It’s all over the blogosphere today that Google has been sued for copyright infringement for something that appeared on Google Video. This is a hot news item given the fomenting over Google’s acquisition of YouTube and whether Google will get sunk in infringement lawsuits.
The problem is…I can’t seem to find any evidence of a landmark copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Google for its video activities and the original source that reported the news isn’t very clear at all.
Everything started when AP’s Michael Liedtke reported yesterday that “Google Inc.’s online video service has been sued for copyright infringement.” He offered no other details, except to say that it was in a quarterly filing with the SEC.
That’s about the sum and substance of Liedtke’s report. Well, the only quarterly filing that Google submitted yesterday to the SEC was its 10-Q.
I combed through the document and really couldn’t find what Liedtke was talking about, although admittedly these filings are dense and I could have missed something. At most Google acknowledged that “certain entities” have filed copyright claims against, well, just about everything Google offers, including its web, book and image search services, as well as its news and video offerings.
Here’s the relevant passage, from a lengthy section where Google lays out all the market risks it faces (there’s another section regarding “legal proceedings” but nothing there about this lawsuit):
Certain entities have also filed copyright claims against us, alleging that features of certain of our products and services, including Google Web Search, Google News, Google Video, Google Image Search, and Google Book Search, infringe their rights. In addition, our planned acquisition of YouTube may subject us to additional copyright claims upon the closing of the transaction. Adverse results in these lawsuits may include awards of substantial monetary damages, costly royalty or licensing agreements, or orders preventing us from offering certain functionalities, and may also result in, or even compel, a change in our business practices, which could result in a loss of revenue for us or otherwise harm our business. In addition, generally speaking, any time that we have a product or service that links to or hosts material in which others allege to own copyrights, we face the risk of being sued for copyright infringement or related claims. Because these products and services comprise the majority of our products and services, the risk of harm from such lawsuits could be substantial.
Hmm…that’s so not newsworthy. I’m glad to see Mike at Techdirt raise the appropriate level of skepticism about the vague buzz regarding this lawsuit.
For all we know, this could be the lawsuit that was filed against YouTube over the summer. Chances are it’s something different, but it’s hard to say if it’s substantial or legitimate at this point.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 6:19 PM | Print | Comments (0)
I’m a little late to this one, but Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute has teamed with the GSM Association to commission independent filmmakers to produce short (3 to 5 minutes) films for cell phones. The mutually beneficial goal of the alliance: develop original content for mobile phones while providing filmmakers with greater exposure.
GSM represents 700 mobile phone operators in 215 countries and will unveil the very short films at the 3GSM World Congress in Barcelona in February. After that the films will be marketed to mobile content providers for distribution to cell phone owners. Among the auteurs whose films will be headed to the small screen are Nathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, creators of Little Miss Sunshine, and Maria Maggenti, creator of Puccini for Beginners.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 5:16 PM | Print | Comments (0)
In a radical departure from how record companies have been compensated for the digital sales of their music, Microsoft will pay Vivendi’s Universal Music a royalty not only based on the songs it sells via its Zune music store but also based on the sales of its upcoming Zune music player. Universal, which accounts for about one-third of all digital music sales, will receive $1 for every one of the $250 devices sold.
Although federal law affixes fees to certain recording devices, the funds from which are then redistributed to record companies, MP3 players and other new digital audio players don’t have to pay this fee, a fact that has rankled record companies while Apple has profited from the sale of tens of millions of iPods.
Now, clearly, Universal Music is doing what it can in private negotiations to get its share of the revenue generated by these devices. Microsoft says it stands ready to cut comparable deals with other record companies, a posture dictated by necessity — Microsoft’s Zune has an uphill battle to take market share away from Apple’s iPod and the company doesn’t stand a chance if its music store pales in comparison to iTunes.
Based on the early reviews, Microsoft needs all the help it can get. David Pogue offers this review of the Zune in today’s New York Times and although he likes a lot of the features (rubberized, fingerprint-proof cover, good sound), he finds some of the features annoying (Wi-Fi that doesn’t connect to a router?). Bottom-line: Zune is OK, but it’s just another example of Microsoft’s “me-too” business philosophy.
But what, exactly, is the point of the Zune? It seems like an awful lot of duplication — in a bigger, heavier form with fewer features — just to indulge Microsoft’s “we want some o’ that” envy. Wireless sharing is the one big new idea — and if the public seems to respond, Apple could always add that to the iPod.Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 9:11 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
