Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube's Plans for a Google-Owned Future

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the here's-hoping-for-the-deal dept.

eldavojohn writes "Reuters is reporting on Time Warner's approach to YouTube's copyright problems. There has been much speculation that Google will be sued immediately over copyrighted material on YouTube but this is a case of Time Warner actually approaching Google to work out a deal on this issue. It appears artists and labels will have the choice when digging into Google's pockets either through a business deal or lawsuit. Which will they pick?" Meanwhile, the AP is reporting on the possible development of a technology to automatically screen content as it is posted to YouTube, which may sidestep some of these issues and disappoint users.

7 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Hot air buys more hot air by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Quite frankly, I still fail to see how Google can have such a huge market cap. But I'll admit I'm not much of a business guy, perhaps their revenue streams from advertising, selling search services of various kinds and other services are enough to justify it, but still, Google is and has always looked like a huge Enron-type sort of operation.

    But Youtube? these guys, I just have no idea how it can be worth anything at all. I have a feeling the Google emperor truly has no clothes at all...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Hot air buys more hot air by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Their revenue last year was 6.1 billion dollars. That makes their market cap only about 20x revenue, which is a very resonable number in any book, and simmilar to MSFT and eBay and most other large companies

      As for YouTube - while it was private at the itme of sale, it *was* selling ads, and lots of people close to the inside said it was actually turning a profit. This is a rarety for a web start-up nowadays.

      POersonally, I thin kif anyone can monetize YouTube quickley, it';s Google. They already have partnerships with Viacom and MTV to sell content via Google Video, so moving those deals over to their YouTube site should be a walk in the park. Combine pay-for content with Google's ability to place relevant ads by the video, and they have a win-win.

    2. Re:Hot air buys more hot air by gregorio · · Score: 4, Informative
      Their revenue last year was 6.1 billion dollars. That makes their market cap only about 20x revenue, which is a very resonable number in any book, and simmilar to MSFT and eBay and most other large companies
      What matters is their P/E: Google has a ~62 P/E while Microsoft has a ~24 P/E. Income does not matter, it's the earnings that do matter.

      Still, if you look only at the earnings, you'll have a ~21 ratio for Google and a ~6.5 ratio for Microsoft. A huge difference.
  2. what? Google had its own video too? Really? by krell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Google has already been providing a flash based user submitted video service through google video. Why does adding youtube to the google empire change anything?"

    Google has online video just as Lycos.com has web based email. It really doesn't matter. Youtube is "it", the one with critical mass, the one everyone goes to first. Youtube is to online video what eBay is to online auctions.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  3. Are they going to change the available formats? by also-rr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the good things about youtube is that they have stuck with Flash 7, so at least Linux users *can* watch the videos. Still, it would be nice to see an open format option - and Google Video does offer some other formats.

    At least if they move to Flash 9 it works on Linux by either running IE6 or Firefox under WINE until the Linux flash 9 release but it's not the slickest way of doing it.

    --
    Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
  4. I'll believe it when I see it by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Informative

    It appears artists.... will have the choice when digging into Google's pockets either through a business deal or lawsuit. Which will they pick?

    The first time an individual sues Google over YouTube content or makes a business deal for YouTube content, I want someone to e-mail me. My e-mail is John@TheLysts.com (yeah bots, pick my e-mail up. It's all over the place. I use Gmail so you're no problem for me). I say this because I doubt very much any individual content creator will be able to broker a deal with Google without going through a proxy. The fact the slashdot summary says artists will have a choice is just ridiculous. Artists have a choice of what company they sell their rights to. They don't have a choice about sueing Google or making deals with Google (except for future ones who can factor that in when selecting what company to go with).

  5. The record companies just don't get it! by Pollux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It appears artists and labels will have the choice when digging into Google's pockets either through a business deal or lawsuit. Which will they pick?"

    If I was a musical artist, and I discovered one of my songs in a YouTube video that had a million views, I would write a letter of personal thanks to YouTube for promoting my song! Where else am I going to get that widespread promotion without hiring a record company to help negotiate with Big Radio? And besides, even with a really good hit record, record companies have to pay to play and promote almost anything now days. But YouTube is completely free. You can't get a better deal than that.

    But unfortunately, record companies have always been like hawks seeking their prey, and a million song views in their eyes is like a million field mice all waiting to be swooped down on. A million views means a lot of royalty money that could be earned if royalty deals were in place. They control music distribution via radio, TV, movies...but darn that blasted internet.