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."
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
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
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.
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*
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.
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.
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).
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
Frat boys.
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.
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.
Mark Cuban used to own broadcast.com? Who knew?
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.