When I first saw Michael Arrington’s report this morning of a rumor that Google was in talks to buy YouTube for $1.6 billion, I passed on making any comment about it. After all, Arrington clearly labeled his post a “Completely Unsubstantiated Google/YouTube Rumor” and put a 40% probability on the rumor being true.
Now, however, the rumor has gained momentum — even the Wall Street Journal has picked up on it (note that this is an open URL, i.e. not behind a firewall), sending out a “tech alert” email to who knows how many of millions of people. The WSJ reported that there are talks between Google and YouTube and the dollar amount is indeed $1.6 billion.
My guess is that all the leakage is designed by YouTube, or its investors, to pump up the bids in what no doubt is a rivalry among titans to get a hold of the hot web company. Viacom has already hinted that it too might be involved in discussions to buy YouTube, after having missed out on MySpace.
Whatever the truth may be, it makes perfect sense for Google to buy YouTube. The fledgling video superstar needs the protection and guts of a giant, and Google, as Arrington points out, “won’t be daunted by the prospect of dealing with a ton of pissed off copyright holders.” Plus, despite the search giant’s valiant efforts, Google Video is a snooze-a-rama….how much cooler would it be to have YouTube in its place?
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 11:50 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Courtesy of the 463, this article by Daniel Reilly in Salon gives a longish look at the net neutrality issue. Although it plays up pro-net neutrality advocates as a “rag-tag army of grass-roots” soliders (as opposed to the cable industry, which claims it was “born of a rag-tag group of dreamers”), it’s a pretty balanced recap of the debate so far.
What’s interesting is the mention of a student-made video that appeared on YouTube in mid-August. The video features college students sitting in front of a web cam talking about the dangers of having an Internet without net neutrality. It took little more than an hour for 21-year old Ben Going to make the video on his own volition and with no prompting from pro-net neutrality groups.
The black-and-white video is a relative hit, garnering 350,000 views as of last week, compared to only 200,000 views of the now-famed “macaca” video of Virginia Senator George Allen calling a man of Indian descent the racial slur. Overstating it a bit, SaveTheInternet.com’s Ben Scott says the video “is doing the work of 30 full-time communications professionals.”
Not quite, but he has a point. The power to pitch and persuade, particularly on issues of political or social importance (getting people to part with their money is a little harder), is definitely shifting to “the people” as cheap-to-make videos pop up all over the web. SaveTheInternet has a full page of YouTube videos here (some of which are segments of TV programs) that support the cause.
(Less effective but more amusing are the songs written to promote net neutrality. SaveTheInternet has a page devoted to these songs, including one that plays automatically entitled “G-d Save The Internet.”)
Update: Industry-backed group HandsOffTheNet has posted a response to the Salon piece that picks apart several assertions in the article. They also chastise young Ben Going for his video.
We admire the initiative of the video-maker Ben Going, but that doesn’t make his argument correct. Indeed, his video is actually free of any arguments. Style over substance may play well in Hollywood, but when far-reaching new government regulations are on the horizon, facts matter more than emotion.
(Hat tip to Marie at The Drop.)
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 6:54 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
