×

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 Readies Platform for Video Distribution

Zonk posted about 9 years ago | from the i'm-waiting-for-the-google-pet-store dept.

Google 228

Eric writes "According to BetaNews, 'Google is preparing a video distribution platform that provides a complete ecosystem of services for content producers, publishers and end-users.' The first phase of its video upload program rolled out today, and 'content owners will be able to control distribution rights themselves, even setting a price for their video clips. Eventually, users will be able to search, preview, purchase and play videos directly from within Google.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

228 comments

FP! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12233317)

Frist psot! \o/

Confused! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12233322)

Hum. I'm not sure which joke to use with this article: Googledot [googledot.org] - News about Google, Stuff that is Google

or

Dupedot [dupedot.org] - In Soviet Russia, News dupes you!

The choices! :(

dvsd svd (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12233325)

sdvsvdvsd
sdv
vsd

vsd
vsd
dvsvsd

first porn post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12233327)

wait, we have to pay for the porn now? AHHHHH SHUCKS!

hmm (1)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | about 9 years ago | (#12233336)

is google answering a question nobody asked?

I don't see the MPAA adopting anything like this, and outside of them, is anyone really else doing large volumes of video sales?

Now MP3s I could see... and video in the future perhaps, but right now I'd say it seems useless. Of course I'm not a PHD working at google, so what do I know...

Re:hmm (1)

essreenim (647659) | about 9 years ago | (#12233382)

is google answering a question nobody asked?

I dunno but they've already answered the question I didn't ask.

What types of videos are you accepting? We accept any type of video content, with these restrictions: You must own all necessary rights to the content, including copyrights toboth the video and the audio. You must be able to upload the video to us electronically. The video must not contain pornographic or obscene material. The content may be reviewed prior to being made available online. If we cannot use it, we'll let you know.

Re:hmm (3, Interesting)

JayBean (841258) | about 9 years ago | (#12233431)

I've been wishing that I could purchase TV programming by the show or channel instead of getting a large package of 50 channels when I don't watch 40 of them anyway. This has the potential to allow someone like me to purchase individual shows (channels in the future?) without any extra costs. But I don't know if that is the direction they want to take.

Re:hmm (2, Insightful)

brontus3927 (865730) | about 9 years ago | (#12233600)

However, Comcast, or whoever you get your cable from gets the pricethey get for a channel by guaranteeing a certain number of subscribers. If you could pick each channel individually, they couldn't make that guarantee as large of number, and economies of scale would break down. It's possible that subscribing to the 10 channels you do watch would cost more than subscribing to a 50 channel package with 40 you don't.

Re:hmm (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | about 9 years ago | (#12233909)

Comcast, or whoever you get your cable from gets the pricethey get for a channel by guaranteeing a certain number of subscribers. If you could pick each channel individually, they couldn't make that guarantee as large of number, and economies of scale would break down.

On the other hand, many of us would subscribe to a single channel if we could.

I, as an example, would happily pay for a SciFi channel subscription. Hell, I'd pay 1/4 to 1/2 of what a cable package would cost me. Instead, I'm left using BitTorrent to get Stargate and BSG and whatnot.

I'll be buying the BSG DVD sets. Mmmmm, BSG.

Re:hmm (4, Informative)

jarich (733129) | about 9 years ago | (#12233535)

is google answering a question nobody asked?

???

Have you looked at the BitTorrents or P2P networks lately?

The question is being asked millions of times a day. No one's had a good answer yet, but the question is being asked.

Re:hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12233556)

Could you be answering a question nobody asked you?

Nice flamebait there, pal

Channels (1)

simpl3x (238301) | about 9 years ago | (#12233684)

If I want to watch a television show, which is easier, playing with a Tivo, recording it, tuning in to channel X, or searching for it and downloading it? Also, which is easier typing in a domain name or Googling it?

Google gets lots and lots of hits for people who simply search for a domain by entering the domain name... Why?

This is exactly Google's/search's strength. Ask, and thou shall receive.

Poor google.. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12233341)

We're good at destroying ecosystems.

Hmmm... (5, Interesting)

elid (672471) | about 9 years ago | (#12233348)

A few questions:
1) Will TV networks sign on to this? Will we able to download last night's episode of 24 for a small fee? How much will they charge?
2) Why aren't these files DRM-less (see the article)? But Google is an innovator, and maybe they can come up with something fair (though fair and DRM seem to be mutually exclusive nowadays...).

Heeeere come the Google API plugins. (1)

essreenim (647659) | about 9 years ago | (#12233497)

..for video uploading. I can already think of one - security videos.

Watch me as I steal the semiconductor products from your high street. Just turn on your computer and (double)click a desktop icon. and see an uptodate vdeo stream!!!

Re:Hmmm... (1)

garcia (6573) | about 9 years ago | (#12234007)

Why aren't these files DRM-less (see the article)? But Google is an innovator, and maybe they can come up with something fair (though fair and DRM seem to be mutually exclusive nowadays...).

There is no "fair" DRM. Fair use has restrictions in itself. There is no reason to mandate more restrictions on top of that.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12234027)

"though fair and DRM seem to be mutually exclusive nowadays..."

This about it this way -- what 'fair usage' do you have with movies you see in the theatre?

Do you have the right to time shift them? You want to get up and take a piss -- can you pause it? Or come back tommorow? No.

Why should it be different with other video? Its nice when this happens and I certainly wouldn't buy a DVD that I could only watch once on Thursday the 14th at 8PM, but if someone offered this as a choice for sale, I don't think any of us could argue with the owner past the point of not buying it.

Fair use is whatever the owner of the media wants. DRM ensures that the owner of this media gets to control how its used. I don't like this much either -- but its not my choice. I'm not saying I haven't broken the laws as well as the spirit of the laws in the past, but I understand that I'm wrong for doing it and don't need to justify it by claiming that Its Fair Useeeeeeeeee like so many others on this site claim just before uploading the movie to BitTorrent and claiming big media is just making and example of them because they really didn't understand how BT worked and we were just sharing with a friend.

Come on submitter... (5, Funny)

gowen (141411) | about 9 years ago | (#12233350)

Get with the program. You need to jazz up your submission a lot. Your's is much too calm.

If a product is not going to "Kill", "Murder" or "Burninate" the opposition, I'm not listening.

It's an ecosystem, dude... (1)

PornMaster (749461) | about 9 years ago | (#12233506)

Hey man, he called it an ecosystem...

Killing and eating are implied. Even maggots on rotting flesh!

Will this project be moved out of the Googleplex and into a Biodome?

Will it work? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12233351)

It looks like Google may have a solution to the problem of indexing video media on the internet; host the content yourself and request the meta-data from the uploader themselves. Then you can easily index the meta-data to make it searchable. It sure beats trying to index any available content scattered across the web with no easy way to extract useful meta-data, but it certainly has the downside that you need to use Google to distribute your video. What if other search engines jump on the bandwagon; we'll have to search all of them to find the media we're looking for, because they won't share their indexes (Which are the valuable part, after all). It could get rather non-customer friendly if we're not careful.

Re:Will it work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12233820)

Sure,
Then we will just need a search engine to search all the other search engines

Re:Will it work? (4, Interesting)

bitingduck (810730) | about 9 years ago | (#12233926)

But if all the meta-data is self reported, you run a huge risk of people spamming you with things that they report as britney videos but are really sales pitches for viagra or something.

Copyright (5, Insightful)

teiresias (101481) | about 9 years ago | (#12233368)

please be sure you own the rights to the works you upload

I think that's going to be the biggest hurdle for this service to overcome. I think this would be a great service for smaller production teams or individuals looking to release their creations (although there are a number of services that already do this I believe). But to me, this new service will be largely deluged with people looking to trade bootleg videos, pr0n, etc, as again almost all the other similar services are.

pending our approval process

so, is it someones job to look through every video when it's uploaded? To catch any copyright infringement. Again, this seems like a real problem for this and any other similar service.

Re:Copyright (5, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | about 9 years ago | (#12233413)

But to me, this new service will be largely deluged with people looking to trade bootleg videos, pr0n, etc, as again almost all the other similar services are.

Well of course porn will be a part of it as that industry is typically the first to adopt new technology as part of their operations. Of course people will absue the system as you said but hopefully some industries will embrace it as well which could lift the validity of it.

This could be a very good thing but I really have to say that if people do cloud the waters with copyrighted material the networks, RIAA, MPAA, etc, will do everything in their power to discredit it and bring it down.

This is a gutsy move by Google.

are you sure? (2, Insightful)

qortra (591818) | about 9 years ago | (#12233501)

Google is the Search King. Don't you think they'll be able to create an automated system for straining out bad submissions (porn or copyright violations)? I mean, even if the the title or description of a video submission itself aren't incriminating enough, the probably have plenty of other methods for getting context about a video. The probability that a violating video already exists on the net is large, so they could make a system to identify a video by general characteristics (obviously a digest-hash would not be appropriate across formats, but I'm sure there are other ways of doing it).

porn not allowed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12233749)



pr0n, etc

If you RTFA, you'll see that they prohibit pornographic or obscene material.

Words (2, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 9 years ago | (#12233371)

I always love it when words like "Ecosystem" are used to describe business models. It gives me a chuckle, and I know not to waste my time reading the FA.

Re:Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12233644)

Agreed.

That's one of the worst abuses of the word "ecosystem" I've seen. I think that newswriter needs to go back to high school for earth science 101.

You can sign in using your Gmail account (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12233379)

I'm sure everyone on Slashdot has one by now, so use it to skip the sign up process.

WTF (5, Funny)

cca93014 (466820) | about 9 years ago | (#12233387)

Google now have an ecosystem.

Fan-fucking-tastic.

When are /. going to start distributing "-1 - Google Sycophantia" mod points?

I, for one, welcome our "we're not evil, but we are a publicly owned corporation, just like all the other fuckers; give it a few years before we turn into another bunch of wankers" overlords.

sycophantic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12234148)

dictionary [reference.com]

captain learning brings you your Word of the Day! (patent pending)

sycophant Audio pronunciation of "sycophantic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sk-fnt, sk-)
n.

A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.

Versus (1)

the_burton (147439) | about 9 years ago | (#12233389)

So Google versus Downhill battle.. I wish I could say the folks who brought us Grey Tuesday [greytuesday.org] would win, however common sense tells me that the Googlemoth will overrun them...

Re:Versus (1)

Catamaran (106796) | about 9 years ago | (#12233489)

Just like RIAA has overrun P2P?

Re:Versus (1)

the_burton (147439) | about 9 years ago | (#12233520)

Apples and oranges. Google has the popular brand name and the slick implementations. Perhaps Downhill Battle has the 'moral superiority', but that doesn't make one iota of difference to the masses who know nothing about it. Because they're non-profit / idealistic, they're shunted aside as non-serious.

Old news, baby (1, Offtopic)

tinla (120858) | about 9 years ago | (#12233394)


This is Old News [oldnewsbaby.com]. Click on the link for the proof that this story broke 17hrs ago. Come on slashdot, you can do better than this...

Re:Old news, baby (1)

mekkab (133181) | about 9 years ago | (#12233429)

Come on slashdot, you can do better than this...


No, no they can't.
If you want up-to-the-minute news, you hit Gizmodo [gizmodo.com], Engadget [engadget.com], heck, even Fark [fark.com] had this!

Has anyone noticed... (-1, Offtopic)

Shayde (189538) | about 9 years ago | (#12233401)

... how often Slashdot is a good 12-24 hours behind Boingboing [boingboing.net]? They posted this yesterday at 3pm, adn Slashdot is just getting around to it now.

I wonder how many of the editors of Slashdot are reading the better blogs now, and just duping articles into it. THe percentage of "Boingboing... then Slashdot" articles is alarmingly high.

-- DONK! -- (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12233552)

Thats the Zonke factor. What a zonker.. erm I mean PLONKER,

Verified uploads... (4, Insightful)

AIX-Hood (682681) | about 9 years ago | (#12233422)

Although I love the idea, particularly the part about pay videos if you want, the manual verifying of video uploads by some Google lackey isn't seriously cumbersome. I submitted a video yesterday (late afternoon) and it's still not verified 12 hours later. Unless this drastically changes, I can't see this being used to quickly put up new content for your site or anything where time sensitive material is a factor.

Distributed verification Re:Verified uploads... (3, Insightful)

jackDuhRipper (67743) | about 9 years ago | (#12233992)

Instead of a "Google lackey," what if they implement a distributed verification people-network of "cotent category experts" a la About.com [about.com]'s Guide Model?

i.e. One or more folks are in charge of Kids' birthday videos, one or more in charge of original animation, and 10,313 are in charge of the various porn categories.

They are "trained," "paid" based on performance, and are moderated (e.g. if copyrighted works slip through on their watch, they are somehow penalized).

The verification bottleneck opens up significantly without Google's staff of Full Time Employees expanding exponentially.

The Google Network ...

Google Uploader (4, Informative)

boredMDer (640516) | about 9 years ago | (#12233426)

The Google Uploader app (https://upload.video.google.com/Google%20Video%20 Uploader%20Installer.exe [google.com]) is, of course, Windows only.

I wonder how long before someone makes a third party tool to do this on Linux/Mac?

Re:Google Uploader (1)

BenBenBen (249969) | about 9 years ago | (#12233646)

TOS for Google Video Uploader explicitly denies any right to reverse engineer the tech, so slim to none?

Re:Google Uploader (1)

Henk Poley (308046) | about 9 years ago | (#12234006)

You could let your grandma/sister/neighbour use the app and watch the datastream that it send across the network. That is if by "Google Video Uploader" you mean the program.

Re:Google Uploader (1)

boredMDer (640516) | about 9 years ago | (#12234115)

The TOS for GMail also prohibits the use of things like gmailfs as well, IIRC, but they're still used.

Just because it's prohibited doesn't mean that it won't happen.

pr0n Heaven (-1, Offtopic)

lbmouse (473316) | about 9 years ago | (#12233442)

Wonder if there is any EULA that covers what can be uploaded.

Apparently no porn (1)

grahamsz (150076) | about 9 years ago | (#12233488)

Surely this is about the only category of amateur video that anyone will pay to see...

Re:Apparently no porn (1)

Darthmalt (775250) | about 9 years ago | (#12233880)

not neccesarily I have seen many excellent short student and non student films perhaps someone will build a website where you can provide a link to your google hosted video and allow people to vote on the best ones.

Too many products and betas? (5, Interesting)

baadger (764884) | about 9 years ago | (#12233453)

It's alarming how accurately the Google Grid [robinsloan.com] seems to be forming.

This sounds great, but I wouldn't mind Google Image search results that didn't keep returning 404's.

In a recent recruitment video [google.com] that featured on GoogleBlog [google.com] the nice lady says Google is all about "ambitious ideas, fast responses, big acheivements" but it seems to me they want to pump out new services as testaments to what the Googlers are capable of and show off their cool attitude..without actually producing a well polished and maintained product.

Who hasn't noticed degradation of Google search results or lots and lots 404's on image search?

I just hope the grid doesn't crumble and burn.

Re:Too many products and betas? (4, Interesting)

Momoru (837801) | about 9 years ago | (#12233546)

Agreed, they are all over the place...trying to do everything. I still don't think their search is as good as it could be (See Clusty [clusty.com] for a useful new type of search). They seem to be more like a bunch of intellectual kids who won the lottery and want to spend all their time coming up with neat ideas instead of actually worrying about giving returns to the shareholders who bankrolled them. I'm sure that's what alot of you all like about them so much, but if it fails it will ruin future companies that want to be ran like this.

read the TOS agreement (5, Interesting)

tech-hawger (874902) | about 9 years ago | (#12233477)

If your video is too poular, they can charge you for the bandwidth it uses...i wonder if they would warn you first...

Re:read the TOS agreement (3, Interesting)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about 9 years ago | (#12233557)

If a video really becomes that popular, Google should automatically implement a revenue sharing model on that video, where Google gets reimbursed for the bandwidth and the publisher would get his fair cut.

Not a Netflix killer. What else could it be? (2, Insightful)

MarkEst1973 (769601) | about 9 years ago | (#12233482)

My TV will one day be hooked into the internet and be able to download movies on demand, I'm sure, but until then, I'd rather use NetFlix to show my movies on my television set. Watching movies on my computer monitor isn't as good.

So what does this point to for Google? There might certainly be a market for Indie film distribution via Google. This would dramatically reduce distribution costs and open a whole new market for indie films.

From TFFAQ (5, Informative)

GillBates0 (664202) | about 9 years ago | (#12233511)

https://upload.video.google.com/video_faq.html

# Can I charge for playback of my video?

Yes. Or you can allow users to play your video for free. This is totally up to you and your video distribution goals. As the content owner, you decide whether you'd like to give away your video for free or charge a price that you set for it. If you do charge a price, Google will take a small revenue share to cover some of our costs.

# How is my content protected?

Google takes the security of your content very seriously. We've put a number of measures in place to prevent copying or sharing of your content. For more information on our copyright policies and procedures, please read the Copyright section of this FAQ.

echos of adcritic (1)

Leontes (653331) | about 9 years ago | (#12233573)

Back in the day, I loved that free adcritic website, what with all of the spec commercials and whatnot available for perusal and download. I imagine this could turn into a depository of marvelous to crappy short films, a next iteration place for all of those 'funny video' clips that propagate across the net.

I think I might actually get around to editing all those films I shot at NYU film school, just to get them published on some level. Thousands of intriguing shorts exist by students and enthusiasts across the earth; it would certainly be neat to have a place where such films can be organized and archived well.

Of course, this could be like ifilm or something else already in existence, but for some reason I intuit this seems to have more intrinsic cohesion. Since google is involved, it makes me feel more confident that all parties will less likely be taken advantage of, I feel like google, although not necessarily the most efficient will be at least reasonable in their monetary sponging of the users, and might actually allow artists a chance to share visions with the rest of the world. Either that, or it will become the most pointless extension of "america's funniest home videos", a terrifying prospect that no doubt drives fear into the heart of any person who has an ounce of class.

Googe Ain't with the Program (0, Flamebait)

transami (202700) | about 9 years ago | (#12233656)

Come on Google, I though you had a clue! But NO LINUX SUPPRT and NO OGG SUPPORT?

You suck!

Google (as a webservice) (1)

paithuk (766069) | about 9 years ago | (#12233658)

If Google wants to be the best in the future, the Internet is definately the way to go about it. However, requiring that its customers run a particular OS is not what the Internet is about, and in my mind not a healthy business plan for a service that doesn't charge.

Come on Google, what about the rest of us?

I want my Googlevision! (1, Funny)

amcdiarmid (856796) | about 9 years ago | (#12233659)

The jingle goes...

Googlevision, Googlevision
Video bars
See what the girls look like
in their drawars

Googlevision, Googlevision
what do you see
what the girls look like when they pee

Googlevision, Googlevision
Feelin Fine
Made chash from a feed
in that bar of mine!

Profit for Google! (1, Informative)

breakinbearx (672220) | about 9 years ago | (#12233660)

1) Allow people to sell their videos through service.
2)...
3) Profit!

In the TOS, if you decide to charge for your google video, they will pay you only up to 70% of gross income. If it costs more to host, they will deduct more. For a free service, it rocks, but as a method for commercial distro, it seems kind of pricey.

The cafepress.com of video (1)

Badgerman (19207) | about 9 years ago | (#12233666)

Sounds like they're trying to be the cafepress.com of online video distribution. Should be interested.

And wouldn't this last article [slashdot.org] mean they'll have some competition?

Curiouser and curiouser. Is video delivery the next big thing on the internet?

TOS (4, Informative)

BenBenBen (249969) | about 9 years ago | (#12233677)

'content owners will be able to control distribution rights themselves, even setting a price for their video clips.'

From the TOS:
By accepting this Agreement and uploading Your Authorized Content to Google, you are directing and authorizing Google to, and granting Google a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive right and license to, host, cache, route, transmit, store, copy, distribute, perform, display, reformat, excerpt, analyze, and create algorithms based on the Authorized Content

RSS enclosure my Soaps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12233683)

This is great, making it harder to watch TV on the device of your choice - the Broadcast Flag (77 days till lockdown) will seem like a stupid idea now there is competition.
Now Tivo's and PVR's can really take off with RSS enclosed VIDEO AND Film.
Don't forget Ourmedia http://www.ourmedia.org/ [ourmedia.org] which does a similar thing, although they don't have a noporn rule.
The http://technocrat.net/article.pl?sid=05/04/13/2254 235&mode=thread [technocrat.net] Opening Up of the BBC's back catalogue will get things started. But they are banning anyone outside the US from watching all those great Dr.Who back episodes.
The Archive.org CC http://www.archive.org/movies/collection.php?colle ction=feature_films&PHPSESSID=b0292fc08fb009353794 c2240ea8cbb6 [archive.org] licenced B-movie, Charlie Chaplin and 50's Superman Fleischer cartoon collection is a similar great service, but their encoding sucks.

Folks always ramp on about how low quality downloads are. A properly ripped DIVX watched on a 16.7M colour hires monitor or projector beats the pants of DVD.
And this will mess with Sony's heads, as they plan an i-tunes for movies but knowing Sony, totally crippled by DRM.
And you can charge for people watching your stuff if you like.
BTW the TOS say no porn.

Lights! Camera! Profit! Maybe? (1, Funny)

webzombie (262030) | about 9 years ago | (#12233723)

1. Shot vid of topless neighbour.
2. Upload to GoogleVideo
3. Profit!
4. Neighbour find video
5. Sues the living shit out of Google
6. Profit!
7. Google shuts down video service
8. Profit!

Makes sense to me (2, Insightful)

jessmeister (225593) | about 9 years ago | (#12233751)

I have to say it sounds like an extremely interesting twist on the distribution of video content. For me to be able to upload content and distribute it for free is quite amazing. This means they will not only be gaining access to the subscribers or paying customers but also the families etc who are going to use it to share their videos. It benefits everyone. Google gets more impressions to sell advertising on and content producers get an easy and efficient market place/distribution system. Add the advanced searching that is sure to follow and this will be an extremely powerful resource. Of course when they start to put in some pre-roll or instream advertising [dynadco.com] for the unpaid content their revenues and profit margins will be even higher than they are now.

Go Google Go!

Invisible Movies (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 9 years ago | (#12233801)

How does Google know it's "video"? Can't I just pipe my own CDs into the audio tracks of a blank MPG2/4 file? Then I can listen to my own music anywhere, over those famously fat Google pipes. This is fair use of content that I legitimately own, even according to the entertainment industry before the Supreme Court [zdnet.com]. By extension, can't I rename any file "..mp4", and use Google to distribute it? They're not going to watch all these movies, are they?

Re:Invisible Movies (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 9 years ago | (#12233826)

"should have used the 'Preview' button!"

-> rename any file "<whatever>.<original-extension>.mp4"

Don't be evil? (3, Informative)

uttaddmb (856927) | about 9 years ago | (#12233805)

Be careful with the TOS, though [jacobian.org]. Most of the stuff is the standard Draconian crap (i.e., "we can do whatever we want with your stuff"), but most notable is this bit: "If You have not designated a price for Your Authorized Content and We incur extraordinary costs and expenses in hosting, indexing and displaying Your Authorized Content, we may charge a fee in order to defray these costs." So if you release a popular free video, Google may charge you for the bandwidth? I'll stick with Ourmedia [ourmedia.org] for the free media distribution, thanks.

So much for Do no Evil (3, Interesting)

bentfork (92199) | about 9 years ago | (#12233825)

3. Use of Content. By accepting this Agreement and uploading Your Authorized Content to Google, you are directing and authorizing Google to, and granting Google a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive right and license to, host, cache, route, transmit, store, copy, distribute, perform, display, reformat, excerpt, analyze, and create algorithms based on the Authorized Content in order to (i) host the Authorized Content on Google's servers, (ii) index the Authorized Content; and (iii) display the Authorized Content, in whole or in part in the territory(ies) designated in the Uploading Instructions, in connection with Google products and services now existing or hereafter developed, including without limitation in products developed for syndication. This license gives Google the right to copy, excerpt, distribute and display Your Authorized Content via both streaming and progressive downloading technologies, and to display limited excerpts of Your Authorized Content for no fee to the end user. Google reserves the right to display advertisements in connection with any display of Your Authorized Content. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Google is not required to host, index, or display any Authorized Content uploaded, and may remove or refuse to host, index or display any Authorized Content. Google is not responsible for any loss, theft or damage of any kind to the Authorized Content. Sounds a bit evil to me...

Re:So much for Do no Evil (1)

mordemur (797196) | about 9 years ago | (#12233981)

What's your point? That clause covers just about anything they could possibly do with the media. They've outlined in clear terms. They're not even pretending to hide it. Don't like it? then don't use it. That sort of transparency is very much lacking from other companies.

Types of video accepted (3, Informative)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | about 9 years ago | (#12233896)

From https://upload.video.google.com/video_faq.html#ove rview4 [google.com]

"What types of videos are you accepting?

We accept any type of video content, with these restrictions:

* You must own all necessary rights to the content, including copyrights toboth the video and the audio.
* You must be able to upload the video to us electronically.
* The video must not contain pornographic or obscene material.

The content may be reviewed prior to being made available online. If we cannot use it, we'll let you know."

great for independent reporters (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12233972)

major news will be able to preview and bid for footage. it's about time.

Do this for music!!! (1)

jgerry (14280) | about 9 years ago | (#12233984)

I wonder why Google skipped over the idea of doing this for music distribution? This would be a killer app for me, and I'm sure a lot of other musicians too.

1) Upload MP3 content.
2) Pick price
3) Marketing / advertising / word of mouth
4) User access, pay, download
5) Profit???

Re:Do this for music!!! (1)

softwaresamurai (875005) | about 9 years ago | (#12234124)

They may have forgotten about it, but you can find this at BlogMatrix.com, they do media hosting with a n audio mixing creation tool. The client Sparks! also does does blog aggregation and Tivo like recording of streaming Ineternet Radio. I use it for my aggregator, and it saves my hours a day, plus being able to watch RocketBoom in line is way to cool.

Windows Only (3, Informative)

saddino (183491) | about 9 years ago | (#12233991)

Google provides an application (the Google Video Uploader) to upload video content to their servers. As expected, the program is Windows only. So, I guess Google wants your video, as long as you're not a Mac or Linux user. ;-)

Interestingly, all of Google's desktop applications are all Windows only. Given their hiring blitz and their well-advertised work incentives, Google could easily find Mac and Linux programmers, so the lack of support for other platforms must be intended. Other companies can make the argument that the cost is too great, but Google can clearly afford it. So, what exactly is the strategy here?

Re:Windows Only (3, Insightful)

Mant (578427) | about 9 years ago | (#12234082)

Even if you can afford something it has an opportunity cost, and that may be too great.

A new app Windows can use is going to bring in much more users than expanding an app to Linux or the Mac.

So sure, maybe you spend (to pull figures out of the air) 500,000 getting the desktop apps onto Linux and the Mac, and that nets you 1 million return in greater users and so ad revenue. Or maybe you could spend that 500,000 on a new project that gets 4 million return in revenue.

here's an idea... (1, Flamebait)

dAzED1 (33635) | about 9 years ago | (#12234003)

The Google Philosophy. [google.com]

"Do no evil" (now written as item 6)? The two most evil things that MS does - forced upgrades due to locked-in proprietary formats. 2) continually releasing buggy software.

Ok, so...google has all this stuff in "beta" right now. But with the public gmail "beta" being over a year old now...shouldn't it start working right? Yet some of my most simple filters (like, anything emailed to a particular list) still get applied to the wrong things (like things sent to me, and not that list). And though I'm seeing the "unavailable" message less and less now, I'm still occassionally seeing it...what happened to philosophy #10, "Great just isn't good enough?"

But even better yet...what about philosophy #2: "It's best to do one thing really, really well. Google does search. Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat." So instead of doing yet another thing, shouldn't some of the public betas come out of beta first?

Speaking of "Google does not do horoscopes, financial advice or chat," how about this financial advice? [google.com] Or, how about this chat program? [hello.com]

Sounds like Google needs to do some *serious* revamping of their "philosophies." You'd think if they specifically mention 3 things they don't do, they could at least do everything in the world except those 3 things (and hell, they might be doing horoscopes out there somewhere I don't know of). Hey Google - how about ya get what is out there working right, before putting out more public betas?

Focus on search? No. Agility. (2, Interesting)

otisg (92803) | about 9 years ago | (#12234040)

Anyone remembers the days when Google said how they want to focus on search and search only?
They are certainly not focusing on it so much any more, and are adapting to the market forces. Nice and agile.

If you build it.... (2, Interesting)

WareW01f (18905) | about 9 years ago | (#12234139)

Markets these days (read post dot-com) are very conservative. The main issue with video distribution is noone is A) sure it will work, and B) there are business models out there *based* on the fact that you can't get the content any where else. (Think Supper Bowl commercial time slots) So you've got the one side that doesn't what to invest in something that has no (we'll say commercialy) proven market and the other end that just has no intrest.

Enter Google

Google starts playing with searching video. Fine. Issue is that all video on TV is copyrighted and 'Fair Use' is not what it used to be. Fine. So someone says, "Hey, lets get people to upload they're own video and we can test with that." Great. The blogger group shifts from photo blogs to video blogs. Google has content. User satisfied the strange need to document the life and times of their gerbil. Everyone is happy. You have eyes. It's a small stretch once you have content to play with management. (And management in a manor that you control, not some big company demands) It's brilliant! They are going to end up with a content base (Dude, now my rock band can distribute mp3's and our killer concert footage) and audience. It's built, the market's there. All the big companies have to do is sign up.

Google is getting big, and I would argue that they are starting to approch the SpiderMan-great-power-great-responsibility dilemma (some may argue we're past that) Our last remaining hope is that the key mentality in leadership that is leading to Google's success is linked the good side of the force. i.e. if evil forces take over the innovation dies. (Still, anyone want to bet on if Google-AOL-TimeWarner exists a few years from now.)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...