Site Meter

Category: Google & Search Engines

0

Google Books and the Social (Justice) Contract

In channeling Judge Baer, Judge Chin at long last dropped the other shoe in the judicial effort to bring new information technology uses for copyrighted works fully in to the copyright regime. Congress has been slow to address the challenge of tapping the full copyright social utility/justice potential of these advances and it’s been left to the courts to sort it all out in the context of individual adversarial conflicts. Poignantly, when Jonathan Band asks “What [was] the Authors Guild fighting for?”, he also illustrates the tree-myopic/forest blind nature of the Guild’s position. What the Guild failed to see is that property rights fit into a larger socio-legal system: Yes your neighbor is precluded from trespassing on to your land but your ability to engage in whatever “private” activity strikes your fancy while thereon is limited by the legal system as a whole. Your land is individual private property, not an independent sovereign state.

 

Judge Baer reminded rights holders of this aspect of the social contract and now Judge Chin has made it clear to the Guild that this is not some narrow, eccentric application of copyright social utility. Property rights, including copyrights, exist to advance society, and to state the obvious, information technology has evolved our society. Like all other rights, customs, and expectations, however, whereas some aspects of copyright as previously envisioned fit comfortably into our new configuration others don’t fit at all. And when that ill-fit impedes important social progress modifications must be made, and if necessary, expectations altered.

 

The courts’ reasoning in both Hathitrust and Google Books moves fair use jurisprudence further toward the express consideration of copyright social justice in the application of the doctrine. As Kevin Smith notes, the judges in both cases have seized this opportunity to retrofit fair use, and it seems to me that these decisions push beyond questions of aesthetic and even functional transformation and pave the way for weighing social transformation in assessing the first fair use factor. I have also applied some of the legal conclusions drawn from Bill Graham Archives and other Grateful Dead archive projects to specific copyright social justice needs, for example, that of socially beneficent access to the literature of the Harlem Renaissance. Like some other historically and culturally important works, many of these books enjoy only marginal commercial market value and similar to the information harvested through data mining, “digital fair use” may be the only means by which to return these works to the general public. The social resuscitation of significant works through mass-digitization, and other uses that serve important and otherwise unattainable copyright social objectives, should be considered a purpose that satisfies the first fair use factor.

 

Authors and other copyrights holders would do well to finally get ahead of the information technology curve. The Authors Guild’s mistake was not so much in the effort to preserve what they considered to be their property rights or even in the effort to extract every conceivable drop of revenue out those rights, but rather, in failing to accept that in order for these rights to retain any value they must function as part of a thriving societal system or eventually forfeit the basis for legal recognition. In the analog world, the public’s access to most books remains largely dependent upon the vagaries of the commercial marketplace. Digital information technology has presented the opportunity to compile the world’s books toward the creation of global libraries accessible to every human being on a socially equitable basis. To believe that analog social inequity will be permitted to endure indefinitely in the face of digital information possibilities is simply unrealistic. Keeping in mind that the stimulation, perpetuation, and re-ignition of the cultural expression/dissemination/inspiration combustive cycle is the raison d’etre of copyright will enable authors to embrace digital change and as Gil Scott Heron sang, possibly even direct the change rather than simply be put through it.

 

0

Google Books and Author’s Rights

I agree with James Grimmelmann that the Google Books decision is a bit anticlimactic (although the appeal has the potential to add suspense by bringing the case back from the dead). After last October’s decision in Authors Guild v. Hathitrust, the only question really was whether Judge Chin would distinguish HathiTrust on the grounds that the defendants there were nonprofit institutions of higher education, while the defendant here was a commercial entity. To be sure, Judge Chin was not bound by Judge Baer’s analysis that HathiTrust’s use was transformative and did not in any way harm the market for the works at issue,  but these holdings were so consistent with precedent in the Second and Ninth Circuit that it was hard to imagine that Judge Chin would disagree with them. That left the commercial/non-commercial distinction, which has become far less significant in recent years in cases involving transformative uses.

Both judges’ recognition of the enormous social utility of creating a searchable index of books, and the absence of harm to authors caused by such an index (to the contrary, the index benefits authors by making their works more discoverable), highlights the mystery at the heart of these cases: What is the Authors Guild fighting for? Why did it not settle last year, when the publishers dropped their suit against Google? Why did it continue to pursue its litigation against HathiTrust after HathiTrust abandoned its orphan works project?

For some Authors Guild members, it might be about the money. They may believe that there is a pot of gold at the end of the Google rainbow. If the Internet could make instant millionaires (if not billionaires) out of all these kids who express themselves through Internet acronyms, emoticons, and 140 character tweets, then surely authors who spend years writing finely crafted books deserve a share of that fortune.

For others, it seems to be a matter of principle. But exactly what principle? Apparently, that no one should use their works without their permission. While they may agree with fair use in the abstract, they oppose it as applied to their works. The fact that the use is socially beneficial and does not harm them economically is irrelevant. I would amend James’s “three c” formulation with a fourth c: creators should have complete control over copies.

The Authors Guild’s belief in complete control is based more on the Continental “author’s rights” (droit d’auteur) tradition than on the Anglo-American utilitarian tradition. In the author’s rights approach, copyright springs not from statutes but from natural law. The relationship between the author and his work is intimate and indivisible. By contrast, in the Anglo-American system, copyright is not a response to natural law, but rather is a matter of legislative choice directed at incentivizing the creation of works for the benefit of society.  The Anglo-American utilitarian approach in theory provides only as much protection as is necessary to encourage creative activity, while the author’s rights approach provides more robust protections of both economic rights and moral rights such as the right of attribution and integrity.  Historically, the difference between the two approaches translated into longer copyright terms and narrower exceptions in author’s rights jurisdictions.

However, in response to lobbying by rights-holders, Congress has enacted certain features of author’s rights systems — for example, the ever-increasing copyright term. The first U.S. copyright act provided a term of 14 years, renewable for another 14 years, for a total of 28 years. Now, the copyright term matches the European Union’s term of life of the author plus 70 years.

Efforts are underway to import other author’s rights features. The U.S. Copyright Office just released a report recommending that Congress consider adoption of a resale royalty (droit de suite) for visual artists. Under this framework, a visual artist would receive a percentage of the amount paid for a work each time it was resold by a third party.  A resale royalty is in effect a tax on the sale of copyright products and is directly contrary to the long-established first sale doctrine.

The complete control over copyrighted works sought by the Authors Guild and reflected by proposals such a resale royalty are inconsistent with the public interest purpose of our copyright system. Fortunately, Judge Chin, and Judge Baer before him, recognized that the objective of copyright is not to enrich rights-holders, but “to advance the progress of the arts and sciences.”

 

2

Search Engine Objectivity

(This is a guest post from Professor Mark R. Patterson of Fordham Law School. As someone who has participated in panels on antitrust with Prof. Patterson, I thought our readers would be interested in his perspective. –Frank Pasquale.)

pattersonM“Search is inherently subjective: it always involves guessing the diverse and unknown intentions of users. Regulators, however, need an objective standard to judge search engines against.”

The two claims above, from an essay by James Grimmelmann, are at the center of the conflict over regulation of search engines. Some argue that Google is a powerful gatekeeper for competing firms’ access to customers, so that it must operate in an objective or neutral manner to preserve a level competitive playing field. Those who make this argument necessarily assume that we can assess objectivity or neutrality in this context. Others, like Grimmelmann, support the first statement above, arguing that there is no objective, neutral means of assessing search results, so that there is no way to regulate search engines.

The European Commission (EC), having investigated Google’s practices and concluded that there are “competition concerns,” is apparently on the pro-regulation side, because it is entertaining proposed commitments from Google to address those concerns. (The U.S. F.T.C. conducted its own investigation and closed it without action, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that Google’s practices lacked a legitimate business justification.) Google proposed a first set of commitments to the EC in April, but the Commission received “very negative” feedback from a market test of those commitments, so it asked Google for an improved proposal. Last month, Google proposed a second set of commitments. This new proposal was not put to a market test. Instead, the EC sent private inquiries to the complainants in the case and other market participants. Nevertheless, the proposal was leaked, and it offers much food for thought.

Read More

NSA Penalty Proposed

Readers suggested potential penalties for improper gathering or misuse of surveillance data last month.  As revelations continue, Congressmen have recently proposed some new ideas:

Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) proposed legislation . . .  that would cut National Security Agency (NSA) funding if it violates new surveillance rules aimed at preventing broad data collection on millions of people.

Fitzpatrick has also offered language to restrict the term “relevant” when it comes to data collection.  On the one hand, it seems odd for Congress to micromanage a spy agency.  On the other hand, no one has adequately explained how present safeguards keep the integrated Information Sharing Environment from engaging in the harms catalogued here and here. So we’re likely to see many blunt efforts to cut off its ability to collect and analyze data, even if data misuse is really the core problem.

0

Glass Houses

Google Glass has been a mere gleam in the eye of tech savants for the past several months, but the company began distributing the wearable internet device to a hand-picked group of “Explorers” in June.  A fascinating pair of articles from the New York Times Bits columnist, Nick Bilton, recently highlighted the tensions between speech and privacy that are likely to play out as the device is integrated into everyday use.  The articles compared Glass to Kodak cameras, which were controversial when introduced in the late 1800s but ultimately accepted after Americans figured out how and when the cameras should be used.  It’s not clear, however, that the Glass experience will duplicate the Kodak pattern.  Kodaks came on the market when tort law could respond nimbly to camera invasions of privacy, while Glass is debuting in a world where tort law is increasingly subject to constitutional constraints.

Bilton teed up the Glass privacy issue nicely in May, when he described his visit to the Google I/O developers’ conference.  There, hundreds of attendees were sporting the eyeglass-mounted computers, which can take a snapshot or video with a wink of the wearer’s eye.  Bilton — a self-professed tech nerd — reported being rattled by the swarms of Glass wearers; after trying to “duck [his] head and move out of the way” of the wearable cameras, he retreated to the men’s room, only to find the urinals on either side of him occupied by Glass wearers.  “My world,” he wrote, “came screeching to a halt.”  In an article appearing a week later, however, Bilton appeared to have calmed down.  He had interviewed CUNY journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, who predicted that unwilling stars in Glass pictures and videos would eventually realize that being recorded is simply a hazard of appearing in public.  Jarvis likened the anti-Glass complaints to the furor that erupted when Kodak cameras were introduced in the 1890s.  So-called Kodak fiends, who trained their lenses primarily on uncooperative females, initially encountered threats and violence.  Ultimately, Jarvis said, amateur photographers began to behave better and society accepted cameras as a new feature of daily life.

But Bilton and Jarvis may have overlooked a crucial difference between the legal environment when pocket cameras were introduced and the legal environment today.  Tort law was instrumental in developing norms about acceptable camera use in the early Twentieth Century.  The Kodak fiends did not become more respectful overnight, and Americans did not become easily inured to having their pictures taken by strangers.  Instead, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis protested the abuse of cameras in what has been called the most famous law review article ever published, The Right to Privacy.  That piece advocated the creation of a new tort that would give victims of stealth photography (and other dubious news practices) a legal remedy against their aggressors.  State courts began recognizing privacy torts in 1905 and by 1960 they were a standard part of the tort toolbox.  In short, tort law established a background scheme of legal liability for the abuse of camera technology, and social norms about acceptable camera use followed.

Read More

“Kicking the Tires” is not “Looking Under the Hood”

Celebrated in the tech press only a week ago, the FTC inaction (and non-explanation of its inaction) with respect to search bias concerns is already starting to curdle. The FT ran a front page headline titled “Europe Takes Tough Stance on Google.” Another story included this striking comment from the EU’s competition chief:

Almunia insists that the Federal Trade Commission decision will be “neither an obstacle [for the European Commission] nor an advantage [for Google]. You can also think, well, this European authority, the commission, has received a gift from the American authorities, given that now every result they will get will be much better than the conclusions of the FTC,” he said with playful confidence. “Google people know very well that they need to provide results and real remedies, not arguments or comparisons with what happened on the other side [of the Atlantic].”

In response to allegations of search bias, Google has essentially said, “Trust us.” And at the end of its investigation into the potential bias, the FTC has essentially said the same. One public interest group has already put in a FOIA request for communications between Google and the FTC. Consumer Watchdog has requested a staff report that was reported to have recommended more robust action. Will Google, an advocate of openness in government and the internet generally, hold firm to its professed principles and commend those requests?
Read More

Google Antitrust: the FTC Folds

Both Eric Goldman and James Grimmelmann have the details on the FTC’s rather extraordinary capitulation today. It is a big win for Google. Still, a few questions remain. I have the following:

1) Commissioner Rosch included this intriguing footnote in his concurrence/dissent:

I . . . have concerns that insofar as Google has monopoly or near-monopoly power in the search advertising market and this power is due in whole or in part to its power over searches generally, nothing in this “settlement” prevents Google from telling “half-truths”–for example, that its gathering of information about the characteristics of a consumer is done solely for the consumer’s benefit, instead of also to maintain a monopoly or near-monopoly position. . . .That is a genuine cause for “strong concern.”

Did Google ever say that it was gathering data purely for consumers’ benefit? That would seem to be an odd representation for a for-profit company to make.
Read More

3

Stanford Law Review Online: Software Speech

Stanford Law Review

The Stanford Law Review Online has just published a Note by Andrew Tutt entitled Software Speech. Tutt argues that current approaches to determining when software or speech generated by software can be protected by the First Amendment are incorrect:

When is software speech for purposes of the First Amendment? This issue has taken on new life amid recent accusations that Google used its search rankings to harm its competitors. This spring, Eugene Volokh coauthored a white paper explaining why Google’s search results are fully protected speech that lies beyond the reach of the antitrust laws. The paper sparked a firestorm of controversy, and in a matter of weeks, dozens of scholars, lawyers, and technologists had joined the debate. The most interesting aspect of the positions on both sides—whether contending that Google search results are or are not speech—is how both get First Amendment doctrine only half right.

He concludes:

By stopping short of calling software “speech,” entirely and unequivocally, the Court would acknowledge the many ways in which software is still an evolving cultural phenomenon unlike others that have come before it. In discarding tests for whether software is speech on the basis of its literal resemblance either to storytelling (Brown) or information dissemination (Sorrell), the Court would strike a careful balance between the legitimate need to regulate software, on the one hand, and the need to protect ideas and viewpoints from manipulation and suppression, on the other.

Read the full article, Software Speech at the Stanford Law Review Online.

Algo-Driven News with a Human Face

Chistopher Steiner’s new book on algorithms looks interesting. (One nugget: Many companies now use software to analyze the emotional tone of customers calling in for customer service help. Sound emotional, and you’ll get routed to the more empathic call center workers.) It’s part of a growing literature on algorithms both online and off. As we search for reliable information on algorithms, they in turn may well be driving even our awareness and discussion of them. It’s another way technology shapes values, rather than being influenced or constrained by them. Consider a recent feature on an increasingly algorithm driven news industry:

Google News-powered results, Google says, are viewed by about 1 billion unique users a week. . . . Which translates, for news outlets overall, to more than 4 billion clicks each month: 1 billion from Google News itself and an additional 3 billion from web search. . . .

Google News’s head of engineering[] summed up the challenge: “How do I take a story that has 20,000 articles, potentially, and showcase all of its variety and breadth to the user?” . . . . Google [is] symbolic of a broader transition: producers’ own grudging acceptance of a media environment in which they are no longer the primary distributors of their own work. [It] suggests an ecosystem that will find producers and amplifiers working collaboratively, rather than competitively. And working, intentionally or not, toward the earnest end that Schmidt expressed two years ago: “the survival of high-quality journalism.”

Read More

0

SOPA, PIPA and some truth about activism

As folks start to claim they saved the Internet and rally for alleged ways to keep the Internet open for all, I want to call out something Rep. Issa said at Stanford in April. Step one, and to me the but-for moment, in stopping SOPA and PIPA was the security and CS community speaking (which was rare) about just how dangerous (“A potpourri of dumb things” – Issa at around 8:15) the bills were. Without that the activism probably could never have gotten in place. Furthermore, as I noted elsewhere, science can shift. Science is, by definition, amoral. If you build it, it will work. So expect the copyright industry to demand new things. Expect them to hire and fund studies about how to get what they want without going using “A potpourri of dumb things.” And note that Google’s recent shift in approach regarding links and alleged pirate sites shows that things change.

This is not an apolitical moment. It is deeply political, but pretends that it is not about a power shift. When Internet and tech companies swear they are there for you, be skeptical. In some senses they are. Many folks I know at Google really are interested in serving users. Many are also scientists who will pursue, as they should, the truth of what is possible. The current bus-stop tour by Reddit’s co-founder, Alexis Ohanian is political. Per the Washington Post, for him, “[T]he key issue is getting Internet openness on the minds and into the talking points of politicians in this election.”

What does openness mean? What are the politics of openness? Why do Facebook, Google, Reddit want openness? South by Southwest looks like it may have panel on disrupting DC. The description reads like an evangelic rally (a good tip that thought is replaced by faith). But to its big credit (except for saying the questions will be answered), the panel looks at some decent issues:

1. The Industrial Revolution brought about a political realignment that created the existing party system. Can the Internet do the same?
2. Beyond “openness,” what are the essential characteristics that define the Internet’s political identity? Market oriented or socially conscious? Libertarian or progressive? (Or all of the above?)
3. Politically, does the Internet most resemble an interest group (like big business or labor unions), a movement, or something we haven’t seen before?
4. Is Internet culture weakening partisanship — or making it worse?
5. Technology drives growth, but some say it also kills jobs. How do we make sure that the benefits of the Internet are widespread? Is there a consistent political viewpoint here among Internet activists, or does this break down along typical political lines?

I doubt one panel can tackle all these questions. Much will depend on the panelists and whether the panel is really open in that it has voices other than those who all agree. Nonetheless, one thing that is missing is a deeper look at the power structures and history that inform the issue. For example, the idea of realigning parties still relies on parties. And, there is an essentialism to Internet identity that is ironic at best and willfully blind and lacking irony at worst.

Have I abandoned my Google brothers and sisters? Oh perhaps, but I don’t think so. These questions were ones I raised while there. Some disliked them. Some took them seriously. The people I respected and loved the most pushed me to dig into these points. Like society, Google has many people with many views and agendas. That’s the point. With all companies and all people asserting truth, administer several grains of salt, reflect, (maybe add some lime and tequila first). For those wishing a good book on the problems with saying we know where we are going, check Professor Wendy Brown’s work, especially Politics Out of History.