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!

YouTube Adds Full-Length Television Shows

timothy posted about 6 years ago | from the what-about-magnum-pi-and-square-pegs? dept.

Television 197

thefickler writes "YouTube has moved to put full-length television shows on its site for the first time. Historically, YouTube has hosted a bewildering and attractive variety of video clips, the vast majority of which have been under ten minutes in length. YouTube has announced that it had finalized a deal with CBS to offer shows such as Star Trek, MacGyver, Beverly Hills 90210, and The Young and the Restless. I can't wait to watch The Young and the Restless!"

cancel ×


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

more crap (-1, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | about 6 years ago | (#25353321)


Still using Flash (5, Interesting)

Daengbo (523424) | about 6 years ago | (#25353353)

I'd like to see Google switch over to the video tag and a free codec. That would make everything perfect.

Re:Still using Flash (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25353483)

I don't disagree that I would like to see that happen, but think about it from the perspective from someone who works at GooTube and wants to keep that job: would it really make sense to switch to a brand-new standard only supported by [let's be generous] 25% of the market?

Ok, you may respond, why not maintain two parallel versions of the site: one for legacy users and one for browsers that support the new standards? And to that I say, it's a little bit hard to go to management and ask for the resources and time to implement a second parallel version of a service that already works splendidly well.

I would be just as happy as you if YouTube started offering video streams in other formats and other access methods. Until they do, though, I'll continue watching their FLV streams directly with VLC. The newly-released 0.9.2 even has a Lua scriptlet specifically designed to allow you to drop a YouTube URL directly into the playlist.

Not good, but good enough. At least you don't need Flash.

Re:Still using Flash (1)

hcdejong (561314) | about 6 years ago | (#25354281)

The newly-released 0.9.2 even has a Lua scriptlet specifically designed to allow you to drop a YouTube URL directly into the playlist.

How do you do this? I can open a Youtube URL manually by choosing Media-Open Network and then pasting the URL, but drag and dropping a URL into the playlist as you suggest doesn't seem to work (Firefox 3 and VLC 0.9.4 Windows, btw).

Re:Still using Flash (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25354597)

just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work.

it must be nice to be stupid and not able to solve simple problems without asking for help. life is easier when others think for you.

Re:Still using Flash (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 6 years ago | (#25353507)

Switching now would be rather premature, given that the HTML5 spec isn't set yet. In fact, they still have a big red box for what codecs are a must in all browsers, because no one can finally make up their mind and just use mp4/h264 already.

Re:Still using Flash (1)

delt0r (999393) | about 6 years ago | (#25354143)

Are you going to pay the license fees for Firefox? It would be about 3-5Million! Perhaps you can get one of those cheap US loans..

Re:Still using Flash (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 6 years ago | (#25353655)

Is MPEG4 not free?

Re:Still using Flash (4, Informative)

Daengbo (523424) | about 6 years ago | (#25353691)

MPEG-4 contains patented technologies that require licensing in countries that acknowledge software patents. Patents covering MPEG-4 are claimed by over two dozen companies. The MPEG Licensing Authority[1] licenses patents required for MPEG-4 Part 2 Visual from a wide range of companies (audio is licensed separately) and lists all of its licensors and licensees on the site. New licenses for MPEG-4 System patents are under development[2] and no new licenses are being offered while holders of its old MPEG-4 Systems license are still covered under the terms of that license for the patents listed (MPEG LA â" Patent List). AT&T is trying to sue companies such as Apple Inc. over alleged MPEG-4 patent infringement.[3] The terms of Apple's Quicktime 7 license for users[4] describes in paragraph 14 the terms under Apple's existing MPEG-4 System Patent Portfolio license from MPEGLA.[1] []

No, it's not.

Re:Still using Flash (4, Informative)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | about 6 years ago | (#25353787)

No, but Theora and Dirac are. Theora [] is from the Xiph open source community (the same people that do cdparanoia, FLAC, Speex, and Vorbis). The FSF has recommended its use along with Vorbis audio for some time now. Dirac [] is from the BBC.

Re:Still using Flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25353901)

They're easy enough to convert...

ffmpeg -i video.flv video.mpg

Re:Still using Flash (2, Insightful)

aztracker1 (702135) | about 6 years ago | (#25353961)

Okay, so dump a system that 98% of the people browsing the internet have support for, in favor of something people have to jump through hoops for?

Given, I would like to see the inclusion of h.264 in Flash as a supported format for video. VC-1 would work as well (even if it is from MS). I wouldn't expect to see Theora or the like supported on YouTube any time soon, unless it is as widely available as flash is. Flash is a PITA on x64 Linux, I am well aware of this, however, from a business standpoint your suggestion makes no sense.

Re:Still using Flash (4, Funny)

Talderas (1212466) | about 6 years ago | (#25354033)

However, seeing as though they will be showing MacGyver, Google will only have a paper clip, post-it notes, and 4 bullet casings to complete the objective.

Re:Still using Flash (0, Redundant)

KGIII (973947) | about 6 years ago | (#25354287)

And his knife.

Odd that today, even after all those years, I tend to carry a Swiss Army knife with me though I typically lose mine with an alarming frequency.

As a non-american... (5, Insightful)

Tx (96709) | about 6 years ago | (#25353369)

...Hulu sucks, since it won't stream outside the USA. No mention in the article as to whether YouTube will add regional restrictions on these full-length shows, but let's hope they can convince the studios otherwise. If not, well, bittorrent works just fine.

Re:As a non-american... (3, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 6 years ago | (#25353411)

Does anyone seriously want to watch full length TV shows in a tiny box in their browser in crumby YouTube quality?!

Re:As a non-american... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25353443)


Re:As a non-american... (1)

electrictroy (912290) | about 6 years ago | (#25354243)

Yes Squared. I watched the Canadian CBC-produced DaVinci's Inquest on youtube, and it looked just fine when blown-up to full screen size. About the same as over-the-air overly-compressed SDTV. ;-)

The only drawback was the show was divided into ten-minute segments. I'm glad to see youtube will now allow 45-50 minute long episodes.

Re:As a non-american... (5, Informative)

kentrel (526003) | about 6 years ago | (#25353451)

Youtube offer better-than-TV resolution. Check out their high-quality option, which you can view full screen.

Re:As a non-american... (4, Informative)

dosius (230542) | about 6 years ago | (#25353465)

The videos are still encoded to 480x360 at the most. That's hardly "better than TV".


Re:As a non-american... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25353797)

That's a user-uploaded video, not studio supplied data. Just pointing it out, may not mean anything, but Youtube may encode those videos differently given the guarantee of a much higher quality source.

It's simple logistics, the the video encoding they are currently doing ensures there is little/if any upscaling of user-uploaded videos that are for whatever ungodly reason in an unusual resolution.

Re:As a non-american... (1)

DMalic (1118167) | about 6 years ago | (#25354375)

Given the atrocious nature of youtube HQ's video for the bandwidth it uses, I can't see them pushing out decent video unless they simply spam the tubes with endless bandwidth like Netflix's Instant Viewing does.

Re:As a non-american... (1)

electrictroy (912290) | about 6 years ago | (#25354313)

I've never seen a high-quality option. You just get what you get.

Analog television maxes-out at 480x486, so youtube would be about the same as analog if it had lots of macroblocking.

Re:As a non-american... (4, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 6 years ago | (#25353533)

Youtube offer better-than-TV resolution. Check out their high-quality option, which you can view full screen.

If you say so... I have yet to see a YouTube video encoded anywhere close to 768x576 (SDTV resolution), and resolution aside, they don't come close to broadcast quality from the encoding point of view either.

In an era when people are interested in HDTV (1920x1080), making a big deal about a crappy sub-SDTV streaming service seems a bit nuts.

(Note: I'm not one who believes in bothering with HDTV for most stuff - maybe nature programmes, etc, but certainly not worthwhile for anything with a story - but I do draw the line at watching significant amounts of YouTube quality TV).

Re:As a non-american... (2, Interesting)

Monkey-some (1178115) | about 6 years ago | (#25353757)

I was totally agreeing with until I saw my young niece watch some children serie through youtube without even bothering to put it full screen...not that she's technologically impaired but it's only that she was instant messaging around, browsing and "studying" in the meantime.

I don't think that's the point here... (2, Interesting)

g253 (855070) | about 6 years ago | (#25354345)

You may be right that Youtube's is still inferior to Tv's resolution, although I find it good enough for watching on the computer or on an ordinary 5 years old TV... And it's even better than a worn-out VHS ;)

But that's not the point here : the important thing is that they're streaming full episodes, legally, on youtube. That's a change in policy, it sets a good precedent, and it could even help to make the average consumer think about so-called piracy ("why can't I download it off mininova if I can watch it on youtube?").
So while the low res might make it less appealing to the average nerd, it's still a Good Thing. (although the region locking is rubbish)

Re:As a non-american... (3, Funny)

lufo (949075) | about 6 years ago | (#25353601)

Does anyone seriously want to watch full length TV shows in a tiny box in their browser in crumby YouTube quality?!

What else can you do during your boss' lunch time?

Re:As a non-american... (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about 6 years ago | (#25353619)

It is to watch the Simpsons. Seriously, do you need high quality for that ?

Re:As a non-american... (1)

caluml (551744) | about 6 years ago | (#25354541)

Cartoons should be done in Motion-SVG.

Re:As a non-american... (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 6 years ago | (#25353689)

Which is why I watch YouTube on my TV. I installed a GreaseMonkey Script [] that will send the URL of a YouTube video to Xbox Media Center. After a little bit of caching, the movie plays.

Re:As a non-american... (3, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 6 years ago | (#25353707)

Which is why I watch YouTube on my TV. I installed a GreaseMonkey Script [] that will send the URL of a YouTube video to Xbox Media Center. After a little bit of caching, the movie plays.

So you get to watch it on your TV in crappy YouTube quality instead... great...

Re:As a non-american... (1)

BenevolentP (1220914) | about 6 years ago | (#25353963)

They are quite watchable even on a 32 inch flat. I just watched 3 full mst3k episodes this weekend. No comparison to stage6 (RIP) of course. I wouldnt know why one would send an URL to xbmc, though. There are enough great scripts for viewing / browsing on the xbox itself (youtube2a, navi-x)

Re:As a non-american... (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 6 years ago | (#25354101)

Because normally I don't go searching for videos on youtube. I already have youtube up and the TV on so I'll want to play what's in front of my on the TV.

Re:As a non-american... (5, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about 6 years ago | (#25353431)

This is region-locked the US also.

Region-locking is an abomination. (5, Insightful)

EWAdams (953502) | about 6 years ago | (#25353571)

It's called the WORLD WIDE Web, assholes.

Re:Region-locking is an abomination. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25353823)

You mean anyone lives in that wasteland beyond the US border?

A closed curve on a sphere has no inherent inside (4, Funny)

pjt33 (739471) | about 6 years ago | (#25353957)

Yes. I hear there's a country with about 300 million inhabitants there.

Re:A closed curve on a sphere has no inherent insi (4, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#25354407)

You shouldn't have told us that. Now we'll have to invade.

Re:A closed curve on a sphere has no inherent insi (1)

ozphx (1061292) | about 6 years ago | (#25354523)

But we don't have any oil!

Re:Region-locking is an abomination. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25353953)

So if they used a medium of delivery beyond HTTP, you'd be happy with it? Or would it just ruin your witty one-liner?

Seriously, just because licensing agreements haven't yet caught up with the global nature of the Internet doesn't mean we should disparage the positive steps being made in the direction of having content available on the Internet AT ALL.

Re:Region-locking is an abomination. (4, Funny)

DMalic (1118167) | about 6 years ago | (#25354405)

I know! It's not like they've had much time to prepare, what with ARPANET's unexpected arrival in 2001 and the advent of the web browser shortly after in 2005! Why, I just remember back in late '07 when AOL was in its prime and nobody thought broadband would ever come into play..

Re:Region-locking is an abomination. (4, Insightful)

electrictroy (912290) | about 6 years ago | (#25354379)

Yes this is the WWW, except that the American owners don't want non-americans looking at A-Team, McGuyver, et cetera. They want to sell those programs to Japanese stations for reruns, or on DVD directly to European citizens, and thereby maximize profit. If they gave this stuff for free via the web, they'd be killing their non-american market.

Everything makes sense if you just follow the dollar to its source and assume the owner is greedy.

Re:As a non-american... (5, Informative)

Tx (96709) | about 6 years ago | (#25353475)

Hate replying to my myself, but went to find one of these full-length Trek episodes, clicked on it: "This video is not available in your country". So much for that.

Re:As a non-american... (1)

RazzleDazzle (442937) | about 6 years ago | (#25353869)

I bet there are a bajillion free web proxies in the US you could use to pretend to be from the US so you can watch some crappy TV show made in the US via an officially sanctioned method.

There are two other solutions besides using a free web proxy in the US: download shows via bittorrent/p2p tools OR dont watch the crappy shows at all. I personally don't watch them even though I have access to the network on my own TV or could apparently view this on the web as I am in the US.

Re:As a non-american... (2)

Hurricane78 (562437) | about 6 years ago | (#25354199)

You lost your bet. I spent days searching for something like that.

There are only some open proxies, and either they are incredibly horribly slow, or they cost money and still are very slow. And all of them require some invasive untrustworthy "client" to be installed for no reason. I bet most of them are just spyware and the modify your packets on-the-fly.

My nearly perfect solution for series is, to create a proper search query trough, and then add the resulting rss-feed to my mldonkey. Some additional scripting (post-filtering [eg duplicates], download priority setting and file renaming) and I'm done. Works like a charm for my shows. I come home and just look in "incoming" instead of turning on the tv. (I do not even have a tv anymore.)

Re:As a non-american... (1)

mschoolbus (627182) | about 6 years ago | (#25354131)

"This video is not available in your country". So much for that.

You aren't in the U.S., your username says Texas!

Re:As a non-american... (1)

Scutter (18425) | about 6 years ago | (#25353513)

Let us know when the BBC opens their content to the rest of the world.

Re:As a non-american... (5, Insightful)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | about 6 years ago | (#25353609)

Don't be so obtuse.

If you haven't noticed the BBC isn't ad sponsored, it's UK license fee paid. How are they meant to cover the costs of international streaming? Youtube does streaming of their video internationally paid for by advertising with a well built back-end that can handle it.

Comparing the BBC's iPlayer license fee paid service to the ad-sponsored Youtube is like comparing Apples and Oranges.

Re:As a non-american... (1)

Bluecobra (906623) | about 6 years ago | (#25353817)

It would be nice if us international folks could buy an online-only UK television license and be able to stream shows from BBC's website and Channel 4 On Demand. But until then, a UK shell account and a SOCKS proxy over a SSH tunnel would suffice for now.

Re:As a non-american... (1)

electrictroy (912290) | about 6 years ago | (#25354441)

Or bittorrent.

Youtube probably lacks the ability to market European-centric advertising. After all, what good is it to advertise "Buy a new car at Carrmaxx" if the viewer lives on the opposite side of the ocean?

Plus as I stated elsewhere, these media companies would rather sell Europeans a DVD of "McGuyver" or sell these episodes on European reruns, rather than just give it away.

Re:As a non-american... (1)

Aladrin (926209) | about 6 years ago | (#25354381)

They're both fruit. Yes, you can compare them.

As for the 'ad-based' being different, why? It still takes revenue to stream them, and sponsors in the US aren't going to be willing to sponsor the overseas traffic. So once again, the people who pay the bills (ad-watchers in the US, in this case) are the ones that get to the see the content, just like the BBC.

Re:As a non-american... (1)

electrictroy (912290) | about 6 years ago | (#25354653)

Okay BBC is supported by taxes (a tax by any other name, is still a tax).

What about the commercial-supported European networks? They too block access to U.S. viewers.

Re:As a non-american... (1)

1u3hr (530656) | about 6 years ago | (#25353617)

Let us know when the BBC opens their content to the rest of the world.

The BBC is funded by British taxpayers. Youtube is funded by the ads on the page.

Anyway, 10 minutes of crappy small-screen video with the occasional buffering pause is about all I can handle. I'll stick to downloading AVI files and burning them to DVD for anything longer.

Re:As a non-american... (0)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#25354451)

When they do, the entire world will get to discover that, contrary to the perception created by occasionally brilliant shows like The Office, 99% of BBC programming is complete shit.

Re:As a non-american... (1)

ozphx (1061292) | about 6 years ago | (#25354571)

You decided you didn't want colonial TV, and went off to go and make your own shitty shows. Unless you want to pay a hundred years of back taxes to the Queen, you can all bugger orf as twere.

No backsies.

Re:As a non-american... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25353559)

Nope, regionally restricted. I'd say US only. Waste of time for the majority of the planet.

Re:As a non-american... (1)

Saint Gerbil (1155665) | about 6 years ago | (#25354003)

They have added the regional restrictions on the content that the article states. A quick Search of "MacGyver CBS" shows quite a few 48+ minutes shows none of which will play for me in the UK.

Re:As a non-american... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25354241)

Yup, it's region restricted

Re:As a non-american... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#25354361)

Sorry, the studio systems are still locked into an ancient distribution system where they sell distribution rights based on country or region. The whole "internet" thing is still confusing to them.

Hulu vs. The World (4, Insightful)

junglee_iitk (651040) | about 6 years ago | (#25353377)

The new services also put YouTube head to head with Hulu, competing directly for the full-length television show viewer. Hulu currently has more of this sort of content than does YouTube, but YouTube has the lionâ(TM)s share of the Web video audience. It is estimated that YouTube has 100 times the viewers that Hulu has.

It might have to done something with the fact that Hulu's "video library can only be streamed within the United States".

Some people go to great lengths to put their feet over an axe, just to see if it hurts or not.

just what we needed, just in time, virotic re-runs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25353391)

greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?)**http%3A//
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships);_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE
(some yoga & yogurt makes killing/getting killed less stressful);_ylt=A0wNcw9iXutIPkMBwzGs0NUE
(the old bait &'re share of the resulting 'product' is a fairytail nightmare?);_ylt=A0wNcwJGwvFIZAQAE6ms0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

'I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live,' added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."

'The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born.' --emerson
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Re:just what we needed, just in time, virotic re-r (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25354135)

People pray to your man all the time and He doesn't do a thing. It's a sad spectacle indeed.

What Next? (5, Interesting)

nicknamenottaken (1384173) | about 6 years ago | (#25353409)

I think it is a smart idea to have star trek on youtube to compensate for the rest of the proposed garbage listed in the story. Hopefully the trend of 1 in 4 television shows on youtube not being garbage will continue.

Re:What Next? (5, Funny)

White Flame (1074973) | about 6 years ago | (#25353441)

Wait a sec, you're calling MacGyver "garbage" on a nerd website?

Re:What Next? (1)

nicknamenottaken (1384173) | about 6 years ago | (#25353487)

ok ok maybe we can recycle MacGyver, but definately toss the others

Re:What Next? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 6 years ago | (#25353833)

We can do a lot more than just recycle MacGyver. However, we'll need paper clips, rubber bands, 1677216 "D" batteries and 512 rackmount servers.

Re:What Next? (1)

nicknamenottaken (1384173) | about 6 years ago | (#25353955)

how many RU's does each server take, need to calculate the rack space required

Re:What Next? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 6 years ago | (#25354027)

They're 1U.

Re:What Next? (1, Funny)

rhyder128k (1051042) | about 6 years ago | (#25353765)

Thank god. No more having to watch the old episodes through a hacked together cable decoder box that I made out of a paperclip, some tin foil and two bits of shoe lace.

Why no 90210 love? (2, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | about 6 years ago | (#25354335)

But the 90210 characters were so compelling! There was that handsome dude with the sideburns, and that other handsome dude with the slightly pointier sideburns, and that ditsy blond chic, and that other ditsy blond chick.

How could you not love a show with rich, beautiful people whining about how tough their lives are?

ta30 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25353471)

the most vibrant de4centralized

Where to find them? (1)

gmthor (1150907) | about 6 years ago | (#25353499)

Does anybody know where to find those full length shows on Youtube?

craaaaap! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25353501)

I thought the article was going to say we can put full hour shows on.

Jewtube? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25353503)

Seriously, what the fuck is that?

Re:Jewtube? (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 6 years ago | (#25353865)

Cartman has taken over slashdot.

Censorship Sucks. (3, Interesting)

liquidMONKEY (749280) | about 6 years ago | (#25353511)

Californication is censored, both language and nudity-wise, on YouTube. Normally for most programs it wouldn't matter, but it was the raunchy stuff that really propelled the comedy along in this case. Either have the full-length shows uncensored (possibly with a warning for moral individuals), or GTFO.

About damn time (1)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | about 6 years ago | (#25353535)

Several times I've found some interesting TV series and decided to watched a few episodes, only to have to endure the task of finding all the parts, which are never listed in any sort of order in the "Related videos" list for this type of use. And then there is the problem with the "QuickList" not clearing videos that you have removed from it, or occasionally not adding one, or forgetting some next time the page loads, forcing you to try and find the parts again.

Full-length is ok... are they going to add ads ? (1)

ACK!! (10229) | about 6 years ago | (#25353565)

Lots of the other sites with full length shows interrupt the action in odd places to add in ads and the resume on the show is breaky and odd.

Also Hulu is not the only competition for this service it seems especially for nostalgia really old shows that there are a couple of services offering this.

I watched Chico and the Man on AOL video for example. I hit Barney Miller on Hulu I believe and aren't there other sites as well?

What's the encoding going to be? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25353599)

I mean, having the full-length video available is fine in theory, but watching two large pixels have a buzz-saw competition instead of a dialog isn't really all that interesting.

CBS only? (5, Insightful)

themightythor (673485) | about 6 years ago | (#25353625)

The shows and their original networks:

Star Trek: NBC
MacGyver: ABC
BH 90210: Fox
Y & R: CBS

I guess I don't understand how these things work...

Re:CBS only? (2, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 6 years ago | (#25353725)

Star Trek: Paramount
MacGyver: Paramount
DH 90210: Paramount
Y & R: CBS

Paramount is now known as CBS Corporation. The Wiki [] has more info. Just because a show airs on one station doesn't mean that station owns the rights to that show. Although it does look like Paramount/CBS has had a change of heart: In February 2007, Viacom sent upwards of 100,000 DMCA takedown notices to the video-sharing site YouTube, alleging large-scale copyright infringement. Of the 100,000, approximately 60â"70 non-infringing videos were erroneously removed under the auspices of copyright infringement.[3]

On March 13, 2007, Viacom filed a US$1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube alleging massive copyright infringement, alleging that users frequently uploaded copyrighted material to YouTubeâ"enough to cause a hit in revenue for Viacom and a gain in advertisement revenue for YouTube.[4]

The complaint contends that almost 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacomâ(TM)s programming have been available on YouTube and that these clips had collectively been viewed more than 1.5 billion times.

Re:CBS only? (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 6 years ago | (#25353751)

Bah. Paramount is owned by what was Viacom and Viacom is now known as the CBS Corporation.

Re:CBS only? (1)

hal2814 (725639) | about 6 years ago | (#25353981)

Who owns the rights to a television show has little to do with who aired it originally. The "CBS" in question here is the distribution arm of CBS Paramount. In Star Trek's case, CBS handles both Desilu (old Trek) and Paramount (new Trek). I'm pretty sure MacGuyver was also Paramount. I'm guessing if 90210 is listed, they handle distribution for Spelling. I have no idea who produces Y&R but I'd wager it's a production company wholly owned by CBS. Older production companies have merged to the point that many are under a network's umbrella now but the new ownerships don't line up very much with the network on which the show was originally aired.

Please no (3, Interesting)

hcdejong (561314) | about 6 years ago | (#25353669)

With short clips the YouTube UI is bad enough. For full-length TV shows I want:
- a UI that can be controlled from arbitrary input devices, e.g. an IR remote and rotary controller (Griffin Powermate). Sitting at your computer doesn't cut it, I want control from my comfy chair.
- a full-featured UI with controls for skip forward/reverse (at short/long intervals), aspect ratio, mute, etc.
Basically, I want the VLC UI.

Re:Please no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25353941)

The Divx player used on the old Stage 6 website was the best and still is the best I have found. Had to download the player for it run in browser, but it was fully featured and high quality. The site shut down during the time it was starting to get better known.

Re:Please no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25354079)

I recommend you watch your YouTube clips in VLC, then. Works perfectly and satisfies all those requirements. :)

Re:Please no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25354491)

I suppose you want a toilet built into your comfy chair too ....

Just because you watch TV, doesn't mean you have to be lazy as well.

Country based DRM ... without modchips (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | about 6 years ago | (#25353671)

"This video is not available in your territory". Great, locality-based DRM.

BTW, what's with the !jewtube tag ?

This why the white space wireless is a big deal (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 6 years ago | (#25353739)

Cable providers realize that if free or very low cost wireless becomes a reality and widespread more content providers will move to web distribution; using either commercial or subscription models. That will lessen the value of their cable franchise as consumers no longer want or need large bundles; forcing them to change their pricing structure to compete. As a side "benefit" they potentially will lose the internet and VIOP business as well as people move to the wireless option. Meanwhile, the big content providers will want a bigger cut for providing content since they already can reach consumers directly via the web; lessening their dependence on cable.

The real challenge will be for the marginal channels - the ones that get carried but have small viewership - can they translate that into a profitable web based service if cable loses enough customers so the cable revenue no longer can sustain their production costs?

OTOH, sports fan will get a bonanza since it now becomes easy and lucrative to broadcast all of your teams games anywhere since you would potential have a big enough subscriber base to make it worthwhile to stream via YouTube- a boon to big time college sports with world wide fan bases.

Make no mistake, this is the most serious threat cable has faced in a long time. Which is why they are playing white space wireless up as a "technical" threat - they want the government to squash this before it has a chance to take off.

Re:This why the white space wireless is a big deal (1)

electrictroy (912290) | about 6 years ago | (#25354575)

White-space devices won't hurt just Cable companies but also over-the-air viewers, because the WSDs have been demonstrated to not detect "weak" stations from long-distance locations (50-60 miles away).

As a result, the WSDs broadcast directly over top of existing programming. That is not acceptable. Over-the-air viewers have already given-up channels 52 to 83. Why can't WSDs use *that* spectrum and leave channels 2-51 alone???

Is this the end of reruns? (2, Insightful)

zakezuke (229119) | about 6 years ago | (#25353861)

Seriously. One of the things I hate about watching TV is the fact that you have to depend on a station to carry a show, and play it, all of it. It's fine when it hits the rerun zone, but there is no real assurance they will play it totally and in the intended order. So, much of my 20th century TV watching was watching the repeats waiting for what I didn't see to come around.

The first stuff I started to see was on AOL's in2tv. They screwed up Rocky and Bullwinkle, one of "those" series where order and completeness matters, not so much that they don't carry a season but they broke up their "show" into their various little shows. Now we have Veoh and Hulu, and the quality of both is pretty good.

So it makes me wonder, now that these things exist, sites that carry series that have little to no commercial value, what point is there to 100+ channels? Seriously it's reached the point that I should actually ditch the cable since all of my TV needs save the local news are covered online. Even cartoon network.

Re:Is this the end of reruns? (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 6 years ago | (#25354547)

So it makes me wonder, now that these things exist, sites that carry series that have little to no commercial value, what point is there to 100+ channels?

Merchandising, of course! []

Re:Is this the end of reruns? (1)

electrictroy (912290) | about 6 years ago | (#25354623)

>>> "now that these things exist, sites that carry series that have little to no commercial value, what point is there to 100+ channels?"

Ding, ding, ding! This is precisely why Comcast has implemented that 15-minute "bandwidth hog" window. They want to slowdown video streams from sites like,,, et cetera. They call it bandwidth management, but it's really about blocking high bitrate television watching.

Key word missing? (2, Insightful)

BigBadBus (653823) | about 6 years ago | (#25353933)

I think the word "legally" is missing in the write-up. Episodes of some TV shows have been available for quite a while now; I watched an episode of Star Trek Voyager I had missed on YouTube many months ago.

Clowns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#25353993)

None of that counts unless they have F Troop.

Great idea (1)

MikeRT (947531) | about 6 years ago | (#25354023)

One of the biggest mistakes that large copyright holders make is hording their older assets. If they've made a heck of a lot of money on them, why not release them into a mostly free venue, so that they can scoop in more potential customers? It's worked for Microsoft; they turned piracy into a way to keeping people focused on Windows and Windows-based products.

Youtube is old, dying, and about to copy Vimeo (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 6 years ago | (#25354221)

Vimeo at least does true HD video. Makes a huge difference when I'm using a 32" LCD for a computer monitor.

OK, WTF (1)

4D6963 (933028) | about 6 years ago | (#25354263)

WTF is wrong with Hulu, Fox, YouTube and the likes? Why obstinately limit themselves to the American market when it comes to online broadcasting? Why fight over the same fucking market when the European market (or as a matter of fact any other) is still waiting for a single decent offer. Why the hell won't they understand that the web can be treated like TV, if only they took the pain to provide the same kind of content! I mean, it's like they just don't see any potential there, or the little they see isn't enough for them to bother with foreign Web markets.

Are all these deals going to be the same? (1)

cashman73 (855518) | about 6 years ago | (#25354369)

So, in the past couple of months we've seen several folks come out and support free streaming of TV shows and movies, most notably IMDB [] and now Youtube [] . What I am noticing is that none of it appears to be exclusive streaming -- most of these shows have been licensed to just about everybody. I guess from the network technology perspective, this is a good thing, so as to avoid a popular server from slashdotting one particular site. But from a competition perspective, is this really a good thing? I mean, if everybody's got the same stuff, then where's the incentive to develop a particular site over another?

US-ONLY! :( (5, Informative)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 6 years ago | (#25354515)

So, this means I won't have to pirate the videos to watch my favorite shows?

Think again.

"This video is not available in your country."

Oh well, at least I know a site [] that DOES let me play the videos in my country - and without ads.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?