In previous posts, i had said that the minute Youtube got bought, the media companies would sue them because there were now deep pockets to pursue for a big payday.
The more I read and the more I thought about it since the Google/Youtube deal, I realize that is the exact opposite of what should happen and probably will happen.
Rather than suing Gootube, the media companies will first sue several of the imitators and competitors that have no money whatsoever. They wont sue those companies to get money, they will sue a bunch of those companies to build precedent. In particular, they will sue to get clarification on the DMCA Safe Harbor laws. Are these little companies, that do basically what Youtube does, protected by the DMCA safe harbor rules ?
If they can win some judgements saying these little sites are not protected by Safe Harbor rules, then they have all the leverage in the world to dictate licensing terms to sites that until now have not proactively enforced copyright but have instead chosen to rely on rightsholders takedown notices. If one of those sites has deep pockets, then it could turn into a payday for rightsholders, whether via lawsuit or licensing terms.
One more thing about this whole discussion about Youtube, Google and how the DMCA might be interpreted.
There has been a lot of discussion about whether Gootube, together or seperately would qualify under the safe harbor laws. Some think yes, others like me, think not. But the reality is this. Whatever copyright owners let Gootube get away with, there will be an unlimited number of sites that copy that approach.
However Google tries to monetize Youtube, others will try to replicate that model. If when its all said and done, Google falls within the Safe Harbor rules of the DMCA, you can expect thousands of spam websites, the multimedia equivalent of splogs, to spring up. Just as its simple to automate the process of creating a blog or website and then populating that site with RSS feeds and ads by Google, Yahoo or another ad syndicator, just like this it will be just as easy to create a website that automates the uploading of a server full of multimedia content, movies, music, whatever.
This is what will happen. THousands of times a day.
Someone will fill a huge server (s) full of everything and anything,movies, music, termpapers, pictures, whatever they think has the greatest chance to make them money. THen they will create host splogs. Lots of them. The splogs will be optimized to enable scripts/bots to upload content, and users to download that content.
There will be the standard disclaimer on each splog that they probably steal right from Google or Youtubes site. There will be an about link providing where to snail mail the take down notice. The servers with all the content will go from splog to splog, automatically uploading great content. You will see best-report36.com/top10songs or best-reports45.com/itunes100, best-reports55.com/foxprimetimeschedule, et c, etc, etc. In addition to the great content, you will see multimedia ads in whatever format Google uses that has been copied by competitors. As long as they can place the multimedia ads in such a fashion they can pay for the bandwidth, what could go wrong ? According to some, all of it is legal and protected.
THe splog creators have the full protection of the Safe Harbor rules. Users uploaded the content. The sploggers took down content when asked. Maybe if they are tricky, they will populate each with at least 51pct of non infringing videos. Of course every site will have the same non infringing videos, but so what.
There in lies the rub. Whatever Gootube is allowed to do is going to be replicated thousands of times. Searching tens of thousands of splog sites you dont know exist for your content is an awful tough job. Supoenaing sites to get information about users who did the uploading from the big server becomes futile when the registration required nothing more than a random gmail address.
I just dont think the MPAA and RIAA and their members are going to accept this inevitable scenario. Its quite possible that by the time they are under siege with all of this, Gootube will have 100pct of its content licensed. If not, then after they go after the little guys to set precedent, they will go after the big guys and their deep pockets.
Here is a sample of a Splog. Notice the ads
I was wrong
Recent Posts
Reader Comments
(Page 2)22. "# Luck Matters: This is a traditionally Rawlsian viewpoint, and folks interested in it should seek out the source. But the conservative idea that we truly control our destiny is bunk. At this moment in time, with all that you are and have, you may feel pretty autonomous. But intelligence, temperament, looks, and health are, in large part, genetically predetermined. Who you're born to is, assumedly, luck, as is which peer group you fall into. Whether you attend a good school, live in a nice neighborhood, make a stupid mistake, have parents who instill the right routines, and all the rest largely decide whether you're the type of person who, when grown, will work hard, save money, invest in your future, and all the rest. If you are that type of person, it is not necessarily an expression of your virtues, but of your luck -- unfortunately, we see who we are now, not what made us, and so overemphasize our autonomy. Our society too often comforts itself by assuming meritocracy is a fair ideal, rather than an arbitrary sorting mechanism that values certain character traits and intrinsic abilities, some of which we achieve through hard work, but some of which are hardwired or learned before we exercise any autonomy or virtue at all."
--Ezra Klein today...
Posted at 7:23PM on Oct 12th 2006 by John Navin
23. Splogs? I love it.
As a user, do I really care where I get content from as long as I get it? No, not really.
As a blogger, do I care who steals my content? yeah, kinda.
As a company, would I care if someone steals the content that I spent a lot of money creating and posts it on the internet for users to view for free and without my ad revenue? Yeah, I would.
Posted at 9:03PM on Oct 12th 2006 by Sports Bettor
25. Mark, let it go mate... you reaped the benefits of billions in a nicely timed buyout...let Youtube enjoy theirs.
You know as well as I do that it's burning knowing that their business is what you are brilliant at...you're pissed at yourself for not seeing the opportunity first...there will be others.
Posted at 2:29AM on Oct 13th 2006 by Eddie
26. I recommend this to anyone on GOOG in general. This what defines the longevity of its invincibility.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=353
Posted at 6:16AM on Oct 13th 2006 by Peter
27. You weren't to wrong...
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1921154,00.html
Posted at 9:31AM on Oct 13th 2006 by Jimbob
28. Hi Mark,
Unrelated to this post, I know, but I thought you might want to do something about it. There's a site called Bitacle that is reposting your stuff but adding their own ads to it, making profit from your content.
You can see it here:
http://en.bitacle.org/v/180zl9fxr-du0/
They're doing it to a lot of bloggers out there.
29. Mark,
Your showing how much you don't understand new media. Besides being a good buzz word, new media is not your fathers media. It is now the peoples choice as to what is a hit or miss. Big media now has a choice of compete or die. It's a brave new world out there.
While I do not agree with most of what you said about the purchase of YouTube in your previous posts, you have earned my respect in the admittance that you were wronh in your conclusions. Very refreshing. I am a subscriber now.
www.paulpurionline.com for more comments.
30. Yesterday the band Collective Soul posted a bulletin through their myspace requesting fans to post anything that had to do with Collective Soul on youtube ("looking for amateur video, cell phone video, bootleg video, WHATEVER... It all will do").
So, even established artists are asking that fans do whatever they can to promote their band, even if it's technically illegal.
Posted at 12:39PM on Oct 13th 2006 by David
31. Nope, you were right.
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1921154,00.html
Posted at 1:18PM on Oct 13th 2006 by Chris Davis
32. Three days, that didn't take long.
Posted at 1:34PM on Oct 13th 2006 by Ben
33. O Google dominará o mundo???
Posted at 2:22PM on Oct 13th 2006 by Anderson
34. Your orignial post was right..
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1921423,00.html
Time for another post!
35. Exactly! Why attack a seemingly-invincible 800 pound gorilla when you can first discover his weakness by going after a couple of tiny monkees.
Posted at 2:46PM on Oct 13th 2006 by Scott Johnson
36. You'll realize the answer lies not in the movies, or the prices, or the consumer, but...
THIS COMMENT RESPONDS TO A PREVIOUS POST BY MARK CUBAN AND IS UNRELATED TO THIS POST.
I wanted to respond to Mark's post about getting people to the theatre etc. What I wanted to say may change his mind that there are no "solutions" for the lack of movie attendance. Let me be more precise.
I recently went to the movies with my parents (The Departed, of all movies) and afterwards they complained about the ticket price. $9.50. And I'm not just saying this because I'm broke, my parents are rich.
The overwhelming problem isn't so much anything else rather than people have seen their ticket prices going up. Using even elementary economics theories, a rational economic decision becomes highly improbable when people are paying so much just for a movie ticket, let alone pop-corn, etc..
But classical economics isn't the answer to the problem. In fact, it may be a hinderance. I say it may be a hinderance because classical economics only accounts for rationality among beasts, and not among human beings. Allow me to explain that last comment!
Human beings actual derive value. And value isn't a present-day thing! Value can be extended for months if not for YEARS! And that's what the rational economic consumer is missing from the movies. What they're essentially missing is the value for the price they pay for a ticket! So what I'm saying is really a lot easier than even identifying the problem in the first place.
CREATE value. Oh yes, it can so be created. Just like the U.S. dollar, which you Mark Cuban should know every intricate detail of I suppose. Look at that flimbsy piece of fiber-plastico-neo-classico tweed-type of bill you and me and everybody else lines our pockets with. Is a dollar actually even worth a dollar??? NO! It's worth less, and everybody who's familiar with economies knows that. But it's not worth less by much. But here's the summation of my (quite valid) point that I need to drive home, and I'll do that right now:
Create an instrinic value for the ticket! *TADA* Creating an intrinsic value for the ticket is completely elementary, my dearest Watson. It simply implies luring the idle-framed consumer towards the vicinity of a movie theatre in hopes of returning with a greater asset-total than previously expected/anticipated/possessed! Sounds dicey, don't it!
But not so! Look at baseball cards, dearest Watson! How do they fair in struggling economy?
Make them collectible, or reemdable. End of story. Or allow patrons to buy "options" of tickets just like stocks in the market. You are familiar with the stock market, aren't you, Mark?
-John
Ps. I don't know if you'll check this, Mark, so I'll post on your other comments from time to time until you hopefully do.
PPs. You'll realize the answer lies not in the movies, or the prices, or the consumer, but...
Posted at 7:52PM on Oct 13th 2006 by John McCarthy
37. Or, we could all simply accept that we're living in a new era and that yesterday's copyright laws are obsolescent.
The bar has to be raised at some point. ("Surround Vision" movie theaters, maybe?)
Mass communications (or "media") is reaching a point where almost any creative person can participate. Traditionalists are having a hard time witnessing the seeping "per unit" devaluation of their products. They really need to get over it.
Posted at 8:32PM on Oct 13th 2006 by Charles
38. And you will remain wrong.
Do you think when Comedy Central has Stephen Colbert do a little gig in front of a green screen, to allow users to create their own videos from, they expect them to be submitted to Comedy Central for review? You think they don't know those videos are going up on YouTube?
Think again.
Video and music are not one and the same. It's a different ballgame.
Posted at 12:37AM on Oct 14th 2006 by Jackson
39. How about a yahoo-microsoft merger on Monday to squash the Google blowout earnings report. That would really rub a little salt in the market share from the dilution coming from the you-tube 1.65 BILLION deal. WOW. If it ever made sense, it makes sense now. What do you think?
Posted at 7:11PM on Oct 14th 2006 by Matt
40. There is only one important concept here and you have all missed it! As long as peeple can view videos of Mentos and Diet Cola, we will live in paradise. Who sues whom is secondary to my seeing more gysers of brown froth creating dripping stalagtites on cielings of kitchens and garages worldwide. Let's keep our perspective here.
Posted at 1:20AM on Oct 16th 2006 by Colin
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.
21. Mark,
Look at the way google news seperates copyright protected newspapers/magazines from those that are cash based. I forsee google doing the same with its video content. If its copyprotected and the owner of the material doesn't wish to split ad revenue with google than it can be purchased through a subscription such as the I-tunes system.
Posted at 6:47PM on Oct 12th 2006 by Matt