Speculation on Google / YouTube "Hardball"

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."

"GooTube"

[hsmith]

is fucking obnoxious.

that is all

Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?

Wouldn't it be cool

[SQLz]

If there was a web site where you could download free clips of your favorite shows, movies, videos, etc, and that the copyright holders would recieve free advertising and same basic control over content of the site?

So,

[Threni]

No source then? Just rumour? $50,000,000 isn't much to pirate anything you want. I mean, if that's all it takes, www.piratebay.org could probably get every user to stick in a £1 each and make the site legal.

Re:Translation:

[multisync]

You mean... like... pay licensing fees? And encourage them to prosecute those who don't?

Oh, you mean like how Microsoft paid "licensing fees" to SCO around the time the lawsuit was filed against IBM?

Re:Translation:

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean... like... pay licensing fees? And encourage them to prosecute those who don't?

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.

[Geof]

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). Any anti-piracy controls instituted by YouTube will only increase the costs of entry for potential competitors. Having YouTube on side may come in handy for the entertainment companies if artists start trying to cut out the middle man. The upshot for artists is no more money and fewer avenues to release their works.