YouTube and Intellectual property....

O

Ozzy

#1
#1
Since we were discussing intellectual property or DRM in another thread... I was just curious what the legal minds think of the future of YouTube (and Google) now that Google has spent a billion dollars to purchase YT. Isn't Google now assuming the risks of copyright infringement and responsibility to uphold those copyright laws?

With the previous YT owners barely able to stay afloat and pay the massive bandwidth bills there was probably little insentive for many to haul YT into court. But now that the huge pockets of Google control it, will this spur a fleet of lawsuits from those whose copyrights are being severely infringed upon by having their content unlawfully hosted on YT? With billions in the Google bank, I bet some are now considering hauling Google into court.

I thought this was a bad move for a company (Google) that until now had made mostly smart business decisions and seen its IPO rise like no other since the 90's. Could this open a can of worms that Google might not be able to get out of?


note: I'm not talking about the millions of idiots who send in their own videos... I'm talking about the equal number of content created by third parties (Sports, TV shows, movie clips etc...) that people sent in without any permission from the originators.
 
J

JXM

Bronze
#2
#2
YouTube (unlike others in their ilk) are very willing to partner with intellectual property owners and are willing to use filtering software and take down notices to block unauthorized content.

With regards to music, they are going to use audio and text fingerprinting software to check against databases of "known" copyrighted material. In order to avoid liability, all they really need to do is monitor the stuff with the biggest hits and respond to the copyright holders and they won't get sued.

They made deals with the record companies to share ad revenue...expect the same types of deals with other IP holders as well.
 
O

Ozzy

#3
#3
It's been said that half of youtubes content violates said copright laws.... it's also estimated that it might account for 75% of it's most popular (viewed/searched) content. If they start filtering that content out they might as well close shop. A cool billion down the drain... Ouch!
 
S

stevana

#4
#4
Ozzy said:
It's been said that half of youtubes content violates said copright laws
Click to expand...
It been said by whom? I can't imagine that Google didn't have a lawyer or two on the job. We aren't talking about the Napster college kid here.
 
O

Ozzy

#5
#5
In nearly every article I've read about this Youtube copyright subject.

If you want to do your own little sampling... just look at the various YT links people have posted here. Nearly everyone links to an old movie or TV clip.

Understand that there could be millions of idiots posting their home movies... but very few are watching them compared to the more widely known copyrighted stuff... thats the infringement.
 
Last edited:
S

stevana

#7
#7
stevana said:
It been said by whom? I can't imagine that Google didn't have a lawyer or two on the job. We aren't talking about the Napster college kid here.
Click to expand...
I am going to jump back on my own comment here. Taking Ozzy's advice and looking into the question a bit more, I now see from what I would consider reliable financial reporting sources that Google has undettaken the venture recognizing the copyright risks and that Google itself sees the risk as substantial. One report says that about half the investment is actually a reserve against copyright infringement losses rather a payment to the seller. Therefore, there is a potential for problems but Google's accounting for the transaction has taken that into account to a large degree. In other words, the potential for a big "ouch" that has been mentioned has already been greatly mitigated in a financial sense.
 
O

Ozzy

#8
#8
Well lawyers for Comedy Central have already demanded that all their content (South Park, Colbert Report and Daily Show clips) be removed from the youtube site and Google has already complied.

http://www.newscloud.com/read/75528


It's not about having the scratch to pay people off for their copyrights... it's about losing all or most of the content that makes Youtube a viable product. Google shelled out 1.6 billion for a site that might become worthless if this trend continues. Viacom which owns MTV is another seeking to have all their content removed.... So now there goes about 50% of the music videos not to mention Beavis and Butthead, Real World and all MTV's clips on YT. What happens when the independent artists start demanding the same.

Consider what would happen to UtopiaGuide if Justlooking decided his 20,000 posts were his Intellectual property and demanded their removal.... Then I decided the same with my 10,0000, and someone else with their posts. It never ends and soon UG is an empty worthless wasteland.
 
Last edited:
J

JXM

Bronze
#9
#9
By partnering with the content providers and coughing up a % of the ad revenue they believe that the traffic that shows up there will make everyone money.

Example: If YouTube signs a deal with SNL, and people post SNL clips, YouTube can pay SNL a price per thousand clicks, and everyone is happy. The user can still post the clips, people can still watch them for free, advertisers get traffic, YouTube gets paid, and the copyright holder gets paid. That's the idea anyway...clearly this is easier said than done, but it is on the right track.
 
O

Ozzy

#10
#10
So Youtube pays on a per clip basis, people continue to post and view clips free of charge and Youtube besides having that huge bandwidth nut they couldn't cover before, now has to pay for permission rights. So a site that was a money losing elephant before now becomes a bigger burden for Google with the additional cost and no additional income.

Google purchased themselves a fucking headache with almost no possible upside to them. I predict they shut it or sell it before it drags them under.
 
Last edited:
J

JXM

Bronze
#11
#11
I think it can go in a number of different directions. The main difference between YouTube and almost every other "sharing" site of any type is this:

All of the other sites tried to play the "We just provide the technology...what the users do is not our problem."

YouTube at least is trying to be proactive about it. NO question that YouTube will never be what it once was, but it still may be viable even if it is different. Mostly that depends on traffic. If there is traffic, there will be ads. Google's sales staff will be much better at selling ads than a start up YouTube staff.

I think it will be an interesting situation to watch.
 
J

JXM

Bronze
#12
#12
Ozzy said:
So now there goes about 50% of the music videos not to mention Beavis and Butthead, Real World and all MTV's clips on YT. What happens when the independent artists start demanding the same.
Click to expand...
Viacom doesn't own the videos which makes it interesting how it works if they were "clipped" from MTV. They license them from the labels.

True indy artists probably WANT their content up there for free.

Indy artists that are distributed by major labels will be part of the individual label deals. And I can say that outside of some artists that don't want their content out there anywhere, initial reaction is positive from the artist community.
 
O

Ozzy

#13
#13
The vids are copied from MTV since they have the logo in the corner. There's an issue there somewhere apparently.

Aas far as the artists.... they view Youtube the same way they view Napster.
 
Last edited:
J

JXM

Bronze
#14
#14
We'll agree to disagree on what the artists think because our data comes from different sources.

No doubt the issues are going to be very complicated and it remains to be seen whether the IP issue kills YouTube or not. They are trying to be good citizens.
 
Thorn

Thorn

#15
#15
Ozzy said:
Well lawyers for Comedy Central have already demanded that all their content (South Park, Colbert Report and Daily Show clips) be removed from the youtube site and Google has already complied.
Click to expand...
The clarification on that was not "clips" but whole shows.

Comedy Central is smart enough to know that clips online are like free advertising for their product. If you like what you see on the clip you are apt to tune into see the whole show.

It is that whole show, which if presented on YouTube means you don't have to tune into CC to see it, that they are objecting to.
 
O

Ozzy

#16
#16
There's going to be artists who like youtube just like there's artists who liked Napster. But the big names have been rank and file against airing or sharing their content without due compensation.

Too many mitigating factors makes this an unnecessary move for Google with very little upside for them. What did they expect to gain from all this... a little advertising? They already control one of the most popular portals to the net.
 
J

JXM

Bronze
#17
#17
Ozzy said:
There's going to be artists who like youtube just like there's artists who liked Napster. But the big names have been rank and file against airing or sharing their content without due compensation.
Click to expand...
We are in agreement. But YouTube has now agreed to pay artists.

What are you hearing now that YouTube has agreed to pay?
 
O

Ozzy

#18
#18
If they start paying artists that's a huge nut to swallow. Imagine how many will start lining up for their cut. And once that happens what about the amateurs who have content on that site. When do they start looking for their cut. And if not, why is their intellectual property not worth something to them. If YT pays everyone there's no way they can make that site viable..... just ask Napster.


I just see endless litigation ahead for Google.
 
J

JXM

Bronze
#19
#19
The way it works: (my numbers are fictional and probably disproportionate, but the process should be pretty close to how it works)

YouTube generates $1.00 per 1,000 views of a particular copyrighted video.

As per YouTube's agreement with XYZ label (and copyright holder), $0.40 per 1,000 views will be paid to XYZ label. $0.60 would be YouTube's margin.

XYZ label has agreement with PDQ artist. The royalty rate for PDQ is 18%. PDQ will get 18% of $0.40. The label keeps 82% of what is paid to it, similar to what happens when a CD gets sold.

The thing is, there is margin every step of the way. YouTube can't really go out and get advertising without expecting to pay, so they negotiate payout rates that are less than the ad rates so they are guaranteed some gross margin, and the labels have a process to take their margin and that is that.

As to amateurs, etc? They probably won't want to get into agreements with individuals, so if people bitch they will probably just take the content down.
 
O

Ozzy

#20
#20
It's the generating $ per video I don't think Google can get. The amount of visitors who click on banners is very low on a board like this where the marketing is as direct as you can get. It's almost non-existent on sites like YT where no one wants to deal with pop-ups and possible worm downloads etc... Also you have to take into account the demographic that visits YT... mostly teens, geeks, morons and such, much like Myspace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top