Copyright and Google and CNET, Oh my!
CNET's Charles Cooper has stirred up a hornets nest by calling Web 2.0 a "rip-off", He claims that Europe understands copyright better than the US when it comes to Web 2.0 services, especially the fact that a Belgian court banned Google from summarizing some European newspaper content. In counterpoint, Mike over Techdirt has issued a call to Internet arms for one and all to stop reading Coop's articles. Nothing like a good disagreement to draw people to their computers over a weekend.
Now as context, it's important to realize that Google and CNET have not exactly been the best of friends, particularly after CNET published Google CEO Eric Schmidt's address, net worth, and a variety of other personal details. Google then cut off CNET's access to its executives for a year (it later relented). Needless to say, I don't think Google is CNET's favorite company. You can read what I wrote about that story when it happened last year here.
But Cooper has a legitimate point that we need to start talking much more seriously about copyright. Copyright in the digital realm is a tough and complex topic. But unlike Mr. Cooper, I believe it is a concept that needs reigning in, not preserving to protect the established players. For copyright is a system that impedes, not promotes innovation and value creation.
Countless successful businesses, including Disney, Microsoft, Sony, and all of cable TV, were built by taking copyrighted material and distributing it more widely than its original reach, and often without asking permission of the copyright owners. In the cable TV world, in fact, this point had to get decided by the courts as being legal, since it was a clear violation of copyright to take broadcast material, redistribute it, and charge money for that previously free content. But the courts ruled that the public interest was served because the cable companies added value. And in fact today, cable TV is a major source of revenue for both broadcasters and content creators.
Now I recognize that this only scratches the surface of argument, and many learned luminaries such as Larry Lessig have written entire books on the topic as well as presented it before the Supreme Court. But 95% of the business and consumer world really doesn't care about the details. They care about value. And they already view Google's service much like they view cable TV -- they may not like paying the bill, but it sure is nice to have. And kudos to Google for having the courage to challenge an intellectual property protection system that has been stretched way beyond its original intent to simply reward innovation.
Not to pick on CNET, but I could go months or years without ever reading CNET again. But I would rue every single day on the net without Google. And that clearly shows which of these two companies is adding more more value -- and quite frankly is worth more -- to the digital world. Maybe it's time we content creators recognized that Google just might be more important and better for us that copyright is.
Now as context, it's important to realize that Google and CNET have not exactly been the best of friends, particularly after CNET published Google CEO Eric Schmidt's address, net worth, and a variety of other personal details. Google then cut off CNET's access to its executives for a year (it later relented). Needless to say, I don't think Google is CNET's favorite company. You can read what I wrote about that story when it happened last year here.
But Cooper has a legitimate point that we need to start talking much more seriously about copyright. Copyright in the digital realm is a tough and complex topic. But unlike Mr. Cooper, I believe it is a concept that needs reigning in, not preserving to protect the established players. For copyright is a system that impedes, not promotes innovation and value creation.
Countless successful businesses, including Disney, Microsoft, Sony, and all of cable TV, were built by taking copyrighted material and distributing it more widely than its original reach, and often without asking permission of the copyright owners. In the cable TV world, in fact, this point had to get decided by the courts as being legal, since it was a clear violation of copyright to take broadcast material, redistribute it, and charge money for that previously free content. But the courts ruled that the public interest was served because the cable companies added value. And in fact today, cable TV is a major source of revenue for both broadcasters and content creators.
Now I recognize that this only scratches the surface of argument, and many learned luminaries such as Larry Lessig have written entire books on the topic as well as presented it before the Supreme Court. But 95% of the business and consumer world really doesn't care about the details. They care about value. And they already view Google's service much like they view cable TV -- they may not like paying the bill, but it sure is nice to have. And kudos to Google for having the courage to challenge an intellectual property protection system that has been stretched way beyond its original intent to simply reward innovation.
Not to pick on CNET, but I could go months or years without ever reading CNET again. But I would rue every single day on the net without Google. And that clearly shows which of these two companies is adding more more value -- and quite frankly is worth more -- to the digital world. Maybe it's time we content creators recognized that Google just might be more important and better for us that copyright is.
Technorati Tags: Charles Cooper, CNET, Copyright, Eric Schmidt, Google, Web 2.0 rip-off
posted by Carl Howe at
10:25 AM
| View blog reactions
| 
