Slashdot Mirror
Top Video Sharing Sites Reviewed
prostoalex writes "Digital Video Guru is running a comparison of 10 digital video sharing sites - EyeSpot Beta, Google Video Beta, Grouper Beta, Jumpcut Beta, OurMedia, Revver Beta, VideoEgg, Vimeo, vSocial and YouTube. Currently, based on traffic, YouTube is the leader of the pack (more heavily visited MSN Video does not support user-uploaded videos), but Digital Video Guru blog awards Vimeo for fastest uploads, JumpCut for editing, and YouTube for community features."
MPAA to sue 10 recently-reviewed sites citing DMCA violations in 3, 2, 1. . .
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Carriers are absolved of any responsibility under the DMCA so long as they comply with any sworn requests to take down infringing content.
The MPAA, et. al. are very aware of these websites and send down takedown notices for copyrighted material on a regular basis.
The thing I like about YouTube is that they have their videos as standard shockwave files...I can't get most other sites to run on my browser/OS.
"Hello, you either have JavaScript turned off or an old version of Macromedia's Flash Player, click here to get the latest flash player."
How lame is that? I'll be damned if I'm istalling flash. Why the hell do so many sites use that piece of shit?
Method of processing duck feet
ThePirateBay is noticeably absent from that list.
Most of Europe and China, if you try to access Google Video, you are told it's not available in your country yet. Why they have this restriction by unilaterally banning ALL videos from users of said countries is beyond me.
Is it legal (due to censorship policies)? Than why do the other sites not have this?
This is a major detractor of Google Video's usability in my opinion.
-- Samir Gupta, Ph. D. Head, New Technology Research Group, Nintendo Co. Ltd., Kyoto, Japan.
At first I thought it was my version of flash. But even after getting the latest, those videos are still too dark. To make matters worse, there does not seem to be an effort to sort this issue out. We need some common video controls on some these videos for sure.
On Kubuntu' Konqueror browser, the controls that at least appear on Windows2k with Firefox 1.5 do not appear at all!
I can't stand the low-quality of video on most of these sites. I haven't seen any good web video in a long time...
I'm talking about blip.tv of course. Just put a video up on there today. Fast, easy, and up online immediately.
Don't get me wrong, I also have a youtube account. But blip.tv is quickly becoming my favorite.
But has anyone else had problems getting sound to work in Macromedia player in Ubuntu/1!? Thanks.
I haven't RTFA, but is there a place that lets you post a video, and it automatically offers a Torrent of the video for download? It seems like a good way for a popular video to get around quickly without causing any one server a huge bandwidth bill.
Oh You POS
which site is the youtube of Pr0n?
YouTube is great because it's ad free, and everything loads fast. That's why people like it. Too bad that YouTube doesn't have a revenue model yet. The only reason they stay afloat is because some company keeps GIVING them millions of dollars. Some estimates would suggest that YouTube costs $750,000+ per month. A company can only operate at a loss for so long.
.mp4 format. Personally, I hate any site that doesn't let me save the video to my HDD. Since YouTube doesn't sell ads, I'm not sure I understand the "point" of making you go to their site everytime you want to view a video. They might as well just let you download it, and save themselves the bandwidth cost.
Eventually their cash flow will stop and they'll start pilling on the ads. Adwords, pop-ups, those annoying flash "timer" ads where you have to sit at a screen for 30 seconds, and ads before you play each video. Sure, they'll probably add a "premium" section to the site where you pay $9.99 a month and get to view the site ad free, but how many people are going to pay for that?
I remember when Atom Films and iFilm where big. Once the ads start poppin', the people start droppin'. And as the Pringles commercial goes, "Once you pop, you just can't stop." That's pretty much the motto for all these "free" content/service sites. It's great while it's ad free and everything loads fast, but once that ends...the party is over.
Google Video at least has some staying power. At least with Google I can save some videos in
If you're using Windows, you probably don't have the correct color profile selected for your display, or you're using the wrong gamma setting. Or you're using Linux, and don't have the gamma set properly (X does not default to a reasonable gamma- it defaults to 2.4 or something, when Windows is 2.2.) Note that you can't use "2.2" as a parameter- you have to give it something like "1.2" or similar. Google "linux gamma" etc.
Macs also sometimes default to goofy profiles, so check under "Color" in the Displays control panel.
I've never had a problem with video brightness on google video, but I am using a calibrated display on an OSX macbook (and Dell monitor- yes, both are calibrated.)
Please help metamoderate.
This review isn't worth your time. It didn't even mention that http://video.google.com/ allows you to download the videos in standard formats and youtude only allows you to play the videos with a flash player.
Basically, if you are using youtube and you come across a video you like, it's not possible to save it. That makes it almost worthless.
I haven't RTFA, but is there a place that lets you post a video, and it automatically offers a Torrent of the video for download? It seems like a good way for a popular video to get around quickly without causing any one server a huge bandwidth bill.
Not that I know of, and damn stright there should be.
I think most places consider it too impractical. When torrent support is baked into Mozilla, then we might see some trial attempts.
When this happens then I really think we'll see online video heat up.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Rereading everything:
You seem to have some definition of the word "use" that is different from everyone elses, or maybe just how the clauses work together. Sending a threatening letter alluding to violations is using the DMCA. If that is enough to result in the site being shut down because the site owner can't afford a legal battle with the MPAA, then that is using the DMCA to shut down a site.
Also, I support the notion that it is funny (though not exaggerated sufficiently to work well) and will post my variation in another subthread.
What I had before:
Yeah, it'd be nice if every act of perjury got prosecuted, but they aren't and to the best of my knowledge the MPAA and RIAA are well aware of that fact and use it to their advantage.
The one thing that annoys me terribly about these video sites is that they recompress video files available on other websites and present them in a low-bandwith Flash format. Sure Flash is crossplatform Mac/Win and runs almost everywhere, but it has the worst quality of any video codec. And recompressing video introduces significant artifacting.
I've seen dozens of recompressed videos on sites like iFilm and YouTube that are easily available in high quality on the original websites, it's like iFilm and YouTube are scraping the web looking for content to populate their sites. And of course they don't provide a link to the original site, so you have no way to know there's a better quality version available. This is dragging video down to the lowest common denominator. I run a video blog website, and I use non-downloadable streaming video precisely because I don't want some other site scraping my content and recompressing it to make it look like crap.
I'm sure if there were plug-in support for downloading videos via bittorrent and then displaying them in-browser, it would have been considered along with the other sites...
Insert self-referential sig here.
Forgive me not being able to memorize the script... "Yes, it cost me a million dollars to run this newspaper this year, and I expect it to cost me a million dollars to run this newspaper the next year, and the year after that. At this rate, I am going to have to shut down this newspaper in... 63 years."
I have freaks! I did something right...
I wonder how long will it pass until this video is on all this video sharing services :-).
If you are just a regular person, like me, who takes video of your life, and you want to share it with more of the people you know (your friends and family, and the people they know too), then Multiply's social communications platform is second to none. You can share original-quality video, plus photos, blog entries and more -- all in one place.
Ups:
Lots of fun copyrighted content. full episodes of the state, aeon flux, etc
Nice & searchable
subscriptions to keywords. I just wish it would default sort by most recently added
LOTS of obscure 80s content
LOTS of obscure 80s music videos
Nice user interaction tools
Groups!
Downs:
WAY too much anime crap on there - I swear 70% is anime footage.
Way too much 'crap' footage like teenagers lip syncing to some rap song. make it friends only
Searches for keyword stuff eventually lead to more anime crap
They are cracking down on copyrighted stuff - I got an email from "DCMA" when i posted a conan o'brien clip on there. It's now gone.
The speed of downloading videos is throttled to be less than realtime. You have to instantly hit pause when the page loads, then hit play when it's done
sometimes, even if you have ahead-buffer loaded, it stops for 5-10 seconds and resumes playing. Only happens on certain videos
No more videos allowed that are 12+ minutes.
Youtube is addicting, plain and smiple.
"Seeing as how I run FreeBSD amd64, I'd bitch if they didn't have a format that wasn't supported by 64-bit clean open source codecs."
:P
And you wonder why you're sitting in your underwear posting on Slashdot on a Saturday night?
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
Maybe not as big as a factor anymore, but filesize is and no compression are the 2 features I look for. Ability to edit online is fine and dandy, but I can already recompress, re-encode, and edit on my machine already. What I need is a service which will not decrease the quality after my upload to conserve bandwidth and allow a good max size, now that video quality is up to the HDTV era.
Google Video I believe doesn't have a max file size limit, but they do recompress your video to whatever codec they use.
Youtube (not sure about file size limit), but after re-enconding into FLV, the quality is pretty depressing.
I haven't tried the others listed on the site, but I currently use PutFile ( http://www.putfile.com/ ). They have a limit of 25MB for videos and no longer allows direct downoading, but they're decent and actually play back the original file. For larger files, most people probably won't want to view it in the browser anyway, so I upload to RapidShare ( http://www.rapidshare.de/ ) which allows a maximum of 100MB and unlimited downloads. Though for anyone that's used RapidShare, you know about the wait times.
HD Trailers
because, wait for it, I still have my beta deck. late in the game, he shoots, and yes, mod's be, he scores!!
the best beer is always the local - uncle arnold
It's possible to embed a YouTube video. The instructions are on the YouTube site. YouTube isn't making you go to their site; it's just that some people choose to just link to a video instead.
Am I the only one who has never heard of "MSN Video" ?
[alk]
The piratebay does not share video so how could it be included?
/. and are being brainwashed into believing the BS.
Please don't say things like 'bitorrent tracking sites host movies/share movies/etc', it's a wrong statement, but it is exactly the kind of disinformation that the RIAA/MPAA want the general public to hear.
A 200kb tracker file IS NOT a video.
Sad that you read
Users ranking the best of Youtube and Google Video.
VideoSift has garnered more than a million ip's in 2 months of operation. It is certainly worth checking out if you haven't already.
Here in India,Google Video simply gives a error Message- " Thanks for your interest,This service is unavailable for your region".
OTOH,Youtube works fine.
Why does yahoo do this
Google Video has a lots weeknesses. The platform seems to be very non-reactive and arbitrary. You have no clue wether, when and where your uploaded video is presented. I reckon they've too many restrictions making this platform dull. They only assets they have is their reach.
For more see the brand new comparison of 40 online video sharing communities:
http://www.mustseeblog.com/?p=68
Funny you should mention those video sites. I've been up all night playing with YouTubes API, but don't worry, the result is well worth it (check sig).
If anyone likes this script, please help yourself. I'd love to see a "best of 80's cheese" or "best old school sci fi" list if anyone else is as addicted as I am.
Oh thank you goodness, d/l complete. Time for more Ren & Stimpy...
Call me immature if you must, but IMO, this is what Sunday was made for.
Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
Dont understand why they didnt mention phanfare.com. Its pretty much best site ive found http://jmacdonald.phanfare.com/
There are way too many variables to create the "perfect" site.
Youtube is using ffmpeg to dynamically convert any video to flv files. If you look at the FFMpeg site, they admit there are potential legal issues behind the differant patents on the codecs.
Compressing videos is a PAIN on windows, unless you get something like sorenson squeeze. Windows Media encoder is OK, but isn't the best.
The h.264 codec is unreal as far as quality versus size. But most people don't upgrade quicktime, or know of the alternatives.
*shameless plug* I've got a site for rock climbing videos, urbanclimbermag.tv that allows users to upload their own videos.
Since it's a content specific site (and smaller target audience), it's easier to try to create standards for users that view and upload videos.
My statement was played for humor and was by no means intended to indicate the actual capacity of the MPAA.
No more videos allowed that are 12+ minutes.
This totally does *not* make sense. I have a tutorial video that I am having to cut into pieces to upload to YouTube. The whole enchilada in LoFi Quicktime is 27MB. I'm having to give it to them in 10 Min> chunks. Guess what? Each chunk is coming out to 55MB. OK, if that's the way you want it, YouTube, go ahead and give me 220MB of space instead of 27MB.
Other than that, YouTube is Da Kine.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
You really think that revenue model generates them the $12.5 million they've already spent on their completely free no-income service?
.com crash.
Rubbish.
YouTube are operating at a huge loss, and they're relying on the "Web 2.0" hype to keep going. The fact that we can compare 10 fancy web 2.0 video editing sites, none of which have a genuine revenue model, and most of which have secured millions in funding from venture capital firms really shows what a problem we're heading towards.
I wrote a little semi-related piece on my site recently about some of these big players (including You Tube) and my fears of another
Most of these sites have 2 issues as I see it. First they rely on pilfered content. Usually the biggest draw is from some copyrighted clip from Comedy Central or a cartoon or what have you. Look at the Natalie Portman rap that was getting so many hits and then got pulled. The second problem is that they do not reward content creators in any meaningful way. Sure, they get exposure, but that's just a means to the end of getting noticed by someone that will hire them usually. I think that if they were rewarded even for their small pieces they could and would tunr around and produce more. That's why I applaud the Revver model.
With standard embedded video files, there are numerous, open source, browser plug-ins. They all allow easy downloading of the videos
Which is exactly what some of the publishers and sites do not want. Licenses for distribution of video and licenses for public performance of video do not always go hand in hand.
Lots of open-source clients have a "preview" options, which is some kind of "embed webserver" which can stream those parts of the file that are already downloaded.
mlDonkey has one. I'm not sure about Azureus.
Also, most of the P2P clients save their temp files in a flat format which could be opened in a player (although I'm not sure how Windows and it's weird file locking mechanics would accept it), so a plug-in that presents temp-files with human usable names (i-e name of torrent, instead of hash)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
TOR should do what you want, assuming you get an "exit point" that is on an IP that geocodes to an "allowed" region.
Um, none of those items of software is actually "free" software.
I HATE seeing that statistic so self-servingly repeated by Macromedia and passed along by dupes like you.
What Macromedia's paid study found was that 98% of browsers CAN easily use Flash formats (if they wanted to), not that 98% of people DO use Flash.
But many, many people have not installed the plug-ins, and don't want Flash, because of its security issues, its closed source, and the fact that Flash is spyware.
Most reputable studies find actual USAGE of flash to be limited to about 40% of people.
That means 60% of us DO NOT USE FLASH.
Please, please, please stop repeating the "98%" Macromedia lie.
Flash sucks. And that's not just me saying it - most Internet users agree.
Yes, but "easy" is the key word there. Computers make no distinction between playback and copying, so ANYTHING can be downloaded. It's just a question of how much hassle do you want to put people through.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
I noticed that very recently, all NBC-copyrighted content disappeared from YouTube. That's a signal to me monetary concerns are being considered, as that's a very lawyerly thing to do. Perhaps a stronger revenue model is in the works, and this is a step to prepare the site for it.
The MPAA does not use the DMCA to shut down a website unless they are sure it is infringing, otherwise they are guilty of perjury.
...
*** WRONG! ***
The section they attest to under perjury is that they represent the (purported) copyright holder. They do NOT affirm that an entire takedown notice is true & correct or any other such thing! IANAL, but Slashdot got someone from the US Copyright Office to answer that one after all the IANALs on Slashdot got worked up about how no one was using that clause against anyone and should be.
Moreover, they have submitted some completely boneheaded complaints against people. They threatened some Prof. Ulrich over his ulrich.mp3 without listening to it (it was some lecture notes for his students) assuming that it was some Metallica recording. That is not what I think of as due dilligence.
There is a difference between sending a threatening letter alluding to violations and an actual takedown notice.
True. And there are plenty of "Takedown Notices" that are woefully deficient and which even a non-lawyer can see as defective due to their slipshod attempts (or lack thereof) to meet all the required elements. But they're churned out en masse these days, so a lot of things slip through the cracks. Not many providers seem to insist on (or even know what constitutes) a valid DMCA Takedown Notice.
And they still suck because they can knock your site down without very many checks or balances. Sure, you can file the Putback Notice, but by then you've already had your site removed and your provider may or may not have been clueful enough to save a copy