Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Google The Internet Government The Courts Your Rights Online News

Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA 107

Posted by Zonk
from the strange-bedfellows dept.
hamtaro writes "Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and outspoken activist on copyright issues, exchanged some words with an EFF lawyer at this year's EFF 'Pioneer Awards'. The awards, held earlier this week, saw a heated discussion ensue about YouTube. Apparently Cuban feels that 'everyone knows' that YouTube is host to tons of infringing content and therefore it should be exempt from DMCA protections. You read that right: the EFF, defending the DMCA against Mark Cuban. 'Cuban is an interesting spokesman for copyright concerns since he has a broad perspective; as the owner of HDNet, he worries about having his content given away for free without his consent, but he's also someone who has funded EFF campaigns in the past, especially when the group defended Grokster's claim to legality. One of the strangest aspects of the debate was seeing an EFF lawyer defend the DMCA, which usually comes in for a drubbing due to its anti-circumvention provision. But von Lohmann told Ars Technica after the debate that the safe harbor section has actually allowed plenty of businesses to flourish that might otherwise have been mired in legal problems, and that it has generally worked well.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cuban v. EFF lawyer on YouTube, DMCA

Comments Filter:
  • by mjmalone (677326) * on Friday March 30, 2007 @03:57PM (#18548253) Homepage
    That's absolutely ridiculous. YouTube has certainly complied with the guidelines prescribed to qualify for safe harbor (which protects service providers from copyright liability if they follow certain rules). They've even taken down content at the request of content-owners. Wether or not people "know that YouTube hosts infringing material," it doesn't matter. YouTube users post infringing content, YouTube the organization does not. And everyone also knows that there is a plethora of original, non-infringing material on YouTube as well.

    The whole point of the safe harbor provision is that service providers should get a warning and be allowed to remove infringing content that users post. If hosting infringing content posted by your users meant you were no longer protected the provision would be worthless!
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      YouTube users post infringing content, YouTube the organization does not.
      Actually, the users upload content, which is then transcoded to flash video and posted by YouTube.

      Unless you own Google stock, it shouldn't be too hard to see how this is different from an ISP hosting a file on their FTP that was uploaded by a user.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by bopo (105833)
        Please. The transcoding and posting are completely automated, it's not like they have 1,000 people sitting at computers running ffmpeg who get excited each time someone uploads a Daily Show clip. Holding YouTube accountable just because the end-user doesn't perform every single step needed to get the damned video up would be like arresting a mail carrier for delivering somebody else's letterbomb.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Score Whore (32328)
          So you're saying you'd be ok with my opening up my murder factory? Where you drop the "product" into a shoot at one end and through an automated process the "product" is shot, stabbed, sliced, diced, electrocuted, drowned, whipped, ground, fricasseed, grated, steamed, boiled, broiled, fried and finally spit out the other end in neat little individually wrapped packets. And I can point at legitimate uses of people dropping their cows in there, and whenever the family of any non-cow writes me a letter I'll go
          • by Original Replica (908688) on Friday March 30, 2007 @08:25PM (#18551503) Journal
            So you're saying you'd be ok with my opening up my murder factory? Where you drop the "product" into a shoot at one end and through an automated process the "product" is shot, stabbed, sliced, diced, electrocuted, drowned, whipped, ground, fricasseed, grated, steamed, boiled, broiled, fried and finally spit out the other end in neat little individually wrapped packets.

            Yes. It is perfectly legal for you to own a wood chipper. It is not legal for you to put people in your wood chipper. The manufactuer of the wood chipper is not responsible for the deaths of anyone you put in the wood chipper.
            • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

              by Score Whore (32328)
              If you're not even going to make an effort to understand the argument why do you participate?
              • by cpt kangarooski (3773) on Friday March 30, 2007 @09:22PM (#18551919) Homepage
                No, he's pretty well on target. Let's remember that prior to the enactment of the 512 safeharbor, there were suits brought by copyright holders against ISPs for copyright infringement committed by the ISPs because they were hosting web sites on which infringing material had been put by users. The ISPs won some and lost some, and the uncertainty of the whole thing prompted them to lobby for the safeharbor lest they have to quit being ISPs due to the legal risk involved.

                But in the cases where the ISPs won, they generally won on the argument that they provided a means for users to do things, but that they didn't police those means. The common analogy was that of a photocopier which was made available for the public to use without supervision; the courts didn't feel that it would be right to hold the owner responsible there, and thus, not to hold an ISP responsible in the ordinary case. Probably the leading case is Religious Technology Center v. Netcom.
                • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                  by Score Whore (32328)
                  He's not on target at all. First, he'd have to skip from the manufacturer of the woodchipper to the owner of the woodchipper. Then he'd have to hypothesize a wood chipper that had a million feed hoppers hidden in the dark. Specifically setup so that there is no way to tell who is putting what into the machine. And the owner of the wood chipper somehow made money off of intestines and brains spraying from the outlet. And even after someone coming along and pointing out that "Inside that sack right there, tha
                  • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                    Youtube built a system that facilitates copyright infringment.

                    And Ferrari builds cars that facilitate wreckless driving, and SpyderCo builds knives that facilitate stabbings, and Harmon Kardon builds speakers that facilitate listening to pirated MP3's. YouTube is a tool. Yes it can be used for something illegal, but so can most tools. It is the responsiblity of the user to obey the applicable laws.
                    • by WozNZ (1079087) on Friday March 30, 2007 @11:26PM (#18552731)
                      Actually, YouTube in this situation is EXACTLY the same as an ISPs, hosting company or other companies or sites that make money by providing webspace (in all its shapes and forms) as a service. Where end users has the control over their space.

                      As long as YouTube meet the Safe Harbour rules they are protected by it. The fight will be on how the rules are interpreted.
                    • by Danse (1026)

                      It is absolutely and totally under the control of Google and Google's employees. You, as a user of youtube, can do nothing with it that they do not explicitly allow you to do. How hard is that to comprehend?

                      YouTube cannot determine what is and is not copyrighted, and not just copyrighted, but also posted without the permission of the copyright holder. Hell, even the companies sending takedown notices can't always seem to figure out whether something infringes on their copyright or not. So when you come up

                    • Yes YoutTube has more active continous maintaince than most "products", but a "service" requires much more manpower and individual attention than YouTube could possibly provide and still remain free and open to the masses. If they were to start charging to post content, or only allowed content from a limited number of approved providers, they would cease to be YouTube and just be bad television. EBay doesn't scan local police reports for stolen goods when something is posted for auction, but Christie's auct
                    • Yes YoutTube has more active continous maintaince than most "products", but a "service" requires much more manpower and individual attention than YouTube could possibly provide and still remain free and open to the masses.

                      And?

                      If the masses want to have this type of capability, they either need to develop the technical capability and build out the infrastructure on their own dime or pay someone else to do it. Having some third party do it for them for free while ripping off content producers is a losers game

                    • There is no fight. The law is clear. It definitely applies to YouTube. I predict the case will be dismissed.
                  • by cpt kangarooski (3773) on Friday March 30, 2007 @10:52PM (#18552523) Homepage
                    First, he'd have to skip from the manufacturer of the woodchipper to the owner of the woodchipper.

                    No, it doesn't matter. The manufacturer of a xerox machine either does or does not get sued on the same basis as the owner of the machine, where in both cases neither the manufacturer or the owner are the ones engaging in direct infringement. Depending on the facts, it's entirely possible for one, or both, or neither, to be indirectly infringing. But merely providing a means for infringement does not guarantee that they are infringing.

                    Then he'd have to hypothesize a wood chipper that had a million feed hoppers hidden in the dark. Specifically setup so that there is no way to tell who is putting what into the machine.

                    Still irrelevant. There's no duty to be aware. There can be constructive knowledge, but that's not the same thing.

                    And the owner of the wood chipper somehow made money off of intestines and brains spraying from the outlet.

                    Still irrelevant, if the safe harbor holds.

                    Youtube built a system that facilitates copyright infringment. They cannot identify who uploads a particular clip. They do not prevent reuploading of the exact same file that has been legally removed.

                    Yes, but that's all legal.

                    They are nothing like an ISP.

                    Wrong. Here is the relevant definition of an ISP from the law:

                    the term "service provider" means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes [an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received].


                    Google provides YouTube, which is an online service. So as far as anyone cares, it is an ISP.
                    • by gordo3000 (785698)
                      I'm not trying to troll, but just to throw it out there:

                        I thought the GP was trying to say that the safe harbor shouldn't hold in this case. if the argument is about whether or not the safe harbor provision should be applied, you can't really argue points by saying they are currently legal due to the safe harbor provision, can you?
                    • Well, having reviewed the earlier posts by that person, I think that he was saying both that under the current law, YouTube is infringing, and that if he was wrong on that, then the law should be changed so that YouTube would be infringing.

                      Personally, I think he's foolish. Particularly as there is no way for YouTube, or any other ISP of any kind whatsoever to actually know whether any given clip is legitimately being submitted or not. The Internet as a whole would come to a screeching halt -- or at least th
                    • by gordo3000 (785698)
                      one thing you don't mention that I only recently started thinking about was video and image searches(actually searching in the video or image for key words or maybe in time, actual video clips).

                      if it becomes a process that can be automated through a search algorithm, though time consuming and computationally expensive, would people start to feel that it is reasonable for Google to do a search through youtube of possible infringement and require any video that gets uploaded to be compared against such a data
                    • It's not that easy. Google cannot know 1) what works are copyrighted, 2) whether there has been an infringing act, and 3) whether that act is in fact infringing or whether there is some other factor that makes it non-infringing (e.g. an implied non-exclusive license). The courts certainly disagree all the time, as do learned commentators, legal scholars, and copyright lawyers. Not to mention that the laws vary worldwide. There are no bright line tests for humans to follow, much less which could be adapted f
            • by maop (309499)
              If someone is using your wood chipper to chop humans on your front porch are you liable to do something about it? Half of Youtube's front page is infringing material. They blatantly ignore it.
              • by gordo3000 (785698)
                with people dying, depends if there is a good Samaritan law in your state.... I think. I'm not sure if there are other laws which could apply.

                granted, I just looked at youtube's front page for probably my first time ever and nothing jumped out as infringing. the most watched video page is most likely automatically generated so it falls under the auspices of the rest of the website.
                • by maop (309499)
                  The front page only has featured videos so there would be no problem there. The most viewed page had at least five infringing videos. It doesn't matter if it is automatically generated. Youtube makes money off of it and if they hired a single employee to look at it they could stop a million viewers a day from streaming the the infringing material.
          • by sheimers (151991)
            That murder factory already exists, it's called army.
      • YouTube users post infringing content, YouTube the organization does not.

        Actually, the users upload content, which is then transcoded to flash video and posted by YouTube.

        Unless you own Google stock, it shouldn't be too hard to see how this is different from an ISP hosting a file on their FTP that was uploaded by a user.
        Actually, all modern FTP servers have the ability to "transcode" into compressed formats on demand, so the argument holds no water. Translating between presentation formats doesn't involve any step at which a human being could reasonably be expected to identify infringement, and that's really what the spirit of the safe harbor provisions are about.
    • by bopo (105833)
      Exactly, and that's why the next time around (DMCA II, Son of DMCA?), the content cartels will try to do away with safe harbor provisions, and put the onus of finding and removing copyrighted material on service providers and not content owners.
    • by Tackhead (54550) on Friday March 30, 2007 @04:50PM (#18549045)
      > The whole point of the safe harbor provision is that service providers should get a warning and be allowed to remove infringing content that users post. If hosting infringing content posted by your users meant you were no longer protected the provision would be worthless!

      What's really interesting is that if Google wins and sets a precedent, the floodgates are open for "YouTune.com". Anyone can upload any MP3 they like. Anyone can download any MP3 they like. Any MP3 that infringes on a copyright can be removed with a well-formed DMCA-compliant takedown request. It'll be like Napster, except that it'll have the speed of centralized server storage.

      Once upon a time, web hosting cost a small fortune in setup and bandwidth charges, and having one's website nuked by a DMCAgram was a considerable financial disincentive...

      Today, Google makes more millipennies off the banner ads on YouTube.com than the micropennies it costs to stream, repeatedly, the same 6-7-megabyte .flv Flash video file, to the same person, every time the user wants to watch it.

      Imagine how many trillions of millipennies Google could make by letting millions of users upload their MP3 collections. Sure, each one might cost a few millipennies to remove when the DMCAgrams come in, but as long as the DMCAgrams cost a few dollars each for the MAFIAA (Music And Film Associations of America) to produce, Google will handily win the battle of attrition.

      That's the short run. In the long run, MAFIAA will of course attempt to purchase new laws to protect its obsolete business model, but with their coffers drained from filing millions of DMCAgrams, and Google's coffers bursting with fresh ad revenue (from hosting content uploaded by YouTube and YouTune users during the day or two between its upload and DMCA-compliant removal), Google will finally have a fighting chance to purchase its own laws.

      Sure, MAFIAA has an advantage in that your average Senator or Congressman (or even Slashdotter!) would rather snort a line of cocaine from between Titney's Pears than from Sergei's Brim, but ultimately it's all about the money. With the kind of money Google could offer them, a politician could simply buy Titney outright, and have enough left over for a whole fracking cocaine plantation.

    • by gad_zuki! (70830)
      No its not ridiculous. Cuban is right. Please prove me wrong:

      1. Start a youtube clone iwth your person money.

      2. let users upload tv and movie clips

      3. See how long you stay in business.

      Youtube's life is really based on the idea it can make money, thus the big takedown has been delayed. That doesnt mean the DMCA safe harbor is helping it or anyone (regardless of what the nut at the EFF says). There is a real double standard here because of all the money and people involved. A ma-and-pa youtube would be shut
    • by 70Bang (805280)


      Providing they explicitly state where the violations are.

      I can see Viacom saying something to this tune: "please remove all Viacom-owned materials."

      I believe this is something which will be invoked and things will go downhill from there, no matter how cooperative Google|YouTube would like to be.

      But it does remind me of the days where the FBI would permit you to ensure the information they had on someone was accurate: "You send what you think is the information which you believe might be incorrect (
  • by Skyshadow (508) * on Friday March 30, 2007 @04:02PM (#18548315) Homepage
    For those of you keeping count, that's reason 2.02x10^63 + 1 to dislike Cuban.

    Seriously, I wonder if he wakes up each day and says to himself, "You know, a lot of people hate my guts, but gosh darnit I'm still only the second-most hated owner of a sports team in Texas. What to do, what to do..."
    • For those of you keeping count, that's reason 2.02x10^63 + 1 to dislike Cuban.

      Anyone high-profile who expresses opinions is going to be hated by half the people. I respect the fact that he doesn't care what you think to muzzle himself, unlike most people. Also unlike most people, he can actually back up what he thinks with reasoning. One can certainly disagree with his conclusions, but at least it's thought out.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by dharbee (1076687)
        Also unlike most people, he can actually back up what he thinks with vast amounts of cash, allowing him to buy as much face time as he needs.

        Fixed that for you.

        Cuban says what he says and does what he does because he has "fuck you" money. Otherwise he'd just be another guy ranting that no one gave a flip about.
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Friday March 30, 2007 @04:03PM (#18548323) Journal
    stands on various arguments, but overall, I like him. I don't think that he is the best example of how to be a businessman, but he does have character. I think that he is just savvy enough to pull the truth out into the light for people to look at it while he is making money off of it somewhere else.

    YouTube definitely has the benefit of the safe harbor provision of the DMCA and a well versed bunch of lawyers.

    WRT to Cuban, well, everyone knows that cars are used to deliver drugs, both locally and across state and international borders... we should ban all cars! His argument is pretty weak for someone that seems to be as intelligent as he does.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by capt.Hij (318203)
      I think that you are confusing "has character" with "is a character." In some ways he seems like a class A jerk, but I respect him for funding EFF even if he does not always agree with him. I also like the idea of a nerd owning jocks (except for the racial overtones).
      • by zappepcs (820751)

        I think that you are confusing "has character" with "is a character." In some ways he seems like a class A jerk, but I respect him for funding EFF even if he does not always agree with him.
        I agree

        I also like the idea of a nerd owning jocks (except for the racial overtones).
        I hope you get modded funny for that!
    • by garcia (6573)
      but he does have character.

      No, he is a character. There's a difference and IMHO, in his case, it's not a good thing.
      • Well, ya know, opinions are like nostrils... everybody has at least two, even if they do tend to be kinda snotty.
  • Um... yay? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560)
    Hooray! Go EFF! You tell him about the wonderful DMC -- no, wait.
    Yay! Go Mark Cuban! You tell that EFF son of a -- no, that's not right either.

    Umm... screw it, I'm going back to bed.
  • by snowwrestler (896305) on Friday March 30, 2007 @04:04PM (#18548341)
    I've never heard of the "everybody knows" legal standards of evidence or applicability. Must be that new Law 2.0 I keep hearing about.
    • Re:Must be Law 2.0 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dachannien (617929) on Friday March 30, 2007 @04:47PM (#18548995)
      I'm a slightly published author of a couple of academic papers. Everybody knows that there is infringing content posted by the users of a variety of free web hosts, where the web hosts get revenue from advertising alongside that content. Ergo, according to CubanLogic(tm) 2.0, I should be able to sue Geocities if I discover my papers published there without permission, safe-harbor-be-damned.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by cdrguru (88047)
        Maybe you should be allowed to sue Geocities if they (a) allow your content to be uploaded by anonymous parties without restriction or review, and (b) have 1,000 people individually making sure that every time you complain and it is taken down it is reposted five minutes later.

        The problem is not one of dealing with individual owners of a web site (as was envisioned at the time) but public forums where anonymous contributors can completely outstrip the ability of the infringed party to do anything about it.

        F
        • Are you saying that that's what Congress should change the law to? Because that's certainly not the law now, and the courts would be overstepping their bounds to offer Viacom and other holders of copyrights on numerous popular works greater protection than I get for my very few not-so-popular works.

          And if Congress were to change the law, what should the cutoff of infringements be? A thousand? A hundred? Viacom would get par value for the infringements against their works if they sued the people who post
          • by tkinnun0 (756022)
            AINAL, but I don't think they need to change the law. The court would just need to interpret the case where a group of people are posting the same clip again and again as a single, ongoing infringement. Then Viacom would only need to issue one takedown notice per copyrighted work and YouTube would need to take down an infringing clip permanently.
  • Steve Jobs argued with Bill Gates that vista had a better interface while Bill Gates tried to convince Jobs that Microsoft was just following his lead.

    Then Castro praised the value of capatalism for the room it left him to be communist.

    Finally Bill Gates entered the room again to talk about how the new apple machine is the greatest leap in computing that has ever been made...oh wait, no that last one was 20 years go.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ajs (35943)
      I don't get it. Why is it shocking that the EFF would defend the provisions of the DMCA that make it even vaguely similar to something that's only mostly unreasonable? They still want to see the law removed on Constitutional grounds, but what it's the law of the land they at least want to see that its teeth not get any sharper.
  • as the owner of HDNet, he worries about having his content given away for free without his consent

    What is he worried about? HDnet content is, you guessed it HD. Youtube is well, not.
    • by jaymzru (1005177)
      Word on the street is that there are other sites, and means, to share video online.
  • So has Cuban shorted Google? ;-)
  • Immediately afterward the lawyer burst into flames, cats and dogs paired off and headed for the Super 8 down the road while a nearby brewery exploded and showered the town with fresh lager.
  • "Everybody knows" isn't a valid legal argument.

    It's a shame Mark has to make such an ass of himself simply to take a swipe at Google.
  • The same damn thing happened when people started sharing music over the internet... you can't stop technology, but you can adapt like many successful companies have. Now stop bitching and crying about it and find a solution!
    • by cdrguru (88047)
      The solution is simple: it is all free for everyone and anyone trying to make money still is just a greedy capitalist!

      Now go down the hall and tell your boss that they should be giving away everything and you will work for free from now on. No?

      Unfortunately, there isn't much of a middle ground between "free" and "not free" when it comes to money. If people insist that they want stuff for free, they better expect to be paid in kind as most jobs today rely on somebody paying for someting that is in digital
  • 'everyone knows' that YouTube is host to tons of infringing content
    <deadpan>I did not know that.</deadpan>
  • Like it or not, DMCA is US law. While the EFF touches on the fringes of the literal interpretations of the law and thus raises questions (and provides reasonable answers to those questions, in my opinion), should the EFF openly support breaking the law?

    As the EFF gains power and finances from increasing numbers of donations, would it be wise to trade that lots of "street cred"? How did the political party behind The Pirate Bay fare on that one?
    • Sometimes encouraging people to break the law is the right thing to do.
      The American Revolution. The Underground Railroad. Rosa Parks. Need I go on?

      Sometimes it's counter-productive.

      Every day you, me, and everyone else has to look himself in the mirror and ask, "Can I better serve society by staying within the law, or by breaking it."
    • Re:Dragnet time. (Score:4, Informative)

      by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland @ y a hoo.com> on Friday March 30, 2007 @04:32PM (#18548803) Homepage Journal
      The point is, Youtube is NOT breaking the law. In fact they have always complied with the law.

      Safe harbor is there for a reason. To say YouTube is exempt from safe harbor is unfair, short sighted, and preposterious.

      Everybody knows that sidewalks are used to commit crimes, lets repeal the right against unwarrented search and seizure on sidewalks.
      • At last. A voice speaking in favor of the rule of law.

        Thank you.

        I don't appreciate voices, including Mr. Cuban's, which pretends the law isn't there, or doesn't mean exactly what it says.

        The richness and diversity of the internet is exactly what Congress and the President were intending to protect.

        YouTube's entire business model was based upon the existence of the DMCA, and it wouldn't have been created were the safe harbor not there to protect it.

  • by TheDarkener (198348) on Friday March 30, 2007 @04:26PM (#18548737)
    C'mon, we're smart people, right? You can't just blanket the DMCA and say "BAD!!" or "GOOD!!" - things like this are HUGE in content, with many sections, etc... there are probably some things that the EFF can agree with, as well as some that they don't agree with.

    Just like YouTube hosts some infringing content, and some non-infringing content. Take a look at the vloggers, independent directors, etc... It's stupid to try and cover an entire media distribution medium like YouTube like that.

    Or the DMCA.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    There's "bad" DMCA and "good" DMCA.

    Bad is what everyone here probably thinks of - anti-circumvention rules, etc. Section 1201 and so on.

    Good is a series of safe harbors for things like network caching, webhosting, and other situations where copying occurs but we don't there to be copyright infringement for policy reasons. section 512 and such.
    • Well, the 'good' DMCA isn't that good, in that it still allows for copyright holders to issue takedowns left and right without carefully verifying them, and those takedowns can be quite broad (IIRC, there was at least one case where an ISP had to delete an entire usenet group from its newsserver), and there's no reason for them to act differently. Also, most of the safeharbor requires registration by the safeharbor claimant, which they might not have realized they should do, since it's not all that clear.

      Th
    • The parts referred to as "good" DMCA are literally the exceptions. If caches and such used for infringement by third parties were illegal, the law would quickly be changed. This is a case where the exception reinforces the rule.
  • Youtube hosts a plenty of home video, independent [youtube.com] and fair use content. The site was also instrumental in exposing a number of crimes, including by law enforcement, and unprofessional conduct. As a site with user-maintained content, it ends up with a variety with legal and illegal material, just like web hosting providers. Any provider of a neutral public forum can not be responsible for actions of others. The same transparency that makes it attractive to pirates also makes it attractive to others exercisi
  • Why does anyone listen to this twit? He got lucky and cashed in during the dotcom boot. Since then he's bought some obviously good ideas from other people with his mountain of money. Who cares about the latest round of Mark Cuban verbal diarrhea?
  • Solution (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Friday March 30, 2007 @05:23PM (#18549453) Homepage Journal
    Give Cuban and the EFF Lawyer both a brick and lock them in a room. Survivor wins the case. Post the footage on Youtube.

    Really the system is much too complex today. We need more brick-based justice!

    • by zolaar (764683)

      Give Cuban and the EFF Lawyer both a brick...

      Nope. The Free Masons have a powerful lobby. The guild is paid a hefty sum for each depiction of their intellectual property : bricks. There's a loophole, however, stating an exemption for depictions only featuring a single brick.

      Coincidentally, the end result is a win-win-win for everyone. One brick makes it much more interesting for me to watch. Interesting content brings more eyeballs to Youtube's site, which displays ads based on the content being vie

  • Wake Up! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As a non us citizen (alien? hah!), I find this dmca stuff all so boring.

    You have draconian laws instigated by ugly controlling types which you seem to feel the need to "obey" lest you spend your eternity in hell. Wake up, you are already there.

    Look at the second article after this one, "Private File Sharing to Remain/Become legal in EU".

    It has always been this way under English law and many other countries (oz to be exact), and was in the us prior to the dmca I believe.

    The dmca was a land grab that would ne
    • by Khaed (544779)

      The dmca was a land grab that would never have happened if not for 9/11, and couldn't happen in most other countries where the views of the people count.


      Uh.

      The DMCA was passed in 1998.

      Are you implying Bush has a time machine and went back in time to talk Clinton into signing it?
  • Cuban has a long history of rights protection motives, first with Broadcast.Com, which he sold to Yahoo (and used the proceeds to finance buying the Mavs) and now with HDNet and the movies owned by it. He's a transparent IP-protecting capitalist, which is not to criticize him, rather that he's part of the problem, and not the cure to the concerns of content problems and content distribution methodologies.
  • Everybody knows that Google is loaded
    Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
    Everybody knows that the DMCA is over
    Everybody knows the good guys lost
    Everybody knows the fight was fixed
    The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
    Thats how it goes
    Everybody knows

    Everybody knows that copyright is leaking
    Everybody knows that hollywood lied
    Everybody got this broken feeling
    Like their father or their dog just died

    Everybody talking to their pockets
    Everybody wants a box of chocolates
    And a long stem rose
    Everybody knows

    Every
  • Instead of giving content away for free, why not make it easier to link to content? Provide a way for YouTube to link to Cuban's site instead of hosting the video itself, in a manner that benefits both. This could help YouTube not only avoid copyright problems, but cut their server storage and bandwidth load in the process. YouTube could show Cuban's page inside a YouTube frame giving exposure to both sites. It would also drive business to Cuban's site that he obviously wasn't getting directly.

    Of cour

    • by conteXXt (249905)
      Sounds to me like you are suggesting that Cuban should pay for his own bandwidth with Google's ads on the referring page.

      Works for me.

  • for the star trek universe. In the future it seems that there aren't movies and entertainment like it is today. I remember some eps of TNG having like plays on the ship but thats about it. So I guess the entertainment industry dies in the future. Especially so now with everything thats going on. Everyone is suing everyone and DRM killed the movie star.
  • I can remember Japanese example [p2pnet.net].

    Many Japanese geeks & suits think if DMCA-styled "notice & takedown" safe harbor existed in Japan,File Rogue service could escape from devouring JASRAC.
  • The impression I get from YouTube is that it is more about sharing home videos than infringing content. Everything about the site seems to indicate their intention was to encourage amateur filmmaking:

    • The movies are transcoded into a lossy, low resolution format. Someone wanting a high-quality pirated copy of Star Wars knows to look elsewhere.
    • The plethora of bad home videos seems to suggest that it is more about information sharing than copyright infringement.
    • They have taken down videos upon request f
  • And discussions were about Linux and Open Source in Cuba. Actually, bad title...
  • Regardless of what Mr. Cuban thinks about the DMCA, or whether it should apply to YouTube, it is clear that it DOES apply. YouTube has scrupulously adhered to the DMCA safe harbor rules, and the case, I predict, will be thrown out for that reason.

    Having read the complaint, I think it's a frivolous pleading.

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...