Comments on: NBC plus YouTube = Crazy Litigious

By: NBC and YouTube, sitting in a tree » Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work

NBC and YouTube, sitting in a tree » Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work — Wed, 28 Jun 2006 20:36:41 +0000

[...] Not that long ago, NBC was beating up on YouTube.com for hosting copyright violations like the brilliant “Lazy Sunday” video clip from Saturday Night Live. This struck me as completely asinine, as I mentioned at the time, because the viral quality of the clip — which was downloaded more than 5 million times in a couple of weeks (and that during the Christmas holidays) — gave NBC and the normally lame SNL show millions of dollars worth of free publicity. Not only that, but telling YouTube to take it down made them look heavy-handed and uncool. [...]

By: Computerworld Blogs

Computerworld Blogs — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:26:52 +0000

You Tube a video Napster? (and the biggest Windows error)

In today’s IT Blogwatch, we look at You Tube a video Napster? Not to mention the biggest Windows error…

By: Mathew

Mathew — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:04:55 +0000

Sorry about that, Pete — I never even saw your post until just now, I swear. And here I thought I was a genius. Damn :-) I’ve updated the post to properly credit you.

Mathew

By: Pete Cashmore

Pete Cashmore — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:48:36 +0000

Hey! My blog post called and it wants its headline back! :) NBC Goes Crazy Litigious Hehe.

By: Make You Go Hmm: » YouTube great example that Wild, Wild, Web still alive

Make You Go Hmm: » YouTube great example that Wild, Wild, Web still alive — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:25:31 +0000

[...] What others are saying Eric Schonfeld is “… a bit surprised by this move.” He is in the camp that thinks the publicity was good for NBC. Nevermind the fact that nobody bothered to ask NBC for permission beforehand. Don Dodge, formerly VP of product development for the original Napster writes: “If YouTube can stay out of court, screen content appropriately, build its user base, and attract advertisers, they will have a very nice business.” Paul Kedrosky challenges Jason’s claim that a YouTube clone could be built in five days. In the comments Calacanis adds that five days for the basic structure, a month so it scales up to the 50TB/day of traffic that YouTube is pumping. Kent Newsome: “So these may or may not be real businesses, but just like “strange women lyin’ in ponds distributin’ swords is no basis for a system of government,” the possibility of a pirated file is no basis for deciding that something isn’t a real business.” Ben Barren: “YouTube is a business in the same way Skype is a business, in that it’s another cut into a large industry. It’s valuation as a business, assuming it keeps it’s growth rates up user wise, will depend on whether someone wants to punt on its commercialisation.” J. Botter: “JasonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s one of my heroes in the publishing business, and IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m going to have to back him up on this one. You Tube is nothing more than drug dealers making it easy for the masses to pirate video and audio and make it available across this spectrum.” Drug dealers? I’m not sure I’d go that far, but curious analogy. Venture Capitalist, Fred writes: “Let me break it down for you Jason. Youtube is as much a business as MySpace or Digg which you cite as real businesses in your post … I am rooting for them because I love the service as a consumer.” Om Malik: “I believe that the growing popularity of You Tube (and other online video sitesÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ about 95 in total as per Mary Hodder of Dabble) has less to do with amateur content, and more to do with copyright infringing content.” Mathew Ingram: “What seems to have escaped the networkÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s mind is the fact that the video already aired on the program, and therefore has made as much revenue as any episode of the show normally does, not to mention the fact that the attention the video got could drive thousands more people to watch future shows.” [...]