Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

YouTube's Plans for a Google-Owned Future 102

Posted by Zonk
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube's Plans for a Google-Owned Future

Comments Filter:
  • uhm... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by macadamia_harold (947445) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:25AM (#16435263) Homepage
    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?" Time Warner Market cap: 77 billion

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:39AM (#16435313)

    NOW, GETS THEM WRONG...
          YouTube is the RIAA, and Google does EVIL.

    Not trying to troll; could you please rephrase that in a language other than Klingon?
  • I don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by delirium of disorder (701392) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:41AM (#16435317) Homepage Journal
    Why is everyone speculating about "what will happen when google gets into the online video market"? Google has already been providing a flash based user submitted video service through google video. Why does adding youtube to the google empire change anything? Lawsuits are not a problem with google video; what is youtube providing that makes it more open to litigation? Moreover, IMHO google video is a much better service than youtube. Youtube appears to be flooded with stupid homemade clips, while google video has terabytes worth of both excellent amateur footage and quality feature length professional video, (along with a lots of crap but still less than on youtube).
  • by brunes69 (86786) <slashdot@keirstea d . o rg> on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:48AM (#16435339) Homepage

    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.

  • by krell (896769) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:51AM (#16435349) Journal
    "Google has already been providing a flash based user submitted video service through google video. Why does adding youtube to the google empire change anything?"

    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.
  • by also-rr (980579) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @08:58AM (#16435373) Homepage
    One of the good things about youtube is that they have stuck with Flash 7, so at least Linux users *can* watch the videos. Still, it would be nice to see an open format option - and Google Video does offer some other formats.

    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.
  • by rs232 (849320) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @09:27AM (#16435485)
    "Quite frankly, I still fail to see how Google can have such a huge market cap .. Google is and has always looked like a huge Enron-type sort of operation"

    By any chance are you typing that BS out of Redmond? Google generated 2.25 billion in the first quarter to March 31, 2006. Google doesn't perform bugus trades between a number of fake companies. It has never been accused or been in court for such thing. To suggest it here suggests to me that you are a trolling.

    was Re:Hot air buys more hot air
  • by maxume (22995) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @09:59AM (#16435681)
    Of course, you can then look at the PEG ratio, which tries to give more importance to future earnings. Currently, the PEG ratio is 1.43 for Google and 1.5 for Microsoft.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GOOG [yahoo.com]
    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT [yahoo.com]

    Since price is a good indicator of how the market feels, my read is that the PEG gives you a way of looking at how the market feels about reward, and P/E gives you a look at the risk. So you take on a whole lot less risk with Microsoft, but sacrifice some upside.
  • Napster 2.0? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by starseeker (141897) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @10:22AM (#16435837) Homepage
    I fear Google is going to step into a hornet's nest here, sooner or later.

    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.
  • 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?"

    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.
  • by vhogemann (797994) <victor&hogemann,com> on Saturday October 14, 2006 @11:18AM (#16436299) Homepage
    You just gave me this idea... What if Google start using an open format, say OGG Theora, for better quality content? They could provide a player, as they already do for their flash format, or a plugin.

    Then, they can just create an WebAppliance to store, catalog and stream video. And sell this to big media providers as a more reliable, cheaper alternative to WMA(spit!) and REAL(spit!). One that will be automagically compatible with Windows, Mac, Linux and every other platform out there, since it's based on a open format.

    Can it be? Can Google put an end on the dominance of closed formats on the web?

panic: kernel trap (ignored)

Working...