Slashdot Mirror
Mark Cuban Declares War on GooTube
PreacherTom writes "Mark Cuban — the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks, tech entrepreneur, and self-proclaimed 'blog maverick' — has always been outspoken in his ridicule of Google and YouTube. Now, it appears he's willing to put his money where his mouth is. Cuban is so convinced that GooTube will be a failure that he is in the process of acquiring the news agency owned by Robert Tur, currently involved in serious litigation with Google over copyright violations. With billions on both sides, this could be a real clash of the titans."
Yeah, it could be, but we're calling it "GooTube".
I, for one, welcome our new billionare touting overlords...
Wait a second...
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
The man is so convinced that google/youtube will fail, he's actually going to jump in the ring to try to make it happen? Umm... Someone should just give this guy a hobby.
I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
Being wealthy doesn't make someone less of a kook!
-- From a flash refusenik who's otherwise indifferent
Excuse me, ve are lookink for nuclear wessels.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
David Stern was the CEO for google?
Whenever Godzilla and Mecha-Godzilla fight; it is Tokyo that suffers the most.
Demented But Determined.
I think they're in Alameda.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Just like the morons that bought broadcast.com
inflated ego much ?
maybe he should spend more time relaxing on the beach with his billions and less deriding successful companies with better ideas and more talent
Marks skill was getting rich, but can he juggle 5 balls ? wheelie a bike ? grind a rail on a skateboard ? fly a helicopter ? draw a picture well ?
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Cuban is so convinced that GooTube will be a failure that he is in the process of acquiring the news agency owned by Robert Tur, currently involved in serious litigation with Google over copyright violations.
In retaliation, Sergey Brin has just announced plans to buy the L.A. Clippers.
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
Okay, I'm puzzled. The EFF defending someone sued by, say, the RIAA, is to support the individual who is being overwhelmed by a large corporation due to a questionable law. And one could argue Cuban is just doing something similar-- supporting a lawsuit of an individual who feels a corporation has infringed on their rights in an area where the law is murky.
However, supporting an individual's lawsuit, not because of the principal involved, but because you don't like them and think they're stupid, that's... well, childish. That's putting ego as more important than justice, and in theory, that's what the whole court system is supposed to prevent.
Isn't this just a form of vigilante justice by Cuban? "I don't like 'em, so they're going down."
A.
Jeez, Mark Cuban is a whiney little brat (or substitute your own word that begins with a B here). You guys need to learn that just because you have all the money you don't get to make all of the rules. Most of them, sure, but not all. Go to news.google.com and search for Mark Cuban and see for yourself...
Mark Cuban is a maverick in a lot of ways. I have actually had the pleasure of meeting him several times during the course of my previous job here in Dallas, and in-person and in everday situations (I've spoken with him both in a business and casual setting), he is a cordial, and generally "normal" person. But he is not not stupid. Maverick is a good word for him, as he may not always be diplomatic or smart about his emotional reactions, but he is definitely not dumb when it comes to many business decisions. My question is: what is he getting out of this? Is it a pride thing? So needs to be right he's cast his lot with the opponents? The money motivator is there, but it's not like he needs more. I think he may be bored and just needs something to focus on that he feels is a sure thing.
Touting MyEclipse AJAX Tools
Why you ask would an owner of a sports franchise care? Because he isn't just the owner the the Dallas Mavericks. He is a media guy who owns HD-Net. An broadcasting and media company that creates HD media and of course the last thing he wants is his media to appear on YouTube. He is a wannbe Ted Turner/Rupert Murdoc.
Mark Cuban is a moron. He's one of those people who accidentally gets rich and thinks he's larger than life.
GooTube?
Have you read my journal today?
well, i have a feeling that google will win, as well its, google, shoot it even has its own verb "Google It",
"If all else fails, use C4"
Wulfram II - Free Online Mutiplayer 3D Tank Shooting Gam
His utopia has gotten boring so he is just looking for something new to give him a rise. "Man I am sick of yelling at refs. Hey, is that Google over there lookin' at me funny?"
Who do you think will win ?
Read radical news here
Image if people put that much effort/money into helping out their communities instead of childish vendettas.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
My studio is maybe 2 blocks from his loft in Deep Ellum (art neighborhood in dallas). He's known for being "out there" and he's the butt of a lot of jokes around here but deep down everyone loves him. Our neigborhood association president knows him and thinks the world of him.
it's awfully ambitious but if anyone can pull this off it would be him.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
He has probably been financed&backed&induced to do this by the big-money/telco monopolist circles, and is now doing their bidding in order to weaken opposition.
but the opposition is big and getting bigger.
Read radical news here
since us grownups prefer more sophisticated entertainment.
Scott
©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
There are lots of people out there throwing the little bits of money they have at charities and other causes that they think will make the world a better place.
Contrast with this guy.
Frankly, that really sounds (visualizes) disgusting ...
...Mark Cuban is still a loudmouth jackass. In related news if Google comes out on top I predict Cuban will blame the loss on a conspiracy between the NBA referees and David Stern.
YouTube and Google Video *are* full of copyrighted material. They *should* have some liability.
Don't get me wrong. I think that the so-called "content-providers" should be HAPPY about the free advertising they get when clips of their stuff are posted on those sites. But we all know that they can't stand it, and that it is illegal. It probably shouldn't be, but it is.
And you know what? It doesn't seem fair that in a world where the RIAA is forcing grandmothers to cough up thousands and thousands of dollars for unknowingly sharing Britney Spears tunes from their PC, that big corporations like Google get a free ride.
And we know Mark Cuban from where? Oh...thats right, his money, and not from anything really noteworthy that he has done. good, that settles things. Google=innovative technology company that continues to lead, Cuban=Lucky rich guy with sports team and Television channels, and a technology company that no one has heard of. Now I kind of understand why he is upset.
Google bought what could be the future of the internet's video content distribution. It could compete with TV in a few years. Shows might be available for sale there with Google's micropayments. Etcetera.
+ acquisition/2100-1023_3-228762.html
It's a risk, yes, but a calculated gamble.
It's not particularly expensive, Yahoo bought Broadcast.com in the billions (5bn, though I don't know how much of that was overinflated stock) and that seems to be a total dud:
http://news.com.com/Yahoo+completes+Broadcast.com
If Cuban is successful in getting a judge to rule that takedown is no longer good enough to prevent a site being sued for copyright infringement, how long do you think it'll be before no site allows anything to be uploaded, as they can no longer afford the resources to work out if it's copyright or not, and can't afford the legal fees for even a few infringements?
This would be disastrous for the net. And for everyone in general, apart from those big media conglomerates who only transmit on their own content. This could, in one fell swoop, turn the internet from the mass of information it is now to just another broadcast mechanism for the big distribution channels (*IAA etc).
who is this asswipe?
Mark Cuban made his money selling Broadcast.com to Yahoo, so is it possible he still has a stake in Yahoo and this is nothing more than a territorial piss and moan contest at the competition?
Proof!
In Soviet Russia, nuclear wessels look vor you!
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Res publica non dominetur
geez....now this is proof that he's a nut case.
he's gonna waste his time and money on something as stupid as this?
why doesn't he spend it on his Dallas Mavericks?
According to the NBA Conference scores page, his Mavericks are getting creamed by the LA Clippers... (3:4 for the Mavs, and 5:2 for the Clippers)
...when you are caught with your foot in your mouth.
... oh, and your wallet.
Well it seems like Mark Cuban thinks the solution is to insert your other foot as well
He was way wrong on Google & youtube the first time and I'm sure that he is even more wrong now.
siener's youtube channel
According to Wikipedia, Mark Cuban was a software salesman who became rich through selling his company. He's a libertarian and objectivist. He's not a moron, and certainly not a suit. I may disagree with his attack on Google here, but that doesn't mean I think he's stupid.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
I bet Mark Cuban was the stuck up jock asshole in high school. Funny, most of them become cops.
I find that when there's a retaliatory action such as this, there's either some cash or pride/ego on the line. Since he stands to lose money on this, one must wonder if one of his financial advisors told him to buy youtube previously and he declined.
Or maybe his daughter lost "Battle of the Lipsync Bands"
Now, if "the people" weren't generally speaking stupid themselves I might disagree, but...
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Who in the FUCK modded me down as overrated?! I was making a valid point. as immature as it may seem, when it comes down to money in "grown up" life, it seems that the jocks who make it big STILL like to pound down the geeks. Do you honestly think there would be business people into computers if it wasn't profitable? They buy into the internet thing because they suddenly developed brains, they got into it because it's where the money was. Where as the geeks (guys like the two that started Google) got into it for the love of computing. But as soon as it all becomes VERY profitable, then the idiot jock hordes come in to get their slice of the action and they try to make sure that the geeks get "put in their place". I speak the truth and you fucks who mod me down know it. That's why you're modding me down. Fuck you! Fuck you with a red hot soldering iron!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Release the Kraken!
It will be interesting to see that after several years of legal battle and billions of dollars wasted, Google would take over Mavericks, thus giving us GooVerics!
Google/YouTube did not upload copyrighted material to itself and it is not responsible for policing itself. If a copyright holder finds material they report it and it gets pulled.
The counter-argument is that should there be a system of active moderation? Well, I look at this way. Should Ginsu send a man 'round to every customer's house every now and then to ensure that no one is misusing their Ginsu knife?
crazy dynamite monkey
The DMCA is supposed to mean that YouTube and Google are not responsible for what their users upload, but are obliged to remove all copyrighted material when requested to do so by the copyright holders.
/. where anyone can upload copyrighted material.
This is one thing the DMCA got right, without such a protection of service providers, it would be impossible to run a site like
Does that mean he will also be the next Captain Planet? (ref. RobotChicken, avail. on YouTube, for now)
--Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
Mark Cuban is gay. I repeat. Mark Cuban, is gay. Thank you.
I remember liking him quite a bit on the Grokster case, e.g.
u th-be-told-mgm-vs-grokster/
"When content went digital, the floodgates opened. Content could be delivered digitally in thousands of different ways, and the number of methods for distribution would only expand over time. To me this meant the power of the gatekeepers would diminish and the power of independent content creators and owners would increase"
http://www.blogmaverick.com/2005/03/26/let-the-tr
but your narrative here really strikes me as the only explanation why he's gone over to the dark side... grokster lost so he figured he'd like to be a gatekeeper?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
You sure you didn't mean to type 'emo2001' when you signed up?
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
OT, I know, but please don't mention Ballmer. The last thing this discussion needs is jokes about Ballmer and squirting.
*goes off to wash his brain out with soap to try to eliminate the image that statement inspired*
Nobody has mentioned that all of YouTube has been down for "scheduled downtime" for "new concoctions and formulas" for about 24 hours now. Something drastic is happening over there. That's far too long for a simple site update.
A frantic purge of copyrighted content may be underway. They already had one purge, right after the acquisition. They were down for most of a day for that one, too. This downtime is already much longer than the last one.
Cuban might be right.
Google will stomp his guts out.
their rights in an area where the law is murky.
Umm, the law is not murky in this area at all. youtube is a cespool of copyright infringment.
I am not sayign I agree with the law in this case but there is no murk there.
I personally see YouTube as more of a privecy concern then anything else bu tthat is just me. I know personally, i woudl sue the fuck out of somebody if i was ever in a video posted to it. Once you publicy display a private recording, you loose the right to call it a private recording and are liable for its contents.
There is a German version of this but for girls, check it out at www.germangoogirls.com
Sorry, that's a new one. Gootube? Is that the time machine the Gooback's came through in that one Southpark episode? Are there Goodita's involved? Is Google becomming so powerful that we need to start studying Goospeak? Are we going to need to start calling it Goo/Linux? If Google wins, can we call him Mark Gooban? Mark, you goo baby!
Here's to losing my Karma Bonus again....
Ahhh, that explains everything... all Randian Objectivists are superheros... at least the way Rand writes them... that's why Cuban thinks he can conquer the world... I bet he thinks he's John Galt... (I want to live it fantasy land too!)
The last competition I heard of form Mark Cuban was going up against The Apprentice with his own show. Needless to say, it bombed. Trump himself said "I killed him", and he(Trump) also beat out Branson's similar show.
MGM won grokster b/c of the latter's active inducement. Cuban is well aware that Gootube is not actively inducing infringement; quite the opposite. He is therefore doing his damnedest to expand the grokster decision beyond its actual holding, and to profit from the expansion, at the expense of the users.
R _3/CDT-grokster.pdf
the Supreme Court's Grokster opinion, properly interpreted, strikes an appropriate balance. It preserved secondary liability as a powerful tool against copyright infringement. At the same time, it declined to adopt theories of liability, offered by the content industry, that would have overturned or pared back the rule established in the 1984 Sony Betamax case that protects distributors of products with substantial noninfringing uses
http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Perspectives/06_STL
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Wait, which is it: "He's a libertarian and objectivist" or "He's not a moron"? You can't have it both ways. Okay, I'm joking a little there, but...
Wait, you say he's a "salesman who got rich selling his company" and then you say he's "not a suit"? That's, um, well pretty common for a "suit". Indeed, most people would say that if your a salesman that got rich selling a company, and now own an NBA franchise, you are clearly a "suit".
Anyway, I think you are pretty crazy if you think most slashdotters want to be salesmen, whether of software or otherwise.
...some whiney billionaire with a bloated ego wants it that way.
But that's the free market, right? Billionaires raping your tech and stagnating the market with their crappy products. Just fine and dandy!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Mark Cuban owns HDNet. Video over the internet becoming popular is a direct threat to his current holdings.
That is like saying, "I didn't rob that bank I only drove the car. I also did not see the bank being robbed since I was parked in the street. I did not see they were armed because I had my eyes clothes, neither did I hear the gunshots because I had my fingers in my ears and was singing 'La La La'."
That is why Kinkos, PIP, and the others all have those signs about copying copy-writed materials using their machines - they can be held accountable if a reasonable person would have known what was happening.
Personally I predict GTube will succeed because they have methods in place to remove copy-writed material. Thus a copy-write holder simply has to show that they do indeed own the copy-write and it will get removed. I imagine they might be able to claim a "common carrier" type of protection. Using the various P2P lawsuits as a guide it will turn on if the majority of the site contains violations of copywrite.
Programming: Its not just a job - its an indenture.
that thought GooTube was some new adult website?
Never expected the phrase "pompous Cuban windbag" would make me think of anyone but Fidel...
Maybe we have a new contestant emerging for the next "Biggest Douche in the Universe" crown.
If I had some improbable ideal it would be to win a Fields Medal for some important contribution to the field of mathematics and to do half as interesting work in engineering as Nikola Tesla, and not to have made it rich during the dot bomb for selling a company to Yahoo. Objectivism appeals to teenage males and those with delusions of self-importance that lack the logical abilities to read Rand's work and not see that it is nonsensical. Libertarianism appeals to people that prefer consistent simplistic idealizations to working with reality. So please consider me a contrary datapoint or a member of what you would call the minority of "/.ers."
I actually agree with his position that Google should be liable for the contents of YouTube, because they host and profit from the distribution of copyrighted content, which composes the bulk of the material viewed on YouTube. I agreed that Napster should be similarly liable for precisely the same reason. I also agreed with Cuban's position that P2P companies should not be held liable. I however would consider him to have at least inklings of idiocy, despite his financial successes. Though agreeing or disagreeing with someone has little to do with whether they are idiots, except in the corner cases where their position is clearly stupid rather than some subjective difference of opinion.
This guy used to be a Maverick.
Now he's just an ass.
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
"YouTube and Google Video *are* full of copyrighted material. They *should* have some liability."
Not if the law expressedly says otherwise. Copyright protects material released to the public by granting/keeping certain rights to the copyright owner. The DMCA (Digital Millenium COPYRIGHT Act) is in amongst those laws and it clearly and expreesedly shields online providers and services like Google. There are entire sections/titles in the DMCA stating LIMITED LIABILITY.
"Don't get me wrong."
I don't need to. You simply are.
"I think that the so-called "content-providers" should be HAPPY about the free advertising they get when clips of their stuff are posted on those sites. But we all know that they can't stand it, and that it is illegal. It probably shouldn't be, but it is."
It may be illegal, but as long as Google follows the safe harbor guidelines, Cuban is simply pouring his money down the toilet. iow, he can be right there's infringement, but not get a dime for it because the laws says he can't.
Think of those provisions in the DMCA as similar to limited tort with car insurances or all that speak about trying to limit punitive damages for health insurance; it limits the liability of the profession or provider.
"And you know what? It doesn't seem fair that in a world where the RIAA is forcing grandmothers to cough up thousands and thousands of dollars for unknowingly sharing Britney Spears tunes from their PC, that big corporations like Google get a free ride."
2 x $#@! != right
What the RIAA is doing is comparable to what Cuban intends to do here. He's protecting his assets since he owns several media outlets. He's doing it because he is the billion dollar holder. What he is doing, if successful (it won't be), would limit sites like YouTube and MySpace and even regular ISPs from hosting ANYTHING since there would be *no protection* whatsoever of them. He is the RIAA, and YouTube is more like mp3.com or some smaller site grown big that it sucking away money from the RIAA.
My take--He's wrong, he knows he's wrong, and he doesn't care. The free publicity riding the Google paparazzi will be of far more worth than a few million he loses in litigation. Buying another company? He probably was thinking of doing so anyways, since he might be able to angle a joint venture a la a settlement.
Content provider vs. access provider. On the one hand we have the websites, on the other the ISP. Now if a judge would rule youtube an access providing service, it would then follow it does not need to police the content it channels (see ISPs). IANAL YMMV IMHO ETC
Woohoo! Now THAT's the spirit! Idiot #1 responds! Do I hear any other takers?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
The guy owns HD Net (and the sister channel, HD Net Movies). When nobody was doing HD Content, he got HD rights to minor college games and NHL games, and built a little network there. He also bought the right to do transfers of old shows. He's an active participant on AVS Forum, explaining what is going on in the HD world. The craziest thing, you could only get HD Net from DirecTV and a local Texas station for its first few years. He bought a local television station just to run HD Net OTA to prove that OTA HD was practical.
When I met him very briefly (like 1 second) at CES some years back, watching him speak was amazing, not for what he said, but to hear the AWE from the representatives of companies like TI that were talking about how nobody did more for their industry than him.
The man has loads of money, and is spending it to push things that he believes will make the world a better place. He also has an ego the size of Texas. He had is own show on HD Net (where he could be a big dork but have his players on), and HD Net's coverage of CES was interviewing him.
The guy made a fortune selling broadcast.com at JUST the right time, and is now pushing technology the way he wants it, where a few gambles can make a difference. HD Net's sports coverage forced ESPN to adopt HD content before they wanted to, and DirecTV used HD Net to anchor HD programming when there was almost no programming. If it wasn't for him, the local affiliates would have gotten their dream of HD being a fig leaf to get public airwaves, where 1/6 of the channel space would carry normal 480i programming, and 5/6s be sold for data services, etc. Instead, HD Net helped force everyone's hand, and HD is here and real.
The guy's hobby appears to be bending public will to his, and he does a good job of it. While these "investments" may not have been profitable in a traditional sense (I doubt that he loses money, but he probably isn't getting a better ROI than having plowed his money into the S&P 500), it seems to have made him happy. He owns a basketball team, and he has a television network that buys the rights to do HD Transfers of whatever shows he wants to watch in HD. While the rest of us are at the mercy of the marketing departments guessing what we want, he can go make it happen. That's a pretty cool hobby.
Alex
Yeah, why do you whine incessantly?
I don't think he is worried about his HD content showing up on Youtube (most of it isn't really worth watching w/o HD).Youtube is not a media replacement in my mind, more like a supplement. It's great for showing someone last weeks SNL skit or some weird commercial that was just on tv. Unfortunately though when I think of nice HD content with great surround sound, I do NOT think of Youtube.
self-fulfilling prophecy.
Shouldn't you be cutting yourself and posting on Myspace right now?
Cuban is a loud mouth and egoist but not an idiot. Cuban is both a content owner and content provider. Primarily, he wants clear legal decisions in this area - without it why should anyone else license his content? But there also is a big profit upside out of the suit too.
Nice racket, huh? It's a way to make money off other people's property. Just remove the offending material at the same rate it comes in.
Trust me, either a court will find that the DMCA doesn't allow this, or the DMCA will be amended to specifically forbid it.
------RM
Mr. Cuban got his money in almost exactly the same way YouTube just cashed out -- Broadcast.com was going to keep Yahoo! on the top, remember? But today Broadcast.com is a distant placer among today's user-controlled video distribution systems. Letting users upload files instead of waiting for behemoth megacorporations to join the 21st century has been a total revolution. Cuban must be jealous because he didn't think of it first.
(It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
Now listen up, Fi-del, you and your Cubans will NEVER take down GooTube as long as one drop of blood flows through our red, white, and blue veins!
Stick THAT in your cigar and smoke it.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
This sounds like a high level form of champerty to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty
This guy is a menace - positively malicious. What is he defending? Copyright? YouTube already has a way to do that, the offended parties can just flag their own videos. Anything more than that and it wouldn't be the brilliant communication medium that has brought so many people the world over together for debate and discussion. I personally think YouTube and the Internet are the culminations of incredible advancements in technology made by giants of history. It is what many men of vision have dreamed of since the beginning of time.
So fuck you Cuban, with your fucked up ignorant mentality.
now you've done it, he's going to go cut himself!
remeber diagnal and deep.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
More attempts to brand me emo? Hehe. Keep it up childrens. I'm getting immense amusement out of this new tactic. If you knew me in real life, you'd know how far from the truth you are. Now shut the fuck up and bring your asshole over here so I can brand you with this soldering iron.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
He's not a moron
Even if we all concede that he's not a moron - and I'm not saying I do - he's still wrong.
That's exactly what I was thinking.
Libertarians are idiots, living in a fantasy world where "the free market" determines everything. Sorry, but laissez-faire capitalism was an abject failure (see the depression in the 1870s), which is why it doesn't exist anymore. Capitalism needs extensive regulation and interference in the economy by the government just to survive. But the libertarians have no desire for taking reality into account. I bet that even Adam Smith, if he were alive today, would slap them upside the head and tell them to wake up.
And as for objectivism, that has been the refuge of weak minds for a long time. It appeals strongly to young males with low self-esteem who need an individualistic "philosophical framework" to make themselves feel superior to others. Rand's writings are heavy on extreme individualism and going against the grain of the ignorant collective rabble (i.e. those who don't subscribe to her philosophy). It's an elitist self-contained "framework" that, if ever implemented on a large scale, would pit everyone against each other. Luckily, the vast majority of the adult world has rejected or ignored it. You can see the influence, though, on Mark Cuban. His gigantic objectivist-fueled ego is on full display at every Dallas Mavericks game he attends and in every interview he gives.
overrated doesn't maen you have an invalid point numb nuts.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hmm, the title's really all I had to say about this garbage.
Cut? What are you some kind of psycho? Why on earth would anyone cut themselves? Oh well... if the thought of that makes you feel better, I'm sure you have some middle school kids on your IM that can feed your fantasies. Go talk to them instead of posting on Slashdot.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
If you knew me in real life, you'd know how far from the truth you are.
I'll take a stab
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
Ooohhh.... thizzle!! You tell it like a pro girl! How long have you been gay?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Wow, your e-penis is huge!
~S
Wow! Two responses from you. You must REALLY love abuse. And here you thought *I* was the emo fuck who likes to cut. So, let's find out more about you then geekoid... how long have you been cutting yourself and why do you do it? Is it because you feel you have no self worth and need to be an attention whore?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Reminds me of how some people remain perpetually angry at a certain software company in Redmond.
...cause his broadcast.com didn't quite reach the heights that youtube did ...
I swear to god I thought this was some kind of adult video spin-off like "Booble." Note to self, start spyware-free porno streaming web site.
He was giving an interview with HD Net's news division... it was hard hitting, I'm sure.
The rep from TI (makers of DLP) was talking to someone else from TI and from one of the Korean television manufacturers (probably Samsung, but I don't recall). They weren't addressing him, they were talking to each other. He was 20 feet away, and couldn't hear what they were saying.
He moved the industry, and people recognize that... especially the ones whose careers were heavily affected by his behavior.
Alex
I didn't know who Mark Cuban was. Then I went to Wikipedia to learn more. I see he is an Ayn Rand devotee. Loosely translated for normal people this means he's a "rational self-interested" dickhead who puts himself first above all else. Not the right way to live really. It might be the path of least resistance in terms of being relatively easy to do, but it sure produces nothing but assholes. Not to mention, Ayn Rand followers are about as "rational" as L. Ron Hubbard dupes in that goofball religion Scientology. Objectivism THIS dickheads!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I'm still trying to understand what he has to be pissed about.. the man got lucky and won a bunch of money and bought a basketball team.. he needs to stfu and let people do their damn jobs.. who he is, has nothing to do with Google or Youtube, it just sounds like he wants attention.. i hate how just because people have tons of money, they can go around saying and doing whatever they want.. what the hell has google done to you personally Cuban?? not a damn thing.. he's probably just pissed because he wanted to buy youtube first..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Isn't this what psychologists call "projection" ?
My ass is open and waiting for your soldering iron, but frankly I doubt it has either the length or the temperature required for me to even notice, so please let me know when you begin - I wouldn't want to further upset you by not vocalising appropriately when you demonstrate your prowess.
"Should" and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. Just as one should have the right to purchase DRM defeating devices for purposes of fair use, perhaps Google should be liable. However, it's still illegal to to create a DVD CSS descrambler, and it's Google legally has zero financial liability. You can thank the DMCA for both. Specifically under Title II of the DMCA, so long as Google is generally ignorant of the infringement and moves promptly to remove infringing materials when information, they're scott free.
Besides, do you really want sites that host user submitted content to have to act like police; to increase their costs by hiring a bunch of people to screen incoming video; to delay posting material while it happens; to have legal content occasionally incorrectly blocked? In practice this will destroy great services with lots of legal and good uses. Of course this won't just apply to video, it applies to podcasts (goodbye iTunes podcast service), the millions of blogs (goodbye LiveJournal, MySpace, Blogger, Blogspot, and more), host user home pages (goodbye every free website), and more. The DMCA is a deeply evil law, but the safe harbor provisions are a really good idea that allow service providers to act (sort of) like common-carriers: the provide the service, the user is responsible. Indeed, suing Google over something a user uploaded is just as ridiculous as suing the company I pay for webhosting at because I've uploaded something infringing onto my own web site.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
If your ass is that numb, then you've had far too much pleasuring. No soldering iron for you! Now off to sleep!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Ha, ha... now you're modded flambé... suits you right, you french emo fuck!
All mouth and no soldering iron, eh?
It's no surprise - it's typically those that talk the loudest that usually have least to talk about.
This has created a couple of new words for the english language...
gootube = new pr0n tv channel
fidiot = a fucking idiot, see: Mark Cuban
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Novell announced they have made a partnership with the Los Angeles News Service in which they say that neither side will sue each other for copyright infringements. Novell will pay a royalty to LANS for every copy of SUSE Enterprise sold. LANS is open to doing a similar deal with companies like YouTube(Google).
SCORE 2 - HAHA HAHAHA HAHH
I guess the broader question is would you trust a spic with the last name "Cuban" to know anything about where technology is heading?
What is most important:
/.. Both makes it possible for people to publish copyrigted material, and both remove it per request. If you can successfully sue YouTube, you can also upload some copyrighted material of your own to /. as an AC, and then sue CmdrTaco for distributing it. Percentages don't matter to the law, it is based on principles.
1: That there are open fora where people can post their own ideas and expressions without being it pre-aproved before publishing by some kind of censor.
2: That there are no place where people can post expressions copyrighted by other people without prior permission.
We obviously can't have both be true at the same time. If YouTube must go, so must
I believe #1 is very important to democracy, and that democracy is more important than the potential loss of profit implied by #2. Of course, I won't guarentee that your law makers feel the same way about the relative value of democracy and profit.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Maybe we should go to the source... http://www.blogmaverick.com/2006/11/16/is-this-bus inessweek-or-the-enquirer/
He's convinced that he will make GooTube fail, so he sinks money into an opportunity to that end. Would you do business with this man? You know what, he will probably end up making money on it - and his children can be known as the son of a loser that clings to the nipple of a reputable company.
Thank u for inwiting me to yur nice site. I hope I will make meny fried here!
:)
Dad ? is that you ?
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..