Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Go Back   Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops > InsideHoops Main Basketball Forums > NBA Forum

NBA Forum NBA Message Board - NBA Fan Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-14-2007, 01:23 AM   #31
DatZNasty
NBA rookie of the year
 
DatZNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,845
DatZNasty is considered somewhat coolDatZNasty is considered somewhat coolDatZNasty is considered somewhat cool
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

Quote:
Originally Posted by reppy
Geocities does. Can I sue them? If someone buys a DVD-RW and burns a movie with it, can I sue the manufacturer of the DVD burner?
in America, yes
DatZNasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 02:06 AM   #32
reppy
Apparently likes anime
 
reppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,185
reppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

Quote:
Originally Posted by DatZNasty
in America, yes

Well sure you can sue anyone for anything.. but will you win? On what grounds can you sue them? If I own a public bulletin board (like, the kind you see at the back of a grocery store) where people can post a note that says "want to buy my piece of crap furniture" or "guitar lessons", will I get in trouble of someone puts up a note "sex for sale. hot women!"
reppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 05:06 AM   #33
Real Men Wear Green
Don't panic.
 
Real Men Wear Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton, MA
Posts: 20,210
Real Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

You could theoretically get into trouble but your business is probably too smalltime to get anyone to come after you. If you were making millions and potentially billions, then something could happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
If youtube can demonstrate that they have acted speedily when asked to take down videos, that will work in their favor. Napster's problem was that it did nothing to curtail pirating, and even then the judges were lenient initially. Youtube on the other hand has gone as far as taking down videos that don't belong to Viacom when Viacom has alleged as such and requested their removal. Youtube and Napster are vastly different and should be treated as such.
Only if the judge thinks like you. If, however, the judge simply sees an issue of theft, then he/she may not be so lenient. Napster is not far from Youtube because they both are built on making money off of other people's work. In the face of that, how quickly they do or do not remove videos is a lesser issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
Also, Viacom can't prove that Youtube has cost them any definite amount of money. The time frame is too narrow and there are too many variables to correctly deduce how much money Viacom has lost from television or web site broadcasts, or if they have lost any money at all. I've heard tell that many people have been turned on to shows because of youtube... The Daily Show especially... wouldn't it be interesting if youtube demonstrated that more people watch those shows because of youtube?
Youtube can probably honestly claim that they have introduced some people to the Daily Show. Viacom, however, can almost definitely be sure that their programs got far more people to look at Youtube than vice versa, and the amount of viewers they gained from Youtube is probably so minor as to be irrelevent.John Stewart hosted the Oscars (or Emmy's, or some such awards show), he doesn't need Youtube's "help." And the time frame for how long Youtube has been profiting off of Viacom is at least a year now (that's how long I've known about Youtube) and probably longer. I'm sure Viacom's lawyers will know the date on which Youtube was founded and how long they've been popular.
Now, it will be hard to determine the exact amount of money Youtube cost Viacom but they no doubt will be able to point to statistics saying they get X number of ad dollars per Y number of viewers of a certain program, they will also point out that their clips help other clips also gain popularity, and on and on.
Instead, Viacom will most likely seek to collect damages based on the number of perceived copyright infringements. Youtube will likely show that they have been conciliatory and have taken steps to eliminate copyrighted media when asked or notified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
Yes, Viacom has a case, but not as strong as you may think, and the number of instances of copyright infringement may be one of the first things cast into doubt.
That will be hard to pinpoint, but the tekkies that specialize in this sort of thing will do a thorough job of digging through Youtube's history, finding out which shows have been uploaded to their servers and how often they get hit. I expect the numbers to be staggering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
We also have to take into account how Youtube works. Napster dealt almost strictly in copyrighted audio... Though seemingly built for aspiring artists and a way of transfering music, the vast majority of file transfers were illegal. This isn't the case with youtube, where the majority of videos are there legally, and again, the site itself is working to remove videos uploaded in violation of site policy. In fact, youtube deletes accounts that have repeatedly uploaded copyrighted material.
Bully for Youtube, but the fact remains that the video's are still there. They cannot claim not to be responsible for something that is happening on a website that they own and are profiting off of. Whether or not other vids are legal will have no bearing on Viacom's case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
I'm sure they're on their way to making profits, but I highly doubt they are making profits this early in the aquisition. They're still developing a solid business model in order to not only make youtube profitable, but lasting. It's simply unreasonable to ask if they're making any money right now. I doubt anyone at Google had hopes of buying youtube and quickly turning a profit this early or even in the near future. This seemed more like a longterm venture.
I don't see how you can be sure they're on the road to profitability when they just sunk 1.65 billion into Youtube and will be counting on little bits of ad revenue and are trying to make money off of what you yourself just said is an undeveloped business model. AOL/Time Warner and many other failures thought their plan would work, too, but it didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
That's the reason I said "relatively quickly" and not simply "quickly."
However you want to categorize it. Again: how do you know that they're going to make money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
Yeah, most people don't know that broadcast.com also streamed video. In fact, they were one of the pioneers of online video streaming and delivery... after the Yahoo purchase, we basically got Launch out of it... No one seems to remember Mark Cuban for that contribution, though he does have his 3 billion dollars, but I suspect that the fact that people regard youtube as the vanguard of internet video irks Cuban a little, because it was really him at the forefront.
Doesn't matter. Cuban became a billionaire off of selling the thing, and he's not a computer science genius anyway, he's a businessman. He has little reason to care about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
If Youtube were broadcasting a lot of material that belonged to his businesses, he would have pushed to have his companies sue already... He wouldn't have been talking about it... he wouldn't still be talking about it... he would have pushed to do it.
When did Cuban ever say that he himself was going to sue?

Last edited by Real Men Wear Green : 03-14-2007 at 05:09 AM.
Real Men Wear Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 05:17 AM   #34
reppy
Apparently likes anime
 
reppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,185
reppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

If I use a website that is cached on Google's servers to get an illegal serial code, can Google be sued? Google offers a free newsgroup service (formerly DejaNews); all kinds of illegal activity goes on there. Can Google be sued for that, too?
reppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 05:27 AM   #35
Real Men Wear Green
Don't panic.
 
Real Men Wear Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton, MA
Posts: 20,210
Real Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

Quote:
Originally Posted by reppy
If I use a website that is cached on Google's servers to get an illegal serial code, can Google be sued? Google offers a free newsgroup service (formerly DejaNews); all kinds of illegal activity goes on there. Can Google be sued for that, too?
I don't know. You can probably research that somewhere.
Real Men Wear Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 05:36 AM   #36
reppy
Apparently likes anime
 
reppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,185
reppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

Quote:
(snipped from full article)

Safe Harbor
Fortunately, YouTube has an important legal shield that was not available to the old Napster: the so-called "online service provider safe harbors" created by Congress as part of the DMCA. One provision, Section 512(c), was designed to protect commercial Web-hosting services, which feared they might be held responsible for the posting habits of their customers.

After all, if you're Verio and hosting hundreds of thousands of Web sites for clients around the globe, you can't afford to be sued every time one of your customers copies a photograph from a competitor's Web site.

Because YouTube essentially stores material at the direction of its users, it can find shelter in the same safe harbor that Web-hosting providers do.

The safe harbor works like this: So long as YouTube plays by a few rules, content owners can't collect damages from it, even if its users infringe their copyrights.

Rule No. 1 is the implementation of a "notice and takedown" system to respond to infringement notices from copyright owners. YouTube, of course, has this in place and takes down material once properly notified by an owner that a clip is infringing. Section 512(c)(3) sets out exactly what a copyright owner must include in a takedown notice. (Note to content owners: If you use takedown notices to remove noninfringing content, you can be sued by YouTube or its users for abusing the system!)

Another rule is that you must have a policy in place to terminate the accounts of those who have been identified as "repeat infringers." YouTube has this policy in place as well, according to the "terms of use" on its Web site.

The safe harbor will not protect a Web host if it is "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent" — in other words, if you make your living providing hosting services to pirates-R-us.com, don't look to the safe harbor for protection. YouTube doesn't appear to be sheltering any obvious pirate fleets, so this shouldn't be an issue.

[...]

-About the Author: Fred von Lohmann is a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit group devoted to the protection of civil liberties, free expression and innovation in the digital world.

http://www.hollywoodreporteresq.com/..._id=1002802746

I think that about sums up my argument.
reppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 06:22 AM   #37
Real Men Wear Green
Don't panic.
 
Real Men Wear Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton, MA
Posts: 20,210
Real Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

"My" rebuttal:
Quote:
A service provider is defined as "an entity offering transmission, routing, or providing 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" or "a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities thereof." [512(k)(1)(A-B)] This broad definition includes network services companies such as Internet service providers (ISPs), search engines, bulletin board system operators, and even auction web sites. In A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster Inc., the court refused to extend the safe harbor provisions to the Napster software program and service, leaving open the question of whether peer-to-peer networks also qualify for safe harbor protection under Section 512.

There are four major categories of network systems offered by service providers that qualify for protection under the safe harbor provisions:

* Conduit Communications include the transmission and routing of information, such as an email or Internet service provider, which store the material only temporarily on their networks. [Sec. 512(a)]
* System Caching refers to the temporary copies of data that are made by service providers in providing the various services that require such copying in order to transfer data. [Sec. 512(b)]
* Storage Systems refers to services which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service or a chat room. [Sec. 512(c)]
* Information Location Tools refer to services such as search engines, directories, or pages
Which of these applies to Youtube?
Real Men Wear Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 08:01 AM   #38
Real Men Wear Green
Don't panic.
 
Real Men Wear Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton, MA
Posts: 20,210
Real Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

More on the issue:
Quote:
"Their business model, which is based on building traffic and selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is in obvious conflict with copyright laws," Viacom said.
Quote:
Corporate arrogance?
One intellectual-property expert said he was "not surprised" by the suit.

"I think this is a problem for Google," said Justin Hughes, director of Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law's Intellectual Property Law Program. "Google has had a series of situations where it looks like corporate arrogance regarding intellectual property."


In buying YouTube, Google bought a business model largely based on infringement, Hughes said. Google's Book Search Library Project also suggests a corporate disregard for intellectual property, he added.Wall Street gave the distraction idea some credence today; Google shares fell $11.72 or 2.6% to $443.03. Viacom was down slightly at $39.50.

While some of the decline was due to today's big stock sell-off, Google has lost a little of its golden image on Wall Street in the two-and-a-half years since the company went public.

Growth has been slowing, and the stock is down 13% since peaking at $509.65 on Nov. 21. That decline has wiped out $20.7 billion in market capitalization -- more than the total market cap for.

In fairness, Google shares have dropped 13% or more on three other occasions.
This doesn't sound like a business doing well to me at all.

On whether or not Viacom needs Youtube:
Quote:
"The growth of YouTube, the growth of online, is so fundamental that these companies are going to be forced to work with and in the Internet," Schmidt said last week in an interview on Bloomberg Television's "Conversations with Judy Woodruff."

The lawsuit "is an initial attempt to move negotiations along," Bear Stearns analyst Robert Peck wrote in a note to clients today. "Both sides would be better served with an agreement."

But not everyone agrees. "Viacom's Web traffic is increasing nicely since it pulled content from 'GooTube,' " Richard Greenfield, an analyst at Pali Capital, told Reuters. "There is certainly an opportunity for YouTube to do a deal with Viacom, but Viacom does not have to have a YouTube deal."
Final thing to point out:
Quote:
More lawsuits to come?
Meanwhile, media companies have been investing in their own Web video capabilities in an attempt to drive video traffic to their own sites.

Although Viacom, the owner of MTV Networks, Comedy Central and several other cable channels, as well as Paramount Pictures, is the first of the big media conglomerates to sue YouTube, it may not be the last.
News Corp. (NWS, news, msgs), General Electric's (GE, news, msgs) NBC Universal and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban have also criticized YouTube. News Corp. and Cuban have both gone to court to force the company to identify people who illegally uploaded copyright material.

Bob Tur, a freelance helicopter reporter who shot video during the Los Angeles riots in 1991 and who has sued YouTube over the publication of his videos, told CNBC that YouTube's business model is like that of TV's Sopranos: They "don't pay for anything, get your content for nothing and sell it to the highest advertiser. It's a wonderful business model, except it's illegal."
So that's actually two suits already, Viacom and the (probably much smaller) lawsuit from Bob Tur, with Cuban, NBC, News Corp and GE angry at Youtube and possibly next to pounce if/when Viacom wins their lawsuit.
Real Men Wear Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 02:15 PM   #39
reppy
Apparently likes anime
 
reppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,185
reppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

Quote:
* Storage Systems refers to services which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service or a chat room. [Sec. 512(c)]

YouTube stores videos at the request of its users.

Do you know that your ISP most likely offers a Usenet service? Did you know you can download full-length pirated films off Usenet? Can Viacom sue your ISP for offering Usenet and not policing everything that goes on there?

And if you're looking at whether or not YouTube is making money, you're looking at it wrong. It's a long term strategy, and part of Google's plan to basically own the Internet. By the time everyone releases how important it is to have streaming content on demand, Google will already own the entire game. I wish I could find the article, but it basically pointed out that Google is setting up tons of data centers in areas with lots of cheap electricity and buying up a ton of bandwidth. For what?!
reppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 02:30 PM   #40
Real Men Wear Green
Don't panic.
 
Real Men Wear Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton, MA
Posts: 20,210
Real Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

Thee's a difference between hosting a chat room and playing the Colbert Report for your own profit without CC's permission. I wish them good luck on owning the internet, just so long as they ask Al Gore for her hand first.
Real Men Wear Green is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 04:05 PM   #41
jody
High school junior varsity star
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 431
jody has an OK reputation so far
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

i think google can make youtube profitable, but that will involve making it stupid and annoying with advertisements being the main thing you are force fed on there.

UFC had youtube remove all of their fights, and replaced them with a main page promo for every pay per view that runs for 2 days before the event.

the thing is, i really like the internet because it is a place where i can get away from the stupid and annoying advertising campaigns on television - but for youtube to be a financial success, i'll be forced to watch commercials for ford trucks and budweiser beer and some sitcom that sucks when i'm looking for videos of stuff i actually want to see.
jody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 04:23 PM   #42
reppy
Apparently likes anime
 
reppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,185
reppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation herereppy has an incredible reputation here
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

Quote:
Originally Posted by Real Men Wear Green
Thee's a difference between hosting a chat room and playing the Colbert Report for your own profit without CC's permission. I wish them good luck on owning the internet, just so long as they ask Al Gore for her hand first.

No there isn't. YouTube isn't putting it on there; users are doing that.
reppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 04:48 PM   #43
MaxFly
Stylin' on you
 
MaxFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 8,393
MaxFly is popular on this boardMaxFly is popular on this boardMaxFly is popular on this boardMaxFly is popular on this boardMaxFly is popular on this board
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

Quote:
Originally Posted by reppy
No there isn't. YouTube isn't putting it on there; users are doing that.

You've made a good point... I was waiting for the conversation to go in that direction before I really talked about the legal standing of youtube. But you're right, Youtube and Napster are entirely different.
MaxFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 05:39 PM   #44
MaxFly
Stylin' on you
 
MaxFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 8,393
MaxFly is popular on this boardMaxFly is popular on this boardMaxFly is popular on this boardMaxFly is popular on this boardMaxFly is popular on this board
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

Quote:
Originally Posted by Real Men Wear Green
You could theoretically get into trouble but your business is probably too smalltime to get anyone to come after you. If you were making millions and potentially billions, then something could happen.

Only if the judge thinks like you. If, however, the judge simply sees an issue of theft, then he/she may not be so lenient. Napster is not far from Youtube because they both are built on making money off of other people's work. In the face of that, how quickly they do or do not remove videos is a lesser issue.

The thing is, most judges will think like me, and remember, you can only throw around the word theft so much. Youtube isn't stealing content. Users are uploading illegal content against youtube's user policy, and when youtube is made aware of these things, they either remove the content and warn the user, or delete the user's account. Moreover, youtube has taken steps to make sure that the same content isn't uploaded twice... I think most judges will see that youtube has taken several steps to operate within the law. They're also developing software that will scan actual video for copyright content upon upload or post upload (this is actually a new technology). Viacom won't get very far with the claim that Youtube is trying to steal content or profit off of them. And then you have youtube taking steps to partner with other media corporations... an honest theif...

Quote:
Youtube can probably honestly claim that they have introduced some people to the Daily Show. Viacom, however, can almost definitely be sure that their programs got far more people to look at Youtube than vice versa, and the amount of viewers they gained from Youtube is probably so minor as to be irrelevent. John Stewart hosted the Oscars (or Emmy's, or some such awards show), he doesn't need Youtube's "help." And the time frame for how long Youtube has been profiting off of Viacom is at least a year now (that's how long I've known about Youtube) and probably longer. I'm sure Viacom's lawyers will know the date on which Youtube was founded and how long they've been popular.

They may know how long Youtube has been around, but they can't, with any definitive accuracy, make a claim as to how many copyright infringments have occured. And again, there's the matter of Viacom claiming material, even now, that isn't theirs... this muddies things even further. Also, if Viacom is seeking to prove that they've been losing money because of Youtube, they'll have to prove that Youtube is hurting their viewership and their ratings... No... Viacom's real claim is that there are copyrighted videos on youtube's site and there are also ads, meaning that youtube makes money when people view Viacom's content... and that Viacom doesn't get a cut. Youtube will likely counter with the fact that they aren't in control of what is uploaded onto their servers, but are active in policing what content is shown and stays on the site.

Quote:
Bully for Youtube, but the fact remains that the video's are still there. They cannot claim not to be responsible for something that is happening on a website that they own and are profiting off of. Whether or not other vids are legal will have no bearing on Viacom's case.

You brought up Napster earlier, so I'm explaining why the two are so different. Again, the majority of the music transferred through Napster was illegally swapped and hurt the music industry to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Most of the videos on youtube are privately owned, and no one has come forward with proof that the media networks have been hurt to any degree by those videos that have been uploaded illegally and against youtube's user policy by private citizens. The only real claim right now is that youtube has copyrighted content on their site, and by the nature of the site's design, they're profiting from that content just as they are with the content not under copyright law.

Quote:
I don't see how you can be sure they're on the road to profitability when they just sunk 1.65 billion into Youtube and will be counting on little bits of ad revenue and are trying to make money off of what you yourself just said is an undeveloped business model. AOL/Time Warner and many other failures thought their plan would work, too, but it didn't. However you want to categorize it. Again: how do you know that they're going to make money?

The structure and business model that they are building is a profitable one in the longterm. In just the 5 months that Google has owned youtube, they've partnered with Warner Music, NBC, the NBA and will be soon working with the BBC... If talks with Viacom hadn't fallen through, they'd have Viacom as well. They're also in talks with DLTV (a tech show) to broadcast their 30-45 minute shows. They're on their way. They're moving in the right direction. Does it mean they'll get there? No... But this is all something Mark Cuban never stopped to think about or never envisioned would happen. He seemed to think that YouTube would just become another Napster. He was wrong.

Quote:
Doesn't matter. Cuban became a billionaire off of selling the thing, and he's not a computer science genius anyway, he's a businessman. He has little reason to care about that.

So explain the fascination he seems to have with youtube. There doesn't seem to be much reason for him to care what youtube does or to speak against them otherwise.

Quote:
When did Cuban ever say that he himself was going to sue?

You said that Cuban might be concerned about his companies' content getting on youtube, and you also added that there may already be several there... With all the talk Mark Cuban has done about corporations suing youtube for copyright infringement, he would have already pushed for a lawsuit had his own companies' content been found on youtube. Mark Cuban doesn't like youtube... He neither likes youtube, nor is he indifferent (or he wouldn't be talking about them so much, unprovoked). He dislikes youtube. With all the railing he's done against them, I don't see him idly standing by and watching his own content be "stolen" as he would put it. He's never intimated that he thought youtube was a threat to his own companies.
MaxFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 08:09 PM   #45
Real Men Wear Green
Don't panic.
 
Real Men Wear Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton, MA
Posts: 20,210
Real Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops posterReal Men Wear Green is considered a brilliant InsideHoops poster
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

Quote:
Originally Posted by reppy
No there isn't. YouTube isn't putting it on there; users are doing that.
The problem is that the law only protects "information," like when someone posts a link to an ESPN insider article and asks to get pmmed the full thing. A video is not just "information," it's copyrighted programming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
The thing is, most judges will think like me, and remember, you can only throw around the word theft so much. Youtube isn't stealing content. Users are uploading illegal content against youtube's user policy, and when youtube is made aware of these things, they either remove the content and warn the user, or delete the user's account. Moreover, youtube has taken steps to make sure that the same content isn't uploaded twice... I think most judges will see that youtube has taken several steps to operate within the law. They're also developing software that will scan actual video for copyright content upon upload or post upload (this is actually a new technology). Viacom won't get very far with the claim that Youtube is trying to steal content or profit off of them. And then you have youtube taking steps to partner with other media corporations... an honest theif...
You have no way of knowing that the judge will think like you. Youtube is making money off of the theft and Google knew that Youtube was full of copyrighted material when they bought it to begin with. And then, they don't police the site, a company like Viacom has to find the videos themselves, file a formal complaint, and then Youtube will act. There's no such thing as an honest thief, just another criminal with noble pretensions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
They may know how long Youtube has been around, but they can't, with any definitive accuracy, make a claim as to how many copyright infringments have occured. And again, there's the matter of Viacom claiming material, even now, that isn't theirs... this muddies things even further. Also, if Viacom is seeking to prove that they've been losing money because of Youtube, they'll have to prove that Youtube is hurting their viewership and their ratings... No... Viacom's real claim is that there are copyrighted videos on youtube's site and there are also ads, meaning that youtube makes money when people view Viacom's content... and that Viacom doesn't get a cut. Youtube will likely counter with the fact that they aren't in control of what is uploaded onto their servers, but are active in policing what content is shown and stays on the site.
Well, they've estimated 160,000. I don't know how they came to that number but they will no doubt present the process at the trial a long with a bottle of aspirin for Google's lawyers. And Viacom can prove that Google hurt their viewership. As the last article I posted states, their web viewership surged once they made Google yank their vids off of Youtube. And they are in control of what gets uploaded to their servers, that's part of what it means to own the thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
You brought up Napster earlier, so I'm explaining why the two are so different. Again, the majority of the music transferred through Napster was illegally swapped and hurt the music industry to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Most of the videos on youtube are privately owned, and no one has come forward with proof that the media networks have been hurt to any degree by those videos that have been uploaded illegally and against youtube's user policy by private citizens. The only real claim right now is that youtube has copyrighted content on their site, and by the nature of the site's design, they're profiting from that content just as they are with the content not under copyright law.
The home videos are a difference but do not in any way change the fact that Youtube, like Napster, is profiting off of the work of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
The structure and business model that they are building is a profitable one in the longterm. In just the 5 months that Google has owned youtube, they've partnered with Warner Music, NBC, the NBA and will be soon working with the BBC... If talks with Viacom hadn't fallen through, they'd have Viacom as well. They're also in talks with DLTV (a tech show) to broadcast their 30-45 minute shows. They're on their way. They're moving in the right direction. Does it mean they'll get there? No... But this is all something Mark Cuban never stopped to think about or never envisioned would happen. He seemed to think that YouTube would just become another Napster. He was wrong.
Making a lot of deals is not the same thing as being profitable, lots of failing businesses make partnerships on their way down. Again: How much money are they making?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
So explain the fascination he seems to have with youtube. There doesn't seem to be much reason for him to care what youtube does or to speak against them otherwise.
As previously stated, Cuban has interest in a number of companies that Youtube has unapproved material from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
You said that Cuban might be concerned about his companies' content getting on youtube, and you also added that there may already be several there... With all the talk Mark Cuban has done about corporations suing youtube for copyright infringement, he would have already pushed for a lawsuit had his own companies' content been found on youtube. Mark Cuban doesn't like youtube... He neither likes youtube, nor is he indifferent (or he wouldn't be talking about them so much, unprovoked). He dislikes youtube. With all the railing he's done against them, I don't see him idly standing by and watching his own content be "stolen" as he would put it. He's never intimated that he thought youtube was a threat to his own companies.
How can you be sure that Cuban wants to engage in a legal battle? He may have decided that for him personally it's not a worthwhile fight to take Google to court. He does dislike them but that doesn't mean he's going to be the first to try and take them out.
Real Men Wear Green is offline   Reply With Quote
This NBA Basketball News Website Sponsored by:
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:41 PM.




NBA Basketball Forum Key Links:
InsideHoops Home
NBA Rumors
Basketball Blog
NBA Daily Recaps
NBA Videos
Fantasy Basketball
NBA Mock Draft
NBA Free Agents
All-Star Weekend
---
High School Basketball
Streetball
---
InsideHoops Twitter
Search Our Site















Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy