WSJ is reporting Google to buy You-tube for $1.6 billion

[ntrprnr 0]

Not bad for a couple of guys who wanted to make an easier way to send their music videos to themselves, huh?

_______________
"Why'd you track away at 7,000 feet?"
"Even in freefall, I have commitment issues."

[Rebecca 0]

[drool]

That's a lotta zeros.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[JohnnyD 0]

Only a "moron" would buy YouTube: Mark Cuban By Paul Thomasch
Fri Sep 29, 7:54 AM ET



NEW YORK (Reuters) - Billionaire investor and dot-com veteran Mark Cuban had harsh words on Thursday for YouTube, the online site that lets people share video clips, saying only a "moron" would purchase the wildly popular start-up.

ADVERTISEMENT

Cuban, co-founder of HDNet and owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, also said YouTube would eventually be "sued into oblivion" because of copyright violations.

"They are just breaking the law," Cuban told a group of advertisers in New York. "The only reason it hasn't been sued yet is because there is nobody with big money to sue."

YouTube, based in San Mateo, California, specializes in serving up short videos created by everyday people. Its popularity, with more than 100 million video showings daily, has spurred speculation the firm will be sold or taken public.

But YouTube has also come under scrutiny because users often post copyrighted material, including music videos produced by well-established artists.

YouTube company representatives were not immediately available to respond to Cuban's comments.

Cuban said "anyone who buys that (YouTube) is a moron" because of potential lawsuits from copyright violations.

"GOING TO BE TOASTED"

"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 Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news) and CompuServe.

YouTube, which has nearly one-third of the U.S. Web video audience, three times that of Google Inc., 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.

This month YouTube unveiled its first deal to distribute music videos legally from a major music company by agreeing a deal with Warner Music Group, home to pop stars James Blunt and Madonna.

In other remarks, meanwhile, the often-controversial Cuban also told advertisers that the reach of YouTube is limited, particularly when it comes to user-generated videos.

"User-generated content is not going away," he said. "But do you want your advertising dollars spent on a video of Aunt Jenny watching her niece tap dance?"

"Somebody puts up something really good and you get, what, 60,000 viewers?" Cuban added during the event at Advertising Week in New York.

YouTube now offers advertising through banner ads, promotions and sponsorships. It has said it plans to roll out a range of different advertising options over the coming year.

Cuban cautioned advertisers against investing heavily in so-called viral campaigns that are spread by users beyond their initial point of distribution on YouTube or other video sharing sites. But he touted opportunities to run commercials on high-definition television such as his HDNet network.

"What makes viral so special is it's so hard to do. It's so hard to plan. It's hard to stand out," he said, describing 99 percent of money advertisers spend on viral campaigns as "wasted."

"You guys love to be the trailing edge," he said.

[Lindercles 0]

Well, if Google video didn't suck this might not be an issue.

[ntrprnr 0]

But keep in mind, Google has been dealing with copyright infringements since day 1 - google books, google search, google earth, etc. This is just another one. Agreed on the lawsuits, but Google's big enough to just settle, and let the ad revenue take in billions while they do, anyway.

_______________
"Why'd you track away at 7,000 feet?"
"Even in freefall, I have commitment issues."

[NWFlyer 2]

I'll need a moment to appreciate the irony that you posted the complete text of a copyrighted article about copyright violation.

Okay, done now. Cuban's is an interesting perspective, and he may yet turn out to be right, but I've also seen articles indicating that YouTube is not going to be another Napster. Here's one from Entertainment Weeky. Choice quotes:

Quote

Lesson Two: If you work with the Net, you won't get Napstered.
As the music industry wigged over Napster six years ago, TV took notes. Instead of suing the pants off of video-sharing sites and their users — only one lawsuit has been filed against YouTube so far, and that wasn't by a TV network or movie studio — NBC, ABC, and CBS have started to work with the likes of YouTube, MySpace, Google, and iTunes to gin up buzz.

The article does go on to discuss the uneasy relationship between the networks and YouTube ... on the one hand they want to use it for viral marketing, on the other, they don't want their IP abused.

It'll be interesting to watch how it all plays out.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[ntrprnr 0]

My prediction:

Post something that otherwise can't be seen on TV (Michael Jackson's Pepsi ad from 86, or some random Crazy Eddie ad from 79, or the opening to "Mistifts of Science," and you'll be fine. Youtube will allow it.

Post three innings of last night's ALCS, and yeah, you're gonna get it removed. The issue becomes the manpower it's gonna take to handle that. Google will have to deal somehow with that.

But - it could be a technical issue, too - considering that TiVo is now placing ads OVER ads when you fast forward through them (http://prdifferently.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/10/tivo_thou_shalt.html) , there's no reason they can't emit a code interlaced with the video that makes it un-you-tube-able.

That's my prediction.

_______________
"Why'd you track away at 7,000 feet?"
"Even in freefall, I have commitment issues."

[mdrejhon 8]

Quote

But - it could be a technical issue, too - considering that TiVo is now placing ads OVER ads when you fast forward through them (http://prdifferently.typepad.com/...tivo_thou_shalt.html) , there's no reason they can't emit a code interlaced with the video that makes it un-you-tube-able.

That's impossible. Everything is you-tubeable. Just point a camera at a good HDTV, and recapture.

Of course, they CAN make things more difficult that we're forced to do this...

And lest they modify most new cameras to blow up when you point at a TV (brought to you by CopyWrong(C) Protection Systems), just use an old camera, or buy a cheap import camera or use a cheap QuickCam.

Easier for YouTube to simply censor/ban certain videos which they do at times anyway if there's a clear massive threat from allowing the video to continue to exist on YouTube....

Not advocating infringement, but Youtube is a pretty useful site - and some of the studios/TV stations are partnering with them anyway.