Over 30 readers wrote about Google's purchase of YouTube today for $1.65 Billion, as rumored last week. The all-stock transaction is the single largest purchase in the company's 8-year history. The move follows on the heels of Google's convincing Sony and Warner Music to put music videos online for free. Reportedly, YouTube will retain its brand and all its 67 employees, including co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen.
That's funny, I had a quick discussion with my co-workers too, and they were of the mind TEN MINUTES AGO [slashdot.org] that Google needs the following:
a. the users and more importantly b. the usage pattern of these users
While google has been picking up little things here and there, essentially this is google's first real "social networking" site that they have purchased. I say it in quotes because youtube isn't really a social networking site, but there are certainly aspects of it that cannot be denied.
I say youtube lucked out and google really made a stupid purchase, it appears to me like it was an attrition attempt against the competition in internet space (yahoo? microsoft? myspace? - whoever they think their competition is atm, because I can't tell). I don't know.. I'm curious to see where this goes. Google definately wants to go into the multimedia distribution area, that's for sure. How they go about doing it, we'll have to see..
-----
Are you a script? If so you should be changed to reply coherently to replies in your thread, that would be more entertaining. Simply copying posts is a bit dull don't you think?
They didn't actually purchase it with $1.65bn of money though - it was a stock transaction. So Google used its massively overvalued stock to buy a massively overvalued YouTube - so all in all, it sort of nicely cancels itself out:-)
SO glad that YouTube will now be sheltered by "the good guys"... assuming they stay the good guys *cautious glance over shoulder*
I'm more than happy with that. At least now Youtube will have Google Adsense ads rather than Myspaces "epileptic punch the monkey you win a frigging iPod PS3 viagra sweepstakes" flash banner ads with 400 double click pop ups and unders.
I see it a little differently. Some modern ads have become so obnoxios that you just can't sit through them. Some are just annoyingly loud with horrible, harsh music or speech, or quickly flash 47 mini video clips in 15 seconds giving you an instant headache... I suppose the ad agency thought they were doing an attention grabber, but instead they have evoked an instant hatred of whatever product was being advertized. On the web, is there anyone that doesn't have a total hatred of X10?
Use tactful, creative, intelligent ads that are non-intrusive and I won't be blocking / skipping them.
I was watching a football game this sunday and saw an ad for a car that was done up like a drug ad - guy who is normally clostraphobic in small cars finds the new car roomy enough - at the end he goes into a field of wildflowers with a puppy and the model name of the car is shown with the MPG shown in small print much like drugs show the dosage. It was whitty, creative, and not obnoxious at all. I actually backed it up with Tivo and showed it to my wife who also got a kick out of it.
well the mpaa and riaa might have been itching to pick on poor little youtube but do they wanna pick a fight with google? i expect google will force these companies to deal with it and accept the internet isn't gonna go away (and share some ad revenue)
i expect google will force these companies to deal with it and accept the internet isn't gonna go away (and share some ad revenue)
That's one possible outcome. Another is that Google, already treading a very fine line with several of its existing offerings, has just taken a step too far and is about to be slapped down hard.
If I were a betting man, I would actually bet against Google on this one. Admittedly, that is partly because I don't like the way they've started taking liberties with others' work and assuming something is OK as long as they're the guys doing it. But mainly, it's objective analysis: Google have some good products, but they have little that's unique, and none of their big revenue generators has a great barrier to entry. They're currently target number one for several other big tech firms, and fighting on all fronts, and I'm sure Sun Tzu had something to say about the wisdom of that approach.
Google has outgrown any organization like RIAA or MPAA.
Its on the leading edge of internet progress.
Internet, is, 'people'.
Noone can fight against people. Google owning youtube will be a catalyst factor in getting the dinasours realize that we are living in a new world, and pushing the whole WORLD's people for anything outdated is folly at best.
This will remove one of the 2-3 factors hampering the 'new age' if you will.
And what are they going to be sued under? I mean, the DMCA says that a copyright owner cannot sue until (1)they have submitted a takedown request to Google (formerly Youtube), and (2)Google fails to take the copyrighted material down. For information, read this [copyright.gov] (PDF), a secondary source of law about the DMCA, with analysis. In particular, read the section at the bottom of page 9 entitled Eligibility for Limitations Generally. To my understanding, Google qualifies as a "service provider" under this definition (the definition is in the section, so don't assume it is equivalent to "ISP"). There are 2 things Google has to accomplish: (1)adopt a policy of terminating the accounts of repeat infringers, and (2)not make it difficult for copyright owners to identify and protect their works. Thus, as long as Google (formerly Youtube) has a formal takedown policy upon notification by the copyright owner, they are compliant. And here's a ProTip: Youtube was compliant; they just did not have the financing to battle frivolous suits in court. Google, on the other hand, has very, very deep pockets to fight suits like this. Furthermore, Google seems to be fine under Limitation for Transitory Communications (page 10) as well.
Even if you consider all I just posted to be weak defense, the kicker begins on page 11: Limitation for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users. Google meets all three requirements:
Google must not have "requisite level knowledge of the infringing activity. Examining what this means (page 12), we see that, because there are so many files on Youtube, they cannot have this type of knowledge (unless, of course, during discovery, a corporate memo was found which cited a specific infringing video that, after the fact, was never removed), which must be knowledge of a specific infringing file, not that infringement is occurring in general.
If Google has the right and ability to control the infringing activity then (halt this boolean, we do not need to know the antecedent since it already evaluates to False: Google cannot monitor the millions of files placed on what was Youtube)
"Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, [Google] must expeditiously take down or block access to the material" - Youtube did this, as evidenced by the many times Lazy Sunday was taken off Youtube at NBC's request (note that Youtube was never sued for this activity)
Google also has an agent filed with the Copyright Office to receive infringement claims: here [copyright.gov] (PDF). As a sidenote, it's refreshing to see that a corporation has filed handwritten documents with the Copyright Office; kind of gives them character (or an air of sloppiness?).
The bubble will burst on this purchase. There's too much copyright infringement going on @ Youtube.
And more importantly, now there is someone to sue. Someone with lots and lots of money, so all those $200K per infringement civil awards actually have a chance of being paid out. Watch for Hollywood to their absolute damndest to take Google's IPO money the same way the RIAA took mp3.com's $200M of IPO cash.
Actually, with Google's deep pockets, there is NO chance that the awards will ever be paid out. You seem to have missed U.S. vs Microsoft: given sufficiently deep pockets, you can keep a case alive and churning through the legal morass of the court system indefinitely.
Prediction-the-first: this will be settled out-of-court, and along the lines of a statutory license. Prediction-the-second: you will watch GoogleTV, and the copyright holders will love you for it. Prediction-the-third: in the face of TiVo-enabled departures from a supportable advertising model, traditional TV broadcasting will end up losing out since Google will be able to provide exact viewer measurements and demographics and be able to target the most coveted consumer groups.
If I understood the situation correctly, Google bought YouTube - among other things - to prevent others from buying it and gaining (more) advantage in the field.
Furthermore, it is not the first product they've bought either.
Google isn't afraid of buying things, so I don't know what you are talking about. Google bought a satellite mapping company, an online spreadsheet program, an online word processing program, and a photo management program. It looks like they bought Blogger too. They might have bought SketchUp. The weird thing is that Google didn't already have a service or program for most of the other purchases, this time they already had their Video service but bought YouTube anyway. I think that's a more clear way of
no way, this bubble is way different. This time, instead of being unprofitable while hoping to strike it rich with any IPO, companies are unprofitable and hope to be bought out by Google.
Everyone learned from the last time, obviously the stock market is untrustworthy.
Hey google, Thats 24 million dollars each isn't it? I'm a one man company, but you can buy my company (www.positech.co.uk) for just $15 million. Give me a call, or just drop me an email guys. That figure is negotiable too.
Even though they say "YouTube will retain its distinct brand identity" I wonder how much integration they will eventually do with Google Video. Will YouTube videos be search-able on Google Video, for example? Google is usually good at not integrating just for the sake of integrating. For example, Google Analytics still uses a Flash based map instead of the Google Maps API.
IMHO that was an example of why Google *should* integrate.
I wasn't necessarily saying that they should or shouldn't have used the Google Maps API, just giving an example of where, from a strictly technological point of view, it would have made sense to integrate but they chose not to integrate for whatever reason. I'm guessing that all of the Urchin users that were switched over to Google Analytics have an expectation as to how that feature works and Google wanted to be cautious about changing a feature ou
I know some people won't get why they did this, or how Google will make money from YouTube. I will explain:
First, Google makes money through advertisement. Currently simple text banner ads. But a quick look at other sites will show you a growing interest in video ads. YouTube has a lot of visitors, and if Google plays this correctly they can make more advertisement dollars.
Secondly, YouTube signed some nice contracts with the likes of CBS and two music labels.
I expect it was the contracts more than anything that justified the price. The original purpose though, was almost certainly to consolidate the two biggest video players into one. That said, the only reason this happened at all was because it was an all-stock deal. Google's stock was at around $430 today, which a lot of people seem to think is still over-valued, especially by people within Google. If the internal Google people think their own stock is over-valued, it makes sense for them to try to get the most out of it while it's still high.
None of which explains why Google thinks YouTube is worth $1.65 Billion. There are a lot of big profitable high-tech companies that aren't worth that much. Selling text ads? They don't need to buy the company to do that. Selling video ads? They have their own video technology.
Not that it matters. Google can spend its money its money the way it wants, because it has more than it knows what to do with, and because its stockholders are shut out of corporate decision making. So it can buy companies that have no hope of contributing to the bottom line (Picassa, Outride, lots of blogging and social networking providers). It can hire lots of talented people. (And not so talented. Some of the people who've gone there recently are better at self-hype than actually making stuff.) And it can do this without any concern about making money.
Why is this bad? Because you have a lot of money, resources, and talent being used to subsidize what amounts to high-tech masturbation. Google gets bigger and bigger, and yet they release very few new products. And the products they do release stay in beta mode forever.
And please, don't try to tell me that "beta" is just a marketing or legal gimmick. Products like gmail, Google Groups, and Google Maps have lots of cool features, sure. But they're unpolished, inconsistently implemented, and very poorly documented. But most of all, they lack the boring little features that separate a toy project from a a real product.
Financially, Google is big success. But when it comes to pushing technological progress, they're a ship without a rudder. A very fancy ship, mind you, with free gourmet meals for the crew, and lots of conveniences and gadgets. But where is ship going. Nobody seems to know.
This IMHO probably spells doom for a large percentage of content on YouTube. I for one, used to find it useful to catch up with some good scenes from say, the newest episode of SouthPark without having to wait for a rerun.
True, Warner has embraced it's content for ad revenue, but I'm sure Youtube was treading on a thin edge, and would've had their a55es sued sooner or later.
This will just expedite the inevitable, and I expect Google to quickly unpublish most (C) content to save their a55es. That'll probably reduce it to what Google Videos is right now, fun, but with very limited content.
Goodbye, Youtube, it was a good run while it lasted.
Deep Pockets (TM) invite lawsuits ~GillBates (2006)
I keep seeing all these comments about "copyright violations" on youtube... is a 5 minute daily show clip a copyright violation? Is there such a thing as fair use? Does youtube (now google) have some sort of common carrier for video defense they could claim?
I'd like to see some serious commentary on this, and not just the assumption that youtube voilates copyright. I spend probably and hour a week watching stuff on youtube, and I'm sure over 95% of what I see does NOT violate any copyrights.
IANAL, but I'm taking Computers and the Law, a course at my university about these matters.
The length of a clip is not the only thing that matters in claiming fair use: also important is the importance of the clip in regard to the entire work, whether the original work is more factual or more creative, and what effect the use of the clip will have on the saleability of the work as a whole. It actually cannot be known whether using a copyrighted material falls under fair use until one is sued over that material and goes to court for it, as fair use is up to a court to decide.
Also, even if the clips' being posted on YouTube violates copyright law, YouTube likely isn't liable for first-party violation, as they did not make the copies themselves, and they might not be liable for 2nd or 3rd party copyright violation if they can prove that they did not market YouTube as a place for copyrighted works to be posted by those who do not hold the copyright, and if they can show that they took appropriate measures to remove materials in violation of copyright.
However, it is best to assume that any material you see on YouTube that was not posted by the author IS in violation of copyright, as there have been no rulings in this regard, and unless an author specifically gives up his copyright or publishes the works under an open license (which still lets him retain copyright, but lets others use and distribute the work as well), then he has the right to sue for infringement, and YouTube will at very least be required to take the work down if they cannot prove fair use or de minimus (least possible to make a point) use of the materials, or that the work was in the public domain.
So, how are you so sure that the content does not violate the authors' copyrights?
1.65 you say? Why keep working -- that's just shy of 25 million dollars in stock per employee. I'd cut and run. Wouldn't you?
Why stick with a company that has a potentially uncertain future, when you can go and start doing whatever you want (founding various cool companies that might be even better), or simply go do charity work.
What makes you think that the stock is evenly distributed among all the employees? Don't forget that the VC firm also has a big chunk of it (quite possibly the largest chunk). After that, the founders will have the lion's share.
Anyhow, they can't just sell the stock and run. They'll have to wait some specific amount of time before being able to sell.
Is it because Google fumbled around trying to implement some sort of open-standards solution while YouTube built up a userbase with the corporate controlled but much more user friendly Flash format? (Egad, it even uses patented video codecs that Macromedia licensed!)
Keep in mind that Google is not paying dollars -- they are trading Google stock for YouTube stock. So even though $1.65b is a scary number, what you should be asking yourself is not whether YT is worth $1.65b, but whether it is worth 1.25% of Google.
Although I disagree with this long term, what most people haven't realized is that Google got YouTube for free. On news they might buy last week, their stock rose ~2%. It rose even more today with more news and will probably raise a bit more tomorrow. So, 1.65 billion in stock was given away which is something like 1.5% of the company. If they just increased the companies worth by 5%, did they not just make a profit buy "buying" this company?
Long term it might not turn out that way, but annually this is great.
OK, I'm seeing a lot of posts calling this acquisition "stupid" and i'm seeing the word "bubble" a lot. Now, many of these posters may know exactly what they are talking about, they may be far more informed about the business prospects of both companies than I am.
But if you just say "this is stupid" without any analysis of the future earnings of these businesses, you are adding nothing to the discussion.
Consider the following: Google is paying approx. 3.85 million shares of Google for YouTube. What is the value of those shares? Probably less than you think. What kind of competitive advantage does google have to justify such a high P/E ratio? They have the smartest technical people in the valley, and a great culture, those have to be worth something. But I'd argue that thy aren't worth $430 a share. What happens to google.com's traffic once people start using MSN search by default in the IE7 search box? Well, I can't tell you exactly what will happen, but I've got a decent guess. It'll PROBABLY GO DOWN, at least the growth rate. Does this sound like a company that is worth 62 times earnings ($130b by market value)?
I'd argue that if there's a bubble here, it's probably in the price of Google, not the price of YouTube. These things are hard to predict because you don't know exactly how the technology, and the underlying social dynamics of the users, will play out. And yes, the legal issues are thorny and I don't feel qualified to analyze those (though I'm sure Google's lawyers are more than qualified to). But i'd argue that Google ought to be making MORE acquisitons with its stock, not fewer.
Surprisingly, I found Google Video's search capablities lacking compared to YouTube's. Google Video searches exactly what you're looking for, with no variations. YouTube is a little bit smarter, it can perform keyword branching, which surprisingly works very well for video searches. (When I'm searching for boobies, I don't care if it's one or many boobies they're showing.)
So Google is going to become... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So Google is going to become... (Score:4, Funny)
Strangely enough, though, they're still in beta.
Parent
Re:So Google is going to become... (Score:5, Funny)
eww.
Parent
Re:So Google is going to become... (Score:5, Funny)
This shit is funny. GooTube in Hindi literary means asshole.
Goo --> Shit
Tube --> Tube
GooTube --> Tube from where you shit
Sorry, I am drunk on monday afternoon
Parent
Outsourcing? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
A discussion other people just had (Score:5, Informative)
a. the users and more importantly
b. the usage pattern of these users
While google has been picking up little things here and there, essentially this is google's first real "social networking" site that they have purchased. I say it in quotes because youtube isn't really a social networking site, but there are certainly aspects of it that cannot be denied.
I say youtube lucked out and google really made a stupid purchase, it appears to me like it was an attrition attempt against the competition in internet space (yahoo? microsoft? myspace? - whoever they think their competition is atm, because I can't tell). I don't know.. I'm curious to see where this goes. Google definately wants to go into the multimedia distribution area, that's for sure. How they go about doing it, we'll have to see..
-----
Are you a script? If so you should be changed to reply coherently to replies in your thread, that would be more entertaining. Simply copying posts is a bit dull don't you think?
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=199747&
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=199747&
Parent
Re:A discussion other people just had (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
YouTube not evil! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:YouTube not evil! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm more than happy with that. At least now Youtube will have Google Adsense ads rather than Myspaces "epileptic punch the monkey you win a frigging iPod PS3 viagra sweepstakes" flash banner ads with 400 double click pop ups and unders.
Parent
Re:YouTube not evil! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:YouTube not evil! (Score:4, Insightful)
Use tactful, creative, intelligent ads that are non-intrusive and I won't be blocking / skipping them.
I was watching a football game this sunday and saw an ad for a car that was done up like a drug ad - guy who is normally clostraphobic in small cars finds the new car roomy enough - at the end he goes into a field of wildflowers with a puppy and the model name of the car is shown with the MPG shown in small print much like drugs show the dosage. It was whitty, creative, and not obnoxious at all. I actually backed it up with Tivo and showed it to my wife who also got a kick out of it.
Parent
cool (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:cool (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Hmmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Blockquoth the AC:
That's one possible outcome. Another is that Google, already treading a very fine line with several of its existing offerings, has just taken a step too far and is about to be slapped down hard.
If I were a betting man, I would actually bet against Google on this one. Admittedly, that is partly because I don't like the way they've started taking liberties with others' work and assuming something is OK as long as they're the guys doing it. But mainly, it's objective analysis: Google have some good products, but they have little that's unique, and none of their big revenue generators has a great barrier to entry. They're currently target number one for several other big tech firms, and fighting on all fronts, and I'm sure Sun Tzu had something to say about the wisdom of that approach.
Parent
Re:Hmmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Its on the leading edge of internet progress.
Internet, is, 'people'.
Noone can fight against people. Google owning youtube will be a catalyst factor in getting the dinasours realize that we are living in a new world, and pushing the whole WORLD's people for anything outdated is folly at best.
This will remove one of the 2-3 factors hampering the 'new age' if you will.
Parent
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Informative)
Even if you consider all I just posted to be weak defense, the kicker begins on page 11: Limitation for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users. Google meets all three requirements:
- Google must not have "requisite level knowledge of the infringing activity. Examining what this means (page 12), we see that, because there are so many files on Youtube, they cannot have this type of knowledge (unless, of course, during discovery, a corporate memo was found which cited a specific infringing video that, after the fact, was never removed), which must be knowledge of a specific infringing file, not that infringement is occurring in general.
- If Google has the right and ability to control the infringing activity then (halt this boolean, we do not need to know the antecedent since it already evaluates to False: Google cannot monitor the millions of files placed on what was Youtube)
- "Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, [Google] must expeditiously take down or block access to the material" - Youtube did this, as evidenced by the many times Lazy Sunday was taken off Youtube at NBC's request (note that Youtube was never sued for this activity)
Google also has an agent filed with the Copyright Office to receive infringement claims: here [copyright.gov] (PDF). As a sidenote, it's refreshing to see that a corporation has filed handwritten documents with the Copyright Office; kind of gives them character (or an air of sloppiness?).Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean Google's images, cache, and even video doesn't run into the same problems?
I think it is safe to safe Google has enough IP lawyers and knowhow to take care of any problems they run into.
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
And more importantly, now there is someone to sue. Someone with lots and lots of money, so all those $200K per infringement civil awards actually have a chance of being paid out. Watch for Hollywood to their absolute damndest to take Google's IPO money the same way the RIAA took mp3.com's $200M of IPO cash.
Parent
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Prediction-the-first: this will be settled out-of-court, and along the lines of a statutory license.
Prediction-the-second: you will watch GoogleTV, and the copyright holders will love you for it.
Prediction-the-third: in the face of TiVo-enabled departures from a supportable advertising model, traditional TV broadcasting will end up losing out since Google will be able to provide exact viewer measurements and demographics and be able to target the most coveted consumer groups.
Parent
So ungoogle (Score:5, Interesting)
Google is jumping the shark.
Re:So ungoogle (Score:4, Informative)
If I understood the situation correctly, Google bought YouTube - among other things - to prevent others from buying it and gaining (more) advantage in the field.
Furthermore, it is not the first product they've bought either.
Parent
Re:So ungoogle (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Google bought a satellite mapping company, an online spreadsheet program, an online word processing program, and a photo management program. It looks like they bought Blogger too. They might have bought SketchUp. The weird thing is that Google didn't already have a service or program for most of the other purchases, this time they already had their Video service but bought YouTube anyway. I think that's a more clear way of
Ill Go Ahead and Say it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ill Go Ahead and Say it (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone learned from the last time, obviously the stock market is untrustworthy.
Parent
At that rate, does google want a game company? (Score:5, Funny)
Give me a call, or just drop me an email guys. That figure is negotiable too.
Integration with Google Video? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't necessarily saying that they should or shouldn't have used the Google Maps API, just giving an example of where, from a strictly technological point of view, it would have made sense to integrate but they chose not to integrate for whatever reason. I'm guessing that all of the Urchin users that were switched over to Google Analytics have an expectation as to how that feature works and Google wanted to be cautious about changing a feature ou
Good buy for Google (Score:5, Insightful)
First, Google makes money through advertisement. Currently simple text banner ads. But a quick look at other sites will show you a growing interest in video ads. YouTube has a lot of visitors, and if Google plays this correctly they can make more advertisement dollars.
Secondly, YouTube signed some nice contracts with the likes of CBS and two music labels.
Re:Good buy for Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Golden Google (Score:5, Interesting)
None of which explains why Google thinks YouTube is worth $1.65 Billion. There are a lot of big profitable high-tech companies that aren't worth that much. Selling text ads? They don't need to buy the company to do that. Selling video ads? They have their own video technology.
Not that it matters. Google can spend its money its money the way it wants, because it has more than it knows what to do with, and because its stockholders are shut out of corporate decision making. So it can buy companies that have no hope of contributing to the bottom line (Picassa, Outride, lots of blogging and social networking providers). It can hire lots of talented people. (And not so talented. Some of the people who've gone there recently are better at self-hype than actually making stuff.) And it can do this without any concern about making money.
Why is this bad? Because you have a lot of money, resources, and talent being used to subsidize what amounts to high-tech masturbation. Google gets bigger and bigger, and yet they release very few new products. And the products they do release stay in beta mode forever.
And please, don't try to tell me that "beta" is just a marketing or legal gimmick. Products like gmail, Google Groups, and Google Maps have lots of cool features, sure. But they're unpolished, inconsistently implemented, and very poorly documented. But most of all, they lack the boring little features that separate a toy project from a a real product.
Financially, Google is big success. But when it comes to pushing technological progress, they're a ship without a rudder. A very fancy ship, mind you, with free gourmet meals for the crew, and lots of conveniences and gadgets. But where is ship going. Nobody seems to know.
Parent
There goes 50% of Youtube content (Score:4, Interesting)
True, Warner has embraced it's content for ad revenue, but I'm sure Youtube was treading on a thin edge, and would've had their a55es sued sooner or later.
This will just expedite the inevitable, and I expect Google to quickly unpublish most (C) content to save their a55es. That'll probably reduce it to what Google Videos is right now, fun, but with very limited content.
Goodbye, Youtube, it was a good run while it lasted.
Deep Pockets (TM) invite lawsuits ~GillBates (2006)
Explain to me... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd like to see some serious commentary on this, and not just the assumption that youtube voilates copyright. I spend probably and hour a week watching stuff on youtube, and I'm sure over 95% of what I see does NOT violate any copyrights.
Re:Explain to me... (Score:5, Informative)
The length of a clip is not the only thing that matters in claiming fair use: also important is the importance of the clip in regard to the entire work, whether the original work is more factual or more creative, and what effect the use of the clip will have on the saleability of the work as a whole. It actually cannot be known whether using a copyrighted material falls under fair use until one is sued over that material and goes to court for it, as fair use is up to a court to decide.
Also, even if the clips' being posted on YouTube violates copyright law, YouTube likely isn't liable for first-party violation, as they did not make the copies themselves, and they might not be liable for 2nd or 3rd party copyright violation if they can prove that they did not market YouTube as a place for copyrighted works to be posted by those who do not hold the copyright, and if they can show that they took appropriate measures to remove materials in violation of copyright.
However, it is best to assume that any material you see on YouTube that was not posted by the author IS in violation of copyright, as there have been no rulings in this regard, and unless an author specifically gives up his copyright or publishes the works under an open license (which still lets him retain copyright, but lets others use and distribute the work as well), then he has the right to sue for infringement, and YouTube will at very least be required to take the work down if they cannot prove fair use or de minimus (least possible to make a point) use of the materials, or that the work was in the public domain.
So, how are you so sure that the content does not violate the authors' copyrights?
Parent
1.65 billyun. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why stick with a company that has a potentially uncertain future, when you can go and start doing whatever you want (founding various cool companies that might be even better), or simply go do charity work.
Re:1.65 billyun. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:1.65 billyun. (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyhow, they can't just sell the stock and run. They'll have to wait some specific amount of time before being able to sell.
Parent
Why did YouTube take the lead? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's at least part of the answer.
Ouch Slashdot. $1.65 Billion. Ouch.
Re:Why did YouTube take the lead? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
google (Score:5, Funny)
Too, I wonder how google will integrate the two.
$1.65 billion IN STOCK (Score:5, Insightful)
Google made money on this (Score:5, Insightful)
Long term it might not turn out that way, but annually this is great.
"Stupid?" Please justify. (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you just say "this is stupid" without any analysis of the future earnings of these businesses, you are adding nothing to the discussion.
Consider the following: Google is paying approx. 3.85 million shares of Google for YouTube. What is the value of those shares? Probably less than you think. What kind of competitive advantage does google have to justify such a high P/E ratio? They have the smartest technical people in the valley, and a great culture, those have to be worth something. But I'd argue that thy aren't worth $430 a share. What happens to google.com's traffic once people start using MSN search by default in the IE7 search box? Well, I can't tell you exactly what will happen, but I've got a decent guess. It'll PROBABLY GO DOWN, at least the growth rate. Does this sound like a company that is worth 62 times earnings ($130b by market value)?
I'd argue that if there's a bubble here, it's probably in the price of Google, not the price of YouTube. These things are hard to predict because you don't know exactly how the technology, and the underlying social dynamics of the users, will play out. And yes, the legal issues are thorny and I don't feel qualified to analyze those (though I'm sure Google's lawyers are more than qualified to). But i'd argue that Google ought to be making MORE acquisitons with its stock, not fewer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All i ask for is: (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:WHOa (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: HAVE? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent