« SkypeFind + SkypePrime = Skype is Desperate | Main | Happy Ending For HP's Patricia Dunn »

March 14, 2007


the cigars are good tho

I'm so disappointed in you. cuban deserves a 'close read'? please.

Henry Blodget

Sorry...dumb phrase...the hazards of no editor.


I think Cuban's main point was that Viacom needs to be assured that no one is posting full length episodes of its shows without its permission (or even the most interesting parts).

I guess if google was willing to take the line that users cannot post any copyrighted material but the copywrite owners themselves were posting it that would be ideal.

of course making sure there is no copyrighted material on the site seems like a tough thing to filter for.

Lloyd Allen

I have read everything Mark has to say about not just You Tube and Google, but so many other companies and other ideas. He has a holier-than-thou, I'm smarter than anyone, "sore looser" attitude, and it's ALWAYS a lengthy diatribe. He has become an imbarrassment, and at times, the laughing stock of the Tech Community. He's constantly being "shredded."


Yeah well cuban got 5 billion from a yahoo for his company that was not worth anything close to that.

so the tech establishement might laugh at him but he probably does not care that much.


Excellent special on the Nightly News Hour (PBS) with a law professor from Columbia, which supports your general point of view Henry (on Viacom's power play).


On a related note, I just had dinner tonight with a Googlite in the know who mentioned that YouTube usership has actually accelerated since Viacom began its assault on YouTube. More free publicity courtesy of Viacom. And Google shows no inclination internally to blink in any way with Viacom.

So, as Henry has said, time will pass and Viacom's content will lose marginal value as YouTube grows and other content providers sign deals on revenue sharing (and who knows maybe even premium placement on YouTube).

Michael Stone


I don't understand your rationale for wanting GooTube and Viacom to "make nice". What happened to good old fashion competition? As someone that has been in the Internet space since 1996 I can tell you that, as an industry, there needs to be more rivalry and competition. I love the fact that MSN hates Google and Google hates Yahoo. I think it's healthy.

Coopetition is bullshit and is usually not sustainable. The graveyards are filled with Internet companies that partnered with their direct competitors. AOL is a great example. They got the check from Google and Google accumulated all the market value. The same goes for Yahoo.

Viacom needs to find a way to generate "several" billion dollars in market capitalization from the Video industry over the next 5-10 years. They missed search and performance-based advertising - two major value creators. They cannot afford to miss Video. Generating license fees from Google is a joke compared to owning the next YouTube. I strongly suggest that they make their own way in the world before they miss this coming video revolution!

Still Inside

The Viacom attack on YouTube is not an attack on GOOG for a little bit of money, it's an attack on the entire model.

Clearly if Viacom wins some money here then every other content-creating company in the world from Hollywood to Bollywood are going to want a piece of GOOG and are most certainly going to have the legal case to get it. It's not as bad as Napster vs. RIAA, it's actually a lot worse.

One thing the discussion seems to be missing here is that this is USER GENERATED CONTENT, not some stuff that the GOOG mother ship can simply take down from their website. The minute they have to eliminate ANY content, they effectively need to eliminate ALL content because there's no controlling the unwashed masses from uploading every kind of content imaginable, legal or otherwise. It is exactly this chaos that is the core value proposition of this service. To kill the chaos is to kill the service.

As for Viacom et. al. "losing" this legal battle, the war is definitely not over: they have another weapon at their disposal, which is hacking the network. In other words, hire some hackers and buy them a LOT of anonymous servers and tell them to go kill that YouTube thing.

Pretty soon your download of the last episode of 24 will be a commercial of some guy with a toolbelt on the back of a movie set telling you how are taking food from his children when you steal video.

You'll try again with a different user and maybe a variant on the search and there he is again. And again. And again. Maybe the ninth video you start will be the real thing. Then you'll get four minutes into the video and--right before the good part--boom, it's Kenny the Key Grip there again to end your fun with another lecture. Kenny's friends have been busy on the comments section too, telling you that this one is the "real thing" and those others are "another hack, don't download".

Pretty soon you'll conclude this YouTube thing is a huge waste of time.

Record companies have done this to Kazaa and others with great success. Folks like Viacom can spend a LOT more money doing it. They don't need to "win" the hacking war, they just need to turn the service into a hacker battleground in order to render it pointless for most people.

A decent non-coordinated effort among a few dozen content companies could shut YouTube down within a year.



Hasn't Viacom entered into a distribution agreement with Joost? I haven't kept up with it, but assuming it's still on, Viacom has an imperitive to protect that agreement - distributing content over multiple competing networks reduces the value of that content to Joost, no?

Account Deleted

thanks admin good post


Account Deleted

thanks admin good post
Temizlik ┼čirketleri Temizlik ┼čirketleri Sohbet Sohbet odalar─▒

The comments to this entry are closed.