Cuban: Only a 'moron' would buy YouTube
HDNet co-founder says video sharing outfit will eventually be "sued into oblivion" over copyright violations, points at limited advertising reach of YouTube.
September 29 2006: 6:37 AM EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Billionaire investor and dot.com veteran Mark Cuban had harsh words for YouTube, the online site that lets people share video clips, saying only a "moron" would purchase the wildly popular start-up.

Cuban, co-founder of HDNet and owner of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks, also said Thursday that YouTube would eventually be "sued into oblivion" because of copyright violations.

TECHNOLOGY

"They are just breaking the law," Cuban told a group of advertisers in New York. "The only reason it hasn't been sued yet is because there is nobody with big money to sue."

YouTube, based in San Mateo, Calif., specializes in serving up short videos created by everyday people. Its popularity, with more than 100 million video showings daily, has spurred speculation the firm will be sold or taken public.

But YouTube has also come under scrutiny because users often post copyrighted material, including music videos produced by well-established artists.

YouTube company representatives were not immediately available to respond to Cuban's comments.

Cuban said "anyone who buys that (YouTube) is a moron" because of potential lawsuits from copyright violations.
'Going to be toasted'

"There is a reason they haven't yet gone public, they haven't sold. It's because they are going to be toasted," said Cuban, who has sold start-ups to Yahoo Inc. (Charts) and CompuServe.

YouTube, which has nearly one-third of the U.S. Web video audience, three times that of Google Inc. (Charts), or twice that of News Corp's (Charts) MySpace, has been working on signing licensing deals with music companies and TV networks to ensure they are paid when users view their content.

This month YouTube unveiled its first deal to distribute music videos legally from a major music company by agreeing a deal with Warner Music Group (Charts), home to pop stars James Blunt and Madonna.

In other remarks, meanwhile, the often-controversial Cuban also told advertisers that the reach of YouTube is limited, particularly when it comes to user-generated videos.

"User-generated content is not going away," he said. "But do you want your advertising dollars spent on a video of Aunt Jenny watching her niece tap dance?"

"Somebody puts up something really good and you get, what, 60,000 viewers?" Cuban added during the event at Advertising Week in New York.

YouTube now offers advertising through banner ads, promotions and sponsorships. It has said it plans to roll out a range of different advertising options over the coming year.

Cuban cautioned advertisers against investing heavily in so-called viral campaigns that are spread by users beyond their initial point of distribution on YouTube or other video sharing sites. But he touted opportunities to run commercials on high-definition television such as his HDNet network.

"What makes viral so special is it's so hard to do. It's so hard to plan. It's hard to stand out," he said, describing 99 percent of money advertisers spend on viral campaigns as "wasted."

"You guys love to be the trailing edge," he said.

Sadly, he's right. If YouTube doesn't do a better job filtering the RIAA/MPAA copyrighted stuff, they are going to end up like Mp3.com or Napster. I don't think the deal with WMG alone is enough to stop this from happening.

Actually...the only thing I have ever enjoyed on youtube is the amature or indedendant stuff.

There is no need of the copywrited material..I don't know why people post that garbage anyways.

I don't want to sound like a conspirist, but I suppose it will anyways. I sometimes wonder if big media companies get people to plant some of that stuff on sites like Youtube just so they can turn around and have a reason to sue them out of existance.

Ideas like youtube scare them...because it's entertainment they can't control.

What I'm saying may sound like a conspiracy....but then again what wouldn't these fools do to protect their control?

zxilton, that's a very plausible "conspiracy theory"

lend me one of your tin-foil hats.

I watch youtube all the time on those days when Im posting too much here and chatting away in rooms... Ive never heard of HDwhat.com...

I'd buy YouTube
then hire some kid to sweep thur the vids and delete the obvious copyright violations
hire a lawyer to sue the riaa for the fair use rights of those with music in the background
maybe make a deal with an advertisement before a Mtv vid, and the right to allow my amature posters to use the same song for fun in their own vids
Id invite Independants and figure a way they could make a buck or two...

what is the name of the lawyer who defended Chuck Berry and got a few laws changed so that all musicians could preform their own songs live without oweing their label a royalty?

I hope all these people I hire will take a check.... Im broke

Subject: Mark Cuban/YouTube
From: "Bob Lefsetz"

Mark Cuban is a crybaby.

Selling Broadcast.com at the height of dot com frenzy, he wants to shut the door behind
him, exclude all those who don't play by the rules. He wants to see the death of
YouTube, since they're stealing the content and he's investing money to gain a foothold
in the movie/visual content business.

Yes, that's how quickly the young become old farts. How Democrats turn into Republicans.
How hippies become racists, wanting to keep the disadvantaged away from their
McMansions, now being built behind gates.

Society is made up of rules, they call them laws, but laws are made to be broken. Or
maybe you never cottoned to rock music. Or came to the party so late that a rock star
was someone who was famous, as opposed to someone who played by his own rules.

Compare Mr. Cuban to John Lennon. Lennon made all that money and fought for the people,
not himself. He was always true to himself. Which is why he's still remembered a quarter
century after his death, and Mr. Cuban will be forgotten minutes after his demise.

Go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eD6VyQijMk. And get ready for BEATLEMANIA!

Seems quaint today. But back then we were ENRAPTURED!

You get John's cheekiness. But what is truly stunning in this video is the SOUND!
You'll swear it's lip-synched. But no, this is the Beatles playing some live gig back in
'65, with no tapes, no backup singers, no additional musicians in the wings, and they
WROTE this hit!

Some Beatleologist might be able to tell me the history of this performance. But I've
never seen it. And viewing it, I'm jetted back forty years to when music was the most
important thing on the planet. It's this power to affect hearts and minds that's at the
heart of YouTube, not copyright infringement.

It's not like this footage, and that of other performers all over YouTube, was lost, it's
not like the owners didn't know they had it. They were just too lazy, or too preoccupied,
to exploit it. THAT'S what YouTube has done, shown there's a MARKET!

But we don't hear about this. We've got men in suits stating the proprietors of YouTube
are bad guys. The music business should be uttering HOSANNAS! In an era when MTV plays
no videos and they sell almost none at the iTunes Music Store. What we've got here is a
car wreck you can't take your eyes off of. Kill YouTube and you set the music industry
back five years, at least.

Imagine a harnessed Napster. Instead of the underground sites we've got today. Imagine
encouraged sampling rather than lawsuits and locked up content. You see a healthy
business. One unshackled from not only MTV, but terrestrial radio.

Watch this video of "Ticket To Ride" and you've got to search for more Beatle footage.
And if you're unfamiliar, you want to OWN the band's music. And if it were available in
quantity, and at a low cost, WHY NOT??

But not only is NO Beatle music available to purchase online, this isn't the paradigm the
major labels are employing. They just want you to buy copy-protected files that are a
bad facsimile of the CD for the same damn price. This is PROGRESS?

I really believe the businessmen of the entertainment industry have no compassion for
their customers. They don't think of the joy of experiencing their products, but only
ways to maximize revenue utilizing old business models. The more stuff is easily
available at a cheap price the more money you ultimately make. Did these guys not take
math? Or study the mobile phone business?

So Mark Cuban? Shove it up your ass. You don't have the balls you say you do. You're
just mad you didn't have the cojones to start an equivalent service, worried about losing
the money in your deep pocket. No, it takes people willing to risk who've got nothing to
lose to create change.

And in this case, change is CERTAINLY good.

Fuck I want my MTV. There should be a campaign, I WANT MY YOUTUBE! Hell, hire Tom
Freston to run YOUTUBE!

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&symbol=&storyID=2006-09-28T200928Z_01_N28230044_RTRIDST_0_MEDIA-YOUTUBE.XML&pageNumber=0&WTModLoc=InvArt-C1-ArticlePage2&sz=13

I would like to add that at one time there were lots of music channels I used to watch and those videos were free. I sometimes recorded those onto vhs when I was kid. I even remember record conventions that sold music videos and live concerts and such.
Yet,lots of fans still purchased the "official" video cassette/dvd when it came out because one became loyal eventually to their favorite music artist and frankly the quality was better recorded.
Alas with the majors they shift focus from one group to the next and try to stiff you even if you just want to know what one of their artists sounds like.
It's also like the underground live cd's that were shooting out from all over the woodwork. The music industry could've made a lot of money off those. No, not by selling them with a huge distribution but, maybe smaller batches through mail order to die-hard fans.
I know of only one artist that did this Ann Boleyn of the Rock band Hellion. There was a concert floating around of a 1984 concert. People were charging 40-50 for a copy.
She basically beat the "bootleggers" at the game and released the material officially for around 12.00 for an official cd with her autograph on the cover. I think she told me she sold 4000 of them.

I think I should direct this idiot's attention to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT2hg9YINhw&mode=related&search=

And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAEq4Y3nNQQ&mode=related&search=

""They are just breaking the law," Cuban told a group of advertisers in New York."

Gee, I guess Cuban has shown that he knows as much about copyright law as he knows about basketball.... NOTHING.

Cuban DOES whine and cry like a baby who sees another child with a bigger lolly-pop.

lol

But under today's copyright law/structure, I still say he is probably right in saying that YouTube is gonna be sued to death by the entertainment cartels.

==============

Insane Wayne says it best:

"hire some kid to sweep thur the vids and delete the obvious copyright violations"

Gee, I wonder that idea (*sneeze* DMusic *cough*) came from?



(leflaw is smart!)

what's that licence that allows Dartists to post covers for free? Yes, Leflaw is smart and YouTube should look into this same licence.

As for YouTube making a profit from "copyright violations" there's the way small bars who have live cover bands play. A $300/year entertainment licence covers any possible "infrigement" but yet the money made is very INdirect of the music. (and no artist sees any of these bar money) Im assuming YouTube makes money simply from advertisers posting and donations. very differant from say.. selling a Download for a buck.
"Any lolly-pop that isnt corperate owned by the cartel just tastes bad" is an old riaa spin. "Any band that isnt signed isnt good enough to be" sound familar? (I dig the lolly-pop joke dude)

I'll stick with my original thought; the RIAA is trying to stamp-out and/or control a site that could help promote independant artists.

"what's that licence that allows Dartists to post covers for free? Yes, Leflaw is smart and YouTube should look into this same licence."

IANAL, but those are actually 2 different animals.

DMusic spends a lot of money (I'm sure) with the Harry Fox Agency for the licensed "rights" to allow DMusic artists to do COVERS.

BUT

All the "famous" "known stuff" uploaded by people who didn't create it themselves...

SURE

It SHOULD be in the public domain,

===============

===============

"I'll stick with my original thought; the RIAA is trying to stamp-out and/or control a site that could help promote independant artists."

------

The KEYWORD is "could"

Be glad that DMusic exists.

(And let's BITCHSLAP leflaw for not implementing a music vid-hosting/service here along the same lines.)


(OR, did I just guess the "secret" that has been brewing here at DMusic this past year?)

Good Morning Schmoo
Good Morning Dmusic
I read somewhere that the top selling CD only sold 500,000 copies last year. (part of the riaa's bitch that p2p is killing 'em? perhaps the legal mp3 downloads are making up for it?)
There are 500,000+ members here at Dmusic.
I hope Leflaw has a plan for when the RIAA attacks, it wont be long now.

As far as free covers.... in '85 Blondie's encore was playing Rolling Stones songs at Pine Knob, Cheep Trick covered Elvis during live preformances a lot before doing so on album, Chuck Berry covered Jimi (and no one else should attemt this as they may damage their hands), and the list could go on. No direct income from the cover should equal no royalty needed to be paid.

Look...is Google an idiot since they are just agreed to buy YouTube for 1.65 billion?
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1544289,00.html
"Press Release: Google Aquires You Tube

Posted Monday, Oct. 09, 2006
(MOUNTAIN VIEW)—Google Inc., announced today that it has agreed to acquire YouTube, the consumer media company for people to watch and share original videos through a Web experience, for $1.65 billion in a stock-for-stock transaction. Following the acquisition, YouTube will operate independently to preserve its successful brand and passionate community."

OK..let's think about this. Since this country uses the "point of creation" copyright standard, in which uniquely created material is copyrighted de facto at the point of creation / fixation, then everything on YouTube is copyrighted, whether the owner of the copyright knows it or not.

Will YouTube, now GOOGLE, get sued?
Of course, and the possibility increased a 100 fold when Google agreed to buy it.

At some point though, there needs to a restructuring of copyright law, and extended fair use rights need to be agreed upon.

For example, I love the clip for Sat Nite Live in which Christopher Walken begs for "more cowbell". I searched for it and found it. Using the proprietary player, the clip was of low quality, certainly not an "exact copy" of the skit as originally aired, and because it is a limited amount of fair material being shared NOT for commercial gain and with no claim to own copyright, I think it should be FAIR USE. Although it was a grainy, crappy, small clip, it served to refresh my absolute joy of laughing at the MORE COWBELL skit.

Whomever uploaded it did it just to share with others who loved the sketch. There was no fee for downloading/viewing it, and to have anyone SUE over these inferior small snippets, be it a music vid of Rod Stewart doing "Lady Jane", or Chris Farley doing his motivational speaker routine, decrying his living in a van, down by the river, is ridiculous.

This country desparately needs to do a reason check to see if any sense of common sense still exists.

If anything, these small vignettes increase your hunger to see more, and perhaps. SHUDDER, pay for the original, in its pristine condition.

Record executives should be changed periodically like diapers, and for the same reason!

The only cover I had is a black leather coat .