I think Mark Cuban is losing it

by Mathew on October 11, 2006 · Comments

I’ve never met Mark Cuban, but I like him a lot. I love his courtside ranting and raving, I like the whole billionaire in a T-shirt thing, and I really like the fact that he lets things pretty much just hang out on his blog and says what he feels — how many billionaires or CEOs do that? And I even like his blog when I think he’s wrong, like I did with the whole “only a moron would buy YouTube” thing. But sometimes I think maybe he could use an editor — or at least a friend.

In his latest post, Mark takes another stab at the whole Google-YouTube-DRM thing, but this time he does it in a kind of stream of consciousness format that makes me wonder whether he isn’t spending some of those billions on British Columbia’s leading export. He talks about looking for music and videos, and how YouTube’s new quicklist makes it easy to find things, and programs like Total Video Converter let him convert movies so he can watch them on his iPod. And then he loses it — here’s a sample:

Wait a minute, who is the little guy hovering in front of me ? Dang, it looks like a Google lawyer ! Is he using a juet propulsion pack to fly ? No, its a floating Segway. Wow ! He is saying “No problem mark. You didnt crack any DRM, we dont use any !. You just downloaded a file from one of the most popular sites in the world and converted it to a format that works for your Ipod. We put it up there for you to take, so take it !

If copyright owners didnt want it there, they would have sent us a Take Down Notice !. I must be right because millions of people do it every day ! You wonder how I can fly with this Segway ? Its the DMCA Safe Harbor laws keeping me safe and floating. Take all the music, movies and videos you want, our users will upload more ! Enjoy , enjoy, enjoy !

Mark, buddy — time to step outside and maybe get some fresh air, dude. Or at least put down the bong for awhile. In other Cuban-related news, Deep Jive Interests has coined a new buzzword: To “Cuban.”

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • /pd
    nice civilzed conversations happening here .. no seriously.. two reasonably peeps having candid chatter ! :)-

    it does not matter who --thinks what.

    What matters is the landscape is changing and nowbody knows how the horizon will look.
  • Rockwell
    There were signs of copyright owners working with Napster too (another very cool service from a consumer's perspective) and we know where that went.

    I simply don't see a way out on the copyright issue. Even if some major copyright holders cut deals with YouTube, the long tail of copyright holders is going to come out of the woodwork to sue them, particularly if they selectively remove some and not all copyrighted content with some sort of automated system. If they remove all copyrighted content, all you have left is lonelygirl15 and a bunch of bedroom video bloggers.

    Or, Google has something up their sleeve that none of us know about.

    God bless the YouTube guys - they have built an incredible service and were smart enough to get out while the getting's good.

    Apologies for the first comment - all the Cuban bashing has been getting to me. :)
  • Mathew Ingram
    I'm not sure why you would expect me to respond at all after your original comment, Randy. And for what it's worth, I don't think much of your spam VoIP blog either.

    I'd like to point out that I never said Mark Cuban was wrong because YouTube "is a cool site" or that people shouldn't "hate on it." If you read my previous posts, I think it's fairly obvious that I thought he was wrong to say that only a moron would buy it.

    Does he have a point about copyright? Yes. But I think (or hope) that content owners might find a way to work with Google rather than fight it, and there are signs of content owners doing so, as I have mentioned in previous posts -- some of which may or may not be the "inane" ones you mentioned earlier.

    Is it worth $1.6-billion? I haven't got a clue -- and I never claimed that was the right or wrong price for it, unless I missed something. You said there are good answers to your questions -- how about you provide a few?
  • Rockwell
    I would be curious to hear how you would complete this sentence:

    YouTube is a good acquisition at this price for Google because _____________.

    or this one:

    The copyright concerns surrounding the acquisition of YouTube are overblown because ____________.

    And before you answer "because it's the top video site" or "it's the best distribution platform for advertising to come along since xyz"to question #1, the answer should be something that applies at a $1.65 billion valuation, and presumably not at a $1 trillion valuation.

    I think there are good answers to these questions, but I'm not sure you've thought through them beyond "YouTube is a cool site".

    And I love YouTube, by the way.
  • Mathew Ingram
    Sorry to disappoint you, Randy. To tell you the truth, I'm unclear as to why you subscribed too. If it's not working for you, feel free to take your clicks elsewhere. I have a feeling we'll both be better off.
  • Rockwell
    Zero insight whatsoever - I'm unclear as to why I subscribed to this feed in the first place. Inane post after inane post.

    If you could articulate a clear, straightforward argument as to why YouTube was a good acquisition for Google at $1.65B, it could be worth reading. The whole "YouTube is a cool site - don't hate on it" argument is useless when it comes to valuation, etc.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Older post:

Newer post: