
Google Fails To Blink - mattjaynes
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/05/01/google-fails-to-blink/
======
BrandonM
Everyone was saying that the YouTube deal was a bad idea because of the
copyright issues. Of course, Google knew about these issues as well. I can't
help but think now that they had this in mind all along, to buy them and then
duke it out with a major media giant over copyright laws. Surely, if they win
this case, that would set some major precedence which might help other areas
they are in as well.

~~~
usablecontent
The point that you are making was explained in detail by some fellow in a post
titled "Maybe Google Wanted to be Sued: YouTube and Plan B"
<http://www.michiknows.com/2007/03/14/maybe-google-wanted-to-be-sued-youtube-
and-plan-b/>

The post is really thought provoking and got Digged, slashdotted and reddited.

Do give it a look

~~~
BrandonM
Thanks for the link. That's basically the idea that I was considering, but
obviously more in depth.

It was a very good post.

------
dfranke
I'm starting to think that e1ven was right:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/comments?id=3930>

------
mynameishere
Of course, everyone is rooting for google because they love their free
content, but when you seat people on a jury, then tend to take things
seriously.

The law says "don't do X".

Google does "X".

...15 minutes of deliberations later...

Google is found liable for doing "X".

It's really straightforward, and arguments about information wanting to be
free don't really work in a courtroom setting.

~~~
rms
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification>

~~~
mynameishere
Geez, pick another name.

~~~
rms
?

~~~
mynameishere
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman>

------
ecuzzillo
Any links to good analyses of whether Google will win?

