4 ms·
The chances of it ever getting such a deal were slim; the media companies already hated them for stealing their content before, and would not have wanted to rew
by rory096 18y ago
The chances of it ever getting such a deal were slim; the media companies already hated them for stealing their content before, and would not have wanted to reward that with a deal to do it legally (some did, yes, but it was unlikely that most or all of the content would have made it into Youtube- particularly with profit splitting between Google and the companies).
Yes, Hulu's content is attractive, but it's different from Youtube's content, which is attractive for other reasons. Just because they're both video doesn't mean they're directly competing.
- j2d2 18y agoI was under the impression some media companies had colluded with youtube to allow piracy for a big pay-out once someone bought youtube. This was to let youtube win the video content hosting race through piracy, while still paying for the content everyone thought was pirated. I am having trouble finding a link to support this though. Does anyone recall this? Perhaps I'm mistaken...
- jimbokun 18y ago"Yes, Hulu's content is attractive, but it's different from Youtube's content, which is attractive for other reasons." Is Youtube's content attractive for reasons that would make it just as profitable as Hulu's content? Cuban is arguing that it is not.
- rory096 18y agoNo, Cuban is arguing that Hulu is somehow "beating" Youtube. Even if it is more profitable, it's more profitable in the same way that Apple is more profitable than Adobe.