保持混沌中立
Google/YouTube 收购案看起来对各方都是双赢。嗯,几乎如此。
- 以约1%的市值收购互联网视频的未来
- 获得5亿美元托管资金以防范版权诉讼
这些诉讼即使Google不拥有YouTube,可能也不得不为其辩护。嗯?让我们看看,YouTube未经版权持有者事先许可存储并提供视频副本,并在收到删除请求时根据DMCA安全港条款将其删除。Google[复制图书](copies books),并且未经版权持有者事先许可提供页面副本…
YouTube和股东
- 10亿+个值得兴奋的理由
- Google叔叔承担了货币化风险和法律责任
主要唱片公司
- 每家5000万美元
- YouTube承诺在6个月内清除受版权保护的违规内容
输家
- 小型唱片公司:没有资金或资源对Google发起严肃的法律挑战。没有得到报酬。
- 小型视频分享网站:主要唱片公司[将通过诉讼使其消失以确立先例](are going to sue them out of existence to establish a precedent),为Google等公司做脏活。
- 艺术家:版税?什么版税?给每家唱片公司的5000万美元被构建为股权投资,不受版税分成约束。
因此,Google获得了奖品,唱片公司获得了金钱,YouTube获得了报酬,而Google通过一次性大规模版权侵权来建立关键规模,同时利用唱片公司作为执法者,确保没有人能够重复YouTube的故事。
是的,[你可以不作恶也能赚钱。](you can make money without being evil.) 但对于YouTube的竞争对手、小型唱片公司和艺术家来说,邪恶是相对的。
Be Chaotic Neutral
The Google / YouTube looks like a win-win all around. Well, almost.
- Acquire the future of video on the Internet for roughly 1% of your market cap.
- Get $500M in escrow to protect against copyright lawsuits
These are lawsuits that Google would probably have to defend YouTube against anyway, even if Google didn’t own YouTube. Huh? Let’s see, YouTube stores and serves up copies of videos without copyright holders’ advance permission and removes them when removal is requested, under DMCA Safe Harbor. Google [copies books](copies books), and serves up copies of pages without copyright holders’ advance permission…
Youtube and shareholders
- 1 Billion plus reasons to be thrilled
- Uncle Google takes on monetization risk and legal risk
Major labels
- $50 Million each
- A promise from YouTube that within 6 months, the copyrighted nasties will be gone
Losers
- Small Labels: Don’t have the money or the resources to mount a serious legal challenge to Google. Didn’t get paid.
- Small video-sharing sites: The major labels [are going to sue them out of existence to establish a precedent](are going to sue them out of existence to establish a precedent), doing the dirty work for Google et al.
- Artists: Royalties? What royalties? The $50M to each label is structured as an equity investment, and not subject to royalty splits.
So, Google gets the prize, the labels get the money, YouTube gets the payout, and Google extends its one-time massive copyright violation to build critical mass, while using the labels as enforcers to make sure that no one can repeat the YouTube story.
Yes, [you can make money without being evil.](you can make money without being evil.) But for YouTube’s competitors, small labels, and the artists, evil is relative.