YouTube - Legally
The answer lies not in who can pull off licensing deals with content providers, but who already has licenses in place with the content providers. Who is already paying them big bucks and can create a win win scenario for themselves and rightsholders.
The answer as it turns out is pretty simple, and not something "Netizens" will want to hear.
Comcast, Charter, TimeWarnerCable, Cox, Insight, MediaCom, Cablevision, basically any cable company , and outside the cable companies, the telcos that offer TV service, and finally the Satellite Companies, DirecTV and Dish Networks, all could pull off a legal version of Youtube.
These are the companies that are paying billions of dollars in aggregate to the cable networks already. The cable networks of course are paying the content owners who pay the downstream rightsholders. Whats more, they all already have in place licenses to promote the programming they are distributing within pre defined limits. So if Comcast or Dish Network wants to promote the Daily Show on Comedy Central in a commercial, or on their websites, they already have permission to do so with limited video rights.
In addition, most of the above already are Service Providers in the defined sense of the word. They offer broadband access to their customers on their own, or in partnership with others. The fact that they have broadband customers and pay content owners huge amounts of money gives them the opportunity to do any or both of the following.
1. Youtube Clone.
They all are working out deals with content providers to be able to stream or offer VOD/TV, it wouldnt take much at all to enhance their deals and ask for the ability to offer flash based video of user uploaded clips, with limitations in length and encoding quality. Limit the clips to say 5 minutes, with an option to the rightsholder to take down anything they dont want made available on the site. Tracking the length of a flash video is right there in the meta data, so their flash transcoder could easily shut off anything beyond 5 minutes. In addition to what users upload, they could of course upload their own content without limit to enhance the depth of offerings.
For music videos, they could get the same financial deal that Yahoo and other sites have with the labels for music videos. But, knowing that the labels want to have their own outlets on TV for their music, they have some leverage to work out a trade as an option.
In addition, each would have the option to enhance the benefits available to their own broadband subscribers. So Comcast for instance, could do their deal so that non Comcast subs would be limited to 100k encoding quality with the flash codec, but subscribers could have their content transcoded to 300k, and watch video with 10 minute limits, or whatever enhanced benefits they could negotiate with the content providers for their subs.
So basically, the big TV distributors could pretty easily work out deals with content rightsholders to be everything Youtube wants to be, but have the inside track to get it done quickly since they are already paying money to the rightsholder and this would be a simple extension.
if it makes sense for a video to be on Youtube for promotional value, wouldnt make more sense to be on the site of a partner that is paying you big money already ?
2. Safe Harbor Video Hosting Done Legally
Since everyone likes to pick on the telcos in net land, lets use them for this example. Lets say that Telco1 offers to its broadband subs the ability to host their own webpages, ala myspace or facebook. And lets say for the sake of example, they also offered exclusively to their subscribers the ability to upload up to 10Gigabytes in a single file or across as many files as they could fit.
In addition to the hosting, they would let you associate all kinds of metadata so you could more easily find it when you searched across your gigabytes worth of file(s). They would host the file in its original format and then once it was uploaded, they would give you a couple buttons for you to choose from. A button to post to your myspace page. A button to post to your Telco1 homepage. A button for your blog. HTML code for you to post it anywhere you want.
Basically, since its your video, they will allow you to put it anywhere you want, as long as its your website and under your control. If the original video format wasnt compatible with the website that you wanted to host the video, they would allow you to download a transcoding tool that converted it to the right format. Then you could reupload the files in the myspace or whoever format and keep the original, or take it down if it consumed too much of your storage capacity. This way, the Service Provider hasnt altered the files in anyway. The user has.
Then being the smart telco who reads this blog, they create Tubedexy. Tubedexy would be their own search engine specifically for finding videos and building community around those videos. It wouldnt look like Youtube, it would look more like how IceRocket.com shows videos it has indexed, with the groups, discussions, friends, users, etc added in. In other words, it wouldnt be promoting videos, it would only be linking to videos. Like a typical search engine.
Under this scenario, Telco1 would truly, no questions asked, qualify for the Safe Harbor Provisions of the DMCA.
They wouldnt have to do deals with anyone.
If they were hosting an infringing video on a users Telco1 Homepage and received a takedown notice, they would have to take it down. If the infringing video was hosted on other sites, Telco1 wouldnt care. The other sites would be hosting the infringing videos, so they would get the takedown notices. Telco1 would only really be bothered when an user was found to be repetitively infringing and uploading files indiscriminately. Then Telco1 would have to out the user to the rights holder after receiving a subpoena from the rightsholder. But thats something Gootube and all other sites will have to do as well, so thats not competitive negative
No fuss, no muss. It all would be 100 pct legal .
So maybe Rupert shouldnt sell DirecTV. It, along with all his Fox content could be great leverage to make myspace the last site standing when it comes to video. Or maybe the Telcos should go on a little buying spree to gain some webhosting and video expertise and gain a foothold in the social networking world.
Or maybe Google will just buy enough of the Telcos and cable companies to cover the country and offer broadband for free. Or set up free wireless everywhere, but require a credit card for "incidentals" to qualify as a service provider. Then they would be a service provider and could really legitimize Youtube with only minor changes, and of course own the world.
Maybe Starbucks would take that as a competitive move against their instore wireless.
Google vs Starbucks. Now thats a corporate deathmatch that could be interesting to see. Unless of course MicroSoft stepped into the frey to be the white knight to roll up all those that Google didnt want. Whats better than a corporate deathmatch ? A menage trois death match between google, microsoft and starbucks...
You want to play a game of global nuclear domination ?
Sorry for the tangent, i couldnt resist :)
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 2)22. Hey Mark - I'M WATCHING TV RIGHT NOW!!! Why is that small fact relevant to the GooTube situation? Because I'm watching it FREE and LIVE - streaming over the web to my PC: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, ESPN, COMEDY CENTRAL AND DOZENS OF OTHERS. I figured that since Google says that all copyrighted material is FREE for anyone to watch, download, upload or share - I can do it too. I don't want to seem to be promoting the website that does this, so I won't give it out, it's easy enough to find, but I think it just shows how vastly wrong the "...two kings..." are when it comes to their position. The website that provides the service that Google says I should now be able to enjoy - i.e. watching someone elses copyrighted material for free - is operating out of China, so good luck to anyone trying to shut them down.
Anyway, I only started reading your blog about 1 month ago, but I dig it - keep it up. And when the media execs follow your advice - do you think they'll send you a referral fee???
Marko
Posted at 11:39AM on Oct 24th 2006 by Marko Gale
23. Stop bitching about money.I just had a heart attack, no insurance and I wish I had some Google stock so I could cash it in to pay my 60,000 dollar medical bill. Hey, I have to go back into the hospital in a month for another angioplasty.. SO....let these guys spend their money, make money and invest... but if u have any extra.. contact me and I will be happy to take it off your hands and give it to the hospital so I can go back in a month and SAVE MY LIFE...
Thanks to all of u... LIFE IS WONDERFUL.. and It is nice to help those in need too.
HAVE A GOOD DAY< WEEK and Life.
Posted at 1:08PM on Oct 24th 2006 by Will Schulak
24. Stop worrying about google and the tube... ok
Life has more to offer.. recovering from a heart attack.. no insurance.. more medical work to be done, and I am happy to be alive... so.. just be happy dudes..
Posted at 1:30PM on Oct 24th 2006 by Will Schulak
28. What happens when people start uploading copyrighted materials through proxies?
Posted at 6:28PM on Oct 24th 2006 by management
29. Mark,
your sale of broadcast.com to yahoo was arguably a topping sign for the nasdaq in 99/00. a brilliant sale on your part.
perhaps this youtube sale to google is of a similar nature.
similarly, maybe this sale keeps bmi and ascap in business.
peace and out
Posted at 12:38AM on Oct 25th 2006 by ferg upton
30. Having the copyright laws is just an infinitesimal part of the equation. I think you underestimate the talent and vision of the netizens.
In 1977, Xerox had the money and the scientist to become a computer giant. The owned the technology that Steve Jobs used to make the Macintosh computers. But the suits at Xerox lacked the computer skill and vision of what the future would be like and so the opportunity was stole from right below their noses.
31. Who cares about YouTube when you've got PhilTube: www.PhilTube.com
Back to blogging. The blogsphere is hot. AWESOME.
Posted at 11:18AM on Oct 25th 2006 by ML
33. "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"
Tangent returned.
Posted at 3:06PM on Oct 25th 2006 by KCB
34. A lot of this debate is implicit on ignoring the absolute ridiculousness of the intellectual property laws themselves. See Coase's nature of the firm for arguments as to why intellectual property is inefficient, see Benjamin Tucker's journal Liberty from over a century ago to see why it is immoral. Check out my website in a little, when it is up and running.
The great are great only because we are on our knees, let us rise!
www.billionaireblogging.com
it is coming
Posted at 8:21PM on Oct 25th 2006 by Phillip J Conti
35. All interesting points.
I really think that YouTube is at a point where it's so big (ala Facebook or MySpace) that it could survive on VLOGGING alone.
Regradless, someone seriously needs to hop in on the PhilTube thing. This stuff is too funny. I'm think 6 webisodes and an international explosion.
www.PhilTube.com
Mark, you wish you were a Blartist ;)
Posted at 3:02PM on Oct 26th 2006 by ML
36. Ok here’s my take on this, while, having the cable companies do there own YouTube sounds like a good idea on paper, I can tell you for a fact it would never work. Cable companies really have no idea what to do with web space and should just stick to what they do know how to do, install cable to your house.
Example – Time Warner buying –AOL (they still to this day have no idea what to do with the company- besides thinking about selling it.)
What you don’t understand is YouTube is the exception to the rule. –They where the first to incorporate a social network around the videos… in a way that could only resemble Myspace but with videos. Do you really think the cable companies can make something that innovative? The Answer: NO.
It’s the same reason no one has been able to make a better ipod. It’s just not that easy; especially when the leader has done such a good job at combining design and function. (Bill Gates once said to Steve Job’s it doesn’t matter that your better because where first.) As it turns out that holds true in the world of the web too, not just in software.
I would bet every dollar that I have, that you couldn’t make another YouTube. Even with a great team of web designers you wouldn’t even come close. I would bet money on that. Why, for the same reason Google bought YouTube – because they couldn’t bet them with there own video site.
Posted at 4:01PM on Oct 26th 2006 by Crazyglues
37. It seems to me that as high definition content becomes more common that the risk of it being posted on sites such as youtube will diminish significantly. If the content providers are so fearful of their content being uploaded and downloaded freely, you'd think that they would accelerate the adoption of high def.
It might be just me but I feel as if consumers are purchasing high def televisions at a significantly faster rate than high-def content is expanding.
Also, as far as the audio... Is it unimaginable that gootube could simply mandate that all copyrighted audiofiles uploaded to its site be of a quality low enough that it would not be an attractive option for 99% of users to want to download to their ipods (e.g. 32 kbs)?
Several online music stores offer complete songs for previewing but offer these previews only in a low quality format. There is nothing to prevent users from downloading these songs either, however the low quality makes it not worthwhile.
Posted at 4:41PM on Oct 26th 2006 by zOOm
38. oh man Mark I just saw your HP commerical on youtube... (I know i'm late but-) That has got to be the coolest computer commercial I've ever seen... Wow.. Really cool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFv6hvyBGpQ
Posted at 7:07PM on Oct 26th 2006 by Crazyglues
39. Mark,
God bless you. I don't know how you can stay so opinionated and so clearly wrong. I know you're an intelligent guy, and I respect your business acumen. How can you maintain such a steadfastly ridiculous position?
Let's assume there was some small nugget of insight in your take on this YouTube issue--take for example that rights holders could create a true win-win. Hey, why not phone up Gerry Levin and ask him how that whole AOL/Time Warner merger worked out? By your logic, that should have been the next Peanut Butter meets Chocolate.
This isn't about commercial content or DRM. This is about monetization. No one on earth has a better ability to make money off of 'page views' than Google. And YouTube has a hell of a lot of those -- and the highest viewed clips there aren't protected content.
Even rights holders are scrambling to figure out new ways to get advertisers to spend what they used to spend back in the glory days. Seen the ratings for the World Series? Not even worth the storage space on my TiVo. Guess if something interesting happens, I'll just pull it up on YouTube.
Dude, you used to get this stuff. You've got the cart pushing the horse.
Posted at 12:58AM on Oct 27th 2006 by The DSL Guy
40. I think you are missing the point.
1) Unless the clips are CD quality they really do not compete with the 'genuine article'.
2) If radio stations get payola to play songs, why not YouTube.
Example:
There is a clip of kids having a pillow fight with Megadeth providing a musical bed on YouTube.
(A) YouTube owes Megadeth money for using their music.
(B) Megadeth owes YouTube money for publicizing their music.
(C) Nobody owes nobody nothing.
(E) Who cares only pedophiles and 9 year olds are watching that video.
Posted at 12:01AM on Oct 28th 2006 by Geo8rge
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. here's why I love YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD6o49Uqv10 - if you can't watch this video and smile then something is just wrong with you.
i'll be back with My response on all this in a sec... woke up a little late today.
Posted at 9:21AM on Oct 24th 2006 by Crazyglues