Now that YouTube has money behind it, Google can expect legal action from a whole bunch of people... some of it justified.
That was truly insightful, at least for me.
Google's core business model revolves around "fair use" and similar provisions of copyright law. I think they are most vulnerable in this area-- look at Belgium. So Google needed to buy YouTube for a couple of reasons related to this.
The first is because YouTube's business model also revolves around many of the same "fair use" provisions, and if YouTube loses its upcoming court cases, the fallout could fatally poison Google's business model. It would be very hard for Google to immunize itself from any judgments against YouTube that changed the interpretation of copyright law. Purchasing YouTube allows Google to directly counter such an attack with all its resources. It also decreases the likelihood of such an attack, since all the ambulance chasers who were smacking their lips in anticipation of an easy meal from YouTube's carcass are now slinking away, looking for easier prey that won't be able to fend them off for years with delaying tactics.
The other reason that occurs to me is that the most important part of strategizing any conflict is choosing your battlefield carefully. Google is under constant threat of serious litigation over copyright concerns. Google has just bought a battlefield where these litigations can be played out, that is comfortably distant from the fields of green where Googles' cash cows graze.
I expect that Google is developing the muscles it needs to directly influence copyright legislation, and I expect it is also going to be increasingly influential in copyright litigation as well (intervening with friend of the court briefs, etc). This all seems to be part of Google's mission statement: [google.com] "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
Damn, I wish I had mod points today. This is the most insightful post that I have seen on this subject thus far. Google didn't spend over a billion dollars for You Tube without some kind of game plan, and this makes perfect sense.
There are more players in the video distribution game outside of YouTube and Google Video and many of them do not have the deep pockets of Google. By the rationale of the parent, then the old, played Slashdot joke applies:
1. Make video content distribution site
2. Have users post content protected by copyright.
3. Google will then swoop down and buy your site to avoid legal precedent to protect their own legal future and future business model.
4. ???
5. Profit.
It's absurd to think that Google bought YouTube to protect themselves against poor legal decisions. Legal decisions are not based on "scale" i.e. just because YouTube is the player in video distribution right now doesn't mean they are going to be the end all and be all of legal decisions.
The overanalyzation of this purchase is mind numbing. It's as simple as huge user base, it didn't cost them anything outside of stock (which is overvalued as is) and it protected themselves from other large players acquiring YouTube.
The overanalyzation of this purchase is mind numbing.
Mind numbing? I actually agree with your demolition of the argument. Nonetheless, the original argument is pretty damn interesting. It might not apply here but now that the idea has been suggested to me I'll looking for applications of it elsewhere. So far from mind numbing, I find it mind expanding.
The notion that Google's deep pockets will *deter* lawsuits seems completely wrong to me. The world is full of lawyers willing to take on tobacco companies and car makers, despite the armies of lawyers those companies keep on payroll. And, while Google has indeed stepped up its lobbying efforts in Washington, they're still new kids on that block and by no means guaranteed protected status. They're going to get sued, all right, and they better be prepared to win on the merits.
Thanks for clarifying my earlier post. You have saved me from trying to say what you just said (and its doubtful that I could have said it any better)
It should also be noted that the Google bought YouTube without actually paying out any hard cash-- the purchase was done with stocks. This hasn't put any dent in Google's war chest. I believe the gross oversimplification is that anybody who owned stock in YouTube before the purchase is now the lucky owner of enough shares of Google to boost the value of thei
Marvelous! The super-user's going to boot me!
What a finely tuned response to the situation!
He's right about the rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He's right about the rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that YouTube has money behind it, Google can expect legal action from a whole bunch of people... some of it justified.
That was truly insightful, at least for me.
Google's core business model revolves around "fair use" and similar provisions of copyright law. I think they are most vulnerable in this area-- look at Belgium. So Google needed to buy YouTube for a couple of reasons related to this.
The first is because YouTube's business model also revolves around many of the same "fair use" provisions, and if YouTube loses its upcoming court cases, the fallout could fatally poison Google's business model. It would be very hard for Google to immunize itself from any judgments against YouTube that changed the interpretation of copyright law. Purchasing YouTube allows Google to directly counter such an attack with all its resources. It also decreases the likelihood of such an attack, since all the ambulance chasers who were smacking their lips in anticipation of an easy meal from YouTube's carcass are now slinking away, looking for easier prey that won't be able to fend them off for years with delaying tactics.
The other reason that occurs to me is that the most important part of strategizing any conflict is choosing your battlefield carefully. Google is under constant threat of serious litigation over copyright concerns. Google has just bought a battlefield where these litigations can be played out, that is comfortably distant from the fields of green where Googles' cash cows graze.
I expect that Google is developing the muscles it needs to directly influence copyright legislation, and I expect it is also going to be increasingly influential in copyright litigation as well (intervening with friend of the court briefs, etc). This all seems to be part of Google's mission statement: [google.com] "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, I wish I had mod points today. This is the most insightful post that I have seen on this subject thus far. Google didn't spend over a billion dollars for You Tube without some kind of game plan, and this makes perfect sense.
Re:He's right about the rights (Score:4, Insightful)
There are more players in the video distribution game outside of YouTube and Google Video and many of them do not have the deep pockets of Google. By the rationale of the parent, then the old, played Slashdot joke applies:
1. Make video content distribution site
2. Have users post content protected by copyright.
3. Google will then swoop down and buy your site to avoid legal precedent to protect their own legal future and future business model.
4. ???
5. Profit.
It's absurd to think that Google bought YouTube to protect themselves against poor legal decisions. Legal decisions are not based on "scale" i.e. just because YouTube is the player in video distribution right now doesn't mean they are going to be the end all and be all of legal decisions.
The overanalyzation of this purchase is mind numbing. It's as simple as huge user base, it didn't cost them anything outside of stock (which is overvalued as is) and it protected themselves from other large players acquiring YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for clarifying my earlier post. You have saved me from trying to say what you just said (and its doubtful that I could have said it any better)
It should also be noted that the Google bought YouTube without actually paying out any hard cash-- the purchase was done with stocks. This hasn't put any dent in Google's war chest. I believe the gross oversimplification is that anybody who owned stock in YouTube before the purchase is now the lucky owner of enough shares of Google to boost the value of thei