There is a serious flaw in Google's business model: it uses Internet Content to attract search users or eye-balls without pay a dime to the owners of copyrights.
So far, it got away in English media world. Maybe it has established un-written understanding with the major Media that Google can wait until it dominates world searches to share the monopoly profits with them.
But it encountered serious resistance from non-English media world: in Germany, it is facing an anti-trust suit by the content copyright holders; in China, it encounters serious problem local Chinese language content owners. It looks like that this problem will likely expand to other languages.
Even in the English media world, some corporations, such as Fox, etc, are considering asking Google to share the profit. Given the tough economic time, one should expect more media corporations would follow the suit.
That would mean a big cut into Google's future earning. Maybe that is the reason why the company have tried very hard to diversify into software and hardware business.
All these remind me of Napster -- the online music exchange provider -- crushed by the copyright lawsuits.
The Human Entrepreneurial spirit will eventually push a new search engine site ahead of google. Unfortunately we wont see this for some time as google runs the universe from tv, to search, to advertising. Visit http://www.stockbrainiac.com/ to discuss further and learn why stockbraniac has one of the largest stock newsletter followings on the web and its free. Add their picks to radar!
Google should maintain its dominant position on online search in English-Language world. But I doubt it could find much growth in non-English-Language world because (1) more and more sovereign nations realize that the data on Global Customer which Google collects and stores could pose serious risk to national security in the future; (2) Google's search algorithm in local language could be easily replicated; (3) Google is actually receiving indirect "subsidy" from English-Speaking Media world, and hence pose the risk of monopoly to the local search enterprises ....
Most of these non-English-speaking countries are in sleep mode. But when they finally wake up to the potential risk, their subsequent actions would likely seriously curb Google's growth in those countries.
Are you on Drugs???
So.. to make sure I understand your position...
Copyrighted material is sitting out there on servers unprotected waiting to be displayed...
Google serves it up to me when I conduct a search, and then they are liable and need to pay copyright fees...
Drugs... are the only explanation for your assertion.
If they want to keep their copywrited data secure.. keep it off the web!
Google can indeed argue that it helps to generate free advertising for the Web Content holders.
But again, the well-known content holders would likely demand a fee; but the not-so-well-known content holders would be silent since the free advertising likely offset the potential loss of revenue from the content.
Again, different countries have different laws governing copyrights. Google should experience most of the potential difficulties in non-English language world.
Neither big business nor mom-and-pops will agree with this assessment. Goog provides easy access for info.
On the other hand, there are issues with copyrights with books. But, even that is a red-herring. I bought more books after checking out their samples on google and amazon than otherwise.
You are short and you want to rant.
You are sky walking, no doubt.
Of course those exact same media companies benefit greatly from having search engines (e.g. Google) index their content. If 25% less people find their content (the number coming from search engines), they lose a lot of advertisement.
Look at it this way: Unless every single media company forces google to pay, google is fine. If just, say, newscorp, forces google to pay, and google says no, the competitors of newscorp benefit greatly.
The Berne Convention enshrined limitations and exceptions to copyright, enabling the reproduction of literary and artistic works without the copyright owners prior permission. The detail of these exceptions was left to national copyright legislation, but the guiding principle is stated in Article 9 of the convention. The so called three-step test holds that an exception is only permitted "in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author". Free use of copyrighted work is expressly permitted in the case of quotations from lawfully published works, illustration for teaching purposes, and news reporting
"Free Use of copyright works" is like "open source". It is free for personal or educational purpose, etc., but it is not free when one make profit off the "open source" materials.
Google wants portrait itself as an educational institution and an defender for "human rights" for people all over the world. But it is giving the founders billions of dollars of profit from potential stock sales.
Why do some people in this world always assume everybody else is "stupid"??