Comments on: Subpoenas and Gootube http://blogmaverick.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/ the mark cuban weblog Mon, 15 Mar 2010 08:18:32 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Viacom Suing Google for… 1 Billion Dollars! http://blogmaverick.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-55745 Viacom Suing Google for… 1 Billion Dollars! Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:06:11 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-55745 [...] On top of that, Google/YouTube is also dealing with the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, Mark Cuban. Cuban had previously sold a company called Broadcast.com to Yahoo! for $5.7 billion. Cuban had recently asked Google to subpoena users that uploaded Mark Cuban’s movies illegally on YouTube [Source: Mark Cuban's blog]. [...] [...] On top of that, Google/YouTube is also dealing with the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, Mark Cuban. Cuban had previously sold a company called Broadcast.com to Yahoo! for $5.7 billion. Cuban had recently asked Google to subpoena users that uploaded Mark Cuban’s movies illegally on YouTube [Source: Mark Cuban's blog]. [...]

]]> By: cihan karaca http://blogmaverick.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29746 cihan karaca Thu, 26 Apr 2007 03:19:05 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29746 Seems Viacom followed your advice and sued GooTube for a $1 Billion.....I can see somewhere in SouthPark, Cartman crying out loud....RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!<br> Seems Viacom followed your advice and sued GooTube for a $1 Billion…..I can see somewhere in SouthPark, Cartman crying out loud….RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!

]]> By: Mark (Not Cuban) http://blogmaverick.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29745 Mark (Not Cuban) Thu, 19 Apr 2007 22:30:20 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29745 Wow, the 92% rating is pretty impressive. This was playing at the Angelika, or maybe it was the Magnolia, but we (not I) decided to see Blades of Glory instead. I regret that.<br><br>Also, in terms of piracy. I download TV shows of torrent sites. This is because I live in an apartment complex that has a 5-year contract with SBC. This means that all of my services (phone, internet, tv) MUST go through them. This is idiotic, as I do not face the appropriate direction to be eligible for TV (SBC goes through DirectTV). I have no regular cable options. So my only option is to download Lost and The Office on torrent.<br><br>Even though I do have some season-passes on iTunes, I still download the SAME shows off torrents. This is because: (a) I get the show the same night, if not before the USA showing AND (b) I can often get higher-quality than on the iTMS (ridiculous). Some shows (HBO) are not yet on iTunes, and I download these as well.<br><br>I do feel bad for downloading these shows, but I feel that it is my only option. I also find myself buying the box-sets for these TV shows on DVD. However, the AppleTV has proved very useful for my setup (especially since I can play 3rd party codecs on it). Wow, the 92% rating is pretty impressive. This was playing at the Angelika, or maybe it was the Magnolia, but we (not I) decided to see Blades of Glory instead. I regret that.

Also, in terms of piracy. I download TV shows of torrent sites. This is because I live in an apartment complex that has a 5-year contract with SBC. This means that all of my services (phone, internet, tv) MUST go through them. This is idiotic, as I do not face the appropriate direction to be eligible for TV (SBC goes through DirectTV). I have no regular cable options. So my only option is to download Lost and The Office on torrent.

Even though I do have some season-passes on iTunes, I still download the SAME shows off torrents. This is because: (a) I get the show the same night, if not before the USA showing AND (b) I can often get higher-quality than on the iTMS (ridiculous). Some shows (HBO) are not yet on iTunes, and I download these as well.

I do feel bad for downloading these shows, but I feel that it is my only option. I also find myself buying the box-sets for these TV shows on DVD. However, the AppleTV has proved very useful for my setup (especially since I can play 3rd party codecs on it).

]]> By: travel--tour http://blogmaverick.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29744 travel--tour Mon, 16 Apr 2007 00:26:47 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29744 Curious about the contradictions in your two most recent posts. You\'re against your content being streamed on YouTube but for it being streamed by an internet radio station? I think there are worthwhile differences, but I\'d like to hear your take on it. Curious about the contradictions in your two most recent posts. You\’re against your content being streamed on YouTube but for it being streamed by an internet radio station? I think there are worthwhile differences, but I\’d like to hear your take on it.

]]> By: Brandon http://blogmaverick.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29743 Brandon Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:49:19 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29743 Mark,<br><br>...\"Is this the start of a trend ? Use Youtube as the \"catalog\" or a way to create traffic, but host on a 3rd party ? Time will tell.\"<br><br>In the case of users \"aggregating\" incomplete parts of videos to form a whole and complete episode or movie, I have been aware of the site <a href="http://www.yourtvlinks.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.yourtvlinks.com</a>, which in itself claims to be a \"TV Episode Portal.\" This website actually hosts links to hundreds (if not thousands) of full-length cartoons, sitcoms, movies, anime, movies, and music videos, which are all hosted on various 3rd party sites. YourTvLinks simply compiles the various pieces of video from a multitude of 3rd party video hosting sites, and aggregates the links together on one convenient link page.<br><br>I am highly surprised that this \"service\" is still available and fully functional, as it has been for quite some time now. These aggregated sites could pose a larger threat in the long-run of copyrighted video material, with so many small video hosting sites being established after the sudden explosion of YouTube. It may be hard for IP content-owners to track down the source of every single video on every video hosting website in cyberspace.<br><br>Your thoughts?<br><br>- Brandon Mark,

…\”Is this the start of a trend ? Use Youtube as the \”catalog\” or a way to create traffic, but host on a 3rd party ? Time will tell.\”

In the case of users \”aggregating\” incomplete parts of videos to form a whole and complete episode or movie, I have been aware of the site http://www.yourtvlinks.com, which in itself claims to be a \”TV Episode Portal.\” This website actually hosts links to hundreds (if not thousands) of full-length cartoons, sitcoms, movies, anime, movies, and music videos, which are all hosted on various 3rd party sites. YourTvLinks simply compiles the various pieces of video from a multitude of 3rd party video hosting sites, and aggregates the links together on one convenient link page.

I am highly surprised that this \”service\” is still available and fully functional, as it has been for quite some time now. These aggregated sites could pose a larger threat in the long-run of copyrighted video material, with so many small video hosting sites being established after the sudden explosion of YouTube. It may be hard for IP content-owners to track down the source of every single video on every video hosting website in cyberspace.

Your thoughts?

- Brandon

]]> By: Zeke Tremendicous http://blogmaverick.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29742 Zeke Tremendicous Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:51:52 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29742 Subpoenas are for finding evidence that materially affects a lawsuit, aren\'t they? Isn\'t it an abuse of the legal system to subpoena records if you have no lawsuit intent and are merely curious?<br> Subpoenas are for finding evidence that materially affects a lawsuit, aren\’t they? Isn\’t it an abuse of the legal system to subpoena records if you have no lawsuit intent and are merely curious?

]]> By: Mike Joyce http://blogmaverick.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29741 Mike Joyce Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:38:31 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29741 Youtube is proactively filtering content to an extent. If it removes a certain video, the user is then unable to reupload it (even if he/she renames the file). I am not sure exactly how YouTube does this, but it does not seem that it would not be too difficult and that there are likely multiple ways to block off reuploads. Youtube is proactively filtering content to an extent. If it removes a certain video, the user is then unable to reupload it (even if he/she renames the file). I am not sure exactly how YouTube does this, but it does not seem that it would not be too difficult and that there are likely multiple ways to block off reuploads.

]]> By: Mike http://blogmaverick.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29740 Mike Tue, 13 Mar 2007 21:24:00 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29740 Mark, <br><br>You predicted all of this a couple of months ago. <br><br>-you were dead on. Mark,

You predicted all of this a couple of months ago.

-you were dead on.

]]> By: EngineerScotty http://blogmaverick.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29739 EngineerScotty Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:44:09 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29739 <br>Mark,<br><br>A question for you: <br><br>You\'ve suggested that were Youtube to do \"filtering\" of some sort, in order to exclude content which violates the copyrights of others, that this would expel them from the \"safe harbor\" provided to service providers by the DMCA. (As others pointed out, responding to explicit \"takedown\" notices by a copyright holder is excluded from filtering).<br><br>I\'m not sure that that analysis holds water. For one thing, it would be asinine in the extreme--if it were the case that actions taken by a service provider to proactively increase compliance with copyrights, actually INCREASED that service providers\' legal exposure or liability, that would be an absurd result. For another, I\'m aware of no legal decision that has held that active \"filtering\" of user-posted content would expel a service provider from the safe harbor.<br><br>Given all of that, what should \"Gootube\" (or \"yougle\") do?<br><br>* Nothing other that comply with the \"bare minimum\" DMCA requirements, responding to takedown notices?<br>* Improved automatic filtering--various schemes to \"fingerprint\" copyrighted content<br>* Manual filtering--no content is allowed until a human verifies (to some level of confidence) that it isn\'t infringing?<br>* Increased registration requirements for uploaders--no anonymous/pseudonymous uploads?<br>* Shut down completely<br><br> Mark,

A question for you:

You\’ve suggested that were Youtube to do \”filtering\” of some sort, in order to exclude content which violates the copyrights of others, that this would expel them from the \”safe harbor\” provided to service providers by the DMCA. (As others pointed out, responding to explicit \”takedown\” notices by a copyright holder is excluded from filtering).

I\’m not sure that that analysis holds water. For one thing, it would be asinine in the extreme–if it were the case that actions taken by a service provider to proactively increase compliance with copyrights, actually INCREASED that service providers\’ legal exposure or liability, that would be an absurd result. For another, I\’m aware of no legal decision that has held that active \”filtering\” of user-posted content would expel a service provider from the safe harbor.

Given all of that, what should \”Gootube\” (or \”yougle\”) do?

* Nothing other that comply with the \”bare minimum\” DMCA requirements, responding to takedown notices?
* Improved automatic filtering–various schemes to \”fingerprint\” copyrighted content
* Manual filtering–no content is allowed until a human verifies (to some level of confidence) that it isn\’t infringing?
* Increased registration requirements for uploaders–no anonymous/pseudonymous uploads?
* Shut down completely

]]> By: G P http://blogmaverick.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29738 G P Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:40:03 +0000 http://blogmaverick.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/supoenas-and-gootube/#comment-29738 All Viacom issues aside, it is clear to me that Google founder Larry Page knew the material in YouTube was infringing on copyright, some of it stolen and clearly posted without permission, yet he still purchased the company. To me that seems like clear purchase of stolen goods with the intent to make profit off of the goods. Just because it is at such a high level and for so much money doesn\'t make it right. Mr. Page should have thought a little more about the deal before rushing over to Denny\'s to sign a $1.65 Billion dollar agreement. He should have waited until ALL of the copyright issues were resolved prior to even considering a purchase. At best, he could have signed some kind of Good faith agreement like the agreement Google has formed with other companies, assuming a sale but based on conditions.<br> <br>Now that YouTube is officially part of Google, it is an open target for suit and will definitely open the doors for other company\'s to sue. The entire issue could cost Google half of their current stock valuation.<br> <br>-GCP All Viacom issues aside, it is clear to me that Google founder Larry Page knew the material in YouTube was infringing on copyright, some of it stolen and clearly posted without permission, yet he still purchased the company. To me that seems like clear purchase of stolen goods with the intent to make profit off of the goods. Just because it is at such a high level and for so much money doesn\’t make it right. Mr. Page should have thought a little more about the deal before rushing over to Denny\’s to sign a $1.65 Billion dollar agreement. He should have waited until ALL of the copyright issues were resolved prior to even considering a purchase. At best, he could have signed some kind of Good faith agreement like the agreement Google has formed with other companies, assuming a sale but based on conditions.

Now that YouTube is officially part of Google, it is an open target for suit and will definitely open the doors for other company\’s to sue. The entire issue could cost Google half of their current stock valuation.

-GCP

]]>