Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?