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, 09:06 PM   #46
MaxFly
Stylin' on you
 
MaxFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 8,376
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

Quote:
Originally Posted by Real Men Wear Green
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.

A few points... I'm fairly confident that most judges would take into account both sides of the dispute. This isn't a cut and dry case. Protocol and compliance go a long way. If a company is shown to be compliant, that's a plus for them, especially when the DMCA is taken into account. Also, sites like youtube are not required to police their site in order to find copyright material. The provision is that if a company is to complain, and the host is made aware of the situation, they are to remove the offending material promptly. However, youtube has gone a little further. They delete accounts of multiple offenders and have taken steps to prevent the same videos from being uploaded again. Because of the nature of the site, they aren't liable if they are unaware of the copyright infringement.

Quote:
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.

I read an article sometime back that came to the conclusion that viewership of the Daily Show through the Comedy Central channel surged as a result of the show's popularity on youtube. Let me see if I can find the article... I think there was mention of NBC as well.

And I'm sure you understand how Youtube differs from Comedy Central's site. Youtube doesn't own any of the videos that are uploaded to its servers.

We also have to question whether there was a decrease in viewership initially. A surge simply signifies that the medium of online video became popular via youtube, and when it was removed, viewers still searched for the media, which lead them to Comedy Central's site... The real question is whether it was popular before youtube's inception. Was there a decrease in viewership.

Quote:
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.

Again, not that simple. Youtube has worked within DMCA regulations of operation. Napster blatantly allowed users to share copyrighted music and didn't do anything to curtail it, becoming complicit in costing record companies quite a bit of money. Big difference. Right now, it's unlikely Viacom can even say how much money youtube has cost them, and that's if youtube has cost them money.

Quote:
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?

Where did I say that making a lot of deals was the same thing as being profitable? Can you please paste that quote. I'd be quite intersted to read it. Thanks in advance.

Quote:
As previously stated, Cuban has interest in a number of companies that Youtube has unapproved material from.

Can you please name these interests? I've never seen Mark Cuban complain that copyright material from his companies are being stolen by youtube? If he has said something to that effect, could you post that as well please? Thanks.

Quote:
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.

The strong language he's used and the number of times he's spoken on the matter indicate that if Cuban had a vested interest in this, he would act. He's said that companies should sue and spam youtube for their theft. I'd find it completely laughable and highly unlikely if Cuban's own companies' had content "stolen" by youtube and he refrained for "personal" reasons. Highly unlikely indeed...
MaxFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2007, 09:37 PM   #47
Real Men Wear Green
Don't panic.
 
Real Men Wear Green's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton, MA
Posts: 19,695
Default Re: Semi-OT: Picking up on Cuban vs. Youtube

I'm getting a little tired of this debate, so after this post I'm going to let it go until there's some more news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
A few points... I'm fairly confident that most judges would take into account both sides of the dispute. This isn't a cut and dry case. Protocol and compliance go a long way. If a company is shown to be compliant, that's a plus for them, especially when the DMCA is taken into account. Also, sites like youtube are not required to police their site in order to find copyright material. The provision is that if a company is to complain, and the host is made aware of the situation, they are to remove the offending material promptly. However, youtube has gone a little further. They delete accounts of multiple offenders and have taken steps to prevent the same videos from being uploaded again. Because of the nature of the site, they aren't liable if they are unaware of the copyright infringement.
Of course they're liable. They own YouTube. If your dog bites my son I'm going to sue you and I'm going to win the lawsuit, because you are responsible for your property. The DMCA covers information, not whole videos, just like it didn't cover song downloads for Napster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
I read an article sometime back that came to the conclusion that viewership of the Daily Show through the Comedy Central channel surged as a result of the show's popularity on youtube. Let me see if I can find the article... I think there was mention of NBC as well.
Someone writing an article expressing the opinion that YouTube helps CC isn't going to be worth much as a defense, especially when CC neither wants nor needs their assistance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
And I'm sure you understand how Youtube differs from Comedy Central's site.
Yes. Motherload is legal. (I just couldn't resist that one)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
Youtube doesn't own any of the videos that are uploaded to its servers.
Which is why it is not legal (I couldn't resist that one, either).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
We also have to question whether there was a decrease in viewership initially. A surge simply signifies that the medium of online video became popular via youtube, and when it was removed, viewers still searched for the media, which lead them to Comedy Central's site... The real question is whether it was popular before youtube's inception. Was there a decrease in viewership.
If I own an acre of fertile land that I'm not using and you grow and sell melons there without my permission it's still illegal. You may think that their boost was due to YouTube but I'd say that all the commercials CC ran/runs for Motherload had quite a bit to do with it. I know that I can watch the Colbert Report and the Daily Show in entirety any time I want to on CC's website. I didn't find that out on YouTube. Do you really think that YouTube is somehow bigger with Daily Show/Colbert Report fans than Comedy Central? Because frankly, that doesn't make any sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
Again, not that simple. Youtube has worked within DMCA regulations of operation. Napster blatantly allowed users to share copyrighted music and didn't do anything to curtail it, becoming complicit in costing record companies quite a bit of money. Big difference. Right now, it's unlikely Viacom can even say how much money youtube has cost them, and that's if youtube has cost them money.
Viacom loses potential sales when, instead of buying a Season 3 DVD, someone goes onto YT and watches SouthPark episodes, while Google reaps the rewards via whatever little ad they shove into the lower right hand corner or wherever they stick the things. This should not be hard to comprehend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
Where did I say that making a lot of deals was the same thing as being profitable? Can you please paste that quote. I'd be quite intersted to read it. Thanks in advance.
Didn't say that you said that. I'm just pointing out a fact: Making a bunch of deals is not the same thing as making money. So when I ask you how much money they're making, listing a bunch of deals is not a legitimate answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
Can you please name these interests? I've never seen Mark Cuban complain that copyright material from his companies are being stolen by youtube? If he has said something to that effect, could you post that as well please? Thanks.
I thought I already listed them: HDNet, Lions Gate, and probably some others, I don't know how many things he's invested in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxFly
The strong language he's used and the number of times he's spoken on the matter indicate that if Cuban had a vested interest in this, he would act. He's said that companies should sue and spam youtube for their theft. I'd find it completely laughable and highly unlikely if Cuban's own companies' had content "stolen" by youtube and he refrained for "personal" reasons. Highly unlikely indeed...
Just because you don't think it's likely doesn't mean that it isn't true. Beyond my last post, think about this: David Stern partnered the NBA to YouTube. It could get rough for Cuban if he attacked (here referring to firing a lawsuit, not just criticism) a company that the NBA has allied itself to. He's a businessman, and for them, it's all about cost-benefit analysis. If he decides that he could only make, say, 5 million in a lawsuit against YouTube, would it be worth further feuding with Stern and the possible alienation of all the owners that agreed with the the YT partnership?
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 03:28 AM.




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