DoubleClick

Google just can't seem to get on the right side of copyright law -- or the law in general for that matter.

• Google's MySpace partner, News Corp clearly doesn't believe Google is doing enough to protect copyrights. 
• Peter Chernin, President of News Corp., in an interview with the Financial Times yesterday, chided Google that ""they could do a better job" at preventing illegally copied video from appearing on its YouTube site."
  • FT asks: "Do they have the technology to do it?"
  • Chernin: "It's pretty safe to say that they have the technology available, that if we [MySpace] have the technology available, a) it's publicly available, and b) I haven't yet heard a lot about Google being technologically constrained."

The point here is that Google clearly has the wherewithal to not violate copyright, but they are making a business decision that it is better or more profitable for Google to disrespect copyright law rather than to respect copyright law.

Kudos to Professor Joseph Turow on his spot on editorial "Don't give Google double the power" about the very troubling implications of the Google-DoubleClick merger.

• Don't miss reading it.   

I continue to be surprised and saddened that the mainline consumer groups, Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America remain completely AWOL on arguably one of the most important privacy issues threatening consumers --the pending Google-DoubleClick merger.

I can't seem to square the following facts.

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070930/COMMENTARY/109300009/1012/commentary

Google's copyright kleptomania just can't stay out of the news for long. Per the AP/San Jose Mercury News last week:

• "In letters sent to several lawmakers Wednesday, the National Legal and Policy Center excoriated Google for allowing its video-hosting service to become an online theater for showing and promoting illegally copied movies."

• "The nonprofit group, which says it has no financial ties to the movie industry..."

• "The grievances made to Congress focused exclusively on content found on Google's Web site rather than the company's more popular YouTube subsidiary that is being sued by Viacom Inc. for alleged copyright infringement."

Below is the summary of my testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust yesterday on why the Google-DoubleClick merger should be blocked.

• I find the Google-DoubleClick merger review process to be one of the most illuminating and fascinating ways to explore the future of the business of the Internet.
  • I also strongly believe the trajectory of Internet content business will be profoundly affected by the outcome of this merger review.
• I highly recommend you review the six charts I prepared which provide a very useful visual overview of why this merger is so far-reaching, little understood and important. 
• My full testimony and my previous white paper, "Googleopoly" can be found at www.googleopoly.net.

I’ll be testifying today at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on “An Examination of the Google-DoubleClick Merger and the Online Advertising Industry: What Are the Risks for Competition and Privacy?" You can watch the hearing live at 2:30.

Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge comes to Google's defense in an extensive broadside attack on my credibility and integrity because I have the gall to stand up to one of his patrons -- Google -- by testifying tomorrow at the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust -- where I will show in great detail why the Google-DoubleClick merger is anti-competitive and why I recommend that it should be blocked by the FTC. Stay tuned.

Mr. Brodsky is not the first person to come after me for my provocative forward-thinking and unconventional views, nor will he be the last.

A new antitrust analysis by leading academics in the field provides some very relevant and eyebrow-raising new third-party survey data that appears to debunk Google's main defense of the DoubleClick acquisition: that Google and DoubleClick are not competitors. 

• This first and most comprehensive market survey of advertisers suggests that DoubleClick's customers do indeed view Google and DoubleClick offering as substitutes/competitors for their ad dollars.  

For those following this merger review closely, this study is a must read:

• "An Antitrust Analysis of Google's Proposed Acquisition of DoubleClick," by Robert Hahn, Director of the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, and Hal Singer, President of Criterion Economics.

Why is this study important?

Richard Waters of the FT produced a very insightful and newsy article on how Google reportedly passed on buying DoubleClick two years earlier over internal concerns about how that alignment of businesses could clash with Google's famed "don't be evil' highmindedness.

• It's a must read article for Googlephiles.

My big takeaway from this article was an undercurrent of Google's struggle over internal controls to ensure Google's "ethics" are carried out in practice.