Google stinks

mrdogleg said
Napster got sued, Youtube got bought.

You can say that they are afraid of lawsuits because they have so much to lose, but the original owners of youtube had plenty to lose as well (1.6 billion?).

I think the way youtube got around the copyrighting was that the poster was responsible for their video, and since that poster wasn't making any money off of it, the big corporations had no reason to go after them. The Youtube site wasn't a big money maker, I know they were starting to run into issues where they couldn't afford the hardware to handle all the videos and traffic, but it was worth a lot due to the traffic it received.

Google said they were buying name recognition, and compared youtube to being almost as recognizable as the name "coke". I've also heard people say that Google wants it to bomb so that google video receives more traffic, but I kinda doubt that.

This is just their first step in completely redesigning the site into something completely different. I'm just mad, I wasn't stealing anything, I was simply rewatching a five second clip of something I had already seen. The nfl wasn't losing any money due to me watching a Saints highlight video a poster on here made. It's not like a song, that a company like song loses money on because people arent buying it because they stole it. The videos arent a product they offer, therefor they arent losing any money on it.

I just need a copycat site bad, I'm freaking out without Saints Highlights.

Youtube didn't get around licensing, they ignored it. They were about to get sued prior to the sell by some music company because some users use the company's songs on their own videos. Youtube had also signed a licensing deal with another company so that their content was allowed. But the "policy" seemed to be "ignore it until someone mentions it".

It wouldn't make sense for Google to want Youtube to bomb. It'd make more sense if they simply intergrated Youtube into Google search (and scrapped Google video). The reasoning being, as mentioned, name recognition and the fact that all the content is already on Youtube.

But that brings up my above point. Google bought, more then anything, the content on Youtube. That's why people go, that's why people hang around there. So any policy which involves removing content rather then expanding it is wholely counter-productive.