Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

YouTube's Plans for a Google-Owned Future 102

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by lwu ( 913743 ) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @09:02AM (#16435389)
    John Battelle interviewed [] EFF's Fred von Lohmann, asking him about YouTube's legal issue and Google's role in it.
  • by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @09:04AM (#16435393) Journal
    It appears artists.... will have the choice when digging into Google's pockets either through a business deal or lawsuit. Which will they pick?

    The first time an individual sues Google over YouTube content or makes a business deal for YouTube content, I want someone to e-mail me. My e-mail is (yeah bots, pick my e-mail up. It's all over the place. I use Gmail so you're no problem for me). I say this because I doubt very much any individual content creator will be able to broker a deal with Google without going through a proxy. The fact the slashdot summary says artists will have a choice is just ridiculous. Artists have a choice of what company they sell their rights to. They don't have a choice about sueing Google or making deals with Google (except for future ones who can factor that in when selecting what company to go with).
  • by gregorio ( 520049 ) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @09:25AM (#16435475)
    Their revenue last year was 6.1 billion dollars. 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
    What matters is their P/E: Google [] has a ~62 P/E while Microsoft [] has a ~24 P/E. Income does not matter, it's the earnings that do matter.

    Still, if you look only at the earnings, you'll have a ~21 ratio for Google and a ~6.5 ratio for Microsoft. A huge difference.
  • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Saturday October 14, 2006 @09:37AM (#16435567)
    But I'll admit I'm not much of a business guy, perhaps their revenue streams from advertising, selling search services of various kinds and other services are enough to justify it, but still, Google is and has always looked like a huge Enron-type sort of operation.

    After Enron and Worldcom and the like, people are skeptical. But Google's profits are as real as Microsoft and Apple. YouTube is a little harder to grasp since they are newer and private. However Google isn't interested in their profits but their potential. Remember Google didn't pay cash for YouTube. They paid with stock. So it didn't really affect their operating income.

"An open mind has but one disadvantage: it collects dirt." -- a saying at RPI