What is Digg?127 Comments
- mwosh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+123Not so much that google WANTED YouTube to be sued, they just knew it was going to happen and would rather be the ones to handle it.
If this IS true, I like Google even more. - a_trotskyite, on 10/12/2007, -6/+122persuasive argument.
- crash331, on 10/12/2007, -1/+108Article in a nutshell:
Google's future lies in crawling and caching video/books/images/web pages. If Youtube got sued and lost, the legal precedent would hurt Google. Therefore, Google buys Youtube and lends it a helping hand with its copyright lawyers and massive amounts of resources. - SwissCamel, on 10/12/2007, -16/+81I think it's the same reasoning behind people who stab someone in a bar for barely any reason, let people think 'Jesus Christ, this guy is ***** unhinged' and no one will mess with you. Google is all like YEAH DUDES WE ARE BUYING TEH YOU TUBE AND WHAT THE ***** IS THE MATTER WITH US? TRY IT! you know? I do sort of know actually so careful.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+57+1 for unique usage of the word 'unhinged' ;P.
- motbob, on 10/12/2007, -4/+45Best comment ever.
"I do sort of know actually so be careful." - Lnomis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42yeah, it's kind of like a digger leaving comments which sound unhinged so no-one will mess with him...
- konamicode, on 10/12/2007, -9/+46-1 for the entire rest of the comment.
- dunezone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32Plan A was not for them to play nice and look the other way. Plan A was to make deals with these companies to keep the content up and to share a profit.
- peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24@paulshannon
Speaking of copyright infringement. - one321, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Very interesting. I like this line of thinking. You know they've discussed a lot of crazy things in that Google boardroom.
- ostracize, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Website owner redirected the page to duggmirror. Finally someone who understands what it means to be overdugg. Thanks.
- 800266622, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23http://duggmirror.com/tech_news/Why_Google_wanted_YouTube_to_be_Sued/
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24"8:31PM 3/20/2007: Holy hell. Digg’s users almost destroyed my server! This box only has 1GB of RAM, so if you’re interested in finding out how this post is still here, come back in a day or two for the full explanation. :) "
Yes we killed another server, hi 5s all round!! - actionscripted, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20I'd like to thank all of you for shortening the life of my mouse's scroll-wheel.
- diggmichi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Your'e telling me. That was a nightmare. Just getting to the command line so I could edit the .htaccess file took a reboot and 5 minutes of typing at 1 letter a second! Lesson learned!
- zackk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20No, he is thinking.........
- javip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17So, 2 completely ignorant kids, decide that a massive multi billion dollar company called Google, naively bought YouTube without even thinking of the possibility that they might be sued... idiots.
- ubunterd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Buying YouTube.. 1.5 billion dollars.
Potentional settlement cost of the Viacom lawsuit.. 1 billion dollars.
Doing something about media conglomerates sending ***** DMCA takedown notices while defending the future of your company's business model... Priceless. - crash331, on 10/12/2007, -11/+26.........
- diggmichi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Actually, I write the blog on my free time, work as a full time programmer, and certainly don't rely on Adsense for an income source. But thanks for sharing your crude judgments with the rest of us to make your self-serving point seem more valid. :)
- javip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14You're digging yourself a hole 30trip.
As you said, Google's lawyers are FAR smarter than he is.. and YOU too.
You honestly think they decided to spend $1.5 Billion to buy it, thinking they wouldn't get sued?
They obviously knew it was going to happen and decided that $1.5 Billion dollars was still worth it.
So given that we both agree that the decision was made by lawyers and executives far more intelligent and informed than you, me and Michi.. could you please explain WHY it is that Google bought Youtube knowing it was going to get sued.
The reason given by Michi makes sense, so please make sure yours does too. - Braddock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Just because a lawyer at one of the companies involved was confident and conveyed that convincingly to you doesn't mean they will win. A lot of lawyers are confident in their interpretations of the law. The question is whether the judge or jury will be persuaded by their interpretation.
Another alternative outcome is that the parties could settle and the question wouldn't be litigated at all and would instead be saved until another day. - Palehorse68, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10??
Do you even know what that means? Here, allow me:
"Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative (and vague) information on a competitor's product." (wikipedia)
How is this negative/vague?
I know buzzwords are all the rage, but, honestly... - jdavid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8you are crazy if you think this is going to go to a decision, because of the stakes, either party is going to try to settle once they see where its going.
- Mo0man, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7ya but if youtube lost the suit, the lawyers can just point to the old case and say "look what happened there"
it's a little something called precedent
or @ least that's how it works in Canada, US might be a little different - javip, on 10/12/2007, -1/+830trip, if you can't answer the question.. just say so.
There's no shame in not knowing, you can ask and learn.
As for the rest of your comment, your assumptions are pretty damn hilarious.
You're here saying digg users are typical 12 year olds, then you start acting like one... nice =) - nunbot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10its not wordpress, most likely his hosting company just turning off his db connection.
- javip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9As for you checksumz, stop trying to sound smart.
You obviously know nothing about the stock market.
Every stock goes through ups and downs, and recently there was a pretty big correction due to the Asian markets.. and this has affected ALL companies.
It's at $445, and if you look at the graph there's no sell off or anything of the like happening, so STFU if you don't know what you're talking about. - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Google bought YouTube to protect a common interest between them, IE: fair-use rights. They didn't want to be sued, they just wanted to be the ones to handle the first video-hosting case, hopefully win, and have the question done with.
This makes me like Google. Even if it's in their own interest, they're fighting the little guy's fight. And I don't just mean YouTube, I'm talking the consumer.
For another, it pretty much shows how short sighted Mark Cuban really is. From everything I've read, he only seems to give a ***** about the short-term win. Either the case itself, or the supposed future changes in the DMCA's safe harbor. He doesn't seem to get the legal precedent Google will be setting if they win, instead invoking some "I wish" imaginary changes in the DMCA. - geekitechture, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This is why Google wanted YouTube:
http://www.*****.com/google_news_and_rumors/2007/02/youscrewed.html
According to that site, everyone knew and no one cared about the lawsuits around the corner, it was just a nice big payoff for Sequoia Capital, who invested heavily in Google almost from the start. - diggmichi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6by the logic some of the posters above me...
Everytime somebody posts a funny picture in a forum, that forum owner is now liable for copyright infringment? Because that's exactly what would happen if the precedent came in that YouTube is liable for its users uploading copyrighted material. Video is no different than text or images, and it is retarded to think that site operators should be held liable for their USERS breaking the law.
The users are liable for their own actions, not the site operators, just as Digg is not liable when its users copy and paste entire articles as "mirrors" of the original content. - javip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I didn't say invest in it, I said SHORT it.
You don't even know what that means yet you're making predictions about the stock.
Go back to school you clown.
And I'll throw you a bone here anyway, since I feel sorry for you.
Shorting is precisely how you would make money in a sinking ship.. so look it up, and go make your millions since you're so sure. - javip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6In that case checksumz, I don't understand why you are complaining.
You're so certain about Google stock, short it (if you know what that means)
And I don't mean a few dollars, put your money where your mouth is and make millions.
If what you're saying is true, you should be on here thanking Google for buying Youtube and happy as can be. FOOL! - igeoffi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@30trip
No need to discuss your high school life here. I'm sure most, if not all, of us do not care.
Regarding the "Digg is full of 12 year olds" comments, I'd like to say that most Digg member are not 12 year olds and most Digg members can spell better than you.
I would block you but it's hilarious reading your comments. - Lnomis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6you kind of missed the point... google bought youtube partly to protect them if and when they got sued, since google have vested intrests in youtube being successful
- danielrhodes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I thought it was persuasive given the whole MySpace thing, although it all sort of hinges on Viacom losing the lawsuit. Just like everybody else here, I think the lawsuit is BS, but we all know why we like YouTube so much and it's because for the most part, it is saturated with copyrighted content, and they haven't been active in removing content that violates copyright. While DMCA requires notification, it does not allow for a service to knowingly just let violations slide, it simply provides some breathing room for service providers who can't be expected to be all-aware about what the service is being used for.
- crankycookie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I had to read your comment like 3 times before it made sense... please use commas properly...
- Lnomis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Well, with the precedent that would be set if youtube was eliminated, google video would topple pretty fast. As the author pointed out, online video would then fall into the hands of big media
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I hope it's not the same lawyer who was responsible for the legal end of their IPO. Not only did they miss out on billions in capital, they face fines in many millions for ignoring simple rules that even a law student would have accounted for.
Not exactly a star legal team, by any meaning of the word. - greenmountain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Everyone said at the time that Google had overpaid for what amounted to a boat load of legal hassle.
Everyone said that, so Google must have had a clue, or two.
But it is hard to figure, because a big court loss risks letting air out of the balloon, currently riding only on expectations and giddyness. Why would they risk this?
Google's P/E or multiple is approx 45. Microsoft is about 20, Walmart about 16.
So a correction to 25-35% of current value (75% Loss)
would merely put Google in line with real companies, real life.
That would be 100 Billion, made invisible.
Expensive videos.
Perhaps they should have just bought Comedy Central. - Barryke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5internets. Internets.
- Braddock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5In addition to possibly expanding fair use doctrine to include to the business model of youtube, Google may also be testing the DMCA safe harbor provisions to determine what is a reasonable response to address takedown notices sent by copyright holders.
Should content providers be tasked with the responsibility to search for copyrighted material online and report infringement to the online service provider, or does the online service provider have the burden of proactively policing uploaded content? This is a question both content providers and online service providers have been looking for an answer for, and if this gets litigated then we may have an answer. - Ellsass, on 11/05/2008, -0/+3We would be brainwashed if we thought Google did it for the good of society, but what this article what it's stating is that Google did it to preserve their own business and therefore make more money. It just so happens that Google's freedom to crawl the web and display ads also keeps it free and open for the rest of us, something that Viacom et al do not want.
- LeeSoong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Google Sells Google Videos, YouTube posted them for free.
1. Buy YouTube.
2. Get Sued, remove content immediately.
3. Sell more google videos.
PROFIT! :~) - thailand1972, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Gee I know there's a lot of Google fanboize out there, but does the digging down on anything slightly critical about Google have to be so uniform? It's done to an obsessive degree. Is there a Google department hiring 500 people just to dig all these comments down? It's like North Korea gassing anyone who criticises their Dear Leader.
- elebrio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Short term corporate profits. Thats why Google bought YouTube. Any lawsuit won't be settled for years to come and in the meantime they get to beat market expectations on revenue from increasingly popular YouTube ad dollars. Apparently no one on here has had to worry about the price of their stock. When you are running a publicly traded company your pay is typically performance based (think Steve Jobs stock options). Anything you can do in the short term to pump up revenue, even if it potentially comes with a long term risk, probably looked pretty enticing to everyone in the company below Sergey and Larry's pay grade.
- phantomcrawl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I think Michi is right.
I think google will win too
Its going to be what is already happening with P2P. They will just have to start suing users.
Then when they do that google should make them pay to get their sites listed in their index
but google probably won't do that.
If enough users get sued the dinosaurs will die off because they will stop buying into it. And the dinosaurs will die off with a bad image of suing 12 year old girls, dead people, families without computers etc - jokerthief, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4You missed the entire point of the article it seems.
- Ellsass, on 11/05/2008, -0/+2Why is he being dugg down? That link is pertinent to this article.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 115 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is