YouTube Leaves Google Vulnerable?

PreacherTom writes "Yesterday's big news was Google's $1.65 billion deal to acquire popular video hosting service YouTube. But will it be a good deal? The market thinks so, as Google's stock rose about $10 per share after the purchase. On the other hand, YouTube increases Google's risk of copyright infringement, opening the door for significant liability...if Google cannot solve this issue. Will their planned video 'fingerprinting' be enough, or just a billion dollar mistake?" From the article: "YouTube's policy is to remove copyrighted clips once alerted to their existence. Content providers say the company needs to be even more proactive ... Todd Dagres, general partner at Boston's Spark Capital, says that Google's large market cap of $130 billion makes it much more vulnerable to lawsuits than a private company such as YouTube. 'Once Google starts to apply its monetization machine, there is going to be more money at stake and people are going to go after it,' says Dagres. 'You cannot monetize other people's content without their approval.'"

Comments

They wish

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot monetize other people's content without their approval.

That's not what the copyright laws say. It's what the content industry wishes they would say, and takes them to mean. This is a great quote because it reveals how they really think about it.

Re:They wish

[linuxci]

In the end anyone who puts up TV shows on one of these services is going well beyond fair use but all Google should have to do is pull it down when asked.

However, content providers that don't embrace video services like youtube will end up losing out in the long run. There's a lot of other ways people can get the content, now they've had a taste of what's possible then more and more people would start looking elsewhere (P2P maybe) for their content should it be pulled from Googles servers. So it makes sense for the content providers to stike a deal with Google and get a share of ad revenue rather than drive people to P2P where they get nothing.

It's good to see Google is already striking deals with other companies.

Re:They wish

[monkeydo]

Yes, copyright law is actually much broader than that. In fact, you can't distribute other people's copyrighted content without their permission, even if you aren't making money off it.

That is what you meant, right?

Re:They wish

[gilgongo]

"In the end anyone who puts up TV shows on one of these services is going well beyond fair use but all Google should have to do is pull it down when asked"

The CRUCIAL thing here is "when asked." The problem with copyright culture right now is that content providers far too often simply tear stuff down before waiting to see whether the copyright holder wants them too or not. Granted, this is a proactive measure designed to save them from the courts, but if I were the boss of a TV station I'd ask them to keep it up there: if it's old episodes of Gilligan's Island or outtakes from Lost that are pulling the kids into YouTube then I can get those same kids to subscribe to cable (and or some future hi-def format) and watch it there too.

No exposure == no audience == no money. This is the lesson of the long tail.

Re:They wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Its funny how the content industry wants ANY and EVERYONE to buy their product, but not use in any method except for consumption.

Personally I fail to see how content can not be cited like book references.

Ex: Little Johnny is bit eccentric and creative, and wants to make a short film about the wildlife in his backyard. So, he takes some still's with a camera, maybe a few short clips with a camcorder, and slaps it all together, putting Blind Melon's 'No Rain' as the audio overlay. Now, at the beginning of his short clip he cites the audio creator/ license holder/ producer/ all Copyright info of the song, which then progresses to play. He then uploads it to a website, like Youtube, where others can view it. He also cites on the page where it can be viewed, all Copyright info of the song in his short movie clip. He intends for others to view it at their interest and amusement, and expects no compensation of any kind of what he has uploaded.

Now, is what he has done deprived the copyright owner of any credit with regard to the creation? It is cited in his work, and no monetary gain has been acquired, yet you can be pretty sure the Copyright owner would go after him regardless of whether money was made.

I guess what I fail to understand with copyrighted content is this: if content intended for mass consumption is rehashed into an alternate form and redistributed into an alternate medium, with reference and citation to the copyright holder, for no monetary or other compensation, how has the copyright holder been deprived of anything??

It seems hypocritcal and draconian to think that if you put some form of art out into the world for people to consume with their personal wealth, that they not be able to do what they want with it as long as citation and reference to the original creator is noted accordingly.

Re:They wish

[Anonymous Coward]

What about old shows that are no longer available for purchase?

Re:They wish

[Xugumad]

What I'm wondering is what on earth they thought copyright laws did, if they didn't stop you selling other people's copyrighted material without their permission!

Re:They wish

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>Personally I fail to see how content can not be cited like book references.

I don't either... but typically when you reference a book, you use only a small portion of it, not the majority of the book.

> putting Blind Melon's 'No Rain' as the audio overlay.

Using the main portion of the content? sorry, you don't even get to do that with books/magazines/encyclopedia articles currently.

Re:They wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Monetizing != Selling. Copyright law says, in fact, almost nothing about monetizing. Or selling. It says things about distributing.

Re:They wish

[MindStalker]

The issue is does it stop you from giving away in limited forms other peoples production, and what is the definition of limited. Many places allow you to give full copies of songs to friends in the form of compilation tapes, generally these were compensated in the form of tape/audio cd tax. Everywhere you are allowed to take small samples and use it in a nonprofit work. The question is how small. And how big of a distribution is allowed.

Re:They wish

[/dev/trash]

And someone grabs Johnny's movie and sells it. Blien Mellon gets no money. Shannon Hoon is now dead AND pissed off.

Re:They wish

[bazorg]

In the end anyone who puts up TV shows on one of these services is going well beyond fair use
I don't know about that... Over here in Portugal we all pay a tax to support the public TV/Radio network. As the tax is charged along with the electricity bill, it's kind of hard not to pay it.

Using this network that is paid by the public, there are a few TV stations that broadcast 24h/7 with open signal, so it's obvious that the TV shows are not secret, or meant not to be distributed. So, why exactly would it be unfair if I would use the computer (or VCR) to record and show to my friends something that was already made public?

Re:They wish

[geoffspear]

I think you'll find very few people who understand the law that think the answers to those questions would be anything that allows distribution of an entire TV program to every single person on the Internet, so no, that's no really the issue here.

Re:They wish

[monkeydo]

And what does my reply say about selling? Nothing. You can't republish someone else's book and insert ads, even if you give the book away. This is similar to what YouTube and Google videos do. These sites have claimed protection up until now under the DMCA (wait, I thought the DMCA was all bad?) which provides a defense as long as the content is removed as soon as the host is notified by the copyright holder. However, a court could certainly decide that YouTube is encouraging the use of their service to infringe copyright, and possibly still hold them liable.

Re:They wish

[Blakey Rat]

Uh, yes it is. Actually, it goes further: it says you can't distribute it without their approval whether or not you're doing it for money.

What is your basis for saying that quote is incorrect?

Re:They wish

[StringBlade]

Ah, but now it's not Johnny's bad -- it's the person who's infringing copyright who should be held liable (in civil law, not criminal). Johnny did everything right, "someone" is the one in the wrong according to ethics and copyright law.

Re:They wish

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot monetize other people's content without their approval.

Hmmm, I guess Raza (Star Wars Kid) wishes he had approval over his content from the start.

Re:They wish

[MindStalker]

Just saying the question is how big and how small. Could one realistically interpret the use of a sounds clip over a homemade video. Personally I'd say yes as it is not infringing upon the profit capability of the sound clip itself. (Unless of course their profit model is built around people paying for the rights to use it in video clips). :)

Re:They wish

[geoffspear]

Of course, since infringing upon the profit capability of a work isn't anything close to being a necessary condition for copyright infringement, your personal opinion probably isn't a very informed one. Or at the very least, it's an opinion of what the law ought to be rather than what the law actually is, which is hardly relevant to whether Google would be rational to host the content.

Re:They wish

[ElleyKitten]

In America it would go beyond fair use. Unlike other countries, America doesn't have a tax for TV, the TV stations get their money through advertising and direct payments (cable and satelite). If you post an American TV show on the internet without the advertisments, then the advertisers don't get what they paid for (people watching the ads) and won't pay for future TV shows. Of course, there's the question of what if you post it with the ads intact, but I don't think they like that either.

Re:They wish

[Jane Q. Public]

That is simply not so.

The Supreme Court ruled many years ago that content that has been broadcast is in the public domain and may be recorded and replayed. Note, however, that this decision does not cover two things that could be relevant: (1) it must be content that had previously been broadcast (i.e, airwaves or internet), and (2) people are specifically enjoined from profiting by such replay.

Re:They wish

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is a huge mistake for Google. This will be to them what the acquisition of broadcast.com was to Yahoo. Why would you pay a billion for a business that doesn't make money? The answer is always "the eyeballs" - the large audience that they hope to market to. Fantastic. I'll believe that Adsense can pay Youtube's bandwidth bill when I see it. But the numbers just don't add up.

Re:They wish

[dangitman]

What if Johnny, in distributing the video online, says that the video is free to use for any purpose?

Re:They wish

[inKubus]

Yeah, it's going to be like this:

1. Copyright content is placed online
2. Copyright holder requests it be taken down
3. Google responds with a letter and a check for the ad revenue generated by the content so far, and says, "Oh, there'll be one of these each month, BTW"
4. Copyright holder licenses content to Google for ad revenue.

How is this any different than TV? Other than the fact that the content is actually being chosen by the consumers rather than being shoved down our throats using the shotgun like broadcast method. Oh, and the distributor is volunteering to give the money they make with the content to the copyright holder, rather than wanting exclusive rights to it.

So basically Youtube/Google is recycling used old crap that no one wants anymore and they are making money off of it and giving some of it to the content creator, who otherwise would make NOTHING. Information wants to be free. This just means a. the consumer gets what he wants, b. content producer gets money AGAIN (after broadcast), and c. Google makes money, everyone wins!

Re:They wish

[StringBlade]

Sure, but you're changing the situation again. What was described was completely legal "Fair Use". All these other what-ifs are simply modifications that change the given fair scenario into an unfair one.

The original poster proposed that what little Johnny does was benefitting not only himself (because his work is appreciated by others) but also benefitting the original artist because their work has reached an expanded audience. Johnny does not accept money or any form of payment for this and gives credit where due. He's using one song, not an entire album (though one could argue the negative impact of producing an photo montage long enough to include all the songs on an album, but it's unlikely that would be considered fair use in the eyes of the law -- it's all very subjective).

If Johnny takes payment or lies (even by omission of fact) about the copyright of all included works, then he is violating copyright law and fair use.

I don't know of any artist who doesn't want people to experience their work before they buy it (I'm thinking visual and audio art here) because *most* people don't tend to buy creative works without experiencing the creative work first (hearing a song on the radio, seeing a postcard of a painting, etc.). Artists don't want their work sold by others and they don't want their work devalued by reducing the rarity of it (if I make a 5 million copies of an album and start handing them out for free, I'm reducing the market value of that album by flooding the market with inexpensive copies -- that hurts the artist's ability to earn a living off that album).

Johnny's little work of art with a copyrighted song in the background is not putting anyone out of work or devaluing the song. In this case it's probably increasing the value of the song if Johnny's art becomes popular, the song's artist by association becomes more popular (assuming the song's catchy and people like it as much as Johnny's work).

Re:They wish

[dangitman]

Sure, but you're changing the situation again. What was described was completely legal "Fair Use".

I don't think so. You usually have to gain permission, or pay royalties to use a song in a film or video production. Johnny may get a way with using a snippet of the song, but not the whole thing. That's why they have royalty-free soundtrack libraries.

All these other what-ifs are simply modifications that change the given fair scenario into an unfair one.

Not really. I'm just reflecting on the reality. Johnny has to host the video somewhere. Most likely this will be something like YouTube, which makes a profit via advertising associated with the video. So, somebody can certainly make money off it. What's Johnny supposed to do, make an exhaustive lawyerly list of what people are allowed to do with his video? And how does he get to do that in the first place, when he has already misused someone's copyrighted work against their agreement?

I don't know of any artist who doesn't want people to experience their work before they buy it

Are you kidding? Most artists would love that. They'd make sales, even if people did not like the work. Why do they have billboards and print ads advertising music? the print medium doesn't allow you to experience the song.

By the way - the artist gets paid royalties to have their song paid on the radio.

Johnny's little work of art with a copyrighted song in the background is not putting anyone out of work or devaluing the song. In this case it's probably increasing the value of the song if Johnny's art becomes popular, the song's artist by association becomes more popular

But what if the artist doesn't want to become popular? What if the artist does not want to be associated with Johnny's video? Not all artists have the same motivation. You seem to have a fairly idealistic picture of "all artists." Bottom line is - it's their work, do with as they please. Not Johnny's.

If they want their music to be used in amateur videos, then they can explicitly state that. See, for example, Trent Reznor's tracks that were released for end-user mixing.

Re:They wish

[Anonymous Coward]

You're arguing my point. It talks about copying. It does NOT talk about money. If you can find a way to monetize without copying, you're golden. You can monetize till the cows come home. If I can purchase a book, stuff it full of ads, and resell it (or give it away) and make a net profit on the deal, no one can stop me. I can't copy or re-publish the book, but I can certainly resell it or rent it out. Video stores have monetized videos for years.

Re:They wish

[StringBlade]

By the way - the artist gets paid royalties to have their song paid on the radio.

Actually the label gets paid, the artist gets next to nothing. And you're right, with copyright Johnny legally has to ask permission to use the work. However, if he doesn't and the artist (or label in reality) does not approve of the use of his/her work, then they can demand Johnny take it out/down. If Johnny complies, that's the end of it because Johnny has not profited from this work in any measurable way - if not then Johnny's open to a lawsuit.

As for compiling a list, Johnny needs no such compilation, he just needs to create a Creative Commons license which states who and how his work may be used. Some artists release their music that way, but let's assume in this case they didn't.

Finally, YouTube is not making money off the video itself, but off of advertising revenue from the ads around the video - there's a difference. Johnny is not making that money either, so the artist/label can either go after Johnny for posting the infringing material, or YouTube for profiting from it (or technically both, but that pursuit seems pointless -- Johnny probably has no money and YouTube isn't liable if they take the material down upon request).

Re:They wish

[Blakey Rat]

First of all, log in if you're going to actually reply and debate something.

Secondly, I have no clue what you're talking about. The copyright owner, by default, has EVERY RIGHT to the work. They decide whether you can show it to a crowd for money, they decide whether you can copy it, they decide whether you can rent it out. Do you understand? Video rental stores don't work because copyright *law* says they can rent the movies, but because the copyright holders of those movies say they can. I can as easily release a DVD that didn't allow that.

There's no way to make money from a copyrighted work without the creator's permission. Period. That's how copyright is designed; if I make something, I get to choose EXACTLY how it's used and who has it. If George Lucas tomorrow decided to pull every copy of Star Wars off the shelf and never release it again, that's his right. It would be unpopular, but it wouldn't be illegal.

Dumb Question, ask another

[Se7enLC]

Google Video and YouTube are the SAME THING. The only difference is that google actually takes down copyrighted video when people post it to google videos and youtube doesn't. I don't see any reason why video.google can't merge with youtube and fix youtubes problems.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[ImaNihilist]

How many people are going to go to YouTube when all the copyrighted material is gone?

Not many.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[Rik Sweeney]

I don't see any reason why video.google can't merge with youtube and fix youtubes problems.

Or simply just redirect everyone that clicks on Google Video to You Tube. That's what I'd do, but then again I'm lazy. Bite me.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[Anonymous Coward]

More than people would think. Lets check out the most viewed videos for today. By my count, 11 out of the 20 were user-made.

There's more money in kids trying to be Johnny Knoxville than there is in snippets of South Park.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[ImaNihilist]

That's because people happen to find other things while looking for illegal content. I've never met anyone outside of my geek circle that actually used YouTube to watch viral internet videos. Every "normie" I know uses YouTube to watch TV shows, anime, and music videos (quasi-legal now). When you remove the illegal content from YouTube, what is it? It's called Google Video, which probably doesn't even get 1/100th the views. Probably not even 1/1000th. If you aren't using it to watch illegal content, you're using it to either watch lonelygirl, brookers, or some other hobag play with her boobs. I suppose as long as they keep those three going strong, they will always have an audience. Boobs are always in style.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[happyrabit]

Sure google filter copyrighted versions? Yesterday I went seeing the WoW south park episode on google video after they took it off from youTube. anyway, it's surely more complicated than i can think off.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[Tony Hoyle]

Probably a regional thing.. everyone I know uses google video.

Part of the problem with youtube is its unreliability - someone posts a youtube link and about 80% of the time you bring it up and the play button doesn't work or it plays for 5 seconds and gives up.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[kid nickng]

I always thought the popularity of YouTube is partly because it implicitly allows copyrighted material; If Google isn't verifying the video uploaded (this takes a few days) and make them available instantly, IMHO, it could be as popular as YouTube. However that will bring a hell lot of legal/copyright problems to Google.
And of course this isn't the only problem, but just for an example..

If YouTube's problem is fixed properly then I will guess the popularity will go straight down. Google buying Youtube might be a bad thing and potentially killing youtube.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[Calinous]

Never had a problem playing videos from youtube (but didn't used it much)

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[MindStalker]

YouTube uses a lot of local proxies. Likely your local one sucks.. :) Nice to know hu.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[British]

What's annoying about Google Video is the marketing angle. I try doing a vague search for "80s". What do I get? Some stock footage film company showing you samples of stuff to buy.

Also, it seems no matter what I search for, I ALWAYS end up with "Charlie Rose" tv shows for sale in search results. I don't want to buy videos. I just want to see the free ones. Google Video seems to have exactly what I don't want.

myspace videos, OTOH are all viral videos and soft core porn. Youtube's got that wonderful middle ground. No stupid codecs to download, no additional browser windows(you listening, ifilm?), etc.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[Farmer Tim]

Boobs are always in style.

My plastic surgeon said the same thing before the operation. But I've found they don't match the beard...

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[City Hermit]

That is not true. I want to be on the cutting edge of the culture industry and welcome our numa dancing overlords!!

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[forgotten_my_nick]

YouTube does take down copyright material but it has to be reported or they have to see it. Not sure why Daily show clips appear everywhere (probably too many posting them) but still is pulled.

Heroes and Lost for example got pulled the day after they were posted. WOW South park got pulled a few days after posting but only because a large majority of the WOW players were probably spamming. I have also seen comments like "Content removed as owner is MTV" and similar.

Likewise with google video. You can get (c) material there too but generally harder to find and that's only because more people use youtube.

I wouldn't class them as the same either as Youtube is used as a social system as well. You can talk about the videos, subscribe to favorites, users, keywords, channels.

Re:Dumb Question, ask another

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're forgetting all the videos of people lighting their own farts. I'm guessing that not many of those are copyrighted.

Actually, the added liability risk makes sense...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

YouTube increases Google's risk of copyright infringement, opening the door for significant liability

Despite what else I think of Google, this move makes sense. Google has stepped up to defend itself on a number of other copyright fronts (including book content); I think they will do an equally good job defending themselves (or coming to terms) on the video front.

What is the difference?

[CrackedButter]

Google are always getting sued so much already by different countries and organisations, do you think they'll notice?

Re:What is the difference?

[Alex Pennace]

Google are always getting sued so much already by different countries and organisations, do you think they'll notice?

Any reference to current and past suits against Google?

Re:What is the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google it.

Re:What is the difference?

[Pollardito]

they're currently getting attacked over their book snippets, and they previously got attacked by that French newspaper company for including their articles in Google News. like the other responder said, you can find a good list by googling "google copyright lawsuit"

since when...

[aleksiel]

since when was google afraid of copyright lawsuits? caching webpages, images, (mostly open-source-ish) code, actual books, and (some of their) videos?

i think youtube fits right in, personally.
but also, i hate the current state of our copyright laws.

Re:since when...

[PreacherTom]

Different groups are pursuing copyright lawsuits with different agendas. Google's previous actions were much more under the radar than YouTube.

Re:since when...

[aleksiel]

true, and they also worked with companies a lot more than youtube because they had the resources to do so.

but still, the number of homemade music videos and other "minor copyright infringement" stuff like that on google video and youtube are similar enough.

Re:since when...

[zenithcoolest]

Maybe Google is not afraid of copyright suites but whats the point of adding the number. I think what they will do is to revamp the whole copyrighted thing on Youtube like they have on Google Video and skim through the videos uploaded.

Re:since when...

[Emetophobe]

Many slashdotters have already pointed out why google should be safe from any lawsuits arrising from copyright infringement. You can read why here, here are some choice quotes from the wiki:

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA), a portion of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act known as DMCA 512 or the DMCA takedown provisions, is a 1998 United States federal law that provided a safe harbor to online service providers (OSPs, including internet service providers) that promptly take down content if someone alleges it infringes their copyrights.

Overview

The act added section 512 to the Copyright law in Title 17 of the United States Code (Public Law No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860, 2877).

This provision of United States copyright law is best known for allowing copyright holders to ask that an online service provider (OSP, including ISPs) remove access to copyright infringing material if the copyrighted material is made available through the OSP. It is a powerful device for the protection of copyright on the internet for providers that are located in the United States, though many foreign providers may also respond to such requests for fear of litigation in the United States should they have any significant business interests in the U.S.

In exchange for this, the OSP gains:

* new protection from liability to its own customers as a result of a decision to remove material.
* clear procedures for removing and restoring material.
* a safe harbor against copyright infringement claims, similar to the protection against non-intellectual property infringement liability provided by Section 230 the Communications Decency Act (CDA).

Customers gain through a reduced chance that works will be removed unnecessarily by an OSP which hasn't received an infringement complaint.

Basically, as long as google removes copyright infringing content, they can't be sued.

Requirements to obtain the safe harbor

To obtain the safe harbor the OSP must:

* not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing (512(c)(1)(A)(1)).
* not be aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent (512(c)(1)(A)(2)).
* upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, must act expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material. (512(c)(1)(A)(2) and 512(c)(1)(C))
* not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity (512(c)(1)(B)).
* have a Designated Agent registered with the US Copyright Office to receive notifications of claimed infringement (often called takedown notices). If the designated agent receives a notification which substantially complies with the notification requirements, the OSP now has actual knowledge and must expeditiously disable access to the work. The OSP must make available to the public through its service, including on its web site substantially this information:
o the name, address, phone number and electronic mail address of the agent.
o other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate.
* adopt, reasonably implement, and inform subscribers and account holders of a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers (512(i)(1)(A

Re:since when...

[aleksiel]

this hasn't stopped people from suing youtube, or saying that youtube is deserving of lawsuits.

I don't think it'll be a problem

[Rik Sweeney]

All Google have to say is they'll take anything down when the copyright holder (and only the copyright holder) complains. eBay has this policy similar to this, but still kick up a fuss when they're asked to take stuff down (Live 8 tickets last year for example).

Re:I don't think it'll be a problem

[jackharrer]

Exactly. They can just simply say: 'Oh, just because of sheer amount of videos we overlooked few. But we're trying.".
So we can be sure that we will still be able to see everything - but just for few days. Which is really good for marketing - you need to visit their page very often, just not to miss some content.

Good idea, plus if you don't annoy RIAA and MPIA (and their BIG members) too much it should work.

jackharrer

Re:I don't think it'll be a problem

[shimmin]

It is well-established that innocent intent does not constitute a defense against a finding of infringement, although it can be used to argue for lesser damages. To copy and distribute copyrighted content is infringement, unless it is fair use, which this is not by any stretch of the imagination or the law.

Google might have a viable defense under the DMCA's "safe haven" clause for ISPs.

Kengestion Charge

[Anonymous Coward]

Next lawsuit will by Ken Livingstone for use of the word tube

Re:Kengestion Charge

[VJ42]

No,No; that's "the tube"; we're talking about gTube (beta)

Semantics

[tygerstripes]

You say "video fingerprinting", I say "evil bit".
</troll>
Anyway, I the article suggests Google don't know the trouble they're getting into. Well, seems they did okay with Google Video. I haven't seen them screw it up yet...

better and more lawyers

[romit_icarus]

A large market cap also allows for larger and more sophisticated legal counsel! So I guess it evens out...

Re:Actually, the added liability risk makes sense.

[DerGeist]

Exactly. So many comments by analysts and armchair politicians seems to reflect a certain mindset that Google is so blindingly stupid that they bought YouTube for 1.65 billion after a six-week bender, and now their lawyers are crapping their Dockers screaming "oh crap, I forgot! We could get sued!"

Obviously Google knows there is copyrighted content on YouTube. It also knows that YouTube is what people want. Before the idea of capitalistic humility was eroded by monopolistic content producers who unilaterally decided they had consumers by the proverbial balls and would take them for all they're worth, companies actually tried to give consumers what they wanted. Google, I think, understands that. Yes, people want everything for free, but we all love YouTube. And why? Ignoring the vlogs and random jackass-style videos that everyone likes to watch, YouTube is on-demand content. It's a service that is realizable within today's technological constraints and universally desired among consumers. If Google can find a way to get the money machine going on this, the possibilities suddenly become immensely attractive.

Leaves it vulnerable my bottom.

[suv4x4]

Think about it. Would Google, which already has Google Video, go and spend 1.6 billion on a virtually equivalent service, only to end up "vulnerable" and sued?

Somehow I feel this was discussed behind closed doors, risks assessed and measured, strategy outlined. The deal proceeded despite all this.

There's simply a lot we just don't know to start discussing if YouTube leaves "Google vulnerable". And when you don't know something, it's best to wait and see, versus flap your mouth, outputting unmitigated BS in your articles.

Re:Leaves it vulnerable my bottom.

[PreacherTom]

People also invested insane amounts of money in offshore online casinos. Vide insane amounts of market cap vaporize with one unexpected law. Risk v Return is always an important consideration. Still, don't think that the return is all that pops up.

Re:Leaves it vulnerable my bottom.

[suv4x4]

People also invested insane amounts of money in offshore online casinos. Vide insane amounts of market cap vaporize with one unexpected law.

I think your example is not of the best ones, unless you mean that in the case of Google, copyright is one "unexpected law".

Re:Leaves it vulnerable my bottom.

[PreacherTom]

You don't think both are examples of selective enforcement?

Re:Leaves it vulnerable my bottom.

[inKubus]

Maybe it has something to do with this.

Another thing is that YouTube has a brand and community of people behind it. In that way it's a lot like Google. I mean, most search engines are fundamentally the same. A lot of people decided to use Google. Then when they started making money, they made other stuff also, and now they are like Yahoo.

google video

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... did someone forget that Google has Google Video??? And that it has plenty of its own copyright violations already without YouTube ever being in the picture.

Monetize?

[TheWoozle]

You keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means.

Is the entertainment industry going to lobby Congress to make movies and songs into a currency?

Re:Monetize?

[mlk]

Yeap, soon you will have to sing a bar of Britney Spears for a pizza. A complete song a Stuffed Crust and some garlic bread.

Re:Monetize?

[tehcyder]

You keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means.

Unfortunately, I think using "monetize" instead of "make money/profit out of" is so widespread in the US now that it has to be accepted, however ugly it sounds, as another horrible management consultant's buzzword.

Re:Monetize?

[forgotten_my_nick]

> Sales of cheesy 80s videos collections have skyrocketed thanks to YouTube,

Although I've watched more then I bought. I did buy "My Name is Kim Sam Soon" on DVD after watching a few episodes on YouTube.

TV stations are already starting to come around as well. I noticed a lot of the US TV stations now show thier tv shows on thier websites. For example I can watch Heroes+Jerico legally online for free.

I think the sooner the media groups embrace the model the better it will work out for everyone.

Re:Monetize?

[teh kurisu]

I might be misunderstand you, but you're saying that if you write a book, I should be able to buy a copy, copy it myself and sell the copies without paying you a penny? In effect, you'd like to enforce a BSD-style licence on all copyrightable works?

Re:Monetize?

[jZnat]

No; the BSD licence is too restrictive in this sense as well. What he wants is the public domain to come back as the only thing that "owns copyright" and other "intellectual property". You publish something, it belongs to the public. End of story. Even if you don't publish it and it ends up in the public, it's now public domain and can be used and exploited by anyone for any reason they wish.

Re:Monetize?

[teh kurisu]

So he proposes that previously copyrightable works be labours of love and not business opportunities, I get that. But this effectively puts a lot of people out of a job. You can't charge for support on a book, after all.

Re:Monetize?

[Tankko]

What the hell are you talking about? You think it's OK for me to spend a great deal of money/time/effort making something (TV show, book, movie, game) and then you can just take it and make money off it without giving me anything in return? Why on earth would you think that's OK? Clearly you don't make IP for a living? You're just a consumer that thinks this stuff flows for free.

Please explain to me how, in this world of no IP laws that any movie or game would be made that wasn't some amateurish piece of crap? Seriously, please explain that to me and please be detailed and think off all the issues. Pick your favorite movie or game and please explain how this would have worked?

Re:Monetize?

[pla]

But this effectively puts a lot of people out of a job. You can't charge for support on a book, after all.

Do you necessarily consider that a "bad" thing?

Tolkein worked as a professor, and wrote LotR as a labor of love.

Compare that to the fact that some substantial group of "authors" make a living writing Harlequin Romance novels.

In the absence of copyrights, LotR would still exist. As would millions of trees now pulped and printed with soft-core porn for bored housewives.


No doubt you can name exceptions, assorted masters of their trade who started out doing it as a day job and evolved into fame. But for every one of them, I can give you a hundred who honed their art for its own sake, and only started profiting from it when they sheepishly let a family member, friend, coworker, or whatever see their real work. And once such a person "makes" it, people tend to insist on the real thing. When the Beatles attained fame in the US, you had hundreds of pathetic clones with names and music in some cases bordering on the infringing (and in some cases, so unrelated as to make a mockery of the concept of copying). Yet, the public could tell the difference, and while John, Paul, George, and Ringo remain in demand even today, The Liverpool Kids only exist as humorous side-notes in vinyl-ripped MP3 traders' blogs.

Re:Monetize?

[Pofy]

So, for example, everything ever created before we got copyright laws is just some amateurish piece of crap?

Google is plenty vulnerable already

[mrkitty]

*caugh*
http://www.cgisecurity.com/2006/10/06

This is a Non-Issue

[organgtool]

I really don't see copyright infringement becoming a huge issue with this acquisition. As another poster pointed out, Google Video removes copyrighted material from their site and as long as they enforce the same policy on YouTube, they shouldn't have too many copyright problems. However, I'm sure there will be a few grab-asses that will threaten to sue Google in an attempt to get a settlement, and if Google was smart, they'd allow the case to go to court and make an example out of them.

Re:This is a Non-Issue

[harborpirate]

I'm sure Google will be more diligent about removing copyrighted material than YouTube has been. However, I contend that is the very thing that has made YouTube popular - the fact that one can go to YouTube and almost instantly see any music video or funny commercial or odd internet clip that has ever existed.

Now, the odd internet clips, they'll survive, since generally they're not copyrighted. But short "big media" content such as music videos and commercials are going to have to be removed, and I think that's a major part of the draw.

Re:This is a Non-Issue

[LooseIsNotLose]

This is an aside to your point, and not really directed at you, but I am getting really tired of reading about these sites "removing copyrighted material", as it just goes to show that most of the people commenting on this actually aren't that aware of the nuances of copyright law. Copyrighting your creative work is not something you have to actively do, like registering a trademark. It is something that happens instantly and automatically as soon as you have created the work. In other words, *all* of the videos uploaded to YouTube/Google are copyrighted. The issue is that some material has been uploaded by someone who is not the copyright owner, not merely that the work is copyrighted. And this is something that could be an issue whether the owner is a major media conglomorate or an individual like the Star Wars Kid.

Re:This is a Non-Issue

[Dr. Spork]

I wish I had as much faith as you do in the wisdom of our courts. If you can be sued and lose for selling coffee that's hot (and it's not like McDonalds has cheap lawyers), you can get sued and lose big for profiting from work which you have no permission to host. Actually, when I think about it, maybe Google should lose cases like this. I don't mean to defend US copyright law as a whole - it's a complete mess - but if you profit from distributing a complete copyrighted work, and the copyright holder is not consulted, you are doing something wrong (and not just illegal).

It's the nineties all over again.

[bytesex]

When the market realizes that young people switch over from one website to the next on a whim, and that you can make youtube out of slashdot out of wikipedia with just minor code changes, they will once again withdraw their money and the market will collapse. All these companies have is brands; it's a dangerous move by Google.

Re:It's the nineties all over again.

[metlin]

> All these companies have is brands; it's a dangerous move by Google.

Well, it would be if Google had paid hard cash. They did not -- they paid with stock, which is a different story altogether.

Of course, we all know of the DotCom billionaires who were left with worthless pieces of paper, so let's see how far this goes.

Re:It's the nineties all over again.

[King_TJ]

I think "the market" may be more web-savvy than YOU!

You can't just "make a YouTube out of Slashdot" or what have you, with "only minor code changes"! I'd agree that only small changes are needed to turn a particular type of site into a competing "clone" of the site. This is often seen with online dating service web sites, for example. They all perform the same basic function, so the back-end database code is pretty much the same.

But the hardware, bandwidth AND software demands of a streaming video site are very different than a blog site that deals in practically all text.

The fact that young people switch web sites "on a whim" is meaningless. Young people *always* switch brand loyalty on a whim. The fashion industry is well aware of this, yet they haven't stopped vying for their dollars, have they? The fact is, there's a lot of money to be made in creating and trying to hang onto an image of "oool/trendy" as long as you possibly can.

Re:It's the nineties all over again.

[daigu]

One of the most significant assets of any company are its brands. Interbrand does an evaluation every year where they estimate what the biggest brands are worth. Here's the top five: Coca-Cola ($67 billion), Microsoft ($56.9 billion), IBM ($56.2 billion), GE ($48.9 billion) and Intel ($32.3 billion).

Now, you can argue whether the YouTube brand is worth the price. But to argue that all they have is a brand - with the implicit assumption that brands are not worth anything at all - is simply wrong. Every day people pay more for the expectation of consistent quality and image. It's why people pay more for everything from Apple computers to Marlboro cigarettes. That's worth money, my friend.

Re:It's the nineties all over again.

[IntergalacticWalrus]

I think "the market" may be more web-savvy than YOU!

No, only in Soviet Russia.

Re:It's the nineties all over again.

[bytesex]

All these companies that you mention make tangible products that they produce unbranded as well. In fact, they make a good chunk of their profits rebranding their product (or the lower quality versions of their products) for the 'competition'. Also, most of these companies you mentioned own more than one brand - when a consumer runs to the other brand for some reason - ha ! they still have him/her. YouTube has no tangible product, no other brand, and the only option they have for rebranding their product, is become an ISP. An ISP the size of YouTube's server farm is not worth 1640000000 dollars. The value of the code behind YouTube is probably worth something like several thousands of dollars; as I said, something you can grab in open source format off the web and fiddle with for a few hours.

Re:It's the nineties all over again.

[bytesex]

}} You can't just "make a YouTube out of Slashdot"

You could make YouTube out of a Wiki in a few hours. If you don't see that, then you're probably not very much of a programmer. Or maybe *I* don't understand what so difficult about a searchable content-database with a web-presentation layer and some user abstraction.

}} The fashion industry is well aware of this, yet they haven't stopped vying for their dollars, have they?

The fashion industry is not one big blob, my friend. Individual fashion companies go out of business all the time.

Re:It's the nineties all over again.

[bytesex]

The fact that it's just paper, doesn't mean that its becoming worthless isn't destruction of capital. When the dotcom billionaires screw up their companies by making reckless decisions, they destroy the livelihoods of their workers, their inventory and real estate will be sold for under the write-off price, the capital of their investors (you and me) will be gone, the market's trust in their branch will be down the toilet for years to come. You don't want another 2001, do you ?

Re:It's the nineties all over again.

[daigu]

Companies don't have to make tangible products to have a viable brand. Google, itself, is the archetypical example. If you look at Interbrand's list, you could argue the same for Amazon, Yahoo and MTV.

Besides products, companies can provide a service that is distinctive in some way, which is exactly what YouTube does. Same goes for the other brands above. I think you can even make an argument that while IBM, in the past, was known more for products, they are clearly moving more towards a service model.

We could also flip the script a bit on this. All of your arguments would also apply to something like MySpace, but someone is clearly making money on purchasing that company as well. Again, it is a service (poor though it may be) with name recognition.

I should say that I don't see much evidence that YouTube is worth the price. However, I do recognize the value of intangible assets that have nothing to do with a code base, a server farm, products or other tangible assets. As other people have pointed out, Google's purchase of the company may also have network effects that will drive the intangible value of the company - such as distribution deals, press coverage of the site and so forth. These are also things you are not accounting for in your argument.

Google/Youtuibe not the only problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright holders should be more worried about people publishing wholey independent albums on sites like Lulu and the SAMPLES used on such albums. I'm not suggesting that random album has any copyrighted material on it (I had it tabbed when I was considering this post) - but it might as might thousands of others released via Lulu's publishing program... they are actually potentially SELLING copyrighted material.

Surely the evil empires would be more worried about that>

Monetize?

[pla]

You cannot monetize other people's content without their approval

And here we have, in one choice of wording in one sentence, the embodyment of everything wrong with out entire IP system.

We need to line asshats like this need up against the wall, ASAP. Yes, YouTube hosts quite a lot of copyrighted content. Yes, Google has deeper pockets. So what?

Camwhores aside, anyone considering suing GooTube does not have the advancement of human culture in mind - Or even their own sales! They just want a quick buck via legislation rather than work. YouTube has taken what amounts to the "abandonware" of the media market, and made it popular again even in a low-quality format. Sales of cheesy 80s videos collections have skyrocketed thanks to YouTube, and at least some major labels haven't failed to notice this. But it only takes a single holdout, who considers their one-hit-underground-wonder as the single most important pile of dung on the planet, to make YouTube the next Napster.


We don't need an overhaul of IP law (and yes, I do include the whole plate of copyright, trademark, patents, and the rest in that term, quite deliberately), we need it completely done away with. We need a judiciary that has at least a basic grasp of the technology they keep making very dangerous decisions about. And we need people who talk about "monetizing" anything other than physically backed currency taken out back and shot.

re: GooTube

[bigdaddyhame]

IIRC, YouTube has been very busy inking don't-sue-me agreements with the major entertainment companies that will give it and now GooTube(tm) ammo when and if lawyers try to go after it - now they can say, "heck, even Universal signed on to the money train, after threatening to sue us!"

As to the 'monetizing' thing (is that like emmantizing the eschatron?) the volume of people using Google's services, even with adwords all over the place, is testimony enough that Google's doing it right.

Aren't they protected by the DMCA

[GaelTadh]

Don't the DMCA safe harbor provisions protect google in the event of copyright infringement ? Even if it's not a clear cut case; the part about financial benefit seems to leave them a little open; it does provide material for google with it's massively deep pockets to lawyer their way out of it.

Actually they already agreed about it

[skiingyac]

You cannot monetize other people's content without their approval.

YouTube has just signed how many agreements with major content providers. Do you think that MAYBE, just MAYBE, Google was waiting for that to happen before buying them?

So, the question isn't even relevant. Nobody cares whether they can do it without their approval. YouTube HAS their approval, and now that Google owns YouTube, so does Google.

Any remaining content providers will quickly realize their choices are 1) spend money on long, expensive lawsuits against Google with little/no prospect of a ROI, or 2) jump on the bandwagon for practically free and make some money out of it. It shouldn't take long even for a corporate board member to figure that one out.

Re:Actually they already agreed about it

[inviolet]

Any remaining content providers will quickly realize their choices are 1) spend money on long, expensive lawsuits against Google with little/no prospect of a ROI, or 2) jump on the bandwagon for practically free and make some money out of it. It shouldn't take long even for a corporate board member to figure that one out.

This will then stimulate a change in the advertising industry. Since discrete commercials can be so easily skipped or completely snipped out, advertising must insinuate itself directly into the content.

In the case of television, perhaps we should expect to see new shows filmed with green-screens subtly placed around the sets. You know, such as on the door of the refridgerator, or on the billboard that is slightly visible from Will & Grace's back yard. At the time of broadcast or rebroadcast or publication on DVD, commercial content can be pasted onto the green-screens dynamically.

This would have major benefits, because the commercial content can be adjusted according to the intended audience and timeslot. Advertising dollars will bring more bang for the buck... and that means that less total advertising needs to be delivered and watched.

I'm all for it. Commercial breaks are irritating, and seriously disrupt the mental state that the show is trying to induce in me. I'd rather ignore the computer-generated label on Doogie Houser's cereal box than I would sit through a cereal commercial.

Re:Actually they already agreed about it

[rkcallaghan]

skiingyac wrote:

Any remaining content providers will quickly realize their choices are 1) spend money on long, expensive lawsuits against Google with little/no prospect of a ROI, or 2) jump on the bandwagon for practically free and make some money out of it. It shouldn't take long even for a corporate board member to figure that one out.

Academic curiosity: In the history of megacorporations, with particular emphasis on copyright-owning media corporations; have any of them ever chosen option number 2?

If yes, who? What were their results? If no, what indicators do we have that they would do so now?

~Rebecca

Re:Actually they already agreed about it

[MindStalker]

In the past no. A surprising number of content industries have just jumped on the YouTube bandwagon. This is for music videos only. But generally YouTube is for short clips anyways. Long clips have to be cut into segments and or often quickly pulled. So an algorithms that detects segment postings and flags them for screening would take care of 90% of full length content.

Re:Actually they already agreed about it

[skiingyac]

I completely agree with your suggestion that history does not support this, and I think that's why nobody bought YouTube until now. However, in case you didn't read the Forbes link in the article, YouTube has signed deals with:

• Sony BMG Music Entertainment
• Warner Music Group
• CBS Corp.
• Vivendi's Universal Music Group

I don't know how they got this far, but that was DEFINITELY the hard part. The Washington Post recently stated that Drudge Report is their main source of traffic and that they have a symbiotic relationship. The rest will follow once the first couple start saying they are making money.

Re:Actually they already agreed about it

[Arterion]

Isn't something like this already happening in some video games? I think it's a great idea. I'm a lot more likely to want to drink a coke if Captain Picard drinks one than if some random person sings a poorly-written piece of music.

Re:Actually they already agreed about it

[neura]

I'd rather ignore the computer-generated label on Doogie Houser's cereal box than I would sit through a cereal commercial.

I think the phrase "you hit the nail on the head" is very fitting here. Maybe you're missing the entire point of advertisements?

Re:Actually they already agreed about it

[aeryn_sunn]

YouTube has just signed how many agreements with major content providers

Of course, you are making a huge assumption that the agreements give YouTube a certain amount of protection from copyright violation liability. But we do not know the terms of those agreements and certainly, the media companies are only going to allow Google/YouTube to put up on the site limited and specific content and said media companies are not going to forgo any right to sue for copyright violations of other content that is not suppose to be up there. Especially if there appears to be an effect on the bottom line.

Re:Actually they already agreed about it

[CaveMike]

I'm all for it. Commercial breaks are irritating, and seriously disrupt the mental state that the show is trying to induce in me. I'd rather ignore the computer-generated label on Doogie Houser's cereal box than I would sit through a cereal commercial.

Until the 600th close-up of Doogie's cereal box. The purpose of ads is to 'disrupt your mental state' and if superimposing them doesn't grab your attention, advetisers will try something that will.

Re:Actually they already agreed about it

[inKubus]

It could be contextual, just like Google's text ads. For instance, a 17 year old girl watching Friends. The computer knows about her, and so CLIENT SIDE she recieves a video stream and then her video client injects into the spots the various ads (say a little package on the counter, green screened) that are custom tailored to her. Locality, previous search history and more are taken into account. In her neighbor's house, a 20 year old male watches the same show. Because of different preferences, the label on a beer can changes and the makeup package is never changed. Etc.

Exactly like what Google does now with their ads. Clickthru will be based on if you watch the show AND later go back to the product. They could probably team up with VISA or something and get data on people who A. Watched the Show, B. what ad was placed there and the C. when they bought the item. At that point the advertiser (the person who sold the item) would pay Google a royalty for the successful ad. Obviously pure impressions will be paid also.

Re:Actually they already agreed about it

[skiingyac]

Actually a fair amount of info is known about some of the deals. For example, from http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/18/10 46247 Warner Music's agreement allows "full" access to their Artists' music videos, including allowing users to incorporate parts of them into their own videos. I think Google is in a good position to negotiate further w/ the content producers, being worth more than a good number of them.

Obviously there are some things they need to work out, but based on their history I don't Google would throw around $1.65B without having a pretty good idea of what they're getting into.

This is about confronting the copyright collective

[metoc]

This is a direct quote from the Google corporate site http://www.google.com/corporate/.

"Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

Webpages are but a piece of the world's information. Most of it is in print, video and audio. The problem is the various copyright collectives pretends that fair use doesn't exist, and this gets in the way of Google's stated mission.

Google is confronting the book publishers already and challenging their interpretation of fair use. The Youtube aquisition means the movies and television is next. Music is obviously down the road. Audio search is not as difficult as video search, but it is also not as sexy (The success of Youtube is testimony to our love affair with video).

DMCA to the rescue?

[swillden]

"YouTube's policy is to remove copyrighted clips once alerted to their existence. Content providers say the company needs to be even more proactive

Actually, as I understand the law, they don't. The "Safe Harbor" provision of the DMCA is (rightly) the subject of much criticism, but as I understand it (IANAL), in this case it works to protect YouTube/Google.

Basically, the law says that as long as YouTube takes the content down upon receipt of notification of infringement, YouTube is not liable for anything -- hence the term "Safe Harbor". The problem with this law is that it puts the onus on YouTube or the person who posted the video to prove that the video is not, in fact, infringing. This may be easy if it can be shown that the company who complained doesn't own the video, or it can be very hard if Fair Use is being argued to justify non-infringement. Basically, the only way to prove Fair Use is to go to court.

Re:DMCA to the rescue?

[Sloppy]

"YouTube's policy is to remove copyrighted clips once alerted to their existence. Content providers say the company needs to be even more proactive

Actually, as I understand the law, they don't.

You understand the legislation today. But remember that if Congress is willing to sell the service of passing DMCA, then they're willing to sell the service of passing DMCA2. When content providers say something is "needed", they're not just talking about the law as is, they're also talking about their future plans for the law.

Also, there's "vicarious infringement." A judge can arbitrarily decide -- just as they have with p2p software -- that some software or a website is intended to be used for copyright infringement, regardless of whether the producers of that software or maintainers of the website actually comply with the law or not. And this cannot really be argued with the judge, because inferring someone's intent is always a subjective thing.

YouTube can comply with DMCA notices every single time, but if someone calls their website vicarious infringement, then their behavior upon receiving DMCA notices is no longer an issue. The plaintiff just has to say, "look at all this infringement; obviously the website is intended for infringing uses" and it becomes a whole other ballgame.

If I were a content provider unhappy about Google or YouTube, that is how I would attack.

Re:DMCA to the rescue?

[swillden]

When content providers say something is "needed", they're not just talking about the law as is, they're also talking about their future plans for the law.

OTOH, when they go to Congress and ask for this change, they're going to be facing well-funded opposition. Google's pockets are as deep as the media companies', and Google isn't alone in the fight, either. Changes such as those you describe would pose a great danger to all online services that accept user-submitted content and, arguably, all ISPs as well.

YouTube can comply with DMCA notices every single time, but if someone calls their website vicarious infringement, then their behavior upon receiving DMCA notices is no longer an issue. The plaintiff just has to say, "look at all this infringement; obviously the website is intended for infringing uses" and it becomes a whole other ballgame.

True, but this would be a tougher argument than in the case of the P2P services, which are used almost entirely for infringing content. Lots of the content on YouTube is not infringing -- much, if not most, is posted by the copyright holder. And, of course, Google can afford all the lawyers needed to argue the case. They're much less financially constrained than, say, Napster was.

I think the real bottom line here is that Google already has good attorneys to advise them, and they decided that this deal was a good idea, taking into account all of these issues. I'm just trying to point out one of the key arguments they probably relied on in making that decision.

The code

[hey]

I bet the code on YouTube is crap. Once Google sees it they'll get their people on it making it nice, maintainable, etc.

Re:The code

[British]

I bet the code on YouTube is crap.

Yet it seems to have a lot better uptime and reliability than myspace. Sure, apples & oranges, but I don't remember it taking weeks to process an uploaded video on youtube.

Re:The code

[WK1]

Clearly you haven't seen the code for gmail. To sum it up, a bunch of ugly crap that somehow works okay. It requires javascript and frames, and fails with a completely blank page when these are not turned on/available.

needs to?

[Threni]

> YouTube's policy is to remove copyrighted clips once alerted to their existence. Content providers
> say the company needs to be even more proactive

It's already complying with the (US) law, as far as I can see. It doesn't *need* to legally be any more proactive.

Storm in a teacup

[ConallB]

Google isint breaking new ground with this move, they already have Google Video which has much the same content as Youtube (Youtube still looks awful, but better than goole video by far) and they havent been sued for content infingement yet so I dont see how aquiring youtube will expose them to litigation. There is nothing groundbreaking or revelutionary about this deal, google is all about eyeballs, they just bought YouTube's eyballs.

Too young to agree to a binding copyright transfer

[karl.auerbach]

I wonder whether google's lawyers have considered that even when someone submits original material that the person might not be of sufficient age to legally enter into a binding agreement of that nature.

stock increase

[adrianmonk]

The market thinks so, as Google's stock rose about $10 per share after the purchase.

So in other words, shares rose by about 0.07%, right?

Re:stock increase

[jZnat]

More like 2%. But it seems as though most of that increase has already backed down again according to Google.

This was a brilliant purchase

[pnuema]

Some things to point out...

1. Google paid 1.5% of the company in stock to purchase YouTube. Google stock jumped 5% on the news. Purchasing YouTube resulted in a profit for Google.

2. Television as we know it is dieing, and quickly. You can already watch many network shows on the web. Moving shows to the web means that networks can gather better metrics, which means better add targeting, which means higher add prices, which means fewer adds. Everybody wins. (And before you go on about greedy media companies, nobody knows better how not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg than Google).

3. Media providers were already signing up in ones and twos with YouTube. They will now fall all over themselves to sign up with the web's largest advertising company.

4. You can't be sued for hosting copyrighted content unless you have been properly notified of your infringement by the copyright holder and ignored it. No legal risk unless you bungle it.

5. With media providers signing up with YouTube to host their copyrighted content, there will be more copyrighted content available, at higher quality. You will have to sit through adds, but not as many as when you watch TV, and you can do it at your own schedule.

Google will be the largest media company in the world within 10 years. You heard it here first.

Re:This was a brilliant purchase

[Anonymous Coward]

This was a brilliant sale aswell, seeing how they got paid in Google shares. The sale itself made shares rise with 2-3%, meaning they received an extra 50 million, just by the rise itself.

Re:This was a brilliant purchase

[Illserve]

Google paid 1.5% of the company in stock to purchase YouTube. Google stock jumped 5% on the news. Purchasing YouTube resulted in a profit for Google.

You're doing Bubble math.

Increases in stock price are not "profit", it is a change in the imaginary value of the company in the minds of the stockholders.

That value can be lost, catastrophically, in a way that cash in a bank account, or physical assets cannot.

Re:This was a brilliant purchase

[ADRA]

4. You probably can be sued for hosting the content. But, Google may be able to deny penalty by declaring that they didn't know the content was copyrighted. I don't know if a service like google can declare common carrier for things like this, but it seems the perfect legal protection if they could. Once notified of the infringement, they could be liable for the damages incured afterwards.

Re:This was a brilliant purchase

[tehcyder]

Google will be the largest media company in the world within 10 years. You heard it here first.

Really, well it might help if they produced some original media products first.

Re:This was a brilliant purchase

[Bluesman]

You're right in saying that Google didn't profit from this merger. But what did they use to pay for YouTube?

They bought YouTube with shares of Google stock. If the shares don't have any intrinsic value, then Google just got YouTube for nothing.

The odd thing about stock prices, just like fiat currency, is that the value holds as long as the transactions are small. If you owned a billion dollars worth of Google stock and tried to sell it all at once, odds are you'd decrease the price of the overall stock so much you'd end up with a lot less than a billion dollars.

This is because, while stock is still subject to the law of supply and demand, either the supply or demand for a stock can change rapidly over the course of a few seconds.

This is really true of just about anything, but in practice the dollar or gold does not change its value because the U.S. government will only print dollars so quickly and there is a near universal demand for them. Gold can only be mined so quickly too, and it also has a universal appeal.

But what would happen if, say, the Chinese government decided to cash in all those U.S. treasury bills it holds, all at once? Or if they just stopped buying them altogether? You'd see a recession in the U.S. that would make the dotcom bubble look like nothing at all.

Re:This was a brilliant purchase

[kabocox]

Google will be the largest media company in the world within 10 years. You heard it here first.

"Media Company" is a bit off. Think media hosting or media distrubition company. Google will do for web delivered video and ads what Nelson does for TV. There was an article that I ran across not to long ago that stated that shows that have about 5-10% of their watchers via Ipod or other video download sources won't have their viewers counted by Nelson. I'll predict that Google will come out with 3-5 simple slightly different video ranking and emmbeded ads that increase profits for ad producers, media content creators (TV, music, and movies), and Google.

Here is a question. Will AOL/TimeWarner buy Google or will Google buy that company?

Re:This was a brilliant purchase

[jZnat]

Hey, money that isn't backed by gold is just like shares in a corporation; we just trust government mints to stay far more stable than public corporations (despite inflation). Therefore, your argument isn't too valid (unless you can point to some currency that is indeed backed by gold or some other [rare, finite] natural resource, and is in wide use).

Physical assets can increase (e.g. house) or decrease (e.g. car) in value, too, so that's not very stable.

Re:This was a brilliant purchase

[psiph]

Google paid 1.5% of the company in stock to purchase YouTube. Google stock jumped 5% on the news. Purchasing YouTube resulted in a profit for Google.

"The number of Google shares to be issued in the transaction will be determined based on the 30-day average closing price two trading days prior to the completion of the acquisition. Both companies have approved the transaction, which is subject to customary closing conditions and is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2006." - Google's Press Release

Re:This was a brilliant purchase

[ChrisFedak]

Google will be the largest media company in the world within 10 years. You heard it here first.

If Google today is willing to spend the equivalent of 1.5 billion dollars aquiring youtube, how long will it be until they start financing the creation of media to put on it? While it isn't in the company mission statement to create media, I would be in the same ballpark as the aquisition of keyhole so that they'd have something to make google earth with.

Re:This was a brilliant purchase

[syousef]

1. Google paid 1.5% of the company in stock to purchase YouTube. Google stock jumped 5% on the news. Purchasing YouTube resulted in a profit for Google.

Someone else called that "bubble math", and they're right. Google's profit hasn't changed. Their value has. If they could sell themselves completely at that price right this minute, that'd be profit.

2. Television as we know it is dieing, and quickly

Rubbish. TV's nowhere near dead. The easy and convenience of picking a channel when you're bored compared to the slog of finding material on the web. Even after bringing back commercials pay TV is thriving. How many people recently told you they were exhausted and were going to just go home and collapse in front of the webcast (vs the tele) ?

3. Media providers were already signing up in ones and twos with YouTube. They will now fall all over themselves to sign up with the web's largest advertising company. ...Or fall over themselves getting in line to sue Google and their competition into oblivion given half a chance. Personally I don't know who's bought which dirty politician so I can't tell you which way it'll go, but if pressed I'd say at least some will try to go the route of sueing.

4. You can't be sued for hosting copyrighted content unless you have been properly notified of your infringement by the copyright holder and ignored it. No legal risk unless you bungle it.

Oh, you mean like this:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060718-7285 .html

5. With media providers signing up with YouTube to host their copyrighted content, there will be more copyrighted content available, at higher quality. You will have to sit through adds, but not as many as when you watch TV, and you can do it at your own schedule.

You really think that copyright material is going to be ad supported only?

Google will be the largest media company in the world within 10 years. You heard it here first.

Your crystal ball is defective, and your ego is inflated. Ever consider becoming a phone psychic?

Much Ado About Nothing

[yankeessuck]

YouTube has profit sharing deals in place with CBS, NBC, UMG, Sony BMG and Warner. It seems to me that media companies would rather cooperate than litigate in this particular case.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Jokes on CBS, NBC, UMG, Sony BMG and Warner: YouTube has no profit. AH HA HA HA HA!!!!!

Re:Actually, the added liability risk makes sense.

[Aqua_boy17]

YouTube is what people want.

...with a huge user base. I could be wrong, but I think this was more about getting that population of web users than about YouTube's content. Only time will tell if it was really a good investment for Google or not.

Not to mention

[jlebrech]

Adwords wont have to pay youtube all that money from now on. I hope IP holders dont get the power to remove spoofs and fanfilms (ie. lucasfilms)

Law does not require them to be proactive

[slughead]

YouTube's policy is to remove copyrighted clips once alerted to their existence. Content providers say the company needs to be even more proactive

The law says otherwise.

Nice try, __AA.

Re:Law does not require them to be proactive

[Miseph]

Can you really blame them though? Seriously, think about it. How cool would it be if, when you were too lazy or apathetic to do your own job, it became somebody else's responsibility? How much cooloer would it be if you still got paid for doing your job? What if any time it doesn't work just right, you can sue the poor shlub who's supposed to do your job for you, and recuperate any losses, real or otherwise, plus damages, just because you didn't want to do your own job, and the other guy didn't do it right? Who wouldn't take that deal if they could?

Re:Law does not require them to be proactive

[slughead]

How cool would it be if, when you were too lazy or apathetic to do your own job, it became somebody else's responsibility? How much cooloer would it be if you still got paid for doing your job?

That's basically what happened when I got an underling at work. Being management rules.

Re:Law does not require them to be proactive

[Anonymous Coward]

The law says otherwise.

"The law" says absolutely nothing about YouTube's policy or their content providers.

You, however, are a retard, and even better, you've recorded it on slashdot for all time! Congrats!

All a question of leverage

[CharonX]

In the end it is all a question of leverage.
If the RIAA or MPAA or whatever had decided to agressively target youtube it would have had to either agree to some quite bad deals (=be neutered) or be dragged to court and taken down (as this kind of ligitation eats money like popcorn)
Now that Google stands behind it things have changed. Google is a heavyweight, both moneywise and in the "importance" sector - being one of the most important companies in searching and advertising and a few other sectors gives you lots of leverage in the industry. Thus RIAA and MPAA know that starting a pissing contest with Google would be quite painful indeed. And trying to out-sue Google would take long, eat lots of money with dubious results.
Thus the "content industry" will most likely try to seek a (for them) good deal with Google - which in turn means that Google there too has quit some leverage in the negotiations.

Not that big of a risk

[cfulmer]

There are two ways in which Google could end up getting in copyright trouble:

1. Direct infringement: somebody posts a video they don't own and the copyright owner sues. This isn't a problem, so long as YouTube adheres to the DMCA notice-and-takedown provisions. The copyright owner sends an email to google, saying "You have my copyrighted content at www.youtube.com/blah/blah/blah. Please remove it," google removes it and no liability.

2. Vicarious infringement: basically, the Sony Betamax/Grokster doctrine: you have this site up there intending for people to post infringing material. So, even though your site may be used for non-infringing purposes, the fact that you intend for it to be used for infringing purposes is enough to make you liaible for vicarious infringement. BUT, google is out signing agreements with all sorts of content owners, trying to populate youtube with legitimate content. In this situation, it hardly seems that their business model relies on infringement.

There will, no doubt, be a few people who try to sue. But, as long as google doesn't mess up, those people will lose.

Quite Brilliant

[echocola]

I think this move is quite brilliant actually. They are going to make a rival to broadcast TV with this move. Copyright issues, I don't think so. The media companies will be paying THEM to host their content. This is going to be the TV of the future with targetted ads for "On Demand" content.

Re:Quite Brilliant

[tehcyder]

This is going to be the TV of the future

Yes, watching low resolution jerky video on a 4 inch wide screen, with continual adverts break, is definitely the wave of the future.

Re:Quite Brilliant

[MrNaz]

Because of course, resolution and bandwidth are not going to improve. They're the same as they were 10 years ago.

Limit to liability

[iambarry]

If Google keeps YouTube as a separate corporation owned by Google, are they insulated from its liability?

If so, wouldn't that cap their losses at the 1.65B they are paying for YouTube?

Re:Limit to liability

[AlXtreme]

If Google keeps YouTube as a separate corporation owned by Google, are they insulated from its liability?

Technically the Google-YouTube deal was a merger, so no.

Re:Actually, the added liability risk makes sense.

[clgoh]

I think this was more about getting that population of web users

I think Google has already pretty much any population of web users...

Not Liable

[omega9]

Google is not, and will not be, liable unless they choose to be.

The way the law currently stands, Google can not be held liable as long as they take sufficient measures to prevent, and react to effeciently remove, illegal (in this case, unlicensed and copyrighted) material. YouTube, now through Google, offers a service to upload and display video on the web. Sure, there are more minor details, but that's really just it. And that's not illegal. Users may choose to upload unlicensed, copyrighted material, but it's only up to Gootube to properly police it.

Some points:

• Remember the crazy business about taxing CD burners and blank discs because they might be used to duplicate copyrighted material? In those cases the penalty is placed on the consumer, not the manufacturer. Nobody went and tried to shutdown Plextor.
• Assuming there are massive copyright issues with YouTube, this deal works out well for both parties, buying them time to figure out how to best deal with it. Google is a well respected company and there's no reason to suspect they won't handle it with good faith. Any judgement brought against them at this point would be stayed until they've had time to deal with it. Think about if you've even been pulled over for expired plates on your car. Even if you get a ticket they most often always clear it if you get your papers in order by the court date.
• YouTube already struck a deal with Warner Brothers and there is talk about the same thing happening with other major labels. Some expect YouTube to become MTV reborn online with labels providing their back catalog of music videos. Have you watched MTV lately? It's certainly not a venue for music videos anymore. And if the lables think they can get more added value from already produced material...
• 'You cannot monetize other people's content without their approval.' - That may be true, but approval is a minor detail. Throw an extra paragraph in the EULA. I don't think Google with take it that way, but it's not a big hump they have to get over. And anyway, take the revenue sharing idea of Revver and combine it with something like Google's adsense.

Welcome to the Death of the Small Inventor

[Anonymous Coward]

What you talk about inveitably allows big business to crush the small inventor simply through throwing its weight around. IP / copyright were created to support the individual, not the business. Regardless of how they are viewed now, they still function in some way in this matter.

Sane copyright / IP law is needed, not a removal of it completely. Reform is needed, not removal.

Anyone who suggests otherwise should have their heads pulled out of their asses, then taken out back and shot. Either that or they haven't produced anything of value in their own life.

Once again, a great example of the excluded middle argument that has no basis in reality and instead is based on some wanted utopia that doesn't exist.

Re:Welcome to the Death of the Small Inventor

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow me be the first to tell you that you're full of shit. IP laws will be the death, and not the life, of the small inventor. There are simply enough larger players with enough capital to patent every concept they come across. Searching through the jungle of patents is going to be less and less possible over time as the larger players ramp up these efforts. Submarine patents will flourish, and so will lawyers. There are also corporations which assert IP rights on their employee's creations in their contracts. Copyright law is being interpreted as a method to control similar creations, not just carbon copies of the original. With the volume of content being created and the direction laws are heading, it isn't going to be possible to create much of anything in the future unless you already own similar IP or are owned by an entity that does.

Reform isn't going to do jack in the case of IP. The people - well, legally they're people - who currently benefit the most do not want reform of any sort unless it fills their coffers. These entities have more control over the laws than you could ever hope to achieve, and will be more than happy to keep tightening down the controls DMCA style until there is no longer such a thing as a small inventor or content creator.

Re:Welcome to the Death of the Small Inventor

[pla]

IP / copyright were created to support the individual, not the business

Thomas Edison held 1,093 patents, AFAIK the record for an individual.

Today, assuming a non-lawyer could write a 100% compliant single-claim application, get it accepted on the first try, and no one ever challenges that patent, it would cost over 1.5 million dollars just to hold that same number for their standard patentable lifetime. That represents a minimum; figures I've seen for the "real" cost of getting and holding a patent come out in the $10k-20k range, and that still assumes no significant challenges to the patent.

Support the individual? Not bloody likely.


Either that or they haven't produced anything of value in their own life.

I code for a living (in part). In my spare time, I code for free and for fun, including (most usefully, and I don't mind bragging a bit) custom data analysis software for four university affiliated research groups in three states.

I already "got mine", and I work a 9-to-5 to keep it (not that I consider work in any way "noble", but I certainly don't think the world owes me a free ride just because of a great idea I had 15 years ago). I don't want yours too, and if you can profit from picking through my garbage, bless you for recycling.



Once again, a great example of the excluded middle argument that has no basis in reality and instead is based on some wanted utopia that doesn't exist.

Please search Google's arguably-copyright-violating database for the phrase "Free and Open Source Software". This particular "utopia" exists to the degree we make it, no more, and no less. Unlike virtually all historical human endeavors, however, once FOSS improves the world - Nothing short of the complete collapse of civilazation can undo that improvement. Not laws, not money, not religions, not bullets.

Re:Welcome to the Death of the Small Inventor

[Anonymous Coward]

"Support the individual? Not bloody likely."

You confuse purpose with implementation.

"I already "got mine", and I work a 9-to-5 to keep it"

And what if someone removed your means to "get yours" to begin with?
But then again your foolish enough to think it only has to deal with you and what you want.

"Free and Open Source Software".

This isn't only about software, the grandparent post said to get rid of all of these things.
What if you are an author? You want someone to copy your work whole and pass it off as their own?
You might be ok with that but who the hell are you to tell me I should be too?

Re:Welcome to the Death of the Small Inventor

[Oligonicella]

First, a big mistake is conflating patents and copyrights. Not the same at all. So all of your skreed about not being for the individual is nonsense. I hold copyrights, many of them. Each time I write something, I get one. Doesn't cost a dime.

Second mistake is made over and over by /.ers. Note: software is not the only damn thing copyright applies to. Horrah for you that you donate software and got a 9-5 writing it. Someone writing a novel does not have that luxury.

Re:Welcome to the Death of the Small Inventor

[pla]

You confuse purpose with implementation.

And communism could work, in theory.

Yes, in an ideal world, some form of extremely limited IP law seems like a good idea. In practice, every exclusionary granting of certain rights and benefits to one person/group over another has rapidly degenerated into a self-perpetuating polarization of "haves" and "have-nots".



And what if someone removed your means to "get yours" to begin with?
[...]
What if you are an author? You want someone to copy your work whole and pass it off as their own?

What, before I wrote it? ;-)

And yes, actually, if I wrote a book and made enough to comfortably retire on, have fun gnawing on the leftovers, it harms me not at all. And if I don't have the popularity of someone like JK Rowling who could retire after her one well-known series (itself massively ripped off from another author, ironically (in the context of this topic) enough)? Then (as I do in reality) I'd damned well better not quit my day job, even if that day job means writing a new book every year or two.



You might be ok with that but who the hell are you to tell me I should be too?

"I" form the culture that you draw 99% of even the most creative and new ideas from; "I" give you an audience to sell to. And even under our current system (at least as intended, if not the farce we have now), "I" have granted you a metacontractual limited monopoly on what you borrowed from my culture, for the purpose of enriching that culture as a form of repayment-with-interest.

You have one, and only one, natural "right" as a petulant means of depriving me of your ideas - Keep them to yourself. If you don't like those terms, don't create. Simple as that.

Re:Welcome to the Death of the Small Inventor

[Anonymous Coward]

"And communism could work, in theory."

Isn't what you suggest a form of communism? A delusion in and of itself that no controls at all are best?
You seem to be placing me at one end of the spectrum rather than in the sane middle.

"you borrowed from my culture"

Who is to say I or anyone else borrowed anything?
Besides the idea that a collective culture can grant rights wholly is B.S. anyways -- sounds rediculously like communism, doesn't it? No individuals.

"You have one, and only one, natural "right" as a petulant means of depriving me of your ideas - Keep them to yourself. If you don't like those terms, don't create. Simple as that."

Who, then, has incentive to create? Don't give me art-for-art's sake, at some point everyone had a patron of some form or another.
Your argument sounds a lot like the burglar who points to the homeowner and says it is their fault for leaving the door open.

Again, I ask you, who are you to deprive me of the freedom to license my work under any agreement I wish?

Certainly you alone by definition can't speak for a "common good".

Re:Welcome to the Death of the Small Inventor

[pla]

First, a big mistake is conflating patents and copyrights. Not the same at all.

They both grant a supposedly-limited monopoly to make use of a created work. They have differing lengths and, at least originally, you needed to take positive steps to obtain both (look up the copyright status of Romero's Night of the Living Dead if you think otherwise).

Both currently require considerable financial resources to successfully defend in court.

As their only real difference, copyright covers the specific expression of an idea, while patents cover the underlying idea itself. On the bright side of this badly-tarnished coin, patents don't last as long (though clever pharmaceutical company lawyers have recently found ways to chain them together to get a few extra years before any generics can hit the market).

So, yes, I lump them into the same fundamentally-broken category.



Horrah for you that you donate software and got a 9-5 writing it. Someone writing a novel does not have that luxury.

Actually, it worked pretty much exactly like that before the current era of copyrights. They called it "patronage", and it produced the bulk of our classic works of literature, music, art, and even the foundations of modern science.

It also produced (and drew from, of course) public domain precedents for later writers, musicians, artists, and scientists. Pyramus and Thisbe begat Romeo and Juliet begat West Side Story; I can't even count how many modern pop songs have part of the two lower-range themes from Pachelbel's Canon as their baseline; Einstein did nothing more impressive than solve Maxwell's dilemma.

Nothing in the context of human culture exists in isolation. Calling something "new" amounts to climbing a mountain one day, then climbing it again six months later and calling it a new mountain - The foliage might have changed, but the mountain hasn't.

Re:Welcome to the Death of the Small Inventor

[pla]

Isn't what you suggest a form of communism?

No. Communism (again, in theory) deals with actual goods, not ideas. If we share a pound of sugar between us, we can't each use the full pound. Communism would say "to each according to his needs" on how best to distribute that physically limited resource. If we share an MP3, however, we can both listen to it at the same time. If we share a library of source code snippets between us, not only can we both use them at the same time, but doing so enables us to write new code faster than one of us alone.



Besides the idea that a collective culture can grant rights wholly is B.S. anyways

Like the right to a limited monopoly for your creative efforts?

I agree with you, here - Thus my point that we really only have one natural right as regards intellectual property, the right not to ever reveal it in the first place.



Who, then, has incentive to create? Don't give me art-for-art's sake, at some point everyone had a patron of some form or another.

I code for the love of coding. My "patron", aka my employer, makes requests concerning the direction of my code-artistic expression; but I don't code to make a buck, I make a buck because I code.

I've known artists and musicians who have told me almost the exact same thing about their own disciplines, so I don't think I extend my own feelings unfairly here. I just can't imagine not coding, I think I'd go crazy not getting the ideas out of my head (though perhaps I could learn some way to compile and run code inside my own head, but I'd consider that as coming pretty close to crazy already). I've found a way to make that pay my bills, but I'd do it in my spare time even if I worked as a stocker at WallyWorld.



Certainly you alone by definition can't speak for a "common good".

I agree completely. But the FP topic didn't read "pla Leaves Google Vulnerable".

I don't speak only for myself here. I speak for millions of active posters of (possibly copyright violating) content on the web, and quite possibly billions of tacitly accepting viewers of that same content.

Re:Welcome to the Death of the Small Inventor

[MrNaz]

You have one, and only one, natural "right" as a petulant means of depriving me of your ideas - Keep them to yourself. If you don't like those terms, don't create. Simple as that.

I haven't heard that point made in such a derisively eloquent manner before. Kudos :)

Re:Welcome to the Death of the Small Inventor

[teh kurisu]

Both currently require considerable financial resources to successfully defend in court.

Wouldn't this indicate that your courts system needs reform, rather than your IP laws?

It's about licensing

[duodave]

You guys are forgetting one very important thing. Google didn't buy YouTube because it's YouTube. Google now has licensing deals with BMG Sony, Universal Music, CBS and Warner Music Group. You can't tell me that's not worth something. You think copyright holders will insist their stuff be taken down when it's competing for licensed video content? Not bloody likely. That's like making an indie film and having it distributed with major studio releases. As a video copyright holder, why would I tell Google to take something down when it's getting the same exposure Sony, Universal and CBS are getting?

Yay anecdotal evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably a regional thing.. everyone I know uses google video.

Everyone I know also uses Firefox. That's gotta mean something. Oh wait, that's right; it doesn't mean anything. I mean, anything other than everyone I know uses Firefox. It implies absolutely nothing about the market or popularity or usability or safety or anything else. And, more importantly, it ignores the MASSIVE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE that points to the other, far more logical conclusions.

Yeah, this is flamebait, I know, but for the love of Jebus, STOP USING ANECDOTES IN ARGUMENTS. Am I the only friggin' Comp Sci person that had to take a logic class and actually remembers what Unrepresentative Sample means? Anecdotes add absolutely nothing to debates. It's almost as useful as saying "My favorite color is blue" when talking about website design.

Re:Yay anecdotal evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a comp science major and I didn't have to take a single logic class, what with it being in the Philosophy department.

However, I am taking logic, for fun. However, I am not a representative sample of all Comp Sci majors, and therefore, an outlier at best.

Anecdotes can be useful in arguments, but 90% of the time people include some type of fallacy with them. (appeal to emotion usually)

Re:Yay anecdotal evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comp sci program wasn't very good then. Mathmatical/boolean logic is absent from your code?

Re:This is about confronting the copyright collect

[Anonymous Coward]

"Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

Except they don't make "the world's information ... universally accessible[sic]". Try and get a hold of their search logs. Try and find out when the last time Eric Schmidt went to a fund raiser. Find out what Google's expecations of their next quarter's profits are. Get a copy of your adwords logs to investigate accusations of click-fraud.

Google isn't interested in making information available. What Google wants is to advertise anywhere anyone might possibly look.

When Google allows me to profit from Google's creations and assets in whatever fashion I so desire (rather than in the limited shared profits that Google desires) then maybe they might be able to argue that they should have the right to profit from my work in their particular fashion.

Doesn't Anyone Know The Law

[logicnazi]

It's been reported on many a story on this subject.

Both google and youtube are protected by the ISP/forum safe harbor provisions. So long as they take down clips when served with a proper notice from the copyright provider (and I think they can choose to fight it instead) then no one can win a judgement against google. At best the content providers can sue the individual uploaders and force google to take the material down.

Now if google was forced to take down all the copyrighted content on youtube this would be seriously damaging to the site's popularity, hence the deals inked with the content providers allowing them to keep the material up on the website.

Moreover, while it is obvious that full music videos, 20 minute long clips of the daily show and similar uploads violate copyright law it is far from clear that the 3 minute long clips from the news or a TV show do. It is quite plausible that such short clips will be deemed to be fair use.

Now most likely google is going to want to play it safe and ink more deals with TV studios to host these short clips and longer ones as well. In fact the real money in this buisness (in addition to ads) is probably going to be selling TV shows and similar material much like iTunes. However, the possibility that short clips would be deemed fair use makes these court casts less appealing to copyright owners unless it is really the case that the clip on gootube is stealing viewers of their show.

Finally note that youtube was valued at 1.6b by the market even knowing all of these issues. It isn't like these were extra facts that affected the price, they were already factored in.

Re:Actually, the added liability risk makes sense.

[BewireNomali]

Is youtube worth more than myspace?

Google wants this battle

[postbigbang]

They want to test all of this in court, where they're already battling the madness of IP on many fronts.

And they have the initial graces of Warner Bros. and likely subsequent candidates for viral videos. Let the lawyers get rich.

It's about money

[paladinwannabe2]

Sony and Universal are getting something like 50% of the Google ad Revenue that their music videos generate for Google (possibly not counting bandwidth fees). Thus, not only are they getting exposure, they are getting money (it's a win-win situation for everyone involved). Naturally, other companies would want a cut of the profits on their own copyrighted material as well. They would probably be fine if it stays up, as long as they get their 'fair share'.

The obvious deterant

[iabervon]

Content providers can insist that Google be more proactive in making sure that their copyrighted work isn't available. But Google could respond by also not listing those providers as highly in searches. They have no legal obligation to not give preferential treatment in search results to people who don't sue them or complain too much (at least until they lose the inevitable anti-trust lawsuit, which will take ages).

Some news sources have asked that they not be quoted on Google News, too, I've heard. I think there were even some that I'd heard of and read at the time, but I can't remember any more what they were...

The internet is a series of youtubes

[Junior J. Junior III]

Personally, I'm more worried about what would happen if Google bought the rest of the internet. As I understand it, this "you-tube" is merely the first in a series of high-profile acquisitions that, once completed, will leave google in sole possession of all our base. While many, for several, might be willing to be the first to welcome their new google overlords, I remain cautiously circumspect.

Collossal, idiotic mistake

[RLiegh]

Google has just removed themselves from the market. Sorry, it's just that simple. First off, they sunk far, far, far more into this money-pit than it could even remotely ever be worth. Second, they have -as has been pointed out- left themselves open for an absolutel insane amount of legal liability -and the pockets of the MPAA run far, far deeper than theirs.

With one unbelievably STUPID purchase, google has done what Microsoft probably could never have done...google has removed google from the game.

It's only a matter of time now.

Re:Collossal, idiotic mistake

[Khyber]

yeeea.. riight. as one poster above pointed out, they paid roughly 1.5% of what they're worth, and damn-near OVERNIGHT saw their stocks rise 5%. That alone was worth it, plus whatever Youtube just had in copyright contracts from media companies NOW BELONGS TO GOOGLE. Add this to Google more likely having more money than the music and movie industries combined, and I say Google could CRUSH them. It's not like Google HAS to allow preferential listing of *AA ads when they could just as easily start advertising indie unsigned bands and artists/film makers and tell the *AA to blow themselves by still advertising, just two or three hundred ranks LOWER. Google will be in control of this situation. You must forget the sheer genius Google has compared to the sheer stupidity the entertainment industry has in their possession.

Re:Collossal, idiotic mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you seriously, for even one second think that that they don't KNOW about the copyright issues?!? You're insane for thinking they don't have a strategy... .

Wait

[/dev/trash]

Like how napster was legal too?

I see it all the time

[phorm]

YouTube seems to contain the world's collection of video clips that would fall under the style of "America's funniest home videos" or "jackass." There are plenty of uncopyrighted clips of people doing stupid things, or particular sports of interest (biking, bogging, snowmobiling, etc). I'm sure there's a lot of copyrighted material, but there's also a lot of other stuff (even if it is kinda lame) that people share amongst friends.

Re:I see it all the time

[Em Adespoton]

There are plenty of uncopyrighted clips of people doing stupid things, or particular sports of interest (biking, bogging, snowmobiling, etc).

The only uncopyrighted works are works that have been placed in the public domain. Just because someone does something stupid doesn't mean that the person who made the video clip doesn't own the copy rights.

What I would like to see is a popularization of placing works in the public domain. Some book publishing houses are actually starting to do this; place the first book in a series in PD after it has made a decent profit, use it to get people into the series. The same could be done in Video, and this would be an excellent way to use YouTube or Google Video.

Re:I see it all the time

[phorm]

Um, what I was trying to indicate is generally those who make the video clips (of themselves/friends doing stupid things) are the ones that post them online. Somebody else might not be able to take said clip and use it elsewhere without breaking copyright, but it's perfectly legit for the person doing the hosting - unless they receive a request by somebody seen in said clip for removal (nudes, embarrassment, and 'star wars kid' type incidents).

Speaking of the Star Wars Kid, imagine if somebody had made a YouTube page on him...

opersys@cnl.tuke.sk

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I like it!
opersys@cnl.tuke.sk

1.65 billion to a 65 person company?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the employees there that had 0.01% or even 0.001% stock options become millionaires/ten-millionaires?

Or did that money only go to the top in the company?

call me a party pooper

[juan2074]

It's a good thing Google just got YouTube for nothing.

How can they make money from this purchase? Maybe they can make some money, but how really different is YouTube than Google Video?

Or did they purchase YouTube to keep someone else from getting the technology?

Re:call me a party pooper

[Bluesman]

Yeah, it sure is a good thing. YouTube has dotcom bubble written all over it.

But this is a smart move for Google. They're an ad company, and they've grabbed a huge new audience. I doubt the people who frequent YouTube are hostile to google, so it's just more eyeballs for their ads.

The best solution?

[zexos]

Here's a great idea! We're all familiar with the image flagging system on MySpace for "innappropriate material". This method enables the flagging of many more pictures than if the administrators were to seek them out themselves. Why not use "copyright flagging" on youtube in the same fashion? No incentive you say? How about a system where each user who flags a video (that ends up conflicting with the copyright) gets a 'license point'. These points can accumulate and later be used to buy copywritten videos from Google Video! In the end it's the ad revenue that pays for these licenses, but if Google wants to be responsible about preemptive measures, getting the userbase to help out seems like the best option from my vantage!

Re:The best solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Youtube already has a system to make nofitications about copyright violations. Good idea though.

--ZOMG

youtube's biggest problem

[cashman73]

The biggest problem, the way I see it, isn't so much the copyright issues. It looks like recently they're working on overcoming that and signing agreements and such to both keep the content freely accessible while at the same time satisfying the greedy bastards that own the content. I have to applaud them for that! They've accomplished what Napster was never really able to do while still maintaining their site's popularity. Youtube is still the best place to go for music videos.

But the biggest problem with Youtube, is probably the fact that lots of things, particularly the copyrighted material, seems to be uploaded in duplicate, triplicate, even quintuplicate. Seriously, if you search Youtube for, "britney Spears hit me baby, one more time," you get at least FOUR IDENTICAL OFFICIAL VIDEOS (as well as a zillion spoofs by others making fun of Britney, which is not the problem here, IMHO). If they're going to sign agreements with getting official, copyrighted content on their site, they've really got to do something about reducing all these damn duplicates!

Oh wait, Slashdot hasn't quite figured that one out, either! Damn.

New Microsoft

[lanevorockz]

Google is going to become the new microsoft, but of the .Net era !! Doing what Microsoft done with the PCs. You Tube doesnt have to be profitable, it's a another google tool for monopoly.

Turns out the market doesn't like it

[EVil Lawyer]

Down 1.32% since yesterday's close.

p.s. : Saying that Google's share rose "$10" on reaction to the news isn't helpful. The relevance of a $10 change is dependant entirely on the share price.

No, the cat does not "got my tongue."

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

On the other hand, YouTube increases Google's risk of copyright infringement, opening the door for significant liability...if Google cannot solve this issue. Will their planned video 'fingerprinting' be enough, or just a billion dollar mistake?"

Reminds me of Yahoo taking over egroups or whatever it was -- a huge, burgeoning message group community. Burgeoning largely because of its easily searchable, content-unrestricted group mechanism. Read: pr0n.

A few weeks later, people complained, and they clamped down on the pr0n. Now it's dead and largely worthless.

Not an artist are ya?

[Spark00]

It seems hypocritcal and draconian to think that if you put some form of art out into the world for people to consume with their personal wealth, that they not be able to do what they want with it as long as citation and reference to the original creator is noted accordingly.

You don't get it. Copyright law has nothing to do with money - and everything to do with money. It is written to say that when an artist creates a work, and put it out for consumption, that's what we get to do - consume it. We don't get to use it as source material (other than through influence) for something else. It makes no difference if the kid in your example profits or not (or even if he CAN profit) because it is not about him or his profit. It is about the original artist. Because the little brat, even if he attributes correctly, is stealing from originators of that song. Not stealing money, but (ask an artist) something worse - his/her good name. Proof of that is in the very reason you'd use someone else's song in your work of art, because it evokes a certain feeling, a sensation, makes people think or feel a way etc. In other words they've done the heavy lifting of creating a work of art that has an effect on people, and you're borrowing the effect and hoping some of it smears off on whatever you've created. It's easy to say "oh that one-hit-wonder should shut up and enjoy the few extra iTMS downloads he's gettin' cos of this exposure." And yah maybe that's so. But should an artist shut up when some former KKK member is running for governor and uses his song as a campaign anthem? Of course not! The same laws that protect that artist and allow him to tell the nazi scumbag to cease and desist lest people thing the singer supports the nazi, allow the one-hit-wonder to tell your exemplar little Johnny to stoppit, and to tell youtube and google to pull that shit down. you are making the same mistake that others do, collapsing two arguments: 1) what do the copyright laws work to protect? 2) what SHOULD artists do with their work to encourage people to continue to enjoy it. The first one is a legal question, the second a philosophical one.

Re:Not an artist are ya?

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

It is written to say that when an artist creates a work, and put it out for consumption, that's what we get to do - consume it. We don't get to use it as source material (other than through influence) for something else.

Bullshit. Copyright law grants exclusive distribution rights to the creator in exchange for the work eventually becoming part of the public domain. People can use the works for whatever they like once they are in the public domain. For example, the copyright on "Night of the Living Dead" expired recently so now the public can use it for whatever purpose they like.

The problem is that content creators are trying to change the rules of the game. They want the public to grant them copyright protection, but don't want to give the public anything in exchange.

Re:Not an artist are ya?

[dangitman]

But should an artist shut up when some former KKK member is running for governor and uses his song as a campaign anthem? Of course not!

Didn't something very similar to that happen recently with the Republicans using Bruce Springsteen's (or someone's) songs without his permission?

Re:Not an artist are ya?

[dangitman]

Bullshit. Copyright law grants exclusive distribution rights to the creator in exchange for the work eventually becoming part of the public domain

How is this comment relevant to songs that are not yet in the public domain? You can't cry "bullshit" when the author you responded to was most likely talking about current tracks, not public domain ones.

The problem is that content creators are trying to change the rules of the game. They want the public to grant them copyright protection, but don't want to give the public anything in exchange.

That's a rather sweeping generalization. Many artists are happy to have their older work fall into the public domain. But in the same way, many consumers aren't holding up their end of the deal. They aren't honoring the exlusivity period and waiting for the songs to become public domain. They are using fresh, new releases that the artist still relies upon for income. It takes two to tango. Those videomakers can easily go and use out-of-copyright music, or royalty-free soundtracks provided for the purpose. But generally, they choose not to.

Re:Not an artist are ya?

[shoemilk]

Ronald Regan used "Born in the USA" for his 1984 campaign, but stopped when the copy right holder, Bruce Springsteen (a Mondale supporter), asked the campaign to stop.

Re:Not an artist are ya?

[dangitman]

No, I mean recently as in 2004 or thereabouts. It may not have been Springsteen.

Re:Not an artist are ya?

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

How is this comment relevant to songs that are not yet in the public domain? You can't cry "bullshit" when the author you responded to was most likely talking about current tracks, not public domain ones.

It's relevant because the person I was quoting was talking about copyright law in general. Here's what he said:

You don't get it. Copyright law has nothing to do with money - and everything to do with money. It is written to say that when an artist creates a work, and put it out for consumption, that's what we get to do - consume it. We don't get to use it as source material (other than through influence) for something else.

That's not what the law says. It says that we get to consume it until the time period for the creator's exclusive distribution rights expires. At that point the work falls into the public domain and can be used by everyone.

That's a rather sweeping generalization.

I don't believe that saying, "the problem is that content creators are trying to change the rules of the game" is a sweeping generalization as I did not say all content creators. Perhaps it would have been more clear had I said, "some content creators"?

Re:Actually, the added liability risk makes sense.

[Chanc_Gorkon]

I was just thinking think of all the labor that would be saved if they just let product placements take over for ads and let any person who wants to post the show on GoogleTube. Does anyone else know of a more efficient method of distribution then a un DRM'd Video posted in a variety of different qualities on P2P networks all by fans of the show within MINUTES of the show ending?? Think about it! They may be able to get GOOD actors instead of the halfwits they have now!

You missed the point

[tacokill]

It's not imaginary value. It's REAL value. As in, you can exchange your shares for real, actual currency. That isn't imaginary at all. Arbitrary (in pricing), yes. Imaginary, no. Stocks are no more imaginary than the dollar bills sitting in your wallet. Both are subject to others placing "value" on them and both are "worth something" as long as people believe they are worth something.

Anyway, the point the GP was making is this: They "spent" 1.5% of their worth and received back 5% of their worth when the stock moved up (as measured by the market capitalization)

This happens all the time in the stock market, especially with lawsuits. You see that a company is being sued for $1B. If they paid it - in cash - tommorrow, it would make the company $1B less valuable, right? Right. Except, when you check the stock the next day, you see it went down $10B in value (amount of daily change x number of shares outstanding).

The smarter ones of us, profit from this difference on a regular basis. Often, in the stock market, perception is MUCH worse than reality. Of course, sometimes, perception is much better than reality (Enron) so do your homework and see how it looks to you. Yea for capitalism and differing viewpoints! Without them, there'd be nobody to bet against you.

I already know google and youtube but ..

[Anonymous Coward]

.. the RIAA?? Never heard of them.

Google and Privacy

[nephridium]

Google has grown from a little search engine provider into the power horse we know today. They have done so by creating or aquiring new applications that people like and use and they continue to improve it. A role model for any company, they use their increasing momentum to create services that benefit their user base (such as providing Gmail users with GBs of free eMail space) while at the same time consolidating their dominance.

This brings us to the flip side of a huge centralized corporate data hub, though. An example to illustrate the problem: Joe Schmoe likes to use many of Google's services, because they are neat and fun to use, nothing wrong with that per se. Joe sets his browser to remember that he's logged in, thus he doesn't need to reenter his password everytime he loads up his Google homepage or checks his Gmail account, it's more convenient that way (and isn't that what the 'remember password' feature is there for?). What this means is: Google is able to (and does) gather a humongous amount of information about him while he's online. Google "knows" what things he's searching for on the net (whether it be viagra, scientific research or just some pictures of cute pets) and at what time he is performing these searches; they "know" his exact current location (logged IP), his entire email correspondence on gMail, what kinds of videos he likes to watch, what kinds of (google) ads he responds to (by clicking on), and even to a certain extend which webpages he visits when.

It's actually quite unnerving how much information (both in terms of quantity and quality) they have about every such user. It would be possible for them to create a more or less accurate psychological profile of an 'active' user cross-reference with what appears to be his/her hobbies, habits, even daily schedules and pinpoint his/her exact location (at work or at home) at any given time he uses one of their increasing number of services. Now who or what is to guarantee this information is not going to fall into the wrong hands? What if a hacker (rogue blackhat, CIA, the Russian FSB or whatever) gains access to critical information stored on Google Servers? What if a corporation like Time Warner buys up Google (and expands its board of directors with less 'ethical' ones)? What if Google chooses to really cooperate with governments to comply with local laws put into place to fight 'dissidents' or 'terrorists'?

My point is: Google has undeniably evolved into a great suite of useful applications. They do us credit, but they could be made to serve Big Brother (or any other evil entity). And what controls are in place to make sure that this at one point in time or another is not going to happen? That they will not turn to the dark side of the force? (scnr ;)

Re:Google and Privacy

[kabocox]

It's actually quite unnerving how much information (both in terms of quantity and quality) they have about every such user. It would be possible for them to create a more or less accurate psychological profile of an 'active' user cross-reference with what appears to be his/her hobbies, habits, even daily schedules and pinpoint his/her exact location (at work or at home) at any given time he uses one of their increasing number of services. Now who or what is to guarantee this information is not going to fall into the wrong hands? What if a hacker (rogue blackhat, CIA, the Russian FSB or whatever) gains access to critical information stored on Google Servers? What if a corporation like Time Warner buys up Google (and expands its board of directors with less 'ethical' ones)? What if Google chooses to really cooperate with governments to comply with local laws put into place to fight 'dissidents' or 'terrorists'?

Just wait for active census. You are actually worried about the wrong company. Google may have the data, but would use it to craft better ads. It's companies like http://www.acxiom.com/ that you really need to worry about. Acxiom has access to all sorts of public data. It'll only be a matter of time until several companies or the government pays them to do something like this. I think of Google's data collection in the same manner as Walmart's data collection. Walmart has the data sitting around of what you buy every purchase. They could come up with an individual or household profile that lists all purchased goods at Walmart. Any one that pays in credit card, debit card, or check should be easy to match up and create a profile. Those that always pay cash would be different, but they have security cameras on all the cashiers and the entrance/exit. In theory they could match up a visual profile of who paid cash.

Here is a better one though, Walmart or other stores could also start tracking you by license plate of the vehicle that you get into. I've seen devices in the $20-$30K range that can already scan license plates and cross check them with a downloaded copy of stolen vehicles from NCIC. Companies don't currently have access to NCIC lookups, but they don't need them. Remember if you pay in credit card, debit card, or check then in theory the company should have a record of your address. They could use that address with the vehicle license plate and if they get vehicle model id down then they could use that to estimate how much disposable income that you have based on the estimated blue book of the car. The price would have to come down to atleast 1/10 of current prices before companies start to think about spying on all their consumers. How long do you think that will take?

Personally, I think that the US government needs to revise its census laws/rules and start working to develop an "active census" to determine the estimated "long form" info on every individual in the US at near real-time. Our founding fathers couldn't envision the tech or the resources that we have today. We could literally start trying and actually have a real-time census within 5-10 years if we really wanted it. The next census may be the classical census, but how long do you think that it will be before either companies or the government develops active census?

Re:Monetise?

[teh kurisu]

I do think it would be a bad thing. Think of your favourite film, and then think about how you would pay for sets, cameras, and computers for special effects. It's possible - look at Star Wreck: In The Pirkinning, but how long did it take to make, and is it really a substitute for every other film you've ever seen? Same goes for any television you may watch - how much of it would get made if you downloaded all, with no advertising?

Do you have a favourite author? Ever waited impatiently for their next novel to come out? A good writer might be able to crank out a book in three months, if they work solidly at it. Most will take roughly a year. Multiply that by at least five if they're working full-time. And if you want it published in print (Sony's eReader hasn't taken off yet), how will you pay for your material and distribution costs?

It's conceivable that the Beatles might have managed to pay for all the instruments and studio recording out of their own pocket, but then there's the outlay of capital necessary if they ever want to tour any further afield than Newcastle.

And then there's the economic argument. Why do you think promoting copyright treaties overseas is a priority for the American government? It's because America exports a vast amount of music, film and television all over the world, and the loss of these industries would severely affect America's economy and trade balance (I'm not American so this doesn't bother me, but I'm guessing that you are).

And for what benefit? So that some people can get stuff for free?

(Man, I forgot about video games. Oh well.)

Re:Monetise?

[pla]

And for what benefit? So that some people can get stuff for free?

I don't want everything for free, in some sort of misguided sense of personal entitlement. I want everything Free, in the RMS sense. You can call that equally misguided if you like, but I have no self-interest motive to that whatsoever. I really honestly see it as better for our culture and our species, if we don't say "Sorry, someone else came up with something too similar five years ago, even though you have the far superior idea". Even if that far superior idea deliberately derives from the previous idea, wouldn't you rather have an HDTV than a B&W tube, despite the relatively tiny incremental difference between the two?

But Free doesn't mean free. I would (and do - I own literally hundreds of CDs I've purchased either at shows or directly from the bands' websites) pay artists for their work, to encourage them to make more, even though I have absolutely no problem finding and downloading the same music for free despite copyright laws. For that matter, most of the lesser-known musicians I enjoy, I found by downloading their material for free before shelling out any cash for their CDs and/or concert.



It's possible - look at Star Wreck: In The Pirkinning, but how long did it take to make, and is it really a substitute for every other film you've ever seen?

I agree, the current copyright system makes it much easier for a lucky few to make it really, really big, thanks to the "kindness" of a major publisher/label/distributor. But on the flip side, how many truly revolutionary ideas got squashed in favor of a (really amazingly bad) sequel to a known moneymaker (eg, Star Trek IV)?

And as for whether or not more would get made to make up for the big-budget productions...

I can't speak for books, but for (visual) art and music, many people don't realize what a HUGE underground community exists. Some suck, some only mediocre, some really good. A tiny fraction of the great ones get "signed" and "make it" (and NOT the "greatest of the great", by any stretch of the imagination - Just a matter of luck beyond a certain level of skill). How would that situation change in the absence of big-daddy-Bertlesman? I really don't have the answer to that, but I can't imagine it as any less fair, to the individual artists. They (the vast majority of unsigned) would all make exactly the same playing clubs and working a day job. And the superstars? We might have more of them who make it a little less overhyped-big. We might have fewer overall. But we wouldn't have BMG to take a cut in either case. And that doesn't really bother me.



I'm not American so this doesn't bother me, but I'm guessing that you are

Yes, true indeed. I live in the US. But as much as it may surprise some people, not all Americans think only of how they can maximize their profit by exploiting others, whether on the national scale, the corporate scale, or just greedily filling our wallets with the suffering of others.

"America" means a set of lines on a globe. I don't give a damn about our economy (and apparently neither does our president - cue rimshot) if it only comes at the expense of the rest of the world. Would I walk away from Omelas? Probably not, as I consider myself a pragmatic idealist (if someone needs to suffer, better that I don't). But that doesn't make it any more right, and if a small sacrifice on my part means a much larger gain for everyone, I see that as just about the greatest "good" realizeable in the world as it exists.

Bad News for People Powered Media???

[Timtimes]

How long before all those corporate contributors (the studios and shirts that are going to be providing the content that people PAY FOR) demand that videos critical of their product or industry are removed? Google buys YouTube and then GE buys Google. We'll get the same sanitized shit we're getting on 300 plus cable channels. Enjoy.

Favorite quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark Cuban: "Anyone who buys that [YouTube] is a moron."

Proving that the actual morons are anyone who listens to Mark Cuban.

From the ppl that bought you the Internet Bubble..

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yesterday's big news was Google's $1.65 billion deal to
  > acquire popular video hosting service YouTube. But will it be a good deal?

"Investors" are so in love with Google their CEO could stand on
a stage grinning and pointing a power drill into his head
and Google would go up another $10.

Ah Investors.

Re:Monetise?

[teh kurisu]

I really honestly see it as better for our culture and our species, if we don't say "Sorry, someone else came up with something too similar five years ago, even though you have the far superior idea".

I think you're talking about patents here, rather than copyright. I'm not going to argue against that, because I'm neutral on that topic - I can appreciate the arguments on both sides. Copyright doesn't prevent you from copying ideas as patents do - you could write a book that is similar in plot, setting etc, and it would be legal - most copyright laws protect the right of parody, even.

For that matter, most of the lesser-known musicians I enjoy, I found by downloading their material for free before shelling out any cash for their CDs and/or concert.

Same here. Most of the music I've bought recently has been from bands I've heard on the tartanpodcast, and if these bands think that will enlarge their fan base, then good for them. I just don't think that that model should be forced upon them.

I think the problem with your proposed model is that it makes life harder for those that 'make it big' at the moment - in that they can't find the funds for the latest commercial-interest special-effects-laden plotless blockbuster - but it doesn't necessarily make anything better for the little guy, who could never break into the mainstream because he couldn't get a record deal. Well, he'll never get that record deal now, he's in the same donations-reliant position he's ever been in. And if you assume that current market forces are in effect giving the people what they want to hear (vs. telling them what they want to hear), then you have to assume that a donations-based industry would result in the same 'making it big' people receiving the donations.

Not Impressive

[dysonlu]

"Google paid 1.5% of the company in stock to purchase YouTube. Google stock jumped 5% on the news. Purchasing YouTube resulted in a profit for Google."

That's hardly impressive. I made a 2% profit for doing nothing today: my stocks portfolio jumped 2% in value. I love this kind of math.

Finnish media company mulls suing YouTube

[Mr Europe]

TheInquirer.net writes
"Finnish media company mulls suing YouTube"

But it doesn't tell the interesting backgound:
The media company is YLE, the Finlands national public service broadcasting company)
and it's Director General is an ex-Microsoft Manager. Mikael Jungner started in YLE May 1st, 2005.

YLE started accusations against YouTube just after Google bought it.
Coincidence ?

YLE has already collected negative points by creating it's own media archive and argueing falsely that it does work only in Windows Media Player.

That won't solve advertisers current problems.

[WK1]

It could be contextual, just like Google's text ads. For instance, a 17 year old girl watching Friends. The computer knows about her, and so CLIENT SIDE she recieves a video stream and then her video client injects into the spots the various ads (say a little package on the counter, green screened) that are custom tailored to her. Locality, previous search history and more are taken into account. In her neighbor's house, a 20 year old male watches the same show. Because of different preferences, the label on a beer can changes and the makeup package is never changed. Etc.

If it is done client side, then an alternate, FOSS-type client would be created that doesn't add the ads, or makes it optional.

Also, it sounds too subtle. Never forget, television viewers are a network's secondary customers. These customers are only aquired to feed the network's primary customers, the advertisers. If the audience multiplies by ten at the same time ad revenues cut in half, then at the end of the day, the network needs only to find out why ad revenue decreased, and fixing that is a priority above everything else.