Fred says that the Flash player and slick syndication stuff on YouTube is why they won. That certainly helped, however Fred's 100% wrong when he dismisses the impact of stolen content and I can prove it to you in one link:

http://www.google.com/search?q=lazy+sunday

The real reason why YouTube won is because they matched great SEO with stolen content that was not available anywhere else.

Mainstream media has been creating a huge vacuum on the Internet for over a decade. When stolen content becomes available--years ago on Napster, today on YouTube--it races off the charts. In YouTube's case it also races to #1 on Google.

SNL didn't put their videos online and the price they paid is that they lost the #1 Google ranking for their content to YouTube.

Do a search for SNL Video and YouTube is #1 and SNL is #2--how on earth is that fair? How on earth can VCs back--or in Fred's case praise--a company that is involved in massive piracy for personal gain? Now don't go giving me that "if NBC doesn't put their stuff on the Internet users will/information wants to be free" line of BS. YouTube did this so they could get rich quick--it's a business not the wikipedia or OurMedia. This is a site with advertising on it back by VCs.

If YouTube makes $250M from a sale their founders and VCs should give $225M of it back to the content owners like NBC and Loren Michaels who they stole it from!

Here is what the YouTube story is going to look like:

1. Create extremely simple technology in a couple of weeks.
2. Blow $1m in hosting costs a month.
3. Enable the stealing of people's content for a year, while turning a blind eye to piracy.
4. Claim they never, ever looked at their logs or their own sites top 20 list to see that it was filled with stolen content.
5. Sell the company and let someone else deal wth the IP headache.

If they sellout this will be the Internet industry's hit and run, and I'm gonna write the book.

If someone buys YouTube they will not be rewarding entrepreneurship, they will be rewarding piracy and they should be ashamed of themselves. Everyone else in the video space played by the rules, YouTube gave content holders the finger while shrugging their shoulders pretending they didn't know. Please.... really.

YouTube stole their way to the top while other folks behaved themselves.

Sinister but brilliant... but we as an industry shouldn't reward such behavior.

Well, that took about what... three months? SNL has the Natalie raps Digital Short out the week after it aired.

The "what does SNL expect?!" excuse that Web 2.0 idiots keep spewing just went out the window. What does NBC expect? They expect to make money off their own content--not have YouTube put Google Adsense against it and make money while they sleep!!!

What next, are the Web 2.0 losers going to say that because NBC doesn't have an RSS feed yet that it's ok to steal their content? Please.

You take copyrighted clips out of YouTube and it turns into a never-ending version of Americas Funniest Home videos. Is that valuable? Perhaps. However, YouTube's traffic would be cut in half--if not by 90%--if the copyrighted content was removed.

Wow, this is kind of scary. I wrote how YouTube was a business based on copyright infringement and used all the SNL skits on their service as an example. Now SNL has come down hard on them. [ Update: Rafat took the time out to mention my last post in relation to the SNL action--Rafat is so on point. ]

Now, let me say that a couple of things:

1. YouTube does not deserve the #1 listing on Google for Lazy Sunday. YouTube's traffic is based on exactly this phenomenon: content owners don't put their content online, some users pirates the content, and YouTube--the only place to get the pirated content--becomes the #1 Google search results.

2. SNL obviously got more from the viral nature of this promotion than anything they could ever buy. They should put every single one of the skits on the Internet *for free* and put an advertisement in front of them. They would be making at least 1M a month from this within six months. SNL should also put skits that didn't make it on the show on the Internet, as well as bloggers and other colaterial material. In fact, in short period of time SNL will have more value online than offline.

3. YouTube knows they are a heaven for pirates, but I don't think they should be shut down for it. YouTube is the telephone company and they provide dialtone. What people do with that dialtone is up to them. I beleive that.

4. YouTube is not a real business (or an innovative business). This is my main point. Let's not look at YouTube's page views and claim they are some amazing business. Napster and Kazaa had a ton of traffic too--it just wasn't web-based. If you could do an Alexa graph of Kazaa, BitTorrent, Usenet, and the old Napster they would be number one through four on Alexa!

Watching DIGG, Engadget, and MySpace climb in the rankings? Those are real businesses. If those sites added the ability to distribute stolen video in two clicks they would shoot up to the top 10 sites!

Let me break it down: YouTube and other video hosting sites have made it easy to pirate stuff on the web (which is where piracy started), but they shouldn't be positioned as some revolutionary business. It's a silly, little business that anyone could setup in a week. The fact that folks are talking about them being bought for some large amount of money by Newscorp is commical. They are a glorified FTP site with TAGS people! I could set this up in a weekend with two kids in high-school and a couple of cases of Red Bull. In fact, the first two programmers to email me with a decent resume I'll back you guys to build a YouTube compeititor--provided you can build it in under five days.

3. SNL has the right to have their stuff taken down, and taken down quickly. As do the other folks who are having their content stolen daily (think MadTV, Dave Chappelle, etc). However, those folks should put some free stuff up and link to paid stuff to strike a balance between piracy and not having their content available.

Really.

Folks checking in on this post: Fred, Paul & Ben. (if you have commented on your blog feel free to post the url in the comments).