YouTube Leaves Google Vulnerable? 208
PreacherTom writes "Yesterday's big news was Google's $1.65 billion deal to acquire popular video hosting service YouTube. But will it be a good deal? The market thinks so, as Google's stock rose about $10 per share after the purchase. On the other hand, YouTube increases Google's risk of copyright infringement, opening the door for significant liability...if Google cannot solve this issue. Will their planned video 'fingerprinting' be enough, or just a billion dollar mistake?" From the article: "YouTube's policy is to remove copyrighted clips once alerted to their existence. Content providers say the company needs to be even more proactive ... Todd Dagres, general partner at Boston's Spark Capital, says that Google's large market cap of $130 billion makes it much more vulnerable to lawsuits than a private company such as YouTube. 'Once Google starts to apply its monetization machine, there is going to be more money at stake and people are going to go after it,' says Dagres. 'You cannot monetize other people's content without their approval.'"
They wish (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not what the copyright laws say. It's what the content industry wishes they would say, and takes them to mean. This is a great quote because it reveals how they really think about it.
Re:They wish (Score:5, Insightful)
However, content providers that don't embrace video services like youtube will end up losing out in the long run. There's a lot of other ways people can get the content, now they've had a taste of what's possible then more and more people would start looking elsewhere (P2P maybe) for their content should it be pulled from Googles servers. So it makes sense for the content providers to stike a deal with Google and get a share of ad revenue rather than drive people to P2P where they get nothing.
It's good to see Google is already striking deals with other companies.
Re:They wish (Score:4, Insightful)
The CRUCIAL thing here is "when asked." The problem with copyright culture right now is that content providers far too often simply tear stuff down before waiting to see whether the copyright holder wants them too or not. Granted, this is a proactive measure designed to save them from the courts, but if I were the boss of a TV station I'd ask them to keep it up there: if it's old episodes of Gilligan's Island or outtakes from Lost that are pulling the kids into YouTube then I can get those same kids to subscribe to cable (and or some future hi-def format) and watch it there too.
No exposure == no audience == no money. This is the lesson of the long tail.
Re:They wish (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know about that... Over here in Portugal we all pay a tax to support the public TV/Radio network. As the tax is charged along with the electricity bill, it's kind of hard not to pay it.
Using this network that is paid by the public, there are a few TV stations that broadcast 24h/7 with open signal, so it's obvious that the TV shows are not secret, or meant not to be distributed. So, why exactly would it be unfair if I would use the computer (or VCR) to record and show to my friends something that was already made public?
Actually they already agreed about it (Score:5, Insightful)
YouTube has just signed how many agreements with major content providers. Do you think that MAYBE, just MAYBE, Google was waiting for that to happen before buying them?
So, the question isn't even relevant. Nobody cares whether they can do it without their approval. YouTube HAS their approval, and now that Google owns YouTube, so does Google.
Any remaining content providers will quickly realize their choices are 1) spend money on long, expensive lawsuits against Google with little/no prospect of a ROI, or 2) jump on the bandwagon for practically free and make some money out of it. It shouldn't take long even for a corporate board member to figure that one out.
Re:Actually they already agreed about it (Score:5, Interesting)
This will then stimulate a change in the advertising industry. Since discrete commercials can be so easily skipped or completely snipped out, advertising must insinuate itself directly into the content.
In the case of television, perhaps we should expect to see new shows filmed with green-screens subtly placed around the sets. You know, such as on the door of the refridgerator, or on the billboard that is slightly visible from Will & Grace's back yard. At the time of broadcast or rebroadcast or publication on DVD, commercial content can be pasted onto the green-screens dynamically.
This would have major benefits, because the commercial content can be adjusted according to the intended audience and timeslot. Advertising dollars will bring more bang for the buck... and that means that less total advertising needs to be delivered and watched.
I'm all for it. Commercial breaks are irritating, and seriously disrupt the mental state that the show is trying to induce in me. I'd rather ignore the computer-generated label on Doogie Houser's cereal box than I would sit through a cereal commercial.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Academic curiosity: In the history of megacorporations, with particular emphasis on copyright-owning media corporations; have any of them ever chosen option number 2?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know how they got this far, but that was DEFINITELY the hard part. The Washington Post recently stated that Drudge Report is their main source of traffic and that they have a symbiotic rela
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is what you meant, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They wish (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I fail to see how content can not be cited like book references.
Ex: Little Johnny is bit eccentric and creative, and wants to make a short film about the wildlife in his backyard. So, he takes some still's with a camera, maybe a few short clips with a camcorder, and slaps it all together, putting Blind Melon's 'No Rain' as the audio overlay. Now, at the beginning of his short clip he cites the audio creator/ license holder/ producer/ all Copyright info of the song, which then progresses to play. He then uploads it to a website, like Youtube, where others can view it. He also cites on the page where it can be viewed, all Copyright info of the song in his short movie clip. He intends for others to view it at their interest and amusement, and expects no compensation of any kind of what he has uploaded.
Now, is what he has done deprived the copyright owner of any credit with regard to the creation? It is cited in his work, and no monetary gain has been acquired, yet you can be pretty sure the Copyright owner would go after him regardless of whether money was made.
I guess what I fail to understand with copyrighted content is this: if content intended for mass consumption is rehashed into an alternate form and redistributed into an alternate medium, with reference and citation to the copyright holder, for no monetary or other compensation, how has the copyright holder been deprived of anything??
It seems hypocritcal and draconian to think that if you put some form of art out into the world for people to consume with their personal wealth, that they not be able to do what they want with it as long as citation and reference to the original creator is noted accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't either... but typically when you reference a book, you use only a small portion of it, not the majority of the book.
> putting Blind Melon's 'No Rain' as the audio overlay.
Using the main portion of the content? sorry, you don't even get to do that with books/magazines/encyclopedia articles currently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is your basis for saying that quote is incorrect?
Dumb Question, ask another (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dumb Question, ask another (Score:5, Insightful)
Not many.
Re:Dumb Question, ask another (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Part of the problem with youtube is its unreliability - someone posts a youtube link and about 80% of the time you bring it up and the play button doesn't work or it plays for 5 seconds and gives up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it seems no matter what I search for, I ALWAYS end up with "Charlie Rose" tv shows for sale in search results. I don't want to buy videos. I just want to see the free ones. Google Video seems to have exactly what I don't want.
myspace videos, OTOH are all viral videos and soft core porn. Youtube's got that wonderful middle gr
Re: (Score:2)
My plastic surgeon said the same thing before the operation. But I've found they don't match the beard...
I see it all the time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or simply just redirect everyone that clicks on Google Video to You Tube. That's what I'd do, but then again I'm lazy. Bite me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Heroes and Lost for example got pulled the day after they were posted. WOW South park got pulled a few days after posting but only because a large majority of the WOW players were probably spamming. I have also seen comments like "Content removed as owner is MTV" and similar.
Likewise with google video. You can get (c)
Actually, the added liability risk makes sense... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Actually, the added liability risk makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously Google knows there is copyrighted content on YouTube. It also knows that YouTube is what people want. Before the idea of capitalistic humility was eroded by monopolistic content producers who unilaterally decided they had consumers by the proverbial balls and would take them for all they're worth, companies actually tried to give consumers what they wanted. Google, I think, understands that. Yes, people want everything for free, but we all love YouTube. And why? Ignoring the vlogs and random jackass-style videos that everyone likes to watch, YouTube is on-demand content. It's a service that is realizable within today's technological constraints and universally desired among consumers. If Google can find a way to get the money machine going on this, the possibilities suddenly become immensely attractive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the difference? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
since when... (Score:4, Insightful)
i think youtube fits right in, personally.
but also, i hate the current state of our copyright laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but still, the number of homemade music videos and other "minor copyright infringement" stuff like that on google video and youtube are similar enough.
I don't think it'll be a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So we can be sure that we will still be able to see everything - but just for few days. Which is really good for marketing - you need to visit their page very often, just not to miss some content.
Good idea, plus if you don't annoy RIAA and MPIA (and their BIG members) too much it should work.
jackharrer
Re: (Score:2)
Google might have a viable defense under the DMCA's "safe haven" clause for ISPs.
Semantics (Score:2)
</troll>
Anyway, I the article suggests Google don't know the trouble they're getting into. Well, seems they did okay with Google Video. I haven't seen them screw it up yet...
better and more lawyers (Score:2, Funny)
Leaves it vulnerable my bottom. (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow I feel this was discussed behind closed doors, risks assessed and measured, strategy outlined. The deal proceeded despite all this.
There's simply a lot we just don't know to start discussing if YouTube leaves "Google vulnerable". And when you don't know something, it's best to wait and see, versus flap your mouth, outputting unmitigated BS in your articles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think your example is not of the best ones, unless you mean that in the case of Google, copyright is one "unexpected law".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Monetize? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the entertainment industry going to lobby Congress to make movies and songs into a currency?
Google is plenty vulnerable already (Score:4, Funny)
*caugh*
http://www.cgisecurity.com/2006/10/06 [cgisecurity.com]
This is a Non-Issue (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, the odd internet clips, they'll survive, since generally they're not copyrighted. But short "big media" content such as music videos and commercials are going to have to be removed, and I think th
Re: (Score:2)
It's the nineties all over again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it would be if Google had paid hard cash. They did not -- they paid with stock, which is a different story altogether.
Of course, we all know of the DotCom billionaires who were left with worthless pieces of paper, so let's see how far this goes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's the nineties all over again. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't just "make a YouTube out of Slashdot" or what have you, with "only minor code changes"! I'd agree that only small changes are needed to turn a particular type of site into a competing "clone" of the site. This is often seen with online dating service web sites, for example. They all perform the same basic function, so the back-end database code is pretty much the same.
But the hardware, bandwidth AND software demands of a streaming video site are very different than a blog site that deals in practically all text.
The fact that young people switch web sites "on a whim" is meaningless. Young people *always* switch brand loyalty on a whim. The fashion industry is well aware of this, yet they haven't stopped vying for their dollars, have they? The fact is, there's a lot of money to be made in creating and trying to hang onto an image of "oool/trendy" as long as you possibly can.
Re: (Score:2)
No, only in Soviet Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
You could make YouTube out of a Wiki in a few hours. If you don't see that, then you're probably not very much of a programmer. Or maybe *I* don't understand what so difficult about a searchable content-database with a web-presentation layer and some user abstraction.
}} The fashion industry is well aware of this, yet they haven't stopped vying for their dollars, have they?
The fashion industry is not one big blob, my friend. Individual fashion companies go
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the most significant assets of any company are its brands. Interbrand does an evaluation [ourfishbowl.com] every year where they estimate what the biggest brands are worth. Here's the top five: Coca-Cola ($67 billion), Microsoft ($56.9 billion), IBM ($56.2 billion), GE ($48.9 billion) and Intel ($32.3 billion).
Now, you can argue whether the YouTube brand is worth the price. But to argue that all they have is a brand - with the implicit assumption that brands are not worth anything at all - is simply wrong. Every day
Re: (Score:2)
Monetize? (Score:5, Insightful)
And here we have, in one choice of wording in one sentence, the embodyment of everything wrong with out entire IP system.
We need to line asshats like this need up against the wall, ASAP. Yes, YouTube hosts quite a lot of copyrighted content. Yes, Google has deeper pockets. So what?
Camwhores aside, anyone considering suing GooTube does not have the advancement of human culture in mind - Or even their own sales! They just want a quick buck via legislation rather than work. YouTube has taken what amounts to the "abandonware" of the media market, and made it popular again even in a low-quality format. Sales of cheesy 80s videos collections have skyrocketed thanks to YouTube, and at least some major labels haven't failed to notice this. But it only takes a single holdout, who considers their one-hit-underground-wonder as the single most important pile of dung on the planet, to make YouTube the next Napster.
We don't need an overhaul of IP law (and yes, I do include the whole plate of copyright, trademark, patents, and the rest in that term, quite deliberately), we need it completely done away with. We need a judiciary that has at least a basic grasp of the technology they keep making very dangerous decisions about. And we need people who talk about "monetizing" anything other than physically backed currency taken out back and shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I've watched more then I bought. I did buy "My Name is Kim Sam Soon" on DVD after watching a few episodes on YouTube.
TV stations are already starting to come around as well. I noticed a lot of the US TV stations now show thier tv shows on thier websites. For example I can watch Heroes+Jerico legally online for free.
I think the sooner the media groups embrace the model the better it will work out for everyone.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Thomas Edison held 1,093 patents, AFAIK the record for an individual.
Today, assuming a non-lawyer could write a 100% compliant single-claim application, get it accepted on the first try, and no one ever challenges that patent, it would cost over 1.5 million dollars just to hold that same number for their standard patentable lifetime. That represents a minimum; figures I've seen for the "real" cost of getting and holding a patent co
Re: (Score:2)
Second mistake is made over and over by
Re: (Score:2)
They both grant a supposedly-limited monopoly to make use of a created work. They have differing lengths and, at least originally, you needed to take positive steps to obtain both (look up the copyright status of Romero's Night of the Living Dead if you think otherwise).
Both currently require considerable financial resources to successfully defend in court.
As their only real difference, copyright covers the specific expre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And communism could work, in theory.
Yes, in an ideal world, some form of extremely limited IP law seems like a good idea. In practice, every exclusionary granting of certain rights and benefits to one person/group over another has rapidly degenerated into a self-perpetuating polarization of "haves" and "have-nots".
And what if someone removed your means to "get yours" to begin with?
[...]
What if you are an author? You want someone to copy your work whole and
Re: (Score:2)
This is about confronting the copyright collective (Score:4, Interesting)
"Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."
Webpages are but a piece of the world's information. Most of it is in print, video and audio. The problem is the various copyright collectives pretends that fair use doesn't exist, and this gets in the way of Google's stated mission.
Google is confronting the book publishers already and challenging their interpretation of fair use. The Youtube aquisition means the movies and television is next. Music is obviously down the road. Audio search is not as difficult as video search, but it is also not as sexy (The success of Youtube is testimony to our love affair with video).
DMCA to the rescue? (Score:2)
Actually, as I understand the law, they don't. The "Safe Harbor" provision of the DMCA is (rightly) the subject of much criticism, but as I understand it (IANAL), in this case it works to protect YouTube/Google.
Basically, the law says that as long as YouTube takes the content down upon receipt of notification of infringement, YouTube is not liable for anythi
Re: (Score:2)
You understand the legislation today. But remember that if Congress is willing to sell the service of passing DMCA, then they're willing to sell the service of passing DMCA2. When content providers say something is "needed", they're not just talking about the law as is, they're also talking about their future pl
Re: (Score:2)
When content providers say something is "needed", they're not just talking about the law as is, they're also talking about their future plans for the law.
OTOH, when they go to Congress and ask for this change, they're going to be facing well-funded opposition. Google's pockets are as deep as the media companies', and Google isn't alone in the fight, either. Changes such as those you describe would pose a great danger to all online services that accept user-submitted content and, arguably, all ISPs as w
The code (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet it seems to have a lot better uptime and reliability than myspace. Sure, apples & oranges, but I don't remember it taking weeks to process an uploaded video on youtube.
Too young to agree to a binding copyright transfer (Score:2)
stock increase (Score:2)
So in other words, shares rose by about 0.07%, right?
Re: (Score:2)
This was a brilliant purchase (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Google paid 1.5% of the company in stock to purchase YouTube. Google stock jumped 5% on the news. Purchasing YouTube resulted in a profit for Google.
2. Television as we know it is dieing, and quickly. You can already watch many network shows on the web. Moving shows to the web means that networks can gather better metrics, which means better add targeting, which means higher add prices, which means fewer adds. Everybody wins. (And before you go on about greedy media companies, nobody knows better how not to kill the goose that laid the golden egg than Google).
3. Media providers were already signing up in ones and twos with YouTube. They will now fall all over themselves to sign up with the web's largest advertising company.
4. You can't be sued for hosting copyrighted content unless you have been properly notified of your infringement by the copyright holder and ignored it. No legal risk unless you bungle it.
5. With media providers signing up with YouTube to host their copyrighted content, there will be more copyrighted content available, at higher quality. You will have to sit through adds, but not as many as when you watch TV, and you can do it at your own schedule.
Google will be the largest media company in the world within 10 years. You heard it here first.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're doing Bubble math.
Increases in stock price are not "profit", it is a change in the imaginary value of the company in the minds of the stockholders.
That value can be lost, catastrophically, in a way that cash in a bank account, or physical assets cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
They bought YouTube with shares of Google stock. If the shares don't have any intrinsic value, then Google just got YouTube for nothing.
The odd thing about stock prices, just like fiat currency, is that the value holds as long as the transactions are small. If you owned a billion dollars worth of Google stock and tried to sell it all at once, odds are you'd decrease the price of the overall stock s
Re: (Score:2)
Physical assets can increase (e.g. house) or decrease (e.g. car) in value, too, so that's not very stable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Media Company" is a bit off. Think media hosting or media distrubition company. Google will do for web delivered video and ads what Nelson does for TV. There was an article that I ran across not to long ago that stated that shows that have about 5-10% of their watchers via Ipod or other video download sources won't have their viewers counted by Nelson. I'll predict that Google will come out with 3-5 simple slight
Much Ado About Nothing (Score:2, Informative)
Law does not require them to be proactive (Score:3, Insightful)
The law says otherwise.
Nice try, __AA.
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically what happened when I got an underling at work. Being management rules.
All a question of leverage (Score:2)
If the RIAA or MPAA or whatever had decided to agressively target youtube it would have had to either agree to some quite bad deals (=be neutered) or be dragged to court and taken down (as this kind of ligitation eats money like popcorn)
Now that Google stands behind it things have changed. Google is a heavyweight, both moneywise and in the "importance" sector - being one of the most important companies in searching and advertising and a few other sectors gives y
Not that big of a risk (Score:3, Informative)
1. Direct infringement: somebody posts a video they don't own and the copyright owner sues. This isn't a problem, so long as YouTube adheres to the DMCA notice-and-takedown provisions. The copyright owner sends an email to google, saying "You have my copyrighted content at www.youtube.com/blah/blah/blah. Please remove it," google removes it and no liability.
2. Vicarious infringement: basically, the Sony Betamax/Grokster doctrine: you have this site up there intending for people to post infringing material. So, even though your site may be used for non-infringing purposes, the fact that you intend for it to be used for infringing purposes is enough to make you liaible for vicarious infringement. BUT, google is out signing agreements with all sorts of content owners, trying to populate youtube with legitimate content. In this situation, it hardly seems that their business model relies on infringement.
There will, no doubt, be a few people who try to sue. But, as long as google doesn't mess up, those people will lose.
Quite Brilliant (Score:2, Insightful)
Limit to liability (Score:2)
If so, wouldn't that cap their losses at the 1.65B they are paying for YouTube?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not Liable (Score:4, Interesting)
The way the law currently stands, Google can not be held liable as long as they take sufficient measures to prevent, and react to effeciently remove, illegal (in this case, unlicensed and copyrighted) material. YouTube, now through Google, offers a service to upload and display video on the web. Sure, there are more minor details, but that's really just it. And that's not illegal. Users may choose to upload unlicensed, copyrighted material, but it's only up to Gootube to properly police it.
Some points:
Doesn't Anyone Know The Law (Score:2)
Both google and youtube are protected by the ISP/forum safe harbor provisions. So long as they take down clips when served with a proper notice from the copyright provider (and I think they can choose to fight it instead) then no one can win a judgement against google. At best the content providers can sue the individual uploaders and force google to take the material down.
Now if google was forced to take down all the copyrighted content on youtube this w
Wait (Score:2)
Google wants this battle (Score:2)
And they have the initial graces of Warner Bros. and likely subsequent candidates for viral videos. Let the lawyers get rich.
The obvious deterant (Score:3, Interesting)
Some news sources have asked that they not be quoted on Google News, too, I've heard. I think there were even some that I'd heard of and read at the time, but I can't remember any more what they were...
The internet is a series of youtubes (Score:2)
Collossal, idiotic mistake (Score:2)
With one unbelievably STUPID purchase, google has done what Microsoft probably could never have done...google has removed google from the game.
It's onl
Re: (Score:2)
It's about money (Score:2)