Ef You Treyarch...

Google to acquire YouTube for $1.65 billion in stock

For reasons I cannot understand apparently Google is going to purchase YouTube for 1.65 billion dollars. I was going to type up a huge post about why I felt this is a BAD idea but apparently Mark Cuban sumed it all up for me.

Link: Is Google insane?

When copyright holders finally stop sue’ing grandmothers they are going to move on from mp3′s to flash video files. I would have to say a good majority of YouTube video’s break some sort of copyright law. Will the RIAA sue the individual user or just go right for the money pit that is Google? I have to say google.

For YouTube this is a huge deal. Everybody is already ripping off YouTube. The idea isn’t inovative any longer. Everybody has a video sharing site. YouTube was just waiting for the large payoff (like myspace, facebook and pretty much every social networking site is) and they got it. YouTube got theirs but I didn’t expect Google to be the one taking on a sinking ship. Lawyers are just waiting to pounce on this one! Thoughts?

CNN: Google buying YouTube 

Category: General

Tagged:

9 Responses

  1. bun says:

    i dont know. on the one hand i can see how putting a clip of someone else’s content can be considered fair use…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairuse#Fair_use_on_the_Internet

    and small-time film makers use this all the time. a famous example was that atheist guy who showed a clip of gibson’s “passion” in his documentary to point out the mainstream use of what is traditionally catholic imagery. i can see how limited “quotation” for academic purposes should be legal. i think this extends in many cases to users posting content to youtube.

    http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/04/the-clicker-youtube-and-fair-use-a-match-made-in-heaven/ etc.

    on the other hand, when content owners complain, youtube will take the video down, no-questions-asked. i once posted a clip of deadwood season 3 – a day after the original episode aired. hbo filed a complaint, and it was gone after having been up only a week (they didnt complain about my clips from seasons 1 and 2). these are some reasons, at least, why google may not be getting into that much legal trouble.

  2. vanbergs says:

    “It was one of its last official acts as an independent company. And many insiders agree that the step YouTube
    took hours before agreeing to be bought out by Google was a very important move.”

    “It struck a series of deals to license content from
    two major record companies. The deals with Vivendi Universal Music Group and Sony B-M-G Music Entertainment will let the Web site post music videos and content from users that includes copyrighted material in exchange for sharing ad revenue. Meanwhile, Warner Music and Sony B-M-G have struck separate licensing deals with
    Google. Financial details of the deals were not disclosed. Google is buying YouTube for one-point-six-five (b) billion dollars in stock.”

    To me they did a good job of covering their bases. It doesn’t matter how many copycats there are, the very branding of the word “YouTube” is synonymous with “Internet/user-based video sharing”. Whenever you talk about DVR’s, all you think of is a Tivo. Same with iPods and mp3 players, same with football games and Madden. Same with…you get the idea. Google spent a shit ton of money to receive a shit ton MORE money through ads and an even stronger internet presence.

  3. hw says:

    I bet Google will use YT to sell studio movies, much like iTunes. I don’t see Google making any money on this in a long time if they don’t. Sure, YT is to “internet videoz”, but in the same way that Napster is to “music” and pets.com is to “pets”. The difference with “vanbergs” analogy is that ipods and tivos and madden are things that you actually buy and are mostly cool to have. I would have to assume that the partnerships with all the major media groups means that they aren’t going to be sued on copyright issues – regardless, 1.6 billion frosties is alot, imho.

  4. vanlandw says:

    Name recognition is very powerful I do agree there. Also I don’t use any of other video sites other then if I’m provided a link there. YouTube really is quite popular and google will I’m sure make truck loads of money.

    I bet after the purchase you will see a lot more advertising and HOPEFULLY more features. I would love to see youtube allow longer videos again (the 10 min limit is BS and a big distractor from using the service). Also I am hoping better quality videos. Half the vidz on their site are almost unviewable because the quality is so poor. Speed to some people is important. I don’t mind waiting 20-30 seconds sometimes to have a better quality video.

    Russ also makes a good piont with fair use. That will be for the courts to decide when the time comes IMHO.

    Clearly I don’t think it’s going to make a big difference to users for awhile other then more adverts

  5. bun says:

    i think there is a valid argument that youtube succeeded where video.google failed *because* of its time restrictions. think about how often you go to youtube vs. google video. now think about how often you watch a full half-hour clip on google. when i go online, i inhale hundreds, sometimes thousands of headlines, comments, ideas, and any other kind of content. i can spend all day online, but *very* rarely do I spend more than 15 minutes at one site. the ONE exception to that is youtube- not because of the length of the content, but because of how easy it is to take in, interact with, and move on. I think I represent most people our age when I not only want, but DEMAND that my content be customized, diverse, and quick. if I want full-quality video I’ll use netflix. the only way i’ll stream long-term content to my box is if/when the technology improves to a point at which I can barely tell teh difference between a dvd or blue ray disc and the media i’m pulling directly from your server. youtube has also done a much better job of creating a social community, and as a result is pregnant with advertising possibilities. it tracks your every move, and if google keeps pushing this content the way of teh interw3b 2.0, I’ll keep using “gootube”.

  6. Jeff says:

    I think that Rusty is wrong about why YouTube succeed where Google failed. In that it is not the time restriction that mattered, so much as the unregulation of videos. Only recently has Google allowed people to post videos without at least some level of approval process.

    Furthmore, Google video has lacked the social aspects of youtube, so the the ability to comment, view friends videos, etc…

    Basically, google looked at it from a perspective of how can we make money from this? Whereas YouTube looked at it from the perspective of what do users want?

  7. vanlandw says:

    LMAO AT teh gunz….that picture is absolutely hysterical

    jja makes a fantastic point btw….google video pretty much is a way for video’s to be put online and watched/purchased

    youtube is more of a community…and people seem to like that stuff these days ;-)

Leave a Reply