YouTube, YouInTrouble
This article points out that since Google acquired YouTube, the lawsuits have been pouring in.
How could a site like YouTube protect itself? I have a suggestion. Every should be required to sign up with a credit card, and if they are caught having posted copyrighted material that is not theirs, they are required to pay a default fine of "x" dollars.
This way, the courts could be circumvented and the infringed upon parties could settle immediately.
How could a site like YouTube protect itself? I have a suggestion. Every should be required to sign up with a credit card, and if they are caught having posted copyrighted material that is not theirs, they are required to pay a default fine of "x" dollars.
This way, the courts could be circumvented and the infringed upon parties could settle immediately.
Comments
This article points out that since Google acquired YouTube, the lawsuits have been pouring in.
How could a site like YouTube protect itself? I have a suggestion. Every should be required to sign up with a credit card, and if they are caught having posted copyrighted material that is not theirs, they are required to pay a default fine of "x" dollars.
This way, the courts could be circumvented and the infringed upon parties could settle immediately.
Wouldn't work, I'll let someone else explain why.
Wouldn't work, I'll let someone else explain why.
Of course, 90% of the users of YouTube are kids...
Of course, 90% of the users of YouTube are kids...
Bingo.
This article points out that since Google acquired YouTube, the lawsuits have been pouring in.
How could a site like YouTube protect itself? I have a suggestion. Every should be required to sign up with a credit card, and if they are caught having posted copyrighted material that is not theirs, they are required to pay a default fine of "x" dollars.
This way, the courts could be circumvented and the infringed upon parties could settle immediately.
big deal, google is worth billions.
However, broadcast video is a very subjective part of the law with many confusing legal precedents at work. I will be interested to see ho Google handles this. I interviewed with Google recently, and ultimately turned them down because there whole operation seemed to be built on hopes and dreams still, and not much real foundation. Google has great products, and their quarterly numbers kick ass, but, mark my words, don't keep Google as a long term investment. Their style of corporate culture has had many trials and has never succeeded, to the best of my knowledge. In five years time, Google will still be around, but the stock price will be down quite a bit.
YouTube is free advertising! Get it? YouTube limits clips to 10 minutes or less. They're snippets, nothing more! That means, unless they're really determined, nobody will be able to upload an entire movie or television episode worth watching.
What media companies should demand instead is links attached to the pages where users view these clips to:
1) Paid download sites
2) DVD/CD stores like Amazon.com
3) Pay per view packages
4) Other products or services related to the snippets of content being displayed
Google is doing really well, which means that the opposing corporate lawyers are just that much more intent on making something of it. Since lawyers are generally scum, this is not good for Youtube or the user.
However, broadcast video is a very subjective part of the law with many confusing legal precedents at work. I will be interested to see ho Google handles this. I interviewed with Google recently, and ultimately turned them down because there whole operation seemed to be built on hopes and dreams still, and not much real foundation. Google has great products, and their quarterly numbers kick ass, but, mark my words, don't keep Google as a long term investment. Their style of corporate culture has had many trials and has never succeeded, to the best of my knowledge. In five years time, Google will still be around, but the stock price will be down quite a bit.
The thing I will give Google is that they have that culture AND profit. None of the other experiments were ever really profitable, just wasteful in the name of talent perks with the worst and first failure of the grandaddy prototype, Thinking Machines Inc.
Somebody should smack these hubris-filled "media" companies with a cluestick.
YouTube is free advertising! Get it? YouTube limits clips to 10 minutes or less. They're snippets, nothing more! That means, unless they're really determined, nobody will be able to upload an entire movie or television episode worth watching.
What media companies should demand instead is links attached to the pages where users view these clips to:
1) Paid download sites
2) DVD/CD stores like Amazon.com
3) Pay per view packages
4) Other products or services related to the snippets of content being displayed
Bingo! You get it, Google gets it. Others here alas do not. Viacom will rue the day it didn't partner with Google. Its foolish lawsuit will hoist them on their own petard.
Somebody should smack these hubris-filled "media" companies with a cluestick.
YouTube is free advertising! Get it? YouTube limits clips to 10 minutes or less. They're snippets, nothing more! That means, unless they're really determined, nobody will be able to upload an entire movie or television episode worth watching.
What media companies should demand instead is links attached to the pages where users view these clips to:
1) Paid download sites
2) DVD/CD stores like Amazon.com
3) Pay per view packages
4) Other products or services related to the snippets of content being displayed
Excellent suggestions, but I don't think the people who can make those decisions are listening.
Google is doing really well, which means that the opposing corporate lawyers are just that much more intent on making something of it. Since lawyers are generally scum, this is not good for Youtube or the user.
However, broadcast video is a very subjective part of the law with many confusing legal precedents at work. I will be interested to see ho Google handles this. I interviewed with Google recently, and ultimately turned them down because there whole operation seemed to be built on hopes and dreams still, and not much real foundation. Google has great products, and their quarterly numbers kick ass, but, mark my words, don't keep Google as a long term investment. Their style of corporate culture has had many trials and has never succeeded, to the best of my knowledge. In five years time, Google will still be around, but the stock price will be down quite a bit.
Have to disagree big time with you, Spliney. Google's billions in revenues, profit and cash are real. Every quarter gets better and better. Wall Street and the market in general don't know how to properly price their stock (i.e. their multiple for forward earnings).And, they are building an Ad Revenue platform for the future that will allow them to literally print money (See JavaCowboy's post).
As for their corporate culture, I think it's most like the great wealthy private success story known as SAS.
The thing I will give Google is that they have that culture AND profit. None of the other experiments were ever really profitable, just wasteful in the name of talent perks with the worst and first failure of the grandaddy prototype, Thinking Machines Inc.
There have been plenty of companies with the "naive-PhD" culture (i.e. zero street smarts) which have succeeded in the short term. Hiring Schmidt was supposed to offer a dose of non-naivete. If they can get that dose in time, they'll be OK, but it's certainly not there yet.
And yes LFE, I realize that Google's numbers are great. In fact, I mentioned that. I just don't think Google is a great long-term investment. Really, they haven't established a brand outside of the fact that everything defaults to google.com searches. If everything all of the sudden defaulted to ask.com searches, I think you'd see massive changes overnight.
I don't quite agree. I've chatted with Mike Jones, head of the Google Earth project and there isn't any naiveté there. On the contrary, he has hard numbers and data for going forward that will give you an entirely new perspective on what they are doing and trying to do. Out of respect for the context of the conversation and general meeting's ground rules I won't say anything more detailed, but they do have a plan. Not as nefarious as the Cylons, but they do have a plan.
It's not that they don't have a plan. They have great plans. And they make good products. I have no gripes with Google. I think they're great. I just don't think they are a good long term investment, and by that I mean I think there are better places to put your money. Why? Google isn't lean and hungry. In fact, they are borderline complacent, but happen to enjoy making good products.
Somebody should smack these hubris-filled "media" companies with a cluestick.
YouTube is free advertising! Get it? YouTube limits clips to 10 minutes or less. They're snippets, nothing more! That means, unless they're really determined, nobody will be able to upload an entire movie or television episode worth watching.
What media companies should demand instead is links attached to the pages where users view these clips to:
1) Paid download sites
2) DVD/CD stores like Amazon.com
3) Pay per view packages
4) Other products or services related to the snippets of content being displayed
Bingo! You get it, Google gets it. Others here alas do not. Viacom will rue the day it didn't partner with Google. Its foolish lawsuit will hoist them on their own petard.
Excellent suggestions, but I don't think the people who can make those decisions are listening.
Bingo, bingo, bango.
Have to disagree big time with you, Spliney. Google's billions in revenues, profit and cash are real. Every quarter gets better and better. Wall Street and the market in general don't know how to properly price their stock (i.e. their multiple for forward earnings).And, they are building an Ad Revenue platform for the future that will allow them to literally print money (See JavaCowboy's post).
As for their corporate culture, I think it's most like the great wealthy private success story known as SAS.
Heh. He called you "Spliney"....
It's not that they don't have a plan. They have great plans. And they make good products. I have no gripes with Google. I think they're great. I just don't think they are a good long term investment, and by that I mean I think there are better places to put your money. Why? Google isn't lean and hungry. In fact, they are borderline complacent, but happen to enjoy making good products.
That's one of the things that make them very good. A Google engineer is allowed 20% of their time to work on independent project development. It only takes one home run a year from those thousands of engineers to keep them in place investment wise. Two a year and they are unstoppable, not to mention the half dozen truly good but not great ideas that come up from those unmolested efforts.
Everyone else tries to force innovation and conformance from the top down, wasting that opportunity for geeky good ideas. It's seemingly unconventional, but the idea works very well inside the good old profits make success model.
Everyone else tries to force innovation and conformance from the top down, wasting that opportunity for geeky good ideas. It's seemingly unconventional, but the idea works very well inside the good old profits make success model.
Clearly, you have never worked for a high tech company.
And for the record (to another poster) I have no problems with "spliney." If it's good enough for peter parker, it's good enough for me.
...And for the record (to another poster) I have no problems with "spliney." If it's good enough for peter parker, it's good enough for me.
Heh.
Clearly, you have never worked for a high tech company.
And for the record (to another poster) I have no problems with "spliney." If it's good enough for peter parker, it's good enough for me.
Clearly your keyboard is making unsubstantiated comments on your behalf. I suggest you take it out behind the woodshed and learn it a thing or two about speaking for you without having any clue as to how idiotic some of its statements make you look.
You don't like Google's innovation model. I do. Tough titties all around. At least I'm not making ridiculous statements about other posters by pulling crap out my ass sideways.
Not to mention you state your opinion was made based on an interview with an HR troll. Mine was made talking with a Google CTO. Hmmm. I wonder which one of those sources is closer to understanding the business plan?
Clearly your keyboard is making unsubstantiated comments on your behalf. I suggest you take it out behind the woodshed and learn it a thing or two about speaking for you without having any clue as to how idiotic some of its statements make you look. . . .
Mine was made talking with a Google CTO. Hmmm. I wonder which one of those sources is closer to understanding the business plan?
I'm not stopping you from investing in Google. I'm also not sure why you have taken this personally. However, everyone who has ever taken my investing advice has made a lot of money. That's a fact. Personally, I don't care about you or your life. If you want to make some money, I suggest you NOT invest in Google. If you don't, it's no skin off my nose.