Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

TV and Movies On YouTube?

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the legally-that-is dept.

Television 101

CNet is running a story speculating on the potential for full-length television shows and movies on YouTube. Google has been looking for ways to improve the popular but unprofitable video-sharing site, including some experiments with movies that exceed the typical 10-minute limit. Incorporating a system similar to Hulu could draw the interest of more advertisers. "[Mark Cuban] wrote that Hulu is crushing YouTube in revenue per video and revenue per user primarily because 'Hulu has the right to sell advertising in and around every single video on its site,' Cuban wrote. 'It can package and sell any way that might make its customers happy.' YouTube doesn't have the same luxury because it can advertise only 'on the small percentage of videos on its site that it has a licensing deal with.'"

cancel ×

101 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

OH MY GOD! (2, Funny)

nlitement (1098451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894171)

Movies and TV episodes, posted on YouTube! Why did no one think of that let alone DO IT before?

Re:OH MY GOD! (2, Interesting)

CosaNostra Pizza Inc (1299163) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894251)

LOL. Your sarcasm is noted (by me, at least). Yes, YouTube used to allow movie and TV episodes to be posted but I guess the MPAA and RIAA got involved and forced YouTube to remove copyrighted material. I imagine at that point that YouTube started going downhill.

The Cognitive Surplus is where it's at (4, Interesting)

fictionpuss (1136565) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895201)

Note though, that user-generated content is consistently improving in quality. Ad a viable revenue stream and as advertising dollars continue to shift from mainstream media to user generated content, the market becomes a lot more interesting [shirky.com] .

The studios screwed themselves on this one.

Re:The Cognitive Surplus is where it's at (1)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895877)

Yes but the popular videos are IMO crap. Look at the most viewed videos every day/week/month. 50% of them have a semi-naked woman in the thumbnail and a sex connotative title. Most users, especially partners are now whoring themselves to get more views.

Look at AtheneWins: he tries to tell people some of his ideas and I think don't think it's for money because he is not a partner although he has like 60mil views. But the way he's making himself heard is not a morally correct one.

Hotforwords is another example but I guess she might be excused because her motto is "intelligence is sexy".

Ilumistream is doing the same thing because although they do give sex advice they don't need to put a naked woman to make their point, also they do that even when it's not a sex related video.

Now, I have to admit I like youtube and the ease and freedom they give you (unless you upload something controversial or infringes someones rights but that's another story). What I don't like is the craze of getting more views which tends to become what happens on TV (the reason I don't watch TV anymore). Even a simple solution like getting the thumbnail of a video from a random point would change a lot. I'd like to see youtube get back to what it was a few years back.

Also, I want to add that not all movies that use a 'catchy' thumbnail are bad but there are many videos out there that have a lot less views but are funnier/more interesting/etc. You might argue that that's what featured videos are for and I agree that works but it's not enough. Sure, I like some of those but you can see that they are movies chosen explicitly to refer to an audience as large as possible (again TV thinking) and are mostly cliches or boring.

Re:The Cognitive Surplus is where it's at (3, Interesting)

fictionpuss (1136565) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896205)

Yes but the popular videos are IMO crap.
Then change the situation.

This is exactly the one advantage which YouTube gives you which the "shut up and watch" old media does not.

If you cannot popularise quality content, then the fault lies with the populace, or yourself - not the distribution medium.

We are in the early days of exploring our cognitive surplus, and yes - some of these explorations mimic the tricks mainstream media has previously used to grab viewers. So if you're telling me that 50% of the most popular YouTube videos are not just thinly-veiled sex-related enticements, then I think we can agree that we're watching a fascinating experiment unfold.

I do, however, object to the phrase "partners are now whoring themselves to get more views." If you look at the evils that a monopoly stranglehold on the channels of media distribution (everything from sitcoms to news), has wrecked upon society, then a strong case could be made that hastening the democratization and financial viability of those channels is nothing less than a moral imperative.

Re:The Cognitive Surplus is where it's at (2, Insightful)

tacocat (527354) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897809)

I would hate to see it all mucked up with revenue dollars on advertisement. What would prevent YouTube from becoming exactly as broadcast television? Broadcast has been working under this model for 50 years and they have become so impotent, immaterial, and outright painful to watch that I don't think they, or anyone who emulates their business model has long for this world.

Re:The Cognitive Surplus is where it's at (1)

fictionpuss (1136565) | more than 6 years ago | (#23898291)

What would prevent YouTube from becoming exactly as broadcast television?
Broadcast television and YouTube have completely different barriers to entry. They are on opposite ends of the scale.

For example, something like Chocolate Rain [youtube.com] would not be placed before 24 million viewers on broadcast television. It works only because you can email it or otherwise share it with your friends.

Statistically, YouTube is a more accurate gauge of what people like than Nielson -- it's driven by consumers sharing what they like with other people who may just do the same if they like it too.

Get thee to Viral Video Film School [current.com] !

Re:The Cognitive Surplus is where it's at (1)

GWBasic (900357) | more than 6 years ago | (#23925779)

Note though, that user-generated content is consistently improving in quality. Ad a viable revenue stream and as advertising dollars continue to shift from mainstream media to user generated content, the market becomes a lot more interesting. The studios screwed themselves on this one.

Have you ever watched any really old silent or early sound movies? Some of the "classics" are about the same quality that I see on YouTube.

Re:OH MY GOD! (4, Interesting)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894457)

Don't worry, the studios will be sure to make the viewing experience just as unpleasant on youtube as it is on Hulu. Why would they take such an awesome idea and TOTALLY FUCKING RUIN IT by constantly pissing the eyeballs off? Seriously. They are still trying to treat Hulu as a broadcast medium. You can only see 4 random episodes of any given popular show at a time. Or worse. They will have the entire 2nd season of a show up. But none of it makes sense unless you've seen the first season, which isn't available, and you can't use it to "catch up" either, cause the show is well into its 3rd or 4th season. Every time I go to Hulu to watch a tv show, I get annoyed and remember the reason I canceled my cable.

Re:OH MY GOD! (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894693)

But the episodes Hulu does put up are awful nice. The advertisements are not all that intrusive (you can always browse in another tab and watch something else).

I honestly believe that a lot of the companies believe that if they put up entire seasons or entire shows no one would buy the DVDs. I do not think it would hurt to do a test with a popular (but older, somewhat unprofitable in DVD sales) show for a few months and see if DVD sales increase, decrease, or no change.

The only flaw in that plan is that it makes sense and is logical, so of course movie studios will never do it.

Re:OH MY GOD! (2, Interesting)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895051)

While the lack of previous seasons is a downmark, whatever hulu actually has is quite good.

The ads are not too long. The video quality is somewhat decent. They have a good selection of new shows, and a lot of old stuff as well.

Re:OH MY GOD! (4, Interesting)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895567)

Really?

Hulu seems like an awfully nice compromise between watching "regular TV," and sifting through piles of low-quality crap on sidreel.

The general scheme is that you get excellent quality full episodes in a legal manner endorsed by the content producers (for which they get paid!).

In return, you have to watch a 10-30 second ad in each slot that would normally have a 4-5 minute commercial break on TV. In the end, this works out to about 2-3 minutes PER HOUR. For free and legal content, this seems like a fantastic compromise that mostly benefits the consumer.

Of course, if they increase the ads, my approval will be somewhat diminished, but in its current form, Hulu rocks.

Re:OH MY GOD! (3, Interesting)

ball-lightning (594495) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897473)

Yea, I actually love Hulu. It lets me watch the Colbert Report whenever I want, and the commercials really aren't too bad. Honestly, my main objection to television is I have to work on THEIR schedule, not that there are advertisements. I don't block ads (that aren't pop-ups) on the Internet for the same reason. I like "free" content, and as long as your sponsors hawk their product in a way that is reasonably unobtrusive, I don't mind one bit.

Re:OH MY GOD! (1)

Sethus (609631) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903377)

You know.. you CAN watch the Colbert Report on Comedy Central's website too. They've even introduced a 'full episodes' option where it streams the whole episode with about 3 or 4, 15 to 30 second ads in it. So if you don't want to deal with Hulu, you can watch the most recent episode the day after it airs quite easily.

Re:OH MY GOD!--Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23896171)

Watch your language! Why do you feel that you must use God's name in vain (or were you really praying?) and use foul language besides? Get your mouth out of the toilet!

You are dishonoring yourself as well as God. And how can you get so passionate over a superficial issue like whether there are ads on Internet videos? Get a life!

Are you good? http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ [livingwaters.com]

Re:OH MY GOD!--Really? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902417)

Silly misguided hypocrites...

It's blasphemy to utter the "name" of G-d period. It doesn't matter what the context is.

Re:OH MY GOD! (1)

Gulthek (12570) | more than 6 years ago | (#23899313)

Hulu has all of the first two seasons of Babylon 5. Also a ton of full length movies. And Firefly. Why are you complaining again?

Re:OH MY GOD! (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902451)

...the silly commercials that make it like a throwback to 80's television.

Studio driven streaming video sites make me remember why the Tivo was originally so cool.

Re:OH MY GOD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23899785)

So? How much are you paying to watch shows on Hulu? Be happy with what they give you.

Re:OH MY GOD! (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 6 years ago | (#23898243)

You keeed. The 10 minute limit, stupid. So many times I watch something in 6 parts or whatever, and the Related Clips doesn't show up the next part. If this is a way to fix this we should rejoice.

Re:OH MY GOD! (1)

nlitement (1098451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903433)

Set your profile to "director." There are 18 hour videos out there.

This could work (5, Insightful)

jaxtherat (1165473) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894177)

There is nothing stopping the traditional advertising model working in this distribution model. Show say a tiny Coca Cola (or whatever) logo in the top left corner of episode or movie that you are showing, and the advertiser would be happy!

I think this could be a win win situation for everyone, and could also spill over into the p2p distribution market en masse.

That's my hope anyway, as I'm sick and tired of internet distribution channels being demonised as for pirates only... meh

Re:This could work (3, Insightful)

PetoskeyGuy (648788) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894283)

As long the ads are in a sidebar or something and not on top of the entertainment. Or some other kind of overlay that could be removed.

I can't seem to watch normal broadcast stations any more without a quarter of the screen having this stupid animations on top. I'm not completely adphobic but that's like someone standing in front of the screen at a theater.

TV Overlays, telemarketing and spam... there is no way I would ever buy from companies who resort to being annoying.

Re:This could work (3, Interesting)

jaxtherat (1165473) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894377)

Well, if done in not in an overkill manner, it wouldn't be that bad; for example stuff you download that was ripped from the SciFi channel, has a SciFi logo in the corner.

As a result (being someone who doesn't have cable) I now know that Battlestar is broadcasted on the SciFi channel.

As a personal example, for me that was relatively unobtrusive advertising at work.

Re:This could work (3, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895065)

Last time i watched the world cup (soccer, football, whatever you want to call it), they had little ads on top of the action. I liked a lot better than cutting to commercial. I can't stand watching hockey on TV, because they constantly stop for advertisements. Even going to the arena is kind of a let down, as they cut to commercial and they have to do something else at the arena to fill the empty time. It really cuts out the continuity of the game. Ads on top, I don't mind, so long as they are kept small. Ads cut in between are much more distracting.

First Post ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23894181)

Yippie !

Re:First Post ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23894239)

Uhm, FAIL?

one suggestion (4, Interesting)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894221)

Perhaps Youtube should look into some of the most popular videos uploaded to their site. For example, if lots of people want to upload short 2-3 minute clips of the Daily Show and the Colbert Report to Youtube, maybe that says something about their popularity? So, instead of deleting it due to copyvios, maybe they should try a little harder to sign a deal with Viacom to get those shows hosted, with ads. That'd solve two problems right there -- less people uploading the copyrighted material, and more ads for them.

Re:one suggestion (2, Interesting)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894435)

I think this is unlikely to happen. Viacom already has a video sharing site where you can watch ANY episode of The Daily Show. The question Viacom will ask is, "What value does YouTube add that we don't already have, or could easily develop?" Frankly I don't see that youtube does add any value, but maybe I'm wrong.

No, I think Viacom is NOT the company to try to pursue negotiation rights with, at least for now. That doesn't mean there aren't other media companies they couldn't do the same thing with, that haven't developed the video sharing technology.

Re:one suggestion (1)

dfaulken (1312005) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894501)

The question Viacom will ask is, "What value does YouTube add that we don't already have, or could easily develop?"
How about the extra traffic to their media from being on a site that a much larger number of people use--one of the problems with each network making its own site to view media is that it's a pain to go to 12 different sites to watch your favorite shows. Centralizing them on YouTube would make this much easier, and possibly draw a bigger audience.

Re:one suggestion (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894789)

And leaving it decentralized makes the system much more robust, and fosters an environment where more innovation can happen. I think that's a much bigger (and existing) advantage that trumps your theoretical bigger audience.

Re:one suggestion (2, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895171)

Oh yeah. One site will use Windows Media with DRM (everyone uses Windows Vista, right?), one site will use RealMedia (who uses THAT anymore?!) and another one will use Quicktime with an obscure CODEC that won't even work on intel Macs (or something).

Forget Flash, Windows Media, Real Media and DivX... Give us non-DRM'ed H.264/AAC video files, not everyone has the bandwidth to stream that stuff in real-time and not everyone wants to be tethered to their computer to be able to watch TV shows and movies.

Kettle, meet pot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23896441)

>RealMedia (who uses THAT anymore?!)

>Give us non-DRM'ed H.264/AAC video files,

Ah yes, the fanboi of a proprietary OS that has single digit market share making fun of a format.
Priceless.

To everything you say, we can add "Who uses a Mac?"

This is the internet, everyone uses Divx.

Go to a TV/Movie torrent site, thats all anyone uses.

How about you pimp the format the people use, not the one your brainwashed mind is trained to spew?

Re:Kettle, meet pot (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897053)

H.264/AAC is more standard then the hack job that is DivX.

H.264/AAC works on all platform, on any decent media player.

Re:Kettle, meet pot (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902489)

> Go to a TV/Movie torrent site, thats all anyone uses.

Well, I guess we can tell who's been to the Pirate Bay and who hasn't now eh?

Re:one suggestion (1)

Accursed (563233) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895327)

I think Viacom's current model of hosting the shows on the website of the respective show is probably a lot easier for most people to grok. Why go to Youtube and have to search for shows when you can just go to dailyshow.com or whatever and look for whichever episode you missed?

Re:one suggestion (1)

fictionpuss (1136565) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895841)

For one, because Viacom limit distribution by country. For two, because there is no way to find related content -- if you're watching an interview on The Daily Show, you're probably interested in watching that same person being interviewed on The Late Show.. regardless of the fact that they compete amongst themselves.

Re:one suggestion (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 6 years ago | (#23898471)


For one, because Viacom limit distribution by country. For two, because there is no way to find related content -- if you're watching an interview on The Daily Show, you're probably interested in watching that same person being interviewed on The Late Show

These are advantages to YOU, not to Viacom. I don't know why Viacom limits distribution by country, but they've identified that as something that's important to their business. Also, Viacom doesn't WANT you to start watching The Late Show, as they don't own that content and are a direct competitor. Why would they want to link to content they don't own?

Re:one suggestion (1)

fictionpuss (1136565) | more than 6 years ago | (#23898807)

Yup - the GP was asking why the consumer would rather go to YouTube rather than thedailyshow.com

But there is a potential advantage for the producer as well - e.g. if The Late Show got a smaller cut of the ad revenue by being a YouTube partner, rather than running their own distribution site, but a wider audience.

It's gloriously unscientific [google.com] but The Daily Show hasn't had any large surges of search-interest since Viacom sued in March 2007. To me this suggests that less people are sharing, and talking about The Daily Show now.

Re:one suggestion (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902519)

If I want to find out what a particular person has done, YouTube is the
LAST place I would look. I would try some place that tends to catalog
that particular sort of information. Since this is the web, sites such
as those could even "gasp" link to where the content is (either online
in a streaming format or available for purchase).

Re:one suggestion (1)

fictionpuss (1136565) | more than 6 years ago | (#23909007)

For sure - but related content is one way in which YouTube can provide a superior (not perfect) user-experience than say, thedailyshow.com

Hulu is still infant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23894223)

I don't seee hulu growing much. It might have got intial attention but look at the faq from hulu
Q : Why can't I watch your videos from outside the U.S.?
For now, Hulu is a U.S. service only. That said, our intention is to make Hulu's growing content lineup available worldwide. This requires clearing the rights for each show or film in each specific geography and will take time. We're encouraged by how many content providers have already been working along these lines so that their programs can be available over the Internet to a much larger, global audience. The Hulu team is committed to making great programming available across the globe.

Hulu? No thanks! (2, Insightful)

PontifexPrimus (576159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894247)

I'm sorry, but I can't comment on Hulu's model; the reason? Their overzealous country-restrictions: none of their clips are available outside of the US. I guess I could trick the server by using a proxy, but if a site makes me jump through hoops like this I go to the competition; especially since this sort of country-selective blocking is something I can't remember seing on YouTube, Revver or any of the other streaming video sites.
Why have an internationally accessible website at all, if you won't even show (short, low-quality, low resolution) videos except for US-Americans? Why should, say, bloggers even bother to embed those videos on the world-wide web, if they can't reach an world-wide audience?
Although I guess it could make embedding targeted ads easier, since you know your audience...

USCIS (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894291)

Why have an internationally accessible website at all, if you won't even show (short, low-quality, low resolution) videos except for US-Americans?
<cynic level="high">It's an ad for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services [uscis.gov] .</cynic>

Re:Hulu? No thanks! (1)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894395)

...none of their clips are available ... (short, low-quality, low resolution) videos ...
By the way, in addition to short clips from shows, Hulu has full-length TV shows and even movies on the site. The quality/resolution isn't great (although comparable to conventional TV, I guess). They are also starting to phase-in "HD" versions of some of the shows/movies. The resolution is good (1280x720)... but it suffers from the usual drawbacks of buffered video (either it's jerky or you have to wait for it to buffer a bit...).

I'm not saying the Hulu viewing experience is fantastic... just making it clear that they are have lots of full-length content on the site.

I agree with you, by the way, that Hulu is silly to ignore the international market. This may result from their various licensing deals (in which case the content owners should get a clue).

Re:Hulu? No thanks! (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894589)

If you want to see streaming video that "just works" and has little country restriction Joost is the way to go :)

Re:Hulu? No thanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895069)

Sure, except Joost is a joke without any relevant content to date.
And for the "just works" part, I tried to use it a little to ease the pain of those moments when I had to use windows, and half the times I would be staring at a black screen.
Ironically, after the last update it ceased working at all, and I just gave up

Re:Hulu? No thanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895129)

If you want to see streaming video that "just works" and has little country restriction Joost is the way to go :)

Ahhhh...Joost sux compared to MIRO TV :). Ok, actually Joost has just jumped on the MIRO bandwagon I've noticed lately! I'm sure they want to be a part of the MIRO revolution.

MIRO combined with tvRSS is just awesome, I have yet to see a better video service. Have a look at this page: http://tvrss.net/shows/ (Sorry, don't want to hot link anything, so copy-n-paste. Just a little respect for Slashdot and tvRSS)

However, YouTube is now a household name. The only thing that will kill-it-off is if Google sells-it-off. Its mainly amateur material which swept the nation...even in the porn industry, I must add.

Not to mention politicians now use YouTube as a way to push campaigns to those use computers over viewing TV.

I used Joost until I ran across MIRO TV. MIRO has the same content as Joost, with a twist, it has a built-in torrent engine that you can RSS any streaming media site or channel, by media type. You can tailor MIRO TV. You don't have to worry about the first season of anything, just find the RSS link on tvRSS and be off. If it is not there, then the RSS feed can be found in other places, just search google.

MIRO can even bring Google feeds, Joost feeds are built-in, TV feeds - I'm sure if you paid for HULU - it'll grab their feeds too....all you need is an RSS link.

You should give it a whirl!

Re:Hulu? No thanks! (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897555)

MIRO sucks.
Its opensource yet despite the powerful opensource torrent programs it didn't occur to them to allow bandwidth limiting or connection encryption?

Id test it again to get a full list of deficiencies, but thanks to what i think is bad packaging of firefox3, in ubuntu 8.04 any program that depends on libgnomeui-0 makes firefox unusable on my kubuntu system

Re:Hulu? No thanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904315)

So, Miro sux because you can't install Firefox on Kubuntu. Give gnome/Ubuntu a try and come back. Heck you can even test it on Windows if you can't handle Linux all-together.

Just cause a dependency suck to you, the whole technology industry has to suck too?

What a crock-o-crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Hulu? No thanks! (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904523)

clearly you have difficulty reading, but i said i couldnt test it further to find out all the other reasons i dropped it because of this bug (which i took care to point out wasnt they're fault)

But generally given the number of ISPs that throttle torrents, providing upload limiting and encryption is an important requirement.

Re:Hulu? No thanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23904455)

Not to mention...Bandwidth limiting IS implemented; Up and Down, thank you very much!

Re:Hulu? No thanks! (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23901753)

So its basically Vuze with less torrent features?

As for the political stuff, I am sure it would be fascinating if I was in your country, as it is I don't mind browsing on Joost (10mb/s dsl with a great shaper on my end, so bandwidth is never an issue) and when a show I find interesting finishes it usually grabs something from the hottest selection, so some free soft core porn, everyone wins :)

Re:Hulu? No thanks! (1)

ricotest (807136) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895357)

Actually YouTube has country-specific blocking for the more 'official' videos (that some company or sponsor is involved in, e.g. "legal" music videos and TV). If all YouTube's videos were backed by a company, like Hulu's, then I'm sure you'd see the exact same thing.

Re:Hulu? No thanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895359)

It's the same in Japan. What would they lose if they broadcasted their TV contents overseas?
I would still be watching the ads. That means higher rates, thus big money for the BS.
Now, I download my favorite programs with BT and those have all the ads ripped off. Region blocking is just plain stupid.

Re:Hulu? No thanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895595)

It's the same in Japan. What would they lose if they broadcasted their TV contents overseas?
I would still be watching the ads. That means higher rates, thus big money for the BS.

I think the reasoning is that the money for advertising comes from selling product and services. Why would you pay to advertise to people who can't buy your product in their country?

Re:Hulu? No thanks! (1)

Bake (2609) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896313)

Yes, I'm fairly sure that there are quite many countries where you can't buy Coca Cola or a Toyota.

Re:Hulu? No thanks! (1)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896105)

site makes me jump through hoops

And I thought people liked hulu-hoops...

That said, Cuban must be living in Cuba because he is so out of touch with his target audiences.

YouTube Has Already Tried This (2, Interesting)

Kneo24 (688412) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894255)

Back when YouTube first came about, they had original regular running series. Some of them were actually decent too. Then things started to change and now we have a different YouTube.

Besides, it's not as if people don't already do this on YouTube themselves. I'm more surprised that at some point they haven't aggressively tried making money from this in some fashion.

Re:YouTube Has Already Tried This (5, Informative)

NickCatal (865805) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894375)

Have you watched any of the longer-running more established youtube 'series'? They all have popup-on-screen ads on them

The big issue here is that the size of the window is so freaking small. Watching more than a few minutes with something that small is just painful, and the 'Full Screen' mode, even with their new HD player, still pales in comparison to hulu

Re:YouTube Has Already Tried This (1)

Kneo24 (688412) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897219)

I stopped visiting YouTube and watching their original content when they started asking for age verification and took some of the shows that I had liked off after that point. I also hated the new layout they had gotten after that point. I personally think their older layout was a lot less ugly and easier to navigate.

Re:YouTube Has Already Tried This (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894419)

Here's an idea for YouTube to make money:

Host pilots for shows for free and offer a Google-checkout-integrated escrow service. If you like the pilot, give put some money towards the production of the series. If a target amount is reached before a set date, Google takes a fixed percentage and gives the rest to the producers. They then make a series, send DVDs to the people who paid in advance, and put it on YouTube. Google show advertising around the online version and start collecting money towards the next season.

US Only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23894397)

At least with youtube, I can watch it from outside of US

ok who's clicking these f'n ads people? (0, Troll)

specific (963862) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894409)

Didn't we the public pay in taxes to have these infrastructures built? When are they going to understand that we'll just keep figuring out ways to not pay for things twice?

Re:ok who's clicking these f'n ads people? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23894577)

Taxpayers haven't paid any money towards content creation. And good content is expensive. If you are happy watching things like the Phil DeFranco show or Hot for Words, good for you. But if you want something like Battlestar Galactica or Heroes, then *every episode* has to bring in millions of dollars somehow. That's hard to manage. This is not a solved problem.

Re:ok who's clicking these f'n ads people? (2, Funny)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894801)

How dare you point out the logical flaws in the free entertainment arguments. You are obviously anti-freedom.

Re:ok who's clicking these f'n ads people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23896677)

I'd like to point you to your local PBS station. "Nova," "Nature," "Austin City Limits,", Ken Burns' documentaries such as "The Civil War," and many other fine pieces of content are paid in part by tax payers. I wouldn't mind paying for more if the content is as high of a quality.

Re:ok who's clicking these f'n ads people? (1)

Digital End (1305341) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894735)

Didn't we the public pay in taxes to have these infrastructures built? When are they going to understand that we'll just keep figuring out ways to not pay for things twice?


This is not the fault of the content providers.

Youtube/google didn't build them, and they have to pay the people who DID build them. If they aren't making at least enough money to pay for the fees they are being charged, they aren't going to keep it going.

If you had a business who was paying for customers parking, and you weren't making back enough money from those customers to cover the cost of their parking... would you continue to offer that service?
And along the same line of thought, if you could put up a pepsi advert at the doors to your store to keep the parking free for your customers, wouldn't you?

If you have a problem with taxes being used for the infrastructures, that's another problem to contend with. I know that our taxes aren't maintaining those lines, and I'd guess (unresearched) that any and all fees 'should' be going toward maintaining and improving those lines.

Of course, that doesn't explain where the CEO's new cars are comming from, but that's the idea anyway.

Done Before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23894465)

www.youporn.com has several full length porn movies.

Yeah...find them yourself.

These guys did it already on a local level. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23894481)

This is the model that works. www.ukiahvalley.tv
Investors?

Doomed business model (1)

Yold (473518) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894573)

IMHO, YouTube has a very difficult business model to profit from, the way things are currently headed. Networks would rather publish their own television shows on their own websites, because it allows them instantaneous and total control over advertising and video content. In fact, many major networks now have their prime-time lineup on the web for instant viewing.

  NetFlix on-demand, and Cable/Satellite on-demand services will be duking it out in the movie realm, with competition from pirated websites as well.

YouTube has its niche in user-created, low-budget content. And although it is entertaining, the easiest way to turn a profit would be annoying pre-video commercials, which would probably drive their viewers to other similar web-sites.

Re:Doomed business model (1)

Digital End (1305341) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894831)

In its current form, youtube is going to die. Large bandwidth needs plus lack of income potential is a rough combo. Ads would help, but I don't know the details to income vs outgoing. I would hope it could be as simple as a side or top banner, both would be acceptable... however, before they start more dramatic user-side changes (sign up fees, unpopular video removal, ect) I would hope they would put small ads on the bottom of the video. I think that would be the limit of what youtube could take before it fell.

Hulu? (1)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894657)

Hulu? Please not. I've once watched an episode on it, but after all 5 minutes, a commercial appeared. I mean, one is ok, or maybe one every 30 minutes if it's a movie, but I'll certainly won't ever watch something on Hulu again unless they limit the ads shown.

Re:Hulu? (1)

General Wesc (59919) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894889)

I'm pretty sure I've watched entire episodes on Hulu with only one commercial break (though probably there was one before the episode started as well), and since there's only one commercial per break, that makes 1-2 commercials in an episode. For many episodes, there is a commercial break for every spot where there was intended to be one when it was first broadcast--but again, only one commercial per break, which is a huge improvement.

I remember when people got upset because Voyager went from--as I recall--15 minutes to 17 minutes of commercials per hour-long episodes. That's over 25% of the time spent on ads. Hulu may not beat DVDs or Tivo, but it sure beats the broadcast I grew up with. I'm patient enough to survive a thirty-second interruption a couple times an hour.

Back in the Nineties, no one would have guessed that people nowadays would complain about 7% of their viewing time being advertisements. We seem pretty spoiled these days when you look at the numbers. If you want completely ad-free content, pay [wikipedia.org] for it. Somebody has to.

Re:Hulu? (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895477)

Hulu? Please not. I've once watched an episode on it, but after all 5 minutes, a commercial appeared. I mean, one is ok, or maybe one every 30 minutes if it's a movie, but I'll certainly won't ever watch something on Hulu again unless they limit the ads shown.

Weird. I've watched several full seasons of shows on Hulu. There seem to be different numbers of ads for different shows (selection by the copyright holder?) but the largest number I've seen is one commercial for each spot there would have been one when it played on TV, plus one additional one within the first minute or so. Mind you, this is still quite a bit less than when the show originally played, where there are something like four commercials for each spot.

Maybe our different experiences are because of the types of shows we chose. I suppose someone could do a spot check and see, statistically what the relative number is.

It's still less advertising than television (1)

defenestr8 (1002010) | more than 6 years ago | (#23899459)

i personally have no problem waiting for a 15 second ad to pass or, in my case, 30 seconds of a screen telling me to disable my adblock software.

Re:It's still less advertising than television (1)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 6 years ago | (#23901687)

Well, the reason I complain about it isn't that there are ads, but, in the House episode I watched, there really were 5 commercials, 5 minutes from each other. 1 longer (say, 1 minute) ad break would be completely fine with me, but I just think one can't really enjoy an episode if it is interrupted every couple of minutes. On television (I don't know which channel you watch, I can only speak about those I do), there usually are no commercials during the episode or 1 longer ad pause - both are fine, in the latter case, you have some time to go for some food and drinks or check your mails etc..

Re:It's still less advertising than television (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902707)

The point being is that the show was not broadcast in a manner
consistent with how it was created. It was specifically created
to accomodate normal broadcast television commercial breaks. If
you split it up any more than that it's probably going to ruin
the dramatic effect intended by it's creator.

You're essentially trashing the work/effort of the creative people involved.

Cuban trolling again? (4, Interesting)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894713)

Remember, Mark Cuban also claims to have made his saving throw to disbelieve the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA. If I were Google, I'd rely on my own attorneys for legal advice, and not some self-important blowhard who pretends that important legal concepts don't exist when they don't protect his own financial interests.

"Potential" for full-length TV shows? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894777)

"Potential" for full-length TV shows? Isn't the fact that full-length TV shows are already available on YouTube with the commercials edited out already the reason YouTube exists?

Full screen mode I can click away from! (1)

British (51765) | more than 6 years ago | (#23894847)

Here's a beef with all the video sites: You can't have full screen running and then click elsewhere. It instantly goes back to normal size. I have 2 monitors, and want the 2nd monitor to be playing the show full-screen. Ugh.

When will developers realize we live in a 2+ monitor world? You move an app from the primary to secondary monitor, all popup dialogs still end up on the 1st screen.

Re:Full screen mode I can click away from! (1)

SirCowMan (1309199) | more than 6 years ago | (#23905041)

As an adium, the control bars are typically persistent, usually with bright colours (white lettering, or white background).. not the best thing to pipe through to plasma sets.

There are three barriers to remaking television (4, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895021)

1. Cost of Production
2. Cost of Distribution
3. Customer Price Sensitivity and General Interest

1. Cost of Production is still high and will remain high, though the bang for the buck is certainly increasing. While I don't enjoy police procedurals, you'll note that the production values are easily eclipsing movies in all but ginormous action set pieces. Shows like the original Battlestar Galactica were prohibitively expensive even with recycled special effects. The new Galactica, while the scripts still suffer from cranial-rectal inversion, it looks fantastic. Hollywood would have had an impossible time churning something out like that with models, Babylon 5's CGI looks dated now. Fans in their bedrooms are turning out CGI better than what a professional studio was doing ten years ago. Funny point: when that new B5 Lost Tales DVD was being put together, the new effects crew was scrambling for models. All of the original files were turned over to WB as per contract and were lost. The fans stepped in and provided a station model better than what was in the original show. You can only imagine what we'll be seeing in another decade. Still, it's going to cost money to put a proper show together and that will be the biggest barrier to entry.

2. Distribution. The Internet is a dagger in the heart of the conventional network business model. The suits are desperately trying to coopt it. Right now, the Internet's biggest vulnerability is that service is provided by telecoms and cable companies so the suits are looking to these companies to serve as gatekeepers. The suits would like to see the Net tamed into a comfy AOL model, putting up barriers to entry, filtering people only to approved and partnered sites, making sure they can start extracting profits again. I'm not sure if what we're looking at here is Tienanmen Square or the fall of the Berlin Wall -- I don't know if efforts to stop democratizing forces will succeed or fail. If they do fail, the networks will fall into ever-decreasing relevance.

3. Price Sensitivity and General Interest. The vast majority of people are casual fans of whatever they're into, they're usually not obsessive geeks. Miss an episode of a series? Not care if you don't see it? I never could understand that. But I'm a geek. Geeks are the ones who were buying Trek on tape back when it worked out to something like $10 per episode. DVD's finally made it feasible to distribute archived shows from the past and distribute new productions directly to the customer. While there have been direct-to-video schlockfests for years, Disney being a prime offender, there hasn't been as much interest in distributing things like episodic television content directly to DVD. Of course, with digital distribution, the DVD angle becomes only an interest if someone wants to keep the show permanently.

I suppose you can also throw a fourth category in here, generational adaptation of technology. People my parent's age would tape a show and play it back, not fast-forwarding through the commercials. Even more likely, they'd not be able to figure out how to record it and just watch it live. But the younger the viewer, the more readily they will adapt to the new technologies. Fast-forward another decade and you'll see middle-aged people perfectly acclimated to watching content on their laptops and ipods and cell phones. And I think that this sort of independence of choice in both content and viewing behavior will create a demand that the suits will be unable to control.

Right now there's really a conversation going on between viewers and content producers/distributors. The producer/distributors are saying "Shut up and pay what we demand, you cunts" and the viewers are saying "no thank you. We don't want your commercial-laden television, we don't want to pay $12 to go watch a movie that has 20 minutes of commercials in front of it, we don't want to be limited to just your approved content. And what you have that we like, you charge too much or you dick with show's creator to mess it all up."

I won't predict how the future will be but I'll tell you what I would like. Households are charged a fee for telecommunication needs. Internet, phone, mobile, television, it's all digital and it's a flat rate for use with an additional fee charged only if people are running the connection at max speed 24/7 the full month. Infrastructure for data access should be treated as a public utiltiy so cell phone towers for wireless, landlines for broadband, all should be part of the same data access plan. Each household would have a simple wireless network setup to serve their needs. The television, game system, phones, all are part of the household wireless network and everything runs seamlessly so people don't even have to think about it. Turn on the TV, you can watch live-streaming content like sports and news, you can watch archived shows, movies, whatever. Rental fees should be reasonable. The Xbox Live media center has very nice features but the prices are ridiculous. A feature movie should rent for a buck. Ridiculous? The kiosks at the super-market already do that and there's some expensive infrastructure to setup there. Movies should be a buck, maybe even less. TV shows should be a quarter or less. Ideally, a heavily plot-oriented show like Heroes would give away the first half of the season for free and only charge for the latter half -- make it good enough and people will pay out the nose to see how it ends.

But here's the thing about what I'm suggesting above -- the places that handle the streaming copyrighted content would only be a part of the internet. Full access to every site out there would be retained by the customer. Will there be people who will pirate content? Of course there will! But I have full faith that there will be enough patrons to support quality shows, who will make it a point of honor to pay for what they enjoy. In this kind of environment, a show like Firefly would be directly supported by the fans. A creator like Joss could get a loan to start production OR he could make a direct appeal to fans to pre-order a show before it goes into production. JMS pretty much did this with the Lost Tales DVD, not sure ultimately how successful it was but we're still in the early days of direct fan patronage here.

Anyway, I find all of this to be very encouraging. The suits are likewise terrified and for exactly the same reason.

Re:There are three barriers to remaking television (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23896003)

That's not a comment, that's a fucking article!

Could you try to be a bit more succinct please.

Re:There are three barriers to remaking television (1)

fictionpuss (1136565) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896351)

I'm a bit more optimistic about barrier #1 -- it seems that the only reason that television rakes in advertising dollars is because it's the most popular medium for distributing content.

There's nothing inherently magical about television, and I think we're just waiting for the populace to grok that the idea of the television set as we grew up with, will soon go the way of the phonograph. Around that point market forces should redress the balance.

In addition, there's no need for a show to start with a 24 episode commitment, or for seasons to be artificially constructed for sweeps. A project could start online with next to no budget, just one episode, and jump-start the future episodes that way.

Re:There are three barriers to remaking television (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#23902803)

There have been some fan films with very good production quality.
One of the Trek ones had better external effects shots than the
recently redone Old Trek. It wasn't so matter a much of
technology as of technique. The acting stank but that's often
true of "real TV" anyways. Plus quality stuff may eventually
attract the better talent simply because they would rather not
work on drek.

Perhaps today the economics doesn't support the starving artist
but soon it will.

hello, stage6? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23895193)

no one remember stage6? the divx hi def streaming video pages? it was so fucking great

they had to close it in february, the cost of bandwith were big i think

Of course, its most important use will be for... (2, Funny)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895365)

...the full 2-hour-long version of Loituma girl [youtube.com] . I always felt that truncating this rich experience to a mere 10 minutes was a travesty.

Improve the player (2, Interesting)

SendBot (29932) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896383)

Especially for a google property, I find their flash player to be of really poor quality. The seek bar (or whatever it's called) never goes to where you drop it, and there are really only a handful of places you can seek to if you want to see a part over again. It seems like every other flash video player I've come across behaves as I'd expect it to.

And it's annoying as hell to have the dock-esque related videos pop up any time my mouse goes near the vid.

Re:Improve the player (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896673)

The seek bar (or whatever it's called) never goes to where you drop it
It goes to the nearest keyframe. Anything else would require several seconds to decode all keyframes and delta frames between the previous keyframe and the seek point, which would kill responsiveness on older machines. Using more keyframes would increase the data rate beyond what ISPs can easily handle. I've seen Windows Media Player do the same thing when playing WMVs.

Re:Improve the player (2, Insightful)

SendBot (29932) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897303)

Okay, that makes sense - but why can't the player just interpolate these things internally on the client side? Like I mentioned, it seems like every other flash video player out there (break, hulu, revver) handles this just fine.

Re:Improve the player (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23897381)

but why can't the player just interpolate these things internally on the client side?
He already answered that: "would require several seconds".

Yeah...but (2, Insightful)

lilfields (961485) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896609)

Yeah, but Mark Cuban is an idiot that puts his interest before anyone Else's, so why should Google listen to him? I think this is the same Cuban who said the internet is "dead and boring" and that "We have reached the point of diminishing returns with today's internet." Really Mark? That's why you blog among other things and try to give advice to Google about making money on...the internet? This just in Mark: No one cares what you think, you've burned out...and you're now dead and boring, if you were ever anything else.

One thing's for sure (1)

Haoie (1277294) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897113)

Those of us on slow, outdated connection speeds [me included] won't be watching.

YT is slow enough as it is for someone with my ISP.

Why doesn't Google just produce their own shows? (4, Interesting)

NoPantsJim (1149003) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897435)

Google has more than enough money to develop their own shows, or just outright purchase an existing major show like House or The Office.

Imagine if Google purchased House and put all the full length episodes on Youtube, and then continued the series, allowing the episodes to only be viewed on Youtube and then eventually released on DVD. They could completely revolutionize the way Tv is done and make a bundle in the process.

Re:Why doesn't Google just produce their own shows (2, Insightful)

proxima (165692) | more than 6 years ago | (#23898285)

Google has more than enough money to develop their own shows, or just outright purchase an existing major show like House or The Office.

Google does not want to get into the business of "content creation". They make their money being the access portal (one way or another) to other people's content. Whether that's through Google Search/News/etc.

As soon as they enter the content market (whether that be for entertainment television, news of any sort, books, or music), they will make competitors out of other content companies. These companies will fight (or fight harder) Google's push to get all content indexed. The current fight for this is with Google books, scanning the entire book to make it searchable and allowing a reasonable portion of the book to be viewed "free".

As Google pushes the limits of fair use (which, IMHO, I think is a good thing), the last thing they want to do is antagonize the content producers. That means sticking with the script of, "Look, we can help bring more consumers to your products by having them find you through us". Becoming a competitor to these companies weakens that argument substantially; they think Google will give preferential treatment to their own content (which they probably would).

I for one welcome ... (1)

nickrout (686054) | more than 6 years ago | (#23899045)

... our new blocky pixellated re-masters!

Who cares, it's *total* not per-user that matters (1)

np_bernstein (453840) | more than 6 years ago | (#23900707)

Imagine this, you've to two videos on your site and each one makes you $10,000 per day, and another site, each video makes you $1, but you've got 100,000,000 of them... which site would you rather own?

One of the advantages of youtube is it delivers media with advertising that people largely stomach. The whole idea is silly. People need to stop worrying about maximizing profit -- instead, they should concentrate on developing a sustainable profit.

uhhh (1)

jon3k (691256) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908151)

So first we had TV, then you gave me a DVR so I could fast forward through commercials.

Now the next generation of content delivery is video on demand, delivered via the Internet with embedded commercials that I cannot fast forward through.

...

Seriously?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?