> The first request was a simple one and that was an agreement to lookFor me Google is still an upstart with a better product. Takes the market because of a superior product and by putting users ahead of anything else. Stifling competition, getting competitive advantage by evil means ? That's not the Google I admire and its not in Google's character to do something like this. I would need more than "unidentified sources" to be really convinced.
> the other way for the next 6 months or so while copyright infringement
> continues to flourish.
> The second request was to pile some lawsuits on competitors to slow
> them down and lock in Youtube's position. As Google looked at it they
> bought a 6 month exclusive on widespread video copyright infringement.
> Universal obliged and sued two capable Youtube clones Bolt and
> Grouper. This has several effects. First, it puts enormous pressure on
> all the other video sites to clamp down on the laissez-faire content
> posting that is prevalent. If Google is agreeing to remove
> unauthorized content they want the rest of the industry doing the same
> thing. Secondly it shuts off the flow of venture capital investments
> into video firms. Without capital these firms can't build the data
> centers and pay for the bandwidth required for these upside down
Monday, October 30, 2006
Loss of innocence ?
As a loyal Google user and admirer, this blog post by Mark Cuban makes me a cringe. Writing about the details of Google-Youtube deal, Mark Cuban quotes some anonymous sources