A turning point for the web?

Posted by dave.winer@gmail.com, 10/20/05 at 4:32:00 PM.

Kevin Werbach wonders if this is the moment when the Internet came apart at the seams. Pretty dramatic thought, but I don't think so. Let's take a look at what's going on that makes Werbach wonder about that.

Google wants to view printed books the same way it views websites.

If you publish a site, Google reads the whole site into its cache and then lets you find things in it. Generally people who publish sites know this, and want Google to do this.

Now they want to scan all the printed books and read them into its cache and let us find things in the books. Clearly for people who love information, this is a good thing. But the people who own the copyrights on the books think not. They think Google should get their permission before doing this, and if they don't get the permission, they shouldn't do the scanning, caching, and searching.

Google almost agrees, but they say that the publishers have to opt-out of the program, instead of opting-in. They spin it so that the publishers sound dumb for not "getting" it, but if it's really no big deal, why can't Google flip it around and require an opt-in? There are places where they do require opt-ins, for example, they don't put AdSense ads on my site unless I sign up for their program, and include a bit of Javascript in my template.

This situation is much like the disagreement we had with Google a few months back, when they wanted to put ads on our sites without permission and without paying. They said we were being silly, so did the EFF, because we'd have an opt-out. But then I understood, very clearly, how insidious this opt-out thing is. How many things do I have to opt out of, and why? What if there are 100,000 programs on the web that add advertising to my site. Do I really have to opt out of all fo them? What kind of madness is that. Why is Google so special? Who is Google to decide how my writing should be viewed by people who happen to use their toolbar to read my site? Where did they get the right to change the meaning of my writing? When I watch them aggressively push the toolbar, in distribution deals with Sun (for example) I wish they would just die, because I so detest how they're exploiting the web.

We went to this place with Microsoft, and they backed down. But Google did not. They ignored the objections, and right now they're putting ads on your content without your permission, without compensating you. Now how do you feel about that?

This is the problem with the tech industry. We think we have the answers. We think we understand everything better than everyone else. And we line up behind companies that started out on our side, but migrated to new place as they grew huge, and we help them screw people who are more like ourselves than Google is. And eventually we do it to ourselves as well. I argued then that the EFF is going to have to, at some point, protect the interests not just of people who want to push copyright into the corner, but they're going to have to take the side of the copyright holders, if they want to protect individual creativity from corporate raiders, like Google.

It's time to realize that Google is no longer the little company we used to love. They're now a huge company that pushes individuals around like a lot of other huge companies. They need some balance to their power. And it's ridiculous to blindly take their side on every issue. Sometimes they're wrong, and I believe this is one of those times. It's certainly worth considering the possibility that they're wrong.

Now, back to Werbach's conjecture. If this is a turning point for the web, the power to protect the web is not in the publisher's hands, it's in Google's, and the EFF's. If either party said Okay, we'll require an opt-in, the problem is solved. When I put content on the web I know that it's going to be indexed, that's why it's okay for them to index it. But when a book is printed it's done with the assumption that the author or publisher determines how it's copied. Google clearly does not have the right to make a copy of the book and republish it without the permission of or compensation to the copyright owner. The publishers appear to be on the right side of this one, and while I'm not a lawyer, I can't imagine that they won't prevail in court.