What is Digg?Sponsored by Newegg.com
$5,000 Newegg Eggstreme Challenge Video Contest Extended to 11/15 view!
newegg.com - Show them what YOU would do with the money you save by shopping at Newegg. Seriously, show them...
50 Comments
- ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -9/+41I've had enough news about Mark Cuban for one lifetime, thanks.
- Crosshare, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28At one time I liked Mark Cuban's views on technology. I loved his idea/business venture on HD movie theaters. But more and more these days he's just making himself sound like an asshat.
- interg12, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26Dugg, because Cuban is the most pretentious dick head on the web.
- Derferman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18May I ask why he does not just ask them to be removed?
- canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22talk about your self fulfilling prophecies. cuban went on more than one rant about the legal implications of the gootube purchase. now he's making sure his own blog postings are correct.
oh, and screw the mavs, go rox! - riccohasdug, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17I agree that it was against the law...but c'mon, man...it's YouTube.
FTA: "...a 20-minute portion of the documentary "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room."
A 20-minute clip of an 2-year-old documentary uploaded in horrendous FLV format does not require extreme measures (I'm aware that there were two other clips noted; I'm confident that one of them was "Cocaine Cowboys" in it's entirety on Google Video). A simple cease-and-desist would have sufficed.
If you can explain to me what potential revenues were lost by a video clip being posted to a site whose main user-base is teenagers who don't give two sh@!s about Enron, I'll listen. - riccohasdug, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Indeed it was; most of their U.S.-based films are merely distribution rights deals, as well. Magnolia Pictures is sort of a "poor man's Miramax".
- riccohasdug, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13http://www.magpictures.com/
^^ Magnolia Pictures website. With the exception of a few films ("Cocaine Cowboys", "Ong Bak", "The Host" and such), their catalog is mediocre. They need all the free advertising they can get. - iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"If you can explain to me what potential revenues were lost by a video clip being posted to a site whose main user-base is teenagers who don't give two sh@!s about Enron, I'll listen."
I can. When my business admin prof gave us an assignment pertaining to Enron several people pointed me to the video in question. Instead of renting or buying it several people simply watched the 20 minute clip. - v3rb4t1m, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10his movies suck why would some one waste their time and upload them?
- Yorn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You guys don't understand, the point of this is proving that Google will hand over private user information. It's about proving that Google isn't the bastion of privacy that everyone makes it out to be, and Cuban's going to be the one to do it.
- Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Because he's Mark Cuban. Mark Cuban does not ask nicely! Mark Cuban forces it to happen!
Because Mark Cuban is the luckiest asshat that's ever walked the earth. And now he's pushing it. - Berry, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9It's remarkable how traditional media publishing companies (or internet entrepreneurs who like to think as traditional media publishing companies) think it is not in their own interest that (parts of) their media are uploaded, viewed and discusses by internet users. Hello-oh, the point is to get the word out and reach people, even it that means the viewing is happening on their terms.
- Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+61) It's not illegal, it's simply actionable. Hence the lawsuit.
2) They're clips, not whole videos. They could, ostensibly, fall under fair use in that context.
3) "It's perfectly legal and justified (to sue youtube for its users' actions)" I suppose it is - but it's not polite, nor is it good business. The good business thing to do would be not to piss off the people you get money from (the consumers), and simply ask GooTube to take the videos off (a request they fill regularly).
4) Mark Cuban is a lucky, lucky *****, and I have no idea why anyone takes him seriously. Just thought I'd put it out there. - mobbo, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18The people who uploaded the videos BROKE THE LAW... what don't you understand about that. Mark Cuban owns the copyrights... these kids broke them... he seeks justice. It's perfectly legal and justified. Does it suck that we can't just download whatever we want, when we want, for free? Yes. But Cuban is in the right COMPLETELY when he wants to know WHO broke the law pertaining to HIS copyrights.
- killervibe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The problem most people dont understand is that business must have a defensible competitive advantage if they are to survive. While I absolutely hate the RIAA I understand that they can not sit idly by and allow anyone and everyone to drink the milk for free without buying the cow. That said, I think their heavy handed tactics go to far and they could use a heavy dose of moderation but at its core they MUST act to keep their business viable.
I dont really care for how whiney Cuban is. I appreciate his passion for his team but sometimes he just needs to STFU. In this particular case, I dont see that his company has any other option than to pursue legal action against this infringment. At the very least, they should have the right to spark up a discussion with the offender to find out WTF he/she was thinking when they did it. If their only intent was to pirate copyrighted material then what would you ask Magnolia to do? Spend millions of dollars to produce entertainment and then bend over at the waist and take it up the yang so that people dont have to pay for it?
Its a diochotomy that has no easy answer. - mobbo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If I had the option of paying money to see a 20 minute video about Enron by renting it, or seeing it on YouTube... I'd watch it on YouTube. A documentary's video quality, whether it's 480i or 720p DOESN'T MATTER to me.
I think Cuban's motivation here is to stop it before it starts. If his content is regularly uploaded to YouTube and Google Video, that means he has to file a ceace-and-desist motion for every stupid video clip... that can hit the wallet, especialy with what lawyers charge these days. Plus, this is just the beginning. How old is YouTube and Google Video? Maybe 2 years old? What's to say in the next 2 years high quality video and higher storage sizes won't be capable?
The simple fact is: uploading copyright material, no matter how rich the guy who owns the material is, is ILLEGAL. I'm sure there are more reasons for this action by Cuban, but the point is, he is perfectly justified in doing so. I also think another reason is to squash this small problem before it turns into a BIG problem... which we all know it is capable of becoming. - carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5wasn't ong bak just a translate?
- actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"They could've rented it and Magnolia Pictures still would not have seen a damn cent."
Rental shops pay a higher price for each DVD (about $60), which gives them a license to rent it for the lifetime of the physical DVD itself. When the disc gets damaged, they either buy another copy or lose the title from their catalog. Illegal digital distribution requires only one purchase or rental in order for a movie to propagate across the world -- and the files don't wear out. As more people turn to illegal copies on the Internet, there is less need for rental shops to purchase titles for rental, much less purchase additional copies to replace damaged goods (won't get damaged if no one rents it), and that results in lost revenues. While creators see less profit from rentals than individual purchases, they do indeed see profit. - KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6shocking, after his rant on youtube being a copyright hornet's nest.
- Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"If I had the option of paying money to see a 20 minute video about Enron by renting it, or seeing it on YouTube... I'd watch it on YouTube. A documentary's video quality, whether it's 480i or 720p DOESN'T MATTER to me."
It matters to me. Who wants to watch some blurry YouTube ***** when you can get much better quality on BitTorrent?
"I think Cuban's motivation here is to stop it before it starts. If his content is regularly uploaded to YouTube and Google Video, that means he has to file a ceace-and-desist motion for every stupid video clip... that can hit the wallet, especialy with what lawyers charge these days."
Um. You just have to have one minimum wage guy in your company dedicated to e-mailing GooTube with violation notices; they don't need a cease and desist to take 'em down; just a polite e-mail containing the violating video links.
"Plus, this is just the beginning. How old is YouTube and Google Video? Maybe 2 years old? What's to say in the next 2 years high quality video and higher storage sizes won't be capable?"
Nothing, but two years from now it'll still be as irrelevant as it is today. What, pray tell, differentiates YouTube from internet radio? The ability to select content? You're technically not able to download content, so that's not a problem.
"The simple fact is: uploading copyright material, no matter how rich the guy who owns the material is, is ILLEGAL. I'm sure there are more reasons for this action by Cuban, but the point is, he is perfectly justified in doing so."
You know, capitalizing 'illegal' doesn't make it any more true.
It's not illegal to redistribute content. It may be actionable, but only if the content-owner chooses to take action. Cuban is justified in doing so, though, being the douche bag that he is, he doesn't seem to get that 'justified' isn't always the same as 'a good choice'. He's taking a PR hit, whether you agree with his actions or not.
"I also think another reason is to squash this small problem before it turns into a BIG problem... which we all know it is capable of becoming."
Perhaps you do, but I haven't seen any evidence of YouTube-style 'piracy' (which I contest counts as fair use, due to the clip-size limitation) having a negative effect on the film or TV industries. Show me a study and I *may* consider your point to be valid.
That said, there are pretty convincing studies that show no demonstrable correlation between digital (filesharing) or actual (bootlegging) media piracy and decreased sales revenues. There are some studies that DO show such correlations, but they almost always prove to be funded by the RIAA or MPAA - so I do remain unconvinced. - rockforever, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I can never say this enough, Mark Cuban is a douche.
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"I can. When my business admin prof gave us an assignment pertaining to Enron several people pointed me to the video in question. Instead of renting or buying it several people simply watched the 20 minute clip."
So you are saying libraries are the work of the communist devil and should be banished as it denies the rights for every media publisher to make a sale for every 6th grader that has to do a book report on Canada?
Damn! My kids education costs are going to sky rocket if I have to go to B&N every week instead of his school library. - TimoP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Libraries buy the books. YouTube doesn't pay for the clips it hosts.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Sure. They can either do that by accepting technological changes and accomodating the needs and wants of their consumers, or they can do it with lots of lawyers and lobbyists."
Technology does not define morality. I'm sick of this ***** argument that people need to change their business model because you have a technology that makes it easy to steal from them. The invention of the crowbar didn't mean it suddenly became ok to break into a store and take what you want, telling the owner "your business model is obsolete". - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Still, they made a movie about us!
http://www.magpictures.com/profile.aspx?id=f5942b0e-93c2-4a31-aa74-5edd5a4628da - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ joeyjojo
Yes, but Google profits from ad revenues. Would you prefer DVDs free but set up like broadcast television with commercials every 10 minutes? - HairyPoter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3There are the smart guys and the *****. The smart guys are them who see in YouTube an advertisement free for life and take advantage of this. The ***** are them who have the vision so short that they cannot even see their own dicks. These ***** have lawyers and want to put their hands on the deepest pockets they can find.
- actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ joeyjojo
"There's a big difference between 'legally' right and 'being a decent human'."
My definition of decent human includes compensating people for services provided. I don't see how someone trying to weasel out of that arrangement can be seen as the decent human in equation. - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"That's RIAA lawsuit ammo if I ever heard it, but oh, well...to each his own."
Eh, why not. It's about as strong as any other "evidence" they've used in their suits. - leftfoot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"...he's just making himself sound like an asshat."
Well, this way, he can't get fined by David Stern. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There's a big difference between 'legally' right and 'being a decent human'.
- iceperson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room." is a must see for anyone taking a uni business class.
- riccohasdug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's RIAA lawsuit ammo if I ever heard it, but oh, well...to each his own.
Interestingly enough, Rakontur Entertainment (the production company behind "Cocaine Cowboys" has uploaded a large amount of DVD-exclusive content from the film on YouTube. I know it's DVD-exclusive because I bought the DVD :) The documentary is notorious for being the most bootlegged movie in the Miami-Dade area, and the filmakers have adopted a kind of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" stance.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/11/12/entertainment/movies/11_51_2711_8_06.txt
Off-topic: Thanks for the rational, intelligent thread, everyone. Sadly, this is not the norm :( - MattH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1At least Mark Cuban is putting his money where his mouth is .
- jmurch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I wish more dotcom guys like Mark Cuban did more stuff like this. I just hate how big companies (in this case one that doesn't "do evil" bullys everyone around).
Ugh, Can we just abolish all lawyers like Back to the Future 2? - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"but at its core they MUST act to keep their business viable."
Sure. They can either do that by accepting technological changes and accomodating the needs and wants of their consumers, or they can do it with lots of lawyers and lobbyists. - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Technology does not define morality. I'm sick of this ***** argument that people need to change their business model because you have a technology that makes it easy to steal from them."
I'm sick of this ***** leap in logic where 'getting more for less' must only equate to 'stealing'.
But let's play along with your ***** leap in logic and assume everyone does want music for free. Well, in a free market, there you go. The market has spoken. Find another industry. Why we protect one particular industry like this is beyond me.
Now, back to reality...most folks don't expect free media. They want to use technology to make the media easier to get and use, and cheaper to consume.
"The invention of the crowbar didn't mean it suddenly became ok to break into a store and take what you want, telling the owner "your business model is obsolete"."
If you want to use idiotic analogies, how about this one:
Did the invention of the automobile mean it was suddenly OK to put all the horse carriage factories out of business? Should the horse carriage factories simply lobbied congress and hired lawyers to make cars illegal? - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ joeyjojo
"Sure. They can either do that by accepting technological changes and accommodating the needs and wants of their consumers, or they can do it with lots of lawyers and lobbyists."
Your statement makes no sense. While it sounds ideal, there is no way a business can survive by offering its product free, which is what you as a consumer are wanting here. Your place of employment is a consumer of your services -- are you actively seeking a way to offer those free, or are sticking to the old business model of compensation for work performed? If the former, please share the solutions you've arrived at thus far. - mwmccullough, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Hell yeah! Screw the Mav's! Go SPURS!
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"While it sounds ideal, there is no way a business can survive by offering its product free"
Google seems to be doing OK, but that's besides the point. Do some consumers want free crap? Sure. But most consumers are sensible. They really want affordability, accessibility, usability, portability, and the like.
The reason that the media industries are having a tough time is that they simply aren't adopting to the market (remember, this is America...we're supposed to be all about free markets, right?) instead, they don't want to change their business model at all. They instead want to have laws passed that prohibit technology and fair use.
It's like travel agents all banding together and getting congress to pass a law banning online sales of airline tickets.
Do consumers want FREE airline tickets? Of course, but we know that's silly. Instead, we've wanted more affordable and readily available tickets. The web gave that to us. Alas, a lot of travel agents lost their jobs. That's the market for you. - halogenik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The only thing that this, and the RIAA suits do is make me want to download videos and cd's off the web, just to "stick it to the man". These guys, especially the RIAA needs to understand that if they want people to "stop stealing their intelectual property" they need to seem like the good guys. Raping money out of grandmothers and dead people isn't being the good guy.
Hell, I'm gonna go on youtube and watch a Magnolia Pictures clip right now. Take that Mark Cuban! - lensman00, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1> business must have a defensible competitive advantage if they are to survive
This may apply to large firms in commodity markets, but it's more the exception than the rule. In America, the Fortune 500 employs less than 10% of the workforce. Small business is half of GDP, and moat theory doesn't apply to most small businesses. Small businesses can operate more cooperatively - taking advantage of network effects and focusing on making contacts within the local community to support an income stream. The beauty of a niche or local market is that it isn't full of predators trying to eat each other's lunch. Smaller markets tend to operate more on good will and mutual support. I guess that's "old fashioned" capitalism: people helping people. Funny thing is this part of the economy is growing faster than big business -- perhaps it's more sustainable. - iamscrewed2007, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'll save Google the time of looking up the identity,
it was: Magnolia Pictures - Sandurz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3They could've rented it and Magnolia Pictures still would not have seen a damn cent.
Unless I completely don't understand the movie rental concept. - J1000, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The company has every right to *try* to find out who pirated their movies (and Google may have the right to keep the info private, who knows). But Youtube? Come on, that's not exactly hurting DVD sales, even if you somehow managed to upload an entire movie. I think taking legal action of any kind is an overreaction in this case. I still like Mark Cuban though.
- KaiserSousa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Hey, Cuban. I'll rat him out.
Here's the guy:
M'bo Kimininga
PO Box 41
Mt. Hagen
Papua, New Guinea
Happy hunting! - stotch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0At least Mark Cuban is putting his money where his mouth is ...
and where would that be..... his lawyers pants? - 10scott10, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1damn it mark stick to complaining to david stern
- mecole21, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Go back to dealing with the Mavericks and trying to buy the Cubs, technology has passed you by....
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is