Update: We toned down the headline (which previously implied there was actually a lawsuit happening) after reading your comments. Thanks for the feedback.
Deep pockets do have a way of attracting lawsuits.
Not a week after its YouTube acquisition, Google has an enemy on its tail: Time Warner. In a Guardian story in Friday’s edition, Time Warner CEO Dick Parsons is quoted as saying he plans to pursue copyright complaints over illegal material on YouTube. “You can assume we’re in negotiations with YouTube and that those negotiations will be kicked up to the Google level in the hope that we can get to some acceptable position,” he says.
He denied the decision to pursue any potential infringement had been prompted by this week’s acquisition. Google, whose core search function attracted 204 million users in August, four times those who used YouTube, has a higher market capitalisation than Time Warner. “We were going to pursue it anyway,” he said. “If you let one thing ignore your rights as an owner it makes it much more difficult to defend those rights when the next guy comes along.”
Time Warner, we should note, is separate from Warner Music Group, which has already licensed music and music video content to both YouTube and Google. This is not the last threat of a lawsuit, but of course, everyone is waiting for the deal to close. Meanwhile, MySpace is trying to put pressure on Goobe through lines of communication it has already established in its partnership. Google may end up paying a lot more than $1.65 billion when this all plays out… and you can bet Time Warner and the rest won’t be satisfied with payment in stock.
(Formerly titled “Dick Parsons Says He’s Suing Goobe.”)
14 comments so far
9:01 PM PT
The triad…
So Google devoured youtube. It’s only a matter of time before the greatest enemies become the best of friends. And the gov’t? Haven’t they already made their opinion on monopoly abundantly clear? I’m nervous, yeah.
…
9:59 PM PT
Isn’t it sounds like Napster all over again . only this time it has financial muscle of Google behined it . this can be a test case to see whether money can distort the general idea and course of Law .
I think the idea of panelising ASP for any misuse of the application is absurd . by that logic one should punish all the hotel where drug trafficing deal are being done or shut down the factories of AK 47 because they are being used by Terrorist . but we don’t do that
bu we sue Web service provider. things are coming to full circle .Internet looks like a Groundhog day without Andie MacDowell .
11:57 PM PT
Google forgot to read fine prints! $1.65B did not include shipping and handling - for every and each “borrowed” video.
Any idea if Google terms had 30-day cancellation option?
1:06 AM PT
the question is, can Warner supply it´s content to significant numbers without youtube?
If youtube remains the number 1 distribution place for video content, than it would not be in Warner´s longterm interest to sue Google.
4:51 AM PT
no this is not like napster. isn’t there a single IP expert who can put up a post for everyone to read about this? isn’t there a single blogger who can take the time actually research this topic with some experts. it is much more like sony betamax and much less like napster/grokster.
7:54 AM PT
Sue ‘em, then Do ‘em. Gaining popularity…
Looks like other tech blogs have picked up on my meme highlighting the dominant hollywod strategy for do new media deals. TechDirt wonders if its more than sour grapes that leads copyright holders to announce to the world the threat of lawsuits befor…
8:15 AM PT
He didn’t say he was suing. In fact, he made a point of saying he wanted to talk to them about a deal. “We’d like to have our content displayed on these platforms, but on a basis that it respects our rights as the owner of that content.”
Love you guys, but you’re spinning the story.
2:57 PM PT
i propose we call them ‘tooble’
3:51 PM PT
Um, can you guys stop calling it “Goobe”. If you must use a nickname, why not GooTube which makes much more sense and sounds better on the tongue? “Goobe” has no ring to it.
4:32 PM PT
I am afraid this is a mis-interpretation of whatever you read about Dick Parson’s comments…this story needs to be corrected asap..The headline is a total MIS-nomer and not very clean journalism!
6:54 PM PT
Yes, check out http://money.cnn.com/blogs/browser/2006/10/faux-fracas-over-time-warner-and.html for more details about the confusion here.
4:50 AM PT
The media companies are being much more tolerant of YouTube than they ever were of Napster.
See: http://redesign.wordpress.com/2006/10/12/could-youtube-have-come-from-a-large-company/
9:20 AM PT
Dick Parsons said it. The media companies cannot allow YouTube to post their content without permission–no matter how many marketing points they get out of it, because if they do the content enters the public domain according to United States intellectual property law. If you don’t protect your IP, it’s no longer yours.
4:33 PM PT
Superb! (I wrote something else and then I read below that I aint supposed ter. So I deleted it.)
Leave a Comment