Comments on: GooTube Questions

By: Size Genetics

Size Genetics — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:45:33 +0000

This copyrighted content sharing issues is related to net neutrality in my opinion. I\’m honestly frightened of the big telcos like AT&T. They don\’t care about the internet\’s health and growth or its users.. Only about raising profits a little bit.

By: Jamie Marcum

Jamie Marcum — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:41:43 +0000

I have liked you ever since you bought the Mavericks. I usually agree on you when you are squabbling with David Stern, but after reading your blog i have really learned not to like you very much.

By: alice

alice — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:22:40 +0000

I think Google figures we have lawyers on retainer and there going to get paid anyways so why not keep them busy with copyrighting the content.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:29:54 +0000

Mark, we can take our collective insight and pontification on the purchase of YouTube to the local Starbucks with $3.50 and buy a cup of coffee, and continue the pointless discussion. As always, time will tell whether or not this proves to be a wise (and profitable)decision. Certainly is fun to discuss…

By: Stephen Coppler

Stephen Coppler — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:22:35 +0000

Another issue is the posting of pay per view telecasts on youtube in almost real time from tivo to a convertor and cut to include for example the pride fighting championships from vegas, 2 minutes after leaving the ring, Butterbeans cornerman called me and we already were watching it through youtube…… no need to ever buy another pay per view boxing match or ufc or wwe event…. most of the content was taken down after 24-48 hours, but in almost real time we watched the fights….. next time de la hoya fights, no way am I going to pay $49.95 when through my webtv I can watch for free without all the pre fight junk… i just want to see the fight anyway!!

By: tomo

tomo — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:57:51 +0000

To answer your question, they spent their money on paying off the content owners because they can do it with funny money. At the end of the day, they used funny money to buy yt for 1.6b and their market cap went up. Sounds like something you would do every day of the week should it present itself. Who gives a shit about how they will ever make money because goog just got a shitload of advertising pages….21M a day or something like that? goog already makes money and adding 21m new page views only adds to their bottom line. its not like they need to throw a bunch of infrastructure at this, obviously their infrastructure isn’t utilized 100% of the time in an efficient manner and adding more yt’s and whoever else they buy will push them towards higher utility on their deployed assets.

By: Randi

Randi — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 10:46:16 +0000

I understand Mark's concern about copyright protected material being put on YouTube. But unless the copyright owners make material readily available, then more YouTube's and Napsters will appear in the future.

Copyright owners have to understand a few things:
1. They have content that people want to access 24/7/365.

2. No matter how owners try to "hide" material, viewers will always have technology that can get around it

3. Most people that gather material for there own use; no one ever makes any money from it.

By: Mark Z.

Mark Z. — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:32:56 +0000

The heat is getting stronger for YouTube, now coming from Germany. The GEMA (one of the strongest licencing companies in Germany) as well as the record soccer club FC Bayern have announced to go after YouTube for infringing copyrights. These are powerful guys with deep pockets. It’ll be good to see the results of their complaints.

By: girls basketball

girls basketball — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:46:45 +0000

There is tremendous value in licensing deals. That’s why companies spend so much money to buy catalogues of music, film, etc. But I agree that the whole YouTube purchase makes you question the value of copyrighted (and owned) material is anyone can pretty much post it, show it, and use it to drive traffic to a site.

By: CaptiousNut

CaptiousNut — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:05:43 +0000

The striking thing about the YouTube purchase is the implied arrogance of Google management. It's far easier to negotiate with terrorists than it is to placate copyright holders. Google will find out.

They are taking down scores of videos. Every day another of my (or my toddler son's) favorites is removed. Just today I got an email from a NYC radio station "threatening" me if I didn't take down one of my videos - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q46T9sap-OU (This video is hilarious by the way, watch it before it's gone).

I tried to reason with the guy explaining that my clip was free, viral, international advertising for him. The guy from the radio station got madder than a menstruating pit bull and thoroughly irrational. I may have to publish our email exchange at some point.

Anyway, if a business can find a way to protect its content through technology, then fine. But if it needs lawyers, then it should consider that maybe it's business model should be rejiggered. Learn how to embed advertising already or something.

Maybe Mark is mad for the same reason I am? Google is 8% of my portfolio.