YouTube Gave Equity To Record Labels On The Morning Of The Google Deal
from the oh-really? dept
Remember how hours before the Google acquisition of YouTube was officially announced, the company first announced deals with a bunch of record labels. While everyone assumed these were basic content deals, the NY Times is now reporting that it actually involved giving those companies an equity stake in YouTube, on which they made a nice profit on a few hours later when Google made the announcement that they were buying the site. That, obviously, helps explain why YouTube wasn't included in the lawsuits Universal Music announced on Tuesday. However, something about this doesn't seem right. The article notes that the labels and YouTube rushed to get a deal signed just hours before the Google deal was signed "in part so that it could benefit in the jump in YouTube's value." Of course, that sounds like something of a scam. By that point, it was clear that YouTube and Google were signing a deal, and YouTube basically gave the labels a super favorable deal so they could make quick millions hours later when Google bought YouTube at the high valuation Google gave the company. Sounds like a case where YouTube basically gave the labels Google's cash before any official deal was completed.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Noni (who cares?)
Oh, yeah. Just like Iraq.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Shareholders in YouTube gave up some of the Google equity that would have been theirs if they hadn't done the deal with the music cos.
It was Google equity that would have belonged to the YouTube shareholders - I don't see how this is Google's money.
How can it be illegal? Unless some minority shareholder was tricked into giving their equity to the music companies for less value than the Google shares - without knowing that the Google deal was imminent.
Sounds like a very sensible deal for everyone:
YouTube - Google may have made this a condition precedent
Google - no lawsuits
Music Cos - Google shares
Oh - and typically stupid reporting from Techdirt.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Insider Trading
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This is just money fetching, which is a pretty good idea, and another easy way to get money.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
assumptions
I would suspect that Google knew that this was on the table and may even have made it a condition. Keep in mind that Google doesn't really want to be sued. And the deal may have been part of why Google paid such an astrnomical price. Part of the price was money to pay of the lawsuit happy rats. The deal sounds much better to me now. Google is happy as they didn't want the suit. The creators of YouTube are happy as they got a pocketfull of stock. And the record labels are happy as they got their unfair share.
The deal most likely had to be completed before Google would sign in. They couldn't afford the exposure.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: assumptions
I'm fairly certain that Google knew and fully supported these equity stakes. Remember that Google intends to run, for the time being, YouTube as an independent company, probably as a shield from future litigation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube has not been a Public quoted company and is free to allot shares to any investor as it may deem fit, either for cash / consideration other than cash so long as its existing stock owners do not have objection. At best, only one who could've objected to this transaction is Google itself since there are "material changes in stock ownerships" which went unreported during the due diligence it (had) conducted on YouTube weeks before. ( As per the report the deal with record labels was closed only hours before Google announced its deal with YouTube ).
Since Google has not objected to this, there's every reason to believe that it was Google's idea to buy peace with Record Labels, as is evidenced by convenient omission of YouTube name from the lawsuits announced by Universal Music.
Did you say Surbanes Oxley...?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
To: Anon Coward on Oct 19th, 2006 @ 1:21am
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To: Anon Coward on Oct 19th, 2006 @ 1:21am
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure if it's illegal, but from a taxing perspective doesn't this mean that Universal will be taxed for a capital gain rather than a settlement/profit (depending on how they would have received the cash otherwise)?
Also, from an accountability perspective, doesnt Google or You Tube need to notify its share holders before transferring equity over?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Another NY SLime report of Anti Business
This paper is the very one that gives away National secrets to our enemies.
This paper is aways Anti- American- anti capitlaist.
(Of course they love making millions themselves- just don't you do it.)
I would take anything the NY Slime reports as nothing more than toliet paper.
So remember the to consider the source... THey have a notable track record.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another NY SLime report of Anti Business
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
NY SLime....er...??
i thought they were a pro-right wing paper?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, it's probably illegal
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
No it's not even close to illegal
from the SEC link:
selective disclosure of information by publicly traded companies
Let me just be really clear here. YouTube does not fall under SEC regulation because they ARE NOT A PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No it's not even close to illegal
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Google/YouTube Deal isn't complete yet
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Would someone who actually knows about this post something relevant?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Great Idea , win win win for everyone
Not only is it all Legal , it's good for everyone !
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
the irony: isnt universal now liable?
As part owners of youtube is it not a bit silly that they are now
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Worth investigating...
IANAL but I do see some issues with this that may have violated SEC regulations. It's certainly worth an investigation and if I were one of the media companies that hasn't done a licensing deal, I would probably be looking into suing Google, YouTube and these record labels because each party profited enormously from what they knew to be infringing behavior taking place on the service. In essence, these record labels took a large bribe to do a deal even though they knew this was supporting a company with some major copyright issues. The Bertelsmann/Napster case and settlement provides some justification for this type of argument. In that case, the plaintiffs argued that Bertelsmann's investment in Napster kept the company alive and facilitated continued infrigement of the plaintiff's copyrights, especially because Napster may have not survived without Bertelsmann's financial support. In this case, if Google, YouTube and the record labels put this deal together specifically to cement Google's purchase, other copyright holders might argue that each party specifically acted in a manner that enables YouTube/Google to keep infringing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Very interesting!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Iam ready to work with you now
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Iam ready to work with you now
My Email :emadkenona@yahoo.com
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply