So there I am sitting around minding my own business. I happen to glance at Google's Propaganda Assault blog (sometimes referred to as their Public Policy blog). I had no ax to grind. I'm not looking for a fight. Just checking things out and drinking some dark roast.
But all of a sudden, as I'm reading along, I realize that someone is pitching manure at me. Loads of it. What the heck is this? I wonder. Why is someone pitching this stuff at me? I'm not even aware that there is an issue or a controversy here. But I figure that if someone is going through the trouble to pitch this much manure my direction, it must be either to build a wall so I can't see what they are doing or a fortress for themselves that they can defend. And you know what? I don't like getting manure pitched at me.
So I put my special bs glasses on ( I was a boy scout, you see) and begin to wade through what is before me.
First of all, I read this: "Millions of people use Google’s search engine every day but don't realize that the balance inherent in U.S. copyright law helps enable it to exist. Here at Google, we strongly support the intellectual property rights of content creators and the protection of copyright. We think creators deserve to be rewarded for their work, and support the balance of copyright law as fundamental to promoting future creativity."
What is this stuff? I ask. But then through my special bs glasses I begin to see some themes. The first pitchfork of manure, "Millions of people use Google’s search engine every day but don't realize that the balance inherent in U.S. copyright law helps enable it to exist," is saying that what is to follow applies to all of us; in other words, it is attempting to get us to believe that it is in our own individual best-interest to support whatever balance is required for us to enjoy searching on Google. But it also says that whatever balance it intends to discuss is itself supported by US copyright law. And more than being supported by US law, the fact that the Google spinbot (writer) is actually invoking the law as a foundation upon which to make its coming argument, reveals the nature of the the real issue in the spin to follow.
OK, so what are they saying so far? They are saying Google is a good thing; the copyright law is a good thing and balance is a good thing. Alright. Sock it to me...(some free retro for ya.)
Then comes the second pitchfork of manure hurled at me: "Here at Google, we strongly support the intellectual property rights of content creators and the protection of copyright. We think creators deserve to be rewarded for their work, and support the balance of copyright law as fundamental to promoting future creativity." Ahh. Feigned support with the obligatory twist. They say they support: 1.) intellectual property rights of the content creator; 2.) the protection of copyright; 3.) reward to the deserving [content] creator; all fine and good; typical patronization. But what is the fourth concept that they support? 4.) the balance of copyright law as fundamental to promoting future creativity. Here again is that balance-of-copyright-law plea. This is the twist. This is the portal wherein Google wants to make an inroad, wedge its way in and stake a claim.
But why? What is motivating Google to even bring this up? Why throw manure into a perfectly good cup of coffee? What do they have on their Googagenda that necessitates this discussion?
Let's see if another mouthful of pitched manure gives us any indication: "While protecting the rights of creators, the Constitution and the courts place limits on the rights of copyright holders." OK, I see. Google is conceding that [content] creators have rights of protection. They say creators indeed have rights, BUT there are LIMITS to those rights. Not only are there limits, but the CONSTITUTION and the COURTS themselves have placed limits on [content] copyright holders. Oh, my. Where do I begin? Let me first of all confess that I am somewhat bewildered at Google's sudden patriotism. Why, all of a sudden they are hiding behind the Constitution of the very country who's laws they are trying to change regarding immigration so that more foreign nationals, who, unlike ordinary Americans, are qualified to work for Google, may get into this country. Let's make up our mind, Google; is this country restrictive to you or is it protective? I thought you loathed the laws of the US. Now you want to hide behind them? (Did someone forget to take their Riddilin today?)
But more than a fickle citation of Constitutional authority, herein we see the place where Google intends to drive its nail to stake its claim. It's all about LIMITATIONS of copyright protection. Yes, Google intends to build upon this foundation. (Kinda figures that with that much manure pitched, eventually the spinbot would have a big enough hole wherein to start to lay a foundation for a fortress...)
So naturally, Google brings forth a witness on this staked claim, "For example, copyright laws encourage others to make use of content in limited ways without seeking anyone's permission through the doctrine of "fair use." Yes, you see, there is precedent for using the content of others without their specific permission. But more than protected tendency, Google then takes it a step further to being an absolute right: "By enabling journalists, scholars and the general public to quote from and comment on others' writings, the fair use doctrine underscores basic rights of free expression." OK, so fair use enables people to quote from and comment on other people's copyrighted work. I myself am doing as much right here and now.
But it is at this point that a mystery begins to develop. Usually around this time in one of their spins, after a foundation has been laid and a fortress constructed, the Google spinbot will launch a diatribe at a particular enemy (concept, value, idea, law, roadblock, etc.) This time, however, while (assuming to be) possessing solid ground, instead of hurling an offensive, Google uncharacteristically decides, rather, to paint its walls!
Have a look at the next paragraph, "Fair use also assures that technological innovations such as the Internet itself can operate without violating copyright law. For instance, Google crawls the web, analyzes and indexes its content and makes a copy of each page on our servers. Our index is made up of the content of every web page which is crawled, optimized and stored in a variety of locations all over the world, to deliver results to users in a fraction of a second. In this way, we provide an opportunity for content creators to promote and capitalize on their creativity." Why the indulgence? Why the crayons and baby-steps? What flag is Google trying to wave?
But it does not stop there. Suddenly the national economic benefit card is played: "We've known for a while that fair use has allowed entire new industries and companies to grow, and to bring beneficial new services and innovative devices to consumers. Now, an interesting new study released yesterday by the Computer and Communications Industry Association (of which Google is a member) attempts to quantify the contribution of industries relying on fair use to the economy."
In spades: "The study -- which I encourage you to check out -- concludes that the "fair use economy" in 2006 accounted for $4.6 trillion in revenues (roughly one-sixth of total U.S. gross domestic product), employed more than 17 million people, and supported a payroll of $1.2 trillion (approximately one out of every eight workers in the US). It also generated $194 billion in exports and significant productivity growth. Using a methodology similar to a previous World Intellectual Property Organization guide, the results of the study demonstrate that fair use is an important economic driver in the digital age."
Alright, I do not know who the intended target is for this little vignette that Google has conjured up. It could be aimed at the US copyright laws. Having staked a claim, built a foundation, a fortress, and painted it, it could be that Google will use this preamble as the basis for a direct assault on DC later on. If that is the case, expect an upcoming battle against content copyright laws from Google's free use camp. And notice that Google will stretch the term, 'fair use' into 'advantageous use.' (With the advantage going to Google, of course, not to the content creator.) And also notice that were this same principle applied to PATENT laws, then this wonderful song and dance Google is performing spins completely the opposite direction. Isn't that interesting?!
Or, the target could be some countries in Europe where Google has run up against some (gasp!) obstacles. Why else would they hang out that economic carrot?
But either way, the spindar (spin-radar) is beeping loudly and it is crystal clear that the object of Google's spin here, is: CONTENT. Whether it be more liberal access to and use of American material or an attempted seduction of 'problematic' European administrations, here is what Google wants: "All Your Content Are Belong To Us."
Where they have it they want more. Where they have more they want full use of. It is in the public's own best interest; it is in the name of balance; it is to promote creativity; it is in the Constitution; it is in the law; it is a right!
And where they do not have it, this fortress they built in their blog post is nothing more than a common cat house: 'You, too, could add $4.6 trillion to your economy if you would just let All Your Content Are Belong To Us.'
Horse manure. Definitely.
