Please keep on with the DRM blogs. I am working with a launch that is struggling with these issues right now. Limit the content to independants and UGC and the market appeal could be severely damaged; add the top tier, the major labels and studios, and the product could become cost prohibitive from a marketing point of view.

To me, it seems evident that a new form of licensing will evole for the video ( and music) catagories; yet, I suspect that the largest players (GooTube/MySpace, etc) may cripple fair competition for newcomers.

As to starting an ISP, I would think a sharp marketer would propose a joint venture with an existing ISP/Telco to promote your idea on the Safe Harbour issue. They provide the infastructure; the marketer provides the content and sales expertise.

Also, as you have illustrated, the YouTube/Google /MySpace deals indicate to m that Sony, Universal and Warner are ready to deal, as opposed to a meltdown that destroys the most effewctive medium to virally distribute content available to the artists.

Write on; not only are the best NBA owner in the crowd, you are the lone forum of dialogue regarding this vital evolutionary process of media distribution in the 21st century. Keep on keepin on.

What can we expect from Google and Amazon? What they have always told us in their stock holder meetings – they’re playing things long. How could they make any short gains?

The type of content you’ll find in iTunes, Amazon Unboxed Videos, YouTube, etc is residual. Produce, publish, and deposit the money in the bank.

It sure makes broadcasting real-time events look like challenging. What do you do there?

Good ideas in terms of the Safe Harbors under the DMCA. I wonder, however, if it would just be easier for Google to start offering connection to the internet and basically turn it into a new AOL. I think the problem with the 17 U.S.C. 512 safe harbor is its ambiguity. 17 U.S.C. 512 applies to ISPs only, but even search engines want to apply it. Thus, if Google became an ISP under the definition of ISPs in 17 U.S.C. 512, then Google would have a better case for potentially avoiding liability from copyright infringement actions against YouTube.

The other possibility for YouTube would seem to be to roll the dice and hope that the safe harbor under Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), still exists after remand of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd, 545 U.S. 913 (2005). If the Sony safe harbor still exists, then Google might avoid liability from copyright infringement because YouTube is “capable of substantial noninfringing uses.” Anyway, it should be interesting to see how everything plays out.

I’m actually currently writing a paper on whether YouTube is liable for the copyright infringements of its users for my law school copyright class, so I’ve given some thought to these issues. I find it funny that I chose this topic in September, and now it seems the issue has exploded.

Good luck to the Mavs this year… that is, unless their playing the Celtics!

-KB

There is an interesting play on the user-controlled side of video creation, hosting/delivery and viewership reporting that let’s people privatize (and monetize) their video delivery to specific audiences. For example, you would not use YouTube to deliver your video message to a group of Wall Street analysts. Suggest you take a look at streamernet.com

Example:
There is a clip of kids having a pillow fight with Megadeth providing a musical bed on YouTube.

(A) YouTube owes Megadeth money for using their music.
(B) Megadeth owes YouTube money for publicizing their music.
(C) Nobody owes nobody nothing.
(E) Who cares only pedophiles and 9 year olds are watching that video.

God bless you. I don’t know how you can stay so opinionated and so clearly wrong. I know you’re an intelligent guy, and I respect your business acumen. How can you maintain such a steadfastly ridiculous position?

Let’s assume there was some small nugget of insight in your take on this YouTube issue–take for example that rights holders could create a true win-win. Hey, why not phone up Gerry Levin and ask him how that whole AOL/Time Warner merger worked out? By your logic, that should have been the next Peanut Butter meets Chocolate.

This isn’t about commercial content or DRM. This is about monetization. No one on earth has a better ability to make money off of ‘page views’ than Google. And YouTube has a hell of a lot of those — and the highest viewed clips there aren’t protected content.

Even rights holders are scrambling to figure out new ways to get advertisers to spend what they used to spend back in the glory days. Seen the ratings for the World Series? Not even worth the storage space on my TiVo. Guess if something interesting happens, I’ll just pull it up on YouTube.

Dude, you used to get this stuff. You’ve got the cart pushing the horse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFv6hvyBGpQ

It might be just me but I feel as if consumers are purchasing high def televisions at a significantly faster rate than high-def content is expanding.

Also, as far as the audio… Is it unimaginable that gootube could simply mandate that all copyrighted audiofiles uploaded to its site be of a quality low enough that it would not be an attractive option for 99% of users to want to download to their ipods (e.g. 32 kbs)?

Several online music stores offer complete songs for previewing but offer these previews only in a low quality format. There is nothing to prevent users from downloading these songs either, however the low quality makes it not worthwhile.

Example Time Warner buying AOL (they still to this day have no idea what to do with the company- besides thinking about selling it.)

What you dont understand is YouTube is the exception to the rule. They where the first to incorporate a social network around the videos in a way that could only resemble Myspace but with videos. Do you really think the cable companies can make something that innovative? The Answer: NO.
Its the same reason no one has been able to make a better ipod. Its just not that easy; especially when the leader has done such a good job at combining design and function. (Bill Gates once said to Steve Jobs it doesnt matter that your better because where first.) As it turns out that holds true in the world of the web too, not just in software.
I would bet every dollar that I have, that you couldnt make another YouTube. Even with a great team of web designers you wouldnt even come close. I would bet money on that. Why, for the same reason Google bought YouTube because they couldnt bet them with there own video site.

I really think that YouTube is at a point where it’s so big (ala Facebook or MySpace) that it could survive on VLOGGING alone.

Regradless, someone seriously needs to hop in on the PhilTube thing. This stuff is too funny. I’m think 6 webisodes and an international explosion.

http://www.PhilTube.com

Mark, you wish you were a Blartist