4 ms·

I think Jason is overstating Google's risk acceptance with the Youtube acquisition. "Napster, Kazaa, and countless other media sharing services had been absolu

I think Jason is overstating Google's risk acceptance with the Youtube acquisition. "Napster, Kazaa, and countless other media sharing services had been absolutely crushed..." did not happen by being out-litigated. They were over-litigated -- they simply didn't have the capital resources to commit to the legal challenges ahead of them. Google didn't have that problem. Google was also the darling of Wall Street, Sili Valley, tech culture, etc. which translated to a built-in victory in the court of public opinion. There was certainly legal risk involved, but they had a much more level playing field with the content producers.

nolok 11y ago
Actually the two named example given, Napster and Kazaa, where out-litigated. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster > Initially Napster lost the case in the District Court but then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Although it was clear that Napster could potentially have commercially significant non-infringing uses, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court's decision. Immediately after, the District Court commanded Napster to keep track of the activities of its network and to restrict access to infringing material when informed of that material's location. Napster wasn't able to comply and thus had to close down its service in July 2001 And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazaa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazaa (not quoting a particular paragraph in this one as the "lawsuit" section is very long covering several countries, but it basically turns to "kazaa lost, started settling with all plaintiffs and agreed to turn into yet another legal music selling service clone").
- jroseattle 11y ago
  Napster filed for bankruptcy in 2001 and blamed their "enormous legal fees" as the primary cause. (Outside of, you know, having any actual revenue.) Kazaa was in the same boat. It's true, they did participate in some lawsuits, but they were going to be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of legal activity (the very purpose of which was to drain them of resources.) Appeals, filings in multiple districts, etc. Back to Google/Youtube -- Google had the resources to sustain any sort of legal onslaught by the RIAA. In fact, more so as those companies started to see their profits decline steadily during the mid 2000s, and the prospect of winning a protracted legal battle wasn't so certain. As a bully, it's much easier to take the little kids' lunch money, but not so much fun when you encounter a much bigger kid on the playground.

nolok 11y ago

Actually the two named example given, Napster and Kazaa, where out-litigated. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster > Initially Napster lost the case in the District Court but then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Although it was clear that Napster could potentially have commercially significant non-infringing uses, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court's decision. Immediately after, the District Court commanded Napster to keep track of the activities of its network and to restrict access to infringing material when informed of that material's location. Napster wasn't able to comply and thus had to close down its service in July 2001 And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazaa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazaa (not quoting a particular paragraph in this one as the "lawsuit" section is very long covering several countries, but it basically turns to "kazaa lost, started settling with all plaintiffs and agreed to turn into yet another legal music selling service clone").

jroseattle 11y ago
Napster filed for bankruptcy in 2001 and blamed their "enormous legal fees" as the primary cause. (Outside of, you know, having any actual revenue.) Kazaa was in the same boat. It's true, they did participate in some lawsuits, but they were going to be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of legal activity (the very purpose of which was to drain them of resources.) Appeals, filings in multiple districts, etc. Back to Google/Youtube -- Google had the resources to sustain any sort of legal onslaught by the RIAA. In fact, more so as those companies started to see their profits decline steadily during the mid 2000s, and the prospect of winning a protracted legal battle wasn't so certain. As a bully, it's much easier to take the little kids' lunch money, but not so much fun when you encounter a much bigger kid on the playground.