NEWS
Another internet research company has predicted doom for YouTube's business model.
Copyright issues that have plagued video-sharing site YouTube since its official launch almost a year ago will mean "YouTube will get sued. And it will lose", according to Josh Bernoff and Ted Schadler, analysts for Forrester Research, writing on a blog posted last week.
Lawsuits will trigger a chain reaction, according to the analysts, in which YouTube will be forced to remove all copyrighted material - and that means excising most of the professionally made content. What's left will leave YouTube with videos that are "a lot less interesting", said the Forrester analysts.
YouTube representatives did not respond to an interview request.
The Forrester opinion comes three months after research firm IDC came to a similar conclusion and less than a week after HDNet founder Mark Cuban told a group of advertisers "only a moron would buy YouTube". Both Forrester and IDC research companies argue YouTube will face the same battle fought and lost by file-sharing site Napster.
In a now-famous court case, Napster argued unsuccessfully that it wasn't responsible for people misusing its file-sharing system to steal music.
YouTube says much the same thing. Most of the material on the site is homemade, meaning that the video's creator is the same person who posts it to the site. However, some YouTube fans violate copyright law by sharing video of copyright material from movies, music videos and TV shows.
YouTube executives immediately pull down any clip once a copyright violation is brought to their attention. The company, which sees more than 16 million visitors per month, is also creating technology that will help identify and block pirated material.
It has also proven it's not at odds with some of the most influential entertainment companies by cutting marketing and advertising deals with the likes of Warner Music and NBC. But that won't be enough, said Forrester.
The analysts wrote: "You may tell me that companies like Warner Music are happy to work with YouTube, just as Bertelsmann was willing to work with Napster. But for every company that wants to do a Warner-type deal, there will be others like Universal that won't stand for it.
"It only takes one unhappy media company - Disney, Sony, CBS or News Corp for example - to force the company's hand. And the cases on this point, from Napster to Grokster at the Supreme Court, are clear."
Greg Sandoval writes for CNET News.com
Comments
There are 6 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Absolute Rubbish. How come Google video isn't mentioned here? Has Google been sued for the same thing? No
It's nothing like Napster either. That was a route for someone to COPY and REUSE (a song, on any player) content. Napster had no control over the content at all. It thought that would save it.
YouTube video content is not available to the community in the same way. The content is stored and managed by YouTube. (ie it can be removed by them) You can only see the video by accessing the controls YouTube has created.
Also - and rather important. I look for content on YouTube because it's different to what I get on the TV, not because I saw it on TV.
I also get to see what I want on it, rather than what programmes on being broadcast at any specific times.
Visit YouTube and the most viewed files are not 'Britney Spears' videos ripped from MTV, it's actually (usually very good) content owned and recorded by the person who uploaded it.
I think your ANALysis is flawed.
2. Peter Marshall
These moron MBAs and pretend MBAs never fail to get it wrong.
YouTube's model is completely different from Napster, and they will not lose copyright suits. Unlike Napster, they eliminate any copyrighted material, and are making efforts to block it even w/o getting notified... the article mentions YT's approach, but completely fails to point out how critical this is to determine any liability. 1) no damages, 2) no fault, 3) clear good faith, 4) backed by professional actions, investment, and resources.
YouTube will die for a completely different reason. It is doing absolutely NOTHING that others won't do BETTER. In particular, both Google and Myspace have better info and better capability to suggest other materials I want to watch, and to provide Tivo-like capability -- both of which are key to making this service a winner. Many other players have key elements as well -- in the future, there will be MANY channels of this type, so the media companies have lots of aces.
YouTube will end up being a blip in history, like VisiCalc, outdone by superior competitors, pretty quickly.
3. Charles Wood
I agree with this analysts view but people should think hard about the implications of it: for it will mean that these large corporates will attempt to dominate our culture for the forseeable future. They will always have the finances to be one step ahead of popular culture and will kill it's development...DEAD! For artists and and naive inocent bystanders this will damage a lot of inovation.
The "happy Birthday" nasty song is a great example, for heavens sake why should anyone have to get permission for this stupid song that has effectively been in the public domain for years? Well the obvious answer to everyone but the copyright owner is no one!
In my view the simplest way to end all this would be for a new copyright treaty to be agreed worldwide which would set an uppper limit to earnings at a "reasonable" level for any such material...and it should be set quite small, so that corporates get out of this market, while the real artists get a good renumeration. I would suggest 10 years of the average persons income in society as a whole as the practical limit. This would be a lot for an artist, and too little for the Disneys of this world.
If this does not happen then all human innovation on the net will become stifled and damaged, to the detriment of all of us.
This really needs addressing at a political level or moving image and sound development on the web will always be subject to some idiot claiming they invented it. This might be ok for litagist Americans but for most of us it is a silly way of rewarding innovation.
Please everyone, do not let every aspect of our lives become dominated by one cultures viewpoint..capitalism at its very worst!
4. Richard
Where will UK Govt. post its dodgy videos?
If YouTube fails, where will the UK government post its "dodgy" videos?
Will Murdoch give it a special MySpace account?
5. anonymous
People can't and don't post whole films to youtube, just very low quality clips.
Therefore no-one is going to use it for illegal file sharing. Any copyrighted clips could be seen as free advertising for the full film. Most of the interesting stuff _is_ homemade anyway. So I think these 'analysts' have it wrong.
6. Amit padalkar
If Youtube is doomed, what'll happen to Google video? Why dont analysts think Google video (Which is far less versatile than Youtube is), is doomed?