The Negotiation between Google and Chinese Writers - Case Study Example

1. Introduction Commercial negotiation plays a very important role in today’s business world. There are various conflicts between businesses/organizations in today’s highly competitive world. With the global business world becoming highly populated there is immense competition and this results to conflicts between organizations/businesses/individuals. Commercial negotiation is very helpful in such a scenario to resolve the conflict and come up with a mutual agreement that will benefit both the parties involved. There are various factors that influence the process of negotiation and power is one such factor. Power plays an important role in negotiation. This assignment is aimed at understanding the role of power in commercial negotiation and in order to do that it takes the example of negotiation between Google and Chinese writers. The various issues raised during the negotiation, the powers possessed by the two parties in the beginning and how they changed during the course of negotiation is discussed 2. Chronology 28 October. China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS) accuses Google of scanning 18,000 books of 570 Chinese writers. Source: china.org.cn [November 21, 2009] 2 November. Google agrees to have talks with Chinese writers. First round of talks begin. Chinese writers demand apology. Source: People Daily [18:58, November 04, 2009] 4 November. Google argues that no copyrights have been violated as only abstracts of Chinese books have been put up and not the full texts. Source: People’s Daily Online [18:58, November 04, 2009] 14 November. Google arrives at a revised settlement with the Author’s Guild and Association of American Publishers wherein Google agrees to compensate US$60 for each book that it has scanned and 63% of the income generated from online reading. Source: Global Times [02:26 December 28 2009] 16 November. Google asks the Chinese writers and publishers to accept compensation offered in the US. Source: Global Times [03:52 November 16 2009] 18 November. The Chinese Writers’ Association joins CWWCS and urged it to resolve the issue at the earliest. Source: China.org.cn [November 21, 2009)] 20 November. Second round of talks are held. Google agrees to provide the list of Chinese books already scanned but disagrees to come up with a solution and a proposal plan by end of 2009. CWWCS wants Google not to scan any Chinese writer’s works without prior permission. Source: China.org.cn, [November 26, 2009] 25 December. Third round of talks begin. A list of 80,000 books is handed over to CWWCS by Google. CWWCS raises doubt about the accuracy of the number of books scanned. Source: Global Times [02:26 December 28 2009] 9 January. An apology letter by Google Asia pacific head, Erik Hartman is sent to CWWCS. Source: cbnnews.com [22:40 January 10 2010] 11 January. The letter of apology by Google is posted in Chinese Writers Association’s website. Source: business week [18:10 January 11 2010] 12 January. Google halts a scheduled negotiation without stating any reason. Google was expected to submit a complete list of scanned books and issue a public apology to Chinese writers in the following press meet. Source: CCTV.com [17:58 January 12 2010] 3. Issues The issues addressed in the current negotiation can be divided into substantive and subsidiary issue: 3.1 Substantive Issue: Copyright Infringement is the substantive issue raised in the current case. The unauthorized use of content from the works of others which are protected by the copyright law is known as copyright infringement. One of the main rights of the copyright owners is the right to reproduce or control over the copyrighted work. Unauthorized use of content violates this right of the owner (Spengler et al., 2009, p. 223). CWWCS accused that by digitizing the books by Chinese authors, Google has involved in copyright infringement. As Google has not taken prior authorization from the authors of the books before scanning the books it has violated the owner’s right as per the copyright law. It has violated the owner’s right to control the reproduction and use of their original work. The Chinese authors were firm on their stands and condemned Google for indulging in illegal practices. Chinese authors demanded an apology from Google for scanning and digitizing their books without consulting them. CWWCS wanted the list of all Chinese books that were digitized to be produced irrespective of the availability of copyright owners of the books (old books that were never copyright protected and those books whose copyright protection were outlined). The Chinese authors wanted Google in the future to first take authorized permission from the owners before scanning the books. Google on the other hand argued that it had not violated any copyright law as it was not displaying the whole content of the book on the website but only displayed snippets of the content. So in this way it was not violating any rights of the original owners. Google negotiators argued that digitization of the books would help and promote the Chinese authors as their ideas would be exposed to a large audience. Google also argued by digitization of the books knowledge will be more readily available (Lowe, 2009, p. 208). Google stood firm in the initial stages of the negotiation that it had not violated any copyright law as it was not displaying the entire content of the book and hence was not required to apologize to the writers. CWWCS counter argued to the justification given by Google. CWWCS on behalf of Chinese writers argued that if only snippets were displayed there was no reason for Google to scan the whole book. And also the fact that Google has scanned the whole book itself is violation as it is unauthorized use of the books. 3.2 Subsidiary Issue: Compensation was the subsidiary issue in the negotiation between Google and CWWCS. Google was ready to pay the same compensation that it had agreed in the settlement in the US. That is, it would pay $60 to the owner of the book and 63% of the revenue generated from ads. Google was not ready to offer more compensation than it had already agreed in the US. But Chinese authors were not happy with the compensation offered. But CWWCS first demanded for an apology and then wanted Google to come up with a different compensation plan by the end of 2009. As mentioned earlier Google was not ready to discuss further on the issue of compensation and did not agree to come up with a different compensation plan within 2009. 4. Nature and Source of Power in the Beginning of the Negotiation Power plays an important role in a negotiation. Power in a negotiation is the ability of a party to influence the other party. There are various kinds of powers that different parties can use to influence the other party and take advantage. Google possessed reward power and legitimate power at the beginning of the negotiation. Reward power comes from the ability of a negotiating party to reward the other party (Bob & Randall, 2001, 65). Google being a MNC (Multi-National Company) is one of the richest companies in the world. Google was capable of rewarding the Chinese writers with monetary compensation for using the content from their works without their prior authorization. Apart from monetary rewards the Google book Project would expose the Chinese authors and their works to a larger audience. As a result the authors would get recognition in different parts of the world. This gave Google the reward power which it could use to influence the Chinese writers represented by CWWCS. Google also possessed legitimate power apart from reward power. Legitimate power arises from the ability of a party to influence another party because of its position (Spoelstra & Pienaar, 1999, 109). Google is global search giant and had built a clean image for itself by indulging in ethical practices. Its positions as the global search giant and a settlement arrived with other organizations and writers across the globe gave Google legitimate power. This is because Google already had a settlement agreement in US and most other countries and if the Chinese writers failed to get into an agreement they would loose the edge in the digital library market. The books of the international writers would be easily accessible through Google and Chinese writers would suffer from this. Hence this gave Google the legitimate power which it could use to influence the Chinese writers to arrive at a settlement. CWWCS (Chinese writers) also possessed legitimate power as Google had used the content of their works without their authorization. And also Google had agreed in other parts of the world that it was involved in copyright infringement and hence agreed to compensate the writers whose copyrighted works were used by Google. This gave the CWWCS the legitimate power as Google was already put on back foot. As it was visible that Google was involved in unethical practices by scanning the books for financial gains, this gave CWWCS the higher position. CWWCS could use its legitimate power to force Google to accept copyright infringement and apologize to the Chinese writers. CWWCS also possessed coercive power which it could use to influence Google during negotiation. “Coercive power is the ability of a party to enforce actions which leave the other party with negative options only” (Nieuwmeijer, 1992, 54). The copyright owners of the books were the authors of the book and Google had not taken authorization from the authors, the authors were capable of leaving no option to Google except for not using the scanned books at all. This would have had a negative impact on Google as it had invests millions into scanning the books hoping that revenue could be generate by ads. Hence, CWWCS had coercive power which could prove to be lethal during negotiation. Coalition power arises when different parties or individuals band together to protest or resolve a conflict with a common other party (Nieuwmeijer, 1992, 54). As CWWCS was a representation of nearly 2000 Chinese authors, this gave CWWCS coalition power that it could use during the negotiation. Also CWWCS had referent power had Chinese Government had decided to support the Chinese writers against Google. 5. Change of Power during the course of Negotiation The powers possessed by each party changed over the course of negotiation. Google’s reward power decreased with the course of negotiation as CWWCS made it clear that compensation (reward) was not the prime issue for Chinese writers. The Chinese writers wanted Google to first apologize and accept that it was involved in copyright infringement. Compensation was only secondary concern for the Chinese writers and this resulted in decrease in Google’s reward power. Google’s legitimate power also reduced as there were questions raised against the settlement agreement reached in the US. Google was not in the position that it was in the beginning stages of the negotiation. The legitimate power of CWWCS increased as a result of doubts about the Google’s settlement agreement in the US. One of the other reasons was that Google had issues with the Chinese government regarding censoring of searches. Hence both these factors decreased Google’s legitimate power and increased CWWCS’s legitimate power. There were more authors and organization like Chinese Writers’ Association which joined hands with CWWCS during the course of negotiation. This increased the coalition power that CWWCS possessed. The referent power and the coercive power of CWWCS remained intact during the course of negotiation. 6. Conclusion It is not evident from the above discussion that how power plays a crucial role in the process of negotiation and makes an impact on the outcome of the negotiation. In the above case, powers possessed CWWCS helped it to influence the decision making of Google. Hence power plays an important role in any negotiation. Works Cited Bob, P. & Randall, J., (2001). Negotiation Sourcebook, Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development Press Business week (2010), Google Apologizes to Chinese Authors over Scanning (Correct), [Online]. Available at:http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-11/google-agrees-to-stop-scanning-uploading-china-authors-books.html. Accessed on 19 July 2010 CBNnews (2010), Google apologizes to Chinese writers over book flap, [Online]. Available at:http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/technology/01/10/10/google-apologizes-chinese-writers-over-book-flap. Accessed on 19 July 2010 CCTV.com (2010), Google delays meeting with Chinese writers, [Online]. Available at: http://english.cctv.com/program/bizchina/20100112/103683.shtml. Accessed on 18 July 2010 China.org.cn (2009), Google pledges only booklist in copyright row, [Online]. Available at:http://www.china.org.cn/arts/2009-11/21/content_18929691.htm. Accessed on 17 July 2010 China.org.cn (2009). Negotiation between Chinese writers and Google at a standstill. [Online]. Available at:http://www.china.org.cn/arts/2009-11/26/content_18960857.htm. Accessed on 18 July 2010 Global Times (2009), Google, Chinese writers confer on copyright, [Online]. Available at:http://business.globaltimes.cn/china-economy/2009-11/485348_2.html. Accessed on 17 July 2010 Global Times (2009), Progress in copyright talks with Google, [Online]. Available at:http://china.globaltimes.cn/society/2009-12/494689.html. Accessed on 17 July 2010 Lowe, J., (2009), Google Speaks: Secrets of the Worlds Greatest Billionaire Entrepreneurs, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Nieuwmeijer, L., (1992), Negotiation: methodology and training, Pretoria: HSRC Press People’s Daily (2009), Chinese writers stuck on apology over Google copyright dispute, [Online]. Available at:http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/6803792.html. Accessed on 17 July 2010 Spengler, J.O., Anderson, P., Connaughton, D., & Baker, T.A., (2009), Introduction to Sport Law, Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Spoelstra, H.I.J. & Pienaar, W.D., (1999), Negotiation: Theories, Strategies and Skills, Lansdowne: Juta and Company Ltd, Read More