Slashdot Log In
Google Buys YouTube for $1.65 Billion
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Oct 09, 2006 04:18 PM
from the let-the-gootube-jokes-begin dept.
from the let-the-gootube-jokes-begin dept.
Over 30 readers wrote about Google's purchase of YouTube today for $1.65 Billion, as rumored last week. The all-stock transaction is the single largest purchase in the company's 8-year history. The move follows on the heels of Google's convincing Sony and Warner Music to put music videos online for free. Reportedly, YouTube will retain its brand and all its 67 employees, including co-founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen.
Related Stories
[+]
Google in Talks to Buy YouTube 157 comments
tessaiga writes "The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Google is in talks to buy YouTube for about $1.6 billion. YouTube users watch more that 100 million videos daily, and the site's market share tops that of similar services offered by Google and other popular Web sites. This comes after a story earlier this morning that co-founder Sergey Brin is pushing for Google to cut back on the volume of products being offered, complaining that 'I was getting lost in the sheer volume of the products we were releasing'. Guess Google Video is one of the products making the approved shortlist."
[+]
Your Rights Online: YouTube Leaves Google Vulnerable? 208 comments
PreacherTom writes "Yesterday's big news was Google's $1.65 billion deal to acquire popular video hosting service YouTube. But will it be a good deal? The market thinks so, as Google's stock rose about $10 per share after the purchase. On the other hand, YouTube increases Google's risk of copyright infringement, opening the door for significant liability...if Google cannot solve this issue. Will their planned video 'fingerprinting' be enough, or just a billion dollar mistake?" From the article: "YouTube's policy is to remove copyrighted clips once alerted to their existence. Content providers say the company needs to be even more proactive ... Todd Dagres, general partner at Boston's Spark Capital, says that Google's large market cap of $130 billion makes it much more vulnerable to lawsuits than a private company such as YouTube. 'Once Google starts to apply its monetization machine, there is going to be more money at stake and people are going to go after it,' says Dagres. 'You cannot monetize other people's content without their approval.'"
[+]
YouTube Removes Comedy Central Clips Due to DMCA 203 comments
Jeff writes "In March, an earlier Slashdot post asked if iTunes sales of the Daily Show would make it harder to share clips online. Well, apparently with the $1.65 billion YouTube acquisition by Google, the answer is now yes. Today, YouTube removed all of its Comedy Central content. Google knew this was coming but you have to wonder if YouTube will be worth that $1.65 billion on Monday. The take down request comes a year after a Wired interview where Daily Show Executive Ben Karlin encouraged viewers to download: 'If people want to take the show in various forms, I'd say go.' Maybe the New York Times Company would have been a better acquisition for Google after all."
[+]
Digital Media Winners and Losers of 2006 36 comments
An anonymous reader writes "MP3 Newswire released its annual list of winners and losers in digital media for 2006. Winners include Azureus, the Pirate Bay, and YouTube. The losers list includes Streamcast, Captain Copyright (and his sidekick Lieutenant Lame), and the Online Guitar Archive. At the bottom of the post are links to past year's winners and losers lists."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Google Buys YouTube for $1.65 Billion
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 424 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
So Google is going to become... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So Google is going to become... (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.unity08.com/)
Strangely enough, though, they're still in beta.
Re:So Google is going to become... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://nzruss.blogspot.com/)
eww.
Re:So Google is going to become... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.defectivebydesign.org/)
This shit is funny. GooTube in Hindi literary means asshole.
Goo --> Shit
Tube --> Tube
GooTube --> Tube from where you shit
Sorry, I am drunk on monday afternoon
Outsourcing? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://nymphs.org/)
A discussion other people just had (Score:5, Informative)
a. the users and more importantly
b. the usage pattern of these users
While google has been picking up little things here and there, essentially this is google's first real "social networking" site that they have purchased. I say it in quotes because youtube isn't really a social networking site, but there are certainly aspects of it that cannot be denied.
I say youtube lucked out and google really made a stupid purchase, it appears to me like it was an attrition attempt against the competition in internet space (yahoo? microsoft? myspace? - whoever they think their competition is atm, because I can't tell). I don't know.. I'm curious to see where this goes. Google definately wants to go into the multimedia distribution area, that's for sure. How they go about doing it, we'll have to see..
-----
Are you a script? If so you should be changed to reply coherently to replies in your thread, that would be more entertaining. Simply copying posts is a bit dull don't you think?
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=199747&
http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=199747&
Re:A discussion other people just had (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.alioth.net/ | Last Journal: Friday November 09, @03:53PM)
YouTube not evil! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://maport1.addr.com/)
Re:YouTube not evil! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://mp3bat.com/)
I'm more than happy with that. At least now Youtube will have Google Adsense ads rather than Myspaces "epileptic punch the monkey you win a frigging iPod PS3 viagra sweepstakes" flash banner ads with 400 double click pop ups and unders.
Re:YouTube not evil! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.weblionx.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 23, @01:11AM)
Re:YouTube not evil! (Score:4, Insightful)
Use tactful, creative, intelligent ads that are non-intrusive and I won't be blocking / skipping them.
I was watching a football game this sunday and saw an ad for a car that was done up like a drug ad - guy who is normally clostraphobic in small cars finds the new car roomy enough - at the end he goes into a field of wildflowers with a puppy and the model name of the car is shown with the MPG shown in small print much like drugs show the dosage. It was whitty, creative, and not obnoxious at all. I actually backed it up with Tivo and showed it to my wife who also got a kick out of it.
cool (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.zembek.net/)
Re:cool (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.lazylightning.org/)
Hmmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Blockquoth the AC:
That's one possible outcome. Another is that Google, already treading a very fine line with several of its existing offerings, has just taken a step too far and is about to be slapped down hard.
If I were a betting man, I would actually bet against Google on this one. Admittedly, that is partly because I don't like the way they've started taking liberties with others' work and assuming something is OK as long as they're the guys doing it. But mainly, it's objective analysis: Google have some good products, but they have little that's unique, and none of their big revenue generators has a great barrier to entry. They're currently target number one for several other big tech firms, and fighting on all fronts, and I'm sure Sun Tzu had something to say about the wisdom of that approach.
Re:Hmmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.webgeekworld.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday April 27 2006, @07:47AM)
Its on the leading edge of internet progress.
Internet, is, 'people'.
Noone can fight against people. Google owning youtube will be a catalyst factor in getting the dinasours realize that we are living in a new world, and pushing the whole WORLD's people for anything outdated is folly at best.
This will remove one of the 2-3 factors hampering the 'new age' if you will.
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Informative)
(http://studyinjapan.blogspot.com/)
Even if you consider all I just posted to be weak defense, the kicker begins on page 11: Limitation for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the Direction of Users. Google meets all three requirements:
- Google must not have "requisite level knowledge of the infringing activity. Examining what this means (page 12), we see that, because there are so many files on Youtube, they cannot have this type of knowledge (unless, of course, during discovery, a corporate memo was found which cited a specific infringing video that, after the fact, was never removed), which must be knowledge of a specific infringing file, not that infringement is occurring in general.
- If Google has the right and ability to control the infringing activity then (halt this boolean, we do not need to know the antecedent since it already evaluates to False: Google cannot monitor the millions of files placed on what was Youtube)
- "Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, [Google] must expeditiously take down or block access to the material" - Youtube did this, as evidenced by the many times Lazy Sunday was taken off Youtube at NBC's request (note that Youtube was never sued for this activity)
Google also has an agent filed with the Copyright Office to receive infringement claims: here [copyright.gov] (PDF). As a sidenote, it's refreshing to see that a corporation has filed handwritten documents with the Copyright Office; kind of gives them character (or an air of sloppiness?).Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
And more importantly, now there is someone to sue. Someone with lots and lots of money, so all those $200K per infringement civil awards actually have a chance of being paid out. Watch for Hollywood to their absolute damndest to take Google's IPO money the same way the RIAA took mp3.com's $200M of IPO cash.
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Prediction-the-first: this will be settled out-of-court, and along the lines of a statutory license.
Prediction-the-second: you will watch GoogleTV, and the copyright holders will love you for it.
Prediction-the-third: in the face of TiVo-enabled departures from a supportable advertising model, traditional TV broadcasting will end up losing out since Google will be able to provide exact viewer measurements and demographics and be able to target the most coveted consumer groups.
So ungoogle (Score:5, Interesting)
Google is jumping the shark.
Re:So ungoogle (Score:4, Informative)
If I understood the situation correctly, Google bought YouTube - among other things - to prevent others from buying it and gaining (more) advantage in the field.
Furthermore, it is not the first product they've bought either.
Re:So ungoogle (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.firehed.net/)
Ill Go Ahead and Say it (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ill Go Ahead and Say it (Score:5, Funny)
(http://prube.com/)
Everyone learned from the last time, obviously the stock market is untrustworthy.
At that rate, does google want a game company? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.positech.co.uk/)
Give me a call, or just drop me an email guys. That figure is negotiable too.
Integration with Google Video? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.gtalkprofile.com/profile/2.html | Last Journal: Thursday September 15 2005, @08:54AM)
Good buy for Google (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
First, Google makes money through advertisement. Currently simple text banner ads. But a quick look at other sites will show you a growing interest in video ads. YouTube has a lot of visitors, and if Google plays this correctly they can make more advertisement dollars.
Secondly, YouTube signed some nice contracts with the likes of CBS and two music labels.
Re:Good buy for Google (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://sporkmonger.com/)
Golden Google (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://picknit.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 29 2006, @03:58PM)
None of which explains why Google thinks YouTube is worth $1.65 Billion. There are a lot of big profitable high-tech companies that aren't worth that much. Selling text ads? They don't need to buy the company to do that. Selling video ads? They have their own video technology.
Not that it matters. Google can spend its money its money the way it wants, because it has more than it knows what to do with, and because its stockholders are shut out of corporate decision making. So it can buy companies that have no hope of contributing to the bottom line (Picassa, Outride, lots of blogging and social networking providers). It can hire lots of talented people. (And not so talented. Some of the people who've gone there recently are better at self-hype than actually making stuff.) And it can do this without any concern about making money.
Why is this bad? Because you have a lot of money, resources, and talent being used to subsidize what amounts to high-tech masturbation. Google gets bigger and bigger, and yet they release very few new products. And the products they do release stay in beta mode forever.
And please, don't try to tell me that "beta" is just a marketing or legal gimmick. Products like gmail, Google Groups, and Google Maps have lots of cool features, sure. But they're unpolished, inconsistently implemented, and very poorly documented. But most of all, they lack the boring little features that separate a toy project from a a real product.
Financially, Google is big success. But when it comes to pushing technological progress, they're a ship without a rudder. A very fancy ship, mind you, with free gourmet meals for the crew, and lots of conveniences and gadgets. But where is ship going. Nobody seems to know.
There goes 50% of Youtube content (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/~GillBates0 | Last Journal: Tuesday July 10, @04:36PM)
True, Warner has embraced it's content for ad revenue, but I'm sure Youtube was treading on a thin edge, and would've had their a55es sued sooner or later.
This will just expedite the inevitable, and I expect Google to quickly unpublish most (C) content to save their a55es. That'll probably reduce it to what Google Videos is right now, fun, but with very limited content.
Goodbye, Youtube, it was a good run while it lasted.
Deep Pockets (TM) invite lawsuits ~GillBates (2006)
Explain to me... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd like to see some serious commentary on this, and not just the assumption that youtube voilates copyright. I spend probably and hour a week watching stuff on youtube, and I'm sure over 95% of what I see does NOT violate any copyrights.
Re:Explain to me... (Score:5, Informative)
The length of a clip is not the only thing that matters in claiming fair use: also important is the importance of the clip in regard to the entire work, whether the original work is more factual or more creative, and what effect the use of the clip will have on the saleability of the work as a whole. It actually cannot be known whether using a copyrighted material falls under fair use until one is sued over that material and goes to court for it, as fair use is up to a court to decide.
Also, even if the clips' being posted on YouTube violates copyright law, YouTube likely isn't liable for first-party violation, as they did not make the copies themselves, and they might not be liable for 2nd or 3rd party copyright violation if they can prove that they did not market YouTube as a place for copyrighted works to be posted by those who do not hold the copyright, and if they can show that they took appropriate measures to remove materials in violation of copyright.
However, it is best to assume that any material you see on YouTube that was not posted by the author IS in violation of copyright, as there have been no rulings in this regard, and unless an author specifically gives up his copyright or publishes the works under an open license (which still lets him retain copyright, but lets others use and distribute the work as well), then he has the right to sue for infringement, and YouTube will at very least be required to take the work down if they cannot prove fair use or de minimus (least possible to make a point) use of the materials, or that the work was in the public domain.
So, how are you so sure that the content does not violate the authors' copyrights?
1.65 billyun. (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://inoshiro.com/)
Why stick with a company that has a potentially uncertain future, when you can go and start doing whatever you want (founding various cool companies that might be even better), or simply go do charity work.
Re:1.65 billyun. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.aceticket.com/)
Re:1.65 billyun. (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyhow, they can't just sell the stock and run. They'll have to wait so