Speculation on Google / YouTube "Hardball" 125
An anonymous reader writes, "Interesting speculation on the 'GooTube' deal, oozing with corporate intrigue. Based on Mark Cuban's blog and a subsequent ZDNet blog posting, it seems as though there might have been some dodgy goings-on just prior to the deal. In short, YouTube may have handed the major labels approximately $50M so that the labels would turn a blind eye to the copyright infringements AND go after the competition to cement YouTube's position in the market. Universal started the ball rolling a week after the deal by suing Bolt and Grouper." Cuban's blog does not identify the author of the speculation, who calls himself "an experienced veteran in the digital media business." Cuban writes that this is someone he "respects and trusts."
Labels? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a ton of music videos on YouTube!
I have over 100 bookmarked and watch them all the time!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
And lets not forget the lip syncing. Oh wait, let's do...
The artist formally known as.. (Score:4, Funny)
Oh my god, it's Prince!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my god, it's Prince!
That's why Cuban wouldn't name him. He couldn't; no keyboard has a button for that stupid symbol.
"GooTube" (Score:4, Insightful)
that is all
Re: (Score:1)
How about Goob [urbandictionary.com] ?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look ahead (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I am leaning towards the name "Tooble".
Much like the rest of the Internet, if used correctly it can prevent you from having children.
Re: (Score:1)
Is that a new name for a vagina?
Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean... like... pay licensing fees? And encourage them to prosecute those who don't?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, you mean like how Microsoft paid "licensing fees" to SCO around the time the lawsuit was filed against IBM?
Re: (Score:1)
doh, you beat me to it... I was thinking the exact same thing
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
There was nothing really wrong with Microsoft purchasing licenses from SCO, either. It's just that the money helped fund the cash-poor company's lawsuit against IBM. A cynical person might say Microsoft was taking advantage of an opportunity to hurt a comp
Re: (Score:2)
They can't call it licensing fees. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The implication is that the contract giving them the money actually said "You only get the $50 million if you sue our competitors".
Re:Translation: (Score:4, Insightful)
From TFA: The media companies had their typical challenges. Specifically, how to get money from Youtube without being required to give any to the talent (musicians and actors)? If monies were received as part of a license to Youtube then they would contractually obligated to share a substantial portion of the proceeds with others. For example most record label contracts call for artists to get 50% of all license deals. It was decided the media companies would receive an equity position as an investor in Youtube which Google would buy from them. This shelters all the up front monies from any royalty demands by allowing them to classify it as gains from an investment position.
Mod parent up. Artists get screwed. (Score:3, Insightful)
To continue the above quote: "A few savvy agents might complain about receiving nothing and get a token amount, but most will be unaware of what transpired."
Copyright here is being used as a weapon by the big companies (Google and the entertainment conglomerates) to crush their competition while doing nothing for artists. The conglomorates get more money while cutting off the air supply to YouTube's competitors (the article mentions how suits against other sharing sites will scare off venture capital).
Re: (Score:2)
To continue the above quote: "A few savvy agents might complain about receiving nothing and get a token amount, but most will be unaware of what transpired.
They'd do a class action if they have any sense.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
effectively a shakedown for protection money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"In short, YouTube may have handed the major labels approximately $50M so that the labels would turn a blind eye to the copyright infringements AND go after the competition to cement YouTube's position in the market."
"You mean... like... pay licensing fees? And encourage them to prosecute those who don't?"
You mean... like... pay extortion fees? And encourage them to kill those who don't?
Re: (Score:1)
It is a total screw over to any and all artists under the labels paid off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Wouldn't it be cool (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's better than "sticky wicket", eh, what?
Do no evil... (Score:1)
That bit about the lawsuits aimed at YouTube competitors is especially tasty. I don't know if Cuban has an axe to grind here, but if true it just confirms that Google is now simply interested in what all publicly traded companies do: maximizing shareholder value. Everything else is secondary.
Ah well. It was fun while it lasted.
Re: (Score:2)
So, to say he has a conflict here might be an understatement. Also, Mark Cuban has a tendancy to open hi
How is this evil? (Score:2)
The only potentially "evil" thing is if the record la
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that legislation further dictating allowed terms in recording contracts is the correct answer here. I'm a proponent of using the government to do something when t
Mod Parent UP!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cuban is the guy who very publically announced that "only a moron would buy YouTube", literally weeks before Google - not famous for being morons - did exactly that. So of course he has an axe to grind ... he was made to look like an idiot in public by his own predictions. Why am I not at all surprised that a conviently detailed "insider" is now spinning a story to the very guy who needs it to salvage his reputation?
I won't... (Score:2)
But it would have been helpful if his informant had distinguished a little between what part is secondhand gossip and what is pure fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
From the sounds of it, one particular part is specualtion, and the rest is probably true... but I
Re: (Score:1)
I will, Mark Cuban is an idiot!
However, with that being said this article does make a lot of sense. I was wondering how Google was going to avoid the major lawsuit liablity that youtube has become. Google will just buy off the lawsuits and crush their competition. Hmmmm... This kind of sounds like how Microsoft does business.
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how this is illegal or immoral. (Or fattening.)
YouTube had a lot of lawsuit liability because they were a party to redistribution of copyrighted content without consent of the copyright holders. They made a licensing deal with several of the copyright holders. Now they have substantially less liability -- they have "gone legit".
Assuming that the core concept
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is, but not in an exclusionary way (as the email implies). I believe that's an antri-trust sorta thing.
The most astounding part is the claim that the labels structured the deal so that they wouldn't have to pay the artists any of the settlement money. For a bunch of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So even if the idea of copyright exclusivity restrictions is valid, then that isn't what's going on here, because those copyright restrictions holders didn't release their restrictions to Google. Because that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, to begin with, if they 'comply with takedown notices' they are editing content. They cease to have common carrier status.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Thank Goodness Slashdot Doesn't Serve Up News (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061004-790
The daily show is just as good a source of news as some major networks.
Sad? Maybe, but it makes ya think (about your comparison).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Thing is, not all copyrighted content is obvious. (Score:2)
Not obvious = not public (Score:2)
When any alias convention becomes well-known enough that anybody can download any TV show they want to, then it becomes big enough for them to issue a blanket request
Worst merger name ever (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
what are they even talking about (Score:2)
cuban's take on youtube has been insane from day one
Re: (Score:2)
So, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If every 1 in 100 PS2 owner buys a Playstation 2 game I made, I'd have sold a million copies of the game.
Therefore it must be easy to make a million dollar or for anyone to sell a million copies of a PS2 game.
Re: (Score:1)
The article summary was a little off. From Cuban's blog:
I'm not saying either the summary or the blog reflect reality, just that they don't seem to agree.
Re: (Score:2)
I admit that does sound like a low figure to buy out a voracious profit making machine like the Industry, but it doesn't have to be a straight up cash payment.
If it was truly an investment position, as some have speculated, then payment may have been in stock, or a loan, or some sort of othe
Mark Cuban's Blog?!?!?!?!?!?!? (Score:1, Funny)
That being said, maybe that's why I'm not a billionaire, millionaire, and why I'm fucking broke.
He's still an arogant prick, though!
I dunno... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
'Do No Evil'? (Score:1)
Google will become the next Microsoft before too long...
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, from what I've seen in the slashdot articles about Google's "evil doings", 99% of them tend to be FUD, like this one. Rarely, if ever, were they actualy "real" evil, but usualy just people flipping over nothing. This case is a prime example. Youtube pays money to calm down copyright holders. If they pay (as they should by law, as far as
Re: (Score:1)
2) do_no_evil.redefine();
3) Profit!
nothing wrong with that (Score:2)
Mark Cuban (Score:1)
Fake HD being 1920x1080i transcoded to 1280x1080i or 1440x1080i and reduced bit rate beyond what the lowering of resolutions would provide for. Sometimes the "HD" that they send looks like a bad xvid encode.
Cuban's an ass (Score:1)
This is the kicker for me. (Score:1)
The media companies had their typical challenges. Specifically, how to get money from Youtube without being required to give any to the talent (musicians and actors)? If monies were received as part of a license to Youtube then they would contractually obligated to share a substantial portion of the proceeds with others. For example most record label contracts call for artists to get 50% of all license deals. It was decided the media companies would receive an equity position as an investor in Yout
$50 CentCentCent (Score:2)
They might not get away with it. Whatever happened to their attempts to wrestle out of their <$0.99 deal with Jobs on iTunes?
They're dumb, but they're strong. $50M is a drop in the bucket, even with the CD sales biz down to something like $10-12B a year.
It will be interesting to see how much Google eventually winds up
correction: Five *HUNDRED* millions, not 50 (Score:1)
It's an interesting theory (Score:2)
Interesting enough to maybe be true. Certainly paints Google in a far worse light than anything else I've heard of, though, so that makes it a bit suspicious.
And I'm not exactly a Google fan...
Moron? (Score:1)
YouTube is Dead (Score:2)
Time to go back to the BT darknets or Kad, guys. "Mainstream," means "chewed up, with anything even remotely resembling worthwhile or genuinely meaningful material filtered, and spat out," where this type of thing is concerned.
I hope
What rumor? (Score:2)
Some rumor.
What - did it have to be on the front page to qualify as reported?
Paranoia (Score:2)
This is an interesting variation on greenmail and greymail. Nothing sinister gonig on.
Here's your tin foil hat.
Who the heck is YouTube and where. . . (Score:2)
I mean, how much income did their web service generate? None, as far as I can make out.
Was this an investment ploy used specifically to fleece Google or some other big buyer? The whole thing was a pump & dump? That was their business plan?
What the heck?
Stuff like this just makes my head spin. At least that big tech bubble of the mid to late nineties ma