| 5:19 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Okay, now i want to get paid for my videos that they are hosting.
| 5:57 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have to wonder if G's lawyers know something we don't. On the other hand, could Google build its own video site service if it spent $1 Billion? New brand and all...
| 6:00 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The stock is heading up, helps to pay for YouTube.
| 6:14 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It's going to take someone with deep-pockets who is willing to defend the copyright infringements actions that are sure to follow. YouTube has been a law suit waiting to happen.
| 6:27 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
> copyright infringements actions
> that are sure to follow.
Why? Hasn't slowed Google down yet - why would it now?
| 6:33 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> Why? Hasn't slowed Google down yet? Why should it now?
not sure how to read this comment. The link you posted reminds us that people are waiting for a deep pocketed owner to sue; youtube right now is not cash rich.
Google probably is hoping that they can reach an agreement with major content owners to share revenue, but that leaves out many smaller ones.
| 6:37 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It aint about the content of the linked page - it is about the page being cached. EG: google is deep into the exact same thing - has been for years. The suits to follow will be trivial. Google will brush them away like flies - the same as they have done over the 2 previous caching suits.
Google will not have to share anything but the IP address of those posting videos. Google is an isp, and they have 100% safe harbor protection. There is zero liability for Google in buying YouTube. This aint Napster.
| 6:42 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>> They are an isp, and they have 100% safe harbor protection
Sure, but once the good (copyrighted) content is removed, why visit youtube? To see some dopey teen tell us show his day was? Sure some will still leave the content, but not enough IMO. Time will tell of course. I am sure Google has a plan, and if they fail, they fail. It's part of doing business.
| 6:55 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Sure, but once the good (copyrighted) content is removed |
Not all the protected content is going away... expect more deals like this [news.bbc.co.uk]
| 6:56 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Google will brush them away like flies |
Or, they may attract them like flies to the honey pot.
|Google is subpoenaing documents from its two biggest competitors, Microsoft and Yahoo, in an effort to defend itself in copyright lawsuits filed against it by publishers and authors. |
chinks in their armor may be showing [webmasterworld.com]
| 8:25 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Guys, as jealous as I am about the deal, I have to say that most content on Youtube is probably making more money for the producers than if it was NOT on youtube.
I think it's a free SUPERBOWL commercial spot for most companies.
| 8:41 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I have to admit, I feel most you tube users over 18 go for mostly the bootleg copyrighted info. I mainly watch Daily show clips, Borat, etc then occasionaly watch one of the goofy home made videos. Sure, I have cable and a Tivo but it's just easier to check youtube.
If google plans on cracking down on that once they take over, what it will turn into is a site like revver. Even their "Featured" videos on the home page only get a few views.
I don't think anyone will agree but I think it has alot to do with how a website feels. YouTube feels homegrown, almost underground and that's why people flock to it. They feel like when they watch a video on there they have found something unique, no matter what it is.
Once google takes over and tries to integrate its g-mail, checkout, and whatever other beta crap it makes, it will quickly lose it's appeal.
| 10:02 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Maybe this is just a coincidence, but a major player in the MySpace deal with News Corp. now says [businessweek.com] the parent company knew it was selling it at too low of a price. Sure is easier to say that once you see what is rumored for YouTube and Facebook.
| 10:09 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I read that too and it's funny how--among other things--he claims that NOW myspace is worth more, and that in the future could be worth $20 Billion. I wonder if the guy who sold DOS to Bill Gates will hire the same lawyer and sue for $100 Billion plus interest ;)
| 11:41 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
All this is reminding me of 1998-2000 buying binge (remember Excite being sold for $6 billion?). I just hope these guys are a lot brighter than the guys that shelled out the dough during the bubble.
| 11:43 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Marc Cuban ( dallas maverics billionare owner) was quoted as saying that only a moron will buy YouTube....em, google is surley the smartest internet company aroung so who is the moron now? sorry Marc Cuban...you lost this one.......
| 11:48 pm on Oct 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
don't be so quick in declaring winners or losers--we don't even know if Google will buy it or not. Making it work and worth the $1.7 billion is a different thing all together.
| 12:24 am on Oct 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|google is surley the smartest internet company aroung |
Think the YouTube folks may lay claim to that title if they get 1.6 up-front.
| 2:05 am on Oct 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
As a "YouTube fanatic" I have to point out that there is a lot more to it than copyrighted material and #*$!ly faced teenagers talking about their day.
Aquiring YouTube will make Google the uncontested leader in on demand video and many of us feel a platform such as youtube will replace television in the future.
As far as potential lawsuits go companies will have to think long and hard about whether they want to be partners or try to compete with the Google empire.
| 2:49 am on Oct 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|could Google build its own video site |
They already have one, video.google.com
I personally like the video quality on google much better, but I guess there is an enormous video dataset to be gained from this deal if it goes through.
| 1:45 pm on Oct 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
why buy youtube there is no real money in the project, I mean in there category, also analysts say its not worth it.
| 2:02 pm on Oct 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
We are in the middle of a giant revolution that is changing the way media and content is served. Bandwidth is cheaper than ever and there is pretty good saturation of high speed connections.
I would surely compare it to the advent of movies over radio.
There is a lot of big money waitng to be made by corporations and webmasters alike.
| 2:46 pm on Oct 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I just don't see the potential in YouTube. I see many drawbacks though. Google just launched G Videos, so why would they need YouTube. It seems to me they could build their own version for a lot less than 1.6 billion.
| 3:13 pm on Oct 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
They are so dangerous with all that money.
I thought buying a large share in AOL was crazy, this would top it.
| 4:41 pm on Oct 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
> Google is an isp, and they have 100% safe harbor protection. There is zero liability for Google in buying YouTube.
arf, I'm glad you are not an attorney Brett!
| 4:53 pm on Oct 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
ps the original rumor came from TechCrunch
| 9:22 pm on Oct 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Maybe this could be a good use of all that dark fiber that Google has allegedly been buying. Nothing keeps the bandwidth fees down like owning the fiber it is on.
| 1:03 am on Oct 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It will obviously interesting to see what kind of advertising model Google comes up with.
What if they allowed users to sign up for a type of AdSense where you can place video ads before your clip and get a cut of the profit like publishers get from their websites now. Maybe they even limit companies in their video ads to say 10 seconds as opposed to 20-30 seconds so they are less annoying and more creative. If people can get money from placing videos, that should get more people to put more videos on the site.
Not sure if it would work but could be interesting.
| 1:47 am on Oct 8, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Right now, the Yahoo commercials are some of the funniest things I've seen. Keep 'em coming!
| This 55 message thread spans 2 pages: 55 (  2 ) > > |