Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Smoking Gun at Gootube?



March 09, 2007 – Comments (3)

There is a great post on Cuban's blog describing why he's subpoenaing Gootube for information on people who are illigally uploading his content to Gootube.


Most interesting is the experience of someone who uploaded a video that was subsequently removed. Upon trying to re-upload, this user claims that he wasn't able to get it there. Now, as Cuban points out, if this occurs because Gootube is selectively filtering the uploads, it shouldn't qualify for safe harbor protection, meaning goodbye to the bogus "we're not responsible" excuse that has been the only thing saving Gootube from massive lawsuits.


Very interesting, I think.


I believe Gootube can do more than it pretends, and that it's holding out on content providers as a way of blackmailing them into a deal. Don't be Evil was a nice slogan, but Google has become corporate evil of the first variety. Not only is Big Goo interested in Big Goo first, it's engaging in some pretty shady-looking practices in order to be able to try and cash in on work done by others.


Wonder if any of the insiders -- who continue to dump shares like they're laced with Polonium -- think all heck is going to break loose.



3 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On March 09, 2007 at 10:36 PM, DemonDoug (31.22) wrote:

And the Google bashing continues.

 I have no pick on GOOG on CAPS, but am long with real money (purchased June 2005).

 Google has severely restricted their stock options grants (ala Berkshire).

Evil?  Trying to get a couple of bucks out of media production because they are market leader is using their leverage.  Google's philosophy mirrors that of many internet users, that information should be free for all to see.  Sometimes they ruffle feathers with their business model.  Youtube and Google are very user-friendly experiences that provide a service that many people, and I'm betting you yourself, use often if not on a daily basis.  Google is not pirating DVD's and selling them on street corners.

 After sending a half a dozen emails to Fool contributors after negative Google articles, I stopped because it was pointless.  I'm sorry to see that the Google bashing continues.  Last time I checked, Google does not sell cigarettes, guns, Google is installing solar power to their headquarters with the aim of being energy neutral, they comply with all laws and regulations, they haven't missed quarterly earnings reports and there have been no accounting or options scandals.

 By the way, whatever happened to  Put it in your navigator bar and see where it goes...

Report this comment
#2) On March 10, 2007 at 8:50 AM, TMFBent (99.24) wrote:

"Trying to get a couple of bucks out of media production because they are market leader is using their leverage."


No, refusing to protect legitimate copyright holders until they do a deal with you is blackmail. Google is hiding behind an uneffective safe harbor provision and may, in fact, not be elligible for such protection anyway.


This hubris only mirrors the way Google has refused to deal with the problem of click fraud, under-reporting it, attempting to circumvent litigation by responding to a ridiculously low-value class action.


Google is installing solar power in order to garner praise from the naive -- the same way it hypes its ridiculous, non-exclusive "information sharing" deal with NASA. (Al Capone ran soup kitchens for the poor. I guess he was a good man.)


And restricting stock options now -- if google is actually doing that -- is closing the door long after the car has left the barn. Go and look at how much google stock has been dumped by top executives. It's truly appalling.


Meanwhile, the two youngsters fight about whether or not they can have a California King bed inside their private jumbo jet, while Schmidt officiates the ceremonies from up front at his private bar.


Goog puts on a fine show, but people with an eye for the history of pride and downfall see the trajectory for big goo.


Report this comment
#3) On March 10, 2007 at 4:33 PM, ElViking (97.26) wrote:

This is exactly why I hated the youtube purchase from day 1. Most people don't go to YouTube for the user generated content (which is by and large, crap). Stephen Colbert was only half joking when he claimed on his comedy show that YouTube owes him half of that money. Daily Show and Colbert clips were a big part of what built YouTube.
Remove the copyrighted content from YouTube, and you'll left with LonelyGirl15, and a bunch of Asian kids lip synching to songs. Think it's traffic and value would take a nose dive? 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners