The entire planet was googled once, but thats old news. Isn’t it about time, Google (oops) did it again? Well, they are, and just as before, you probably won’t see it coming. But, it may mean a whole new definition for googling… this one is Googling with a capital ‘G’.

In the early 90s I watched a company known as Google appear, much the same as many others, from the very thin air. The company was fresh, and seemed to have a rather minimalist approach. I was in my late teens then, and I thought it was another foolish stab at broadening the already saturated search engine market — only the cheap way. Of course, everyone and their mother was a search engine start-up in the early 90s, so my views weren’t entirely off. Considering the fact that back then, Internet search really didn’t stand to make nearly as much money as it does now, Google was essentially a joke — too much competition, too little revenue.

The joke of course was on me. But, at least, I’m not alone… Billion dollar media company Viacom is still falling for it…

I had only just previously been witness to Yahoo’s coming into its own as a brand. I watched all the work it took defining technologies, and gaining populous use of their technologies. The process made it seem a daunting task for a company with such a simple strategy as Google. Still, the long, and winding information super-highway was in dire need of sidewalk back then. And, Internet search was to become the concrete to found such a sidewalk. Without this kind of infrastructure to allow for the more pedestrian users to join the hardcore hackers, the Internet would be a totally different experience — it would not have the same impact on every day life.

The strength and momentum behind Google’s fast paced run to the top was technical innovation. Innovation is just the kind of wind you need in your sails too, if you plan to disrupt the stranglehold companies like Yahoo had in the area of Internet search. What was Google’s innovation? Well, technically speaking, it was searching the web, and returning results based on web page ranking. Also, it was development of web page rankings based on a count of how they are referenced with other sources. And finally, the spidering of that information from the Web.

As an aside, its foolish to think this is all that was needed for Google to succeed, or that this is all that Google created to succeed. Google is big business. Google had to create all kinds of internal innovations to continue operating because they were the only company operating on their scale — this much should be obvious. But, however key technical innovations were to it all, those innovations were all left in the dust by Google’s business innovations.

The Google search engine only showed the world the very foot, that Google wanted wedge into the doorway. It took the one of a kind business innovations Google produced, to complete the careful, pain-free wedging of that foot into the position from which it now dominates.

Through a near monopoly of Internet advertising, Google found an ultimate cash cow. Holding the Internet marketting world under lock and key through their search engine results, Google was able to create a for-the-people-by-the-people style advertising system called AdSense. Allegedly putting the power back in the people’s hands.

These were all very sensible and legal uses of the service Google provides if you think about it. You have countless people coming to your site under the premise they are already “looking for something” — what better target market to show advertisements? Your venture is only better if you can tell the people advertising with you, your ads (through AdSense) are on at least half the pages searchers land on too after using your results.

Back in the early 90s, with all that technology surrounding and insulating them, Google’s methods remained somehow simple and that was likely at the heart of their success. They targeted a reasonably small data type — search data and search metadata — and began warehousing as much as they could. While the mass of such data seems large, any individual examples of the data expose exactly how small the data is in reality. The data only consists of text such as Internet addresses (URLs), times and dates, associated keywords, and computed rankings, etc. Theres just a lot of it to handle. Technically speaking, the large-scale management of this data was all it took for Google to conquer Internet search — to build that sidewalk. Now, with everyone using that sidewalk, its time for Google to do it again.

This time though its not a small media type with plans to build going forward — no friends, this is the last bastion Google is after. You might say this next step is the completion of a masterwork — the consumption of the (other) large media forms to be combined with the smaller metadata forms. We’re talking audio & video media. The only problem here is, industry in general, does not consider these other media types to be quite as sharable as text or locations on the Internet. They cost a great deal more money to produce. None the less, Google can’t afford the time to shift philosophical gears as most companies can’t midstream, and even despite their huge bankroll — they’ll lose too much technological footing.

So, how can Google change the entire world’s opinion about audio & video, the Internet, and how we share those types of media on the Internet? This should seem a rather tricky task for Google, now. Because its much harder to criticize big businesses when you are one. And, its big business which produces these media forms. Obviously the law makes its own clear statements about the fair use of media already, and there is some enforcement going on these days which just wasn’t there before. The even more obvious notion is: companies that make rich, expensive to produce content, worth stealing, ought to by virtue be successful, and have plenty of money to go to legal war if said laws -are- broken. So, how do you change peoples mind’s then? You have to go to war — thats how. If you’re at Google in the heavy hitters position, the big questions all have to do with how the laws propagate in reality rather then how they look on paper; questions like: have these laws ever been tested to the scale of the Internet, or even a web site like YouTube? And, the big answer in these cases is bold no.

This doesn’t seem like it, but, its a huge business opportunity, it just requires huge business to take advantage.

So, what did Google need to do? A lot of things. Google really needed to wait and buy the largest media sharing site on the Internet given their value — something like Youtube. Then, after that, they could expect some one of the media giants who’s content was being misused would sue. But, why would Google spend 1.65 billion, and want to be sued? Lets come back to that. Lets say for now, they’re still holding all 1.65 billion worth of cards either way.

An extremely simplified version of a three step plan, that seems to have all the components of a win toward these ends, if you’re someone like Google:

1) Provide for the people — give them what they want for free. They will love you for it! You will become the market! (Worked for Internet search, don’t fix it)

Evidence: The Google Search Engine, GMail , YouTube, Google Analytics, etc, etc.

Better Evidence: A List of Google Products & Services

2) Purchase a media-sharing website powered by those same people — do this at least under the guise that its just more of #1, and chances are, people will love you just the same for it. You will become the media-sharing market!

Evidence: Google buys YouTube

3) Now, ask that these same people act as the judicial oversight for your corporate entity.

Google demands a jury trial to respond to allegations in the media conglomerate’s lawsuit, according to legal papers filed on Monday with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and provided to reporters by the company.

Why do #3? Because of the lawsuit! Because the lawsuit is the only way to take advantage of that huge business opportunity. And, #3 is the only way that will happen.

The people who make up that jury are your people; they will likely only understand their side of the story — using the technology and not the larger impacts its use will have on other industry. This is unless of course, these people are technologists, in which case you just hire them and they’re on your side.

In Google’s case, if you aren’t a user, you’re probably a builder — or a user who doesn’t know it.

Also you do #3 because, this way, your actions can not become seen as criminal. Instead, your actions are seen as those that facilitate the lifestyle of the general public — your jury/people lead a lifestyle full of your service-use.

For the people in the cheaps seats, just in case you missed it, this strategy lands Google a position as the primary facilitator of ALL data on the Internet, as well. They’d be the best provider of data search in every media form. And when a multi-billion dollar company like Viacom is stuck arguing in no-win situations like…

“By seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for Internet communications,” Google told the court, “Viacom’s complaint threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment, and political and artistic expression.”

… I can only hope we aren’t all being Googled again.