Google: A friend or the "new Evil Empire"? | Hacker News Reader

Google: A friend or the "new Evil Empire"?

sfgate.com

13 pointsilamont21 comments

    Google Books is a prime example

For the purpose of demonstrating that Google is an evil empire then Google Books is an appalling example.

    But the consensus is the company fomented an avoidable
    backlash by forging ahead with its controversial plan
    without consulting the parties with the most at stake.

In the list that follows you may have missed that Temple fails to mention 'consumers'. His perspective stems from a common evil perspective - that the world should rotate around the interests of the current elite.

What do consumers have to do with it?

Books is a good example, because Google violated copyright law without even consulting the owners of the content. They didn't do this for consumers, they did this to fight Amazon -- who did obey the law.

I understand Google has made some questionably evil decisions, but I'm bothered by the number of articles written about Google's evilness just because they have a recognizable brand. December 3 marked the anniversary of the Bhopal disaster. An article on December 7 about Google maybe being an evil entity seems like a joke when placed next to what Union Carbide did and continues to do through inaction.

Google Books is a prime example, Enderle said. It's an open debate whether the plan to scan millions of books and make them searchable online will prove the benefit to humanity that Google promises - or hand it a monopoly over certain digital works, as opponents allege.

The issue I have with statements like this is that it is really searching for the "evillness" in something. If "doing it first" is the new definition of monopoly then that sort of sucks ;)

It's a monopoly because Google has been granted the exclusive right (via a lawsuit) to digitize and distribute orphaned books. It would be a copyright violation on a grand scale if anyone else were to try.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/06/google_books/

It wasn't Google that initiated the lawsuit. If this turns out to be a landmine, it will be the publishing industry that planted it.

Reading the whole article I cant come to the same conclusion really.

As I read it Google has "sidestepped" the copyright violation via this lawsuit; a step which any other company doing the same thing would also have to do.

It's untested (and therefore somewhat difficult to assert with way) whether anyone else could win a similar lawsuit to attain similar rights. Also it is not yet tested whether publishers could be approached with a license model for orphaned work without it having to go to the courts.

I think granted the exclusive right is simple an opinion; because none of the court documents appear to grant an exclusive right.

Today Google is the only entity with the legal right to do what they do with the books. If I were to try it, I'd be sued into oblivion by the publishers.

For Google, forgiveness was easier than permission. For anyone else, forgiveness won't be an option.

The settlement and ruling applies to Google and only Google. Perhaps in the future some organization will slog through the legal system and change that situation. If that happens, it won't be a monopoly anymore. But today it is.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/the-fight-over-the-wo... (Questions #17 - #21 make the point much better than I am able)

> If that happens, it won't be a monopoly anymore.

I think the problem is the definition of monopoly. It's arguably a very good thing (tm) [for consumers] that Google have done - if the fact they had to fight the legal system in a way that is beyond the means of most companies makes it a monopoly then that, to me, seems a bit screwy logic. What about the argument they have now paved the way for much simpler lawsuits - or even opened the way for people to convince publishers to license content without needing the courts....

Till someone else bothers to try (note: bothers) this is impossible to judge either way.

Also lets be careful here: monopolies aren't necessarily (in a legal sense) "bad". Unfair monopolies are what we have to avoid - and evil ones. This was evidence for Google being an evil corporation; to my eyes it seems hard enough to argue this is really a monopoly let alone one with "evil" intent :)

(ultimately the argument does seem to come down to: Congress needs to fix a silly situation)

I think we're viewing the same situation through slightly different lenses, but mostly in agreement. You're right - this is a silly situation, and Congress ought to fix it.

I was about to make the same point about monopolies, fairness, and evil. I agree that this particular example isn't strong support for the "Google is evil" thesis.

Specifics of the particular case aside, I do not like that Google has the weight to simply buck the system if it disagrees with it. It sets a terrible precedent. The legislative process for changing the laws is flawed, but there are good reasons it exists: for example, multiple voices and interests can express their concerns.

I think it's a rationally defensible position that, in the books case, Google is substituting an democratic process for an enlightened dictatorship. If nothing else, that's a problem because it's a single point of failure. Obviously, that way of phrasing my viewpoint is rather severe and totally loaded, but I think it's also a concise summary of both my opinions and my feelings on the topic.

Given that the judiciary and the legislative branch have equal footing in the founding documents, how is democracy being side-stepped?

The judiciary branch had to intervene to prevent Google from sidestepping the law, which they were attempting to do. If Google had gone to the courts to try to upend copyright law, that would be using a democratic process. That's not what Google did; they ignored the law, and the judiciary branch was invoked by someone else to step in and stop them.

In the end, it is the court's opinion on the legality of their actions that matters, not how the case came before it.

Was a judgement/ruling issued in this case? If so, it makes it relatively easy for another to replicate the situation. Its one thing our legal system is actually quite good at.

> Google says it does recognize the threat. Like Microsoft a decade ago, it has dramatically scaled up its lobbying and public relations efforts.

Hmmmmm.

Lobbying and PR is a defensive measure that IMHO is justifiable without being evil. There are plenty more competitors out there who will use their deep pockets to curry politicians into doing things to harm you... having your own lobbying strength helps defend against that.

It depends on who's running the company. If they have someone at the top who has strong ethics, they should continue to be benevolent.

I worry more about Google's future than present - benevolent dictators are great until they decide to stop being benevolent.

I don't see Google as evil, but I do see them as frighteningly hungry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com