Slashdot Log In
YouTube's Plans for a Google-Owned Future
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Oct 14, 2006 07:21 AM
from the here's-hoping-for-the-deal dept.
from the here's-hoping-for-the-deal dept.
eldavojohn writes "Reuters is reporting on Time Warner's approach to YouTube's copyright problems. There has been much speculation that Google will be sued immediately over copyrighted material on YouTube but this is a case of Time Warner actually approaching Google to work out a deal on this issue. It appears artists and labels will have the choice when digging into Google's pockets either through a business deal or lawsuit. Which will they pick?" Meanwhile, the AP is reporting on the possible development of a technology to automatically screen content as it is posted to YouTube, which may sidestep some of these issues and disappoint users.
Related Stories
[+]
Only a 'Moron' Would Buy YouTube 178 comments
ColinPL writes to mention a News.com article about some harsh words from Mark Cuban, on the possible purchase of video-sharing site YouTube. According to Mr. Cuban only a 'moron' would buy the site, because of the obvious possibility of lawsuits over intellectual property. From the article: "Cuban, co-founder of HDNet and owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, also said YouTube would eventually be 'sued into oblivion' because of copyright violations. 'They are just breaking the law,' Cuban told a group of advertisers in New York. 'The only reason it hasn't been sued yet is because there is nobody with big money to sue ... There is a reason they haven't yet gone public, they haven't sold. It's because they are going to be toasted,'"
[+]
Your Rights Online: YouTube Leaves Google Vulnerable? 208 comments
PreacherTom writes "Yesterday's big news was Google's $1.65 billion deal to acquire popular video hosting service YouTube. But will it be a good deal? The market thinks so, as Google's stock rose about $10 per share after the purchase. On the other hand, YouTube increases Google's risk of copyright infringement, opening the door for significant liability...if Google cannot solve this issue. Will their planned video 'fingerprinting' be enough, or just a billion dollar mistake?" From the article: "YouTube's policy is to remove copyrighted clips once alerted to their existence. Content providers say the company needs to be even more proactive ... Todd Dagres, general partner at Boston's Spark Capital, says that Google's large market cap of $130 billion makes it much more vulnerable to lawsuits than a private company such as YouTube. 'Once Google starts to apply its monetization machine, there is going to be more money at stake and people are going to go after it,' says Dagres. 'You cannot monetize other people's content without their approval.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
YouTube's Plans for a Google-Owned Future
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 102 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
uhm... (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://www.google.com/)
Google Market cap: 130 billion.
Yeah, nobody saw that coming. Of course the little guy in this battle is going to wave the white flag. It's about time a tech company put the smack down on the content industry.
Hot air buys more hot air (Score:4, Interesting)
But Youtube? these guys, I just have no idea how it can be worth anything at all. I have a feeling the Google emperor truly has no clothes at all...
Re:Hot air buys more hot air (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.keirstead.org/)
Their revenue last year was 6.1 billion dollars [yahoo.com]. That makes their market cap only about 20x revenue, which is a very resonable number in any book, and simmilar to MSFT and eBay and most other large companies
As for YouTube - while it was private at the itme of sale, it *was* selling ads, and lots of people close to the inside said it was actually turning a profit. This is a rarety for a web start-up nowadays.
POersonally, I thin kif anyone can monetize YouTube quickley, it';s Google. They already have partnerships with Viacom and MTV to sell content via Google Video, so moving those deals over to their YouTube site should be a walk in the park. Combine pay-for content with Google's ability to place relevant ads by the video, and they have a win-win.
Re:Hot air buys more hot air (Score:5, Informative)
Still, if you look only at the earnings, you'll have a ~21 ratio for Google and a ~6.5 ratio for Microsoft. A huge difference.
I don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://unixclan.no-ip.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday December 27 2006, @12:59PM)
what? Google had its own video too? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday October 02 2006, @08:42AM)
Google has online video just as Lycos.com has web based email. It really doesn't matter. Youtube is "it", the one with critical mass, the one everyone goes to first. Youtube is to online video what eBay is to online auctions.
I think it is interesting... (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://myspace.com/willrollo)
Is this a good or a bad thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Sunday September 19 2004, @10:03PM)
Are they going to change the available formats? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.revis.co.uk/)
At least if they move to Flash 9 it works on Linux by either running IE6 or Firefox under WINE [revis.co.uk] until the Linux flash 9 release but it's not the slickest way of doing it.
An interesting read on YouTube/Google/Copyright (Score:1, Informative)
I'll believe it when I see it (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday February 11 2005, @04:09AM)
The first time an individual sues Google over YouTube content or makes a business deal for YouTube content, I want someone to e-mail me. My e-mail is John@TheLysts.com (yeah bots, pick my e-mail up. It's all over the place. I use Gmail so you're no problem for me). I say this because I doubt very much any individual content creator will be able to broker a deal with Google without going through a proxy. The fact the slashdot summary says artists will have a choice is just ridiculous. Artists have a choice of what company they sell their rights to. They don't have a choice about sueing Google or making deals with Google (except for future ones who can factor that in when selecting what company to go with).
Alternative? (Where's Spacey as Neil Young)? (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Monday October 02 2006, @08:42AM)
No real copyright problems (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Sunday May 20, @06:41AM)
Here's the deal: Somebody posts a copy of a Sienfeld episode on Youtube. It staya up for a while until the Seinfeld owners send a DMCA takedown request to youtube. The only way that a copyright lawsuit will happen here is if youtube doesn't take down the episode. If it does, it's inside a safe harbor created by the DMCA.
Napster 2.0? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.axiom-developer.org/)
YouTube has the same problem Napster used to have, back when it was wildly successful - its success rests on a lot of material being present on the site, but a lot of that material has copyright problems. (A guess would be that a lot of the higher quality material has copyright problems, for a few reasonable definitions of "higher quality".)
I think any online site of this nature is going to have the same problem. The availability of vast amounts of copyrighted material is one of the things that will build the popularity of this type of site. But if the copyright holders didn't release that video then it will just make trouble in the end.
I don't think people are really all that interested in 1000 videos of people in their living rooms trying to act. TV shows, music videos, natural disaster footage, and all the usual stuff that gets put on TV will be what draws people to any online video site (why do you think it got put on TV in the first place?) Google is making a few deals with some of the big players, who perhaps have realized that it is better to try and cope with this in its current form than have it move somewhere more underground, but there are undoubtedly thousands of copyright holders who would have a case and not all of them will agree. A massive scrubbing will have to take place, and I think once it is over YouTube will be about as interesting to people as Napster was after the lawsuit dust settled. It might do slightly better since there are a few types of home video that people find interesting (uploaded individual videos from major world events, for example) and a few companies are making deals to provide content but I think the "buzz" will fade. The very elements of Napster that made it popular were also what made it illegal, and I'm afraid the same thing will happen here.
The record companies just don't get it! (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday October 27 2004, @10:08PM)
If I was a musical artist, and I discovered one of my songs in a YouTube video that had a million views, I would write a letter of personal thanks to YouTube for promoting my song! Where else am I going to get that widespread promotion without hiring a record company to help negotiate with Big Radio? And besides, even with a really good hit record, record companies have to pay to play [about.com] and promote almost anything now days. But YouTube is completely free. You can't get a better deal than that.
But unfortunately, record companies have always been like hawks seeking their prey, and a million song views in their eyes is like a million field mice all waiting to be swooped down on. A million views means a lot of royalty money that could be earned if royalty deals were in place. They control music distribution via radio, TV, movies...but darn that blasted internet.
Foot in the door (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://www.webafrica.co.za/)
youtube = napster (Score:2)
Google can afford the gamble of course. But at this point you can see their basic strategy, buy a brand then exploit it.
The real rason why Google bought YouTube... (Score:2, Interesting)
YouTube was doing Time-Warner's bidding... (Score:2)
(http://www.msgeek.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday August 23 2005, @08:30PM)
Everyone seems to be comparing YouTube to Napster, but there is a BIG difference. It takes a lot of doing to download YouTube content. It requires special software and some geeky effort that the average YouTube viewer is not interested in exerting. The average YouTube viewer watches the videos on the web. With the old Napster, (as opposed to Napster/Roxio) files were being offered FOR DOWNLOAD. I think it's more likely that YouTube will come to terms with Big Media than with the old Napster. If anything, the Google Video interface is more threatening to Big Media than the YouTube video interface. With Google Video, you can download things. There is no such provision within YouTube.
Who Chooses... (Score:3, Interesting)
Generally, in business, it depends on who's doing the choosing.
Sadly, any CEO in a publically traded company knows they have to trade for the fast buck, not the long term one (despite their constant assurances to anyone listening that that's exactly the opposite of what they're doing).
Why? Because shareholders generally aren't in it for the long term. They want a buttload of money to come in today, that'll temporarily massively jack up the share price, and then let them get out (or at least reap the dividends). The way the system works, they don't (and arguably shouldn't) care about long term earnings anywhere near as much as the short term ones. As a result, the CEO knows he'll be replaced if he's ever foolish enough to choose long term profits over payouts for investors today.
It's for exactly this reason that the Google guys refused to sell a controlling interest in Google and awarded their own stock 10 times the voting rights of everyone else's - it allows them to make the right decisions for the company rather than the right decisions for the guys who want to take a profit and then move their money to take a profit from the next company.
Long term, successfully killing music videos on YouTube is a horrible idea. The people there today get rich from the infringement lawsuit, the next generation of artists get no ongoing royalties. A much better solution would be to take 20% of the money you could get from a lawsuit every year and keep getting it long past 5 years' time.
So, if artists vote, they'd take the long term rewards. If TimeWarner's CEO votes, he has no choice but to take the massive payout today or get replaced by his shareholders. If TimeWarner execs vote, they have to do the same or deal with a seriously pissed CEO. If the RIAA votes... Who knows. They're supposed to represent the artists, they really represent the companies and they're mostly interested in the souls of babies.
I don't dispute a long term royalty structure is vastly more profitable. But long term profits aren't necessarily what motivate modern business.
New Opportunity (Score:2)
The sad thing in all this is much is said about how much the studios will make, the artists will make, and Google will make. Nothing is said that the people who are making YouTube what it is -- all the contributors who are giving of their own time and effort, will make anything at all! They seem to be essentially working for free for the studios, the artists (who are doing nothing to enhance the value of their content, so are in effect getting a free ride), and Google.
Why should they care... they're getting paid!? (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Saturday January 13 2007, @02:19AM)
Re:They better find a play option (Score:1, Insightful)
Not trying to troll; could you please rephrase that in a language other than Klingon?
Re:Deal (Score:2)
But wouldn't it then lose its "street cred" - and therefore become less popular, and lose the potential for generating income?