YouTube starts to evaporate

From Good Morning Silicon Valley

YouTube’s fascinating catalog of Japanese television clips is quite a bit thinner today, thanks to complaints from an organization representing Japanese copyright holders. The video-sharing site deleted nearly 30,000 files after a Japanese entertainment group requested they be removed, saying they were posted without the authorization of copyright holders. According to The Japan Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers (JASRAC), an alliance of 23 Japanese TV stations, movie and music companies, 29,549 YouTube-hosted clips were posted in violation of copyright. That’s a pittance when one considers YouTube served up an average of 100 million video streams a day during July. Given that extraordinary number, who will miss a few lizard vs. humans-in-meat-hats game show clips?

Still, this first mass removal of clips should give YouTube boosters pause, because without those 29,549 videos, YouTube is that much less compelling. And if the JASRAC’s request is the beginning of a trend, we could see YouTube becoming increasingly more vanilla as it’s forced to clean up the copyright violations that proliferate on its service. As Forrester analyst Josh Bernoff pointed out earlier this year, this is the Napster scenario all over again. “YouTube is romancing media companies, just as Napster was,” Bernoff wrote. “YouTube will take down copyrighted content if you complain, just as Napster would. And YouTube’s model is based on masses of material available without regard for copyright status, just as Napster’s was. So, mark my words, YouTube will get sued. And it will lose. The tools it is talking about, that identify and remove copyrighted content, will have to be rushed into practice. And when nearly every clip that has copyrighted content — music in the background, video of Bart Simpson, photos stolen from movie posters — is gone, YouTube’s going to be a lot less interesting.”

Exactly. As I was saying only yesterday.

Google: the new Microsoft

From today’s New York Times

The world’s largest search engine said yesterday that its third-quarter profits nearly doubled from a year ago, as it maintained a torrid growth rate that is highly unusual for a company of its size.

The numbers are all the more significant because Google’s largest rival, Yahoo, has been faltering, as sales have tapered off for both its search and display advertising.

“Forty-eight hours ago we were discussing Yahoo; the contrast is pretty amazing,” said Jordan Rohan, an analyst with RBC Capital Markets. “This is an eye-opening and refreshing quarter for Google investors.”

In after-hours trading, Google’s shares surged 7.5 percent. In regular trading, before the results were reported, the shares rose $6.75, or 1.6 percent, to $426.06.

The Rooney problem

Harry Pearson has a wonderfully surreal column about Wayne Rooney. Sample:

These days the top players do not even do their own Little Britain impressions, and they leave the cutting off of the centre-back’s flashy ties to one of their people. This is not because they are lazy. It is because they are focused. The modern player is a specialist. He has little time for anything other than honing the key skills of his profession: shooting, shouting and looking sultry in styling mousse. Nothing distracts him from his job. He has a ghostwriter to write his autobiography and a ghostreader to tell him what is in it.

Some of the biggest names are now so totally devoted to themselves that they even employ a staff of experts to sleep with women for them. “Clearly the players are red-blooded young men who would like nothing better than to chase skirt,” reveals one insider close to the source of a friend, “but as professional athletes they are worried that a night of vigorous heterosexual activity might mess up their aggression, their stamina, or even their hair.”

Some have gone one-step further. A lot of fans and media people have expressed the view that Rooney is experiencing a lack of form. They are quite wrong. Wayne is in the form of his life. Unfortunately his body double is going through a sticky patch, though admittedly not as sticky as the one Frank Lampard’s body double has been experiencing for the past five months.

Some will find the news that Rooney and Lampard actually have body doubles out on the field something of a surprise. It is hard to see why. It has been common practice in Hollywood for years. You wouldn’t expect Angelina Jolie to do her own stunts, or Mel Gibson to show you his own bottom, now would you? Like any movie star Wayne is an incredibly valuable asset. Neither Manchester United nor England can afford to put what we must learn to call “the core of the Rooney brand” at risk by actually allowing him to run around on a slippery surface with a lot of rough blokes. The insurance premiums if they did would be crippling. His beard alone had to be underwritten for £77m…

If (user-generated) content is king, why isn’t it getting paid?

Terrific Guardian column by Vic Keegan.

The creators of YouTube have done a great service in bringing video creation to the masses. But it was not because their technology was superior to others in the field (it wasn’t), but because they were in the right place at the right time when, unpredictably, YouTube suddenly attracted critical mass. This was a huge victory for garage start-ups over the likes of Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, which found to their cost that the mighty leverage arising from their big market shares in existing products buttered no parsnips in the new world of web creativity.

As a result YouTube, a company that has been mainstream for barely a year, attracted a price tag of $1.65bn, equivalent to almost $25m per employee (not that they will see much of it) or $123 for each of YouTube’s unique monthly users. The figure for those who actually generate the content would be far higher than $123 because only a small proportion of users actually put their own videos up.

Yet without those content creators, YouTube – and Flickr, and all the others – would be nothing. Imagine what would happen if eBay tried to value itself on the basis of all the inventory it held on behalf of its sellers. It wouldn’t because it knows the inventory doesn’t belong to it.

There’s something deeply comical about TechBubble 2.0 — which is what I’ve decided to call the current round of irrational exhuberance. Just to underscore how difficult it is to build and maintain a big, stable company in this febrile space, along come the reports of Yahoo’s difficulties — profits down 38%.

As far as user-generated content goes, the big question — as Vic Keegan says — is: where’s the value? The answer is that it’s in the stuff that people upload. But if people don’t like what you (the new corporate owner) start to do with the space then they can — and will — go elsewhere. Steve Ballmer implied in his BusinessWeek interview the other day, no rational company would have paid $1.65 billion for YouTube. For once, I agree with him.

How many Iraqi deaths?

Thoughtful piece by Michel Thieren in OpenDemocracy…

Two scientifically audited numbers today constitute the best available and most cited evidence quantifying Iraqi civilian deaths directly associated with the war in that country which began in March 2003. Each is generated by a credible and independent source, though their conclusions vary widely: one gives a running total of 48,783 (as of 18 October 2006), the other gives 654,965 for the period March 2003 to July 2006.

At this stage in the Iraq war, these different orders of magnitude for civilian casualties are too often relayed by a number-loving (and sensation-hungry) media in ways that both reflect and serve the preordained views of those in favour of or against the war. A statistical language about Iraqi casualties that is able to bring numbers and words, tallies and stories, into a coherent relationship requires understanding of what “48,783” and “654,965” are really measuring, how they were respectively computed, and what they reveal.

The nub of it seems to be that the lower figure compiled by Iraq Body Count measures only deaths directly attributable to interactions with Coalition forces, whereas the Johns Hopkins figures take into account the suicide bombing, ethnic cleansing and general mayhem now rife in Iraq (and causing 900 violent casualties aday).

Jobs on iPod

Steven Levy has an interesting interview with Steve Jobs about the iPod (which is going to be five years old soon). Sample:

Levy: Other companies had already tried to make a hard disk drive music player. Why did Apple get it right?

Jobs: We had the hardware expertise, the industrial design expertise and the software expertise, including iTunes. One of the biggest insights we have was that we decided not to try to manage your music library on the iPod, but to manage it in iTunes. Other companies tried to do everything on the device itself and made it so complicated that it was useless.

What the American far right is thinking

A segment about escalating sectarian violence in Iraq on the February 23 edition of Fox News’ Your World with Neil Cavuto featured onscreen captions that read: ” ‘Upside’ To Civil War?” and “All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?”

The segment, guest-hosted by Fox News Live (noon-1:30 pm hour ET) anchor David Asman, featured commentary by Fox News military analyst Lt. Col. Bill Cowan and Center for American Progress senior fellow Col. P.J. Crowley.

I particularly like the idea that an all-out civil war could have an “upside”. For whom, exactly?

[Source]

Telly Eagleton, the Wanderer

Interesting essay on Terry Eagleton in The Chronicle of Higher Education

Literary theorists, and probably other scholars, might be divided into two types: settlers and wanderers. The settlers stay put, “hovering one inch” over a set of issues or topics, as Paul de Man, the most influential theorist of the 1970s, remarked in an interview. Their work, through the course of their careers, claims ownership of a specific intellectual turf. The wanderers are more restless, starting with one approach or field but leaving it behind for the next foray. Their work takes the shape of serial engagements, more oriented toward climatic currents. The distinction is not between expert and generalist, or, in Isaiah Berlin’s distinction, between knowing one thing like a hedgehog and knowing many things like a fox; it is a different application of expertise.

[…]

Terry Eagleton has been a quintessential wanderer. Eagleton is probably the most well-known literary critic in Britain and the most frequently read expositor of literary theory in the world. His greatest influence in the United States has been through his deft surveys, variously on poststructural theory, Marxist criticism, the history of the public sphere, aesthetics, ideology, and postmodernism. His 1983 book, Literary Theory: An Introduction, which made readable and even entertaining the new currents in theory and which has been reprinted nearly 20 times, was a text that almost every literature student thumbed through during the 80s and 90s, and it still holds a spot in the otherwise sparse criticism sections of the local Barnes and Noble. His public position in Britain is such that Prince Charles once deemed him “that dreadful Terry Eagleton.” Not every literary theorist has received such public notice.

Frank Kermode once told me about a lecture tour he did in China at the behest of the British Council. In every university, he was listened to by rapt, serried ranks of Chinese students. In vain did the translator try to elicit questions from these awestruck audiences. Finally, after the final lecture, the head of the host institution begged students to ask at least one question of their very distinguished visitor.

Eventually, a shy student stood up and said to Frank: “Do you know Telly Eagleton?”

Unfinished business

I spent most of last Sunday afternoon laboriously trimming the big beech hedge that is one of the glories of our garden. Then I made some coffee and lit a cigar and sat down to admire my handiwork — and immediately noticed that I had missed not just those straggly bits on the top edge, but also the TV aerial that appears to have grown out of the hedge when I wasn’t looking.

Which just goes to show that it all depends on your point of view.