YouTube Leaves Google Vulnerable?

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.'"

I don't think it'll be a problem

[Rik Sweeney]

All Google have to say is they'll take anything down when the copyright holder (and only the copyright holder) complains. eBay has this policy similar to this, but still kick up a fuss when they're asked to take stuff down (Live 8 tickets last year for example).

This is a Non-Issue

[organgtool]

I really don't see copyright infringement becoming a huge issue with this acquisition. As another poster pointed out, Google Video removes copyrighted material from their site and as long as they enforce the same policy on YouTube, they shouldn't have too many copyright problems. However, I'm sure there will be a few grab-asses that will threaten to sue Google in an attempt to get a settlement, and if Google was smart, they'd allow the case to go to court and make an example out of them.

This is about confronting the copyright collective

[metoc]

This is a direct quote from the Google corporate site http://www.google.com/corporate/ [google.com].

"Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

Webpages are but a piece of the world's information. Most of it is in print, video and audio. The problem is the various copyright collectives pretends that fair use doesn't exist, and this gets in the way of Google's stated mission.

Google is confronting the book publishers already and challenging their interpretation of fair use. The Youtube aquisition means the movies and television is next. Music is obviously down the road. Audio search is not as difficult as video search, but it is also not as sexy (The success of Youtube is testimony to our love affair with video).

Re:Actually they already agreed about it

[inviolet]

Any remaining content providers will quickly realize their choices are 1) spend money on long, expensive lawsuits against Google with little/no prospect of a ROI, or 2) jump on the bandwagon for practically free and make some money out of it. It shouldn't take long even for a corporate board member to figure that one out.

This will then stimulate a change in the advertising industry. Since discrete commercials can be so easily skipped or completely snipped out, advertising must insinuate itself directly into the content.

In the case of television, perhaps we should expect to see new shows filmed with green-screens subtly placed around the sets. You know, such as on the door of the refridgerator, or on the billboard that is slightly visible from Will & Grace's back yard. At the time of broadcast or rebroadcast or publication on DVD, commercial content can be pasted onto the green-screens dynamically.

This would have major benefits, because the commercial content can be adjusted according to the intended audience and timeslot. Advertising dollars will bring more bang for the buck... and that means that less total advertising needs to be delivered and watched.

I'm all for it. Commercial breaks are irritating, and seriously disrupt the mental state that the show is trying to induce in me. I'd rather ignore the computer-generated label on Doogie Houser's cereal box than I would sit through a cereal commercial.

Re:They wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Its funny how the content industry wants ANY and EVERYONE to buy their product, but not use in any method except for consumption.

Personally I fail to see how content can not be cited like book references.

Ex: Little Johnny is bit eccentric and creative, and wants to make a short film about the wildlife in his backyard. So, he takes some still's with a camera, maybe a few short clips with a camcorder, and slaps it all together, putting Blind Melon's 'No Rain' as the audio overlay. Now, at the beginning of his short clip he cites the audio creator/ license holder/ producer/ all Copyright info of the song, which then progresses to play. He then uploads it to a website, like Youtube, where others can view it. He also cites on the page where it can be viewed, all Copyright info of the song in his short movie clip. He intends for others to view it at their interest and amusement, and expects no compensation of any kind of what he has uploaded.

Now, is what he has done deprived the copyright owner of any credit with regard to the creation? It is cited in his work, and no monetary gain has been acquired, yet you can be pretty sure the Copyright owner would go after him regardless of whether money was made.

I guess what I fail to understand with copyrighted content is this: if content intended for mass consumption is rehashed into an alternate form and redistributed into an alternate medium, with reference and citation to the copyright holder, for no monetary or other compensation, how has the copyright holder been deprived of anything??

It seems hypocritcal and draconian to think that if you put some form of art out into the world for people to consume with their personal wealth, that they not be able to do what they want with it as long as citation and reference to the original creator is noted accordingly.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[Tony Hoyle]

Probably a regional thing.. everyone I know uses google video.

Part of the problem with youtube is its unreliability - someone posts a youtube link and about 80% of the time you bring it up and the play button doesn't work or it plays for 5 seconds and gives up.

Not Liable

[omega9]

Google is not, and will not be, liable unless they choose to be.

The way the law currently stands, Google can not be held liable as long as they take sufficient measures to prevent, and react to effeciently remove, illegal (in this case, unlicensed and copyrighted) material. YouTube, now through Google, offers a service to upload and display video on the web. Sure, there are more minor details, but that's really just it. And that's not illegal. Users may choose to upload unlicensed, copyrighted material, but it's only up to Gootube to properly police it.

Some points:

• Remember the crazy business about taxing CD burners and blank discs because they might be used to duplicate copyrighted material? In those cases the penalty is placed on the consumer, not the manufacturer. Nobody went and tried to shutdown Plextor.
• Assuming there are massive copyright issues with YouTube, this deal works out well for both parties, buying them time to figure out how to best deal with it. Google is a well respected company and there's no reason to suspect they won't handle it with good faith. Any judgement brought against them at this point would be stayed until they've had time to deal with it. Think about if you've even been pulled over for expired plates on your car. Even if you get a ticket they most often always clear it if you get your papers in order by the court date.
• YouTube already struck a deal with Warner Brothers and there is talk about the same thing happening with other major labels. Some expect YouTube to become MTV reborn online with labels providing their back catalog of music videos. Have you watched MTV lately? It's certainly not a venue for music videos anymore. And if the lables think they can get more added value from already produced material...
• 'You cannot monetize other people's content without their approval.' - That may be true, but approval is a minor detail. Throw an extra paragraph in the EULA. I don't think Google with take it that way, but it's not a big hump they have to get over. And anyway, take the revenue sharing idea of Revver [revver.com] and combine it with something like Google's adsense.

The obvious deterant

[iabervon]

Content providers can insist that Google be more proactive in making sure that their copyrighted work isn't available. But Google could respond by also not listing those providers as highly in searches. They have no legal obligation to not give preferential treatment in search results to people who don't sue them or complain too much (at least until they lose the inevitable anti-trust lawsuit, which will take ages).

Some news sources have asked that they not be quoted on Google News, too, I've heard. I think there were even some that I'd heard of and read at the time, but I can't remember any more what they were...

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[forgotten_my_nick]

YouTube does take down copyright material but it has to be reported or they have to see it. Not sure why Daily show clips appear everywhere (probably too many posting them) but still is pulled.

Heroes and Lost for example got pulled the day after they were posted. WOW South park got pulled a few days after posting but only because a large majority of the WOW players were probably spamming. I have also seen comments like "Content removed as owner is MTV" and similar.

Likewise with google video. You can get (c) material there too but generally harder to find and that's only because more people use youtube.

I wouldn't class them as the same either as Youtube is used as a social system as well. You can talk about the videos, subscribe to favorites, users, keywords, channels.

Re:It's the nineties all over again.

[daigu]

One of the most significant assets of any company are its brands. Interbrand does an evaluation [ourfishbowl.com] every year where they estimate what the biggest brands are worth. Here's the top five: Coca-Cola ($67 billion), Microsoft ($56.9 billion), IBM ($56.2 billion), GE ($48.9 billion) and Intel ($32.3 billion).

Now, you can argue whether the YouTube brand is worth the price. But to argue that all they have is a brand - with the implicit assumption that brands are not worth anything at all - is simply wrong. Every day people pay more for the expectation of consistent quality and image. It's why people pay more for everything from Apple computers to Marlboro cigarettes. That's worth money, my friend.

Re:Welcome to the Death of the Small Inventor

[pla]

IP / copyright were created to support the individual, not the business

Thomas Edison held 1,093 patents, AFAIK the record for an individual.

Today, assuming a non-lawyer could write a 100% compliant single-claim application, get it accepted on the first try, and no one ever challenges that patent, it would cost over 1.5 million dollars just to hold that same number for their standard patentable lifetime. That represents a minimum; figures I've seen for the "real" cost of getting and holding a patent come out in the $10k-20k range, and that still assumes no significant challenges to the patent.

Support the individual? Not bloody likely.


Either that or they haven't produced anything of value in their own life.

I code for a living (in part). In my spare time, I code for free and for fun, including (most usefully, and I don't mind bragging a bit) custom data analysis software for four university affiliated research groups in three states.

I already "got mine", and I work a 9-to-5 to keep it (not that I consider work in any way "noble", but I certainly don't think the world owes me a free ride just because of a great idea I had 15 years ago). I don't want yours too, and if you can profit from picking through my garbage, bless you for recycling.



Once again, a great example of the excluded middle argument that has no basis in reality and instead is based on some wanted utopia that doesn't exist.

Please search Google's arguably-copyright-violating database for the phrase "Free and Open Source Software". This particular "utopia" exists to the degree we make it, no more, and no less. Unlike virtually all historical human endeavors, however, once FOSS improves the world - Nothing short of the complete collapse of civilazation can undo that improvement. Not laws, not money, not religions, not bullets.