Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Only a 'Moron' Would Buy YouTube

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the moronic-like-a-fox dept.

178

ColinPL writes to mention a News.com article about some harsh words from Mark Cuban, on the possible purchase of video-sharing site YouTube. According to Mr. Cuban only a 'moron' would buy the site, because of the obvious possibility of lawsuits over intellectual property. From the article: "Cuban, co-founder of HDNet and owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, also said YouTube would eventually be 'sued into oblivion' because of copyright violations. 'They are just breaking the law,' Cuban told a group of advertisers in New York. 'The only reason it hasn't been sued yet is because there is nobody with big money to sue ... There is a reason they haven't yet gone public, they haven't sold. It's because they are going to be toasted,'"

cancel ×

178 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mr. Cuban (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16252441)

He sounds like a communist.

Re:Mr. Cuban (5, Insightful)

beckerist (985855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252557)

Isn't this the guy that started broadcast.com, that was later bought by Yahoo! for billions of dollars? I'd think he'd probably know a thing or two about this.........

Re:Mr. Cuban (1)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252629)

>>>FTA: "because there is nobody with big money to sue"

Does he mean that nobody has had enough money to sue Youtube?? WTF?? Once the RIAA get their head out of Mrs Jones' dial-up records, they might like to have a crack.

Its another story if he thinks there isnt much money to go after...

Re:Mr. Cuban (2, Insightful)

abandonment (739466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252681)

it's obviously because there is no one behind YouTube worth suing. Of course this hasn't stopped the RIAA or MPAA from shutting down thousands of other sites that host copyright material.

Not quite sure why Youtube is allowed to exist, when anyone else that sets up something similar would just get shutdown. It's very strange.

Re:Mr. Cuban (1)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253395)

Google have an almost identical service to YouTube, they've got cash to burn, yet I don't see them being sued.

Re:Mr. Cuban (3, Informative)

edmudama (155475) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253869)

google aggressively removes copyrighted material as well

Re:Mr. Cuban (3, Interesting)

stunt_penguin (906223) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253957)

Well yea, so I don't see the grounds for a lawsuit against YouTube, as they remove copyrighted material as well..... if the music companies have a problem, they need to make a complaint through the official channels first before launching a lawsuit.

Re:Mr. Cuban (1)

joshetc (955226) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254523)

I have to agree with the guy somewhat. Not because they are going to be sued but because youtube doesn't actually have anything. Their architecture could easily be built for the cost of the company. With the way the internet is these days it doesn't take much to make a good and free service extremely popular.

Re:Mr. Cuban (1)

edmudama (155475) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253525)

Youtube doesn't have money, they have the promise of money. Unlike trademarks, copyright enforcement is allowed to be selective, therefore, any copyright holder can just sit back, wait for someone with deep pockets to buy youtube, then go sue them for the 440,000 downloads of "my cat bill barfs a hairball" or whatever at $150 per infringement.

Re:Mr. Cuban (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16252727)

... maybe he knows that Yahoo, or anyone else, won't ever be that stupid again. sigh.

Re:Mr. Cuban (5, Interesting)

Artifex (18308) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252747)

Isn't this the guy that started broadcast.com, that was later bought by Yahoo! for billions of dollars? I'd think he'd probably know a thing or two about this.........


Actually, he started Audionet, which became broadcast.com. I will never, never, never live down the fact that I interviewed with him personally, along with one of his engineers, in the spring of 1996 for a tech job here in Dallas, and I expressed disappointment that the pay was going to be meager, though there was a lot of stock being offered. My only defense is that the bubble hadn't even come to Texas yet, and nobody thought stock was worth the risk of working for a little startup. When the interview ended, he politely said he hoped I would consider them anyway. By the time I got home, I realized I'd made a blunder, and tried to call back to salvage things. I was shut out; I couldn't even get the secretary on the phone any more, or a reswponse to email. I was probably doomed when I walked in, though, because I wore a suit.

Secret fact/verification: the original Audionet building was a warehouse in the Deep Ellum area with a roof so bad I think it was rotting. There were dishes on the roof. They had a swing hanging from the rafters in one corner.

Re:Mr. Cuban (1)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253695)

Lesson learned: Never wear a suit.

You avoided being a con-artist - good for you (2, Insightful)

puppetluva (46903) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254017)

On one hand, you probably lost out on a lot of money, on the other hand, you can know that that you didn't profit from a scam.

Broadcast.com was just that, a scam. I remember the Cuban road-show where he and Mary Meeker (who was an equity advisor at Morgan Stanley) both tried to pitch the sale of Broadcast.com. Not only was the presentation full of exaggerations and outright lies, Marky Meeker was grossly breaking the law and directly working for Morgan's IBanking side as an equity analyst (Equity analysts are supposed to have a "chinese-wall" in place where they can't work on IBanking relationships).

Cuban is rich, and you (probably) aren't. Cuban made his money as a despicable liar, side by side with a professional con-artist -- you have a chance to do otherwise and don't have to live down their deceitfulness.

Contrary to popular opinion, bags of money aren't so wonderful if you have trouble sleeping at night.

Re:You avoided being a con-artist - good for you (4, Insightful)

black mariah (654971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254057)

Lies? Deceit? Sounds about like how most billionaires become billionaires. Call me when you have news.

Re:You avoided being a con-artist - good for you (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16254395)

Contrary to popular opinion, bags of money aren't so wonderful if you have trouble sleeping at night.

Probably true, but I'm sure the gp wishes he could've learned that lesson through personal experience!

Re:You avoided being a con-artist - good for you (3, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254519)

Bags of money actually do make a comfortable enough bed that even the most guilty conscience can get plenty of sleep. After all, it's not about how you sleep at night, but rather where. ;)

Defense (1)

umbrellasd (876984) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254411)

Choosing to not gamble requires no defense.

Re:Mr. Cuban (0, Troll)

AlzaF (963971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252705)

nah, you're mixing him up with Mr Castro or am I mixing up with a wisecracker?

Re:Mr. Cuban (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252943)

He sounded more like a capitalist to me.

Uninformed (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16252443)

Here at Slashdot we don't tolerate bombastic remarks from people who feel compelled to draw attention to themselves by showcasing their opinions unsolicitedly.

News.com is competition for YouTube! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16253923)

Someone might mention as well.. that News.com is the proud owner of Myspace.com - Competition with youtube with their new video streaming network.

Several big companies are now doing with youtube what they've done with myspace. Selling their episodes for 1-2$ a piece.

Making youtube a prime buy - since the big wigs are using it as an alternative to myspace - which is primarily teenagers. Where as youtube is not bound by the same thoughts by adults, ans has more space to grow for all ages.

Just some food for thought - Perhaps a slander lawsuit is probably in the works for news.com already. Youtube would be stupid not to fight back against this.

Re:News.com is competition for YouTube! (2, Informative)

generic-man (33649) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254133)

Dear sir,

News Corporation [newscorp.com] owns MySpace.

CNET Networks [cnetnetworks.com] owns News.com.

Have fun with your lawsuit.

Sincerely,
Me

Safe Harbor? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252457)

The problem is that they are supposed to be protected because they take down videos when they get a take-down notice. They also have a system that tries to prevent similar files from being re-uploaded.

Maybe that won't stop some jokers though.

Re:Safe Harbor? (1)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252601)

The problem is that they are supposed to be protected because they take down videos when they get a take-down notice. They also have a system that tries to prevent similar files from being re-uploaded. Maybe that won't stop some jokers though.
I'm guessing that is a somewhat workable strategy unless some major player wants to buy it... then the content providers that are in competition with the buyer will swoop in and not only want a take-down but some real money just to make them bleed. And suddenly it's not so attractive to buy anymore.

Re:Safe Harbor? (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252757)

they can want real money, but according to the DMCA they can't have it

Re:Safe Harbor? (1)

KokorHekkus (986906) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253163)

they can want real money, but according to the DMCA they can't have it
Guessing it's harder (but not impossible) to do against YouTube... but OTOH YouTube has to help with identifying infringers which would put as much of a wet blanket on things.

Re:Safe Harbor? (2, Interesting)

Peyna (14792) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254027)

The question is whether YouTube qualifies for the DMCA Safe Harbor provision.

(A) As used in subsection (a), the term "service provider" means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.

I'll let you decide. There's a little bit of case law on the topic out there as well.

Re:Safe Harbor? (2, Informative)

D-Cypell (446534) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253025)

Maybe that won't stop some jokers though.

Actually, I tend to feel that the copyright holders have an advantage that the 'jokers' are (currently) localized to a few sites. At least yourtube has a policy to remove disputed content... clone #10001 may not.

Home users are getting access to faster and faster internet lines and streaming AV is becoming as common as browsing HTML pages, it can't be too long before there are many many more 'yourtubes', some may be more reluctant to remove content based on a simple letter. If some user in one of the many countries that the US doesn't see eye to eye with, hosts some episode of 'friends' on his/her site, think a strongly worded letter would do the trick?

Something has to give.

The person that comes up with a model to get paid for generating content without requiring total control of the distribution mechanism isn't going to want for much, I can tell you!

 

Not to mention... (5, Insightful)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252463)

Not to mention the fact that their business model seems to lack a revenue stream.

Re:Not to mention... (1)

generic-man (33649) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252511)

Nonsense. They can just monetize the sticky eyeballs with dynamic, microtargeted ad units.

It worked for TheGlobe.com [salon.com] , didn't it?

Re:Not to mention... (3, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252549)

Google is testing pay-per-play video advertisements. Once Google figures out the best way to advertise on the web with video YouTube and others will quickly find advertisers and integrate video advertisements into their sites.

Re:Not to mention... (4, Funny)

Walt Dismal (534799) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252615)

This will change as soon as they change their name from 'YouTube' to 'YourTube' and become a pr0n site.

Re:Not to mention... (1)

jonfelder (669529) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252939)

Just go to pornotube.com instead.

Re:Not to mention... (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253267)

Too bad that site is like 99% gay porn.

Re:Not to mention... (1)

jonfelder (669529) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253527)

Mmm...depends on your preferences I guess. ;-p

Re:Not to mention... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16254335)

Select Straight porn at the top for win. Then you only get dinosaurs.

Re:Not to mention... (1, Interesting)

Frightening (976489) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254047)

It already is [youtube.com] .

Re:Not to mention... (1)

Killall -9 Bash (622952) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254259)

Yeah... nothing like fake lesbian teens pretending to enjoy kissing and sticking their tounges out at(but not actually licking) the others vagina. Woohoo.
Lesbian sex is my favorite kind of porn, but the hardest kind to find any convincing examples of.

There's one born every minute (4, Funny)

okvol (549849) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252473)

So, Mr. Murdoch, here's another web site for you to buy.

Funny... (1, Funny)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252475)

Funny... I thought that only a moron would buy Youtube because they can't possibly be making money by paying for gobs of bandwidth and hardware and taking in pennies at a time from Google ads. But hey...

1. Come up with an idea.

2. Find stupid VC's

3. ????

4. Profit!

Re:Funny... (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252677)

Funny... I thought that only a moron would buy Youtube because they can't possibly be making money by paying for gobs of bandwidth and hardware and taking in pennies at a time from Google ads. But hey...

1. Come up with an idea.

2. Find stupid VC's

3. ????

4. Profit!


I don't even think the ??? are nessacary. The Vc pays you, you scram to jamaica and yoru done. The VC scams some retirement funds and the only losers are the end investor.

Re:Funny... (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252905)

Very true. The founders have already made their money. They couldn't care less what happens to the business at this point.

It just pisses me off to no end (on a personal level) that I busted my ass to make a real, profitable, debt-free, brick-and-mortar business, and no investors are interested. If I had some flaky, money-losing idea, then they'd be knocking down my doors.
 
Fuckers.

What is it? (1)

Cybert4 (994278) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253001)

If I may ask. Perhaps a wealthy /.er (not a contradiction, you smart alecks) will chip in.

Re:What is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16253605)

I feel the same as GP poster. I'm posting anonymously, but I'll tell you how I am if you are genuinely interested.

We make dozens of different products, all of which test at the top of their market.

That includes Fire Extinguishers, Environmentally Friendly Remediation Technology and Chemicals [biogenesis.com] , and a wide range of other products that I'd rather not talk about here.

Do we sell stuff? Absolutely. Do we have substantial assets? Absolutely. Are we mired in debt, struggling to overcome huge loans? Not at all. Are we profitable? Generally, yes. Have we been in business a long time? We'll, we've been in business since the 80s, if that counts for anything.

So why can't _we_ raise millions of dollars from VCs? Our business models make sense, but without proper funding/capital we just can't get as far as we need to get.

And the stuff I've linked to here is fairly minor. We've got a product in the pipeline which really would change the world. Hopefully, some of the major players that we're speaking with right now will pick it up; sad thing is that they are demanding the vast majority of ownership. I'll give you a hint; we can solve a problem that kills an American every two hours, it's not related to medication, and it's a huge focus of insurance companies.

If we could raise the millions that YouTube.Com did, however, we could burst on to the market and take it by storm. As it is, we've got to putter around, dumping in our sweat, blood and tears, trying to do our damndest to bring our products to market.

I guess that's what life is like outside the world of internet business.

Car crashes? (1)

Cybert4 (994278) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254217)

Do I get a cookie?

You're nice guys, and don't want VCs (3, Interesting)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254563)

Vulture capitalists make money by stock multiplications through N series of investment rounds. All have an exit strategy that includes selling the stock that's been multiplied N number of times via Y number of rounds to someone else, either the public or a well-healed company via stock, cash, and maybe warrants or debt sale.

You don't need this. At your stage, you're in what's called your cash cow era, or, sometimes known as the oil-well-in-the-basement phase. This means that you're actually making nice money steadily, but are probably in comparative growth stagnation. You'll need either higher profits (e.g. more to spend or dividend-out), start new products or add product lines, buy somebody to augment the aforementioned, or find a nice graceful exit strategy because YOUR COMPANY IS FINANCIALLY BORING. Sorry to shout, but VCs aren't interested in your measly growth. They want big return, and they want to syndicate the risk out as far as is possible.

Yes, you've done the right thing. Yes, you can continue to pump oil in your basement by doing the right things. If you're interested in taking considerable risk for considerable growth, the VCs will hunt you down like a dog.

Whining, however, will get you nowhere.

Re:Funny... (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253707)

It's a profitable, debt-free high end pet supplies business. Not a boutique (those aren't doing so hot). Kind of like Whole Foods® for animals. 4 years old. No debt. Profitable. Happy employees, all with health insurance. Loyal customer base. It's all good. The web site is being completely re-vamped right now due to some technical nastiness, but only about 10% of our business is online (hence my lack of concern that the web site is down).

So yeah, it pisses me off that I could start a business with $20K, and 4 years later, it's a multi-million dollar business that keeps growing, but VC's are only interested in crap like YouTube. It's very frustrating. Not that I NEED any investment, but it would help me open more stores a lot quicker than I can do now.

Sucks having morals. I could never live with myself for being some schmuch in a suit who danced in front of VC's and walked away with a golden parachute for doing practically nothing other than working up some Powerpoint presentations.

Ah well. Fuck it.

Ancillary Value (1)

raehl (609729) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252703)

What makes you think Murdoch wants YouTube to be profitable?

It just has to be a lesser expense than any other advertising outlet.

One of the reasons networks spend big money on sports leagues is to get people to see their ads for their other programming during the games.

Re:Funny... (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253341)

That plan sounds really familiar. Where have I heard that before...

Oh yeah, 1999.

Damn.. (1, Insightful)

xx01dk (191137) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252485)

We won't even get to enjoy this as long as Napster...

Reminds me of the 0-day sites... (3, Interesting)

davecrusoe (861547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252505)

Wow. Disclaimer on my old BBS: If you point out any illegal files on this BBS, please point them out and we'll take them down. Feds didn't like that too much, on the other boards that got nailed... sigh...

Re:Reminds me of the 0-day sites... (1)

crashelite (882844) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253197)

on the other hand in the agreement to upload files it also states that if you upload copywriten videos you are resposible for your actions.... there for u get sewed... its like godaddy hosting a porn website they dont get sewed the owner does... or a telemarketer callin ur house at 2am the guy in india does not get sewed the company that highered him does

Re:Reminds me of the 0-day sites... (3, Funny)

caffeinatedOnline (926067) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253485)

Well, I guess I had better post some copywritten material, as I have some slacks that I need taken in.

Sour Grapes Mr. Cuban? (1)

nead (258866) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252519)

I use to sound like that in high school when somebody totally whooped my ass in a competition I felt was important.

Take down all the copyrighted stuff, hire a bunch of lawyers, relax. Sounds easy enough to me. Perhaps I am a moron.

Re:Sour Grapes Mr. Cuban? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16252691)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Cuban [wikipedia.org]

FYI: Cuban sold broadcast.com to yahoo for $5 billion in 1999. Sour grapes is when you don't actually acomplish what you set out to do.

Re:Sour Grapes Mr. Cuban? (1)

nead (258866) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252913)

Sour grapes is when you don't actually acomplish what you set out to do.

Don't confuse a single sucess with continous sucess. For all you know Mr. Cuban was trying to build his own video distribution phenomenon, perhaps one *AA friendly, and failed mersably. Whooped up-on by a bunch of half-ass, punk-kid, pirates called YouTube.

Re:Sour Grapes Mr. Cuban? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16253253)

ALL content is copyrighted the instant it comes in to being. The problem comes from trying to figure out who owns what and who has what authority to publish what. You can simply take stuff down when copyright owners can prove their rights are being violated, but they'll still sue anyway.

risk taking (3, Insightful)

Phantom of the Opera (1867) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252525)

If you want to really succeed, you have to take risks.

Anyone suing U-Tube would be taking the risk of losing the lawsuit and setting a precident.

Re:risk taking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16254137)

IANAL, but I think it'd be fairly risky to sue U-Tube [utube.com] for copyright infringement, yes.

Advertise movies. (2, Interesting)

AlzaF (963971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252571)

I posted a comment in Hollywood and piracy about the use of technology. . YouTube and their likes are another example of generating interest in movies. Why can't Hollywood and the entertainment industry embrace rather than fight them? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6651916009 965516351&q=bronson+death+wish+body+count [google.com]

Re:Advertise movies. (1)

Plasmoid2000ad (1004859) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253991)

If people only used youtube for parodies and other things like that there wouldnt be such a big problem. They could maybe get permission to show clips of copyrighted material with credits given, like TV stations do every day of the week. Problem is Youtube also has entire episodes of recently aired tv programs posted up in segments, and unmodified long clips of movies... which you really cant justify.

Yes and no. (1, Insightful)

wfberg (24378) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252587)

On the one hand, he's probably right.
On the other, you've got examples like paypal.com - they've basically been enronning their ways around banking laws for years and no one has sued them to oblivion for not having a license, stealing money, etc.

Re:Yes and no. (2, Funny)

Tx (96709) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253097)

On the other, you've got examples like paypal.com - they've basically been enronning their ways around banking laws for years and no one has sued them to oblivion for not having a license, stealing money, etc.

Ah, but that's just messing with the banks and the government. With YouTube it's much more serious, they're messing with the MPAA & RIAA.

Re:Yes and no. (4, Insightful)

mixmasta (36673) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253129)

because they steal from the little guy, rather than the big guy.

This is a surprise for what reason? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252675)

It'll be the same morons who bought shares in a web concept on back of a laundry list that went through the roof during the roaring 90's and crashed with the rest of them at the turn of the century. Fool's gold never goes out of style.

I could see an online video cartel (2, Insightful)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252685)

Let's see...Fox owns Myspace, so another media conglomerate (say, Universal or whoever) could buy YouTube, or a group of them can get together and share it. Then, each company enters into a reciprocation agreement with the other, agreeing not to sue each other when users post videos that are in violation of copyright. Hell, if that isn't the YouTube founders' exit strategy, then it should be (and I'll take my consulting fee now, please).

Re:I could see an online video cartel (1)

Jerf (17166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253119)

OK... so you end up with a site where user can post otherwise-illegal videos for free and won't be sued by any of the big companies.

I can see why this is in the interests of the users. I can see why this is in the interest of YouTube. But this is in the interests of the copyright owners because...?

Not gonna happen with YouTube ceasing to be the YouTube we know. If they weren't interested in defending their copyrights we already wouldn't have a problem.

Ummmmm... (1)

DanielNS84 (847393) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252693)

Am I the only one crazy enough to think someone with that kind of money could just buy YouTube, move it to sweden next door to ThePirateBay and throw some more ads on it?

Re:Ummmmm... (1)

aaronwormus (716976) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252971)

YouTube is hosting illegal videos, that is illegal anywhere. ThePirateBay just links to torrents, there is nothing illegal about that (in Sweden).

Re:Ummmmm... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253663)

Sweden

How about Russia [allofmp3.com] ?

Re:Ummmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16254007)

It's not that you're the only one crazy enough to think that, it's that people with that kind of money aren't that crazy.

Moron? (-1, Troll)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252743)

When did M$ make a bid?

Re:Moron? (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253083)

If Microsoft did actually make a bid for YouTube, the world's largest repository of bullshit, they probably would be morons.

What if it was the copyright ppl themselves? (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252751)

The only people I can see who would really be interested in this would be someone like ClearChannel.
Low quality public access broadcasting with the already prepared royalty payment scheme (radios pay per play).

Let people upload whatever they want, if its putting views and people notice its a violation it just gets handled (for 99% of the cases)

Why don't they just fix it? (1)

AxemRed (755470) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252829)

Who says that they have to get sued? They can always devise a method of allowing copyright-holders to easily remove infringing content. Even though many of the things that I look at on YouTube are copyrighted, a good portion of them are not. As much as I would like YouTube to stay as it is, I would rather see it crippled than dead. Plus, as a business, wouldn't it be good policy to NOT get sued?

Closed minded nonsense (1)

gr8whitesavage (942151) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252911)

Nevermind learning and devising a new business model.

He's just jealous... (3, Insightful)

DeepCerulean (741098) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252925)

Let's see. News Corporation [newscorp.com] is a publicly traded company. News Corporation owns MySpace [myspace.com] . Rupert Murdoch says one of MySpace's goals isto take the market lead in online video from privately held YouTube in the next 60 to 70 days [cnn.com] . Granted, I'm not a Murdoch fan, and I'm not going to contend that he's not a "moron", but do you really think News Corp. would push this if they thought they were going to get the pants sued off of them?

Mod Cuban -1 Troll (4, Informative)

Wampus Aurelius (627669) | more than 7 years ago | (#16252949)

"Somebody puts up something really good and you get, what, 60,000 viewers?" Cuban added during the event at Advertising Week in New York.

Well, according to this [youtube.com] the all time high is 33 million views, with dozens of others in the one to ten million range. I know these aren't all unique viewers, and I'm not an advertising expert, but that sounds like a lot of people to me.

Cuban cautioned advertisers against investing heavily in so-called viral campaigns that are spread by users beyond their initial point of distribution on YouTube or other video-sharing sites. But he touted opportunities to run commercials on high-definition television such as his HDNet network.

So he's basically bad-mouthing Youtube in order to promote his own network. To paraphrase Cuban himself, only a moron would believe everything this guy says.

You know what else got toasted? (1)

iOsiris (944032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253033)

The Benefactor

It took a yahoo to buy broadcast.com... (1)

sykt (6887) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253177)

Give me a break, shut up for once, you lucky fool.

Re:It took a yahoo to buy broadcast.com... (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253841)

Exactly! He must be the richest hypocrite on the planet. Yahoo overpaid for that crappy company by about 95%. He does freely admit his goal from the start was to own a professional basketball team, so I guess he is at least a smart hypocrite.

DMCA to the rescue (1)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253287)

Against US interests, anyway, YouTube is protected by the DMCA's takedown notice procedure. As long as they continue to comply with DMCA takedown requests, they don't have any more to worry about than any ISP that provides web space to its users.

Re:DMCA to the rescue (2, Insightful)

mcuban (807897) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253413)

you can bet the takedown rule is going to be challenged. YT can check for porn, but cant check for copyrights ? Plus, they dont just host for others, they host for their own financial benefit. Then there will the argument that they induce people to break copyright laws by not doing the obvious. Now the DMCA doesnt say you have to do the obvious, but judges and courts usually do. Then the question of why is it that other videohosting sites have no problem preventing copyrighted materials from being uploaded ,and the question will be asked if that is what seperates Youtube from other sites and has been more than minimally responsible for their success. Then there will be every rights owner with any derivative earnings possible that will sue to get their share. Just like they did napster. Then of course we will have to see the "training" that will come from the MPAA and RIAA after the lawsuits expand from just warning the utes of America not only about the dangers of downloading, butnow uploading. Think Major League Baseball is going to just sit by as highlights of every game are uploaded so people dont have to buy their various online video offerings ? They will ask them to take down everything on the site they can find. Then they will sue and ask a judge why YT cant post warnings for people not to upload baseball, as they do porn. Then a tv show like the Letterman show will do the same thing with monologues, guests whatever. the list of people who will sue will be long. And for the record, we sold broadast.com to Y! for 28mm shares, and the latest comscore shows Y! being the top streaming destination on the net.

Re:DMCA to the rescue (1)

nsayer (86181) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253771)

YT can check for porn, but cant check for copyrights ?

No. They can't do either in an automated way. They depend on such abuses (if you call pr0n that) to be reported to them, then they take action.

OB Simpsons quote (2, Insightful)

Hans Lehmann (571625) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253351)

"Only a moron wouldn't cast his vote for Monty Burns"

$1.5b too low. One Word: (4, Insightful)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253479)


  Commercials.

As soon as YouTube places commercials in front of their vids, even if they cookie them to just 1 per hour per viewer, the money will be flooding in.

Here's why: YouTube's content review and tagging system for searches, plus their popularity and "stars" rating systems are perfect metadata for targeted ads. Not "somewhat fuzzily targeted" based on collected trends but directly. That car. That skateboard. THAT song. Learn THAT trick. Go to THAT place. All for sale "HERE".

People won't stand for too many, but tuned right the loss of viewers from annoyance versus the revenue from commercials' simple brainwashing techniques (think of commercials as competing social memes) will balance.

Re:$1.5b too low. One Word: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16254251)

Soooo. They let stolen content onto their site and add commercials from sponsors. Probably like the sponsors that first paid to have this content on TV. They can now pay again to have the same content played on youtube. Wonderful.

Um, No. (4, Interesting)

nsayer (86181) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253727)

The DMCA actually has one bright spot. It defines a take-down procedure for copyright holders to use. YouTube complies with such takedown requests as they get them (I have actually sent a few of them, so I know), which means that they are not liable to claims of infringement or contributory infringement.

Cuban DEFINITELY knows what he's talking about (1)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253817)

Because he got the morons at Yahoo! to buy broadcast.com/Audionet which is no longer around.

That's not to say that Cuban is a moron, quite the contrary.

why they fear no lawsuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16253831)

Copyright lawsuits are no worry to youtube. Why you may ask? simple, the first step in a lawsuit is to send "cease and desist" letter, asking for them to stop, youtube simply removes the video and appoligises for the infringement.

Youtube's video subbiting agreement specifies that the user should not submit material that the subbmitter is not the owner of. So even if the person seeking a fee for use from youtube, they simply fax over a copy of the agreement the subbmitter agreed to and sends the party sueing there address and email address telling that lawyer this is the guilty party and 99.9% of the time the lawyer moves on to the guilty party or more likely the lawsuit is thrown into the trashcan seeing the guity party is not able to pay for the even the costs allready acrued much less a real judgement.

Even if it made it before a judge, it would be thrown out because youtube behaved approiately within the law youtube did not request illegal content to be submitted, and removed the inapropiate content as soon as they were notified. Given that youtube now has enough funds to hire an entire stable of copyright infridgement lawyers that drag any lawsuit out to eternity making any reward to be gained from the lawsuit to be swallowed up by court costs. Just how much is the use of a copyrighted material for a few weeks quickly removed upon request of the injured party.

Re:why they fear no lawsuits (1)

jalvear (610723) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254249)

YouTube is looking to hire senior counsel, according to a job posting at Digital Media Wire.


Here's a sample from the posting: http://alvear.com/?p=11 [alvear.com]

In other news... (1)

iabervon (1971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16253839)

Ed T. Rush, NBA manager of officials, announced plans to buy YouTube along with a group of referees and sports writers, including Jim Gray, Sam Smith, and Chad Ford.

only a moron... (1)

az1324 (458137) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254013)

Is this his way of stating his intention to bid?

cuban (1)

benicillin (990784) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254475)

he may have been promoting his own crap hd network but he still has a good point. YouTube will never make it as a for-profit company. for the guy who said the all time record is 33 million hits - you are right, they weren't unique - and in addition i guarantee it was for a movie that was copyrighted material.. YouTube is only good for stuff thats copyrighted - the rest of the crap on there is some jackass in a pink tutu singing along to retarded techno german music he filmed with his webcam. once the powers that be crackdown on the copyrighted material there will be nothing of value left on YouTube. the whole 'take down the stuff when they are notified' is also a load of crap, that won't last very long - that is, if their revenue stream ever picks up. you've gotta follow the money - and at the moment, there is none to follow.. thus no one has sued yet cause no one is benefitting from this crap. once someone starts to benefit from this stuff, there will be lawsuits left and right.

Backwards (1)

mikerm19 (809641) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254477)

This is so backwards. I don't really understand the thought process.

Suing Napster, YouTube, insert widly popular item here is like suing the car after it gets you in a car accident.

Well Said Mr. Cuban.... (1)

shakezula (842399) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254575)

While we're at it, PLEASE do everything in your power to keep the content of YouTube OFF of HDNet.

What a coincidence (1)

Salsaman (141471) | more than 7 years ago | (#16254591)

Microsoft launches its own video site, and a week later we read scare stories about how YouTube is doomed.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>