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!

YouTube Revamp Imminent?

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the how-about-3D dept.

Google 297

An anonymous reader writes "YouTube's latest blog post indicated that some changes are on the way. Google has opened up a call to submit and vote on ideas. HTML 5 open video with Free formats has dominated the vote, maintaining over twice as many votes as the next-highest item almost since the vote opened up. You may vote here (Google login required). Perhaps we don't even need to since their blog post comes suspiciously soon after their revised merger with On2. Could these improvements be a completely overhauled YouTube 2.0?"

cancel ×

297 comments

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

HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (5, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760178)

There seems to be a rather loud outcry for HTML5 in the idea list. Many of the top ten ideas use that phrase and nothing else of substance.

There's only one problem. It ain't finished yet. So we've got the same problems 801.11n had a few years ago. It's hard to implement a moving spec.

This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM, and it's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today. Even worse, it's the same people behind it... Ogg's video spec 's used to be called out by name for being used in HTML5 [wikipedia.org] and that's still under debate. Open Source fans including Mozilla support it, while owners of other video codecs of course think they shouldn't be locked out.

So... really, HTML5 doesn't solve Google's problems with YouTube. Using HTML5 without calling for a codec is like an incomplete function call. You need to say which codec you want YouTube to use, or we could just see HTML5 + Flash on YouTube while other sites use other codecs....and not make much of a change.

Standards are good... but we're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (5, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760254)

Open Source fans including Mozilla support it, while owners of other video codecs of course think they shouldn't be locked out.

Isn't it ironic that owners of other video codecs who are renowned for locking the public out of their formats, by keeping them secret, or trying to charge fees for their use, now don't "want" to be locked out?

If they want their codec to be one included by an open standard such as HTML5, then the absolute requirement should be that they open their codec's specifications and make implementation of the codec gratis of any royalties, and just as free and open as the HTML recommendation.

I don't want to exclude any codec who will do that.

But the standards bodies owe it to the internet to exclude any codec who refuses to do that, and to recognize the popular codecs who will do that, by choosing the most suitable ones for inclusion as a critical element for video-enabled HTML5 renderers.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (2, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760400)

Here's Ogg's problem: They want to control their own spec. Get mentioned in HTML5 and they're frozen at whatever version number the spec uses for anything that uses HTML5. If they're not done yet, they're not ready for the W3C's adoption. Do they want the usage or control of their jobs?

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760538)

Any future updates to encoders should be backwards compatible with the current decoders.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (1)

Moryath (553296) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760572)

How about: any future updates should forever and for all time get rid of those fucking stupid pop-over ads they stick into the videos.

Advertise if you want. Do NOT obscure the content while doing so.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (1)

Denis Lemire (27713) | more than 4 years ago | (#30761112)

I'll gladly put up with YouTube's implementation of ads over the alternative - they can be closed at any time. They are far more tolerable than most other video sites that force you to watch an ad before you can view the intended video clip, now THAT'S annoying!

It would, however, be a nice compromise if they used the ad overlays only on clips being embedded in 3rd party sites and placed ads elsewhere on their page when the videos are being viewed directly at youtube.com.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (3, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760678)

Is Ogg not done?

A format that is in constant flux, is not stable, and not ready yet.

Only a mature version of the spec should be used, one that the software industry already has positive implementation experience with.

Of course HTML5 should mention a specific minimum base version of the Ogg spec.

Renderers may support future versions of Ogg that validated by the W3C, but the renderer implementation must be backwards-compatible (able to read Ogg files made using an encoder that followed the old version).

And changes must be forwards compatible, so that a file encoded in the new format can still be properly played by a browser implementing the minimal version of Ogg, at a similar quality level.

Theora and Vorbis bitstreams are frozen (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760806)

And changes must be forwards compatible, so that a file encoded in the new format can still be properly played by a browser implementing the minimal version of Ogg, at a similar quality level.

And in fact, both Theora and Vorbis have bitstream formats that are frozen in just the manner you suggest. Old decoders can decode new streams, even those produced by the newer "Thusnelda" and "AoTuV" encoders.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760264)

It's not really rocket science. It should work basically like an image. There is the autoplay issue, but Google is more than capable of handling the (minor) headache of serving different content to different browsers.

The only conceivable issue is that Ogg Theora content will likely be degraded, since it will doubtless be transcoded from H.264.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (3, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760276)

This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM, and it's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today.

A lot of the reason why people wanted OGG so badly is because OGG easily worked on Linux. In the days before Ubuntu, Fluendo and easy codec installation, finding, installing and using an MP3 codec was generally difficult and legally questionable. Now that it is really easy to install an MP3 codec in most Linux distros, people have toned down on the OGG evangelism for music.

Ideally, HTML5 standards would use an open, patent-free standard for use with video. The point of standards is to allow different systems to communicate effectively, the fact that it is open is a requirement of any standard meant for benefiting users. Right now, Theora is about the only major codec that seems to fit the bill.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760672)

In the days before Ubuntu, Fluendo and easy codec installation, finding, installing and using an MP3 codec was generally difficult and legally questionable.

Err, Ubuntu is the only Linux distribution it has ever been difficult to play MP3 files in. Any other Linux distribution I can think of, including the one Ubuntu is based on, has always had MP3 support out of the box.

So, no, using an MP3 codec has never been generally difficult, unless you happened to be using Ubuntu and it is only legally questionable only for those living in patent-encumbered countries.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (2, Interesting)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30761162)

Ideally yes, but for everyone with a smart phone or other device that can't afford to waste CPU (And by extension battery life.) on decoding video when it has a perfectly good H.264 hardware decoder, Ogg is not a good solution.

Linux desktop market share is maybe 1% at most. Linux actually has a good showing in the mobile phone space, but these devices all include H.264 hardware decoders so they don't run into the same issues as desktop Linux.

The only place Theora makes any real amount of sense is on the desktop and Linux is largely an also ran in that space at the current time.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (4, Insightful)

Vyse of Arcadia (1220278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760286)

Standards are good... but we're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.

I think that, given Youtube's weight, any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (1, Troll)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760540)

Standards are good... but we're still in a format war over HMTL5 that makes it nearly impossible to implement it right now.

I think that, given Youtube's weight, any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.

"I think that, given Yutube's volume of crap [youtube.com] , any codec Google chose would probably be on a blocklist."

There, fixed it for you.

(link NSFW)

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760552)

Yep, so that's a better question to debate than HTML5 over HTML4... what's the best codec available now that they can use?

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760950)

I think that, given Youtube's weight, any codec Google chose would probably win the format war.

how about WMV through Silverlight

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (4, Interesting)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760962)

With Google's purchase of ON2, maybe the answer is for Google to release for free On2 VP6 or On2 VP7 or something and then make that the primary non-flash codec for Google.
Google can then make VP6 or VP7 or whatever (whichever one is file-size and quality competitive with h.264) the main codec for YouTube.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30761194)

That would be a very Microsoft thing to do.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760288)

For all your rambling, the codec listed in the HTML5 draft matters a great deal less than the codecs present in the major browsers, and for the time being that means that they will continue to serve flash for IE, but they can also serve whatever formats are supported in Firefox, Safari and Chrome (if serving something other than flash actually makes sense).

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760882)

And they can continue to stream H.264 to other clients without Flash like Blackberry, iPhone, and even FF on Linux (if you know how to access/rewrite the URL's). Not 100% of content is available this way currently, but that could be fixed and would make the HTML5 simple icing on the cake.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760306)

Fortunately, my operating system (Windows 7) supports open standards such as H.264, unlike Linux, which depends on proprietary Adobe Flash for web video support.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (5, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760316)

This is like the open source proponents who mentioned Ogg Vorbis a few years ago as a solution to DRM, and it's clear now that DRM-free watermarked MP3 is the winner in the marketplace today.

Missing the point. Vorbis is not, and never was, about DRM. It's about having a patent-free codec. It's about having a format that works out of the box on something like Ubuntu, legally, anywhere in the world.

Contrast with MP3 -- it's actually very likely not legal to include mp3 support in open source software at all, at least if you're going to keep it free (as in beer).

The only technical reason to prefer MP3 to Vorbis is device support. The way to improve device support is to raise awareness about these issues and get people to actually use Vorbis.

Even worse, it's the same people behind it...

Who?

that's still under debate.

Actually, the debate is pretty much over. HTML5's <video> tag specifies codec and format precisely as much as HTML4's <img> tag specifies image format -- that is, not at all.

HTML5 doesn't solve Google's problems with YouTube.

Which problems would those be?

Using HTML5 without calling for a codec is like an incomplete function call.

Wow, even worse than BadAnalogyGuy. Really?

You need to say which codec you want YouTube to use,

No, I really don't.

I mean, yes, it might help to do so -- but that's unlikely to get anywhere. There currently isn't a free video codec that matches the proprietary ones, technologically, and even if there was, it seems incredibly unlikely that YouTube would go to the trouble of transcoding all of their video -- again.

If YouTube were to implement HTML5 support with, say, h.264 in an mp4 container, they'd have to do no transcoding, probably not even re-encapsulating. It would Just Work on Chrome and Safari, and there's no technological reason it couldn't work on Firefox -- only political assholes who refuse to implement such support, even in countries which don't respect software patents. If IE ever decides to support HTML5 at all, I very much doubt that Microsoft doesn't have h.264 licenses. Only Opera really has an excuse here.

Now, technically, if they went with Theora, it could be supported everywhere -- every browser which supports HTML5 supports Theora out of the box, except Safari, and it's trivial to install a QuickTime plugin. But the question then becomes whether it's worth it for Google to do HTML5 at all, if they have to transcode everything to get the best browser coverage.

we could just see HTML5 + Flash on YouTube while other sites use other codecs....and not make much of a change.

Surely you're joking.

There may be legal hurdles, but any browser that wants to could simply hook into a third-party codec library. On Windows, that's DirectShow. On OS X, it's QuickTime. On Linux, it's GStreamer, Xine, or ffmpeg. All of these support every codec that's even being considered for HTML5, and many more.

It would basically make it as easy to embed videos as it currently is to embed images. After all, <img> doesn't specify a format -- why aren't you waging a "codec war" about image formats?

It would also get us the ability to use purely open source software for our web browsing again, or at least for our YouTube -- no need for Flash. It'd also give us the ability to right-click and do something like "save video as", or click+drag a video to our desktop, or email. It'd also greatly simplify anything else which just wants the video -- for example, any sort of set-top box, etc, now only needs a web browser, or even just something that can scrape the YouTube HTML, instead of a web browser and a Flash port.

Do you honestly believe that HTML5, even without specifying a codec, would change nothing? Do I have to explicitly list all the reasons Flash sucks?

Every time I click anywhere in a Flash widget, the widget gets keyboard focus. I now can't scroll with the keyboard, because, say, YouTube wants to catch my arrow keys and turn them into volume and seek controls, or my spacebar turns into a play/pause. There is no way to transfer control back to the HTML without clicking somewhere in there with a mouse. But an HTML5 widget isn't a plugin, it's just HTML.

I mean, do I really have to go on?

One more, useless but fun: HTML5 video tags support Data URLs, which means you can do something like src="data:... followed by your video, Base64-encoded. Much less efficient, but it saves you a separate request, especially if it's small -- probably much more useful for audio.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (0, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760432)

and there's no technological reason it couldn't work on Firefox -- only political assholes who refuse to implement such support, even in countries which don't respect software patents.

Ok, so how is it going to help Firefox and an open web by implementing that support? First off, how does it decide which version to download? Is the main version going to be the "crippled" version without support or with support of proprietary add ons? What happens if someone downloads Firefox and gets sued because of the patented codecs? I don't think Mozilla wants headlines saying "Patent Troll sues user of Firefox" because already there are some people who think anything other than IE isn't a browser and must be a virus!!111!1!1 And a lot of these people are rather high up in business management and prevent tech guys who know what they are doing from giving their users a decent, secure browser.

And lets go beyond desktop browsers for a second, how many of us have other devices that have a web browser? Game consoles, music players, cell phones, and even set-top boxes have browsers. If we set a good, patent free standard, their web browsers can have it built in without having to pay for a costly license thus increasing the use of the standard. Think about images, there are a lot of images that would be great as an SVG, but due to some browsers not supporting it (like IE) it has little use. If the video codec specified that videos should be a in a free format, IE would almost have to use a free format if it supported HTML5, or miss out on video sites coded to the standard.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (2, Informative)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760788)

What happens if someone downloads Firefox and gets sued because of the patented codecs? I don't think Mozilla wants headlines saying...

It's things like this that make me wonder if it's a good idea to front a free project with a real-world rights-owning corporation that's responsible and can be sued. Mozilla's petty squabbling over their control of the Firefox name and logo is already ridiculous enough. Let's not start making less-than-ideal decisions for our software because we're worried about how it will affect The Project.

Remember this gem [mozilla.org] ? It was judged that getting on the bad side of financial institutions by offering an option for non honoring the annoying "autocomplete=off" attribute that breaks the password manager half the time (even when your wallet is encrypted) is bad for the project.

If Firefox (or any
Gecko/Mozilla-based product), is to succeed, it needs the support of major sites
that end-users are going to use. If banks, etc, blacklist gecko, then those
users are forced, likely, back to IE (or an older version of Firefox, etc) which
isn't a situation we want to create at all.

I don't care if firefox succeeds, while I do care about whether a basic option is present in my most-used piece of software.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (3, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760812)

Ok, so how is it going to help Firefox and an open web by implementing that support?

The same way it helps Firefox to implement GIF. Yes, PNG is better, but showing an image, even with questionable legality, is better than showing a "broken picture" icon -- and on the creator side, the more codecs which are supported, the more of a chance people have of just being able to dump their videos on a fileserver and expect people to be able to stream them.

First off, how does it decide which version to download?

Use the native libraries.

What happens if someone downloads Firefox and gets sued because of the patented codecs?

That's not going to happen -- worst case, Mozilla gets sued. I don't think you can sue a consumer for doing that.

And again, use the native libraries. On Windows and OS X, you'll have those proprietary codecs out of the box. On Linux, users will either install them (Medibuntu) or they won't.

If we set a good, patent free standard, their web browsers can have it built in without having to pay for a costly license thus increasing the use of the standard.

Two problems:

First, you aren't going to set a good, patent free standard. A good patent-free codec doesn't exist (sorry, but theora is technically inferior). And Apple has actually said they won't support it, Microsoft doesn't, and there isn't any hardware support.

What's going to happen is, if you refuse to play ball, you will lose, and Firefox will lose market share because of it.

Second, even if you somehow did, it'd still be nice to be able to use old images in their native format. If I've got a Gif for whatever reason, why should I have to convert it to PNG? At least that's lossless -- what if I have a jpeg, should I be forced to convert that to PNG? And what happens when the next shiny new codec comes along?

Think about images, there are a lot of images that would be great as an SVG, but due to some browsers not supporting it (like IE) it has little use.

So?

Really, who cares? Google Wave doesn't support IE. If IE users really need modern technologies, they can install Chrome Frame.

If the video codec specified that videos should be a in a free format, IE would almost have to use a free format if it supported HTML5, or miss out on video sites coded to the standard.

Yes, but you are thinking about this backwards.

Think of it from Google's perspective. You're apparently hoping that Google will spend thousands of dollars (millions?) on extra hardware to re-encode their videos (again!), as well as extra storage to get the same quality in Vorbis, and then drop their Flash support, thus forcing everyone to upgrade.

Do you really think they'd take that gamble?

I mean, if it works, every YouTube user is forced to upgrade to a modern browser. But that's not going to happen everywhere (corporate environments), and everywhere else, you're gambling that the users will want YouTube badly enough to switch browsers, versus just switching to blip.tv, vimeo, dailymotion, revver, etc. Even if it works, it's still likely a significant hit in marketshare from users who either can't or won't make the switch.

The only way I can see them doing that is if something even crazier happens -- Microsoft supports HTML5 out of the goodness of their heart. But having good support for web standards in IE is actually counter to Microsoft's interests -- the stronger the Web is as a platform, the weaker Windows is.

Think of it in terms of actual corporations and dollars. It doesn't work.

Now, suppose the situation were different. If you can actually come up with a patent-free format which is technically better than the proprietary ones, I can definitely see Google taking that gamble, because that actually saves them money in the long term. And if they did, it might well drive a mass migration away from IE, which would force Microsoft to upgrade in turn.

And then we'd be stuck with it, because it's The Standard. Ten years from now, if video codecs get twice as efficient, we'll be wasting half our bandwidth because we need to support The Standard that browsers have -- even if the new one is open. So even if you win your little codec war, it doesn't belong in the HTML5 standard -- and if it isn't in the standard, you need a much more compelling reason for Google to support it than "I want it!"

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760920)

The same way it helps Firefox to implement GIF.

For one thing, it was believed that unlike the H.264 patent, the LZW patent covered only encoding, not decoding. For another, the LZW patent expired in June 20, 2003, whereas Mozilla Firefox became 1.0 on November 9, 2004.

Use the native libraries.

There is no guarantee of a native library for H.264 unless the end user has QuickTime installed. The last time I checked, QuickTime did not work in Wine.

worst case, Mozilla gets sued.

Mozilla Corporation, headquartered in the United States, refrains from violating United States patents in order not to get sued.

If IE users really need modern technologies, they can install Chrome Frame.

Can a Limited User install Chrome Frame, or does it require running the installer as a member of the Administrators group?

If you can actually come up with a patent-free format which is technically better than the proprietary ones

YouTube uses an H.263 codec for low-power CPUs and down-level Flash players. Theora is significantly better than that.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (3, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760728)

Now, technically, if they went with Theora, it could be supported everywhere -- every browser which supports HTML5 supports Theora out of the box, except Safari, and it's trivial to install a QuickTime plugin. But the question then becomes whether it's worth it for Google to do HTML5 at all, if they have to transcode everything to get the best browser coverage.

There we are. You need to tell YouTube to use Theora. As somebody else posted, if YouTube picks a codec, that codec will have enough support to win the format war that's currently raging. If you want to endorse HTML5 go ahead, but please tell them about Theora because that's much more important to them.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760890)

Actually there was a bit of a format war about .gif [gnu.org] , which is why we have .png [wikipedia.org] available. Though, to be honest having support for ogm and mp4+avc (h.264) would probably mean decent coverage overall, which seems to be the two formats with the biggest support. Though MS could pretty easily slip VC1 in there. IIRC MS provides their codec implimentations of VC1 and mp4/h.264 for free (as in beer for windows, osx and linux).

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30761070)

There was indeed a war about GIFs, but the point of the GP poster was that we don't need to worry about it now. You just specify <img src="..."> and the browser supports all the majors.

I remember when Compuserve, excited that the genie seemed to have gotten out of the bottle and everyone was using GIFs on the web, tried to extract licensing fees from hundreds of shareware/freeware software authors who had implemented the specificaiton. You're right that PNG came out of that era because the market spoke, and Free made a good enough stand that PNG is at least equal in standing with GIF and JPG today.

So the point is do we want to go through the same drama with video formats? The end goal is the same: just specify the file name in a <video> tag and let the browser automagically display it. But to get to that end goal, it may be necessary to have a few commercial licensing wars to get some serious effort behind Free standards like Theora so that the proprietaries relent and release their products in at least a free context if not a Free one.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760894)

There currently isn't a free video codec that matches the proprietary ones, technologically

Sure, Theora is no H.264, but it handily beats the H.263 that YouTube currently uses for downlevel Flash Players and comes close to MPEG-4 ASP (e.g. DivX, Xvid).

there's no technological reason it couldn't work on Firefox -- only political assholes who refuse to implement such support

You appear to have just called the members of MPEG-LA "political assholes".

even in countries which don't respect software patents.

How much would it cost to move Mozilla Corporation and Mozilla Foundation out of the United States?

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (3, Funny)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30761072)

You appear to have just called the members of MPEG-LA "political assholes".

Was that wrong? :)

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 4 years ago | (#30761056)

If YouTube were to implement HTML5 support with, say, h.264 in an mp4 container, they'd have to do no transcoding, probably not even re-encapsulating. It would Just Work on Chrome and Safari, and there's no technological reason it couldn't work on Firefox -- only political assholes who refuse to implement such support, even in countries which don't respect software patents. If IE ever decides to support HTML5 at all, I very much doubt that Microsoft doesn't have h.264 licenses. Only Opera really has an excuse here.

Really? What exactly is Opera's excuse? Not enough revenue? I doubt that. They probably aren't making much on their desktop browser, but their mobile browsers, combined with their deal with Nintendo to provide their technology for the DS and Wii, should make them more than enough to secure a license with MPEG-LA.

Firefox, however, can not provide AVC support because of legal hurdles. I haven't read the MPL, but I know that the GPL and the LGPL have an all-or-nothing stance about patents. Either MPEG-LA needs to allow all instances of Firefox, including the downstream versions and forks, a license for AVC, or the project is not allowed to secure one at all. What happens if Mozilla gets MPEG-LA sanctioned AVC support for the upstream version only depends on whether they hold the copyright for all of their code. If they do, then anyone who distributes Mozilla's browser further must remove the codecs or risk a license violation (assuming the MPL has a similar patent clause), effectively making it proprietary for anyone who doesn't know how to, or doesn't want to, alter the browser code. If Mozilla doesn't hold all of the copyright to the browser, then they themselves are in violation of the license, and are ironically prohibited by copyright law from distributing their own browser.

Google can take a rather unique approach to this problem. Chrome has AVC and Theora support, but Chrome is actually proprietary, licensed under the Google TOS. The free Chromium code on which it is based, however, does not contain any AVC support.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760342)

Hardware decoding will dictate where HTML5 goes.

Broadcom has their Mini PCI-e decoder cards for all 3 OS's. NVIDIA has VDPAU on Linux and something on Windows, ATI has their thing. Flash has preliminary suport in 10.1.

As far as I know, none of them do hardware decoding of OGG, but do do H.264.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (1)

LBt1st (709520) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760560)

Not to mention Android and iPhone can also decode H.264. It would be sweet if it was selected as the standard for those and I'm sure other mobile devices as well. No more having clunky apps just to view YouTube and such. Embedded videos would just work, even on your phone.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760426)

You need to say which codec you want YouTube to use, or we could just see HTML5 + Flash on YouTube

There is synonymity between HTML5 and dropping Flash based on YouTube's HTML5 Demo [youtube.com] which leverages the <video> tag for H.264 content. HTML5 sounds good (or win, I guess) to me.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760518)

shut the fuck up loser. If you support Quicktime and ogg vorbis, 100% of html 5 browsers will handle it. Or wait a couple years and use Quicktime. Ogg Vorbis is about as useful as a dick on a bottom.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760532)

Your argument might make sense if Google cared about web standards. If you run their websites through the W3C validator, you'll see that there's tons of errors.

The truth is that Google has always been supporting the most recent browsers instead of being standards-compliant. The latest browsers support HTML5, so it would make sense for Google to do the same.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (4, Informative)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760802)

There's only one problem. It ain't finished yet. So we've got the same problems 801.11n had a few years ago. It's hard to implement a moving spec.

Apparently not. [google.com] For those too lazy to follow link, its an addon for Chrome (dev version) that makes youtube videos run in HTML5. It cuts cpu usage in half too.

Seems to me the best way to proceed is for someone to just do it, and let everyone else try to catch up. Its not like people will stop using youtube.

Re:HTML5 for the win? Sorry, that's not a codec. (1)

shadowbearer (554144) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760930)

It's hard to implement a moving spec.

  Is there any such thing as a "non moving" specification?

  Especially in the constantly evolving tech world?

  Specs *should* continue to evolve as the technology and theory changes and improves. Especially the open ones. If they don't, they will die of obsolescence.

  That's where open specs are better than closed ones. Everyone can see what is changing, and everyone can contribute. (Cue comments about "closed minded devs don't like my idea XX here; if you don't like what they are doing, fork it. )

SB

YouTube 2.0? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760194)

More like YouTube Beta.

Re:YouTube 2.0? (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760210)

I wonder if they'll make the new version of the site invite-only for a few years.

Re:YouTube 2.0? (1)

russlar (1122455) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760658)

More like YouTube Beta.

YouTube is owned by Google, it'll always be Beta.

Google talk (3, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760228)

Google seems to have a policy of talking about new ways to do things, and not making changes suddenly. Afterall, YouTube is the dominant video sharing site right now, and they don't want to let an open source format make them risk their status. So, it looks like HTML5 is going to get a good kick from Google telling them "Hey, we'll use whatever you tell us... but you've got to finish the spec first!" We'll see what this does to that.

Exactly one concern (1, Interesting)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760234)

Whatever they do, make sure everything is back compatible with pre-existing stuff. In particular, they need to make sure that whatever they do 1) doesn't break already existing embedded videos and 2) doesn't result in changes to what links are valid for existing videos. 2 is harder than it might seem since the video URLs they use are complicated with multiple forms able to go to the same video. Breaking either 1 or 2 would damage a lot of the internet and also just annoy a lot of people.

Re:Exactly one concern (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760308)

Google's good at supporting previous versions, they've done it a lot with AdWords/AdSense. They supported CPM ads for a long time (and maybe still do?) for existing customers even after mandating that all new users go CPC.

Re:Exactly one concern (1)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760354)

I don't think 1 or 2 will be as big an issue as you think.

Buying On2 so that Google can get access to the VP7 and VP8 codecs isn't going to be a magic pill that transforms YouTube overnight - they've still got a whole bunch of video content in VP3 and MP4/H.264 format and it's only going to decrease in quality if they try to transcode it to VP7/8. What you'll likely see is new videos getting encoded in VP7/8 as they're uploaded and fallback to VP3/H.264 transcodings as required by end-user's codec installations.

Of course, Google being Google, it's possible that they'll just open source the VP7/8 codecs after some period of time (they'll likely want to cash-in on some of the royalties for 12 or 18 months first) and then VP7/8 codecs will be available for all sorts of embedded applications (smart phones, media centers, etc.) in addition to desktop computers.

This may happen more quickly than 12-18 months if Google wants to use VP7/8 as the default codec on Android, allowing smoother video playback over 3G networks.

None of this will make On2 shareholders any happier - they already feel they're getting shafted with the Google offer equating to about 60c/share.

Re:Exactly one concern (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760436)

Not to mention the naked short selling too.

Re:Exactly one concern (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760888)

You know, if you make an accusation like that, you really need to back it up with some kind of evidence, perhaps a link. Otherwise, you're just a troll.

Youtube is stunningly bad (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760296)

At all things interface.

1) YouTube: look up the term "aspect ratio". One would think somebody at Google would have heard of this. Many of their videos are uploaded in the wrong ratio. Let us override the specified ratio so we can watch videos in the correct proportions.

2) Multiple monitor support. It turns out that some people these days have more than one monitor. Some of these people might want to do something else with their computers while using one to watch a full screen video. So don't minimize the full screen video unless we tell you to. Bonus points for supporting more than one screen of video.

3) The More From and Related Videos boxes should scale to take advantage of big screens, both horizontally and vertically. Since often one is searching for other videos in a series, put them in some kind of order-- alphabetical would be a nice option.

Re:Youtube is stunningly bad (2, Informative)

dnwq (910646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760498)

on 2), multiple monitor support - that is an Adobe Flash issue, not a Youtube issue.

Re:Youtube is stunningly bad (5, Insightful)

MadUndergrad (950779) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760578)

Adobe Flash is a Youtube issue.

Re:Youtube is stunningly bad (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760874)

Not if YouTube moves to HTML5 video.

Re:Youtube is stunningly bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30761160)

Not if YouTube moves to HTML5 video.

Which I doubt since google is evil.

Re:Youtube is stunningly bad (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30761082)

Adobe flash has many issues.

For instance, the right click menu for changing the flash settings offers an option called "hardware acceleration" Yet, the CPU usage is evidently much higher for simply switching to full-screen. What exactly is the hardware accelerating if it doesn't even use hardware scaling?

Neat trick for linux users: use the scroll wheel screen zoom function in Compiz instead of the website's "full screen" button to save battery juice on laptops or get away lighter CPUs.

Re:Youtube is stunningly bad (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760506)

2) Multiple monitor support.

While I agree that it's really annoying, that's Adobe's fault, not Google's.

It's fine to throw blame around, just make sure it lands in the right lap.

Re:Youtube is stunningly bad (1)

freaker_TuC (7632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760554)

Multiple monitor support

Oh yes, vote me in on this one.. Very annoying on my laptop when watching videos in the meantime..

Any keystroke brings the video player back to normal size .. drives me nuts!

Users are stunningly bad (2, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760580)

1) YouTube: look up the term "aspect ratio". One would think somebody at Google would have heard of this. Many of their videos are uploaded in the wrong ratio. Let us override the specified ratio so we can watch videos in the correct proportions.

Can we also fix the "Tilt yer Head" series of videos? This isn't Google's problem... it's a PEPKAC situation. Users fail.

2) Multiple monitor support. It turns out that some people these days have more than one monitor. Some of these people might want to do something else with their computers while using one to watch a full screen video. So don't minimize the full screen video unless we tell you to. Bonus points for supporting more than one screen of video.

Again, not YouTube's problem. Your browser is doing this for you. They need to fix it.

3) The More From and Related Videos boxes should scale to take advantage of big screens, both horizontally and vertically. Since often one is searching for other videos in a series, put them in some kind of order-- alphabetical would be a nice option.

Again, user error. If it's a series, it should be uploaded in order. Go to the user's page. Related episodes sorts the series by content, not sequence. More form this user gives you the most recent episodes. If you want the back catelog, you want the user page.

Re:Users are stunningly bad (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30761002)

If it's a series, it should be uploaded in order.

That's not always possible, especially in the case of videos that get replaced with a newer video containing revisions.

Re:Users are stunningly bad (1)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30761022)

It would be a very tiny bit of code for the uploader to tag a set of videos as going in a certain order independent of the order uploaded.

Just one request (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760338)

Could you please post a streaming copy of Avatar, and not one of those copies with some dude's head in the middle and a couple of teenage girls giggling through the whole thing.

Thank you.

Any move away from flash video is fine by me (5, Insightful)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760340)

I loathe it with all my being, please for the love of god do this, somehow!

Re:Any move away from flash video is fine by me (5, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760386)

Have you considered drinking?

Re:Any move away from flash video is fine by me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760406)

it aint happening mister. lol. html 5. lol.

i suppose that means you will have to stay off the internet? dammit. i thought not. you turd.

Re:Any move away from flash video is fine by me (0, Offtopic)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760600)

Looks like the schoolkids (digg users?) have found /. guys, time we impliment a whitelist system.

Re:Any move away from flash video is fine by me (4, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760450)

You get the point. Flash is a patent-encumbered format that is slowing down the growth of YouTube... new players are coming out that don't want to implement flash such as TiVo and iPhone, so YouTube has got to re-encode videos to play on this, and that's a mess they'd rather have a better solution to.

So, really it's a codec war. If there's something more universally accepted than flash... please stand up.

Re:Any move away from flash video is fine by me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760566)

flash is slowing down the growth of youtube?

er, youtube is big and growing all the time, i thought that was obvious...? whiffy assertions like that need evidence.

a large part of the reason for this growth is the fact that the plugin used (flash) is utterly ubiquitous. no?

the fact that nvidia is about to release cards that can accelerate flash video (useful feature for netbooks) will surely only help flash cement its place. the fact that flash vid on youtube is now capable of hidef is another thing that most people around here choose to ignore, rather conveniently.

Re:Any move away from flash video is fine by me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760716)

So, really it's a codec war. If there's something more universally accepted than flash... please stand up.

ASCII?

Re:Any move away from flash video is fine by me (2, Informative)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760910)

Flash is the container. The Codec is H.264. .mov is the quicktime container. The Codec is often H.264. .mkv is a container, the Codec is often DivX.

Container formats != Codec.

Google I love you. (3, Interesting)

starbugs (1670420) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760378)

YouTube usable without flash.
My only reason for using a proprietary OS.

Likely to be x264 (2, Insightful)

nemesisrocks (1464705) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760414)

Youtube has a large (and ever-increasing) following on mobile devices -- iPhone, Symbian, etc. These low-powered devices are generally able to play video using hardware acceleration.

One guess as to which codec is likely to have more widespread hardware acceleration.... Youtube is unlikely to alienate mobile users by picking Ogg Vorbis.

On the up-side; since Internet Explorer is unlikely in the near future to support HTML5 (let alone <video>), I predict that if Youtube does go the HTML5 path, there will still be a Flash fallback.

I'm curious (4, Insightful)

Whuffo (1043790) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760448)

How many of you logged in and voted? Out of those, how many looked at the address bar to determine if you were on a Google site?

Re:I'm curious (1)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760510)

Firefox autosuggested my password, so I didn't have to check the URL.

Re:I'm curious (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760558)

Good point. Too bad it the whois says it's owned by google. I'd love for it to have been a trojan site.

Re:I'm curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760628)

It used Google's SSL based login for going to the account from a Google domain, so it is as legit as one can hope for.

Re:I'm curious (1)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760682)

I logged in and voted and I didn't bother to check whether the site was owned by Google; but then I don't really use my Google account for anything, so it's not a highly-valued token for me.

I have an idea (4, Insightful)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760492)

What about improved content? Junk is still junk even if delivered via open standards.

Youtube quality police ? (4, Insightful)

freaker_TuC (7632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760542)

It's their job to get all content online ; It's your job to filter through all the junk ... .. Not theirs .. We don't need a Youtube quality police; just like we don't need any fashion police.

Re:Youtube quality police ? (2, Insightful)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760854)

"It's your job to filter through all the junk"

From a business perspective, we are youtube's "product". If that product isn't delivered to advertisers, it will fail. So yes, to be successful for Google, it's their job to deliver the content we want.

Oh please oh please oh please (0, Flamebait)

Idiot with a gun (1081749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760522)

I have been calling for Flash to be killed with fire for a long time. It's by far the worst internet technology still in use. It even beats out ActiveX (possibly even for vulnerabilities too!). I strongly hope google does this.

Ogg is out for technical reasons (4, Insightful)

gig (78408) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760562)

Google already said that they can't do YouTube in Ogg because the Internet does not have enough bandwidth. The back end of YouTube is MPEG-4 H.264. No matter what format you upload your video in, it's converted to H.264 and that is the primary copy. The upcoming YouTube redesign has also been revealed to be essentially porting the mobile version of YouTube to the desktop. That means HTML5 and MPEG-4, which is what mobiles all use.

An ISO MPEG-4 audio video player is already built into EVERYTHING, there is no opportunity to change it now. Blu-Ray, set-top boxes, smartphones, iPod and other media players, GPU's, Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, iTunes, game consoles, Safari, and Chrome all have H.264. If you don't publish MPEG-4, you might as well send your video encrypted with AES-256 and don't send the key. Nobody can play it if it's not MPEG-4. Ogg is a hobbyist format, suitable for ripping your CD/DVD onto a Linux box and watching them yourself, not suitable for sharing. Sharing requires that you use the community codec, which is what MPEG is all about for 20 years now.

Also, aside from the players, there is the whole professional toolchain of cameras, recorders, editing suites, encoders, servers. All of it is MPEG-4 because it's the standardization of QuickTime and that was already built into all the tools. Tools that supported proprietary QuickTime were upgraded fairly easily and quickly to support open ISO MPEG-4. Audio video is bigger than the Web. Audio video standardization is more successful than Web standardization. The idea that the W3C is going to tell Pixar and Dolby and such how to make audio video is insane. Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web, not the entire world.

And if we want to close one eye to professional content producers, we can open the other to amateurs who have, for example, a Flip camcorder that creates MPEG-4 H.264, or an iPhone camcorder that creates MPEG-4 H.264 and emails clips right from the iPhone. Users are not going to do a round trip through a PC so they can convert that MPEG-4 to Ogg before they share it. Especially not when all their video players have H.264 in their hardware already. That is why an iPod can play more hours of MPEG-4 H.264 than many laptops: the iPod has an "MPEG-4 CPU" so to speak, a dedicated chip that decodes the video with maximum efficiency. It doesn't have a big general purpose CPU like a PC. Multiple codecs is an AUTHORING side thing, not a consumer side thing. You use various codecs on a workstation to get your editing done, you don't demand that the consumer have a dozen codecs in their video player, it's not practical. The community agrees on one consumer codec and we all use it, just like CD/DVD, and everybody wins. Not the Linux community, the free software community, or the Web community ... the audio video community: MPEG.

This whole debate happened 10 years ago already. You're way too late to change the consumer audio video standard to something other than MPEG-4 H.264/AAC. And you certainly can't change it to something that isn't at least technically superior. Consider that Adobe Flash was the de facto HTML4 video player that is being replaced by the audio and video tags and associated JavaScript API's in HTML5. The video codec in Flash is ISO MPEG-4 H.264/AAC for some years now. The Web is already an ISO MPEG-4 player in HTML4. It will continue to be in HTML5 because that's the format all the video is stored in. Including YouTube, iTunes, Blu-Ray, and all the movies people are shooting with their camcorders.

In short, Ogg is out for technical reasons: it requires too much bandwidth, it doesn't exist in the players, it doesn't exist in the cameras, it doesn't exist in the editing tools, it is not in the game at all.

Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons (1)

AlexMax2742 (602517) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760686)

Beautifully put.

Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons (5, Insightful)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760738)

Half of your argument is that things are recorded in MPEG-4 and people aren't going to convert before uploading. But that doesn't matter. Youtube _already_ converts your video when you upload if it's in the wrong format. Hell even if it's in the right format I think they still convert it to make sure it's the right size and bitrate and such. So why does it matter if they're converting MPEG-4 into MPEG-4 or MPEG-4 into Ogg?

Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons (3, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760902)

The resulting file size. YouTube already helped spark Internet speed increases because we were "clogging the tubes" with MPEG-4 video implemented in Flash. Ogg's file size is larger, so it requires more bandwidth. Do you want more usage caps?

Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 4 years ago | (#30761028)

It matters because the smart phones, iPods, and other small devices that are becoming a major way that people consume content don't have Ogg Theora hardware decoders. These devices do have H.264 hardware decoders and won't have to use the CPU to decode and playback the video, saving a lot of battery life.

As far as I know, there aren't even any Theora hardware decoders in existence, or if there are they aren't being mass produced. There's also not a lot of point in making one either as Ogg isn't a widely used video codec so that hardware won't see much use. Do you see the vicious cycle that's been formed? Even if someone were to mass produce the chips and someone else were to actually include them in their hardware, by the time they reach any fragment of market share, the rest of the world will have moved on to H.265.

Re:Ogg is out for technical reasons (1)

Johnny Loves Linux (1147635) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760958)

I don't agree with your point of view.

An ISO MPEG-4 audio video player is already built into EVERYTHING, there is no opportunity to change it now

So? I don't see any reason why you can't just upgrade to a video player that can play Ogg Theora.

Ogg is a hobbyist format

I could be wrong but console game makers use Ogg Vorbis for their audio files. Maybe not all of them, but I was pretty sure Lego Star Wars does.

there is the whole professional toolchain of cameras, recorders, editing suites, encoders, servers.

I and anybody else who uses Linux have a toolchain as well. It's called Linux. I mean what's so hard about taking funky video made by Joe User and then hitting it with ffmpeg2theora? So what if their toolchain isn't Linux? It's not as if it can't be transcoded to Ogg Theora.

The idea that the W3C is going to tell Pixar and Dolby and such how to make audio video is insane.

W3C concerns itself with web standards. It's up to Pixar and Dolby to decide if they want to comply with the web standards published by W3C. This doesn't have anything to do with why Ogg Theora can't be used by Google which is neither Pixar nor Dolby for that matter.

You use various codecs on a workstation to get your editing done, you don't demand that the consumer have a dozen codecs in their video player, it's not practical.

Sure I can. Step 1: Install Debian. Step 2: apt-get install "world". Done. Or, to make it more simply, if people don't want to use Linux, how about just downloading mplayer or vlc? They run just fine on Windows and Apple as well. I mean it's not as if Adobe doesn't require people to *download* a plugin so that you can watch flash videos? Why is it reasonable for Adobe to be able to "force" people to download a flash plugin, but it's not reasonable to expect people to download mplayer or vlc to watch all sorts of video codecs?

That is why an iPod can play more hours of MPEG-4 H.264 than many laptops

I could be confused but I thought you could make ipods play Ogg Theora when running Linux on them. And it's not as if Apple, Inc. couldn't make a firmware update to the ipod OS so it can Ogg Theora.

This whole debate happened 10 years ago already.

No it didn't. Ogg theora wasn't around 10 years ago.

You're way too late to change the consumer audio video standard to something other than MPEG-4 H.264/AAC. And you certainly can't change it to something that isn't at least technically superior.

If I remember correctly mp3 is a standard that;s been around for 25 years? That was pushed by consumers, not manufacturers, especially not the likes of RIAA. Manufacturers had to scramble to provide support for a format that enough care wanted. I don't see how your argument changes that fact: if enough consumers demand it, then manufacturers who want to make a profit will provide a way. As to whether or not it's superior, I don't think flash was superior when youtube.com started using, and even if you don't agree, consider betamax vs. the VHS format. The inferior format won. So it's not a given to assume technically superior formats must win everytime, not saying that Ogg Theora is a superior or inferior format.

it requires too much bandwidth,

You keep going on about bandwidth. Do you think that Ogg Theora has worse compression than the flash that's being used now? Why then do you keep going on about it? Ogg Theora doesn't have to the best compression of all the video codecs. It just has to be good enough. And I haven't seen a convincing argument yet that it doesn't.

DMCA Reform (5, Insightful)

DarkHelmet (120004) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760582)

How about calling for reform of the DMCA system on YouTube?

Currently, it's possible for a content creator to have his or her video taken down for copyright infringement from what is functionally an anonymous party. While YouTube's DMCA claim form DOES ask for name, phone number and address, none of these items are verified before YouTube goes ahead and takes these videos down.

Because of this, there's a lot of False DMCA action on the site from people who are only interested in suppressing others viewpoints.

Since people on slashdot for the most part care about Freedom of Speech, I urge you all to upvote the DMCA reform issue on there.

Thank you.

Re:DMCA Reform (1)

Doug52392 (1094585) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760602)

Start sending fake DMCA notices? If no one thinks its a problem except a bunch of basement-dwelling nerds, the problem won't go away until someone shows the braindead masses who browse youTube that there is a problem.

Re:DMCA Reform (3, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760842)

Google's doing what the DMCA requires... what would be nice is if they had to provide proof they hold a copyright on something, and therefore reveal their identity so false claims could be taken to court.

DMCA Notices on youtube (2, Insightful)

DJLuc1d (1010987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760584)

Don't forget how out of hand the DMCA notices have gotten. Videos that are clearly fair-use are have their entire audio tracks wiped out, even when audio is a major component of the video.

Updates: Automated responses. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760590)

Google will announce automated comment generation as a new feature, citing users' complaints that it is too time consuming to type out grammatically incorrect sentences and spam.

Uh oh (3, Funny)

the brown guy (1235418) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760614)

""Slashdot -style comment moderation and filtering."
trreeves, Portland, OR - "

He must be new here...or have no idea what /. is about

I suggested More porn...

Re:Uh oh (1)

Bob The Cowboy (308954) | more than 4 years ago | (#30761066)

I suggested more porn...

You must not be new here.

They should ditch comments entirely (5, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760692)

Youtube is a byword for horrifyingly stupid and banal comments. The best Youtube comments still make Slashdot seem like a collection of Nobel prizewinners.

Re:They should ditch comments entirely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760756)

You can always disable comments on your videos.

Re:They should ditch comments entirely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760760)

so much for 'full of mischief'

Ep!\!?! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30760722)

approximhately 90%

Improved login system? (1)

jrozzi (1279772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760740)

It would be nice if they simply revamped their login system. Right now I have an older "unlinked" google account and every time I try to login with it I get an infinite redirect loop. Yes, I cleared my cookies and the problem occurs on Firefox, Google Chrome, and Internet Explorer. I used to be able to login fine just a few weeks ago. What does it take to get support from YouTube with login troubles? Is anyone else experiencing login issues?

I have 2 recommendations (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760916)

First, come up with a way to detect duplicate videos. I'm so tired of thieves recopying videos and siphoning off hits from the original content provider. Second, I'd love for a way to find my past comments. There's currently no way to do this. Yes, there's a lot of idiocy on YouTube but I love browsing videos for laughs and even the commercials have been kept to a respectable limit. People get to post stupid, funny, cute, and creative movies that normally only family members or friends would get to enjoy.

Re:I have 2 recommendations (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30761004)

You did post that to the suggestions page, didn't you?

Tell me you're not one of those people who piss and moan about bugs on various fora but never submit a bug report.

The homepage. (5, Insightful)

Akira Kogami (1566305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30760964)

How about they fix the bloated, slow-to-load youtube.com homepage and replace it with something clean and simple like the Google homepage?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>