Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Google Buys YouTube for $1.65 Billion 424

Posted by kdawson
from the let-the-gootube-jokes-begin dept.
Over 30 readers wrote about Google's purchase of YouTube today for $1.65 Billion, as rumored last week. The all-stock transaction is the single largest purchase in the company's 8-year history. The move follows on the heels of Google's convincing Sony and Warner Music to put music videos online for free. Reportedly, YouTube will retain its brand and all its 67 employees, including co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Buys YouTube for $1.65 Billion

Comments Filter:
  • Re:So ungoogle (Score:4, Informative)

    by cp.tar (871488) <cp.tar.bz2@gmail.com> on Monday October 09, 2006 @05:26PM (#16370341) Journal

    If I understood the situation correctly, Google bought YouTube - among other things - to prevent others from buying it and gaining (more) advantage in the field.

    Furthermore, it is not the first product they've bought either.

  • Re:cool (Score:5, Informative)

    by garcia (6573) on Monday October 09, 2006 @05:34PM (#16370465) Homepage
    CNN says it will [cnn.com].
  • Re:1.65 billyun. (Score:3, Informative)

    by kma100 (949502) on Monday October 09, 2006 @05:41PM (#16370571)
    The VC's and founders take a larger percent of the total than the rest of the employees. So the $25MM you mention is way off base.
  • Re:So ungoogle (Score:3, Informative)

    by Jeff DeMaagd (2015) on Monday October 09, 2006 @05:41PM (#16370579) Homepage Journal
    Google isn't afraid of buying things, so I don't know what you are talking about.

    Google bought a satellite mapping company, an online spreadsheet program, an online word processing program, and a photo management program. It looks like they bought Blogger too. They might have bought SketchUp. The weird thing is that Google didn't already have a service or program for most of the other purchases, this time they already had their Video service but bought YouTube anyway. I think that's a more clear way of just buying their way into the market segment leader.
  • Re:Explain to me... (Score:5, Informative)

    by 1point618 (919730) on Monday October 09, 2006 @05:42PM (#16370587)
    IANAL, but I'm taking Computers and the Law, a course at my university about these matters.

    The length of a clip is not the only thing that matters in claiming fair use: also important is the importance of the clip in regard to the entire work, whether the original work is more factual or more creative, and what effect the use of the clip will have on the saleability of the work as a whole. It actually cannot be known whether using a copyrighted material falls under fair use until one is sued over that material and goes to court for it, as fair use is up to a court to decide.

    Also, even if the clips' being posted on YouTube violates copyright law, YouTube likely isn't liable for first-party violation, as they did not make the copies themselves, and they might not be liable for 2nd or 3rd party copyright violation if they can prove that they did not market YouTube as a place for copyrighted works to be posted by those who do not hold the copyright, and if they can show that they took appropriate measures to remove materials in violation of copyright.

    However, it is best to assume that any material you see on YouTube that was not posted by the author IS in violation of copyright, as there have been no rulings in this regard, and unless an author specifically gives up his copyright or publishes the works under an open license (which still lets him retain copyright, but lets others use and distribute the work as well), then he has the right to sue for infringement, and YouTube will at very least be required to take the work down if they cannot prove fair use or de minimus (least possible to make a point) use of the materials, or that the work was in the public domain.

    So, how are you so sure that the content does not violate the authors' copyrights?
  • Re:Hmmmm (Score:3, Informative)

    by timeOday (582209) on Monday October 09, 2006 @06:02PM (#16370923)
    Google has answered your ???? with "advertising." And it is working [siliconvalley.com]:
    Google Inc.'s second-quarter profit seems likely to erase any lingering doubts about which Internet company rules the Web.

    While rivals eBay Inc. and Yahoo Inc. merely matched analysts' earnings expectations, Google on Thursday soared well beyond Wall Street's financial hurdle - just like the online search engine leader has done in all but one quarter since it went public nearly two years ago.

    "Google is clearly winning the battle," said Internet analyst Derek Brown of Pacific Growth Equities. "These are almost logic-defying results."

    The Mountain View, Calif.-based company earned $721.1 million, or $2.33 per share, during the three months ended in June, more than doubling its net income of $342.8 million, or $1.19 per share, at the same time last year.

    Excluding expenses for employee stock compensation and several other one-time items, Google said it earned $2.49 per share - well above the average estimate of $2.22 per share among 32 analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial.

    Google's search engine has been hitting on all cylinders for so long that investors almost seem to take its high-powered performance for granted.

    It marks the seventh time in eight quarters as a public company that Google has beat Wall Street's expectations, even though its management insists the search engine isn't being steered by investors' relentless push for higher profit.

    Revenue for the period totaled $2.46 billion, a 77 percent increase from $1.38 billion a year ago.

    That good enough for you?
  • by guet (525509) on Monday October 09, 2006 @06:05PM (#16370973)
    That's funny, I had a quick discussion with my co-workers too, and they were of the mind TEN MINUTES AGO [slashdot.org] that Google needs the following:

    a. the users and more importantly
    b. the usage pattern of these users

    While google has been picking up little things here and there, essentially this is google's first real "social networking" site that they have purchased. I say it in quotes because youtube isn't really a social networking site, but there are certainly aspects of it that cannot be denied.

    I say youtube lucked out and google really made a stupid purchase, it appears to me like it was an attrition attempt against the competition in internet space (yahoo? microsoft? myspace? - whoever they think their competition is atm, because I can't tell). I don't know.. I'm curious to see where this goes. Google definately wants to go into the multimedia distribution area, that's for sure. How they go about doing it, we'll have to see..

    -----

    Are you a script? If so you should be changed to reply coherently to replies in your thread, that would be more entertaining. Simply copying posts is a bit dull don't you think?

    http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=199747&c id=16357565 [slashdot.org]
    http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=199747&c id=16357445 [slashdot.org]
  • Re:cool (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 09, 2006 @06:07PM (#16370989)
    Yes. This was confirmed on the conference call.

    There's a stream of it at http://investor.google.com/webcast.html [google.com]
  • More information (Score:3, Informative)

    by Cosmo-san (900715) on Monday October 09, 2006 @06:07PM (#16370991)
    A webcast of the conference call can be found at http://investor.google.com/webcast.html [google.com] in real player and windows media player format. The good part is a few minutes in when they start taking questions.

    Most of it is about how each (youtube and google) will contribute to each other. They also talk a bit about financials; why google used stocks instead of cash, what youtube's revenue is, etc. Long webcast, but informative.

    "Google video will not go away, ever." - direct quote from the webcast. The only integration the talk about it about google search in youtube but do say they plan to integrate more.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 09, 2006 @06:40PM (#16371429)
    the newest episode of SouthPark without having to wait for a rerun.

    You do realize that South Park episodes are available in numerous places, and there are no copyright issues since the creators have explicitly permitted such uses [southparkx.net], right?
  • by MotorMachineMercenar (124135) on Monday October 09, 2006 @09:06PM (#16372963)
    Correct. Google gained the $1.65Bn back (and change) as the share price went up from $423 to $429 within hours of the announcement on Monday morning. At 304 million shares outstanding the "change" adds up to almost 200 million...
  • Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheoMurpse (729043) on Monday October 09, 2006 @09:44PM (#16373249) Homepage
    And what are they going to be sued under? I mean, the DMCA says that a copyright owner cannot sue until (1)they have submitted a takedown request to Google (formerly Youtube), and (2)Google fails to take the copyrighted material down. For information, read this [copyright.gov] (PDF), a secondary source of law about the DMCA, with analysis. In particular, read the section at the bottom of page 9 entitled Eligibility for Limitations Generally. To my understanding, Google qualifies as a "service provider" under this definition (the definition is in the section, so don't assume it is equivalent to "ISP"). There are 2 things Google has to accomplish: (1)adopt a policy of terminating the accounts of repeat infringers, and (2)not make it difficult for copyright owners to identify and protect their works. Thus, as long as Google (formerly Youtube) has a formal takedown policy upon notification by the copyright owner, they are compliant. And here's a ProTip: Youtube was compliant; they just did not have the financing to battle frivolous suits in court. Google, on the other hand, has very, very deep pockets to fight suits like this. Furthermore, Google seems to be fine under Limitation for Transitory Communications (page 10) as well.

    Even if you consider all I just posted to be weak defense, the kicker begins on page 11: Limitation for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users. Google meets all three requirements:
    • Google must not have "requisite level knowledge of the infringing activity. Examining what this means (page 12), we see that, because there are so many files on Youtube, they cannot have this type of knowledge (unless, of course, during discovery, a corporate memo was found which cited a specific infringing video that, after the fact, was never removed), which must be knowledge of a specific infringing file, not that infringement is occurring in general.
    • If Google has the right and ability to control the infringing activity then (halt this boolean, we do not need to know the antecedent since it already evaluates to False: Google cannot monitor the millions of files placed on what was Youtube)
    • "Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, [Google] must expeditiously take down or block access to the material" - Youtube did this, as evidenced by the many times Lazy Sunday was taken off Youtube at NBC's request (note that Youtube was never sued for this activity)
    Google also has an agent filed with the Copyright Office to receive infringement claims: here [copyright.gov] (PDF). As a sidenote, it's refreshing to see that a corporation has filed handwritten documents with the Copyright Office; kind of gives them character (or an air of sloppiness?).
  • Re:Hmmmm (Score:2, Informative)

    by bteeter (25807) <[brian] [at] [brianteeter.com]> on Monday October 09, 2006 @10:24PM (#16373555)

    ... which means that Google has a LOT of money to hire lawyers and fight cases brought against them. I'd be surprised if Google ever paid a big award for Copyright infringement, even when its happening on Google Video and Youtube. All they would have to do is take it down when asked and there is no basis for suit.

    Google is a smart company if nothing else. I'm 100% sure they have this base covered.

    Take care, Brian
    --
    HoldEmToolShed.com - Poker Software, News and Tips [holdemtoolshed.com]

  • Re:WHOa (Score:3, Informative)

    by koreth (409849) on Tuesday October 10, 2006 @03:33AM (#16375149)
    Sometimes popular deviations from the norm cause languages to evolve. And sometimes an error is just an error.

    The languages you name are not a result of "'mistakes' in Latin." What we know as Spanish, for example, is certainly heavily influenced by Latin. But it is not a simple derivative of Latin that appeared because people couldn't remember their declensions. Rather, Latin mixed with existing indigenous languages (which were in turn based on mixes of other, earlier languages such as Celtic). Then there was the small matter of Arabic-speaking Moors ruling much of Spain for a time, leaving behind an Arabic influence that persisted even after the speakers of the more Latin-influenced language drove the Moors out.

    The histories of modern languages are actually rather interesting reading. They are more complex than you might think.

    I think foreign occupations and fluid borders have contributed vastly more lasting change to languages over time than oft-repeated mistakes have, though you can certainly point to plenty of examples of the latter. For example, using "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun in English is becoming more and more accepted over time. A hundred years from now it may well be universally considered completely correct in formal written English. On the other hand, "their" and "they're" and "there" are still not interchangeable despite the best mistake-making efforts of generations of students.

    Finally, if you really believe that poorly-spelled, ungrammatical writing is just fine, start learning a foreign language. Preferably one that's very distant from your native language. Then visit that language's equivalent of Slashdot and I guarantee you will deeply appreciate the people who take the time to proofread their messages. Poor grammar and spelling are not much of a problem for native speakers, but they can be huge obstacles to understanding for non-native speakers.

  • by jotaeleemeese (303437) on Tuesday October 10, 2006 @03:58AM (#16375235) Homepage Journal
    Quoting from one of many sources this morning:

    "As its negotiations with Google neared a conclusion, YouTube announced partnerships with Universal Music Group, CBS Corporation and Sony BMG Music Entertainment.

    Those alliances followed a similar arrangement announced last month with Warner Music Group"

    So the copyright aspect is frankly a moot point, Google is also promising to share the proceeds of any future revenue with video owners, that will fence off most other challenges.

It is surely a great calamity for a human being to have no obsessions. - Robert Bly

Working...