Kudos to Youtube for getting them to say yes. My advice to you is to always protect your downside. Ignore all the scammers who want your money, and dont listen to all the tax scammers who want to save you money on taxes. Writing that check is painful, but its the right thing to do. That aside..
It will be interesting to see what happens next and what happens in the copyright world. I still think Google Lawyers will be a busy, busy bunch. I dont think you can sue Google into oblivion, but as others have mentioned, if Google gets nailed one single time for copyright violation, there are going to be more shareholder lawsuits than doans has pills to go with the pile on copyright suits that follow. Think maybe how Google discloses what they perceive the copyright risk to be in the SEC filings might be an interesting read ?
I think there will be supoenas to get the names of Youtube and Google Video users. Lots of them as those copyright owners not part of the gravy train go after both Google and their users for infringement.
It will be interesting to see how this impacts DRM. As it stands now, there is no DRM on all that video being offered from Google or YouTube. Millions of copyrighted videos that their owners spent a boatload to copyprotect that is available to everyone and everyone without it. (Personally i think DRM is a waste of money, but will all those labels and content providers ?)
I think it was interesting how Google and YT both rushed to get deals done with the music labels. That tells me that they arent comfortable hiding behind the safe harbor laws. If they were, they would just be telling people to send take down notices rather than doing deals that require software to detect copyrights.
It will be interesting to see if Youtube moves their videos over to Googles Data Centers. Google is a centralized datacenter with peering from what I can tell. COmpletely different than what the CDN networks do. Will that set a new trend ? It makes bandwidth much cheaper as others have pointed out.
It will be interesting to see just how google reconciles selling videos like Crazy in Love from Sony, when the same video is available as a user upload for free from youtube.
it will be interesting to see how Fox reacts to this deal Fox owns content. Neither google or YT does. Could Fox, the owner of Myspace put GooTube in a huge hole by being legally aggressive and going after every video of Stewy from Family Guy , American Idol, any of their TV shows ? The same with their movies. Beyond just Gootube, (and I mash them together with nothing but love :), Fox could make them look real bad by using supoaenas to go after individual Gootube users. Fox is also a stickler for DRM, they aint gonna like having their content floating DRM free around the net. Sure, myspace would have to clean up some of their own videos, but it would be a far easier chore than Gootube has. Now that would be a celebrity lawyer match worth watching.
Which in turns means that the Copyright Detection Systems in place by Google better be a whole lot better than they are right now. They are going to have to detect music, TV Network Bugs, all kinds of protected materials. Right now they are doing nothing. Which leads to movies, like ours
We sent our Take down notice today by fax. But should I supoaena the name of the person who uploaded it ? I wont. Someone else will for their content.
And what if Im completely, absolutely wrong and no one sues anyone ? That everyone just loves the fact that their content is available to tens of millions of viewers and advertisers and Youtube and Google definitely qualify to be protected behind the Safe Harbors of the DMCA ?
That Im an idiot and it really is different this time, and the content companies have all recognized that ?
Well, I'm ready for that too. I went ahead and registered www.effingreat.com because thats how much fun its going to be using Filesanywhere.com features to support a "load everything you own and share it with world" website.
I will host in the same way as Youtube and Google. Upload in the same, dont ask, dont tell approach. I will sell ads however they do. Preroll, or adsense or whatever.
Only i will expand the storage beyond 100mbs and will open it up to books, term papers, pictures, movies, music, articles, anything and everything that can be digitized. I will add the appropriate disclaimers and provide a cool social networking interface. Maybe something like Goowy.Com or maybe something like Flixster.com. I mean, why not ? What could be cooler User Generated Content than the termpaper you wrote on Daniel Boone ? Or what could be more interesting than scanning in a book you wanted to give to someone and just posting it ? And dang, just wholesale upload all of your MP3s.
And best of all, I would get a license for public performance from ASCAP/BMI so the people that have to fight the hardest to get paid, actually do !
And of course I would have some other tricks up my sleeve. Maybe pull a page from the old shareware days. Add a paypal link to every content page and let people get paid for their original content. If no one is going to sue anyone for copyright infringement anymore, maybe you could upload stuff you dont have the rights to and get paid by generous people who want to transfer some dollars via PayPal to you.
Am I suprised, by the Google YT deal. Yes. Does it open up a whole new world if they go liability free ?
You have no idea.
I still think Google is crazy :)
Recent Posts
- The Internet Hammer and the everything Nail (7/04/2008)
- Ruh Roh - Porn could sink Youtube in Viacom case.... (7/03/2008)
- NBC vs Fanboys vs Sports Talk Radio vs The Olympics (6/29/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 3)42. I didn't take an official count, but I'd say the popular vote (here anyway) is pretty even - maybe slightly in support of the deal. There are three things that I can't wait to see: 1) what the spike in YouTube traffic will be tomorrow (and how much of it they can sustain) 2) how long before the first serious copyright challenge is presented now that there are tangible assets to go after and 3) what this will do to the Apple / Google relationship (btw - I'm already a bit surprised that Apple hasn't raised a stink that the Google Video Player let's you 'Download for iPod' - it's the right thing for Google [and Apple], but I still expect a company like Apple to try and shut it down.) My gut tells me that Google will regret this deal in the end. YT would have to go through a very serious crack-down to avoid the legal issues and that cleansing will drive the viewers to find it elsewhere.
Posted at 12:30AM on Oct 10th 2006 by Aaron
43. Hey Mark, don't you think Google's pockets are deep enough to thwart any copyright challenge? It's just like all those companies that sued Microsoft for stealing their ideas. They sued themselves out of business. Can the Disney's, Time Warners, and Universals even afford to go after Google when their mediums are dying? This is a bigger fire under their ass to come up with a digital strategy!
Posted at 12:49AM on Oct 10th 2006 by Frank Z
44. I never quite understood your comparison beween youtube and kazaa. Youtube is what the internet used to refer to as "free hosting". They have no part in the publishing or approval of the content that is posted and they seem to respond properly to any notices given to them. By pretty much every definition of the word "Service Provider" they qualify for DMCA protection.
I think google made a stupid decision paying so tremendously much for a 10 month old company, but they are desperate to gain marketshare with the "it's hip" crowd and now they have it. For how long is really the question.
Posted at 12:50AM on Oct 10th 2006 by Arlo Gilbert
45. With that big $1.65 billion price tag, you bet everyone is wondering who is going to get bought next after YouTube? Google (Nasdaq GOOG) is out of the game but there are many more buyers. I took a look at Yahoo's directory of video sharing services, DMOZ, etc. - hey, Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq YHOO) is good for something too you know. They have a great directory. Here they are. My 25 sites that can be bought next in no particular order.
1) PutFile
2) Ourmedia
3) ZippyVideos
4) Vimeo
5) Metacafe
6) Veoh
7) DailyMotion
8) Castpost
9) Revver
10) VideoEgg
11) Str8Up
12) Dropshots
13) GoFish
14) VidiLife
15) Eyespot
16) StreetFire
17) Clipshack
18) VideoSift
19) Videobomb
20) vMix
21) MotionBox
22) vSocial
23) VapShare
24) Pickle
25) 247Show
http://mrwavetheory.blogspot.com/2006/10/who-will-get-bought-next-after-youtube.html
Posted at 1:00AM on Oct 10th 2006 by Mr Wave Theory
46. google purchased users before - the AOL deal. That time to maintain eyeballs - this time to leverage brand recognition to augment their existing video business.
it's a funny world where youtube is worth more than myspace. that of course can't be right.
Posted at 1:19AM on Oct 10th 2006 by blyx
47.
hmm, thanks for the interesting read, but i do have one question that has nothing to do with this, why werent you at the preseason practices at our unt campus (im a student) i was looking forward to meeting you, check out my roommates pictures in his flickr pool, hope you email me back. -kiz
48. google is buying many thousands of army ants.. each one of these content producers with their camera equipment represent serious capital..
if a person had 20 million they couldn't hire a staff nor the equipment to generate as much content as youtube users create..
with this purchase google gets early adopters which is pretty much a checkmate on the nuevo entertainment space.
after this merger talk i walked 20 miles out to the desert because i had an idea so good that i quit my job the next day just to prevent the opportunity knocking headache. see you and me on the headlines soon.
Posted at 1:49AM on Oct 10th 2006 by nigel
49. Uhhh to the person (Henry) who wrote that first comment. You could honestly be the dumcest person on the internet. You go out of your way to Mark Cubans blog and tell him he has no idea about "...you have no clue about the Internet business."
He has a blog because hes famous for owning the Dallas Mavericks which he bought with his profits from broadcast.com which he sold to Yahoo for BILLIONS.
But your probably right he has no idea about this Internet thing....
Posted at 2:20AM on Oct 10th 2006 by Michael P
50. The name of the game for Google is growing its advetising base. I'm quite sure the G and YT guys will find a way to integrate adsense into YT's user generated content. Not with prerolls but with more accurate searching of videos. Lets not forget Google is the reigning King of Search and therein lies its greatest core competency. Yes, G may have upwards of 30 different products, but their core comptencies search, talent and enormous financial resources allow them to leverage almost any web phenomenom. Bottom line...Keep up the good work G
M.Knox
http://www.blacktrump4life.com/default.aspx
Posted at 2:43AM on Oct 10th 2006 by Martez Knox
52. Ken Wilbur: It's nice to see some sanity here. YouTube may not be Napster, but it's popular for many of the same reasons, namely that you can get content you want on demand and don't have to pay or view advertisements as you normally would. We don't know exactly how they plan to monetize the content and we don't know how users will react to the method(s) of monetization they choose. They might pull it off flawlessly or they might screw it up and drive users away. And don't forget, if a mighty Google was upstaged by a tiny little upstart named YouTube and was forced to buy it for 10 figures 19 months later, it would be naive to assume that there aren't other online video services being developed out there that could take online video to the next level and leave Google/YouTube in the dust.
A few other comments:
- There are a lot of challenges to profitable monetization. Not all the content on YouTube is saleable and the available inventory likely exceeds demand. Most people seem to think that there's an infinite advertising market. There isn't. Markets are finite in size. And of course, if the ads Google rolls out aren't profitable/cost-effective for advertisers, it won't work.
- All those people that claim this is the beginning of the end for major media are, frankly, idiots. The vast majority of the most popular content on YouTube is produced by major media. If major media works with Google/YouTube, it's in everybody's best interest to make sure they make money. If major media dies, there's nobody left to produce the content we want. Major media is getting the best of all the licensing deals (which, by the way, are fairly insignificant - they've done licensing deals with lots of other startups). They get to share revenues and all the burdens of monetization and hosting/bandwidth fall on Google/YouTube. It's clear that major media is getting the better end of the deal. I have written a number of comments on TechCrunch about this. It's a low-risk proposition for major media; the risk and burdens fall on the online video services.
- It is likely that at least one rights holder will sue. It may be smarter to embrace YouTube, but I'd be surprised if at least one company didn't decide to try their luck with a lawsuit instead. The outcome of the lawsuit is fairly unimportant in the immediate term, as a case like this would take a while to resolve. It would be a battle that distracts Google and exposes it to potentially large liabilities, and if a settlement wasn't reached, Google would risk a decision that sets a precedent that puts it out of business. Google may have deep pockets and top lawyers, but major media has the same, and they have something Google doesn't: a powerful lobby. Money isn't nearly as important as political sway.
- To Nigel: the content produced by these "army ants" you're talking about is for the most part crap. YouTube is not popular because of the 25 million videos of bad Johnny Knoxville wannabes. It's popular because of the professional (copyrighted) content. There are certainly talented amateurs that have popular content on YouTube. Guess what? Those people are most likely to use YouTube to build an audience and following and will then either get signed by an agency or studio or will set up their own "online channel" that they can monetize much more effectively themselves (i.e. Rocketboom).
People who are applauding Google for changing course and making this acquisition are basically applauding Google for getting beat out by a company started by two guys in garage (ironic, isn't it?) and then feeling so pressured by all their product failures that they are forced to buy that company for an ungodly amount. Google might make it work, but what I take away is that Google isn't so dissimilar from Microsoft, Yahoo, etc., who have all had to rely on acquisitions to drive further growth. The Google cult would have you believe that Google is a special company that is unlike any of its competitors. Today's acquisition proved that wrong, and Google actually looks shockingly human and vulnerable.
Posted at 3:06AM on Oct 10th 2006 by Drama 2.0
53. Mark--Is the future of the much vaunted "user generated content" that we (the users) generate content to make the YouTube's rich or Google richer?
Why would anyone do that?
Napster's slogan is best for YouTube: Own Nothing! Have Everything! It's freeeeeeeeeeee it's all freeeeeeeeeee!!
NP Tom Waits "Step Right Up"
Posted at 4:27AM on Oct 10th 2006 by Jack Ryan
54. I am actually stunned that Google has the nerve to try and force their commiditization model on the creativity and talents of others. They have really "done evil" by supporting the rampant disregard for people's rights.. funny I guess this "inside" deal in the Sequoia family could actually comeback to bite them in the ass. There are a tom of big players that are down right angry at GooTube.. in addition, look at the number of sites that are trying to monetize their videos through sites like Revver etc.. IS google so greedy as to not want creators to get paid? WOW.. I have lost all respect for Google. Booooooo.. there is NO EXCUSE for this except for greed.. bring on the lawsuits!!!!
In addition, they have set a prescedent to freely use anyone's cotnent anywhere and anytime without regard for the creator.. I am tired of the "promotional" excuse as well.. wait until studios see there coveted 18-24 yr-old demographic disappear from TV sets and DVD players... and forget ipod video sales. Goolge has already helped themselves to thousands of copyrighted videos with millions of views..and look at what they have done with newspapers and published works.. SHAME ON THEM... This is like Micorsoft taking over our creative works..
Someone needs to stand-up to them..someone who can fight for the billions for content creators..
Posted at 4:32AM on Oct 10th 2006 by grazer7
55. "As it stands now, there is no DRM on all that video being offered from Google or YouTube."
Not quite true, Google Video does have DRM (aka CRAP!) on some paid videos...
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/14/google_video_drm_why.html
Posted at 5:53AM on Oct 10th 2006 by Philipp Lenssen
56. Here's an interesting perspective:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=max&size=large&compare_sites=google.com&y=r&url=youtube.com#top
Now, I'm no stock market whiz kid, nor am I particularly smart at reading these new fangled graph thingies, but if I didn't know better, I'd say that Google.com's rate of increase has plateaued since YouTube.com took off. Is it possible that Google bought YouTube to keep on going with their eventual plans to take over the world?
Betcha wished you jumped on that bandwagon? :P
Posted at 6:42AM on Oct 10th 2006 by FTP - First Time Poster
57. I think assuming GOOG is infallible in their strategy is a mistake. They have failed to gain much traction with a large number of their INHOUSE products. Look at base.google.com, gtalk and many others. their only inhouse decent product used to be search. maps.google.com was the only other one that gained traction - it had been acquired by them though not built inhouse. One thing to know for sure they are going after traffic at every cost to sell ads. Their business model so far is same I think. Sell ads. For many users I see the cost of shifting away from YouTube to anything else with similar capabilities to be minimal. I do not even find YouTube's technology to be ANYTHING out of ordinary. I think they are getting spread thin on fighting eBay with micropayments and base.google.com and base is disastrous( Try to find any laptop there). For me YouTube is nothing else but another far more centralized napster. mp3 on napster were not good enough quality vs CDs at the store, so YouTube's videos are not HD so far but sufficient to do enough IP damage to content owners. DO not read into much there I think this acquisition is exclusively audience acquisition. No technology, no innovation, no rocket science just COWTOWING to user fads and those seem to favor content without respect for who should be credited with royalties for it. Not to mention the
porn almost videos on google that someone will soon leash out at them for soon.
Posted at 7:11AM on Oct 10th 2006 by Peter
58. Good post, but I don't think google would just go up and spend 1.6B without thinking about the consequences.. 10 years from now google will probably own half the world. If they buy Hershey, the won't have to spend any money to change the name of Goobers will they? :P
59. Mark,
I've got to believe that it might be in Google's best interests to TRY and push the Copyright envelope. Don't hide behind the DMCA... What if... they DO get to court and they get copyright laws not essentially overturned but significantly altered in their favor? Google, as John Batelle called them... is fast becoming the "database of intentions" for the industrialized world. To be able to house all of the content that has been generated... would be a culture-changing step for them... and put them in the driver's seat for MANY years to come. So why not buy YouTube... give it a shot... see if you can give up 1.6 billion to find out where your future as the digitizer of content for the planet is going to go?
Thoughts are worth exactly the price you paid for them... I enjoy the blog and the discussion here a lot.
Cheers,
Bill
Posted at 8:19AM on Oct 10th 2006 by Bill
60. GOOG "database of intentions" hm...I beg to differ. all their moves are self serving drives to get as much ad revenue as possible. I beg to differ if this is in the interest of an "objective database of industrial" intentions that would be most conducive to creating a better world. There is a lot more to technology than services that are ad sponsored. I think GOOG imitates better and improves on things way better than others. Show me one serious thing GOOG INVENTED! The AdWords patent was Overture's...come on...where's the innovation...I mostly see cyclical improvements of things others devised...come to my mind their $30mil offer for freindster, orkut, now they got YouTube...with the loads of PhDs they are not that great at inventing as it seems they should be. They arther act like a big company running around making acquisitions...just like BEA CSCO
Because hiring PhDs only is not all what it takes to be the best. It has been like this from the days of Edison. There is always a chance to beat them. No advantage is forever.
Posted at 8:43AM on Oct 10th 2006 by Peter
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry: inappropriate or purely promotional comments may be removed. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
41. I believe it's a transformative move for Google and I applaud them for doing it. It's Google's Second Act. Moving beyond Search (although it's adjacent) to control content and a powerful user community. The content will continue to be compelling whether it's Donny Deutsch interviewing you or my son's first birthday. We won't be able to stop watching and I congratulate Shona Brown's vision here: http://breakoutperformance.blogspot.com/2006/10/google-youtube-shona-brown-and-galaxy.html Thanks, Eric
Posted at 12:20AM on Oct 10th 2006 by Eric Jackson