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!

MGM First To Post Full-Length Features To YouTube

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the users-finally-dictating-consumption? dept.

Google 116

Lithal13 writes to tell us that MGM studios will soon be the first major movie studio to post a complete feature-length film on YouTube. Some credit commercial video site Hulu.com for the mended relationship between YouTube parent Google and Hollywood. "YouTube has developed systems that help keep pirated clips off the site and is developing video players that present clearer images than the site's standard player. When it comes to financial terms, Google has proven much more flexible than in the past, according to three studio sources. [...] The only obstacles to Google and YouTube getting more studios to post full-length movies is Google's insistence on a particular ad format, say the sources. They declined to say which ad unit Google prefers. The other hurdle is that some studios are skeptical that users will accept all the ads that need to accompany a feature film in order to make it profitable."

cancel ×

116 comments

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

What about limits? (5, Insightful)

Vipersfate (1143119) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702303)

It's great and all to have full length features, but what of these limits recently imposed on downloading? What about people from other countries (other than the US) that have even less than Comcast limits?

Re:What about limits? (4, Informative)

Tx (96709) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702421)

What about people from other countries (other than the US) that have even less than Comcast limits?

I confidently predict that it won't be available for us, so that part is a non-issue.

However a lot of ISPs here in the UK are bitching and moaning about the BBC's iPlayer (online TV catchup service), which they reckon has significantly increased their bandwidth usage. Of course they would like the BBC to pay them as well as the end user paying for their broadband (less enlightened debate over net neutrality in this country, but the same old issues). I can only see increased capping/tiering on broadband if this sort of service becomes more common.

Re:What about limits? (3, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702503)

it's sort of sad to see how the situation with ISP's is going.
A few years back there were thousands of them all keen to stab each other in the back and undercut each other.
Caps kept dropping and quality was going up fast.
Now we're down to a handful of providers who tend to play nice with each other. Caps are dropping, prices are rising, and it's harder than ever for anyone without a few hundred million spare change to get peering.

Re:What about limits? (4, Insightful)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702605)

Perhaps watching videos online is not as cheap as everyone originally believed. Perhaps buying mass-produced DVDs truly is a cheaper method of distribution?

As for years ago: We had telephone lines which allowed us to pick whatever dialup ISP we wanted. That's why there were thousands. That's no longer an option with broadband, due to government-dictated monopolies that control the neighborhood. (I get to choose either Comcast or Verizon; not much of a choice.) As a result most of the videos I watch are low-definition 0.5 Mbit/s streams that are just-barely watchable, in order to limit my monthly bill.

Re:What about limits? (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702699)

>>>(I get to choose either Comcast or Verizon; not much of a choice

To clarify - Comcast has a government-dictated monopoly over cable. Verizon has a government-dictated monopoly over phones. Both of these monopolies offer internet over their lines as a "side business" to their main business.

I also have Netscape Dialup. It only costs $7 a month, and they don't have any caps, but the 50 kbit/s line can only handle 16 gigabytes per month, maximum.

Re:What about limits? (1)

cawpin (875453) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703109)

Weren't those monopolies recently outlawed? I know there was some question as to making them retroactive but I'm fairly certain any new contracts are not allowed. I'd say you need to find out when the contract expires.

Re:What about limits? (2)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25704833)

I don't know. Do you have a weblink to an article, so I can read more about it?

Not up here... (3, Informative)

gravyface (592485) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703275)

Except in Canada, where Bell has to play nice and share their copper with the other kids. In my city, there's no less than 18 DSL providers I can pick and choose from:
http://canadianisp.ca/ [canadianisp.ca]

Re:Not up here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25709549)

Alas, the cable companies still have a death grip on their wires, but one step at a time.

Re:What about limits? (1)

dw604 (900995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703845)

Watching videos online is likely cheaper, unless lots of people watch the same thing over and over, it's not cached and they are users who are unlikely to click ads (there are a fair number of these, what, 5%?).

YouTube quality sucks. 700MB .AVIs are ok, but too much hassle to display on my TV.

I prefer DVD for the quality. I rent from zip.ca for a "pricy" $25/mo for 4 movies at a time. I get on average 10 movies a month. That's $2.50 to view a movie once, which is all I really need. DVDs should be $5 or $10 at the most. $20-$25 for 3. If they were that cheap I might actually start a collection, instead of feeling ripped off and regretting buying Saw 3 for $20 on a whim.

Re:What about limits? (2, Interesting)

Xphile101361 (1017774) | more than 5 years ago | (#25704521)

Most companies probably have a 200-250 GB limit on broadband. Each DVD would be 4.7 GB to 9.4 GB. That means that most likely you could download at least 20 movies that would fit onto a dual layer DVD. The streaming movies are no where near this quality, and thus you'd be able to download more. 20 movies at 10-20 bucks per DVD.... so 200-400 dollars per month. I'll stick with my cable bill.

Re:What about limits? (1)

Lord Jester (88423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25704607)

Depends on where you live. In many markets, there are small DSL providers and a few larger ones too. They just are not as well advertised.

Try looking in the yellow pages for internet providers. You might be surprised. Some of the smaller providers might charge a bit more, but you may get better customer service.

Re:What about limits? (2, Insightful)

XavidX (1117783) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703119)

So why don't these companies start using P2P technology. Keep network trafic within the networks.
There is some new music listening (legal) software that I have seen recently supported by adds and stuff and I looked into the technology behind it. Apparently it caches some of the users files on their computer and shares them with other users listening to the same songs. Exactly the same type of technology as torrents.

So basically if your neighbor has recently watched the same movie as you are watching now. The file does not have to travel so far. Just within the area network.

Of course we would have to trust these companies with software on our computers but thats a different story.

I dunno if that makes sense to anyone but it makes sense to me. The way we are using the networks is very inefficient.

Re:What about limits? (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25704989)

So why don't these companies start using P2P technology.

Because they don't want you to have a copy of the movie or tv show stored on your computer, that you might later figure-out how to copy into a different folder & keep. With direct streaming from nbc.com or bbc.uk, nothing gets stored except a few seconds worth of buffered data.

What about quality? (2, Informative)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703313)

I don't see it as a given [eventechnologies.com] that "quality := large amounts of bandwith".

Re:What about quality? (1)

Frenchman113 (893369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25708175)

Viewing their samples (not to mention that they are NOT sd resolution despite what they claim), their supposed "magical breakthrough" codec appears to have the quality of early DivX revisions.

I see:
1) blurring out of details
2) blocks
3) dct noise

Their claim that they can compress SD video to 750kbps and HD to 3Mbps at good quality is completely unfounded.

Re:What about limits? (4, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702805)

Given the ridiculously low bitrates YouTube employs, I can guarantee it will not be a problem for 99.999% of users.

Even HD downloads (720p, from services like Apple's iTS) tend to weigh in at around 4-6Gb at the moment (2-3Gb per hour), which would give you around 50 full-length HD movies a month if you have a Comcastic Internet connection. DVD-quality, done at H.264, tends to go for around half a gig per hour, or around one gig per movie, which gives you 250 full-length ED movies, 500 hours of video, per month, or around 16 hours of video PER DAY.

And realistically, the limits aren't going to go down either.

The golden age of IPTV, where you subscribe to the TV stations you want individually, is quite possible with the existing infrastructure and Internet services. What we need are standardized STBs to hook up to the TVs, and TV stations willing to offer subscriptions.

Re:What about limits? (3, Interesting)

Xian97 (714198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703705)

A recent slashdot article discussed AT&Ts proposed plan of tiered bandwidth usage. For the 3 mbs service that I have, a 60 GB per month cap was mentioned. At full usage a 3 mbs connection is a little less than 1.5 GB per hour and the cap would be reached in 40 hours. That's just over an hour of HD video per day. That leaves nothing available for other downloads such as software updates or demos.

Even at YouTube quality, my wife's 2-4 hours a day would add up to well over 30 GB per month. She watched Thai lakorn (soap operas) and Thai music videos. Since none of the large satellite providers offer Thai channels, YouTube was the only available option to listen to broadcasts in her native language.

I see bandwidth caps preventing greater usage of such services for things like watching full length movies. Where a few years ago we had a computer that accessed the internet, now we have multiple computers, an Ipod Touch, PS3, Wii, and Xbox 360 all using Internet resources and media and all requiring updates. The bandwidth caps are being implemented at a time when more and more home devices are using the Internet, and adding to the speed that you will hit your capacity.

Re:What about limits? (4, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703919)

You're not going to use it at "full usage" though. You need to look at the applications you'll be using and how they use bandwidth. The reason you need 3Mbps for something approaching DVD-quality video isn't because it's a constant 3Mbps stream, but because when there's a lot of action, the stream will need to "burst" up to rates that high.

Like I said, the current standard is around .5Gb per hour for DVD quality video, and around 2-3Gb for HD (720p) - that's based on what services like Apple's iTS and Netflix are doing. At those speeds, you're talking about 120 hours of DVD quality video (four hours a day), though only about 20 hours of HD quality video. But HD isn't really an option on 3Mbps except for buffered downloads, so the chances of you actually wanting to watch 20 hours of HD a month on your current connection is fairly small.

I'm not saying I agree with the 60Gb cap, I don't and I find the caps a completely wrong solution to the problem. But I don't think it will impact you in any way in terms of your use of DSL for watching movies from legitimate download/streaming services.

Re:What about limits? (1)

Xian97 (714198) | more than 5 years ago | (#25705601)

You are right of course, it's not a constant fully utilized connection. However she does use quite a bit watching YouTube, last month it was 35 GB, verified with NetMonitor for OS X. More than likely she watches more than she claims while I am at work :)

To be honest the amount surprised me, but I am sure it's all streaming YouTube and not other applications.

Re:What about limits? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25707887)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest it's somewhat improbable this was YouTube. The reason is YouTube's streaming rates are well below the "Half a gig per hour" rate I suggested for DVD quality video. Does she listen to net radio? Download music? HD movie trailers via Apple.com/quicktime? Is the Mac downloading updates? I know people find YouTube et al fairly addictive, but we're probably talking about needing to watch different YouTube videos for more than ten hours a day constantly before we'd start eating up 35Gb of data. That's ten hours of continuous watching, and no replays of the last video either. YouTube is 320x240 encoded using a 64kbps audio codec and a VBR video codec based upon H.263 (more recent versions use H.264) at around 260kbps. At those kinds of speeds, we're looking at around 100Mb per hour, nowhere near the rates I was talking about for ED or HD video.

Look for something else - net radio left on overnight, software updates, that kind of thing. I'm absolutely sure it's not YouTube.

Re:What about limits? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25704831)

Even at YouTube quality, my wife's 2-4 hours a day would add up to well over 30 GB per month.

Does she rewatch any of them? If so, you can copy Flash* files out of the /tmp/ folder and watch with VLC.

Re:What about limits? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702897)

These problems will continue to plague us as long as we allow them to. There is a simple and relatively inexpensive solution, which is to build a mesh network and just make an end-run around the ISPs. The internet was meant to be peer-to-peer and today we have the technology to make that happen! If you want to change the world, get or make a mesh networking AP (I bought an AMD geode development board off eBay for $30) and built some high gain antennae to go with it.

Re:What about limits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25705069)

So? Everyone loves to vilify and criticize all things from the US; so don't worry about our offerings being available elsewhere.

Exactly how many ads should there be? (1)

iamapizza (1312801) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702311)

They haven't started any of this yet, but are already arguing over the ad formats? Can't they just trial the feature first and look at the interest generated to see if adverts would be viable? I can already envisage full length movies with those annoying YouTube annotations that advertise sites that nobody cares about. The entire purpose of watching a YouTube video is entertainment - you're not there to look for ads related to a video so you can buy things. We get enough with product placements already, can't anything be pure anymore!?

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to find out more about the "Tay Zonday Ringtones". Very interesting...

Re:Exactly how many ads should there be? (3, Interesting)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702431)

of course, many movies have paid product placements -- ads -- already. Isn't that the slashdot business model? Make a movie, paid for via product placement, and give it away for free?

Re:Exactly how many ads should there be? (1)

corychristison (951993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702535)

Isn't that the slashdot business model?

Some users, yes.
For the rest of us, it's:

  1. Make film.
  2. ...?
  3. Profit!

Re:Exactly how many ads should there be? (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702759)

>>>can't anything be pure anymore!?

The DVD or Bluray versions doesn't have any annoying ads during the movie. And, when you get something for nothing (like free movies on youtube) it has to be paid somehow. Better the advertisers pay it then me. Otherwise I simply won't bother. I'll go read a book instead (~20 hours of entertainment for just 5 bucks).

Re:Exactly how many ads should there be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25703013)

well, I prefer my porn... moving.

Re:Exactly how many ads should there be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25704091)

"Hello? Um, it's iRobot for you. He said you'd know what it was about."

U.S. only? (2, Insightful)

liquidMONKEY (749280) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702313)

What's the bet it's going to be another U.S.-centric service?

Re:U.S. only? (3, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 5 years ago | (#25704365)

Perhaps you should talk to whoever owns your country's distribution rights to MGM works and convince them to participate in this instead of ignoring international copyright treaties and treating it like the mean ol' 'mericans won't share their toys with you just because you talk funny.

Re:U.S. only? (1)

liquidMONKEY (749280) | more than 5 years ago | (#25705511)

Well, it's not that the Americans never share, but they usually do get to cut in line most of the time. Granted, the U.S. has 300 million people and Australia has 21 million, so we're kind of a low priority as it is anyway.

Just what nobody needed (4, Insightful)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702357)

Full length movie on Youtube? I already hate the video quality on the short vids what good will be streaming a full length film? And then probably region locked and javascript ads that reload the window and have me buffer the entire film again. Come to think of it, ever tried to fast forward through an flv file? Just doesn't work properly -ever. I call this a waste of time. And who wanted to see 1930s movies on youtube anyhow. It's not exactly like they'll give us something new and interesting.

Re:Just what nobody needed (5, Informative)

corychristison (951993) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702405)

Come to think of it, ever tried to fast forward through an flv file? Just doesn't work properly -ever

Youporn.com [youporn.com] has done something right, then. Seeking to the 75% mark of a video (before any buffering) jumps to and loads quite quickly and easily. ;-)

Re:Just what nobody needed (3, Insightful)

sukotto (122876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703033)

If I were writing a video player for a porn site I would have it buffer the last X% of the film before buffering the start. Isn't that the part the viewers care about?

(I was going to make a joke about it being the climax of the film but actually, when you think about it, makes sense to program it that way so it's a serious comment)

Re:Just what nobody needed (1)

zaajats (904507) | more than 5 years ago | (#25704729)

Youporn.com has done something right, then. Seeking to the 75% mark of a video (before any buffering) jumps to and loads quite quickly and easily. ;-)

...You can do the same on Youtube

Re:Just what nobody needed (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703319)

When will they allow regular users to upload movies longer than 10 minutes? I have a few rugby games I want to share with friends. If you encode it right, it's passable for my needs.

Instead I have to do a system of hacks to make a playlist, etc.

Re:Just what nobody needed (1)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25704937)

May I ask what is wrong with other methods like BitTorrent? Too much work to set up? I suspect the files are too large for e-mail, which would explain not using that. I am not trying to troll; it just seems ridiculous (although probably true) that the best way to send a video to your friends is to upload it to a third-party ad supported website which imposes strict quality and time limits. Does anyone else have suggestions for an easy to use way to do such transfers?

Re:Just what nobody needed (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25705349)

These are Rugby games. Most Rugby players think the internet is www and only usable for Porn only. I have a hard enough time showing Alumni (1970-2008) how to use a list-serv and College kids (yes, College kids) how to use a web forum.

Asking them to download codecs, torrent program, download a file which is NOT the movie (torrent file), wait X amount of time for the movie to download, then play it? Not. Going. To. Happen.

Unless it's embeddable on a website and nearly idiot proof, it's not going to get seen.

Re:Just what nobody needed (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 5 years ago | (#25706239)

When will they allow regular users to upload movies longer than 10 minutes? I have a few rugby games I want to share with friends. If you encode it right, it's passable for my needs.

Instead I have to do a system of hacks to make a playlist, etc.

They did until a couple of years ago, when they were forced to do the limits because people were uploading complete TV shows (sans ads) and movies and decided the majority of stuff posted on YouTube that was original and not broadcasting for someone else were under 10 minutes in length.

Given that there are many other video sharing sites (vimeo's a popular one, not sure if Google Video is still around given they own YouTube, but it never had the 10 minute limit), perhaps one of those would be more suited to your content?

Re:Just what nobody needed (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25706833)

It's almost the problem as with eBay. When people search for Purdue Rugby, I want for them to be able to find our videos. People search for Videos on YouTube.

I currently have most of the videos in 'high quality' on our website with JW FLV [jeroenwijering.com] player. More locations = more eyes.

Plus as with most things, if someone can't get something working on my site. They think it's my fault. If someone can't get something working on YouTube(Google, EBay, Facebook, etc) they think it's their fault.

Re:Just what nobody needed (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#25707019)

Rent space on a webserver. You can get a month for around £15, [uk.com] with ample bandwidth and transfer capacity. Most of them don't have restrictive contracts, so after a month, let it die. Or are you expecting somebody else to re-encode your content as well as host it ?
But then of course *you'll* be liable for copyright infringement if you upload whole TV programs. Easier, cheaper and more discrete to use dvds to share your videos.

* I have no affiliation with the linked site, it came up in a search.

Re:Just what nobody needed (1)

jmhoule314 (921571) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703381)

I already hate the video quality on the short vids what good will be streaming a full length film?

FTFS

YouTube has developed systems that help keep pirated clips off the site and is developing video players that present clearer images than the site's standard player.

Re:Just what nobody needed (1)

dw604 (900995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703895)

Fast forward always works for me on a number of sites, incl. YouTube

Picture quality (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702369)

MGM studios will soon be the first major movie studio to post a complete feature-length film on YouTube

And the picture quality is still better than the DVD release (for God's sake, don't waste money on The Outer Limits. They should be ashamed.)

Type of ads (1)

Hasney (980180) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702383)

If it's video ads make sure they are before the film (Or, I have seen on some other video sites, after the video, which is bizzare) and not during, then I'm great with this.

I don't even watch movies on free TV over here as I cannot have my film interrupted by the film being presented by some company followed by 5 mins of other ads. It's a real deal-breaker for me.

I've also seen those little banner ads come at the bootom of a streaming video which you can then click the 'x' to get rid of, that would be acceptable to me considering I'm watching the film for free.

Re:Type of ads (2, Interesting)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702463)

I'm OK with the way Hulu [hulu.com] handles their ads in TV shows. They have about the same number of commercials-per-episode that a Network station would air. HOWEVER each commercial break consists of only 1 ad which is between 15-30 seconds.

I'm willing to put up with their ad system without a problem. Sure it breaks the flow but most TV shows end their scenes assuming that a network will air a commercial in between.

As for films, I use my NetFlix account for them. As weak as Netflix's OnDemand movie listing is, Hulu's is worse.

Re:Type of ads (1)

tylerni7 (944579) | more than 5 years ago | (#25708529)

I don't think most users would mind dealing with the ads, as long as you can do something like pause the actual movie.
Then they can just get up and walk away with the sound muted on their computer as the ads load, go grab some popcorn or something, then come back and start the movie from the beginning, right after the ads.

If the videos weren't crappy quality, I don't think I would mind waiting a couple extra minutes for the ads to end, when downloading it from bittorrent or going out to the movies would take (for most users) longer than the few minutes of ads they may throw in.

greatest story ever told unfolding before us (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25702413)

it's an epic tale of survival. no gadgets required. see you there?

greed, fear & ego (in any order) 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. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. 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.

we note that yahoo deletes some of its' (relevant) stories sooner than others. maybe they're short of disk space, or something?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081106/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/meltdown_who_pays;_ylt=A2KIR3MR9hJJ3YkAGhms0NUE
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/23/what.matters.thirst/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/28/what.matters.meltdown/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/07/atwood.debt/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
(deleted, still in google cache)http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081107/ts_alt_afp/environmentclimatewarmingatlantic_081107145344
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApTbxRfLnscxaGGuCocWlwq7YWsA/SIG=11qicue6l/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/meltdown_kashkari.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE
(some yoga & yogurt makes killing/getting killed less stressful) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_us/warrior_mind;_ylt=A0wNcw9iXutIPkMBwzGs0NUE
(the old bait & switch...your share of the resulting 'product' is a fairytail nightmare?)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/where_s_the_money;_ylt=A0wNcwJGwvFIZAQAE6ms0NUE

  it's time to get real now. A LOT of energy/resource has been 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, many of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're still in.

http://www.carnicom.com/ (yikes almighty)
http://weatherwars.info/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

'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."--chronicles

Just like movie theater abuse? (4, Insightful)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702465)

The other hurdle is that some studios are skeptical that users will accept all the ads that need to accompany a feature film in order to make it profitable.

Do they mean equivalent to the enforced advertising already present in a regular movie theater?
-- one Coke short filmvertisement
-- one long length car commercial
-- 4 movie trailers
-- a long format Coke advertisement
-- a hip clothing advertisement
-- a charitable organization fund drive appeal
-- 4 more movie trailers

If MGM attempts to recreate the movie theater captive audience advertising innundation effect, this will fail miserably.

Re:Just like movie theater abuse? (1)

sukotto (122876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703187)

Yeah, that's why, on the rare occasion I go to a theatre I pick my seat. Then go get popcorn and stuff. By the time I get back to my seat, most of the commercials are over.

And the fact that they have so many commercials is one of the biggest reasons that I hardly ever go to a theatre anymore. (way to go guys...)

Re:Just like movie theater abuse? (1)

dw604 (900995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703939)

I've met a few people who have said they "love" the previews. What's up with that?

Re:Just like movie theater abuse? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 5 years ago | (#25704163)

I loved the previews in the 80s and early 90s. They were for movies. They were entertaining to watch, since they were for the same genre as the feature film, and they gave you a couple extra minutes to find your seat or grab a box of popcorn.

Now adays you can see those on the internet, and the movie theaters show more coke and car commercials.

Re:Just like movie theater abuse? (1)

sukotto (122876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25704527)

They're welcome to the previews if they want to watch. I'd rather do something else for 20 minutes.

Re:Just like movie theater abuse? (1)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25705055)

Personally, I'm fine with previews. It's the ads for "Cars, Coke, and hip clothing" that pisses me off. I'm even okay with them playing ads for Coke and cars and whatnot while people are waiting in the theatre prior to the start time.

Arriving at a movie on time just to sit down and be inundated with ads after paying 10/ticket + 5+/pop + 5+/popcorn, makes me tremble with anger. One of many reasons that I don't go to theaters much anymore.

Re:Just like movie theater abuse? (1)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 5 years ago | (#25707653)

I don't go to regular theaters at all anymore for exactly that reason. It's been 5 or 6 years for me.

I haven't been to Chunky's [chunkys.com] in a while either, but they're acceptable to me because there was only a silent slideshow of ads prior to the movie trailers being shown. I could read if alone, or talk to friends if not, during that.

Re:Just like movie theater abuse? (1)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 5 years ago | (#25709625)

My local area theaters generally have a sideshow of ads (especially car and Coke ads), movie trivia, and what not prior to start time. At start time: there is there is in some order: Previews, a short (usually less than 30 second) reminder that concessions are available, some little video reminding people that there is no smoking, to turn of cell phones, and throw away trash (instead of leaving it laying around). Somewhere there will also be something that shows the name of the Cinema chain, which might be that last item, or might be a separate item.

But that is it, which is as it should be.

Re:Just like movie theater abuse? (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703205)

It cant fail much more miserably than the cinema experience you just described. The 8 trailers almost always give the impression that Hollywood doesn't know its audience anymore.

PS. You forgot the 4 anti-piracy campaigns dotted about at random points in the trailers

Re:Just like movie theater abuse? (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 5 years ago | (#25705569)

You forgot the 4 anti-piracy campaigns dotted about at random points in the trailers

See how much impact those anti-piracy campaigns have? No one remembers them.

Re:Just like movie theater abuse? (1)

jmhoule314 (921571) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703415)

don't forget product placement.

Re:Just like movie theater abuse? (3, Insightful)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 5 years ago | (#25704255)

Don't forget about the slideshow they show over and over and over again if you get there anywhere near showtime, especially the overly-simplistic movie trivia. Mrs. Doubtfire is the movie where Robin Williams played a British nanny? Really? I had no idea. I thought it was Mrs. Featherbottom...

Huh? (5, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702477)

"The other hurdle is that some studios are skeptical that users will accept all the ads that need to accompany a feature film in order to make it profitable."

You mean, aside from the 10 minutes of previews and actual commercial ads that precede theater films, or the 15 minutes of ads, unskippable warnings, and "DON'T BE A DVD PIRATE! PIRATING IS STEALING" infomercials that precede the feature on every goddamn dvd?

No, I don't believe I'll be surprised at whatever Hollywood deems "necessary" to make something profitable. I mean, according to Hollywood accountants Spider Man, Forrest Gump, and Lord of the Rings all failed to make a profit, right? Of course we can trust them.

Re:Huh? (1)

Kozz (7764) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703115)

The gratuitous trailers, advertisements and such are precisely the reason why (on the few occasions) I never panic if I arrive "late" to a film in the theater. The only reason to arrive early is to get halfway decent seats. If you arrive late, you maybe don't have great seats, but you didn't have to sit through the advertising drivel.

Re:Huh? (1)

delt0r (999393) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703987)

I was surprised the other day when one of the dvds I played displayed a simple "thank you for choosing genuine content" or something like that and 3 secs or so later when strait to the menu.

Re:Huh? (1)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 5 years ago | (#25709691)

Remember what it was? Assuming it was not pornography, I'm guessing it was a minor movie studio, no?

Re:Huh? (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 5 years ago | (#25704201)

Don't forget the $10 or more that we *paid* to actually see the movie.

Re:Huh? (1)

cozmoz365 (1371905) | more than 5 years ago | (#25705789)

You forgot about the DRM software that makes it difficult to watch the movie you just bought and payed for.

Unskippable warnings? (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25706763)

I don't have problems skipping any warnings with xine.

Re:Huh? (1)

RobBebop (947356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25707957)

I mean, according to Hollywood accountants Spider Man, Forrest Gump, and Lord of the Rings all failed to make a profit, right? Of course we can trust them.

These films all had "revenues" and "costs". The difference between the two is "profit". Now, just because some of the "costs" include "lines of blow off a dead hooker" or "funding for an unrelated project in the production company that DIDN'T make any money" it doesn't make the "profit" calculation is completely fraudulent.

Speaking of youtube (2, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702521)

Anyone else having problems going to it right now? I'm getting 500 errors

Re:Speaking of youtube (5, Funny)

Eccles (932) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703333)

Anyone else having problems going to it right now? I'm getting 500 errors

Wow, that's a lot of errors. I probably would have given up after 9 or 10 myself.

Re:Speaking of youtube (1)

FornaxChemica (968594) | more than 5 years ago | (#25704573)

I wonder if this is so off-topic. I can't reach YouTube either at all. Perhaps that has something to do with this announcement? Maybe they're rolling in enhancements or a new version. It would be quite a coincidence if the site went down just the day they're supposed to introduce that MGM deal.

TR2N is on YouTube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25702529)

Go get it cowboyz !!

Compliant? (1)

stevedmc (1065590) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702559)

I bet the movie isn't going to be y2k compliant.

Oh great.. (1)

erlando (88533) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702577)

More of "This video is not available to you".

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25702591)

Um, are there now THREE Google stories on the front page?

How can they NOT profit? (1)

WiglyWorm (1139035) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702675)

The studio's concern over the need for ads seems misguided. They upload the movies to You Tube. You Tube hosts the content, they provide the ads, they pay for the bandwidth, and they give rev share to the studios. For the minimal ammount of effort required on the studio's part, if even one person clicks on an ad, the studio has turned a profit for their endevor. The movie is already (if it's one that anyone wants to see) paid off by ticket sales and DVD sales.

How can they NOT "step 3" profit? (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703661)

"For the minimal ammount of effort required on the studio's part, if even one person clicks on an ad..."

Spam works on a similar model and we all can see how well that works. "If only the other guy would..."

"...the studio has turned a profit for their endevor. The movie is already (if it's one that anyone wants to see) paid off by ticket sales and DVD sales."

However you're forgetting the slash "new and improved" business "I don't want you to make any money" model. Everything will be available via a broadband connection and there will no longer be DVDs or movie theaters to recoup costs.

Residuals (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703691)

For the minimal ammount of effort required on the studio's part, if even one person clicks on an ad, the studio has turned a profit for their endevor.

At least twenty percent of this goes to residuals [wikipedia.org] . Some goes to the lawyers who negotiated conditions for online reruns. And some goes to parties that I'm not ready to look up right now.

The important part here is not "full length movie" (1)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702725)

it is "by a major studio"

There are tons of full length movies already on there, youtube just wants to skip the middleman:)

Uncut and Commercial Free (1, Redundant)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25702845)

I can already download movies uncut and commercial free from the Pirate Bay and other torrent sites. Furthermore, they're full screen, not limited to a quarter screen box with ads surrounding it. Not only that, torrents are not locked to a particular country. I can't watch a thing from Hulu, not even their promotional video, because I'm not in the States. About the only advantage I can see to watching the MGM/Youtube site would be if they released their entire stable of movies. Torrents are great for recent movies, and popular movies, but downloading old movies like "It's Always Fair Weather" can be problematic.

So, unless this service gives me full screen movies, uncut and commercial free, despite my not living in the US, chances are I'll not be using it.

Uncut and Utopia Free. (2, Insightful)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703547)

"I can already download movies uncut and commercial free from the Pirate Bay and other torrent sites."

Which is all the more reason to keep it locked in the vault. Yes I'll spare you the lecture but threatening people with their worst nightmares isn't going to get you all what you want.

"So, unless this service gives me full screen movies, uncut and commercial free, despite my not living in the US, chances are I'll not be using it."

Baby steps oh desperate one. They still have to get one working in the US first. Then we can conquer the world with American film culture.

Re:Uncut and Utopia Free. (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#25707067)

It's not truly "more reason to keep it locked in the vault". Torrents exist. Denying that they don't provide a better product for consumers is just stupid, and trying to keep content locked up only drives MORE people to torrents. It's really just basic economics. People aren't stupid... they want the product that gives them the most benefit for the best price and least amount of work. As it stands, you get a better product for putting in a little bit of work to figure out how to use bittorrent and find the seedy corners of the 'net where those torrents reside.

The ONLY choice that movie studios have is to put out a BETTER product than "pirates" provide. Give people a reason to go the official route, to pay for things. Once data is created, it's infinitely duplicable. What you need to sell are the scarce goods... sell a ticket to a movie, and sell a pricier one to the same movie that also gives you a password to download the movie at home. Say, $5 for a "normal" ticket, $15 for an "enhanced" one. Sell a $100 ticket that gets you a signed copy of the movie from the lead actor. Seats in a movie theater, access to the stars and so on are scarce goods, versus the actual data of the finished movie. You have to make money off of the scarce goods, because there's no way to control the infinite ones.

People can sell oxygen, which is an essentially infinite good... movie studios and the recording industry just need to start actually working for their money again. They're no longer the sole gatekeepers to entertainment that they were, no matter how many laws they buy and how hard they wish it wasn't so.

Re:Uncut and Commercial Free (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25705091)

There's a certain irony to your sig.

And for the mods: yes, this is relevant to the discussion.

Interesting (1)

motang (1266566) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703071)

This is rather interesting news, going to have to try it out and watch few Bond movies when they are posted.

Interesting⦠(1)

jsin (141879) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703211)

hmm...perhaps the time has come for me to mainline that youtube set-top-box project...

This could work... (2, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703261)

If they post the right movies.
Aren't MGM (and the movies in question) owned by Sony now?

It's called taking a risk! (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703277)

The other hurdle is that some studios are skeptical that users will accept all the ads that need to accompany a feature film in order to make it profitable

So? Take the risk. The worst that's going to happen is they don't. Youtube pays for the bandwidth. The worst loss for a studio is going to be people watching instead of buying the DVD, but that's not going to financially cripple the studios.

Ad time (1)

Bent Mind (853241) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703591)

studios are skeptical that users will accept all the ads that need to accompany a feature film in order to make it profitable.

It depends on how many ads they run. I watch Hulu a bit to catch shows I've missed or not seen in years. They generally have one 15-second commercial every 10 minutes or so. It is far less than broadcast television.

If they are going to have breaks anyway, I wish they were a bit longer. It would give me time to get a snack.

Re:Ad time (1)

mattMad (1271832) | more than 5 years ago | (#25703881)

If they are going to have breaks anyway, I wish they were a bit longer. It would give me time to get a snack.

And there is your reason why they don't do that...

Re:Ad time (1)

Puff of Logic (895805) | more than 5 years ago | (#25710343)

If they are going to have breaks anyway, I wish they were a bit longer. It would give me time to get a snack.

Yes, if only they could develop a technology for Hulu that would allow people enough time to get snacks...to pause the action if you will. A button, perhaps. ;)

ma83 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25704195)

'first post' number5 continue is the grou4 that Fact: *BSD IS A

define profitable (1)

bugi (8479) | more than 5 years ago | (#25704543)

This focus on "profitable" is disturbing. I don't have a problem with them making a profit, but movie studios have historically had a warped idea of what profitable means. Internet distribution is different enough from theater and dvd/blueray/tape/laserdisk distribution to warrant a genuine rethink.

Consider, while long term, the goal is no doubt to replace physical delivery with internet delivery, are we there yet? The market is clearly not yet mature, so the focus should be more on cost recovery than on profit. Once the market matures, economy of scale will almost certainly transform cost recovery to profit. Either way, market *development* is different than market *exploitation* (using "exploitation" in the non-pejorative sense).

Keep in mind that the idea is not to make up the entire cost of production via internet distribution, but to cover cost of distribution and make a little extra per viewer. Over time, the market will shift from physical media to pay per view, at which point the small profit per viewer will really add up.

Here are a few ways the distribution mechanisms differ:

Media cost: dvd:X/disk; inet:negligible

Manufacture cost: fixed: downscale the movie so's to not overwhelm the pipes, and perhaps to add markers for ads

Distribution costs:

                dvd: shipping per disk; placement cost per title to major stores (top shelf gets more eyeballs)

                inet: fixed per viewer; viewer pays half of bandwidth via ISP

Resalability:

                dvd: purchaser can watch many times from the one purchase, and can resell the disk

                inet: pay per view, the Holy Grael of media distribution. Purchaser will generally watch each movie only once, or sometimes twice, if you count screening it before showing it to kids or dates.

Missing in the quote, fair use. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25705831)

``help keeping pirated clips off the site'' is good and well, but such clips are short excerpts. They've conveniently left out fair use in their considerations, at least by the look of it. Coincidence?

FAIlZORS!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25705851)

I type vthis.

Won't work for me anyway... (1)

mmu_man (107529) | more than 5 years ago | (#25706293)

Flash itself is the first DRM hit when you are not on a mainstream platform... really, no need to add more, you won't play anyway. So really, I don't care if they are "developing video players that present clearer images than the site's standard player." The standard one already doesn't work for me. I have to use tricks to get the flv or mp4 to watch it in a real player, but it's painful. That's not the Web how it was meant to be.

Yeah right... (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 5 years ago | (#25708201)

>The other hurdle is that some studios are skeptical that users will accept all the ads that need to >accompany a feature film in order to make it profitable

Yeah right, like there is any difference between this and ads for 30 minutes before the movie about
anything but movie stuff. I dont need to know subaru has a new car when i go to see the incredible hulk....it makes me mad....want to ...smash!

d*Oll (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25710453)

a BSD over oth3r [goat.cx]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?