Jealous Rivals Determined to Tank Google Settlement?

Google, the Authors Guild, and publishing industry leaders have filed a revised and sweetened settlement with the court. To those who are still opposed to it despite every reasonable effort to placate them, a request:

Spare us the hypocrisy.

You can dress up your objections to the Google settlement in legal niceties and pious pleas for fairness, but the truth is you're just jealous that Google took initiatives that you lacked the vision to take - until it looked like there was money to be made. So now you want to gut the settlement so you can get a piece of the action you didn't raise a finger or spend a dime to earn.

Where were you when a treasure house of literary works was abandoned? And isn't it odd that now that someone has come along with a viable plan to recover that treasure and wants to make a reasonable profit, you have suddenly become passionate bibliophiles and champions of fairness?

Google, the publishing industry, and the Authors Guild have walked an extra mile to satisfy your so-called "concerns". A revised and sweetened settlement has been presented to the court. Do the right thing: honor the men and women of good will who have forged it, the corporate leaders who deserve to profit from it and the generations of humanity that stand to benefit from it.

Read the sweetened terms of the settlement here. For additional observations read Google Settlement Under Attack for Making Treasure Out of Trash.

Richard Curtis

Sergey Brin Sticks it to Google Settlement Critics

Google co-founder Sergey Brin has posted an op-ed editorial in the New York Times urging the book community not to lose what could well be a once-in-history opportunity to rescue the content of millions of book from obscurity.

"The vast majority of books ever written are not accessible to anyone except the most tenacious researchers at premier academic libraries," he points out. "Books written after 1923 quickly disappear into a literary black hole. With rare exceptions, one can buy them only for the small number of years they are in print. After that, they are found only in a vanishing number of libraries and used book stores. As the years pass, contracts get lost and forgotten, authors and publishers disappear, the rights holders become impossible to track down."

Inevitably, the few remaining copies of the books are left to deteriorate slowly or are lost to fires, floods and other disasters. While I was at Stanford in 1998, floods damaged or destroyed tens of thousands of books. Unfortunately, such events are not uncommon — a similar flood happened at Stanford just 20 years prior. You could read about it in The Stanford-Lockheed Meyer Library Flood Report, published in 1980, but this book itself is no longer available.

Brin recounts other tragic losses of historical and literary heritage including the library at Alexandria and, of more recent vintage, the United States Library of Congress.

Assuring us that us that "nothing in this agreement precludes any other company or organization from pursuing their own similar effort," Brin reminds us that "Today, if you want to access a typical out-of-print book, you have only one choice — fly to one of a handful of leading libraries in the country and hope to find it in the stacks."

Brin concludes with the hope that destruction of significant libraries "never happens again, but history would suggest otherwise. More important, even if our cultural heritage stays intact in the world’s foremost libraries, it is effectively lost if no one can access it easily. Many companies, libraries and organizations will play a role in saving and making available the works of the 20th century. Together, authors, publishers and Google are taking just one step toward this goal, but it’s an important step. Let’s not miss this opportunity."

Read Brin's editorial in full in A Library to Last Forever. E-Reads supports the settlement worked out in good faith by the author and publishing community seeking to protect our precious legacy of books. And we take a dim view of the motives of some who have criticized the settlement simply because they didn't think of it first and didn't bestir themselves to do anything about orphaned books until Google demonstrated there's money to be made in them. For more about that, you can click here.

Richard Curtis

Every Blogger owes a debt of gratitude to newspapers and magazines. This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by the New York Times.

A Corporate Colossus That Loves Dogs

In judging people it's often helpful to divide them into dog people or cat people. Can you characterize corporations the same way?

Since you probably haven't read Google's Code of Conduct you will not be aware that Google is a dog company. The preface to the Code's dog policy states,"Google's affection for our canine friends is an integral facet of our corporate culture.We like cats, but we're a dog company, so as a general rule we feel cats visiting our offices would be fairly stressed out."

Though you could argue for hours about the natures of cats and dogs, animal-lovers instinctively understand what Google means when it says it's a dog company. Most of us think of domesticated dogs as friendly, sociable, trustworthy and happy to serve mankind. For that reason, when Google declares "Don't be evil" as its guiding principle we're inclined to give it more credence than if it were the slogan of a company that behaved more unpredictably and deviously - a cat company, in other words.

Wicked?

It must be deeply distressing to Google's management to be characterized by its critics as wicked. That epithet and variations on it have recently been alleged in response to Google's aggressive initiative to digitize the world's inventory of out of print books. "Years after cracking the very code of the Web to lucrative ends," writes the New York Times's David Carr, "Google may be in the midst of trying to conjure the most complicated algorithm yet: to wit, can goodness, or at least a stated intention not to be evil, scale along with the enterprise?" Carr's article is entitled How Good (or Not Evil) Is Google?

Note that Carr distinguishes between a mandate to do good and one not to do evil. The two are vastly different from one another. Hippocrates drew the distinction in his instructions to physicians: "As to diseases, make a habit of two things — to help, or at least to do no harm." There are also two strikingly contrasting expressions of the Golden Rule: one is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The other: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man."

Google's mission is phrased in the negative: Don't be evil rather than Do good. Why? One reason might be credibility: we tend to doubt the probity of do-gooders. But the struggle to avoid evil is universal; everybody roots for those who strive to resist temptation.

The Code

Just what does Google mean by "evil"? I'm reminded of a story about President Calvin Coolidge, a notoriously taciturn man. One Sunday as he left church a reporter asked him what the minister's sermon was about. Coolidge said "Evil." "What did the minister say about evil?" the reporter pressed. "He was against it," Coolidge replied.

It's easy to be against evil until you're asked to define it. But here's the interesting thing about Google: it does defines it. It defines it in the 15 single spaced pages of its Code of Conduct.

Here's a statement from the Preface:

The Google Code of Conduct is one of the ways we put "Don't be evil" into practice. It's built around the recognition that everything we do in connection with our work at Google will be, and should be, measured against the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct. We set the bar that high for practical as well as aspirational reasons: Our commitment to the highest standards helps us hire great people, who then build great products, which in turn attract loyal users. Trust and mutual respect among employees and users are the foundation of our success, and they are something we need to earn every day.

Among the provisions of the Code are positions on integrity, respect, privacy, freedom of expression, drugs and alcohol, co-worker relationships, gifts, expenses, anti-bribery, confidentiality, insider trading and yes...dogs. The spirit of the document is not unlike that of the honor codes of some colleges like Haverford College or West Point. Employees are expect to read the Code thoroughly and not only to be aware of its requirements but to make sure vendors, licensees and others adhere to them as well.

Because the Code of Conduct is educational, entertaining and even inspiring, from time to time we'll excerpt some of its provisions and discuss them.

Is Scale Sinful?

It's not likely that Google's critics have read the Code, because the sin they seem to be accusing Google of - "Do not grow huge" - appears nowhere in the document. The Times's Carr puts his finger on it when he wonders whether goodness can be scaled up. Once a company becomes big can it any longer do good? Or is there one rule for large enterprises and another for small ones?

It might help to look at a small one that does the same thing as Google, Project Gutenberg. Project Gutenberg has been digitizing out of print books for decades. Employing volunteer labor, financed by contributions and offering its editions free or at low cost, it has functioned without raising an eyebrow since its startup in 1971. It boasts a catalog of nearly 30,000 free books and tens of thousands more available through partners and affiliates. Has anyone accused Project Gutenberg of overweening greed or untrammeled ambition?

Nobody that we're aware of.

Google on the other hand has scanned and digitized a staggering number of books, somewhere in the millions. The sheer dimension of the enterprise provokes anxiety, suspicion and jealousy. And, unlike Project Gutenberg, Google is doing it to make money, which only magnifies the hostility toward it.

So - is it possible that evil is simply a function of scale? Can Google continue to do good when, to use Shakespeare's phrase, it bestrides the world like a colossus?

How Big Is Colossal?

Those who think that iniquity is a function of size will find plenty of ammunition when they take Google's measurements. According to the investor relations page on its website, Google's 2008 gross revenues were $21.795 billion. Using statistics provided by the World Bank, that placed Google ahead of the gross national product of 90 other nations including Bolivia ($16.674 billion), Jamaica ($15.068 billion), Afghanistan ($10.170 billion) and Bermuda ($5.855 billion). In fact, Google's gross revenues were higher than the gross national products of the bottom 28 nations on the World Bank's list combined!

With resources like that at its command, a corporation bent on evil could wreak a great deal of havoc. It could finance militias, undermine governments, build arsenals. The news gives us no assurance that corporations are benign. How many companies brandish meaningless mottoes while exploiting, plundering and corrupting? It's easier to be cynical about Google's intentions than to believe that they are sincere. But - is it possible that just this once, a capitalistic behemoth will put its money where its mouth is?

E-Reads has no corporate ties to Google. But we are heavily dependent on them, and we'd be amazed if you were not as well. I certainly would feel better knowing that the company that brings me gmail, Chrome, AdWords, Picasa, Android, Blogger, Google Maps, and YouTube is not evil. Wouldn't you? Read Google's Code of Conduct and reflect.

Richard Curtis

Every Blogger owes a debt of gratitude to newspapers and magazines. This posting relies on original research and reporting performed by the New York Times.

Google Settlement Under Attack for Making Treasure out of Trash

A major literary agency is urging its authors to opt out of the Google settlement. A lawyer is planning to file his opposition to the settlement.

Where were they when, year after year and decade after decade, a treasure house of literary works was abandoned? Along comes Google with a plan to recover those treasures from the trash heap and now those who abandoned them have become passionate bibliophiles. Or have they just become jealous that someone figured out how to make a profit on properties in which they had no interest?

From where I sit it's not about books, it's about money. In the course of rescuing countless works from the public domain and adding value to works that publishers, agents and authors deemed commercially valueless, Google figured out how to monetize those works. And now those selfsame parties want a piece of something they so recently turned their backs on. It reminds me of the oil producers who abandoned tracts because they couldn't get oil from shale. Then someone figured out how to get oil from shale and now the oil companies claim they've been duped.

Perhaps a better analogy is the story of the Little Red Hen. None of her friends - the cat, the duck, the rat - offered to help her to sow the seeds, water the plants, till the soil, pull the weeds, harvest the wheat, thresh the grain, grind the flour or bake the bread. But when the bread was baked, all her friends wanted a piece.

The Little Red Hen said to them, "You shall have no bread." And the moral of this classic childrens tale is that she had every right to say it to them.

So - why do I smell a cat, a duck, and a rat?

Though Google has sown the seeds, watered the plants, tilled the soil, pulled the weeds, harvested the wheat, threshed the grain, ground the flour and baked the bread, it has, after a concerted effort by responsible author and publisher organizations, worked with our community to make sure that everybody gets a piece of bread. But that doesn't seem to be enough for some who have conveniently forgotten who did all the work, invested all the money, developed the technology, and embarked on a stupendous effort to identify the priceless treasures of civilization's literary heritage and see to it that they will never be lost.

Google also did it to make a profit. And for that they are under attack. Forgive me for wondering about the profit motives of these knights who belatedly ride into our midst with flags of righteous indignation unfurled.

Richard Curtis

Cover of The Little Red Hen, Usborne First Reading series,