Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Founders Interviewed
An anonymous reader writes: "FORTUNE's Adam Lashinsky interviews co-founders Steve Chen and Chad Hurley.
'In just five months, YouTube has gone from beta testing to part of the national zeitgeist. The website is a place where anyone with a home video can post it online and create an endlessly entertaining diversion for bored office workers -- who've been watching 40 million clips a day.'"
... is because the site is still working.
What I'd like to have seen asked is how they plan to deal with copyright infringement on the site with the vast amounts of content which they host. Both technical and legal answers would be interesting, I think.
INAL, but could copyright issues be more problematic once they start making money off these videos? I mean, I know no label really wants to sell old Prince videos, but somehow they're huge on YouTube. Do you really think content producers (record labels, movie studios, musicians, maybe even regular users) would be okay with that, or would they want a piece of the action? I mean, they own the copyright, and I don't think that posting entire music videos online could be considered fair use.
That's the reason Google News doesn't have ads, after all - if they did, they'd run into legal issues (or so I've heard).
P.S. This is a pretty short article with only a bit of information - and it's vague info at that. What gives?
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
That was more like a side conversation while three gusy where waiting for coffee in the morning.. I want to see details (servers, bandwidth, cost, space) what they use to manage it.. (i know it is home built but what is it like?)
that is a lame interview and told us nothing more than we all already new (except that they work for paypal)
not trolling here just pointing out
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
My request though, is to have full video controls on thier player. The same applies to Google Video by the way. Many a times, the videos simply need some light.
But many thanks to thier effort.
One simple question: How does YouTube plan to make any money? Right now they're making $0 and spending tons on bandwidth. The main reason people visit the site in the first place is for content that's infringing on someone's copyright: TV shows, commercials and similar fare. There are a few user-created videos that actually draw traffic, but still, that traffic is pure loss. The only thing of value they have is the brand name. Everyone at my college talks about wasting time on YouTube, but their technology itself is worth next to nothing because it's so easy to build. That's my YouTube has so many competitors. If they don't get bought by anyone, they're screwed.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's a good time to be living off of VC money. It's fairly clear that many of them are being advised by underpants gnomes.
If google rapidly integrated video search, would that screw youtube's plans?
Learn About Outsourcing. http://www.pioutsource.com
I like YouTube because you can upload files and view them with Linux.
I hope Google video supports Linux soon!
I'm sure I'm not the first to think this, but this YouTube thing kinda reminds me of the early days of Napster. They get VC, they spend it allowing people to share copyrighted media, they try to conjure a revenue stream out of a free service, they hope to turn "legit" before the federales shut 'em down, they go halfway and alienate all their users, et cetera. I don't know why these doofuses think this will turn out any differently.
Could it really be that the VC's know this, and have decided that getting the name "YouTube" branded into young people's minds and associated with internet video is worth all the blown money?
"In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
While it would be naiive to suggest sites like youtube would fully replace entertainment developed for the masses, noticable audience share may be drawn away as Youtube & its ilk not only radically drop the transaction costs of (short) video entertainment but, more importantly, provide search and rating capability .
For example, which is more likely to provide a solid hour of laughs: watching an hour of Saturday Night Live and hope for two or three funny scetches, or searching YouTube for a dozen bits of comedy that have been highly rated?
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
Dude, where the porn at yo?
YouTube is just a fad. As soon as the venture capital dries up they won't be able to afford the bandwidth without massive advertising. As soon as they add that, visitors will start dropping like flies. YouTube is no different than AtomFilms or iFilm. Same shit, different day. AtomFilms used to be the big video content host. Then the adds started poppin' and the hits started droppin'.
YouTube doesn't currently the one video I would love to see -- a tour of their server farm, network, dev offices, etc. I would love to have a behind the scenes look.
Look closer - there are Google text-ads on nearly every page.
Is there any chance YouTube will upgrade to some better codecs and/or higher bitrate streams?
Considering the rate at which they're burning money on bandwidth, I'd imagine higher bitrate streams are unlikely.
I think that YouTube is going to be a major player in the near term. The tv companies have completely shot themselves in the foot and someone is going to dethrone them as the king of captive eyeballs.
Fact #1)The TV industry has changed from real productions to idiots with camera's (aka reality tv). By doing that alone, they've dropped the cost of creating a show to little more than a camera, a stupid idea and idiots.
Fact #2) Digital Cameras have gotten extremely cheap
Fact #3) There are millions of untapped idiots with their own camera's worldwide
By shoving reality tv down everyones throat, they've basically commoditized the creation of television content. YouTube is poised to make a killing, if just by putting basic ads on idiots doing stupid shit on camera, the same thing the tv companies do except over ip.
Already old media is feeling the force of podcasts, converting their existing shows to allow users to listen to what they want when they want it (and usually commercial free). It's only a matter of time before YouTube (or someone else) does the same to video. Keeping the clips short seems to be a good idea since most people don't have much of an attention span these days (if you've read this far, you're probably ahead of the curve).
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
How many times can you watch the StarWars kid ?
I go to YouTube once or Twice a week, I'd go more often if I could download individual clips from the site rather than play it in my browser. I want to keep them on a longer term basis rather than keep downloading something over and over again if and when friends come round wanting to watch something.
Jonathanjk.com
So you can play it in a decent player with some filters to make it look good. The difference in quality (at least on linux) is staggering.
Youtube has the tagging wich makes it easier to find stuff.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Honestly, how long do you expect no ads to carry on for? Three months time there'll be ads in front of videos, or memberships required to upload or get video of greater than a pathetic bitrate.
Redundant concern I know - but consider this lil' nugget.
This Week In Tech (TWIT) broadcast for this week (ep 53) mentioned a bandwidth cost of more than 1 million a month. That's peanuts to a network (or network affiliate), but considering their cash flow is investment derrived, they're going to have to do something - and FAST - or become the pets.com of the web 2.0 era.
I'm rooting for them because some of the material is fantastic, and I'm noting more sites using it for hosting videos for other sites and blogs - which I think is it's best case for being. I know my sites couldn't handle a slashdotting - and neither could my pocketbook - but youTube makes for a great video podcasting solution.
These guys, although apparently not evil (sure, they used to work for Paypal, but on the other hand, they used to work for Paypal) have already built up the user base and mind share to basically ensure that Youtube makes money whatever they end up doing to go "legit."
I think the most ingenius move of theirs so far is the embeddable player. How cool is it to be able to stick that little flash gadget right in your website/blog/myspace/whatever? And, once they do start running ads and things, each one of those embedded files will become a tiny branch of their revenue stream.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
One way that youtube or the youtube wannabes could differentiate themselves: .swf files, rather than forcing you to upload linear videos files only (QT, AVI,etc).
Let you upload your own
Why? Because then you could upload videos with your own interactivity added.
Yeah, but why? Because the internet is an interactive medium, and linear videos on it are as unsatisfying as early silent movies, which put actors against a theatrical backdrop. They haven't adjusted to the medium.
You mean like [insert name of 80s/90s laserdisk game - dragons lair, etc]? Who the hell wants to do that?
No, I mean like Subservientchicken.com, or the interactive video stuff being done by Tate, British Film Institute, National Theatre, etc (links at http://www.activecinema.com/ )
Letting people add their own interactivty is a great way to let people raise their game and make pieces that are more playful without being just silly - and it also gives people a way to make something that stands up next to the mega-budget productions pirated off TV.