I was wondering about this … <\/p>\n
Before the whole Google-YouTube merger, the conventional wisdom had been replete with stories about how YouTube was, in effect, a poison pill. That the minute anyone with any jack in their jeans bought it, they would also buy themselves a buttload of lawsuits<\/a>, from all the aggrieved content providers\/actors\/producers\/studios\/networks pissed that their products were being pirated. <\/p>\n Now we know why Grouper and Bolt.com<\/a> were sued this week, while YouTube escaped unharmed. On the morning of the YouTube-Google<\/a> acquisition, a collection of deals with record labels were announced – Ahhhh … now it makes sense. The labels get a stake in something (i.e. money for nothing) and also get the chance to reverse the mistakes they made with Napster… the frontal assault just led to Audiogalaxy<\/a>, which led to WinMX, which begat Grokster, LimeWire<\/a>, BitTorrent, etc. etc. I respect the attempt to do something different, to not repeat past mistakes. But I still don’t see how the aggressively, angrily “I want everything for free” ethos of the userbase of YouTube is going to react to what will soon be a compromised experience. The lawsuits against the competition may reveal the strategy, though – sue the shit out of the competition and make sure that all the little kiddies have <\/b><\/i>to play in the Yoogle sandbox… <\/p>\n
\nas it turns out, the events weren\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t totally separate. Universal Music
\nGroup, Warner Music Group and Sony BMG each received a small stake in
\nYouTube, and collectively stand to make up to $50 million from the
\nsudden jump in the company\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s value.<\/font><\/p><\/blockquote>\n