Jun 29
Is Google evil?
Google’s famous early mission statement is “Don’t be evil”. But has this changed? Claude Mariottini notes this post by Google’s Senior Copyright Counsel, which offers a Jewish argument about copyright.
In Judaism, a different source is looked to address copyright issues, hassagut gevul (”infringement of boundary”) … the issue discussed was attribution of authorship rather than proprietary rights in the words spoken … The Tosefta (Baba Kamma 7:3), far from condemning use of other’s words without their permission as “theft” regards it as meritorious, so long as credit is given.
I generally leave aside the initial issue which provoked Mariottini’s initial post, of songwriters claiming copyright and royalties on their songs. Are songwriters in the category of ministers who should be worthy of their keep? Or are they in the Didache’s category of prophets asking to be paid for their prophecies? It’s not a straightforward question.
Here I want to note my suspicion of Google’s attitude to copyright. On the one hand it is in the interests of most of us web users to be able to access the vast array of information that is available on the web. Google is for most of us not only the tool of first resort, but the verb we use to describe what we’re doing.
At the same time, Google is, first and foremost, not our tool for accessing information, but a money making machine, for whom our searches are the fundamental building block of the company’s revenue. Today I was told I needed to upgrade my Java runtime environment: I was surprised that this offered me yet another opportunity for me to deselect the option to install Google’s IE toolbar, and select Google’s desktop search. No, I cried, bugger off! You’re not getting access to my desktop, and I’m never ever going to enable page ranking. I may use a lot of Google’s tools, but not this one. I’m very happy to have Google record whether any of my pages are search-worthy. I’m not happy that they should know what I’m searching for: they’ll only use it to sell things to me. I groan every time I go to delete spam from my Gmail account, only to be offered a recipe for Spam fritters.
Interestingly, even fake Steve Jobs takes Microsoft’s side about Google’s demand to have their desktop search included in Windows Vista. According to Google, I can’t have an operating system that allows me to search my own computer for my own files, unless I’m also compelled to be given a choice to use Google’s search to drive their advertising revenue. And Google isn’t entirely neutral: see this piece of research (which may be biased in favour of its funders and promoters) which shows that every search engine on the market is biased.
How much control do I want to give to a search engine that is a tool for selling advertising? How much trust do I want to place in what it gives me? And how much should I accept rabbinic arguments from a Google advocate that tell me it’s biblical to reject copyright legislation in favour of using material providing it’s attributed? Google’s copyright and search policies, as endorsed by God: biblical proof that it’s not evil. Somehow, I’m just not entirely convinced.
June 29th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Whoa! This is way over the top.
First, William Patry is not speaking for Google — see the disclaimer on his blog! Second, I rather doubt that a former law school professor and the author of a 5500 page standard reference work on copyright law would propose “reject[ing] copyright legislation.”
The post was a response to Mariottini’s claim that intellectual property laws had a basis in Exodus (20:14) (although Mariottini cited verse 20:17). That’s a rather dubious claim — not the least because Christians reject other biblical laws such as commandments about the Sabbath. As Patry correctly points out, the text doesn’t actually discuss intellectual property law.
Patry cites Bleich, who alone among major contemporary halachic authorities claims that there is no halachic violation in citing ideas about Torah.
The question is: does the Bible support intellectual property law — not whether intellectual property laws are good for society. I see no biblical basis for, say, parking regulations, but I accept parking regulations as good for society.
June 29th, 2007 at 4:19 am
Doug,
Thank you for your post. The truth is that Google needs a lax understanding of copyright laws because of what it does. Even though Patry is not speaking for Google, probably his views represent the company’s view.
Although copyright laws may be complicated and unfair, Christians don’t have the right to break the law; they should work to change it.
Claude Mariottini
June 29th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Okay, Iyov, that single phrase “reject copyright legislation” is an exaggeration. I hold my hands up. I grant you that. But I maintain my right to be suspicious of arguments favouring Google’s model from Google advocates. And I maintain my right to be cynical about Google’s supposed nice, non-evil, underdog status, when it looks increasingly like a corporate behemoth.
All that said, I can’t see that arguments about the Bible and copyright will actually get us very far, although they may display a great amount of human ingenuity. I think one could mount a biblical case for just about any view on this one cared to take.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:33 am
I don’t think that Patry’s post had anything to do with Google at all. I think that Google’s position on copyright revolves around a principle of “fair use” that is enshrined in US copyright law (although not so much in Commonwealth copyright law).
And, although Patry didn’t acknowledge it, most halachic authorities disagree with Bleich and regard infringement of intellectual property as a violation of Torah law. Patry cited Bleich, I think, because (a) he knows him personally; and (b) Bleich has a particularly engaging writing style and writes a significant fraction of his works in English, making them more accessible.