright licenses for creative works.

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business. Email him here.

According to the project’s product manager, Adam M. Smith, most major publishers in the U.S. and the U.K. have agreed to participate, but the Association of American Publishers (AAP) is one group that has its problems with the project.

The AAP isn’t satisfied with Google just taking a break to find out which publishers will cooperate. “Google’s announcement does nothing to relieve the publishing industry’s concerns,” said Patricia Schroeder, AAP’s President and CEO.

The AAP’s biggest problem with the Google Print Library Project is that the responsibility of trying to avoid copyright infringement goes to the holder of the copyright. Publishers have to work to keep their property out of the project.

“Google’s procedure shifts the responsibility for preventing infringement to the copyright owner rather than the user, turning every principle of copyright law on its ear,” said Schroeder.

Google plans to digitally copy every piece from three major libraries unless they are denied permission on certain works by copyright owners.

“We were confident that by working together, Google and publishers could have produced a system that would work for everyone, and regret that Google has decided not to work with us on our alternative proposal.”

Chris is a staff writer for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest ebusiness news.

The Association of American Publishers (AAP) is not satisfied with Google simply taking this break. “Google’s announcement does nothing to relieve the publishing industry’s concerns,” said Patricia Schroeder, AAP’s President and CEO.

A press release from the AAP explains that publishers are eager to explore initiatives that promise to bring books to a vastly expanded audience through the innovative use of technology, but the Google Print Library Project is digitally reproducing copyrighted works to support Google’s sale of advertising in connection with its online search business operations without corresponding participation or approval by the copyright holders.

Google plans to digitally copy every piece from three major libraries unless they are denied permission on certain works by copyright owners.

“Google’s procedure shifts the responsibility for preventing infringement to the copyright owner rather than the user, turning every principle of copyright law on its ear,” said Schroeder.

This is an interesting point. Should owners of the copyrights be held responsible for keeping up with one company’s plans to reproduce their property?

“Many AAP members have partnered with Google in its Print for Publishers Program, allowing selected titles to be digitized and searchable on a limited basis pursuant to licenses or permission from publishers, said Schroeder.

“We were confident that by working together, Google and publishers could have produced a system that would work for everyone, and regret that Google has decided not to work with us on our alternative proposal.”

Chris is a staff writer for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest ebusiness news.