Slashdot Mirror


Google Launches Pay-Per-View Web Video

Elliot Shepherd writes "According to John Batelle, on Monday Google is launching in-browser video playback based on VLC. Google has been accepting video uploads in April, including allowing the video owner to specify that payment is required, through the Google Payment Program." Update: 06/27 22:21 GMT by T : An anonymous reader writes "Google Video is now up. The about page describes what kinds of content has been uploaded to their servers so far -- mostly a random assortment of stuff from Gamespot's archives, a few things from Greenpeace, a Google recruiting video, some breakdancing videos, and other randomness. The in-browser video plugin works seamlessly (although Windows only for now). Looks like it has potential." Check the top entry on Google Blog for a few more words on it, too.

217 comments

  1. Mirror by Broke+Mirror · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    In case of Slashdotting, break mirror.
    1. Re:Mirror by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This seems to be a bot, judging by the posting history.

      Good thing. At least now i don't have to wait for someone linkify things in case of slashdotting. Couldn't we get this thing included into 'Related links'?

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    2. Re:Mirror by resprung · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      My feeling too -- the links point to an advertising site that's getting a lot of traffic just about now ;-)

      --
      Now is the winter of our disco tent
    3. Re:Mirror by Armadni+General · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I've got your coral cache right here:

      News: Google To Launch Online Video Playback This Monday

      I've confirmed that Monday Google will launch an in-browser video playback feature based on the open source VLC media player. This is the logical next step for Google's video search and upload function, which began taking uploads from anyone who cared to submit back in April.

      Google will not disclose the raw numbers of videos that have been uploaded to date, but the company will make all those which were tagged as "free" available for real time streaming through the VLC player, which Google has modified and will make available for download Monday morning. The company also intends to make its VLC code available to the open source community as part of their Google code project.

      The video will be searchable via the meta data provided by the submission process (no, there's no PageRank for video, yet).

      Now, before we start discussing how this represents the Death of Comcast/The Networks/Windows Media Player et al, this is not quite that, but it is the start of something big. For one, it's clear this will be integrated with the Google payment program which was revealed to be in process last week. Plenty of folks uploaded video to Google with a payment option, and that has yet to roll out, but you can expect that it will.

      Secondly, this is a big deal for many institutions which do not have the ability to host and stream their own video, but would very much like to get their message out. In essence, Google is providing their infrastructure free of charge to let anyone upload video and have it be found. That's a very big deal in and of itself.

      Third, this is clearly a shot across Microsoft's bow. The Windows Media Player is a standalone application, rife with its own DRM and entanglements with Hollywood. Many once claimed IE would never fall, but Firefox has shown what the open source community can do with some good code and the support of a dedicated user base. I'm pretty sure that once Google's VLC implementation is stared at by enough folks, a stand alone player with hooks into Google Video search and many others will not be far behind.

      Fourth, this will help the spread of an alternative universe for video distribution and playback, one independent of the walled garden business model in which video is currently locked. I've ranted on this before, but I do believe that the sooner independent voices have an outlet for their work, and a business model to pay for it, the sooner we'll see content creators revolt from the hegemony of cable and studio models.

      More on this as it develops...

    4. Re:Mirror by Jugalator · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This seems to be a bot, judging by the posting history.

      In that case, he must be a bot suffering from a terrible misfortune!

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    5. Re:Mirror by stere0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      According to the user info:

      I have nothing better to do with my life than post mirrors to Slashdot stories. Oh sure, I could create a bot to do it, but a human touch is needed.
      --
      Trollem mirabilem hanc subnotationis exigiutas non caperet
    6. Re:Mirror by Val314 · · Score: 5, Informative

      better solution:
      0) Get Firefox
      1) Install Greasemonkey
      2) get this extension
      --> Every /. (story)link has a cached link attached.

    7. Re:Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it truely is a bot, what does it tell about the effectiveness of the type-letters-to-verify-scriptlessness thingy?

    8. Re:Mirror by winkydink · · Score: 1

      Only AC's get the "type this" challenge

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    9. Re:Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweet - I love firefox :)

    10. Re:Mirror by sik0fewl · · Score: 1

      That's great, but I think you just slashdotted the extension.

      Coral Cache mirror of said extension.

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
  2. Scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Google is providing their infrastructure free of charge to let anyone upload video and have it be found.

    So no matter what you search for, you're likely to come across a movie of someone etching "penis" in the snow

    1. Re:Scary... by Saulo+Achkar · · Score: 0

      Well, they ARE verifing every single movie you upload. Good news is that I got mine approved ;D

    2. Re:Scary... by Alpha_Traveller · · Score: 1

      I'D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!

      --
      "Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
  3. Codec compatibility by dannyitc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With VLC's ability to play pretty much any codec under the sun (including microsoft and realmedia's proprietary formats), maybe we'll begin to see more out-of-box compatibility with competing video players. I bet a lot of end-users are tired of codec searching any time they want to watch a certain video.

    1. Re:Codec compatibility by D-Cypell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      maybe we'll begin to see more out-of-box compatibility with competing video players

      or maybe we will see video player vendors creating new codecs, modifying existing ones and threatening patent enforcement to try to stay ahead of the game...

      Show of hands?

    2. Re:Codec compatibility by interiot · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Kind of reminds me of the time when your main source of porn was BBS's, and every once in a while, a really intriguing filename would be sufficient motivation to go off and find a viewer for that image format.

      And then along came webbrowsers, and suddenly every image produced was either JPEG or GIF. And it was good.

    3. Re:Codec compatibility by mister_tim · · Score: 1

      That's actually not true.

      VLC only includes open source code, including codecs. There are no open source RealMedia codecs or WMV 9 or 10 codecs, hence they are not supported in VLC.

    4. Re:Codec compatibility by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      I thought VLC was under threat from software patents. Not just because of the codecs it handles, but because it can play DVDs. Doesn't that mean it has something to do with the whole DeCSS mess?

    5. Re:Codec compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point is that it's not the codec makers that decide what formats are used in the end.

      The content distributors will use what people have access to. So far that's been Real, WM, and Quicktime. And if they had to choose one, they cut out a large batch of users that didn't have the right player.

      Now, when everyone finally has easy access to a universal player like VLC thanks to Google (no, it wasn't exactly popular before), why would the content distributors try to use some obscure new codec and LOSE viewers?

      This is a win/win situation for everyone involved EXCEPT the makers of proprietary video players (which is a good thing).

      Of course there is still the issue of DRM, but if Google comes up with a better solution to PPV, then that can be another win for us.

    6. Re:Codec compatibility by teksno · · Score: 1

      then why can i watch any wmv file i dl off the net?

      im running a windows box with media player still installed (im too lazy to get rid of it) but i still use VLC as my main player for EVERY THING!!!

    7. Re:Codec compatibility by Saeger · · Score: 3, Informative
      Actually, VLC doesn't play proprietary codecs unless you install them separately -- the same deal with linux's MPlayer.

      The legal way to get those codecs is to download and install each official player+codec combo, and then use your choice of player to use the codec; even then their EULA may say you can't use the codec separate from THEIR player.

      Howerver the best way to get the codecs -- but not technically legal way, because of software patent BS -- is to google for and download what's called a "codec pack". The best one for Windoze is called the "K-Lite Mega Codec Pack", which comes with Media Player Classic, BSPlayer, as well as almost every video/audio codec under the sun. For Linux, the best (and only?) codec pack available is the MPlayer essential codec pack, which is actually just an archive of windows .dll codecs, which MPlayer, VLC, and other players will fall back on if there is no open source alternative codec to use.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    8. Re:Codec compatibility by paulsomm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      " then why can i watch any wmv file i dl off the net?"

      Probably because they're not WMV9 or 10. Earlier WMV versions were reverse engineered and are included in VLC's codecs.

    9. Re:Codec compatibility by LetterJ · · Score: 1

      On Windows, I believe VLC uses whatever codecs are available as well as the built-in ones. I know for a fact that I've run WMV HD samples through VLC as a means of transcoding to high-quality DVD. The DRM-protected files don't work, but the "plain" ones do. All of the HD stuff is in the more recent WMV format.

    10. Re:Codec compatibility by OverlordQ · · Score: 3, Informative

      GOD NO, DO *NOT* DOWNLOAD THE KLITE PACK, it's a serious pile of crap. more times then not it'll hose lots of things.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    11. Re:Codec compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im using ffdshow at the moment and im very impressed. Are there any more open sauce codects that support RM, QT and the like? Itd really be nice to just have one package and program that enables me to do it all on windows.

    12. Re:Codec compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/GIF/PNG/ and I would buy THAT for a dollar.

    13. Re:Codec compatibility by Politburo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any specifics? I've used the K-Lite pack many times without problems. Sometimes it doesn't always have all the codecs I need, but it has never "hose[d] lots of things" and includes the great Media Player Classic.

    14. Re:Codec compatibility by OverlordQ · · Score: 3, Informative

      use ffdshow and stop worrying about if the pack has the latest codec, of if codec foo in that pack conflicts with bar you have installed and so forth and so on.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    15. Re:Codec compatibility by Saeger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Eh? I've installed it quite a few times, and nobody I know's had any problems. As long as you don't do a "custom" install, with its potential for codec conflicts, you'll be fine.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    16. Re:Codec compatibility by 0x000000 · · Score: 1

      WMV is supported in the latest version in CVS of ffmpeg, so support for it should trickle down into VLC once a new release of FFmpeg is slated. Which can be now. Download FFmpeg, build it from cvs, and then rebuild VLC, and you are set.

      RealMedia however is not in the works yet. And who cares, it is not like it really matters :P

      --
      cat /dev/null > .signature
    17. Re:Codec compatibility by 0x000000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      VLC plays whatever codecs ffmpeg supports.

      http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/index.php

      On the homepage it says it is adding support, and or experimental support, and or full support has been added for:

      Quicktime 7
      x264.h
      Alac

      "(Jan 24, 2005) Eagle-eyed observers may have noticed the recent CVS addition of a VC-9 decoding implementation. It is still highly experimental but should eventually serve as a basis for decoding Microsoft VC-1/VC-9/WMV3/WMV9 video data." - http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/index.php

      For all the supported codecs either download, and build ffmpeg and run it with -formats or take a look at http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/ffmpeg-doc.html#SEC1 6 It contains all the codecs.

      --
      cat /dev/null > .signature
    18. Re:Codec compatibility by interiot · · Score: 1
      Well, PNG wasn't developed until the GIF patents started being enforced.

      But yeah, one of the main reasons that GIF and JPG flourished was because they were (at least initially) unencumbered, therefore the code could be built into EVERYTHING, on every platform, without worrying about patent enforcement. The same is not true of Windows Media or Quicktime or Real.

      (the other reason that GIF/JPG triumphed over the alternatives is that they rode on the coattails of Mosaic and Netscape... therefore, the second lesson is that it's not sufficient to develop a cool open-source video codec... it's much more important to find a way to get everyone to use one good open codec to the exclusion of the others)


      However, the GIF patent has now expired, so GIF is as unencumbered as when Mosaic started up. If you're advocating for PNG over GIF based on technical merits, then you have to be careful. Technological progress is good, but if you encourage it too much, then we return to the bad old days of 30 different image formats that are all equally popular, and everybody having to constantly search for a program that can decode that image or video they just downloaded.

    19. Re:Codec compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you FUCKING moron, the whole point of VLC is that it has all of those codecs already compiled into the binary.

      which is why they are being sued left and right, and why you can't find the binary being distributed inside the US.

      i repeat- VLC works without you needing to install ANY CODECS WHATSOEVER.

    20. Re:Codec compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is NOT informative.

      VLC does NOT require external codec packs.

      In fact even if you use a player that does, the only thing you need is the open source ffdshow, instead of one of those POS codec compilation packs. ffdshow is based on ffmpeg, which is ALREADY INCLUDED in VLC.

    21. Re:Codec compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With VLC's ability to play pretty much any codec under the sun (including microsoft and realmedia's proprietary formats),

      Except, of course, WMV 9 (aka VC-1), the only one with a published standard.

      Sure, it can play Wing Commander cutscene clips, but it can't play a common, published, standard.

    22. Re:Codec compatibility by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      With VLC's ability to play pretty much any codec under the sun

      Not on Linux. It fails on MPEG-2 files encoded with odd settings on the original encoder, doesn't play RealMedia (as if I cared or anyone really used it that I cared about), sometimes handled Quicktime but more often than not doesn't. Unfortunately, no one has ported the partfile plugin to Linux to make partial files from aMule playable but it does a semi-decent job still.

      On Windows, VLC does quite a good job. It's like WinAmp done the way it should have been. On Linux, it takes a back seat to Xine and a pack of codec .dlls.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    23. Re:Codec compatibility by paul248 · · Score: 1

      They're not open-source, but Real Alternative and Quicktime Alternative include the codecs without the crufty players: http://www.codecguide.com/about_qt.htm http://www.codecguide.com/about_real.htm

    24. Re:Codec compatibility by kindrom · · Score: 1

      Au contraire, at least with the Mac versions of VLC and MPlayer. I've installed them and they play just about anything except very obscure formats that no one uses anymore; WMV and other proprietary codecs are included with the app.

      (Except VLC and RealMedia -- I can't recall if they get along. Too lazy to check.)

    25. Re:Codec compatibility by Suddenly_Dead · · Score: 1

      That doesn't so much conflict with software patents as it does (more importantly?) with copyrights. Same reason that sites distributing Real Alternative and Quicktime Alternative have been shut down, the people don't have legal permission to redistribute the codecs.

  4. Is google trying to be all things to all people by Ckwop · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Is google trying to be all things to all people? We've had this, the paypal clone, the rumored gbrowser etc.

    I'm not saying you can't diversify your core business but if you try too many projects at once you risk being a jack of all trades but a master of none.

    I'm starting to feel a hint of worry about the direction of Google.

    Simon.

    1. Re:Is google trying to be all things to all people by selderrr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they just happen to have this insane amount of cash. I much prefer their way of spending the cash to the microsoft way : buying patents & sueing people.

      The filosophy of all the semeingly nutty google projects is pretty simple : start 10 projects in the hope that one of them becomes wildly successfull. The other 9 are just duds

    2. Re:Is google trying to be all things to all people by irokie · · Score: 1

      and that's better than MS's philosophy of "let's make 10 products in the hopes that one of them isn't hideously buggy..." how?

      --
      and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
    3. Re:Is google trying to be all things to all people by D-Cypell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Im not sure that this particular project is outside of Google's remit. Essentially they are an information storage and retrieval company and this new tech seems to fit that pattern.

      GBrowser probably doesnt (didnt) but this is a company that encourages staff to explore their own avenues so there is bound to be some diversity.

    4. Re:Is google trying to be all things to all people by danimrich · · Score: 1

      Look at the number of services that Yahoo is offering. They are neither the best provider for financial quotes nor the best webmail service, but they're still very popular and make money from advertising. They just need to be very good in one area (e.g. search) and because of the portal style the other areas of the site will also get traffic. After all, Google makes money from advertising.

      --
      where's all that Karma?
    5. Re:Is google trying to be all things to all people by thallgren · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What amazes me about Yahoo is that they have banners for stuff that if it were mail, would be marked as spam by their own service. Things like weight-loss pills, green card lottery etc.

      Makes you wonder about ethics.

      Regards, Tommy

    6. Re:Is google trying to be all things to all people by Duke+Machesne · · Score: 0

      'Cause, uh... dude, it's google!

    7. Re:Is google trying to be all things to all people by JohnPM · · Score: 1

      They also spend some of their money developing snappy spell checkers. ;)

      --
      Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
    8. Re:Is google trying to be all things to all people by Momoru · · Score: 1

      the microsoft way : buying patents & sueing people.

      Please give on example of this. Microsoft has bought and submitted many patents, but mostly to prevent themselves for being sued. Maybe you are just assuming they have done this but I would love to see an example or preferably several.

    9. Re:Is google trying to be all things to all people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes you wonder about ethics.

      Why? Banner ads are very much less annoying than spam. Spam isn't bad because it's for shady businesses. Spam is bad because it's spam. The medium is the message. Let the shady businesses advertise in banners which I can ignore!

      Now, if you had raised the issue of Yahoo Groups adding spam to mailing list messages, I'd have agreed with you...

    10. Re:Is google trying to be all things to all people by Momoru · · Score: 1

      Yahoo offers the best financial quotes and best personalized portal from my experience...what do you recommend thats better? (Even google links to Yahoo's finance section as its primary stock quote lookup deal)

    11. Re:Is google trying to be all things to all people by mavenguy · · Score: 1

      Ethics? What's that? What counts is revenue.

      "Bulk mail" is advertizing for which Yahoo doesn't get a cut; a banner ad, does. Just keep the stuff to the "moderately" shady/racket side and they can claim "ethics" for dealing with "legitimate" advertizers.

    12. Re:Is google trying to be all things to all people by Dan+D. · · Score: 1
      The filosophy of all the semeingly nutty google projects is pretty simple : start 10 projects in the hope that one of them becomes wildly successfull. The other 9 are just duds

      except they seem to be failing miserably at coming up with duds. No wonder they have everything in beta, can you imagine trying to manage the run of 10 different wildly succesful projects?

      --
      People who quote themselves bug the crap out of me -- Me.
    13. Re:Is google trying to be all things to all people by 3nd32 · · Score: 1

      I would suspect the majority of betas we're seeing out of Google are from that 20% of time employees get to work on whatever they want to. Employee A says he wants to work on a video search tool. A couple dozen other employees agree. Several months later, video search beta! So Google isn't trying to be all things to all people, Google's employees are sharing their pet projects.

    14. Re:Is google trying to be all things to all people by danimrich · · Score: 1

      I don't know anything better, but I am not at all interested in financial quotes-except for currency exchange rates. As there are a lot of tech-savvy professionals working the world's stock exchanges, I think that there might be services (free or not free) that are more sophisticated and geared towards this group of users.

      --
      where's all that Karma?
  5. Content control? by Mister+Impressive · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What kind of content control does Google have in place for this service? (I haven't looked into it)

    Is every file looked through to make sure it's not copyrighted? Or if the file depicts illegal activity, etc?

    On the same note, would Google take files out if someone paid them to (eg. insulting clips, though not illegal, may tarnish a reputable name or something)

    --
    Let the commencement BEGINULATE!
    1. Re:Content control? by ckuhtz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Read the FAQ. https://upload.video.google.com/video_faq.html PS: Why did the preceeding post get modded Interesting? It's a troll at best the more I think about it. :(

      --

      Poof.
    2. Re:Content control? by SethJohnson · · Score: 0, Troll

      The parent post here got modded +5 interesting for asking obvious questions that are answered in the google video faq.

      Good job, mods.

    3. Re:Content control? by alokeb · · Score: 0

      I wonder what kind of effect this would have on the service?

  6. But what about the patents problem? by Lord+Satri · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Very interesting move. Thanks Google again :-)

    TFA says nothing about patents problems that VLC and other media players are facing (see http://www.videolan.org/patents.html). But with Google in the bandwagon, I guess this problem can be solved with a win on the open source front :-)

    1. Re:But what about the patents problem? by bogie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "But with Google in the bandwagon, I guess this problem can be solved with a win on the open source front :-)"

      Or realistically google will just create a special version of VLC in which they license the proprietary codecs and OSS and VLC gain nothing. That or they will transcode everything into an OSS and patent friendly format that VLC can play without running into any patent issues.

      Either way there are no guarantees that this will help OSS in any way or help VLC with its patent issues. Sorry to be negative but its completely naive to think that google will somehow magically fix the patent issues surrounding VLC. That's just wishful thinking.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    2. Re:But what about the patents problem? by hobbit · · Score: 1

      That or they will transcode everything into an OSS and patent friendly format that VLC can play without running into any patent issues.

      Either way there are no guarantees that this will help OSS in any way or help VLC with its patent issues.


      If someone with the infrastructure of Google were to start a precedent for using patent-free codecs in order to make your metadata searchable, that would indeed have a very positive impact for the development of patent-free codecs and therefore OSS.

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
  7. Reminds me of my childhood by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 3, Funny

    Something about Mission Impossible.

    After viewing the video: "This message will self destruct in 5 seconds".

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  8. CPU emulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    + pseudo-VGA + video capturing + ffmpeg encoder + bit torrent = mpegs all the world can see for free!

    You may think this is illegal, but the fact that it is simply possible, shows that selling information like this is stupid. (Any links to downloadable mpeg of college_dork?)

  9. Misleading Title by irokie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The title of this story is completely misleading. Google aren't releasing a pay-per-view thing. In fact, TFA said that those videos which were tagged free were the ones that would be available at first...

    "Plenty of folks uploaded video to Google with a payment option, and that has yet to roll out"

    --
    and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
  10. What next... by dissillus · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...PPV pr0n on Google?

    Sign me up.

    1. Re:What next... by Momoru · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately no adult content is one of their rules...what the hell else would i want to download? You and your friends doing skateboard tricks? No thanks!

    2. Re:What next... by Ravatar · · Score: 1

      bumfights cats attacking people

    3. Re:What next... by Mr_Icon · · Score: 1

      Booble?

      --
      If you open yourself to the foo, You and foo become one.
    4. Re:What next... by load_test3 · · Score: 1

      I am still waiting on slashbod.org
      Nudes for Nerds

    5. Re:What next... by Craptastic+Weasel · · Score: 1

      Would that be "Screwggle"?

      You can thank my business partner for that, he's a marketing geek...

    6. Re:What next... by kubrick · · Score: 1

      I thought goOgle, myself.

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  11. To pay or not to pay...? by mister_llah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This would depend fully on the content, I think... who would pay to see TV shows and such when they could use a TV?

    Movie "rentals" aren't out of the question, to be sure... ... but if the service is akin to, say, a subscription to CNN.com or something... I am not sure how well it would do (heck, any pay-for-video service on the web, I just am not sure on how it would do) ...

    ===

    Admitedly, I've tried one (albeit for free, as the network was in beta) ... http://www.ruckusnetwork.com/

    Essentially its needs its own web browser, so I guess technically Google's got a leg up (and their video format is different, Ruckus uses WMV) ... but in the end, would I pay for them?

    Probably not.

    Someone might, I suppose, but how many need to before it becomes profitable?

    --
    MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
    http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
    1. Re:To pay or not to pay...? by Ensign+Zatrole · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This would depend fully on the content, I think... who would pay to see TV shows and such when they could use a TV?
      I would. There are a lot of TV shows that'll never make it to the country where I live, and if they do, it'll take me several years. Now, I do download this stuff off bittorrent already, but I might be persuaded to pay a reasonable fee to download it legally, if the people producing the TV shows would allow it. Also, I don't have a TV, because the socialist country I live in requires me to pay a license fee to even own a television, even if I never watch the crappy government-owned free-to-air channels.
    2. Re:To pay or not to pay...? by grahamm · · Score: 3, Insightful
      who would pay to see TV shows and such when they could use a TV?
      1) People who cannot receive the station which airs the show and where the show will either never been shown by stations they can receive or there will be a long delay before the show is shown. This applies especially to shows from stations in countries other than that where the would be viewer lives. 2) When you miss the show and there is not an imminent repeat.
    3. Re:To pay or not to pay...? by moranar · · Score: 1

      I think you'd be surprised that Italy, one of the G7 countries and led now by Berlusconi (to the right of Attila the Hoon, some would say) has the exact same tax. 100 euros per year, regardless of whether your tv is not connected to the network and you use it only for gaming.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    4. Re:To pay or not to pay...? by BioCS.Nerd · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This would depend fully on the content, I think... who would pay to see TV shows and such when they could use a TV?

      I would. I don't own a TV, nor do I feel like paying for cable or satellite to watch the few shows I'm interested in. An iTMS-like service offering TV shows would go over quite well. I'm actually surprised Apple hasn't released one already. I'd be even more suprised if they aren't working on one now (IMHO it'd be the legal crap holding them back as the technology is already there).

    5. Re:To pay or not to pay...? by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1
      who would pay to see TV shows and such when they could use a TV?
      My wife would pay to see the American Idol finale that she missed.
    6. Re:To pay or not to pay...? by Junnonen · · Score: 1

      There is nothing to be surprised of here, the TV-licencing system is in use throughout the Europe. The irony is that mostly only the former socialistic, eastern-block states do not have such a system. :)

      100 euros per year is actually one of the cheapest rates, I am sure.

    7. Re:To pay or not to pay...? by pv2b · · Score: 1

      But then Italian television sucks exceptionally much.

    8. Re:To pay or not to pay...? by mitchskin · · Score: 1

      Depending on the show, I'd pay to avoid commercials. My time is worth more than advertisers are willing to pay--broadcasters get maybe a dollar or two (at most, and usually much less) for making me sit through 17 minutes of commercials (which is typical for an hour of US TV). I'm willing to bet that there are lots of people out there that would pay to avoid commercials on their favorite shows.

    9. Re:To pay or not to pay...? by moranar · · Score: 1

      Which is why I still don't have a TV.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    10. Re:To pay or not to pay...? by NathanBFH · · Score: 1

      TV licencing tax?! Noooooo....! all this time I thought the European governments were excising a sin tax!

  12. Pr0n by king-manic · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ahh google, tapping deeper into what really runs the internet.

    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    1. Re:Pr0n by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually if you read the faq you will see that they will not carry "Adult" content.
      No Porn for YOU!

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  13. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They're trying to provide a global information infrastructure, and so far they are succeeding.

    1. Re:No. by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      They're trying to provide a global information infrastructure

      But are they going to change the informational paradigm too? And can they do this while simultaneously leveraging global marketspace and improving the mass-market infrastructure?

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  14. And version 8.2.2 of VLC was released yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...so I'll have to try out the upgrade :)

    1. Re:And version 8.2.2 of VLC was released yesterday by dionoea · · Score: 1

      hum ... version 0.8.2

  15. Google should go playerless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously - they should be using Mediaframe; it's open source, plugin-free ('playerless'), feature-rich and most improtantly, stable.

    1. Re:Google should go playerless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you forgot to mention it's written in Java, only supports MPEG-1 & 2 (& some sort of beta support for MPEG-4) and doesn't work very well (The "Showcase" demo plays ~10 seconds of video and then goes back to "Re-buffering". I'm using a 2Mb link.) Apart from all that, yeah, Google should have totally used that crappy product!

    2. Re:Google should go playerless... by Tune · · Score: 1

      Nice link!
      This tech definitely isn't there yet, but still it's quite impressive.
      Wonder if in a couple of year's I'll be able to run applets like that on my cell phone...

  16. Re:Oh and before you reply RTFA... by mister_llah · · Score: 1, Funny

    I ask what they intend to use because as a 'pay to use' service' (when it goes) ... they are vague as to what has been uploaded for video hosting and any future plans...

    I doubt people are going to pay to see the Leeeeroy Jenkins video, let's say...

    So they have to have some sort of plan...

    ===

    [and conversely, I doubt people will pay Google for them to host the Leeeroy Jenkins video, but then again, people do crazier things every day]

    --
    MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
    http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
  17. google = content brokers by aendeuryu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think I've started figuring google out.

    Microsoft and Linux and MacOSX might actually be on the way out, or at least on the way to obscurity. All of these offer interfaces to the computer, and that's useful in its own way, but I think one thing that Google has figured out is that mastery of the computer is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. It's throwing an abstracted layer over the top of it all and owning that layer, and making it useful enough that people eventually aren't going to care what OS they're running, so long as it'll give us what google has to offer.

    Google maps. Translation services. Multimedia access. Shopping/Pricing comparison. News. Wikipedia (well, not exclusively, but you get my point). Limitless-space email. They're coming closer to giving us what we expect computers to give their users in Sci-Fi movies.

    Google's on the verge of becoming THE content broker. What's odd is that from this point of view, Yahoo is more of a player than Microsoft at this point. But they've got to be worrying. Most of what google's done has been collecting and mining, but with Google maps developing the way it is, it's obvious that they're doing more than just throwing a bunch of computer clusters at a problem.

    Anyways, if this is what they're about, the consistency behind all their new forays, then maybe Microsoft's already lost the battle to Google, but they're stuck on what no longer matters as much, which is people's relationship to the computer. Google, by focusing on people's relationship to the content, is miles ahead now.

    Yeah, yeah, -1 full of shit or totally obvious, but I really think this is the way it's going.

    1. Re:google = content brokers by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anyways, if this is what they're about, the consistency behind all their new forays, then maybe Microsoft's already lost the battle to Google, but they're stuck on what no longer matters as much, which is people's relationship to the computer.

      Yes, Google is gaining a lot of momentum, and simply because of their good reputation, simple marketing tactics from a certain large company doesn't seem to work alone to beat them; the redesigned MSN Search seem to have hardly even put a dent in the natural association people have come to make between web searching and Google, and in hindsight must've been a more or less total failure and waste of time for Microsoft.

      Then Microsoft made another attempt but it remains to be seen if this service, still in vapor form, will be able to compete with Google Maps. Yes, it seems to look good, but what about its speed and feature set? World coverage in high resolution? Can't tell from the screenshots. If it's about the same as Google's, I think Microsoft will fail horribly once again. "Googling for maps" is quickly becoming as natural as "googling the web".

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:google = content brokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that you, Cringely?

    3. Re:google = content brokers by aendeuryu · · Score: 0

      Nah. Was the post that gay?

      Sorry. I'm working on a few beers right now. The revelation seemed mind-blowing at the time.

    4. Re:google = content brokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Google want to be content brokers, how come they haven't touched music? It would seem to be a better first step than video, because it's an established market with lower resource requirements. And before people point out that porn is an established market, isn't that usually done with subscriptions rather than pay-per-video?

    5. Re:google = content brokers by youknowmewell · · Score: 2, Insightful
      As soon as I can have:

      • A Full-fledged Word Processor/Spreadsheet
      • Full-fledged Image manipulators (vector, raster, 3D)
      • An IM client
      • Lots of games
      • IDE for any [or all] languages
      • Various other niche-market software
      I'll still care about what OS I have, and my OS will not be obsolete or fade into obscurity.

      Oh, and don't forget about those people out there that would rather not rely on one source for all of their content/tools (even if for now the source is not evil).
    6. Re:google = content brokers by Momoru · · Score: 1

      World coverage in high resolution?

      Well currently Microsoft already offers mapping for Europe and Brazil, which Google doesn't. It also offers more detailed satellite imagery for these parts of the world. Google really only beats it currently in its AJAX implementation.

    7. Re:google = content brokers by daigu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google is nowhere near being THE content broker. For instance, Factiva has more than 9,000 newspaper, major trade publications and market research providers. I can think of many other aggregators such as Lexis-Nexis, Thompson that have been operating in the space for decades - and Google can't touch them for usefulness.

      This is not to say Google may not be developing a whole new content set - which will make them a more useful content provider. However, if you are in a position to have to answer any question that pops into someone's head - which I am, Google is rarely a first choice. It is only your first choice if you know absolutely nothing about the topic. It is also part of any final search to make sure you haven't missed anything that your average Joe might come across - especially any misinformation.

    8. Re:google = content brokers by bheer · · Score: 1

      As soon as I can have:

      * A Full-fledged Word Processor/Spreadsheet
      * Full-fledged Image manipulators (vector, raster, 3D)
      * An IM client

      You forgot to add: ...and as soon as these don't die if my network dies (I'd hate to lose my compiler during a bad thunderstorm)

    9. Re:google = content brokers by milimetric · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hate to harp on this:

      Can google be your highly optimized data warehousing solution? Can it provide customized applications for the countless stores and factories and businesses of the world? Can it offer a flexible data interchange solution? I didn't think so. Whereas they may very well have the recreational user market cornered, almost all of those recreational users pay for their internet connection. They pay using money they make at their jobs. They make money at their jobs most likely using a computer. Those computers run all the stuff I mentioned above. Operating systems as we know them will never die because of exceptionally good content brokers like Yahoo and Google. Operating systems as we know them will die when the network is so fast that applications are easier (and more cheaply) stored on a server and accessed from terminals.

      Whenever you come up with a theory about america in general, you have to put $ first. And nobody does that better than M$. I'm betting on them, no matter what amazing beautiful things google comes up with and no matter how shotty of a job M$ does of running their business. In the car industry there was a Toyota to kill GM. In the OS industry... I don't see anything yet.

    10. Re:google = content brokers by Pollardito · · Score: 1
      Yeah, yeah, -1 full of shit or totally obvious
      damn, your list of moderation categories is more comprehensive than mine
    11. Re:google = content brokers by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I could also use a GQuicken. Until then, I'll still need an OS.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    12. Re:google = content brokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ouch. No, no the post was not that bad. No one deserves to be called Cringely bad. That was just uncalled for.

    13. Re:google = content brokers by sapped · · Score: 1

      Whenever you come up with a theory about america in general, you have to put $ first. And nobody does that better than M$.

      I hate to point out the obvious here, but if M$ but $ first as you suggested, then you would in fact be named $M.

    14. Re:google = content brokers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lexis-Nexis

      To Google as Christie's Auction House is to eBay. Different planets in terms of scale.

      By the way, I use Factiva every day and love the content, but the interface is so incredibly crappy and the pricing (for my employer) so high that I think they are vulnerable to Google competition on the one hand and people deciding to make much more of their content free on the other.

    15. Re:google = content brokers by azhyd · · Score: 1
      I hate to point out the obvious here, but if M$ but $ first as you suggested, then you would in fact be named $M.

      which adds a whole new meaning to the company's goal...

    16. Re:google = content brokers by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me that Factiva would make a great subsidiary of either Yahoo or Google, along with all of the other companies you've mentioned.

      Google's large enough now to start doing what Yahoo did back when it first went public; mass acquisition. There are hundreds of smaller companies that have a lot to offer Google now, and I'm sure Google's got their eyes open.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    17. Re:google = content brokers by daigu · · Score: 1

      To put this in perspective, Dow Jones had more than $1.6 billion in sales. Reuters had $5.5 billion. LexisNexis had $2.4 billion.

      Google had $3.1 billion. Most of the companies that dominate the content space are the same size or bigger than Google and any acquisition on that scale would probably pave the way for another AOL/Time Warner like debacle.

    18. Re:google = content brokers by danila · · Score: 1

      They're coming closer to giving us what we expect computers to give their users in Sci-Fi movies.

      What? The... Fuck! They are coming closer to replicating using a variety of DHTML tricks some of the features that were available in computing for many years. They are reinventing the bicycle. Yes, an argument can be made about advantages of webservices, but please don't pretend that the functionality of these webservices by Google is in any way innovative.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  18. Few details by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Google approached my company about uploading our content. We ultimately decided against it since they couldn't tell us what the terms were going to be. For example:

    Me: How are you going to protect copyrighted material from being copied?
    Google: We're working on that.

    Me: You say video can be free or fee based. How does that work?
    Google: We'd prefer free content, but you can also charge a fee. We will have a payment mechanism in place.

    Me: In a fee-based scenario, what "cut" does Google want?
    Google: We haven't decided.

    Me: What if I upload free content and a LOT of people like/view it? How does Google make money?
    Google: We reserve the right to charge the uploader if the content becomes "very popular."

    Me: Define "very popular".
    Google: We don't know yet.

    Me: Why should I upload content if you can't answer these basic questions?
    Google: You just should.

    So unless they're just planning to get lots of home videos, I didn't see any real incentive for a content provider to participate. It costs real money to produce content so companies aren't going to just give it away.

    Cheers,

    1. Re:Few details by Duke+Machesne · · Score: 0

      But, uh, dude... it's for google!

    2. Re:Few details by roror · · Score: 1

      I am shocked! Is that for real? i.e. google approached your company and requested you to upload your content ?

    3. Re:Few details by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 0

      Somewhere America's Funnies Home video's is screaming.

      Or it could be the nut rake guy.

    4. Re:Few details by Momoru · · Score: 1

      I'm quite confident Google didnt actually approach this guy, but he does raise all the same points that the Google Video TOS does appear vague on.

    5. Re:Few details by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've got a funny feeling the GP wasn't meant to be a direct transcription from his conversation ;-) I cannot believe you actually thought the entire thing was a verbatum replay of the conversation! Its pretty clear he is trying to convey that at least of the time they spoke to him they really had no answers to the most basic questions reguarding the service.

      If this conversation really happend or not I don't know, but having three words you don't think are a direct quote from Google when its pretty clear the whole thing isn't a direct quote as a reason to question the sentiment behind post seems illogical. Of course they didn't say exactly that. I'd highly doubt they said EXACTLY anything attributed to them above, but I wouldn't be at all suprised if the basic concepts are pretty accurate.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    6. Re:Few details by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      It looks like he read the FAQ or TOS and then pretended to have been approached. Google marketing is not likely to do service calls to anything but Fortune 500s. I'd have to look up the history on the poster to determine if he works for one. Right now I just chaulk it up to unlikely.

      And no, I don't think it was verbatim, but I cannot think of any response that would seem to indicate Google actually was trying to get across the "You just should" part.

      While I haven't dealt with Google marketing (parts of which I believe are outsourced), most of the sentiment from my dealings with them have been just like the early days of Microsoft. IE, you find a bug and report it, they reply: "Wow, that's cool! Thanks we'll get that fixed." Then three months later they haven't and you have to publish the flaw publicly to get them to respond. Then the guy you sent the flaw to gets fired because he didn't forward it on to them. Whoops. :)

      Anyway, the sentiment I've seen is one of, "Hey! Try this out!", and then if you ignore them, they just move on to someone else. They'll take in your advice on how to make it better, but they won't actually do anything, because they want to provide a service to stupid people with money to spend, not a niche market.

    7. Re:Few details by slashkitty · · Score: 2, Informative
      from their FAQ: You can also set the price to zero and allow users to access and play your video for free. This will potentially give you wider distribution than those who choose to charge a price. If our costs to play your video on Google are extraordinary, we may charge users a fee (if you've specified zero as the price for your video) or take a larger revenue share of the price (if you've set a price greater than zero for your video) to cover some of these costs. For example, if you upload a high definition file that's 500 MB and it becomes extremely popular, we might charge users a fee instead of giving it to them for free or ask you for a higher percentage of the revenue from the price of the video. Please be assured, however, that we'll let you know before we add a price or charge a higher revenue share for your video.

      That really seems fair enough. Seems like they'll charge the user, not the uploader, if the video is big and becomes popular.

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    8. Re:Few details by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

      Believe what you will. Google initially approached us by email and then followed up with a number of phone calls. I got the impression from their representative (a fellow named Cliff) that they were making lots of these calls.

      Cheers,

    9. Re:Few details by Beltza · · Score: 1

      They'll only charge the user for free videos. If an uploader puts a price on a video, Google will take a bigger share of the fee if the video becomes more popular, which leaves less for the uploader. Theoretically, this share might even become 100%, leaving nothing for the uploader!

    10. Re:Few details by TCampbell1000 · · Score: 1

      I think it's mostly for people who're already producing videos and looking for fresh distribution channels. Still, it's... not a very clear deal, is it?

  19. Microsoft and Realmedia's proprietary formats? by fennel1 · · Score: 1

    Is this possible?

    I've tried to use VLC to play RealMedia files / WMV 10, and I always get scads of error messages. Could you provide a bit more information on how to get VLC to do this?

    1. Re:Microsoft and Realmedia's proprietary formats? by dannyitc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I believe I misspoke. Realmedia isn't supported by VLC, but RealAlternative is a good non-real player that's worked with every realmedia type I've used. It seems that the way it plays realmedia files (by using realmedia's own .dll files) is illegal, and with all the patent dodging VLC's had to do I believe they're trying at all cost trying not to step on any of the big players' toes. I don't have experience with wmv10 files specifically, but I do know that the windows version of VLC is the one with the best wmv compatibility, so that may be an issue.

    2. Re:Microsoft and Realmedia's proprietary formats? by dionoea · · Score: 1

      using dmo windows codecs is unofficially supported (but available in source). Patches to compile it easily might be available soon. (basically that means wmv9 and quicktime)

      afaik, loading real codecs (either the windows or linux ones) isn't implemented yet.

    3. Re:Microsoft and Realmedia's proprietary formats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > It seems that the way it plays realmedia files (by using realmedia's own .dll files) is illegal

      Distribution of the dlls would be illegal of course (not done or encouraged by the makers of mpc in any way), however interfacing with the dlls is not. There is even law that allows reverse engeneering for that purpose.

  20. about time ! by __aahlyu4518 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It has been days since they launched a new service ;-) I was starting to get worried.

    1. Re:about time ! by Infinityis · · Score: 1

      *checks my Google calendar*

      Yep, they are overdue for a new service. Oh well, that just give me more time to ride my new Googlebike for exercise and cook my Googlewife a nice Googlemeal.

  21. Google OS? by should_be_linear · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Maybe they will put this media player togather with Google Office, Google Voice Services and Google Gaming Engine to create ultimate Google Vaporware OS?

    --
    839*929
    1. Re:Google OS? by Fulg · · Score: 1

      Actually, their plan is much bigger...

      (ok it's old, but still a cool what-if scenario)

      --
      gcc: no input sig
    2. Re:Google OS? by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Why not? They're already charging off in a thousand different directions at once, what harm could one or a dozen more do?

      Anyone else suspect that one day Google is just going to dissipate like smoke?

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  22. Paying for it... by corneliusagain · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This does seem to back up the picture of the google Wallet / G-Money initiative as a way of allowing google to provide services funded not by advertising but by something close to micro-payment.

    Call it an iTunes for everything that's not music, an Amazon for self-published eBooks, or an eBay for digital content, whatever you call it, there might well be space there for a big player...?

  23. Some schmuchks blog is news now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Yeah, this is newsworthy. Some dweeb makes junk up on his blog and it makes /.

  24. So precensorship? by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 1

    "Is every file looked through to make sure it's not copyrighted? "

    All content is copyrighted by default. Doesn't your comment just reflect the tyrany that copyright has become? Aren't you suggesting Google becomes judge jury and pre-censors all to avoid the risk of a copyright infringement?

    Or did I misunderstand your comment?

    1. Re:So precensorship? by Mister+Impressive · · Score: 2, Informative

      You've probably misunderstood my comment, partially my fault with ambiguous wording.

      I meant will Google check through all the files to make sure things like hollywood films, tv shows, etc...

      --
      Let the commencement BEGINULATE!
    2. Re:So precensorship? by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      You mean will Google check through the files to find out if any are copyrighted by an entity that could sue the crap out of Google, but ignore the rest?

      It'd be nice if whatever stand Google takes is consistent and treats ALL material the same, REGARDLESS of how deep the copyright holder's pockets are.

      It's unfortunate that that's essentially what copyright boils down to now. I'd love to see that change.

      --
      No Comment.
    3. Re:So precensorship? by Mister+Impressive · · Score: 1

      FINE. One more go.

      Will Google only accept files from the original copyright holder, or someone authorised to do so... instead of another service like ImageShack, but with video.

      --
      Let the commencement BEGINULATE!
    4. Re:So precensorship? by void+warranty() · · Score: 2, Informative
    5. Re:So precensorship? by cecille · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I doubt the parent was trying to say that google should pander to big business and walk all over smaller copyright holders...

      Yeah, you hold a copyright for your material by default...BUT...as far as I understand it (and IANAL), when you upload that material to a service and offer it for download for free, you are extending authorization for people to use it. If it's not a default extension of authorization, I'm almost certain that google would have looked into this and required the use of some type of agreement that explicitly stated that. It's not illegal, and google should not have to worry about doing anything to protect that copyright - its use it authorized. There is a chance, though, that people will upload stuff that is not theirs to upload. MOST of the time this would be pirated movies from big hollywood type productions. Not always, you're right. and that represents a copyright violation too. But it's naive to state that for the sake of fairness these two should be treated the same. The fact is that there is a large backlash from big hollywood movie business right now, and failing to properly protect themselves against allegations of copyright violations on these films would be monumentally stupid. More importantly, it is EASY to recognize these types of violations. It's way harder to determine if random #1 uploaded a video made by random #2 in violation of random #2's copyright.

      Would it be prudent for google to check these for obvious copyright violations? Yeah, it probably is. Can the company reasonably be excepted to find ALL the violations? No.

      Now, I freely admit that I do NOT know what is legally required of google in this case (I'm not sure there IS a solid legal backing for this, judging by some of the more recent law suits). BUT, I do think it's reasonable and prudent for google to try and weed out obvious copyright violations, and unfortunately, most of this WILL be the big movie type things. If they can't see an obvious violation, then they'll have to assume authorized use. Yeah, it's not fair, but I, personally, think they're doing what they can, and that's all we can really expect of them if they want this venture to get off the ground.

      --
      ...no two people are not on fire.
    6. Re:So precensorship? by GeckoX · · Score: 1

      I think that if they are offering to allow people to pay for downloads of their uploaded content, that they may have to perform these checks not only for major content, but all content. It's the charging part that I think makes this more complicated.

      Someone uploads a video that they hold the copyright to. Someone pays to download it, then immediately re-uploads it and either a) attempts to charge for it themselves or more likely b) provides it for free.

      Doesn't matter anymore who the copyright holder is, big business or just some guy. The only real difference is that the big business copyright holders have the resources to find violations themselves, and could easily deal with these provided Google has a violations reporting system in place. It would be _much_ more onerous on the individula copyright holders to find these violations.

      So, if Google is going to do these checks for any violations, I believe they'll have to do it for all.

      My guess though is that they will handle this the same way as they handle this issue everywhere else: leave it to the content owners. Likely provide a means for content to be removed where content has been proven to be in violation, but staying out of that process entirely. The only problem is whether they can still get away with that whey they are physically hosting said content. (Though they've managed for the most part to do so with google cache)

      --
      No Comment.
    7. Re:So precensorship? by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      well, since the google cache already violates copyright on a massive scale I don't think they're too worried about that one.

  25. TFA discusses Open Source Implications by putko · · Score: 3, Interesting

    TFA mentions some really neat stuff: Google is giving away the code. That means that folks will be able to take open source browsers, and extend them to use the video streaming code. You could set up your own streaming service too.

    When I first heard about the Google's video hosting service, I thought, "SO WHAT."

    But if others set up compatible porn video streamers, and others make firefox work with the video service well, then suddenly the combination of the video streaming and the video features (built in to browser) suddenly make them "gotta have" features --- esp. if porn video sites pop up.

    Suddenly IE and WMV start looking totally behind the times. MicroSoft won't be able to integrate those features cheaply if they are done under a GPL: they are totally hosed, and have to play an expensive catchup game. Fine -- they do "embrace and extend", but it will cost them a lot of time and money.

    In the meanwhile, pornlovers will have switched over, and M$ will be looking pretty useless.

    If the people at Google are doing this on purpose, you have to give them credit for doing to Billy what he's done to so, so many others!

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    1. Re:TFA discusses Open Source Implications by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I hope this doesn't burst your bubble, but I've been using mplayer and vlc with my browser for *years* now on my home Linux box.

      VLC is a well-established project.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    2. Re:TFA discusses Open Source Implications by Momoru · · Score: 1

      In the meanwhile, pornlovers will have switched over, and M$ will be looking pretty useless.

      Then Google becomes the new evil monopoly, Slashdotters start bitching about G00G and how they are evil.

    3. Re:TFA discusses Open Source Implications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? WOW.

      Probably almost everyone on slashdot has had mplayer and vlc for years. His point was the other 90% of Internet users who are clueless and use the locked in IE and WMV. This sort of innovation might be a great catalyst for moving people beyond this combo.

      Your post is so pointless, yet delivered in such a smug way... what the fuck are you bragging about? You're an idiot!

    4. Re:TFA discusses Open Source Implications by putko · · Score: 1

      OK, so you get my point.

      Do you think Google is figuring that even if they don't touch porn, if they do it in an "open" way, it will just happen that others do, and then MS will feel some real heat in the IE/WMV department -- because users will want the special porn-enhanced firefox?

      Even if the system goes "open" and is commodified and others try to compete with Google, I figure Google will be the primary place for non-porn, and then there will be fragmented porn all over the place. And then a bunch of non-used google imitator/competitors.

      If this happens, MS is really stuck. Do they provide free video hosting, like Google? That's not really their bag: they are competing in an arena they are not set up for. They hate to do that. They suck at running services. It may go like their recent search fiasco: $100 million in PR to launch a service that fizzled.

      All this makes me think the bright people at Google came up with the idea, looked at the strategic implications, and then decided to make it happen. If so, that's really cool -- unlike Apple, they are going for Billy's jugular.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
  26. Buy my video!!! by Diakoneo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This reminds me of Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash. He had a sub-plot centered around these techno-nerds that wired themselves up with a suit of computers and cameras.
    They would run around everywhere there might be something remotely interesting going on and capture it. Then they'd copyright it and offer it for sale. If someone wanted it, they paid a royalty and could download it. It was all centered around some big company with lots of storage that made money off of hosting the video and getting it copyrighted. Kind of a higher-tech paparazzi, I guess.

    --
    "Well..here I am..." - Jubal Early
    1. Re:Buy my video!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just finished the book yesterday and had the same thought. IIRC the company was called CIC. Baically the CIA internallized the Library of Congress, started accepting content from outside and became a corporation (Central Intelligence Company or somesuch).
      If Google expands their pay serivce to other forms of content (intel), they could offer much the same service as the CIC. Combined with some kind of source trust rating, this could try to solve the main problem of googling something. I.e. the info you find could be completely believable garbage.
      If you need more reliable data, you can pay for it. If you're just curious about something, use the current system.

    2. Re:Buy my video!!! by 3prong · · Score: 2, Funny

      In the book, those people were known as gargoyles.

      I see that Googoyles.com is available...

  27. What about pirated video? by ChrisF79 · · Score: 1

    I'm not very familiar with the entire process, but what keeps someone from ripping some commercial video and putting it on the system and charging others to view it? If someone from one of these rogue countries does this, it's not like there could be any legal action against them, correct?

    --
    Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
  28. I can just imagine this.... by TwoTailedFox · · Score: 1

    You have two competing Porn services offered by Google.

    Video-Based
    Text-Based

    Video version would have a welcome, like this:

    "Welcome to Interactive porn, Ladies and Gentlemen, with Pay-Per-View Premium Video WebCam Shows to assist your Masturbatory Habits."

    Text version would have a welcome, like this:

    "Welcome to Interactive porn, Ladies and Gentlemen, It's like those Pay-Per-View WebCam Shows without the money, and in text form. Pr0n."

    --
    ~The TwoTailedFox posts again....
    1. Re:I can just imagine this.... by trongey · · Score: 1

      You forgot images.google.com.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
  29. Launch Catalog by cno3 · · Score: 0

    Grainy Porn, Porn, Porn, Skateboarding Video shot on a Super-8, Porn, Porn, Video of someone's cat, Porn with someone's cat, Porn, Porn...

  30. From TFA by rbarreira · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The company also intends to make its VLC code available to the open source community as part of their Google code project.

    Of course they do, VLC is a GPL license project...
    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  31. Why a desktop application for loader? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I cannot understand why a desktop application for
    the video uploader has been developed? Why didn't they just use a web form for uploading videos?

  32. Inspector Google by dbucowboy · · Score: 0

    Go go Google eyes.

    --
    This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
  33. GreaseMonkey by ozamosi · · Score: 1, Informative

    There is a greasemonkey-script that automaticaly adds links to coral and mirrordot after every link in every news item on slashdot. You can get it Here. Works great, and makes sure karma-whoring like grandparrent useless.

    Try it!

    1. Re:GreaseMonkey by chachob · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

  34. Terms of Service by dbucowboy · · Score: 0

    PLEASE READ VERY CAREFULLY THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND THE PROGRAM FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS LOCATED ON THE PROGRAM WEBSITE (THE "FAQ") BEFORE REGISTERING FOR THE GOOGLE VIDEO UPLOAD PROGRAM (THE "PROGRAM"). THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS CONTENT HOSTING SERVICES AGREEMENT (THE "AGREEMENT") GOVERN YOUR PROVISION OF CONTENT TO GOOGLE (INCLUDING YOUR DOWNLOAD AND USE OF THE VIDEO UPLOADER SOFTWARE (THE "UPLOADER")) FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN THE PROGRAM. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM OR TO DOWNLOAD OR USE THE UPLOADER. THIS AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU (AS DEFINED BELOW) AND GOOGLE INC. AND ITS AFFILIATES ("GOOGLE" OR "WE" OR "US") IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY GOOGLE AT ANY TIME IN ITS DISCRETION. BY CLICKING ON THE "I ACCEPT" BUTTON BELOW YOU ACCEPT THIS AGREEMENT EITHER FOR YOURSELF OR ON BEHALF OF YOUR EMPLOYER OR ANOTHER ENTITY AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU ARE ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF YOUR EMPLOYER OR ANOTHER ENTITY, YOU REPRESENT AND WARRANT THAT YOU HAVE FULL LEGAL AUTHORITY TO BIND YOUR EMPLOYER OR SUCH ENTITY TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO BIND, PLEASE PRESS THE "I DO NOT ACCEPT" BUTTON BELOW. Introduction. By accepting this Agreement, You are requesting to participate in the Program where Google provides hosting services at the direction of content providers who seek to make their content available to end users, subject to the terms of this Agreement. "You" means you or, if you are accepting on behalf of your employer or another entity, then "You" means that employer or entity and affiliates. We may revise the terms of this Agreement by providing the new terms and conditions for You to accept or reject when You next log in to the Program and by sending notice to You at your email of record. The email notice will contain a link to the new terms and conditions, which You may accept or reject within ten (10) days from the date the notice was sent to You. If You do not accept or reject the new terms within the ten (10) day period, You will be deemed to have accepted and be bound by the new terms. If You reject the new terms, this Agreement will be terminated and You will no longer be able to participate in the Program. 1. Program Participation. Participation in the Program is subject to Google's prior approval and Your continued compliance with the terms of this Agreement. We reserve the right to refuse participation to any applicant or participant at any time in our sole discretion. Multiple accounts held by the same individual or entity are subject to immediate termination unless expressly authorized in writing by Google (including by electronic mail). You are solely responsible for keeping your email address and other contact information updated. 2. Your Content. After acceptance of this Agreement, You may designate content for hosting and display to end users by uploading such content directly to Us in accordance with the uploading instructions (the "Uploading Instructions") and by providing additional information about Your content in the form provided in connection with the Uploader (the "Uploading Form"). All content so designated by You and contained within such content, including but not limited to all images, closed captioning, and music, is referred to collectively as "Authorized Content." 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 exi

    --
    This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
  35. Google Video Uploader Screenshot by dbucowboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.eonestudio.com/download/01.jpg Checkbox makes you certify that it is your material or that you have the right to upload it. It also makes you certify that you're not uploading pr0n.

    --
    This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
    1. Re:Google Video Uploader Screenshot by EvilStein · · Score: 1

      "not pornographic or obscene" - who gets to decide what's obscene? Google or the guy that's uploading it?

      What's obscene to one person is art to another.

      I see what they're trying to do, but still..

  36. VLC by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

    I was looking at VLC and I heard you could "carry" your codecs around. I was looking for software at one point to put onto a USB drive that would allow me to play my media anywhere I wanted. Is there any good VLC specific codec packs?

    I am happy to see google going to this pay per view system on the web, they look like they might actually pull it off and we can start seeing the real value of some video going on the internet.

    --
    If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
  37. Gargoyles? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Anybody else read this and immediately think of the Gargoyle's from Snowcrash?

    Depending on the prices people are willing to pay, and the amount of protection involved to prevent your "proprietary clips" from being leaked out to free websites, this could really help usher in some real leaps in portable video recording technology as people start to become "gargoyles".

    What I'd really like to get my hands on is a system that is constantly recording to one drive, but overwrites after say....10 minutes, or 5 minutes, and then I have a button that lets me save the past amount of time to a second drive if I decide content was valuable enough to save permanently. It could have a wifi setup as well and a wearable interface as well so not only could I edit my content on the go, but I could also upload it right away to Google's service and start making money.

    Does anybody know if any such thing exists?

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Gargoyles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Thad.Starner/

      Research "wearable computing"

  38. Google bubble is about to burst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I don't like Google anymore and hope that they fail spectacularly. Google is a media company masquerading as a tech company. All their revenue comes from ads. Their primary product which is free displays information which they don't own and for which they don't have any rights (their search engine). This makes them very easy to replace. They have started re-implementing stuff (like e-mail) which has been around for years and thousands of companies already offer. But because they are 'Google' and some people are drinking their kool-aid a lot, they get all the hype. Netscape was innovative. Microsoft, love it or hate it, does some fantastic innovative stuff. But Google, they do stuff which has already been done a million times, and then thinks its somehow cool. Even Amazon is more innovative than Google.

    This is why Google will fail by the end of 2010:

    - They don't have a plan.

    - They are easily replaceable. If Google falls of the face of the earth tomorrow alongwith its search engine, it won't matter.

    - They don't do anything meaningful or remotely innovative in the software field.

    - They are loading up with PHds and scientists. If these guys had any useful brains, they would be super rich already. Can you name ONE web related idea which could be credited to someone with a PHd ?

    The Google bubble is about to burst and it is important for shareholders, employees and potential users to open their eyes and see the fire or be burnt by it.

    1. Re:Google bubble is about to burst by EvilStein · · Score: 1

      I think that slashdot will fall over for a while too. I mean, look at all of the Google articles that get posted here. Every time someone burps about the "Summer of Code" Slashdot posts another article about it.

      As for other search engines, you're right.. a cool one has sprung up.. Clusty - rather innovative, imho.

    2. Re:Google bubble is about to burst by ProppaT · · Score: 1

      First off, why is Google a media company and not a tech company? Their main product, a web search engine, is a very technologically driven system. Ads are google's way of supporting their free services. You can't expect to get something for free. Google's ads are the most unobtrusive I've ever seen as well, so kudos to Google for making money and not being obnoxious in the process.

      How does Google not have a plan? Google has stated many times that their goal is to innovate the way we access all sorts of information. They've already changed the way I search the web, read my email, view maps, etc. They're smart enough to realize that you're better off making 100 small applications and seeing which ones work than you are focusing all your energy into one project that may or may not flop. Diversification is key to innovation and success.

      Also, Google's successful because they're innovating where other people follow suit.

      GMail: Sure, there's tons of other free e-mail services, but this one actually does things right. Not only that, it also has a user friendly interface and looks nice. Visit hotmail, yahoo mail, etc. then go back to GMail. There's a reason it's so incredibly popular.

      Google Maps: Sure, we have Map Quest et. al....but their maps suck. And by suck, I mean they're horrendous. Google's the first company to offer a compelling map service for free.

      Also, Google is a trendy name. People love Google labs. Even if they don't use all the services, people check back regularly to see what kind of neat things they're working on. As long as Google holds the public's interest (and with gmail being as popular as it is, I don't see how they won't), they'll be around and be doing well for a long time to come...

      --
      Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    3. Re:Google bubble is about to burst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed! Here here! Sorry the Google fanboys modded you down, that was +5 insightful in my book.

    4. Re:Google bubble is about to burst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been drinking too much Google kool-aid. Try to think with an open mind for two minutes.

      Google's search engine is in the same league technologically as most other search engines. Infact, almost all decent web apps are 'technologically driven'. Have you read their algorithm ? Have you seen the formula for PageRank ? Is it something extraordinary ? Do you know if Google has a patent on it ? They don't.

      Google's business model is entirely dependent on ads, and that puts them in the same league as yahoo,cnn,fox and all the other media companies. There is only SO MUCH money that is going to be spent on ads, and Google is competing with others for those ad dollars.

      Google doesn't even have any hint of a plan. They are blindly following the Silicon Valley theme that if there are 100 attempts, atleast 1 thing would be enormously successful. This makes Google the ultimate dot-bomb company !

      Google's following suit on everything. Microsoft Streets and Trips is way better than Google Maps, and it came free with my computer.

      'People love Google labs' - What people are you talking about ? Please, for your own sake, stop drinking too much Google kool-aid. There are thousands of companies which do more software/internet related innovative stuff every day. Google probably isn't even in the top 10,000.

      Last point, Google is not in the same industry as Microsoft. They didn't have to piss them off, but they did so anywayz. A media company like Google cannot survive a full-body assault by Microsoft.

  39. Goes along with broadband by Bemmu · · Score: 1

    Yet again Google manages to dig up something more we may want to search. Usability of video search heavily depends on the spread of broadband, but it seems to be advancing well as previously reported on SlashDot.

    By the way, have you ever noticed how Larry and Sergey seem to be inseparable?
    Almost like they spend every waking hour together.
    Ever thought that maybe it means something?

    Google stress-relief game

  40. In the beginning... by Duncan3 · · Score: 1

    Why back in my day peoples annoying stories about their cats were in ASCII and they were 1KB...

    Then came the web, and peoples stories about their cat got pictures, and it was 100KB, and still noone cared.

    Then came the podcast about the cat, at 10MB, still annoying, but for broadband.

    Now comes the video about the cat, 100MB, but now even the cat is pissed off.

    How is this progress???

    --
    - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
    1. Re:In the beginning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if we rplace "cat" with "pussy" maybe more people will care.

    2. Re:In the beginning... by adpowers · · Score: 1

      Cat's are old school... now we film ourselves typing.

      Andrew

      PS: My video is in there, yay!

    3. Re:In the beginning... by defaria · · Score: 1

      Well we managed to piss the cat off! :-)

      To me that's progress!

  41. grokster by cecille · · Score: 1

    hmmm...wonder if the grokster ruling will have any effect on their plans to release this. I know they're not really promoting illegal activity, but what bad timing....

    --
    ...no two people are not on fire.
  42. Excellent idea by mister_llah · · Score: 1

    I hadn't thought of that, that is a very good idea...

    --
    MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
    http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
  43. Google ... PLEASE use theora and ONLY theora by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is a golden opportunity to put the whole video codec and patent mess behind us.

    Instead of presenting a collection of different formats on the service, google should pick only one and transcode all uploaded videos to that format.

    Naturally my vote goes to theora because it is free from the patent problems that are causing so much harm to the software world.

  44. VLC is in trouble by takeya · · Score: 1

    On their page they say how threatened they are by Europe's Software patent push.

    I for one hope Google can help this great media player stay in business.

  45. Mod gets -1, Ignorant by Thuktun · · Score: 1

    Mods really need to learn the definition of "Insightful". "Interesting" possibly, definitely "Informative", but there's little insight in just quoting something.

  46. Rude awakening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I much prefer their way of spending the cash to the microsoft way : buying patents & sueing people.

    A lot of people here at ./ share this opinion. Well, sorry to spoil your future, but you guys are in for a rude awakeningen when you realize that Google is the Walmart of the Internet. Any competitor site will be marginalized by Google's dominance.

  47. Explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does the fact that Google answers the questions make them less interesting?

    1. Re:Explain? by SethJohnson · · Score: 0, Troll



      Because it's obvious, not interesting. Interesting is when you provide some insight no one else had considered. Interesting is when you have some background in a topic and inject a piece of information not readily available to the rest of the audience. Interesting is not grabbing the low-hanging fruit and offering it to the people standing next to you within arms reach of said fruit.

  48. No commercials? by QMO · · Score: 1

    You mean like cable TV and DVDs?

    --
    Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  49. Re:Illegal Activities? by vertinox · · Score: 1

    "Or if the file depicts illegal activity, etc?"

    You mean someone would actually film themselves doing something illegal and then post it on the internet just for the bragging right?

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  50. gimme google os by Agent_OO7 · · Score: 1

    ^ 10 bux says it's coming out in 2 years.. :D

  51. also try ourmedia.org by free2 · · Score: 1
  52. Google is shooting itself in the foot. by terminal.dk · · Score: 1

    Pr0n is the #1 driver of the Internet, so why is it not legal to upload that ? They should categorize video contents in two. Adults and non adults.

  53. How Google Video Works right now... by IanDanforth · · Score: 1

    I have used their uploader and have a video for download right now.

    1. Select a video and upload it to their servers. Add associated text, type of video (documentary, comedy etc), and authors.

    2. They review the video for obviously infringing content and pornography. They except neither.

    3. Your video is listed at video.google.com using any text you supply during the upload process.

    4. Free videos appear in the listings with the universal play symbol next to the title.

    This process is not very quick since real people review the vids.

    To see what such a result looks like you can see my short/poor/test offering here:

    http://video.google.com/videopreviewbig?q=grokster &time=0&page=2&docid=6131409577636313198&urlcreate d=1119894120&chan=Uploaded&prog=MGM+v.+Grokster&da te=Wed+Apr+13+2005+at+5%3A54+PM+PDT

    I took that using a still camera's video option while waiting for MGM v Grokster to start.

    -----------------The Welcome Note to the New Features-------------

    Today we're pleased to announce that we're (finally) launching a new
    Google Video feature: video playback of all that great content you
    folks uploaded to us. Given that we started accepting uploads back in
    April, this development is certainly long overdue; we'd like to
    apologize for the delay and thank you for your newsgroup posts, your
    emails, your blog posts... oh, yes, and your patience.

    Feel free to test out our new playback feature. Keep in mind only the
    videos that feature a small triangle "play" icon next to the snippets
    of transcript text will allow playback. Try typing in the following
    search terms to watch free videos: gamespot, Greenpeace, AdWords,
    badminton, PS3, cattlemen, Hortus, sarong, breakdancing, capoeira.

    Going forward, we plan to use this newsgroup to communicate product
    changes and updates and respond to your inquiries in (ahem) a more
    timely manner. Enjoy the video playback, and please do keep writing.
    Google Video is still in beta; we have a lot of work to do to make this
    product as good as it can be, and your opinions and ideas are always
    welcome.

    And so, of course, are your videos. Keep those uploads coming!

    Thanks,

    The Google Video Team

    1. Re:How Google Video Works right now... by Momoru · · Score: 1

      Is it just me or does it appear not to work in Firefox? I clicked the play button and nothing happened...tried again in IE and it took me to the video viewer download page....anyone else get it to work in FF?

    2. Re:How Google Video Works right now... by dragonman97 · · Score: 1

      It's you. :-) Seriously, it worked without a flaw for me on FF1.04 at work on XPSP2. I'll see how it works on Deer Park Alpha 1 on OS X 10.3.9 when I get home.

  54. No GUI, and where are the videos? by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

    Apparently, Google's VLC doesn't have a GUI. It starts in a debug mode interface. And you can't launch it with wxwin. So they launched the player, but the videos launch later?

  55. Keywords for Free Video by IanDanforth · · Score: 1

    From their welcome note:

    video.google.com

    gamespot, Greenpeace, AdWords,
    badminton, PS3, cattlemen, Hortus, sarong, breakdancing, capoeira

    Source: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Google-Labs-Go ogle-Video/browse_thread/thread/1c3c182f2cc7215d/5 4db938f56c6904e#54db938f56c6904e

  56. The revolution of Informatics by Sun+Rider · · Score: 1

    First revolution: Agricultural Second revolution: Industrial Third revolution: Informatics Each revolution changes drastically the production mode of a society, thereby changing its institutions, ideology, etc. Companies like Google, Ebay, Amazon, the Open Source movement, etc are enabling millions of people to participate in a new economy not restricted by a fear and privilege based productive structure. We're seeing history in the making.

  57. no support for linux, win98, osx. plus... by quiddity · · Score: 1
    you cannot download the (free) videos for playback later. i'll stick with yahoo video...

    which works better for you? eg Yahoo concorde vs Google concorde

    on top of which, google is returning 90% Fox tv news results. how is that not evil??!

    --
    .
    . hmmm
  58. Update by Fr05t · · Score: 1

    From the article: "Update: I neglected to mention that all the video in the "free" category has been "human scanned" for adult content and copyright violations, I'm told by a good source."

    I was hoping there would be a "Safe Search" option like images.google.com

    1. Re:Update by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      You sure? I see some Family Guy episodes on there. At least one uploaded illegally.

  59. Link to Google Video Viewer by mrnutz · · Score: 0

    http://video.google.com/plugin/GoogleVideoViewer1. 0_Win.exe

    Once installed, use video.google.com to find and play videos.

  60. It's live by resprung · · Score: 1

    Yep, it's live...

    http://video.google.com/video_interesting.html

    Speaking as a content uploader, the quality is simply rubbish.

    Small videos, heavy compression. Web video as of 5-6 years ago. No playback controls.

    Okay for reference, but this HAS to be a rough beta, it seems half-baked...

    --
    Now is the winter of our disco tent
  61. Deja View video camera does this smaller scale by count0 · · Score: 1

    Deja View camera does this on a smaller scale (only the last 30 seconds are cached).

    >It could have a wifi setup as well and a wearable interface as well so not only could I edit my content on the go, but I could also upload it right away to Google's service and start making money.

    Even with a longer timeframe, I'm not sure about the underpants gnomes business model you're suggesting...
    1. Upload video to Google
    2. ?????
    3. Profit!

    1. Re:Deja View video camera does this smaller scale by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Step 2 is simple. This google service allows the content uploader to set a price that people must pay for the content. Upload content, set a price, and people will pay for your content if its good.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  62. Epic 2014, a foreshadowing. by Antonymous+Flower · · Score: 1

    http://www.robinsloan.com/epic/

    A foreshadowing of what may lie ahead..

    Remember, you're only as dense as the content you consume.

  63. LMAO!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you search the term Microsoft, look at the first result.

    http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=microsoft

    Planned? ;)

    --NuAngel--

  64. Playing under linux... by RedPhoenix · · Score: 1

    With a bit of stuffing around, you can access the content under linux by the looks of things..

    * Install vlc, or mplayer (you'll probably need the mplayer codec pack too..)
    * wget -O temp the link referenced by the blue 'arrow' for the video you're interested in. (eg: wget 'http://video.google.com/videopreviewbig?q=ps3&tim e=0&page=1&docid=-1557613506005379193&urlcreated=1 119913159&chan=Uploaded&prog=+sonycon+E3+05+ps3+ro ckstar+s+West+game+trailer&date=Tue+May+17+2005+at +3%3A43+AM+PDT'
    * search for the vp.video.google.com reference, grab the URL, and mangle the %xx codes into something more reasonable (eg: http%3A%2F%2Fvp.video.google.com becomes http://vp.video.google.com/
    * Zap that link into mplayer or vlc (eg: gmplayer 'http://vp.video.google.com/videoplayback?id=ef075 b4a049447b1&begin=30000&len=25733&itag=w320&docid= -1557613506005379193&urlcreated=1119913606&sigh=KF Dp2d7FaxUQC-GdGGOTBTjPskk')

    Unfortunately, I suspect that the slashdot comment mangler will kill those links, but you should be able to rebuild them.. (btw: the video is some ps3 thing at E3). .. it's a start, anyway.

    L.

  65. VLC 0.8 huh? by J.+Random+Luser · · Score: 1
    How do I playback video?
    In order to playback video on Google Video, you first need to install the Google Video Viewer (VideoLAN 0.8.2). Once installed, you will be able to playback the video from within your browser. This viewer will not interfere with the other video players on your system.

    So I have VLC 0.8.2 already installed, MacOS 10.4.1, use it to watch all sorts of formats that other players won't touch, now what? Sorry, but Googleviewer.exe just don't cut it. Anyhow, enter search term: balloon 4 out of 5 socalled links have a comment "Video is currently not available" ...
  66. Ignore the illegal upload blab and tv dies by ThyPiGuy · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Ignore the illegal upload blab and tv dies by resprung · · Score: 1
      --
      Now is the winter of our disco tent
  67. how long until hacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how long do you guys think it will be befor there will be a hack out for this?

  68. One step closer by Scud · · Score: 1

    To pron!

    What's next? Google online gambling?

    --
    I dream in binary.
  69. Does anyone remember this? by frostilicus2 · · Score: 1
    --
    Nothing sucks like a Vax, nothing blows like a PowerMac G4
  70. Matrix Revolutions online by chancycat · · Score: 1

    Did anyone notice the entire Matrix Revolutions is available there in Google Video? Pretty cool. You might think it's just 30-second clips, but hit "Play whole video" and off it goes. Whole movie. Wondering if this is a special "show-off" case google snuck in, or a black-hat's upload?

    see this link

    --
    Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting