Google would've fought back much more -- as it has in the past -- if it wouldn't have gotten into the "content business."
That's really the main leverage studios have over Google right now: "either remove the stuff we tell you or you'll no longer get access to the content you want from us."
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that MPAA's board seat on the W3C was sponsored by Google (and Netflix, maybe Microsoft, and a few others).
Seeing as how they are having troubles getting other content producers to sign up (Google Books and Google Music as examples) to Google media projects, the odds of them pushing through with TV and movie organizations seems even slimmer.
I don't think Google speaks "content", especially when they are or would be negotiating with organizations that have a strong interest in capping bandwidth or double dipping fees from organizations like Google. TimeWarner (and Comcast, even though you can't vote doesn't mean you can't lobby. . privately) I'm looking at you. I think the Google books lawsuit fiasco really damaged Google's reputation with the content creation community (and the AA organizations) which in turn would negatively impact their negotiations with content providers.
Also, Google can, and probably will be seen as an all out competitor to traditional business models. They're building GoogleTV to destroy set top boxes and push people away from traditional media access and onto the net and copyrighted material still floods youtube. From a negotiating perspective, Google would have to make an extremely sweet offer to content creators to get them to think about putting content on the mashup Hulutube / YouHulu site. (I personally think YouHulu sounds better).
Google needs the cooperation of the content industry to make its media service, Google Play, anything approaching successful. If the choice is between censoring content and having a successful product then kowtowing to the other entities will always win.
I agree that Google acts in its own interests, but they sure do care about the internet being run by Hollywood. With a locked-down internet and strong copyright legislation, Hollywood/other content owners would own all the ad spots and would cut Google out of the loop.
Google is better off with a decentralized internet of "amateur" content* on which they can serve ads and negotiate a cut of the revenue.
* Pirated content would work for them too, but it's not remotely worth their while to be publicly anti-copyright or to not comply with U.S. law.
I assume this is a joke. This would be terrifying. The MPAA are trying to stop google from fairly distributing pages they disagree with. Google is net neutrality and should act as a dumb pipe utility in the sense that it returns the most relevant info based on your search.
If google returned empty pages for something it didn't agree with, the implications would be appalling.
Google should do during the spectrum wars when they bid on spectrum and territory to leverage telecom co.s. They should threaten to back netflix or start a studio to make movies and content. They already have distribution and funds.
OK, but google's approach is more akin to your car insurance company denying your business because they disagree with your political opinion bumper sticker and then refusing to tell you why.
Their position in the video market is such that they don't need to compete for content providers and that is a problem.
The issue here isn't that it's Google, it's that Google is doing what they're told to do.
Movie and music licensing has been absolutely destroyed recently and the hoops that you have to agree to are becoming untenable. Recently, I mentioned to a band it was sad they pulled their music off Spotify. Puzzled, they were not even aware that the licensing was pulled, and they had to go yell at their record label (who was unaware they were even on Spotify because they made less than a dollar in royalties per year on it) who has sat on it for over a year and refused to release the rights back to the artist so they can have it available on Spotify.
The best part is that the media companies are now explicitely licensing the content to Google (for free).
Google competitors won't have those licenses and won't have the market power to get them for the same conditions, so they made it harder for Google competitors.
My guess is your first point is exactly why Google hasn't done this yet. Their 'knowledge boxes' are already crossing a line that in general they felt nervous about crossing historically, but they don't go very far.
Google on the whole historically did not want to alienate publishers (and the advertisers that hang out on publisher content) and has avoided being in the content production business for this reason.
If the revenue from pirate sites disappeared Google wouldn't even blink. The pain in the ass is regulatory compliance. Hollywood wants IP enforced on Google's dime/technology, and Google doesn't want to be their bitch.
I feel that because web tech advanced more quickly than much of society, a vacuum of power developed and Google was forced to step in. If Google had its way, it wouldn't police any content and it would illegally host HBO shows like Game of Thrones -- when you try to hold them responsible, Google would pass off all burden to the offending individual. That's how YouTube used to run.
Other industries have things like the FCC or the FDA where companies can say, "Look, we did our due diligence, the FDA approved our drug."
Google is a private business and they can do what they want, but this disappoints me. More and more Google seems to be thinking of themselves as content police (consider YouTube is owned by Google also), and I think that's a shame. Perhaps it will open up a market for dethroning them. A serious YouTube competitor that doesn't demonetize content they find disagreeable would be very healthy, IMHO.
Google is to big too be killed, and has already shown its willingness to play to the public gallery over government censorship. I'd assume the MPAA isn't suicidal enough to challenge them in any meaningful way.
I think it's because the content creators have not been completely OK with Google using their content (see News, Books, etc). Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to do that you need access to it.
Google has massively anti-competitive practices, and especially with Youtube. They have made an explicit effort to kill competition in the online video space and have been very successful at it. We are now left, as a result of Google's malicious actions, with a single realistic option of platforms for video content creators. To have Google take these actions, then force us with the decision of "let us shove ads and tracking down your throat" or "miss a massive part of important media available, including for professional and educational reasons", feels pretty bad to me. Maybe extortion isn't the best word, but it's super shitty.
That's really the main leverage studios have over Google right now: "either remove the stuff we tell you or you'll no longer get access to the content you want from us."
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that MPAA's board seat on the W3C was sponsored by Google (and Netflix, maybe Microsoft, and a few others).
reply