Thank you very much, Senator Cruz. All right, Mr. Kimell, I want to go to you for a moment. Warner Brothers on its official YouTube channel description lists a few things in terms of its offering. It invites viewers to subscribe for what it describes as follows: quote, movie trailers, clips, and featurettes. But it doesn't say anything in there about full feature-length movies or television series.
Correct. We provide a significant amount of content to YouTube, including produced shorts. We have television children's programming. We do not feature films.
Okay. So there are some of those things on there, but you would say that's a smaller percentage, likely in the low single digits for Warner Brothers.
Oh, it's hundreds of hours of programming that we provide.
Oh, no. I don't doubt that. But in the broad scheme of things, in terms of all the content that is displayed through YouTube, it's a small portion, right? I mean, that's not your bread and butter for YouTube. That's not the bread and butter for this.
It's a small portion, but it's an important platform for us. Yes.
Okay. All right. This is good to know. Now let's... after the merger, let's assume for a minute that the merger is consummated, that it doesn't encounter any hiccups, it isn't blocked by regulators or by some other event. Post-merger, imagine that world, Netflix would control Warner Brothers film and television content library. Correct?
Netflix at that point could choose to do with it what it wants. So despite present intentions, I mean, you were the co-CEO of one of the most successful companies in American history. Not just today, but ever. And you've got to be that way because you've been able to adapt to market conditions. You saw that, for example, with... you started out as a DVD rental business by mail, and you adapted with technology and changing market preferences. So with changes, you won't be under any binding obligation to license Warner Brothers content to a rival streaming service. Correct?
We would not be obligated to, but we certainly would want to. The business model again, the price is baked into billions of dollars of revenue from that division of the company.
I get that. But there's no contractual obligation. I'm not aware of any legal obligation to do that. Now, intentions aside, because there is no obligation to license that content, you could decide not to. And that, I'm sure you would concede, would alter the competitive landscape to a degree. It's relevant, is it not?
I'd say it would be possible, sir, to make bad business decisions like that, but I hope we would not.
So, and likewise, even if you didn't decide to stop licensing to others, you could also make an infinitely dialable, infinitely scalable set of decisions regarding the licensing fee arrangements so as to make it either more or less attractive for others to stream Warner Brothers content. Is that right?
I think what we'd want to... it'd be a very competitive marketplace as it is today. And I think what we want to do is make those deals work.
By you, you cited the Sony pay TV deals in your opening remarks. That was a renewal of a deal that we've had for years with Sony. They renewed that deal because it was favorable to them.
They liked the terms of that deal.
Sure. And there was many people bidding for it.
