Mark Cuban: "Only a "moron" would buy YouTube"

[DeluxeNames]

I just saw this story from Sept 28th, and now that Google has bought YouTube, indirectly Mark Cuban has called them "Morans"

From the article:
"High Tech Billionaire investor and dot-com veteran Mark Cuban had harsh words on Thursday 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 YouTube would eventually be "sued into oblivion" because of copyright violations.

"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, California, 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."

My take: I think he's got a good point. Google has just painted themselves with a big target. YouTube was losing money and the potential plaintiffs new that. Now the lawsuits will come in so fast that Google will need to hire an air traffic controller.

YouTube might go the way of Napster.

http://news.com.com/Mark+Cuban+Only+a+moron+would+buy+YouTube/2100-1026_3-6121034.html

[Nuvo]

To a degree, there is some truth to that statement, but really, it's nothing that can't be fixed.
Google Video had the same issue, but nobody bothered them (despite being a smaller service, Google provides a rather substantial target).

With Google's cash and YouTube's licence for music video content, they can still have much of the popular content without being dragged through legal battles.
It's simply a case of not allowing copyrighted content on the service, or getting the rights to use said content.
Unlike P2P services such as Kazaa or Napster in their illegal days, Google isn't going to want a tarnished reputation, so it's a case of the copyright holder requesting the removal of the content and it being removed.
If it's not taken off the site, that's when Google would really run into trouble.

Google's online movie service seemed to be more of a vehicle for selling movie content on demand at a low cost, with the YouTube style features just there for popularity.
This is what would work here as unless you happen to have something like digital cable (which is a subscription service and isn't available everywhere) with on-demand services, you're usually stuck with whatever happens to be on TV.
Google could cash in by making deals with some companies such as Warner which would allow them to offer episodes for a small fee, or even an alternative to box sets.
Apple's iTunes has been a big hit in the commercial sector for downloading music, but there's currently no real service to allow this for movies.
I know Apple has been trying to edge into providing movie content through iTunes, but to be honest, Google and YouTube are more established in this area now as both companies have a history of providing such services in a way which isn't limited by who uses what (Flash 7 is supported under almost all modern Unix variants and clones which instantly gives YouTube more prospective customers).