At SES in San Jose during Danny Sullivan’s interview with Google CEO Eric Schmidt, he said that he felt that at least some of the litigation Google had confronted was “a business negotiation being conducted in the courts.”
John Battelle and Danny at SEW post about TW CEO Richard Parson’s comments regarding copyright issues, YouTube and potential lawsuits against Google. From the Guardian article in which Parson was quoted:
Dick Parsons, the chairman and chief executive of Time Warner, fired a shot across the bows of Google, saying his group would pursue its copyright complaints against the video sharing site YouTube.com.
In the context of AOL Schmidt is exactly correct. Note the “saber rattling” that Universal Music did, only to announce deals with YouTube and Google before the GoogTube announcement was made. Given AOL’s relationship with Google there’s absolutely no chance that we’re going to see an actual lawsuit.
This is all about pressure and negotiation.
Screenwerk 
October 13, 2006 at 4:07 pm
[…] Is anyone really surprised that Dick “No, we are not a sinking ship” Parsons at Time Warner is rattling the old copyright sabre at Google and YouTube? Much like Universal when it started muttering about YouTube stealing its content not too long ago — even as it was talking to the site about a deal on licensing — the media conglomerate seems to mostly be searching for negotiating leverage, as Mike Masnick at Techdirt points out, and Greg Sterling notes as well. […]
October 14, 2006 at 12:12 pm
[…] Indeed. That’s precisely what it is. (Here’s my post from yesterday on the same subject.) […]
November 3, 2006 at 3:58 pm
[…] PaidContent characterizes Google as “frantic” in its efforts to halt potential lawsuits against YouTube, with cash and licensing offers. There’s something that doesn’t entirely ring true there because I’m sure Google had a bunch of conversations prior to purchase with media companies on the issue. Regardless, YouTube won’t be “Napterized.” I go back to Eric Schmidt’s remarks at SES re litigation (real or threatened) as a “negotiation in the courts.” […]