Why Google Wanted a YouTube Lawsuit 105
An anonymous reader writes "After YouTube was purchased for $1.6 Billion, there was rampant speculation that Google would soon be waist-deep in billion dollar lawsuits. Despite the enormous liability issues, Google purchased YouTube for a mind-numbing sum, leaving many doubters wondering if Google considered all of costs involved. A theory has been put forth explaining what Google may have been thinking when it bought the company." From the article "Letting YouTube fight this battle alone with their own lawyers might have resulted in a very public and unnecessary loss that would have crippled Google's video ambitions and possibly caused collateral damage to a bunch of related industries (especially search)." In short, the author argues that Google had a lot more to lose had it kept away from YouTube and let the old-media companies crush it with lawsuits."
Sad that money means so much in the courtroom (Score:5, Insightful)
It is really sad how the interpretation has become a matter of who can afford the most lawyers and things like that. I think this is a trend that is seen at it's strongest in the USA but we sure also see this here in Europe and Denmark where I live.
In my simple mind the law should be equal for everyone no matter how much money they have, but that really is being naive these days as far as I can figure.
I don't know if my thinking here is to much influenced by movies like Civil Action [imdb.com], but then again it claims to be based on a true story (and the movie is almost 10 years old, so I guess this isn't a new trend, at least in the US).
Re:Sad that money means so much in the courtroom (Score:4, Insightful)
Face it, google is the best corporation to take this law suit along, much better than say Apple or Microsoft. I agree they aren't perfect, but for all the things that they do, they simply are one of the better choices.
But, will Google really protect us? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If enforcing vigilante-style justice through its search engine power becomes a trend, well, who's next? The wrong political party? Neutrality isn't just about not being evil to the guys we like...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Companies buy other companies all the time. They frequently do this to make more money, they frequently overpay for them, and they frequently purchase companies which end up hur
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
--josh
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Money matters in court when that money controls the law. Actors do not control the law. Politicians control the law. Religion controls the law. CEOs of multinational megacorporations control the law. All the other wealthy but non-in
Re: (Score:1)
Wait, did you miss out on that book he was going to publish? Y'know, the one called "How I Would Have Done It"?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, did you miss out on that book he was going to publish? Y'know, the one called "How I Would Have Done It"?
So you expect the jury members to jump into a time machine and read the book? Man, you still haven't gotten over the O.J. verdict.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter whether you have an average-priced experienced lawyer, or a flashy whiz-bang zillion dollar court jester lawyer, as long as you don't have an idiot lawyer you're still in the fight.
I'm guessing that you haven't seen a public defender in action. It's can be a sad, sad thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Sad that money means so much in the courtroom (Score:5, Insightful)
When things come to trial, if our laws are at least reasonably just, then justice has better than even chance. The real problem is the majority of times when things don't come to trial, when defendants pay the plaintiffs to go away; when freedoms are quietly forgone; those are the times that justice is threatened most.
The legal profession should police itself better. It is unethical to use the fear of having to mount a defense to extort money or concessions from people. There is no moral difference between that and using threats of physical force.
Lawyers who are party to legal muggings should be disbarred.
Can anyone confirm? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If the author of the article is right then Viacom just got severely played.
Re:Bad deal (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing is, I'm not sure it will go to their plans, or turn out the way they want. They want a fair use ruling that says as long as they comply with take-down notices, they are free and clear despite making money off of copyrighted content (ad impressions until a video is taken down).
A favorable fair-use will basically cement their (and many others') position that indexing and news indexing/aggregation is legal under fair-use laws. An unfavorable ruling, depending on the judges' wording, could be used as very high-powered ammunition against it by companies that think Google News and other services are "stealing" content. It could also spur unintelligent legislation regarding fair-use.
I'm divided. I want fair-use to be very clear under the law, but I don't think what Google/YouTube is doing is right. Slapping users on the wrists and deleting infringing videos obviously isn't enough to deter infringement.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad deal (Score:5, Insightful)
What would be interesting is if the courts declare that any ad money made from infringing videos has to be collected and given to the owner.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Under the legal definition of Fair use.
if the courts see Google and simply a carrier then the infringement is being done by the users and not Google.
Which would give Google immunity under Safe Harbor provisions ofthe DMCA. Not under Fair use exceptions to copyright.
So far the really popular videos on youtube have mostly been homemade stuff that sometimes includes a small bit of soundtrack. These are "fair use" under many interpretations, and Google making ad money fr
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
What would be interesting is if the courts declare that any ad money made from infringing videos has to be collected and given to the owner.
YouTube doesn't put any ads on the pages where clips are played. Take a look. They only put ads on the search pages, home page, etc. The reason for this is that if they had ads on clip pages, they could potentially lose the protection of the Safe Harbors under the DMCA. YouTube has been very careful to give itself a legal ground to stand on if they ever went to court.
This article [hollywoodreporteresq.com] explains it much better than I can -- and it is well written. =)
Re: (Score:1)
Why don't we sue ISPs who provide the basic media for file sharing? In Canada, we already have a levy on blank media
(I know it should be simple to argue the difference between hosting a complete work, and just having various bytes flowing through a network
But then, haven't people who h
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Google certainly has a financial benefit from hosting infringing content, as it attracts viewers which translate into advertising revenue. I don't
Re:Bad deal (Score:5, Insightful)
In a FEW situations (full pre-release TV episodes,) GooTube has some grossly infringing content. That represents a problem they need to address.
For the vast majority of the rest, calling it "infringement" amounts to saying we don't have the right to our own culture.
The crappy low-quality content on YouTube won't deprive anyone of sales. If anything, it will increase sales by reminding people of little bits of their past which they want to recapture (eg, cheesy 80's videos and saturday morning cartoons); It gives the best possible advertising for shows like The Colbert Report; It lets us all make fun of the latest absurdity uttered by the president (or Pelosi, Boxer, or [insert your least favorite politician here], they all count as pretty much equally worthless). Unfortunately, copyright law doesn't care about that - It cares only that the copyright holder (rarely the "artist", so don't even go there) didn't give permission. That must change if copyright will survive the next few years with any meaning at all.
And if we don't see a massive copyright reform in the near future? Well... Ask any 16YO whether or not they consider it "wrong" to copy a CD. Copyright has fallen to the level of speeding as a socially-acceptible crime; we all know we might get caught, we all do it anyway, and we don't care. Except, rather than a $150 fine, you can get a $150,000 fine. Ouch.
Re: (Score:2)
to saying we don't have the right to our own culture.
Changing the law will make it legal.
Re:Bad deal (Score:4, Insightful)
So in that case you wouldn't mind if someone with deep pockets were to attempt to bring about a change in that law by using its legal muscle to help establish a favourable precedent?
Well, Go Google!
Re: (Score:2)
We got to where we are today with copyright law, because "people with deep pockets (??AA) attempted (and succeeded) to bring about changes in that law by using their legal muscle to help establish favorable (to them) legal precedents."
Too bad that ordinary people have gotten completely lost in the shuffle.
We're back to the Renaissance patronage system.
Re: (Score:2)
Which would make the system broken, perhaps, but doesn't mean that Google is doing a bad thing with this action.
It's nice to see one of the players pushing in the other direction for once. That's all.
Re: (Score:2)
But the system IS broken, and while Google IS doing good. In the Renaissance, ability pay for materials as well as the basics of life drove the need for Patrons in order to do art and science. Today between the quagmire of I.P Law and the fact that our legal system has become deep-pockets based have driven us back in time, to Patronage.
Re: (Score:2)
By all means, let's fix the system. But any program of reform is going to be hard sell. On the one hand the various vested interests are going to oppose anything that might remove their snouts from the gravy train. On the other, I think a lot of people are increasingly sceptical of anyone throwing the word "reform" around, given the Orwellian usage favoured by m
Re: (Score:2)
That's the statutory maximum. In reality they'll get the statutory minimum, which is $750. Except it's per work, so for a CD of MP3s (~200@3.5MB) you're back at $150,000.
It's one thing to have something of a hard minimum (if you agree that it should be illegal in the first place...), for example you get a relatively high penalty for stealing $1 of gum and then you should presumably do the same for infringing on 99c worth of IP. Otherwise it is sim
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can believe anything you want, but all of human history up to the past few centuries has proven that idea false. People create because we use it as a form of expression. The fact that we can get paid, for doing something we'd do anyway, just adds frosting to the cake.
If you don't like the historical argument, though, you have counterexamples even in the present. Go to any local club o
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They will be able to vote in two years.
In theory, they will be able to pass legislation through Congress in nine years, through the Senate in fourteen, and past the president's desk in nineteen.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe a bit off-topic, but maybe this is a good example of when punishment as deterrence doesn't work. Most people break the law because they don't co
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the Romans had a better idea for keeping an orderly society, and bolstering law enforcement. Stiffer penalties. Like slavery. Crucifixion. Forced entertainment (being the star of the weekly "Feed the Lions" show at the coliseum). $150,000 isn't enough to deter these violators. We need some real penalties. After all, the stiff penalties the Romans used worked out so well for them.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Why not?
It's often said that guns don't kill but that people do, using guns; and most people, I assume, would agree that totally outlawing guns because they *might* be used for illegitimate purposes would be unjustified (even those who, like me, are in favour of tougher gun control laws). And is
What, you want Singapore's laws? (Score:2)
There's litter all over my neighborhood. Obviously current enforcement isn't enough to keep it clean. Should we escalate the penalties until the litter stops? Much of that litter is from the local McDonald's - shouldn't they be doing something to stop this menace? (If I could think of something they could reasonably do I'd be all for it, but I c
I take it back - litter is much worse (Score:2)
I compared copyright infringement to littering. But every method I can think of for preventing infringement for personal use does more harm (social, economic, and political) than good. I can imagine a world in which there is no prohibition on personal copying - and I think it would be a better world. Of course, that's not the world we live in, and there is some harm done even when a bad law is broken (for some laws, the good of breaking the law may exceed the harm). Litter, in contrast, would still be a
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Bad deal (Score:4, Insightful)
Big companies CAN make mistakes, I dont know if Google has or not and I have no less insight into Google than anyone else here.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's savvy, IMHO.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So Page can outvote us anytime.
See ya...
not likely (Score:5, Interesting)
Google could have filed amicus briefings on behalf of the defendant (they did so a couple years ago when yahoo was being sued).
But the proposition is backwards. youtube had no money or revenue. Google has both. That's a big red "sue me" sign stapled on their back.
Re:not likely (Score:5, Insightful)
By owning YouTube the can know at least know they might win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
youtube had no money or revenue. Google has both. That's a big red "sue me" sign stapled on their back.
It's a big red "sue me" sign if your goal is to actually recover damages, but Viacom and the hordes sure to follow it don't really need or want the billion dollars they're asking for. They want youtube style video either dead or changed completely to suit their interests. Consider, a huge settlemnet from a startup buys you either controlling stock in that company or its imminent demise. A huge settlement from Google gets you a billion dollar check and a shrug.
Amicus curiae (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats why they have Amicus curiae briefs. If Google just wanted to help YouTube defend themselves, they could have filed such a brief for much less than the 1.6 billion (or whatever it was) they spent on YouTube. Or if they really wanted to take an active role in the lawsuit, they could have waited for it to be filed and then bail out YouTube for much less money. Though its questionable whether or not they would have ever been sued in the first place had YouTube not been bought by someone who could pay up.
No matter how you cut it, this would have been a silly strategy. Can we please stop pretending we are on Google's board of directors and posting all this speculative BS on what we think they are doing or will do in the future? Please?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Amicus curiae (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That reasoning would require now to be a particularly good time for a lawsuit. But that simply is not the case. Right now its still somewhat new and vulnerable, and is going to have to deal with a range of upstarts. Furthermore, it is too early for them to have finished sealing the deal with the media companies to protect them from such lawsuits. There really isn't a good time to be sued (which is why I'm sure YouTube would have preferred to not be sued in the first place), but I assure you, now is a pa
Re: (Score:2)
Standing up to the DoJ in our current times of paranoia isn't exactly a hot idea either but it turned out well for them. And everyone is referencing their actions with the judge finally killing COPA so that is quite a bit of positive PR.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats why they have Amicus curiae briefs. If Google just wanted to help YouTube defend themselves, they could have filed such a brief for much less than the 1.6 billion (or whatever it was) they spent on YouTube. Or if they really wanted to take an active role in the lawsuit, they could have waited for it to be filed and then bail out YouTube for much less money. Though its questionable whether or not they would have ever been sued in the first place had YouTube not been bought by someone who could pay up.
Re: (Score:2)
"As mentioned, that runs the risk that 'Tube cuts a sweetheart deal with the labels before Google can do it."
If You Tube cut a deal, that would in no way set a legal precedent that Google would then have to follow with its own video service. In fact, that would make it much easier for their own service, unrestricted by the terms of the deal, to overtake YouTube in popularity.
"As it stands, I'd have to imagine the spectre of a lawsuit was included in the YouTube purchase price"
I'd really hate to see
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Why not just pay for the lawyers? (Score:3, Insightful)
If that were the case, google could just donate money to youtube to pay for their legal defence, and not get involved with actually owning the company. It would cost an insignificant amount relative to the $1.6B purchase fee, and they wouldn't have to pay damages in the event of defeat.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Why not just pay for the lawyers? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are two issues with this though:
1) Google has no incentive to continue on the fight, other than their own personal liability on Google Video, and considering it is almost the same thing you may as well own the other company. In the M$ SCO case, it's plaintiff not defendant that M$ is supporting.
2) Iff Google spent a tonne of cash on YouTube in defence and won, YouTube would undoubtedly be worth a lot more and likely be a prime candidate for purchase as their liability aspects had been tried out in court.
My $0.02
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If they just paid YouTube's legal costs, and YouTube won, then YouTube would have ended up being worth even more than Google already paid for them -- and someone other than Google would end up owning YouTube. Not that anyone would be suing YouTube if they weren't owned by somebody rich; prior to the Google purchase, YouTube ha
Righttttttt (Score:3, Interesting)
Its far more likely Google wanted to be a dominant player in a market other than search so badly they forked out the $1.6 billion knowing a lawsuit would likely follow if they could not negotiate a quick settlement and apparently in the process overvalued not just youtube but also the amount of clout they hold with the content providers.
It was an act of hubris not a brilliant strategy! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's ALL about who posts the content (Score:1)
All they need to do is give content owners first dibs on content creation and presentation (and possibly quality options) on GooTube. It's just a giant moving billboard, and the content owners want more influence on how their content is presented, and how their revenues are derived.
For the guys suing them this is just negotiation by other means.
They didn't pay with real money (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:YES THEY DID (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In the case of the United States, the Dollar has been fairly consistently falling against the Euro for the past 120 days [x-rates.com] or so.
Re: (Score:1)
From Google's perspective, there's no speculation. Their balance sheet is EXACTLY as if they sold held stock for cash for the transaction, and paid for the transaction with cash.
Volitility doesn't come into play for Google - they paid an expense with a fungible commodity. Once ownership's transferred
My thoughts... (Score:1)
Then why didn't Google wait until such a lawsuit (Score:1, Redundant)