Resolution Without Resolution

One of the more interesting aspects of Google's recent settlement of a lawsuit by book authors alleging vast copyright infringement (see coverage of the settlement in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times) was the absolute refusal by Google to publicly acknowledge the settlement resolved any of the key copyright issues at stake.

It is common, of course, for parties in a settlement to refuse to admit liability, but Google really seems to have taken it up a notch. Consider the following quote from the New York Times, relaying Google's position on the issue at the heart of the dispute:

“There is no acknowledgment that we had to have permissions to scan or show snippets,” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, said in an interview.

They settled, Google says, solely for business reasons. Few believe it, and I personally think it rings kind of hollow, given the concessions in the settlement. Which goes to show you, even in the age of spin, you have to ground your message in some sort of reality for it to stick. Or, put another way, you bend the truth too much, it breaks.

At another level, I think the settlement is an example of the slow chipping away at Google's hegemony. Like Microsoft a decade before them, Google seemed to have assumed an air of superiority when it comes to legal issues – as if they were, if not above the law, then perhaps too smart to be bound by its rather antiquated concepts. Copyright is a prime example, but look also at privacy issues, censorship in China, and all of the other high-profile legal debates Google has found itself at the center of these days.

Eventually, I think, the law catches up with even the most arrogant… if there are opposing parties willing to go the distance. With that in mind, pay close attention to Google’s continuing case with Viacom over the posting of videos on the YouTube website. Note this comment by Michael Fricklas of Viacom, again from the Times post:

“The publisher agreement is, at last, acceptance of what’s obvious to everyone but Google,” said Michael Fricklas, general counsel of Viacom. “Copying and distributing copyrighted works requires permission from the copyright owner."

If Viacom is indeed willing to press on with its claims – making a disciplined, compelling case both in the court of law and in the court of public opinion – you’ll begin to see further weakening in Google’s position. And like Microsoft before them, they’ll begin to realize that you may think you're smarter than the law, but you still have to obey it.