Further Proof that Lawyers Are Akin to Vampires

I really wasn’t feeling well this weekend. Not really sick, just a general malaise. Thus, my ass was firmly planted on my couch as I caught up with my Tivo and DVDs (both purchased and Netflixed).

During the massive media digestion, my normal disgust with legal warnings reached near epic proportions. Let me walk you through it.

First up, the FBI and/or Interpol warnings. They’ve been on every DVD or VHS I’ve ever watched. I think that’s true for everyone else in this country. Obviously, it’s doing a bang-up job combating video piracy. That was sarcasm. In terms of crime deterrence, that warning isn’t even a speed bump. It’s so worthless that some companies have added commercials dissuading acts of piracy. Why these ads look like they were shot in 1986 with a budget of twenty dollars is beyond me. Just like understanding why the ads lack the presence of any minorities. Are only white folk pirates?



The anti-crime legal warning is then followed, when applicable, by the company’s disclaimer that the views expressed on any commentaries are not the views of the parent company, their subsidiaries, any affiliates, the Tijuana whore that gave their marketing department the Clap or even Whistler’s mother. Good thing that’s there given the recent rash of commentary-based lawsuits. I mean, if Shannon Doherty hasn’t sued anyone based on crappy things said about her in commentaries, I think we’re safe.

The most sadistic part of this process is the film companies’ unwillingness to allow the consumer to fast forward through these parts. No, you need to wait long enough for even the most inbred of hillbillies to be able to read these legal statements. Actually, let me that back. I don’t want to get sued by an inbred individual for inferring that they read slower than those of us spawned by people lacking close genetic ties. I’m sure they read just fine despite any genetic deformities. Just like I’m sure only white people steal.

But I digress...

The entertainment industry has a long history of litigation, so the input of their legal counsel probably holds great weight – definitely more than some cranky white guy that spent most of his weekend on his couch. Given that track record of litigious behavior, the following news item seemed apropos to include here.

Found on cnn.com:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Internet search leader Google is snapping up YouTube for $1.65 billion, brushing aside copyright concerns to seize a starring role in the online video revolution.

The all-stock deal announced Monday unites one of the Internet's marquee companies with one of its rapidly rising stars. It came just a few hours after YouTube unveiled three separate agreements with media companies to counter the threat of copyright-infringement lawsuits.

The price makes YouTube Inc., a still-unprofitable startup, by far the most expensive purchase made by Google during its eight-year history. Last year, Google spent $130.5 million buying a total of 15 small companies.

Although some cynics have questioned YouTube's staying power, Google is betting that the popular video-sharing site will provide it an increasingly lucrative marketing hub as more viewers and advertisers migrate from television to the Internet.

I recall reading an article in Wired from earlier this year describing youtube founders, Steven Chen and Chad Hurley, making the rounds at some tech brouhaha. They were refusing to discuss any offers for their company under a billion dollars. Look at what one plug from Dane Cook can do for your asking price.

Now, youtube has been under legal fire for copyright infringement and as Warren Ellis hypothesizes on his site:

[N]ow it’s been valued at 1.65 BILLION dollars. If you don’t think everyone and their wife is now going to start suing Google for illegally broadcasting copyrighted material, you’re insane. You’re also insane if you think the companies who weren’t somehow placated by YouTube into not destroying them a few months ago didn’t already have suits prepared and in the drawer waiting for the exact second this was announced.

At which point they get Napstered: just papered into oblivion by legal action.

1.65 billion American dollars, for some perspective, buys around forty tons of cocaine. Which may, in the long run, prove to be a better investment.

I like youtube. They don’t make me watch legal disclaimers before their videos. If they did, I bet they would let me fast forward through them with relative ease. No need to press stop-stop-menu to get where I need to go. Plus, they have Dave Chappelle singing the theme song from Different Strokes.



Enjoy it while it lasts – before the vampire lawyers swoop down and suck the life of it. Faster than a Tijuana whore can snort up 40 tons of cocaine.

wojr

Labels: Hollywood, News, Snide Remarks, Youtube

  ¶ 12:10 PM