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.'"

Comments

The only reason there are zero posts...

[js92647]

... is because the site is still working.

Fluff

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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.

Re:Fluff

[flooey]

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.

From what I most recently heard, they use a basic system where a copyright owner can object to a particular movie, and it's manually taken down by someone on their team. When a movie is taken down, their system also fingerprints the movie and automatically rejects any further submissions of movies with the same fingerprint.

Re:Fluff

[apflwr3]

From what I most recently heard, they use a basic system where a copyright owner can object to a particular movie, and it's manually taken down by someone on their team. When a movie is taken down, their system also fingerprints the movie and automatically rejects any further submissions of movies with the same fingerprint.

If this is the case I can't imagine this system will last-- it's certainly not the copyright holder's responsibility to cruise YouTube to make sure no one is appropriating their works, and sooner or later an irate infringee will not be happy with a simple "sorry, we'll take it down" and sue for damages (I would imagine an example could be a scene from a movie still in production.)

Re:Fluff

[rayde]

how would youtube honestly have any fundamental difference to any other host.. say geocities, which is just as capable (albiet not as user friendly) of hosting videos? just because they offer a convenient means of playing the videos back doesn't necessarily mean they should be treated differently than any other host. they wash their hands of it and let the content providers take up issues on a case-by-case basis.

Re:Fluff

[flooey]

If this is the case I can't imagine this system will last-- it's certainly not the copyright holder's responsibility to cruise YouTube to make sure no one is appropriating their works, and sooner or later an irate infringee will not be happy with a simple "sorry, we'll take it down" and sue for damages (I would imagine an example could be a scene from a movie still in production.)

Actually, according to 17 USC 512 (c), it is in fact the copyright holder's responsibility. Copyright law has a special section regarding systems that allow users to upload content and spells out exactly how the system operators need to deal with it.

Does it change once they start making money?

[ragingmime]

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?

Where is the Interview??/

[Amouth]

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

Re:Where is the Interview??/

[bedessen]

The Forbes article from a few weeks ago states that thier bandwidth usage is approximately 200TB per day, the cost of which "may be approaching $1 million a month".

Re:Where is the Interview??/

[bedessen]

You cannot possibly be suggesting that you can compare some shitty cablemodem to the kind of thing you get at a datacenter. Residential broadband is almost always highly asynchronous (the upload is only a fraction of the download rate), it has tons of restrictions (usage caps, cop-out clauses, etc), and it is typically oversold by ratios of 100:1 or more. This means you aren't actually paying for the true cost of the bandwidth, you are paying a fraction of it because most people don't come anywhere clost to using the full amount.

"Real" bandwidth has none of this BS. You get a SLA. You get an engineer on the phone when it breaks. You get a dedicated and provisioned port on a router. You can run it flat out at full duty cycle (100% utilization) continuously without any kind of "you've used too much" bullshit that residential ISPs like to pull. The speeds are synchronous and are contractually guaranteed, none of that "up to X mbps but sometimes much less because you have crappy wiring" stuff. Your equipment is stored in a location that has redundant power supplies, diesel generators, raised floors, heavy duty cooling, and sophisticated fire alarm/control systems.

"Real" bandwidth costs real money. The stuff you get with a cablemodem is not real bandwidth, and it appropriately costs only a fraction. When you realize the difference between the two you will realize that from a cost standpoint comparing what you get from your residential cable company to what a large site like youtube has to use, they are in totally and completely different leagues.

What is the cost?

[bogaboga]

I wonder how those guys pay for the bandwidth. How are they handling this? When I visited their site, I saw no advertising - none!

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.

Re:What is the cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

They're funded by venture capital just like a 1990s dot com.

YouTube: Running a company like it's 1999.

[natrius]

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.

YouTube and Linux Support

[Chemkook]

I like YouTube because you can upload files and view them with Linux.

I hope Google video supports Linux soon!

Just a matter of time

[Jonboy X]

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?

(Partial) Substitute for Broadcast Entertainment..

[rewinn]

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?

Just a fad.

[ImaNihilist]

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'.

How about a video of their server farm?

[green pizza]

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.

they have ads

[centuren]

Look closer - there are Google text-ads on nearly every page.

Think Big Picture People

[DA-MAN]

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).

Tired

[zymano]

How many times can you watch the StarWars kid ?

YouTube I find is limited

[CrackedButter]

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.

Bandwidth costs - 1m/month

[mgabrys_sf]

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.