Tech101,
Before now I'd not taken the time to fully understand and study the implications of why Cuban called anyone who'd buy YouTube a moron. Even when you put aside the fact that Google already has a viable and somewhat successful video arsenal, his comments make for some interesting speculation when you consider his admonitions over the potential for legal suits due to YT's apparent, or should I say alleged, illegal proliferation of copyrighted materials.
The latter, juxtaposed with Google's digital library copyright liabilities, suggests a gorilla flexing its muscles, and doing so in a way that is perhaps nitwittedly.
Here's a September 29th account, once again:
Cuban: Only a 'moron' would buy YouTube
HDNet co-founder says video sharing outfit will eventually be "sued into oblivion" over copyright violations, points at limited advertising reach of YouTube.
September 29 2006 tinyurl.com
---
And here is a later article in today's NY Times:
Google Is Said to Set Sights on YouTube
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN and PETER EDMONSTON
October 7, 2006
YouTube, the popular video-sharing Web site that has yet to celebrate its first anniversary or its first profit, is quickly becoming the must-have prize for media and technology giants.
Google is in discussions to acquire YouTube for $1.6 billion, people involved in the talks said yesterday. While the talks are in the early stages, and may fall apart, the size of Google’s offer may push YouTube closer to a deal. Other companies have also expressed interest and could swoop in with a higher offer.
Microsoft, Yahoo, Viacom and the News Corporation, among others, have all visited YouTube’s headquarters in San Mateo, Calif., in recent months to inquire about buying the company.
The frenzied hunt to acquire the next hot Internet property — MySpace last year and now YouTube — has become reminiscent of the first Internet boom, as companies bid up prices of sites whose ability to generate profits is the subject of much debate.
A deal for YouTube would be the crowning moment for a property that emerged as a cultural phenomenon almost immediately after it officially began last December. Its site, which delivers more than 100 million video clips a day, allows users to share a broad array of offerings from news clips to home movies to spoofs — sometimes funny but often simply crude — created by ordinary users. Continued at: tinyurl.com
------/snip
One analyst in the above article states: "[T]he company has about 50 million users worldwide, which works out to a purchase price of about $32 a user."
What, those users are not alos users of Google' search, maps, and even video?
Anyway, think of the opposing forces at play here. As one of the articles mentions, content owners may even be warming up to YT, indeed, some have cut deals with them. And why would the owner of a coyyrighted video want to sue a couple of kids with a startup who don't stand to make a profit off their company for the foreseeable future, anyway, except to make an example of them a la Napster in an effort to thwart copy-cats?
But Google, the richest kid on the block at a time when traditional video markets are dwindling rapidly? I don't think owners of copyrighted works and their commercial backers would have any problems going after them. None, whatsoever. If the wind shifts a certain way, it could even be akin to a class action suit by asbestos victims going after Monsanto.
What do you think?
------
FAC |
