Lots of reaction and analysis is poring through the digital spigot about The Meaning of the YouTube/Warner deal. A sampling...
It's way too early to say what the deal really means. The two companies have been stingy with details about the pact, so it's hard to assess exactly what they intend to do and how they plan to do it. More important, the deal only works for both Warner and YouTube if the myriad other companies with legal claims on the work YouTube shows decide to play along...
Rafat Ali at paidContent thinks "playing along" includes the labels taking a stake in YouTube. AFX notes that the Warner deal is only the first to come and includes confirmation that the previously hostile Universal is indeed in the process of negotiations with YouTube.
And, if you think about it, it makes sense that equity offers will be optimized if all the labels came on board. It would be a sticky situation if Warner had a stake in a company that Universal was suing, for example. The whole Bertelsmann and Napster-thing didn't work out so well, despite this 2000 bit from the CNET piece announcing it...
"My message to Napster users: If you think Napster is great now, just wait," Fanning said. "We're just getting started."
Fanning and Middelhoff then embraced.
Speaking of Fanning, how YouTube's eventual filtering technology will work will clearly be a big story-line in the months to come...
Kevin Delaney and Ethan Smith team at the WSJ write:
YouTube's agreement with Warner hinges on a digital system YouTube is developing to identify automatically copyrighted music or other audio, and related video its users upload. The system relies partly on what's known as "fingerprinting" -- comparing audio uploaded to the site to unique attributes of copyrighted content it already knows. YouTube's planned system is similar in some respects to one proposed last year by an online music startup, Snocap Inc., which was launched by Shawn Fanning, the founder of Napster. Snocap is seeking to help peer-to-peer music services and other online outlets become legitimate music distributors. YouTube said the audio-identification system could potentially be used to locate non-music content such as video clips from TV shows, and that it could eventually use video-identification technology as well.
Noted YouTube cynic Mark Cuban said yesterday on a music mailing list that such a scheme will probably make YouTube the target of patent lawsuits from others who have previously developed similar filtering applications.
Forbes' Kafka gets explanation on how the filtering tech will work:
YouTube wouldn't discuss its technical plans (or anything else beyond a press release issued Monday morning), but Alex Zubillaga, who heads up Warner's digital division, confirmed that the company plans to implement a "fingerprinting" system that automatically identifies content and matches it to a master list that Warner will help create. If Warner wants to let someone use Led Zepplin's "Stairway to Heaven," it will stay on the site; if not, YouTube will take it off.
The WSJ notes that the system is going to be first used for labels and major studios and any tweaks to facilitate the monetization of user generated content will come later...
In announcing the system, YouTube could open itself up to a flood of requests by creators of videos looking for their own share of advertising revenue. Other sites such as Revver Inc. currently give amateur video creators a percentage of ad revenue. YouTube in the future will explore options for sharing online ad revenue with smaller, or amateur creators, Mr. Hurley said. But "right now we're building tools for record labels, TV networks and movie studios."
Valleywag cuts the snark for a moment and (rightly) opines that UGC issue opens the door for more "hard-wired" Creative Commons licensing.
A VC counters the Cuban and Calcanis crowd and crows:
YouTube is going to win bigtime. They've built the audience. They've built the value added services that make their service fun to use. And eventually they are going to get the content owners to play ball.
GigaOm thinks that the filtering gives YouTube a better chance at selling itself.
If they did anytime soon, it would be hard to imagine online video being any hotter than it is now. Microsoft announced their YouTube clone today. Matt Marshall's VentureWire has his take:
YouTube, the two-year-old San Mateo start-up that raced ahead to become the leader of online video sharing, is facing the fight of its life. Microsoft’s launch of its YouTube clone, called the Soapbox, made official today ... is only the latest challenge....
...The YouTube story is significant because there’s more confusion about YouTube’s prospects, its inherent uniqueness and its legality than ever before. Moreover, there’s more at stake in the world of online video than most of us realized just a few months ago. It is where movies, music and advertising meet — and billions are at stake, and anxious incumbent music giants are angry. The proliferation of broadband, new technologies making loading videos dead easy, and the high price of buying music compared to simply sharing it free on YouTube, is giving that upstart the edge....
Here in Silicon Valley, the buzz is all about video, music and then more video — and throw in some talk about how to take it mobile. There’s a new announcement every day. (Just yesterday: Silicon Valley chip giant Intel announced a deal with AOL to place AOL Video onto Intel’s Viiv home computers. SanDisk, the Milpitas maker of music players competing with Apple’s iPod, signed a deal with Seattle’s RealNetworks, owner of music service Rhapsody, to imbed that service direclty into its Sansa e200 MP3 player).
Finally, in a perfect example of why the music skirmish and deal making is only the tip-of-the-spear in dealing with the complexities (some would say fun) here, Adam Thierer presages at the Tech Liberation Front about future video control battles between the NFL and fans in the stands...
Restricting the big cameras a local TV station might want to bring into a stadium will be easy, but what about all those little cameras many of us have in pockets today embedded in our cell phones? I was recently at a ballgame and took a video of my kids using my new cell phone. As I was doing so, someone made a stupid play in the field behind them and I actually played the clip back to a friend later in the day. Taking this a step further, imagine I snapped a few video clips of an NFL game using my cell phone and later posted them on a webpage along with some amateur commentary breaking down the plays. Is the NFL going to come after me, my website operator or my ISP? Even if my site was not commercial and my video was fuzzy, the NFL might still be able to make a copyright case against me.
Taking this a step further, imagine I snapped a few video clips of an iphone!
Posted by: i9 phone | June 18, 2010 at 02:18 AM
The very root of your writing whilst appearing agreeable in the beginning, did not really settle perfectly with me after some time. Somewhere throughout the paragraphs you actually managed to make me a believer but only for a short while. I still have got a problem with your jumps in logic and you might do nicely to fill in all those gaps. If you actually can accomplish that, I will definitely be fascinated.
Posted by: danuta | January 30, 2013 at 12:52 PM
Its such as you learn my thoughts! You seem to understand so much approximately this, such as you wrote the book in it or something. I believe that you could do with a few percent to power the message home a little bit, however other than that, this is excellent blog. An excellent read. I will certainly be back.
Posted by: Malwina | January 30, 2013 at 06:53 PM
There are actually quite a lot of particulars like that to take into consideration. That is a great level to convey up. I offer the ideas above as common inspiration however clearly there are questions like the one you convey up where the most important thing might be working in trustworthy good faith. I don?t know if finest practices have emerged round things like that, however I'm positive that your job is clearly identified as a good game. Both boys and girls really feel the affect of only a second’s pleasure, for the rest of their lives.
Posted by: anastazja | February 03, 2013 at 07:37 AM
Pretty! This was an incredibly wonderful article. Thanks for providing these details.
Posted by: Freddie Vertucci | February 03, 2013 at 03:10 PM
I blog frequently and I seriously thank you for your information. Your article has truly peaked my interest. I will take a note of your site and keep checking for new details about once per week. I opted in for your RSS feed too.
Posted by: Felicidad Grueninger | February 04, 2013 at 12:58 AM
I was able to find good info from your content.
Posted by: Vanda Bothe | February 04, 2013 at 08:56 AM
When I initially left a comment I appear to have clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now every time a comment is added I get four emails with the exact same comment. Perhaps there is a means you can remove me from that service? Many thanks!
Posted by: Willie Emhoff | February 05, 2013 at 09:12 AM
Excellent post. I will be dealing with some of these issues as well..
Posted by: Elfriede Megill | February 12, 2013 at 06:59 AM
Great information. Lucky me I found your website by accident (stumbleupon). I've book marked it for later!
Posted by: Toshia Benallie | February 16, 2013 at 01:23 AM
I quite like reading through an article that will make people think. Also, many thanks for allowing for me to comment!
Posted by: Jule Fantozzi | February 17, 2013 at 02:03 AM
The next time I learn a weblog, I hope that it doesnt disappoint me as a lot as this one. I imply, I do know it was my option to learn, however I actually thought youd have one thing interesting to say. All I hear is a bunch of whining about one thing that you would fix should you werent too busy in search of attention.
Posted by: przeprowadzkiwarszawacena | February 17, 2013 at 03:55 AM
Today, I went to the beachfront with my kids. I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said "You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear." She placed the shell to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is completely off topic but I had to tell someone!
Posted by: pozycjonowaniestroncennik | February 19, 2013 at 01:53 PM
Very good article! We are linking to this great article on our website. Keep up the great writing.
Posted by: Yen Stump | February 22, 2013 at 03:26 PM
I'm really enjoying the design and layout of your website. It's a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more pleasant for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a developer to create your theme? Great work!
Posted by: Waclawa | February 24, 2013 at 12:33 AM