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!

Google Will Save Videos After All

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the a-for-effort-though dept.

Google 69

don9030582 writes "After Google announced it would permanently shutter its Google Videos collection, dozens of volunteers from around the world sprung into action in a massive effort to make a copy of the entire site. It was originally slated to go dark on April 29th, but now they have eliminated any such deadline and furthermore they will be migrating the collection to YouTube. We wish Google would have planned to do that from the beginning, but ultimately this is a victory for the preservation of user-generated content on the Internet."

cancel ×

69 comments

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

Evil Google (3, Funny)

pixline (2028580) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914764)

Damn you Google: I spent last weeks sucking videos and wasting bandwith FOR WHAT? Time to send me that Nexus as a compensation, at least.

Re:Evil Google (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914812)

Damn you Google: I spent last weeks sucking videos and wasting bandwith FOR WHAT? Time to send me that Nexus as a compensation, at least.

I would love to see you $600+ internet bill!

Google wanted to restore faith in the cloud (5, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914834)

Nothing could have diminished faith in the cloud more than to delete years worth of content overnight from the cloud.

It was a dumb idea to even discuss deleting it forever when Google wants us to trust them to host the data forever.

Re:Google wanted to restore faith in the cloud (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914870)

Nothing could have diminished faith in the cloud more than to delete years worth of content overnight from the cloud.

It was a dumb idea to even discuss deleting it forever when Google wants us to trust them to host the data forever.

Im so tired of hearing about the fucking cloud. Its a server farm, get over it. You lose control of anything you send there, get over it. You are at the mercy of the cloud operator when you store anythng there, get over it. You really want to host something and have it work the way you want host it yourself. Thats all there is to know. The end.

Re:Google wanted to restore faith in the cloud (3, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915428)

Not if you pay for it. Only free "clouds" have this limitation. Paid "cloud" can be governed by SLAs and contracts; only a bankruptcy might throw a wrench of the "all your data gone with no recourse" sort into things.

Home and small business "SLAs" (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35916644)

Only free "clouds" have this limitation. Paid "cloud" can be governed by SLAs and contracts

Home and small business "SLAs" for paid hosted services are best effort only, and the "contract" for home and small business tiers stipulates only that the provider must refund the service for the rest of the period.

Re:Home and small business "SLAs" (1)

segin (883667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35918428)

So essentially your data is just as subject to being lost forever as it was... hell, as it's always been?

Nothing has really changed in terms of data retention (or the lack thereof), aside from whose responsible for when it gets lost. Formerly you, now everyone but.

Re:Google wanted to restore faith in the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35916330)

You really want to host something and have it work the way you want host it yourself.

And where exactly would you host it? On a server in a datacenter operated by somebody else? That doesn't give you anymore protection, and it adds more ways to lose it due to your own mistakes.

Re:Google wanted to restore faith in the cloud (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914894)

What does this have to do with the reliability of the cloud? Nobody ever promised your data would survive a service closing its doors.

Re:Google wanted to restore faith in the cloud (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915368)

Customers will choose what they perceive as the most reliable cloud, so it's definitely an important feature even if no service is promising anything for the moment.

Re:Google wanted to restore faith in the cloud (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35916682)

Again, though, this has nothing to do with the cloud. The service was discontinued, not suddenly either.

Re:Google wanted to restore faith in the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35916950)

I don't know what's your problem. Are you saying that video.google.com wasn't cloud storage?

Re:Google wanted to restore faith in the cloud (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917316)

No, Im saying it does not illustrate a problem with the 'cloud'.

Re:Google wanted to restore faith in the cloud (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915436)

So you're upset over the possible loss of rare Google Videos content, but not the hundreds of thousands of ~pre-2007 YouTube videos which are deleted every day?

There used to be some good shit on YouTube. It's mostly all gone now.

Re:Google wanted to restore faith in the cloud (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915646)

So you're upset over the possible loss of rare Google Videos content, but not the hundreds of thousands of ~pre-2007 YouTube videos which are deleted every day?

There used to be some good shit on YouTube. It's mostly all gone now.

Are you referring to deletion by the user or by a copyright claimant?

Re:Google wanted to restore faith in the cloud (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917346)

Probably referring to deletion from YouTube by Google for no longer complying with their changed - and apparently quite arbitrary - content standards.

Re:Google wanted to restore faith in the cloud (1)

naiv (768305) | more than 3 years ago | (#35919574)

i never trusted google.

Re:Evil Google (3, Funny)

pixline (2028580) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914854)

I would love to see you $600+ internet bill!

Send me the Nexus and I'll send you back the bill, deal?

Re:Evil Google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915318)

Parent is right. Don't be such a faggot.

I was worried... (1)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914788)

That some of my mid-2000s-era cat videos might disappear into oblivion.

Google will do as Google does.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914800)

How much are those Lady Gaga tickets? Move along, nothing to see...

Google responds to the community (2)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914804)

God is good.

Unlike certain other companies, when the community speaks Google listens. The community has spoken and it was clear all along that the community wanted to save Google Video not so much for the legacy interface but the actual content.

As long as the content is transferred over to YouTube there wont be a problem. But a lot of content is only available on Google Video. To just erase years worth of content is just stupid. This could have been solved by just transitioning or transferring the content over in the first place.

Re:Google responds to the community (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914952)

The community has spoken and it was clear all along that the community wanted to save Google Video

How much community is there when "volunteers from around the world" adds up to "dozens".

Re:Google responds to the community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915450)

Which would seem to make it all the more impressive that Google paid attention, no?

Re:Google responds to the community (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#35916102)

How much community is there when "volunteers from around the world" adds up to "dozens".

Those were the people doing the downloading. There were thousands more who were telling Google not to be stupid.

Re:Google responds to the community (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915466)

To just erase years worth of content is just stupid.

Google does just that with YouTube. Much of the early-days classic videos were automatically purged - unless it was on some top-100 list or something then most videos from e.g 2005 or 2006 are just gone.

Re:Google responds to the community?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35918202)

You've been drinking waaaay too much of their Kool Aid if you think Google listens when the community speaks.

Too much censorship on youtube (1, Funny)

Blaskowicz (634489) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914810)

Youtube all too often give me the "sorry, this content is not available in your country" or "this has been blocked for no reason", or has video restricted by copyright locality. Granted I'm willing to watch silly nazi propaganda and hitler parodies but hell, why should I be disallowed to?

I'll miss Google Video, as you could find some of the blocked content on it.

Take it to the ballot box (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915796)

but hell, why should I be disallowed to?

Because you and millions of others like you continue to vote for legislatures that continue to allow this to happen.

Was this a bandwidth-saving measure for Google? (1)

wintermute1974 (596184) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914872)

While it's nice to see Google doing the right thing, I question their change of heart. My own guess would be that far more people began leeching ungodly amounts of Google Video content, putting a strain on Google itself.

Rather than continue the pain, Google simply decided to allow people to transfer video from Google Video to YouTube.

Re:Was this a bandwidth-saving measure for Google? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915148)

If anybody could handle the bandwidth, its Google. The "strain" was most likely unnoticeable and would have been short lived, as opposed to storing those videos on youtube indefinitely.

Google just decided to do the right thing. Really, knowing Google, it was just a bunch of engineers that thought it could have been done better.

This is why the paranoid and idiots should NOT bre (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915154)

This is why the paranoid and idiots should NOT breed.

A: This is google, they got more bandwidth.

B: To save bandwidth from people downloading movies, they put the movies on site where you can download them...

Go kick your parents, they are really to blame.

Scholars 1000 years from now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914876)

will be impressed by this invaluable collection preserving teen skateboard wipeouts.

Re:Scholars 1000 years from now (1)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35916568)

... and god knows how many hours of great documentaries, indie films, etc.

Draconic copy right laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914924)

I have a feeling that when this does happen about 1/3 of the videos will ultimately be taken down do to draconian copy right laws.

Adult content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35914934)

I've noticed that Google Videos hosts quite a bit of adult content, the likes of which are unseen on YouTube. What happens to those videos?

Re:Adult content? (2)

wintermute1974 (596184) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915060)

The second URL explains it quite clearly:

We've created an "Upload Videos to YouTube" option on the Google Video status page [...] Before doing this you should read YouTube's Terms of Use and Copyright Policies.

So if it is against YouTube's policies, then it's out.

If you are curious, TED.com has a brief but interesting video that explains how YouTube automates their search for copyright infringement, and how effective it is regardless of the quality of the submission. These automated systems can tag shaky video recorded onto mobile phones, for instance.

It's not a search for copyright infringement (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35916948)

TED.com has a brief but interesting video that explains how YouTube automates their search for copyright infringement, and how effective it is regardless of the quality of the submission. These automated systems can tag shaky video recorded onto mobile phones, for instance.

If the automated system isn't capable of evaluating the fair use rationale in the video's description, then it isn't a search for copyright infringement as much as a search for mere copying.

scammed again? (1)

amasd (2064024) | more than 3 years ago | (#35914954)

this sounds like an evil plot to make ppl panic and grab all their fav vids. then track and profile us all... it IS google after all.

Re:scammed again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915102)

Oh shit it's a conspiracy!

Quality of YouTube-hosted Google Videos (1)

wintermute1974 (596184) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915096)

So will videos on Google Video need to be re-encoded to play on YouTube?

A lot of the content on Google Video is already postage-stamp sized and blurry. A further encoding could make them unviewable but all but the most dedicated fans.

hahah (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915118)

Yes, a victory for user-generated content. It's nice to have a victory where we all lose.

Back in the day (1)

x975 (2043120) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915178)

I emailed Google Video suport back on 3.31.08 about transferring 30 videos over to YouTube. They replied "Thanks for your email. Unfortunately, there is no way to transfer videos from one account to another account at this time." I guess I was ahead of the curve, or I should I say, cloud.

Opt for Vimeo? (1)

Sami Lehtinen (1864458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915438)

I have lately opted for Vimeo. Google HD videos are sometimes really slow to load. I don't know why. Everything seems to be ok, but video just isn't loading as expected. With Vimeo I haven't had that problem ever. Vimeo image quality is also clearly superb. Content quality is also clearly better.

Vimeo's non-commercial policy and video games (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917018)

The problem with Vimeo is that it doesn't appear to want, say, videos about video games. If you developed the depicted game or obtained permission to post a video, it's "commercial use"; if not, it's copyright infringement. Start here [wolfire.com] ; if you want more citations, I can provide them.

Re:Vimeo's non-commercial policy and video games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35918250)

That explains why the quality of material on Vimeo is so much better. I won't even look when someone sends me a YouTube link anymore, but I always play video people refer from Vimeo.

Re:Opt for Vimeo? (1)

old and new again (985238) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917166)

youtube throttle the download at the source, it gives a few second peak (max out your connection) then goes to a steady 60/100 K/s for the rest of the video, just to stay a bit in advance of the playback before you could open 5-6 vids in a new tab, and by the time you watched the 1st one all 5 were loaded

Spam? (1)

Joao (155665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915576)

Funny enough the email from Google about this ended up in my Gmail's "Spam" folder.

Re:Spam? (1)

aynoknman (1071612) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915986)

This is a good thing. Google should not allow its own emails to get through my spam filter regardless of its settings.

Re:Spam? (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35923652)

Same here with my account. Sheesh!

i hate subjects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915618)

You wish Google would have?

When exactly will you be posted that from?

of course! (1)

wiresquire (457486) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915696)

Of course they will!

They saved all your wifi traffic, why not save your videos too!

Did anyone actually think... (1)

PinchDuck (199974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915742)

that Google would ever relinquish any data on anything?

Re:relinquish any data (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35915994)

No, it's like a water oasis in the dry west.

I agree they were never going to destroy the water. They just at first decided to remove all of the public access facilities.

No one's yet mentioned the other side of the story - to "start this campaign" all these volunteers - had to commit copyright infringement! So the wild part is that instead of suing each user for $ONE BILLION DOLLARS each, they said "oh, cool. You like that stuff. Okay, we'll keep it so we can make some ad money."

Remember that story about "what happens if Google buys Big Music"? *Relatively* Google is lax on copyright because they understand ad revenue relies on sharing velocity. So if they bought Big Music, and I wish they'd buy the airports and do a colossal Frontier Airlines makeover on them, in one administration all those security and **AA execs stuffed into the Gov driving the Winter of Fear are going to get mighty uncomfortable.

Re:relinquish any data (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35916044)

"oh, cool. You like that stuff. Okay, we'll keep it so we can make some ad money."

What!?
YouTube/Google Video has ads?

Re:relinquish any data (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35916562)

You missed my point AC.

Google chose ad revenue over copyright lawsuits!

Do that with Big Music and let the people share, say on a music annex of youtube, and ditch the lawsuit winter.

Re:relinquish any data (2)

Push Latency (930039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35916118)

I too, give them more credit. This was a probably very effective campaign designed to fine-tune the advertising mechanism just a bit more, which, despite the inconvenience, serves ultimately to increase revenue. It's one thing to watch a video, but to put everything else aside to preserve it when the notice that it will disappear appears, sends a mighty strong ''Like'' signal.

Youtube now has advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35915812)

Youtube now has a fairly robust advertising system and Google has been supporting both Youtube and Google Video to be able to get to this point where it could be possible to make money. Google Video wasn't ever going to be capable of supporting this and it wasn't worth their time so they just said fuck it. Then they realized that killing Google Video would have been a black stain on their reputation so they are now planning to migrate it over. Yay for us!

Re:Youtube now has advertising (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917140)

I wouldn't exactly call Youtube's advertising "robust". As best I can tell, the only "advertising" they do is by way of occasional sponsored events like the 5 Gum presentation of Coachella live and maybe the "promoted videos" that you often see on the front of youtube which are obviously a form of advertisement and I assume they get paid for. Since I don't waste my time watching videos that are obviously just ads, it doesn't impact me one bit. And when I'm watching live high quality streaming content from the other side of the world for free, I can tolerate a giant "5 Gum" background on the page.

Length (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917050)

Google Video allowed very long videos, something around 2 hours. On YouTube, the maximum length is 15 minutes!

Given this, the important question is: how can we migrate our old favorite MST3k episodes that are still on Google Video?

Re:Length (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917268)

That maximum length desn't apply for people who have built up a history of uploading only stuff that fits their community guidelines. It certainly doesn't stop google from adding video themselves.

I dare you to watch this one for its entire length: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5PiXt6INSM [youtube.com]

THough obviously MST3k episodes are going to violate the copyright part of those guidelines...

Simply Business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35917078)

Google made the announcement to see how much people really cared about that content. Obviously people do, so they're happy to migrate it, as the content will attract eyeballs and ads will be rendered. Google doesn't care about the content, they care if others care about the content.

Quality? (1)

zx2c4 (716139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35917348)

The big question for me is this--

The download link only allows you to get the encoded FLV file. Does this mean they failed to store the originals? And if this is so, does that mean YouTube would be serving up the old fashioned h.263 FLV low quality encodes? If that's the case, we'd be much better off _not_ using the auto-move service, as YouTube encodes at much higher quality than Google Video did.

Or, did they just not want us to be sucking their bandwidth by allowing us to download the original footage, but they'll happily transfer it in-house over to YouTube?

Anyone have any pointers?

Save Google Videos! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35917764)

You can download or remotely transfer Google Videos to Veevr online using this site: http://mozliwosci.com/savegooglevideos/

This is the default internet setting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35917942)

In any user moderated setting (i.e. users have control over what is posted and what is not) ultimately everything will be deleted. see: wikipedia.

I dedicate this to Jason Scott! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35918280)

I dedicate this to Jason Scott - Archive.org!

I got the entire letter "G" (3, Interesting)

psydad (12743) | more than 3 years ago | (#35918702)

I spent 4 days downloading the letter "G" - over 29GB of data. Spent 4 days rsync-ing it back up to the archive server. It's nice to know that a bit of history has been saved. I can't judge its merits - to me it was a bunch of silly videos, but who am I to judge...

You still have the same problem... (1)

johncandale (1430587) | more than 3 years ago | (#35919108)

You still have the same problem, if "dozens of volunteers from around the world" want to save the videos, Youtube is still a single point of failure. A private entity. They might decide to delete older non-viewed videos or distasteful videos, Or videos caught in one of their automated copyright filters wrongy, now or later. It's silly to wait to do such a thing if they truly cared, which I don't think they do.

Local storage rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35920248)

It is just a moratory. It will happen.
Then people ask me why I keep downloading stuff, that everything is available online.
You can NEVER be sure that something that is accessible today will stay there.
So... less streaming and more downloading!

Check for New 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>