Google buying out YouTube?

[Miulang]

If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em up! (Also a phrase used often at Microsoft). Rumored value of the YouTube (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15157075/from/RS.1/) deal: $1.6 billion. Will success ruin YouTube?

Miulang

[pzarquon]

Interesting. The Google Video service isn't quite there yet, but it's a fairly sturdy offering for something developed in-house and can easily be tweaked and improved. While I'm no fan of Mark Cuban, he's got some good points when he concluded earlier, "Only a 'moron' would buy YouTube. (http://news.com.com/2100-1026_3-6121034.html)"Cuban said "anyone who buys that (YouTube) is a moron" because of potential lawsuits from copyright violations. "There is a reason they haven't yet gone public, they haven't sold. It's because they are going to be toasted," said Cuban, who has sold start-ups to Yahoo and CompuServe. YouTube, which has nearly one-third of the U.S. Web video audience, three times that of Google, or twice that of News Corp.'s MySpace, has been working on signing licensing deals with music companies and TV networks to ensure they are paid when users view their content.Then again, lots of other "hot sites" are changing hands, from MySpace to Facebook, and if you've got the money to burn, why not? I swear, it's like 1997 all over again.

[adrian]

Yep, its true. Google bought youtube (http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/09/technology/googleyoutube_deal/index.htm?cnn=yes) for $1.65 billion.

n a statement, Google said that YouTube will operate as an independent unit of Google once the deal closes and will retain the YouTube brand name. The companies added that no YouTube workers will lose their jobs as a result of the acquisition and that Google will maintain its own online video business.

[Miulang]

Yep, its true. Google bought youtube (http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/09/technology/googleyoutube_deal/index.htm?cnn=yes) for $1.65 billion.
and there goes the cyberhood...

Miulang

[adrian]

and there goes the cyberhood...

Miulang

Well, atleast it compensates for the rumor about Nvidia getting boughtout by Intel - which I wouldn't mind seeing (even though I'm an ATI/AMD fanboy.)

[Hellbent]

I just heard it referred as GooTube... lol.

[craigwatanabe]

If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em up! (Also a phrase used often at Microsoft). Rumored value of the YouTube (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15157075/from/RS.1/) deal: $1.6 billion. Will success ruin YouTube?

Miulang


Well it sure hasn't ruined the success of YouTube's founder(s). They should have video taped the transfer of ownership and put it on YouTube.

[christa]

i bet they were glad to get out alive. and filthy stinking rich.... the copyright issues seem like a headache to me--- how much of that material is accounting for the overall traffic? not to mention the competition in the streaming video space closing in.

[craigwatanabe]

i bet they were glad to get out alive. and filthy stinking rich.... the copyright issues seem like a headache to me--- how much of that material is accounting for the overall traffic? not to mention the competition in the streaming video space closing in.

I've always wondered how the copyright issues were going to play upon YouTube's right to broadcast the stuff for profit.

[tutusue]

Well it sure hasn't ruined the success of YouTube's founder(s). They should have video taped the transfer of ownership and put it on YouTube.
Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCVxQ_3Ejkg) their very casual announcement!
I've always wondered how the copyright issues were going to play upon YouTube's right to broadcast the stuff for profit.
I've started noticing more and more videos are being removed because of this issue.

[WindwardOahuRN]

I've always wondered how the copyright issues were going to play upon YouTube's right to broadcast the stuff for profit.

I always wondered about releases.

Some of that stuff on YouTube seems like it would be awfully embarrassing to the subjects.

Question: can a person request that a YouTube video be removed, on the basis that it is embarrassing and may cause harm to the subject, on a personal or professional level?

I am thinking of stuff like the video of the drunk and barfing tourist that Manoa put on YouTube.

Unless that guy was an exceptionally good sport, I would imagine that he would not be all that pleased with having the world see him in such a state, on holiday or not. :o

[manoasurfer123]

I always wondered about releases.

Some of that stuff on YouTube seems like it would be awfully embarrassing to the subjects.

Question: can a person request that a YouTube video be removed, on the basis that it is embarrassing and may cause harm to the subject, on a personal or professional level?

I am thinking of stuff like the video of the drunk and barfing tourist that Manoa put on YouTube.

Unless that guy was an exceptionally good sport, I would imagine that he would not be all that pleased with having the world see him in such a state, on holiday or not. :o
Your not talking about this one are you????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFCS8I_StPc

Turn up your volume and listen to HIS OWN FRIENDS COMMENTS....

And I did TELL HIM it was going to be YOUTUBED.... turn up the volume on the speaker now.....

(p.s. I also told his friend the keyword that it would be youtubed under.....haven't heard back from him)

If he can sue me for shooting a public video on a beach... can I in return press charges against the guy for drinking underage on a public beach?

[MadAzza]

Why in the heck would anyone want to videotape (or, God forbid, watch a vid of) someone throwing up?

Ugh.

And then put it on YouTube?

(Nancy Kerrigan)

Why? Why? Why?

(/Nancy Kerrigan)

[mel]

I've started noticing more and more videos are being removed because of this issue.

Most of the videos that are slowly being removed are either music videos or snippets from television shows. The music videos are what draws me to youtube, since I can look at many videos that I haven't seen for years and new ones that may be of interest. VH1 and MTV don't show videos on regular rotation anymore unless you buy digital cable to get their supplemental channels. So for me, YouTube fills that void. Plus I like the fact that you can embed youtube videos into your own web pages.

Copyright issues aside, like the $19 tickets offered from Go, I am going along with the embed ride YouTube offers end users until Google either discontinues it or the music videos are pulled.

Didn't YouTube or Google recently ink a deal with WB Music to offer videos?

[pzarquon]

Google inked deals with Warner and Sony (http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8KL5Q8OL.htm) to promote their music videos. Deals that would allow inclusion of their material in user-submitted content is apparently the next step.

YouTube separately signed a deal with Warner (http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/09/18/ap3026155.html) prior to the Google aquisition:The agreement means that millions of YouTube users can legally watch music videos or include popular songs in their own homemade videos that they post on YouTube. At the time, Universal was in similar talks, but otherwise threatening legal action.

People were saying that no one was really suing YouTube because YouTube had no assets to go after. Now YouTube has some of the deepest pockets out there. But it looks like Google's going to try and stay in front of the kind of legal perfect storm that killed Napster and other outfits by acquiring licenses and sharing the wealth.

[mel]

Seems like YouTube also struck a deal with Sony BMG and possibly Universal (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/10/opinion/edyoutube.php) music.


But many companies see potential and are lining up to work with the site, rather than begging a court to shut it down. On Monday, YouTube announced deals with CBS, Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group.

As for potential copyright violations, I think what sets YouTube apart from the old Napster and other P2P sites is that (from what I can gather) YouTube does not allow users to trade the actual video files that were uploaded to the site. All of the videos there are in flash format and most of them are low-res and not worthy to burn to DVD and show on regular TV.

I can see the possibility of copyright infringement in the fact that YouTube harbors a lot of music videos, TV and movie clips (sometimes entire episodes broken into 10 minute blocks) and the use of commercial music in numerous amateur clips. I think the fact that YouTube is making an effort to strike deals with the majors will clear them of some if not all of the legal hurdles.

In the end, users will hopefully stay happy and that YouTube will continue to allow people to embed/syndicate their content on our own websites. YouTube is also a great place to put you own, original video content and embed it back to your own site. You get the hit but not use up all of your own bandwidth.

At least for now. Who knows if the model will change in the future. Google/YouTube may be considering adding 15 second commercial clips to the beginning of each video. I am sure that will turn off a lot of their users.

[pzarquon]

Google has dominated the online marketplace specifically because of its core focus on unobtrusive advertising. I doubt they'd insert ads into video playback. At least not 'til the entire page surrounding the video window is completely filled with AdSense ads.

I was in the "you'd be an idiot to buy YouTube" camp, but the more analyses I read, the smarter the move looks.

I like that folks are calling it GooTube.

[GeckoGeek]

If he can sue me for shooting a public video on a beach... can I in return press charges against the guy for drinking underage on a public beach?

Do you have video of him drinking on a public beach? Can you prove he was drunk and it wasn't something else? Bottom line, from what I've seen, no charges can be pressed. On the other hand, he might have something against you. Not for video taping him. (That's legal) but for publishing to the world. That's a different matter. And that's where many people get tripped up. Taking and publishing are different matters.

[manoasurfer123]

Do you have video of him drinking on a public beach? Can you prove he was drunk and it wasn't something else? Bottom line, from what I've seen, no charges can be pressed. On the other hand, he might have something against you. Not for video taping him. (That's legal) but for publishing to the world. That's a different matter. And that's where many people get tripped up. Taking and publishing are different matters.
Your welcome to view it for yourself... and then make judgement;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFCS8I_StPc
Make sure your volume is up if you wanna hear the dialog between Him, His friends, and I.

[GeckoGeek]

As for potential copyright violations, ....

If I'm not mistaken, the way it works now for other websites is that someone contacts the service provider and tells them they have copyrighted works on their site. After some back and forth, it gets pulled.

As far as I know YouTube does not endorse uploading copyrighted works and will pull them if asked. But they aren't reviewing everything to find it (I don't think they are required to) and the copyright holders aren't that aggressive (they're suing because they don't what to have to look at the whole site to find copyright violations either. They want YouTube doing the work.) If one looks, you can find lots of things that are amateur recordings, so I can't see the claim that YouTube is founded on copyright violations. As long as YouTube has a reasonable process, I can't see the copyright holders wining this one, but I could easily be wrong.