The deal that nearly went down the tubes
When Google agreed last month to pay $1.65bn for YouTube, it was a crowning moment that made the website’s founders, Chad Hurley and Steve Chen, fantastically wealthy. It also confirmed the value of video on the internet. But the deal almost did not happen.
As Google was negotiating with YouTube, lawyers at Universal Music were readying a lawsuit against the start-up company alleging massive copyright infringement. The consensus in the media industry is that if the lawsuit had been filed, then Google and other suitors would have backed away rather than exposing themselves to legal liability.
ADVERTISEMENT
Fortunately for YouTube, another music company came to the rescue. Warner Music, led by its young digital chief, Alex Zubillaga, swept in days before the suit was to be filed and clinched a deal with YouTube to distribute its music videos on the site in exchange for a licensing fee and a share of advertising. In so doing, Warner upstaged a rival, and appears to have given YouTube breathing room to become legitimate.
That episode captures the competing instincts of traditional media companies as they come to grips with new websites that distribute video on the internet.
On the one hand, media companies want to prove to Wall Street that they are not repeating the recent history of the music industry and backing away from a dazzling new technology that some believe could be an integral way to distribute their products in the near future.
Just 18 months after it was founded, YouTube is now streaming 100m video clips each day, offering traditional media companies a vast new audience where they can promote their programmes and sell advertising.
But for now, the sites offer no meaningful revenues, and are instead building their traffic with thousands of unlicensed video clips that others have paid millions of dollars to produce. “The copyright issue is critically important to us,” said Bob Wright, chairman of NBC Universal. “It’s probably the most important issue to us going forward.”
The traditional media companies are also wary of allowing Google to dominate the emerging market of video distribution in the same way that it has already taken control of search advertising.
While they agree on those broad points, so far each of the media companies appears to be taking a slightly different approach.
Some, such as Warner Music, are clearly more eager to embrace a company such as YouTube. Its approach has been shaped by its experience with Napster, the online file-sharing service that touched off a massive piracy problem for the record industry seven years ago.
In that case, the music industry attacked with litigation. Their lawyers eventually put the site out of business. But others soon took its place, and the record companies only succeeded in alienating their customers.
“Warner’s been incredibly progressive about this,” said Quincy Smith, who was yesterday named president of CBS Interactive, and appears inclined to expand his new employer’s relationship with YouTube. “I think you’re going to find CBS not leading with gaggles of lawyers,” Mr Smith said.
Others are less convinced. Albert Cheng, the head of digital at the Disney-ABC Television Group, has so far concluded that YouTube was not worth the gamble after evaluating the site’s audience. “If the objective is for promotion, the question is: How much of that traffic is worthwhile?” Mr Cheng asked. “Let’s not over-blow its real effectiveness.”
Disney and others also complain about the current copyright regime, in which they are forced to monitor their material and then send thousands of notices to the sites to remove certain clips.
To assuage them, YouTube, MySpace, Bolt and others are rushing to install new filtering technology that is supposed to make the job easier. Google has also been trying to entice potential YouTube partners by flashing its formidable chequebook, offering tens of millions of dollars in licensing payments to bring them into the fold and ward off the threat of lawsuits.
Ultimately, one of the most important players may be Viacom. With brands such as MTV, Nickelodeon and Comedy Central, the company owns the sort of short-form content that so appeals to the young audiences on the internet.
Viacom cut a limited distribution deal with Google earlier this year. But last week, it revealed that it would not roll over easily when it comes to YouTube. Its lawyers sent out notices demanding that YouTube remove clips of Jon Stewart, the Comedy Central star.
Even buried in legalese, the message was clear: If YouTube and others want content, then they are going to have to pay for it.
几乎流产的YouTube交易
当
谷歌(Google)上月同意以16.5亿美元收购美国视频共享网站YouTube时，一个巅峰时刻出现了：它既让YouTube创始人查德?赫尔利(Chad Hurley)和陈士俊(Steve Chen)拥有了难以置信的财富，也证明了视频产品在互联网上的价值。但这一交易差一点就没能变成现实。
就在谷歌和YouTube谈判的时候，唱片公司环球音乐(Universal Music)的律师正准备对YouTube提起诉讼，指控这家初创企业大量侵犯知识产权。媒体行业一致认为，当初这一诉讼被提起的话，谷歌和其它试图收购的公司将选择退出，而不是置身法律风险之中。
幸运的是，另一个唱片公司救了YouTube一把。华纳音乐(Warner Music)在年轻的执行副总裁、负责数字战略的亚历克斯?苏维利亚加(Alex Zubillaga)率领下，在环球音乐就要提起诉讼的前几天拍马现身，与YouTube敲定一项协议，同意在YouTube网站上分销其音乐视频产品，交换条件是收取版权费用和分享广告收入。如此一来，华纳音乐抢走了竞争对手的风头，而且似乎给了YouTube一个喘息空间，使之得以合法起来。
这一事件引发了传统媒体企业的竞争本能，它们已开始抢夺那些在线分销视频产品的新网站。
另一方面，媒体企业也想对华尔街证明，它们没有重复音乐产业最近的历史，没有在一种眩目的新技术面前退缩――有观点认为，这一技术将是今后音乐公司必不可少的产品分销方式。
YouTube成立仅仅18个月，现在每天已有1亿个视频短片的流量，这给传统媒体公司提供了一个巨大的观众群，可供它们推广节目和出售广告。
但目前而言，该网站还没有产生有意义的收入，而是通过数千种未经授权的视频短片来积累流量，而其它公司为制作这些视频曾花费数百万美元。NBC Universal的董事长鲍勃?赖特(Bob Wright)说：“版权问题对我们来说至关重要，可能是今后最重要的一个问题。”
传统媒体公司也在警惕，防止谷歌以统治搜索广告市场的方式，来主导视频传播这一新兴市场。
尽管它们在这些大的方面具有共识，但迄今为止，各媒体企业采取的方式似乎仍略有区别。
有些公司，比如华纳音乐等，显然更渴望与YouTube这样的公司交好。在经过与Napster的官司后，唱片公司已经调整了策略。七年前，在线文件共享服务提供商Napster曾给唱片公司带来严重的盗版问题。
当时，唱片行业以诉讼为武器，对Napster发起了攻击。它们的律师最终令这家网站停业，但其它网站很快取代了Napster的位置，结果唱片公司仅仅落得疏远了客户的结果。
刚刚被任命为CBS Interactive总裁的昆西?史密斯(Quincy Smith)说：“华纳在这方面超前得难以置信。”他似乎倾向于拓展新东家与YouTube的关系。“我认为，CBS不会率先提起诉讼，”他说道。
其他人并不这么看。迪士尼/ABC电视集团(Disney-ABC Television Group)数字媒体部门主管艾伯特?陈(Albert Cheng)对YouTube的受众进行了评估。他迄今为止的结论是，这家网站并不值得冒险。“如果是为了促销，那么多少流量才值得去做？”他问道，“我们最好不要夸大它的真实效果。”
迪士尼和其它传媒公司也对现行的版权制度心存抱怨，因为它们不得不监控自己的作品内容，然后向各家网站发出数以千计的通知，要求它们删去某些视频短片。
为安抚这些公司，YouTube、MySpace和Bolt等网站正忙着采用新的过滤技术。据认为，这些技术会让监控工作更为轻松。谷歌也一直在炫耀其令人生畏的财力，并动用数千万美元购买许可证，防范出现诉讼威胁，从而努力诱惑潜在的YouTube合作伙伴。
从根本上讲，YouTube最重要的合作伙伴之一可能是维亚康姆(Viacom)。该公司旗下不仅有MTV、尼克儿童国际频道(Nickelodeon)和Comedy Central等品牌，还拥有对互联网上年轻受众极具吸引力的视频短片内容。
今年早些时候，维亚康姆与谷歌签订了一份限制性分销协议。但该公司最近透露，不会在YouTube问题上轻易妥协。该公司律师已正式发函，要求YouTube撤除有关Comedy Central明星乔恩?斯图尔特(Jon Stewart)的视频短片。
尽管这份律师函充斥着法律术语，但它传达的信息仍很明显：如果YouTube等网站需要内容，那它们就必须付费购买。
