YouTube and the preservation of artistic expression

Today various Japanese media companies forced YouTube to remove 29,549 videos from its archive because of its copyrighted disposition. Google, which recently attained YouTube for 1.65 billion dollars, will most certainly have to do this more frequently. In my reticent analytical judgment YouTube will be wrecked by judicature. In the first place, it will most probably be prosecuted endlessly and eventually lose some vital cases, resulting in the removing of all illegal/copyrighted material, forcing advertisers to draw back their initial interest.

When one browses the internet for a few minutes, it becomes obvious this opinion is shared by many. Yet, my interest concerns why Google decided to purchase YouTube. The multi billion company could easily have foreseen this to happen. If they would have left YouTube operating as they were before the take-over, YouTube would have been indicted just the same and would undoubtedly have lost, setting the grounds for GoogleVideo to rule the streaming commerce.

Why would Google take these envisaged hits? Did Google perhaps purchase YouTube with the intention to sink the ship? Is this calculated evilness? I recon it is. However, I don’t see it as immoral; if YouTube would have continued its path, which would have led to an inevitable destruction of the site, all material, including legal videos would be wiped from the internet. This would mean that a platform for talented artists to broadcast their creations would be gone, moreover an archive of art would be destroyed. Google envisaged this loss and therefore purchased it, with the purpose of conserving this affluent material under their existing brand: GoogleVideo.

If it wasn’t for Google, possibly we would have lost a monument, a library of artistic expression. I might sound disturbingly emotional at this point, however, I do believe we all profit from Google’s loss.