Slashdot Mirror
Google Makes Peace With Media Companies
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Google is bringing some of the biggest media companies into its camp and sharing revenue with them, after drawing their ire last year with moves to search video and books, the Wall Street Journal reports. From the article: 'Google's improved relationships with media and entertainment companies reflects the confidence those companies have gained in online distribution in the past year, amid rapid growth in Americans' consumption of Web video and other Internet content. But just as importantly, it illustrates a coming of age in Google's approach to the owners of content it wants to search.' Google has hired executives from the media world to conduct the negotiations. One of them, David Eun, formerly of Time Warner and NBC, said, 'The biggest challenge is explaining to them we're friend and not foe.'" Just don't use google as a verb. Pretty please?
I googled it for you:
o ogle+used+as+verb+lawsuit&kgs=1&kls=0
http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=g
Just don't use google as a verb. Pretty please?
Okeedokey, smokey. (Seriously, "google" as a verb annoyed the bejezus out of me).
BUT! I hereby nominate "Don't Do Evil" as the new way to mockingly refer to ANY corporate misdoings. Let's see how they like that!
Please help metamoderate.
When I Google (TM) for a song, why doesn't it show me links to MP3s of those songs on the Web? Or links to pages which link to MP3s of those songs? Google has always (or for a long time) censored its links to that content. I guess they're scared of the Napster caselaw. But that's a pretty big stick they've got to hit "media companies" with when they want to haggle.
--
make install -not war
'The biggest challenge is explaining to them we're friend and not foe.'
Considering how much content they have had that they charge for for some time on Google Video, I am suprised. Apple is paving the way, and everyone knows that whatever Google does works (whether it is true or not).
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
If Google can garner a solid relationship with those large media companies, the possibilities for Google to grow are nearly infinite. Many households today do not own a DVR, but imagine how convenient it would be for a typical Joe User to be able to find a clip from CNN he saw earlier and use it for a research project he's working on. Wouldn't it be great if his daughter could find a clip of her favorite program as easily as searching for web pages?
If this relationship can build, this will all be possible. Furthermore, companies that benefit from AdSense will benefit greatly from those types of users. Everybody wins at the end, and Google keeps its "friendly giant" crown it's been holding for years.
No sneaky corpse-beating RIAA lawyers required.
[Quote]"Just don't use google as a verb. Pretty please?"[/quote]
Yep, it gives them a major headache having their name used as a generic term. Then they have to take several Asprin for it. It is the kind of hurt a kiss and a Band-Aid from Mom can't fix. We just have to stop being so Mickey Mouse about it....
Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
They realized they are a dying medium and google could possibly be a way to drive viewers to their online content.
I think Google's improved relationship with the media companies has more to do with the viability of Google as a company as opposed to the viability of the internet as a distribution platform.
It's hard to ignore the kind of success they've had.
Part of maintaining the rights to a trademark (Google(tm) for instance...) is that you actively prove that you are defending your mark. For instance, if a competitor created a new search service called um...what's a good name...uh GOOGLER.COM, and they could prove that Google(tm) was not protecting their trademark, then they could attempt to make a legal stake for the name. Google is probably ecstatic that their name has become a verb, however the guys in legal gotta do this, or else people will take advantage of Google's general good will.
eh -- so deal with it, its no biggie.
They say the mind is the first thing to
I swear, Google is starting down the road of becoming less and less relevant. It started with search results placement...What I want is a search engine that can filter out all commercial results and just give me pure, clean information when that's what I am looking for.
Google:"Let's pay the content owners off so they don't sue us" That's not a partnership at all. That just means their paying them to keep their mouth shut.
its a verb its a verb its a ver its a verb Google this Google that its a verb its a verb!
I'm still upset that people get confused when I refer to a googol - they think I'm talking about a search engine, rather than a quantity! For serious, Google are kidding themselves thinking that some strongly worded letters will stop the genericization of google...it's already generic. I know that isn't the thrust of TFA, but dammit, I missed the original thread.
"Imagine"? I don't have to imagine it. Napster (the original) was well on its way there. P2P networks are clearly doing this already. In fact, P2P networks distribute content in ways that efficiently spread out distribution costs among users (disproving the notion that the cost of "hosting" is supposedly the biggest "challenge" facing content owners --- a falsehood that nevertheless will become an excuse for many annoyances, such as unwanted advertising, and network non-neutrality).
Media companies are no friend in this regard, and neither is Google. Bottom line, people. That's all these companies "care" about. They see one another as foes and/or partners in the effort to control your access to information and the distribution of that information for their own profit.
In fact, in this regard I would say that the content owners, for all that many of us rail against them, are actually better actors, in a sense, than Google, here. Why? Because they are actually in the content creation business to some extent --- part of their argument has always been that the free distribution of content, while nice in theory, would come back to hit the artists, since historically the artists (creators) have been paid using a system that depends on royalties related to distribution (sales of individual copies). Thus they at least claim to be benefitting us by consolidating their control over the distribution of content.
Google, on the other hand, has never been about controlling distribution or content -- its business is based on providing as much access and utility as possible, as a means of sucking in information, which can then be used for marketing and advertising purposes. This is why a deal like this is a sign that Google is getting into bed with content owners, and changing its core business.
So do you think this will mean that the only results will be the ones that any particular big media Google partner wants to push that week?
That's the road Alta Vista, Excite and many other now forgotten search engines went down to make a quick buck back in the day. Google stubbornly stuck to providing relevant links for their users.
That's why Google is now raking in the billions, and they are very aware of that. There is no way they are going to throw away their biggest competitive advantage for a few lousy millions. It's not like they're desperate for money, and (see above) even when they were they didn't resort to things like this.
It started with search results placement...
Google doesn't sell search results placement.
Do they make peace with the media companies before or after sending them legal threats?
I get a nasty feeling that if I use Google(TM) to look for TV clips all I will get is 20 pages of TV ads.
Because you always need a smart fox!
Is this the first time the submitter has been a media flack who doesn't even go through the formality of registering a Slashdot account to submit? (Check out where the link from the submitter's name goes.)
-- Old Man Kensey
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Enough with the google as a verb thing.
Reserve the harsh criticism until they actually sue someone.
Google has to make an effort to protect their trademark(even if it means just sending a C&D letter) or they lose it. Period. It wasn't evil, it was responsibility.
What the heck, is Google paying taxes to the media mafia? If Google wants to keep their asses in my "good guys" list, they better side with my rights, and do what they can to hurt and piss off obnoxious media corporations.
I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.