Copyright

Kudos to Peter Osnos of The Century Foundation for connecting the dots in his piece: "The Platform: make Google pay."

• Mr. Osnos asks the pertinent question: Now that Google has conceded the principle that infomation is not free in its $125m settlement with authors/publishers, why don't newspapers and magazines insist on getting paid for their content?
• It's a thought-provoking piece read -- I recommend it. 

Mr. Osnos' central thesis becomes even more important when you consider that Mr. Schmidt recently suggested to advertising executives that they should consider if the business model for journalism should become a not-for-profit model!

What many in the journalism industry do not appreciate is that Google is quietly cheering on the demise of modern journalism and Big Media so that it can be replaced by citizen journalists that will of course use their platform predominantly through, Blogger, YouTube, and Google Knol.

• Google believes it can provide anyone and everyone a more efficient digital content platform than anyone else.
• Apparently Google's real mission is to organize all the producers of the world's information -- to work for Google!

Google's $125m settlement with authors/publishers is an excellent window into how Google intends to anti-competitively extend its de facto search advertising monopoly market power to other content markets.

• Think about it; if Google only has to pay a penalty of less than a penny on the book-selling dollar, why wouldn't Google be emboldened to steal all the entertainment property of others, and just settle for less than a penny on the dollar like it has with books? 
• What a cheap and easy way to extend and cement one's monopoly market power in search advertising into other content markets.    

Kudos to Professor James Gibson and his op-ed in the Washington Post today, "Google's New Monopoly" where he spotlights the anti-competitive effects of the Google-book settlement because a deal cut with no competition can embed barriers to entry so that competition can never emerge to compete with Google going forward in digitized books. 

• I made a similar point in my post "Google proves crime does pay -- if you have enough market power." 

More on Google extending its monopoly market power:

Google claims the settlement is not an extension of market power because Google is not requiring an exclusive arrangement from authors or publishers. This is brilliant misdirection. Google doesn't need a formal exclusive because their Machiavellian scheme grants them a practical exclusive arrangement.

Google, in settling with authors/publishers for $125m over their copyright infringement lawsuits, has cleverly leveraged its market power to tip, and lock in, another Internet segment to de facto Google monopoly control – access to most of the world’s books online. The untold story here is how this settlement:

·         Enthrones Google as the de facto gatekeeper to access most of the world’s books online;

·         Establishes a “new model” for online content distribution;

Google, the most-sued intellectual property infringer in the world, just settled a class action lawsuit with authors and publishers for $125m and a revenue sharing deal going forward;  this deal has much broader implications than most would think for Google, for other companies suing Google for theft, and for the pending Google-Yahoo ad partnership.

Implications for Google: After steadfastly maintaining that they had done nothing wrong and that they were protected by the concept of fair use, Google has now de facto conceded that it was broadly infringing on authors' and publishers' copyrights, while also signalling it feared losing in court. 

Brian Deagon of Investor's Business Daily interviewed me on Google and its leadership role in the lobbying for free use of the White Spaces spectrum.

• The Q&A is entitled: "Google Big Beneficiary of its 'Open' Lobbying"

Importantly, I explain that Google's definition of 'open' is very different from the traditional definition of 'open.'

• Google's definition of 'open' is "communal, meaning not privately owned, communal with no restriction, no permission required."

I couldn't help to notice yesterday that Google CEO Schmidt didn't take any questions from reporters who were in attendance or meet with the reporter pool afterwards, which is customary for speaking venues like Dr. Schmidt's speech Monday at the Economic Club of Washington.

What's Google got to hide in Washington?

• Could it be that Google does not think that questions of a leading corporate CEO, who is now Chairman of the New America Foundation think tank concerning: antitrust, privacy, consumer protection, good government, transparency, openness, tax, net neutrality, and broadband Universal Service -- are not considered legitimate questions or fair game in Washington?
  • Obviously I thought there were some legitimate questions that should be asked of Dr. Schmidt as I posted on Friday: "Relevant Washington questions to ask Google CEO Schmidt at his speech Monday in Washington." 
• Do public questions of public leaders seeking ambitious changes in public policy and public discourse, not warrant an open forum for questions from a free press in a democracy?

Bottom line: It appears the only kind of "free press" that Google embraces is its advocacy group ally that calls itself FreePress, which is the operation which de facto runs point for Google's net neutrality public policy agenda in Washington.

Given that Google CEO Eric Schmidt is delivering a major speech at the Economic Club of Washington Monday June 9th lunch, given that Google's business model is all about delivering "relevancy" to users, and given that Google's public policy mantra is "openness," I have assembled some suggested Washington-relevant questions for reporters and others to ask Dr. Schmidt at and after this open forum.

• The subjects of the questions are: antitrust, privacy, consumer protection, good government, transparency, openness, tax, net neutrality, and broadband Universal Service. 

Antitrust: 

• If, per the FTC, search is a "unique" or separate market, why wouldn't a search-partnership between #1 Google and #2 Yahoo be illegal collusion when Google already partners with #4 AOL and #5 Ask.com -- and when the four search partners would comprise a de facto search cartel controlling over 90% of the revenues in the U.S. search market?

Privacy:

• Should consumers and Congress be concerned with Google exploiting a privacy regulation loophole to offer personal health records management, when independent watchdog group Privacy International ranked Google worst in the world on privacy and Google refuses to comply with California law requiring posting Google's privacy policy prominently on its home page?  

Consumer Protection:

For those who like the written format, here is the link to the transcript of Chip Griffin's interview of me on all things Google.

• The transcript is just below the podcast button to hear the interview.

This interview turned out to be one of the most comprehensive and in-depth discussions I have had on all things Google -- that's been captured for web listening or reading.

We discussed:

Here is the link to Chip Griffin's 28 minute interview of me on "Conversations with Chip Griffin," an in-depth conversation about many of the reasons why I believe Google is becoming such a big problem and why I personally spend so much time focused on Google.

I believe you will find it an informative, interesting, and entertaining interview covering all things Google, the online economy, net neutrality etc.

• Enjoy!  

I have to admit that I was surprised by all the back-pedaling and calculated retreat by net neutrality proponents at the House Internet Subcommittee hearing on Chairman Markey's net neutrality bill HR5353.

Net neutrality proponents were clearly on the defensive, proactively responding to criticisms of the bill and not spending much time touting its benefits.