BlogGang.com : : a_somjai - Net Neutrality : อีกไม่นาน… “ใครอยากเข้าเว็ปไซต์หรือเล่นบล็อกได้สะดวกรวดเร็ว ต้องเสียเงิน?”

Newspapers, the YouTube and Google merger and the future. | Editors Weblog- Analysis | posting on Tuesday, October 10, 2006

"Yesterday's Google YouTube merger must be seen as an emerging business model. Google has the advertising pool and infrastructure to monetize Web pages and YouTube delivers the kind of content many advertisers want: young, smart, creative people with pocket money and spare time to spend . . .

Of course neither Google nor YouTube went into business to become a large media concern but that is what they keenly decided they had become and are now leveraging their ability to deliver a tightly-focused audience to people who want to pay to be in front of them. Some think Google could have bought the New York Times for that much money - maybe - but that is not the online audience that their advertisers want.

Newspapers have mountains of precious data but need to develop better structures to allow that rich information to be accessed by users.

I recently developed a video newspaper prototype for a client and made sure to show them five ways that their videocasts could be monetized off the same asset. They hadn't planned much beyond selling pre-roll spots against the videos. Newspaper web sites get a lot of traffic but they are not sticky. Video help makes them sticky but that is only the start.
The key is to develop these new story tools to make sites more satisfying for the user. When people are satisfied - they linger and return frequently and, no surprise, sponsors like that.

Today I was interviewed by a business reporter from Zurich about the future of video and podcasts and she asked for data and research to divine the future. That's a reasonable request and certainly there is a lot of measuring being done except that deals like YouTube/Google kind of suddenly upset the best projections and models. e.g. Last December I was asked to write a multimedia article for the World Editors Forum for the "Trends in Newsrooms" book and predicted that 'Video' would be the word of the year. Right, so far - but I didn't know about YouTube then. The lesson is to be constantly getting familiar with new story tools and remain nimble so you can develop rapidly. That way you are ready to adjust quickly to your audience. This approach requires a different style of leadership and a new newsroom culture for many."

(..............................MORE......)

Link for 2006-10-13 : Does YouTube Make Google a Big Target For Copyright Suits? ที่ไซต์ WSJ.COm (The Wall Street Journal Online) | October 11, 2006

ข่าว Google Inc. ซื้อไซต์ video-sharing -> YouTube ด้วยเงินถึง $1.65 พันล้านเหรียญสหรัฐฯ (1.65 x 1,000 x 1,000,000 x 38 = ? บาท)

นอกจากจะเป็นเรื่องน่าคิด และชวนให้ติดตามต่อไปว่า Google จะเติบโตเป็นอภิมหายักษ์ระดับนำในวงการตลาด online video ของโลกหรือไม่? อย่างไร? แล้ว

สิ่งที่ นักเล่นเน็ต โดยเฉพาะ Bloggers ทั้งหลาย ที่ชอบเล่นชอบโพสต์ "เพลงออนไลน์" ต้องสนใจและทำความเข้าใจให้เท่าทันการ/การณ์ ก็คือ เรื่องประเด็นทางกฎหมายลิขสิทธิ์ระหว่าง --- the "copyright" กับ/และ the "fair use"

ตัวอย่างเช่นความเห็นของ John Palfrey, Professor ด้านกฏหมายแห่ง Harvard University และ ผู้อำนวยการ the Berkman Center for Internet & Society ตอนหนึ่ง ว่าไว้ดังนี้

"There are two levels on which liability will be assessed by the courts.

First, a judge will have to consider whether the YouTube user violated someone else's copyright by creating and distributing the video they posted online. That's where the "fair use" analysis comes in. So, let's imagine that a YouTube video creator used a bit of music in the background of one of the videos they created and posted online. Let's assume that user gets sued by the recording company that controls most of the bundle of rights associated with the sound recording used in this video. The YouTube video creator might then respond that their use of the music is protected by the fair use defense. That's a four-factor balancing test that determines whether or not the copying of the sound recording was permissible under the law, despite the fact that someone else holds the copyright in that work. A big question is whether or not we could determine, as a society, what "best practices" or permissible use of others' sound recordings might look like in the context of a video posted to the net. My hope would be that YouTube users are given wide latitude, so long as the market for the work was not adversely affected and so long as the use of the music was creative (and, in the words of the law, perhaps even "transformative.") It's also possible that Google could solve many of these problems in advance through blanket licensing, which would be a great outcome, but isn't necessarily the only way for them to avoid liability here.

"The second level of analysis is whether YouTube, or its parent company, is liable for secondary copyright infringement. One answer is that a 1998 law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, set up a system whereby the Googles of the world have a chance to avail themselves of a safe harbor if they agree to take down infringing works once notified by copyright holders. In my view, this is exactly the kind of situation that this law was created to handle. I suppose it is possible that the case would go further -- that a copyright holder might sue YouTube and its parent for secondary copyright liability -- but I think that Google would have a very strong defense."

ท่านที่สนใจสามารถอ่านเพิ่มเติม>>READ>> การสนทนาออนไลน์กันในเรื่องนี้ ทั้งประเด็นทางกฎหมายและประเด็นทางเศรษฐกิจ/ธุรกิจออนไลน์ ระหว่าง Harvard law professor John Palfrey กํบ Economist Stan Liebowitz ได้ที่ไซต์ WSJ.COm (The Wall Street Journal Online ในรายงานเรื่อง Does YouTube Make Google a Big Target For Copyright Suits?

Posted by a_somjai on 2006-10-13