YouTube bought out by Google

[sakura_blossom]

I was watching NBC10 News and they had a special report on the founders of the famous website YouTube. Google had proposed to buy out the website for 1.6 BILLION dollars, how lucky for these two guys.

I'm sure it was going to happen sometime that some higher company would buy out the website, but I didn't realize for how much. Now it makes me consider wanting to start a website that'll become as popular, though easier said than done.

Chad and Steve (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QCVxQ_3Ejkg)

^ The two guys who created YouTube, a message about the Google thing.

[Javer]

WOW! Sure didn't see that coming!

Seriously, this was pretty predictable. What with the rate at which Youtube was growing, it had to happen sooner or later. The only question was who. And now we know, and we can say a long-deserved adieu to Google Video as we know it.

[Sae]

Is YouTube going to close down then?! This sux!!!!!!!!!! Nooooooo!!!!!!!

Sae-chan

[soundchazer]

WOW! Sure didn't see that coming!

Seriously, this was pretty predictable. What with the rate at which Youtube was growing, it had to happen sooner or later. The only question was who. And now we know, and we can say a long-deserved adieu to Google Video as we know it.

Or maybe this is the end of YouTube as we know it. Prepare yourself for ads before your videos at the very least, and say goodbye to any home video that uses music from a legit recording company because it would be violate copyright agreements.

In other words, the creative freedom that YouTube gives nowadays will go down the tube.

[Roark]

The type of creative freedom that youtube offered couldn't last if they wanted to break even. The site's popularity is completely based around copyright infringement, to varying degrees.

[loner]

Is YouTube going to close down then?! This sux!!!!!!!!!! Nooooooo!!!!!!!

Sae-chan

Does it make any sense to buy a site for 1.6 billion just to close it down? No Youtube will be there. Just not as you know it.

[silan]

They'll make it a "pay" service.

Anyone willing to bet against that?

[Roark]

They'll make it a "pay" service.

Anyone willing to bet against that?
Yes. I will. Google's business model, so far, has been to eschew end-user payment models. Gmail? Free. Google News? Free. Google Earth/maps? Free. Google Chat? Google Usenet Archive? Google Search for Your Website? Free.

Google makes their money a few ways. One major one is Enterprise solutions: custom search engines, custom Google Earth applications, etc. Another is selling tailored eyes. Gmail was a very sneaky way for Google to get you to log in and let them track your searches.

YouTube won't cost the average person a dime. You'll get tailored google ads though. Also, expect to see the technologies leveraged for enterprise solutions. and no more direct mySpace links until they pay up.

[Dark Lord]

Youtube, close down? Don't talk of such things... Though I really do hope that they won't charge the users... Yeah, it wouldn't make much sense if they did close it down because that would be 1.6 billion dollars wasted, right?

[Luggles]

Youtube is gonna remain fine, this is Google guys, they don't **** anything up.

YouTube video to fly free under Google's wing

By Yinka Adegoke

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Popular Web video site YouTube Inc. played a cat-and-mouse game with potential suitors all year, but gave in to Google's (GOOG.O: Quote, Profile, Research) $1.65 billion offer because of its resources and assurances of independence, YouTube Chief Executive Chad Hurley said in an interview.

"We were interested in remaining independent," Hurley, 29, said on Monday, although sources said he was in repeated talks with potential acquirers ranging from Yahoo Inc. (YHOO.O: Quote, Profile, Research) and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) to media giants.

What sold Hurley and co-founder Steve Chen, 27, on Google was their belief that Google's resources and engineering talent could help them realize their goal of delivering the most entertaining online video experience, Hurley said.

"Now we have the resources behind us at Google to help achieve our vision," Hurley said, declining to say how much Google stock he and his partner would receive.

YouTube will retain the YouTube brand and its own corporate offices -- a first among the numerous acquisitions that Google has made. That, coupled with the rich price tag, is a testament to how big a media name the firm has become.

YouTube serves up more than 100 million videos a day to Web users. Some 72 million visitors view the site each month, according to data from Internet measurement firm comScore.

Hurley and Chen, who is chief technology officer, founded the company in February 2005 as a classic Silicon Valley garage start-up with another friend, Jawed Karim.

Karim left the company just before it got its first round of funding in November 2005 to go back to full-time study at Stanford University.

Sequoia Capital, one of Silicon Valley's top venture capital firms and an early backer of Google, provided $3.5 million in first round funding and another $8 million in April. Roelof Botha, the lead investor from Sequoia, was the former chief financial officer of PayPal, where Hurley and Chen worked as engineers.

The Wall Street Journal, citing a person familiar with the details, said on Monday Sequoia owned 30 percent of YouTube. Hurley declined to comment on the company's ownership structure.

YouTube has been the subject of mounting legal threats from media companies in recent months, but Hurley said the decision to sell the firm was not influenced by the fear of looming copyright lawsuits.

"No, the threat of legal action did not affect our decision at all," said Hurley.

He said talks with media companies, including Hollywood film studios, are ongoing. On Monday, YouTube and Google announced a variety of distribution agreements with Universal Music Group, Sony BMG, among others, in an effort to lessen the threat of legal challenges

Article here. (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=ousiv&storyID=2006-10-10T033855Z_01_N09310837_RTRIDST_0_BUSINESSPRO-MEDIA-YOUTUBE-INTERVIEW-DC.XML&WTmodLoc=Home-C4-Business-ousiv-1&from=business)

[PsychoSaiya-jin]

Or maybe this is the end of YouTube as we know it. Prepare yourself for ads before your videos at the very least, and say goodbye to any home video that uses music from a legit recording company because it would be violate copyright agreements.

In other words, the creative freedom that YouTube gives nowadays will go down the tube.I doubt this. As already mentioned, Google already makes their money in indirect ways very similar to Youtube's current business model.
As for copyright, youtube is practically built on copyright infringement but persecution is unlikely because it is all streaming, but like a person having internet radio stations.
At worst, the uploading user would be held responsible and their content removed from the site.

[Roark]

At worst, the uploading user would be held responsible and their content removed from the site.

Actually, YouTube has a responsibility to police their site and prevent distribution of copyrighted material. They are in a much different position from, say, Comcast of AT&T.

Comcast and AT&T pass whatever bits anyone in the world requests along. If someone in Tokyo requests a song from someone in London and it passes through a Comcast server, that server just blindly passes it. In return, servers in Tokyo and London pass stuff to Comcast users. This is my very basic understanding of "common carrier" status. Common carriers can't be liable for crimes committed, anymore than Sprint can be held accountable for crimes planned over cell phones or rail owners for people who transport drugs.

YouTube is not a common carrier. They are more of a giant, free movie theatre. They make money from selling your eyes to banner ad providers. But, they have full control of everything on their server. They don't have to accept certain uploads, and they have the capability to screen them to a greater extent than an ISP or phone company. Moreover, YouTube has a responsibility to actively hunt down and remove copywritten content, lest they profit from illegal actions.

In this case, YouTube provides the means to access illegal files. They've shown that they have the means to screen uploads and review them. Their entire business model is serving video. Thus, they need to be very aware of what kind of video they serve. They can't serve someone else's video without permission (home movie makers give implicit permission by posting).

This is also different than, say, Google itself, which also can't be held accountable for illegal files that it servers on accident. Google search is a mere algorithm somewhere that crawls the web, follows links, and creates a huge database of everything it finds. Unlike YouTube, which is submission based, stuff just appears on Google. Google's search just indexes everything out there. Users request it, and google responds. YouTube users submit things, tied to accounts. YouTube agrees to host and server that to people. Because they host it, because users sign certain agreements, because youtube can control what's accessible on their site, they become vulnerable to lawsuit if they don't exercise due dilligence in maintaining copyrights.

At best the content is removed. A bit worse is the user being turned over to the **AA's. At worst, YouTube is found negligent in its duty to comply with a Cease and Decist order from someone, and fined for selling bootlegged content. (Remember, YouTube sells your eyes. That's their product. They gain access to your saleable eyes by offering a bunch of free stuff. If they don't have the right to give that stuff away, they're in trouble.)

[Emeraldas]

*sigh*
I knew it wouldn't last long.