Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ballmer Sounds Off

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the he'd-kick-my-ass-at-poker-and-monkey-dancing dept.

335

PreacherTom writes "Steve Ballmer shares his thoughts on the Web 2.0 phenomenon, Zune, XBox, Vista, Bill's upcoming 2008 retirement, the future of Microsoft, and other subjects. For example, regarding the GooTube deal: "Right now, there's no business model for YouTube that would justify $1.6 billion. And what about the rights holders? At the end of the day, a lot of the content that's up there is owned by somebody else. The truth is what Google is doing now is transferring the wealth out of the hands of rights holders into Google." He's blunt, if nothing else."

cancel ×

335 comments

Insert Lame Ballmer Jokes Here (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391701)

Oh great, here come the lame, unfunny Ballmer as dancing monkey jokes. You know it's coming, and it's still unfunny the 500th time you seen it.

Moderators, do your job and mod them all as Redundant becuase they are.

Re:Insert Lame Ballmer Jokes Here (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391965)

Besides, it's not nice to make fun of bald fat-asses with bipolar disorder.

Deleted Scenes from the Interview (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391709)

The truth is what Google is doing now is transferring the wealth out of the hands of rights holders into Google.
Ballmer:That's right, once Google bought YouTube they telephoned all the banks of recording industry artists and movie association members and said explicitly, "All your wealth are belong to us." And it was that point right there when all the banks handed large sacks with green dollar signs on them to Google. Remember back to that day, it was a long time ago, do you remember? Don't you remember Google having a long mustache that they twirled as they laughed and took the money?

Interviewer: Aren't you oversimplifying things? I mean YouTube was taking down copyrighted content once they were notified of its presence.

Ballmer: I'd never be guilty of oversimplifying something--I was merely attempting to explain a situation to the rest of the world about a company that just happens to be one of our biggest competitors and a direct threat in the search and advertisment industries. You don't remember it like that? Well I do and so does DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS ... sorry, I have Tourettes syndrome.

Re:Deleted Scenes from the Interview (5, Insightful)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391849)

Ingnoring your little pantomime, Ballmer's point is legitimate -- even 'user created' content is a HUGE liability on the website. A World of Warcraft video w/ a soundtrack from a current music album, populated with soundbits from TV shows... lawyers no longer need viagra.

Youtube is a very, very young company...just like it took the RIAA a few years to realise what Napster was, I'm sure the MPAA is having closed door sessions today to figure out how to litigate/shut this down.

In the land of the DCMA, laws banning online gambling, the RIAA and MPAA, this is a huge legal disaster waiting to happen. I'm supportive of Google pushing the envelope, but I think they have overreached on this acquisition. Their first major mistake IMHO.

Re:Deleted Scenes from the Interview (5, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391935)

In the land of the DCMA, laws banning online gambling, the RIAA and MPAA, this is a huge legal disaster waiting to happen. I'm supportive of Google pushing the envelope, but I think they have overreached on this acquisition. Their first major mistake IMHO.

On the upside, the impact of such litigation on The Common Man might just wake everyone up to how out of control copyright laws have gotten...

Re:Deleted Scenes from the Interview (4, Insightful)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391941)

I don't really see how this changes things for Google, I mean they already have Google Video, which is essentially the same service as You Tube. If you're going to oversimplify you could say they basically the just bought a userbase. I can't imagine Google Video was any more immune to copyright infringement then You Tube is.

Re:Deleted Scenes from the Interview (1)

allenw (33234) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392161)

... except Google Video does provide a revenue stream for content holders, thanks to that Buy button.

Re:Deleted Scenes from the Interview (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392345)

...which we'll probably see soon on YouTube, too.

They just bought it. Give them at least a few days to come up with some plan.

Re:Deleted Scenes from the Interview (3, Insightful)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392689)

They just bought it. Give them at least a few days to come up with some plan.
When you spend $1.6B you're supposed to have a plan ahead of time. Now that doesn't mean they don't have a plan, they just aren't telling us what it is yet.

Re:Deleted Scenes from the Interview (5, Informative)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392183)

Videos on YouTube go up like 3-5 minutes after you upload them. Google Video goes through a process that takes a day or two. This helps slow down impulse uploading. Why show off a cool video to your friends online that isn't yours on Google Video that will take a day or two. It's faster to post it on YouTube where it will be up in minutes and you are still excited about it.

Re:Deleted Scenes from the Interview (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392583)

Ah, so that's why Youtube seemed more popular! I'd been wondering...

Re:Deleted Scenes from the Interview (3, Insightful)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392417)

I have to agree with this.

Who would have sued YouTube before? Universal hinted but never made good, and considering YouTube would probably have been barely able to cover fighting all these lawsuits let alone winning/losing, it seemed like an uphill battle trying to squeeze the money these companies 'deserve'.

Now that YouTube is backed by deep-pocketed Google, this is every lawyer's wet dream waiting to happen. Let's hope that the deals that Google have already signed with some of the major players are enough to stem the tide of lawsuits waiting to happen.

Also, let's be honest, if Steve Jobs had said this people here would have thought about it rather than the rampant anti-Ballmer sentiment that seems to be throwing itself up here. The funny thing is that if Jobs had said it, he has far more of a reason to be biased because Apple are in the business of actually buying video content before they sell it.

Re:Deleted Scenes from the Interview (4, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392547)

A World of Warcraft video w/ a soundtrack from a current music album, populated with soundbits from TV shows... lawyers no longer need viagra.

And it's a fine example of how copyright is entirely out of whack, that actual creative effort gets the shaft in favor of so-called "rights holders" that do nothing more than sit on their asses all day! It is exactly this kind of situation that copyright is supposed to encourage, not prevent!

Re:Deleted Scenes from the Interview (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392705)

But those who made the actual creative effort voluntarily chose to ally with these rights holders in order to get their games and TV shows and such created and distributed. I don't see how that makes copyright out of whack.

Re:Deleted Scenes from the Interview (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392729)

I think Google has the funds, and youtube has the user base, to (finally) get the "content industry" to sit down and actually work with technology instead of just trying to sue it out of existence. e.g.: google could get a meaningful compulsory license deal imposed.

Personally I'd prefer that they use the leverage to draw more attention to how much free/creative-commons work is out there, but to each his own.

Uh... (5, Interesting)

sammy baby (14909) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391715)

Uh. Surely if YouTube is the ticking time bomb of copyright infringement that it's claimed to be, then what's happening is Google transferring money from the hands of Google investors into a holding tank for eventual litigants.

I mean, if you were Ballmer, wouldn't you be thrilled that Google had bought YouTube?

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391789)

I mean, if you were Ballmer, wouldn't you be thrilled that Google had bought YouTube?
Maybe if I were an alternate-universe good-guy version of Ballmer with a goatee who was telling the actual truth instead of speaking a load of PR bollocks meant to discredit my competition.

Re:Uh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391859)

Well, I wonder what happens if you do not enforce your copyright.
And frankly, only the big names can enforce their copyright on YouTube.
Most small copyright holders won't even know that there is an infringement for years....

Re:Uh... (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392809)

Is there even a requirement to enforce a copyright in order to keep it?

Re:Uh... (2, Interesting)

LilWolf (847434) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392131)

if YouTube is the ticking time bomb of copyright infringement that it's claimed to be

I'd say it's pretty certain. Even YLE(the Finnish national broadcast company, about the same as BBC is in UK) is looking into Youtube and unauhorized use of its content. They haven't excluded the idea of suing Youtube through USA courts.

Re:Uh... (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392149)

I mean, if you were Ballmer, wouldn't you be thrilled that Google had bought YouTube?

No. Now I have to compete with Google in yet another arena that I don't want to. Every time Google makes a move, I have to counter or be caught behind the eight-ball. True, Google is going to have its hands full with litigation, but then this is what Google wants, so it can force media agencies to make concessions about allowing content on Google. Their pockets are pretty deep too.

Re:Uh... (3, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392425)

Let me translate what Balmer is really saying:

Ballmer: The truth is what Google is doing now is transferring the wealth out of the hands of rights holders into Google.
Translation: They're going to undercut the video section of Zune Marketplace...wahhhhh

-Eric

Re:Uh... (2, Informative)

cgenman (325138) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392697)

Notice that this is also the sort of thinking that has kept MS "late and last" to the web space for so long.

You have to waste some money up front if you want to be #1. And MS badly needs to become #1 somewhere in the online space to really deliver value to their advertisers. They may have "learned their lesson" from the Xbox, but they wouldn't have been competitive in the console space without it.

if only... (3, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391721)

Now if only somebody could come up with an example of Microsoft laying claim to something that wasn't theirs...

Re:if only... (0, Redundant)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391895)

What? Just one? :P

Re:if only... (3, Funny)

RockRampantly (976282) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391981)

Now if only somebody could come up with an example of Microsoft laying claim to something that wasn't theirs...
you forgot the "Oh wait..." part.

Re:if only... (5, Funny)

Cartzca (977233) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392041)

How about "The Internet" which they kindly link to from the start menu? Remember that it won't fit in the recycle bin...

Re:if only... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392537)

Are you from one of those 0900-call-in shows where you have to name the "right" 5 things where there are like 5,000?

He's right about the rights (5, Insightful)

spywhere (824072) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391723)

Now that YouTube has money behind it, Google can expect legal action from a whole bunch of people... some of it justified.

GooTube: Legal Spew For You (4, Insightful)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391855)

Dunno who marked this offtopic.

This blog post http://battellemedia.com/archives/002973.php [battellemedia.com]
Has this thoughtful closing:

So I think the YouTube acquisition may well represent a legal opportunity for Google (and the Internet industry generally), rather than a vulnerability. After all, litigation to define the copyright rules for new online services are inevitable -- better to choose your battles and plan for them, rather than fleeing the fight and letting some other company create bad precedents that will haunt you later.

It's about managing the debate, it seems.

Re:He's right about the rights (4, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391883)

However, now that they have money and a huge corporate staff behind it, they can actually keep up with the copyrighted stuff that gets posted, while at the same time using their squadron of entertainment lawyers to actually start securing the rights to the stuff that people obviously want.

Google Video has been selling legit videos for a while now, they have the experience. YouTube had started legitamizing some of their videos, cf. their recent deal with (I think) Warner. This whole situation has the potential to converge quite nicely for all concerned, and combine the freebies and community YouTube developed with a full-fledged digital video competitor to iTunes and Amazon.

Re:He's right about the rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392197)

None of it is justified. Some of it might be legally correct under the USA's infofascistic system. Law != Justice. Copyright monopolies should die http://piratpartiet.se/ [piratpartiet.se]

Re:He's right about the rights (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392411)

So long as YouTube staff doesn't deliberately post copyrighted material, and as long as they take down offending videos when they get a take-down notice, I don't think there's much of a legal leg to stand on.

Ow, my brain... (4, Funny)

tdvaughan (582870) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391725)

I want to squirt you a picture of my kids. You want to squirt me back a video of your vacation.

Coming from anyone else, I can cope with the picture that brings up in my mind. But from Ballmer?

Re:Ow, my brain... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391885)

"Coming from anyone else, I can cope with the picture that brings up in my mind. But from Ballmer?"

That's because there was no mention any dog food in those pictures or videos. Now squirt pictures of his kids eating Alpo or a video of recent family vacations to the Purina processing plant in Des Moines, Iowa, and now you've got media that Ballmer would be overjoyed to see!

/P

Talk About Horrible Slang (3, Funny)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392273)

I was giggling to myself when I read this. "Squirt". Is m$ serious about trying to make this their word, like "Rip" or "Podcast". This is a horrible catch phrase that I believe is trademarked by the porn industry.

Re:Talk About Horrible Slang (2, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392763)

So if Ballmer was into midget porn, would he ask to be "Squirted a squirting squirt"?

Re:Ow, my brain... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392419)

Well, how else is it going to get through all the tubes of the intarweb? I suppose you could suck it out from the other end, or blow it through ...

Flying chair (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391733)

Duck!!!

let's face it... (0, Flamebait)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391757)

Microsoft and Vista are irrelevant... and he just can't stand it... they're jealous and they're trying to lash out at anything they can't control.

Re:let's face it... (0, Redundant)

BSOD DOC (1008507) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391953)

Not jealously, moreso he seemed mad at himself for not having Microsoft buy/consume youtube instead of google...

Re:let's face it... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391961)

Microsoft and Vista are irrelevant... and he just can't stand it... they're jealous and they're trying to lash out at anything they can't control.

You're surely joking- no one in their right mind would claim that the market leader is "irrelevant".

Re:let's face it... (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392103)

no one "needs" Microsoft anymore... everything is on the web and all you need is a cheapo whitebox with Ubuntu installed... email, wordprocessing, spreadsheets... all can be done with that cheapo box...

Microsoft is desperately trying to move the PC upmarket into multimedia entertainment centres (DRM'd to the eyeballs) but joe consumer (as long as he's not easily diverted by ohh shiny shiny...) is gonna balk at the cost of Vista and the hardware required to run it decently. and is gonna balk even more furiously when he discovers just how restrictive things will be in Visat land...

The world moves on... and Microsoft is getting behind the wave and has some desperate paddling to do to even think of catching up with it. They missed this wave BIG TIME...

Re:let's face it... (3, Insightful)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392091)

People have been saying Microsoft and Windows * have been irrelevant every time there is a major Windows update.

And yet they keep on being relevant.

Re:let's face it... (4, Interesting)

lilfields (961485) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392545)

Vista and Microsoft is irrelavent? I suppose that's how Microsoft posted 9.74 Billion in revenue in Q1 06 which is a 7% increase year-over-year? That all occuring without Vista and Office 2007...am I missing something?

No Business Like Model Business (4, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391775)

"there's no business model for YouTube that would justify $1.6 billion. [...] what Google is doing now is transferring the wealth out of the hands of rights holders into Google"

That sounds like a business model.

At $1.6B, Google has transferred wealth from rights holders to the (outgoing) owners of YouTube.

What is clear is that Ballmer has no clue what's going on. Just like during the last bubble, when Microsoft was the last to "get" it. But then there was no Google producing apps closer to the consumer than Microsoft sits. So maybe this time a bubble, maybe its pop, will actually finally wash MS down the drain, the way we all thought we'd see with "missing the Internet" or Netscape or "Bob" or the monopoly decision or...

Re:No Business Like Model Business (1)

HappySqurriel (1010623) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391999)

I know that all the cool kids make fun of Microsoft and their employees but what is there to really "get" about YouTube?

YouTube is a fantastic webapplication that has a lot of potential but lacks any type of business model that would justify the purchase price; on top of that a large percentage of the content will cause the MPAA and RIAA to sue YouTube because they didn't get their cut (and don't forget the vast quantities of movies that are stolen from other websites because YouTube has better bandwith). My only thought is why would google spend $1.6 billion on a company that will face legal doom, when they could have spent $5 Million producing a web application and convinced the MPAA/RIAA that google-tube was the best place for them to have their videos and they should sue YouTube?

Re:No Business Like Model Business (1)

theAtomicFireball (532233) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392243)

There's a big difference between them "lacking" a business model, and you not being able to see it. 10 years ago, would you have thought that there was a "business model" around offering free internet search - a business model that would eventually lead to the juggernaut that is Google? I doubt it - I certainly didn't.

This could be a mistake on Google's part - I have no crystal ball, but I'm betting that the brains at Google gave this a little bit of thought before deciding to spend the money and have some plans (aka a "business model") for it.

Re:No Business Like Model Business (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392313)

Branding. Like Napster, Google will probably clean it up. Or, better than Napster, will monetize the sharing of copyright videos, and like Apple, make a deal with the rights holders to let it circulate freely (unmetered) as long as they're making real money.

That might cost another $billion, but if Google can free video content among the huge YouTube audience, they will have "invented" Internet TV, without hardly trying.

Re:No Business Like Model Business (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392509)

Both Napster and YouTube have benn hemorraging money since their inception. How is a business that is losing tens of millions of dollars annually worth $1.6B, especially since Google already has an IDENTICAL product? Google doesn't need to acquire YouTube to start "monetizing" the sharing of copyrighted video! Google has already done this.

Re:No Business Like Model Business (1)

ArikTheRed (865776) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392343)

My only thought is why would google spend $1.6 billion on a company that will face legal doom, when they could have spent $5 Million producing a web application and convinced the MPAA/RIAA that google-tube was the best place for them to have their videos and they should sue YouTube?

Uh, they did [google.com] develop their own app, but no one went there. They want the people to advertise to, thats all. If they have an even larger audience, their ad revenue will increase across the board.

I wouldn't worry about Google getting sued. Why? Because 5 parent companies (GE, Time/Warner, Disney, Viacom, News Corp) control most of that content anyway. They need to make deals with those companines, and then swat at the smaller ones. YouTube wasn't doing so well because of the bandwidth cost. Bandwidth is one thing that Google has plenty of, and is cheap (for them).

Jealous, perhaps? (1, Insightful)

blcamp (211756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391781)


Youtube is not a terribly complicated web application, yet the founders are going to cash it in and walk away with USD 1.65 Billion (with a B).

Certainly Ballmer's developers! developers! developers! could have come up with the same thing and brought it to market far faster... but they didn't. Redmond even think about it, did they?

Sounds like a bit of jealousy... or sour grapes.

Re:Jealous, perhaps? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392141)

"Certainly Ballmer's developers! developers! developers! could have come up with the same thing and brought it to market far faster... but they didn't. Redmond even think about it, did they?

Sounds like a bit of jealousy... or sour grapes."

Eh, Microsoft could have easily coded something so simple in design, however Microsoft is far too integrative with paid content providers to ever get such a thing off the ground. They have enough legal red tape with their other digital media projects.

Now, now... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392437)

Hey, they just invented the mobile MP3 player, which was all new and never done before, cut them a little slack. I'm pretty sure they'll invent a service where you can upload your videos in due time. Like, 3 or 4 years.

Re:Jealous, perhaps? (1)

saridder (103936) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392485)

Actually the co-founders "only" get to split $500mm.

And unfortunately right about YouTube (3, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391843)

YouTube is trying to provide a legitimate platform, but it has A LOT of IP that doesn't belong to those posting it. For better or for worse, this is illegal and somewhat unethical. Google stepped into a minefield by buying them if they don't have a comprehensive way to filter out that stuff. If I were a shareholder, I'd be deeply worried that Google has opened themselves up to a potentially fatal IP battle. Between this and the Google book search IP lawsuits, Google is gambling big time and geek opinions on the legitimacy of IP law and how it should apply won't mean crap in a court of law WRT Google.

Re:And unfortunately right about YouTube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392059)

Wrong.

one acronym: DMCA.

The DMCA protects service providers (i.e. YouTube, now Google) from being liable for the content they provide; I have no idea why people keep forgetting this. Google will get sued, but it will amount to -0-.

Cuban, for all his ranting and raving, missed this little fact on his blog - and society rewards people like him..... *sigh*

Re:And unfortunately right about YouTube (3, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392081)

Google has the resources to start cracking down on the copyrighted stuff, and the clout to start securing the rights to actually distribute (and possibly sell) the copyrighted content that they can't help but notice people want. The demand is there and measurable, they only have to work out the deals to be able to supply it legitimately. They've been doing that with Google Video for a while now, so really it looks like smooth sailing from here on in.

The only people that lose out are the Youtube users who got used to the free ride with the copyrighted stuff and don't want to pay for legit downloads on GooTube, but they can always head back to the fileshares.

Re:And unfortunately right about YouTube (1)

theAtomicFireball (532233) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392327)

For better or for worse, this is illegal and somewhat unethical.
That's rather a broad generalization. Not all situations where IP is used by someone who is not the "rights owner" as Ballmer says (that should be "primary rights owner, as we ALL have rights, such as "fair use rights") is illegal or unethical. There is a lot of gray area in that regard, and certainly some of what is posted to YouTube is illegal and/or unethical, but you can't make a blanket statement like this.

Guess it goes to show that the RIAA and MPAA are doing a good job with their propaganda, though, since less and less people know or care about fair use these days.

YouTube *can't* determine the rights upfront (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392773)

And if you want to get even more technical, even DETERMINING who exactly owns the "rights" of a work is often impossible.

It's fine if you have a single person making a video. But what if you have several people working to produce that video? Technically they all own a piece of the rights, unless it's a "work for hire" for a single company. And how would you know that if you were an individual buying it from just one of them? Until you got a "cease and desist" letter from one of the other guys, there is no way you COULD know.

It's more than just *hard* for YouTube to determine the rights holder(s) of every piece of video submitted to their service, it's quite literally IMPOSSIBLE. Basically, with the exception of OBIVIOUS rights violations (i.e. last night's episode of Battlestar Galactica), they just have to take people at their word until they get a cease and desist letter to indicate otherwise.

-Eric

Re:And unfortunately right about YouTube (3, Informative)

asuffield (111848) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392789)

If I were a shareholder, I'd be deeply worried that Google has opened themselves up to a potentially fatal IP battle.


That's because you're either not up to date on US law or you've been listening to Ballmer for too long. Title 2 of the DMCA [wikipedia.org] creates a "safe harbour" which exempts Google (and any other "Online Service Provider") from liability for this sort of thing, so long as they comply with certain rules. Google almost certainly plan to follow these rules to the letter, as they do for all other other services, which means nobody can take them to court in the US for anything posted on YouTube by a third party.

Basically, if you post something to YouTube, it's your fault and not theirs. They are not obliged to screen the content. If somebody sends them a "takedown" notice, they are obliged to presume guilt and remove the content (without investigating). If you then send them a counter-notice, they are obliged to presume innocence and restore the content (still without investigating), and then you and the person who sent the notice get to fight it out in court.

(This is the "good" part of the DMCA, providing a form of common carrier status to hosting companies; Title 1 is the "bad" part, enslaving the US to DRM)

trollkoSre (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16391893)

YouTube has a lot posibilities (4, Insightful)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391905)

Think in this way: How many people visit YouTube every day? Millions.
What happens it you put Google adverts there? Yes, you guessed. You will have damn a lot of clicks.
Does it sound like a business model? Yep, I think so.
Is it highly overpriced? Up to Google, they had cash - they need to invest it. It gave them about 80% of downloaded videos. Is it good? For them, for a while, for sure. What happens next is up to them, and RIAA, MPIA and so. If they can struck some kind of deal, who knows. With their cash, influences.
That's exactly what Ballmer said. He 'wouldn't pay that much cash.' He MIGHT. Because it's very risky - but we all know that risky actions are most profitable. Time will show.

Well, THAT is a delinquent (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16391977)

And you though that killing your wife was bad. But Balmer... THAT's a delinquent.

FAIlZORS.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392011)

Eroors. FuTure I on my Pentium Pro

Ballmer Ignoring Reality Of Xbox 360 Mess (0, Offtopic)

RichardMarks (1011125) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392085)

The Xbox 360 is selling worse than the first Xbox.
The 360 is completely dead in Japan.
The 360 hasn't even broke a million sold in Europe.
And in what is supposed to be the strongest market for the Xbox, the US,

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_conte nt&task=view&id=3978&Itemid=2 [next-gen.biz]

The 360 has sold less units in its first year compared to the first Xbox.

And all of this during a time where their only competition was the six year old PS2 that has been beating the 360 almost every single month this year.

There was talk of Microsoft using profits from the 360 to fund the Zune going up against Apple, but the massive 360 losses keep getting pushed out into the future. Right now best case scenario is 2008. Although the massive money they must be spending on fixing the huge numbers of defective 360s for free will certainly push that date ever more.

Microsoft talked of having 10 million 360s in consumer hands by the end of 2006, but right now they have only sold 3.4 million worldwide. ~2.4 in NA, 0.14 in Japan, and 1 million in Europe.

And the Wii and PS3 are one month from hitting the shelves. It is hard to imagine that 360 sales will pick up when faced with the two biggest names in console gaming arriving in the market with their new consoles.

Re:Ballmer Ignoring Reality Of Xbox 360 Mess (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392525)

I've been waiting on Halo 3 before I buy an xbox360. Why buy an xbox360 when all I ever play is Halo 2? Unless you'd like to mail me a copy of DOA.

Re:Ballmer Ignoring Reality Of Xbox 360 Mess (1)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392731)

Q1 2006, 1.7 million units sold world wide
Q2 2006, 1.8 million units sold world wide
Q3 2006, 1.75 million units sold world wide.
For those lacking basic math skills, thats 5.25 million, which is a far cry from 3.4 million. Mind you this doesn't include Q3 of 2006.

Adding to those numbers Q4 of 2005 brings that total rather close to 7.0 Million units.

Gross oversimplification (3, Interesting)

ben there... (946946) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392087)

The truth is what Google is doing now is transferring the wealth out of the hands of rights holders into Google.

Less than half of the popular videos when I just checked were from TV. Of those that were, 3/4 of them were news clips or Jon Stewart/Colbert Report. Even then, it is short clips.

What this quote is missing is that the majority of the content on YouTube is produced by the "You" in YouTube. That's what the new phenomenon of these video sites is really about. People producing and distributing their own content.

In fact, I wish people would just stop posting copyrighted videos. There's BitTorrent and a wide variety of other means to share that, if that's your thing. Why bother using YouTube for it, when you know that already having a popular video is enough to get it seeded?

Re:Gross oversimplification (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392267)

Youtube is about the masses. Most people want to get a simple link from their friends or funny website that says "this is funny check this out" and click and view. Torrents, although not complicated considered alone, is 100 times more complicated than this.

Re:Gross oversimplification (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392281)

Notably, most of the Stewart and Colbert stuff is already streamed for free on Comedy Central's own site. Adult Swim has been streaming entire seasons of their shows over their own site. More networks and production companies are following suit every day, with either free streams or cheap downloads on iTunes and the like.

The one thing filesharing in general and Youtube in particular have really helped to jumpstart, is letting progressive rights-holders like these know that demand for streaming their stuff online is there, and people are even willing to sit in front of an ad-peppered site to see them. If you're some TV honcho and you see people taking it upon themselves to upload and share your content, you'll probably have to take steps to protect your content, and stop the service provider from profiting from your work. However, you can take the popularity and success of the format to realize how you can do what they do even better and still profit, either by streaming it yourself for free, or selling downloads. Remember how much the entertainment industry bitched about people taping their stuff from television, spreading FUD about how it would kill the industry? Eventually they woke up and realized they could sell their own tapes, and later DVDs, which are now a major part of their business model. This industry has a history of initially freaking out about any change of circumstances, before actually evolving to suit them and realizing it's not so bad.

Venture Capitol (4, Funny)

codepunk (167897) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392109)

I bet Microsoft is calling around today asking if by chance somebody was to back them up financially would they invest in this cool company they know about that is tossing around the idea of a lawsuit
against google for infringement....you know wink, wink we got your back bro!

Balmer needs a cooler name (0)

it0 (567968) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392153)

Like

Steve "The Chair" Balmer
or
Steve Tripple D Balmer
or
Steve "Killing you softly" Balmer

I would take him more seriously, wouldn't you?

Re:Balmer needs a cooler name (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392503)

It sure would up his street credibility, dude.

But why stop there? I can even see a comic book, where Steve "Da D Man" Balmer and Billy "640k" Gates save the day from such dreaded terrorist ideas like open source or free enterprise.

Re:Balmer needs a cooler name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392569)

How about Angry Angry Balmer?

Ballmer's Like that Girl from the Exorcist... (1, Flamebait)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392167)

Every time he opens his mouth, pea green crap spews out. Microsoft should invest in 3M and keep that thing duct-taped closed.

Anyway, he's only pissed off because Microsoft wants all that money and Google's proving to be a better player of the game of Monopoly. And they don't charge you $400 when you land on Park Avenue. It's kind of interesting to watch a company with the motto of "Don't be Evil" running circles around a company whose motto has to be "Be Evil" based on everything the've done in the past couple of decades. Microsoft used every dirty, underhanded trick in the book to protect their monopoly status and Google waltzes in and beats their pants off just by making cool things and pretty much ignoring their competition.

Our grandkids will hate us (3, Insightful)

TheWoozle (984500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392171)

The question is: What's the value of an eyeball?

That really is the question, isn't it. Today advertising is where a large portion of the money is being made on the web.

It makes me want to go back in time and find and then murder the "clever" person who thought "I know, since we can't charge each listener for our radio program, we'll charge companies to advertise on our show!"

Advertising is a blight on our society. I can't even watch a frickin' movie that I paid to see without having advertising shoved down my throat...even in the damned movie!

Hasn't any business been paying attention?! People will actually spend money to avoid advertising. PVRs, DVD collections of TV shows, movie and music downloads...to a lot of people, it's not about "convenience", it's about not having to put up with commercials.

So to all the advertisers out there: FUCK OFF. When I want to find the best product for my money, I'll grab the nearest advertsing executive and beat it out of them.

My eyeballs are not for sale!

well, duh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392173)

of *course* he's blunt -- he's Google's biggest competitor. and since when has /. become a haven for M$ mouthpieces?

I've been using Google since '97, and I for one hope they do take over the world -- they're a damn sight better than the current US regime. :)

Really interesting thing... (5, Interesting)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392189)

Ballmer let slip at the end, (regarding European vista launch date):

"...we'll have to push the button because our partners--hardware makers and retail chains--need time to ramp up supply chains, marketing, and demand generation."

Demand generation. Vista itself has no demand (meaning no extra benefit over XP), so they have to artificially create demand now.

Re:Really interesting thing... (1)

chroot_james (833654) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392663)

Demand generation. Vista itself has no demand (meaning no extra benefit over XP), so they have to artificially create demand now.
Companies have done this forever. It's nothing new with Vista. When you get a free sample, that's a combination of marketing and demand generation. They convince you you need the product and won't be happy without it. Fight Club covered this long before Vista was being talked about...

Does he answer the important questions though! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392207)

Does he answer the important questions though!

Which brand(s) of chair fly best?
Do you find accuracy, distance, size or weight to be a more important feature of your chairs?
Is it better when the chair shatters on the target or bounces off?

Re:Does he answer the important questions though! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392741)

Well, I can answer one of those: Is it better when the chair shatters on the target or bounces off?


It depends on whether you want to inflict actual damage, or simply make a loud noise so you can pound you chest like a baboon. If you want to inflict damage (say, a 1d6+2 magical Chair of Throwing), it is better if the chair bounces, because then the greatest amount of momentum will transfer into the poor, helpless permatemp who has no medical insurance to cover the treatment he will now need. If you simply want to be a baboon, then the chair needs to be such that it will break on impact, converting a sizable portion of the kinetic energy into sound energy.


Okay, maybe I should actually do some work now... :-)

Oh come on... (4, Insightful)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392233)

Everyone knows that You Tube has loads of copyrighted material that shouldn't be there. With this in mind, why would Google buy it and risk having their ass sued off? I wouldn't have bought it if I'd had the money for this one reason, but for some reason Google have done. Maybe they'll just remove all the copyrighted material or just charge a subscription for it?

Basically all it boils down to is that You Tube is the biggest video site on the net which Google now control and Microsoft are just pissed because they've just lost out on the biggest multimedia opportunity of this decade.

"Plays anywhere" (2, Insightful)

betelgeuse68 (230611) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392291)

"Apple is refusing to give its users choice. With Windows Media Player you can play the music you buy on the device of your choosing."

That's a paraphrase but essentially Ballmer delivered that message. Then sometime later MS decides to release its Zune player and to say to its former music partners. I guess I could fill in the blanks here, "Sorry that you didn't realize MS+'Anyone' = MS." Namely that your interests are not ever really a consideration.

MS actually started its down video site. So if Mr. Ballmer feels so strongly, the question is, why? I know the answer by and large.

Ballmer simply has no tact whatsoever. He gets all emotional and contradicts himself later making him look like a capricious idiot.

-M

Third competitor (2, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392321)

A third model I could sit here and write down on this list is that there are cases where software gets monetized through hardware. That's what an iPod is. iPod is a software thing. You just happen to collect the money on the hardware. You could say in China and India, it's unclear whether classic software will get paid for as much as advertising, hardware, subscriptions, etc.

I thought the iPod model was where content get monetized through hardware. Unless Ballmer is equating content with software. Maybe I'm looking at this differently but in my world view content is faciliated by software but not an integral part of it. A novel is more than the word processor used to create it.

Enforcement (2)

lsm2006 (949039) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392339)

The most frightening scenario is Google positioning itself as the uber-enforcement agent of copyright on the Internet, in exchange for a piece of the action. With the data it is accumulating, Google more than any other single firm can identify people, and tag them with the creation of violating derivative works or the consumption of violating works. The statute of limitations for criminal prosecution is years.

Good god (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16392381)

Fucking Steve Ballmer is a fucking pussy, I'd win a game of chair tossing against that old man any day of the week.

There's no bussines model but.... (2, Insightful)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392449)

Right now, there's no business model for YouTube that would justify $1.6 billion

Why is that I suspect that Microsoft also tried to buy youtube?

Obligatory comment referring to Balmer video... (0, Redundant)

zarozarozaro (756135) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392457)

of him stomping and screaming about how much he loves Microsoft. I'm pretty sure its on you tube.

Maybe he just wants residuals...

I just hate to admit (1)

crodrigu1 (819002) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392541)

The guy is right, google made a mistake, and about web 2.0, just decided to be a web 2.0 consultant, make a lot of money and when people realize that the darn thing do not work I will be rich (so will not care).

this whole msft vs goog thing (1)

Glog (303500) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392557)

is so reminiscent of the years when Microsoft was snatching deals from under IBM's nose. I just hope that for the sake of all users Microsoft can reinvent and save itself from extinction.

MS redefines the meaning of Open Source (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392581)

"[Take open source.] Open source is not a new technology area. It was a new business model", SB

First RFC [faqs.org] April 1969 for the ARPANET. The Open Source Initiative [opensource.org] originated in Feb 1998.

"In the last three or four years, we have competed very well by extending our value", SB

"Microsoft has proposed a licencing agreement blatantly tailored to exclude [regdeveloper.co.uk] free software from accessing it.", FSF Europe

" RealNetworks .. sued .. Microsoft on antitrust charges .. Our case is based on .. failure to disclose [com.com] interface information and imposing restrictions on PC makers"

"Open source never goes away as a business model or competitor. We have learned how to compete with open source", SB

"Microsoft is claiming some form of IP rights [eweek.com] over .. a total of 130 protocols which Microsoft is offering for license .. Many of the listed protocols are [IETF] RFC to the core TCP/IP v4 and TCP/IP v6 protocol specifications"

"competing with open source will have to be something that's burned bright on the foreheads of our senior people", SB

"OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols [interesting-people.org] , we can deny OSS projects' entry into the market."

"In the case of open source, we couldn't adopt the business model. We adopted a competitive approach that so far has worked very well", SB

Under NO circumstances lose against Linux" [nytimes.com]

"Microsoft also indicated there was a lot more money out there and they would clearly rather use Baystar [catb.org] "like" entities to help us get signifigantly more money if we want to grow further or do acquisitions"

"Microsoft and Sun .. announced the antitrust settlement/technology pact [findarticles.com] between the two on Friday"

"Sun Microsystems (Nasdaq: SUNW) has signed a deal to license [newsfactor.com] SCO Group's Unix intellectual property"

"Microsoft will license [com.com] the rights to Unix technology from SCO"

"there are cases where software gets monetized through hardware", SB

Like years ago when you bought hardware and the software was included for free.

Who could have guessed (1)

krinkelkrok (899514) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392615)

"We're excited about Facebook. We're selling all the advertising for it. We're more excited now that we're selling ads for it than we were before." - Ballmer
Now that's a surprise!

Battle Royal (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392619)

Well, my guess is that one of his fears is that the litigation game is now being played on equal footing. Usually, it's content industry vs. Mr. Nobody, i.e. deep pockets on one, no money on the other side. A trial against someone who can't afford to go to court for lenghty periods is already won.

It's a very different problem if your opponent has as much or even more money than you are. Google can afford lawsuits, and they might even want to dish it out on one occasion or another, which could set some rather interesting precedent. Certainly they won't overturn the DMCA (if they did, it would be awesome but you can't expect wonders), but even going to court means to tie up a considerable amount of legal resources from the content industry.

Not to mention the good PR Google will get for it from the average internet user, sitting at home in front of his torrent leeching tool and fearing every knock on the door is the FBI.

Stock up on popcorn, folks, we're in for some interesting trials!

Hurray (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392681)

Time for a bunch of redundant posts about Chair Throwings. *sigh*

$Google$ (2, Insightful)

danwesnor (896499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16392701)

Google can afford to spend more than us
From a company that's used to buying its competitors out of business, that's a pretty revealing statement...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...