Why Google Wanted a YouTube Lawsuit

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."

Comments

Sad that money means so much in the courtroom

[Reverse Gear]

The sad thing about this is that it actually does make sense that Google should buy Youtube for the reason stated in the OP.

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, 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

[sarathmenon]

The good thing is that google is waging the war against the mafiaa rather than you and me. File sharing and DCMA are totally different things, but I'll welcome any adversary against the *AA. If they are clipped off from both sides (content and consumers) some good might come out of it.

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.

Re:Sad that money means so much in the courtroom

[hey!]

Sad it may be, but it is ievitable that money matters in a civil lawsuit. As long as people are allowed to sue to recover just damages, others will be tempted to sue to obtain unjust settlments.

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.

Bad deal

[javilon]

By this interpretation, Google could have waited for the lawsuits to start and then buy YouTube for very little money, they could have saved a Billion.

Re:Bad deal

[Samuel Dravis]

But then, you see, the other companies would have already won in court, which sets precedent for all video services. Google bought YT to prevent this from occurring.

Re:Bad deal

[pla]

but I don't think what Google/YouTube is doing is right. Slapping users on the wrists and deletinginfringing videos obviously isn't enough to deter infringement.

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:Bad deal

[MindStalker]

its not "fair use" for whom? If the courts see Google and simply a carrier then the infringement is being done by the users and not Google. As long as Google takes down any infringments upon notice they are abiding by DMCA. 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 from these videos is fine.

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.

Amicus curiae

[nwbvt]

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:not likely

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

Google could spend millions/billions on amicus filling to defend YouTube, but as soon as it looked like they might win the media companies would cut a deal with YouTube and no legal precedent would be established.

By owning YouTube the can know at least know they might win.