I’ve been thinking a lot about the YouTube deal this week. I’m a bit slow, so it’s taken me a while to both think it through, and to write it up. :-)
Funny enough, it’s not the dollar values involved that left me scratching my head. It’s the long term logic.
Everyone believes that Video Search is going to be big, and will continue to be big. The next big thing? Maybe. Perhaps. Video search is strong, but there’s a problem.
I’ve gone to YouTube many times, most recently to watch a video shot at The Who concert in Vancouver last week. Therein lies the problem.
Who owns the copyright to most of the stuff posted on YouTube? If Google wants to monetize the videos it shows, (and it’s said it will), they will need to police the content posted on YouTube. Otherwise, they’re going to get hit by lawsuits from every copyright holder infringed upon, and every one of their competitors (Hello MySpace / Fox, Disney / ABC, NBC / MSNBC / MSFT, etc…) for every video they make available where one of those organizations owns the copyrights.
Once Google polices the content on YouTube, what’s left to see? Not much. It’s that copywritten content which draws viewers.
So if you’re going to buy YouTube to gain their 45% marketshare, where’s the logic in the next steps if you’re opening yourself up for lawsuits which will only force you to remove the very content that is drawing visitors? Something must be missing from the picture here, otherwise I’m not sure I can see how this will turn out to be a wise investment.
Or will this turn out to be another case of: “we’ll just go do it, and then fight in court.” Of course, if it turns out like the click fraud settlement of $90M, Google wins. However, I would have to believe that repeat offenders will get stronger sentences over time. Plus, the click fraud case did not pit Google against the heavyweights; this will. It should be interesting.
Have a question and need quick answers? 
