Comments on: Dick Parsons Says Talk to Us or Else

By: shemales stories

shemales stories — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:33:52 +0000

Superb! (I wrote something else and then I read below that I aint supposed ter. So I deleted it.)

By: jonah

jonah — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:20:38 +0000

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.

By: Rocky Agrawal

Rocky Agrawal — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 11:50:26 +0000

The media companies are being much more tolerant of YouTube than they ever were of Napster.

See: (link)

By: fanjum

fanjum — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:54:08 +0000

Yes, check out (link) for more details about the confusion here.

By: dinesh

dinesh — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:32:02 +0000

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!

By: Mike B

Mike B — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:51:06 +0000

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.

By: Scott Truitt

Scott Truitt — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:57:17 +0000

i propose we call them ‘tooble’

By: Rob Hyndman

Rob Hyndman — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:15:34 +0000

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.

By: joystick

joystick — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:54:56 +0000

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…

By: stevenk

stevenk — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:51:23 +0000

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.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:06:40 +0000

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.

By: ?

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:57:28 +0000

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?

By: Prashant

Prashant — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:59:58 +0000

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 .

By: Proxykitten

Proxykitten — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:01:31 +0000

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.

…