Viacom Turns to Joost, Spurns YouTube

Vincenzo writes "Viacom has signed a deal with Joost that will see content from MTVI, Comedy Central, and CBS distributed on the new P2P distribution service. The move comes just two weeks after demanding YouTube pull over 100,000 videos offline. 'Joost's promise to protect their copyrights was a major factor in Viacom's decision, and also a stumbling block in their discussions with YouTube/Google. At the moment is it quite easy to download and store video content from YouTube, but no such exploit for Joost is known to exist.' It's also a 'secure' distribution medium in the eyes of many in the entertainment industry, since users can't upload content themselves.'"

Comments

Great thinking guys

[AKAImBatman]

At the moment is it quite easy to download and store video content from YouTube, but no such exploit for Joost is known to exist.

The lack of executive foresight never ceases to amaze me. Did they ever consider that no exploits exist for Joost because:

1. Joost isn't yet available to the public at large. (You need to sign up for a beta.)

2. No one cares about Joost?

If Viacom signs a contract with Joost, the "security" of their distribution method will change in a hurry.

The amazing part is that a simple trip down the hall to the IT department would have told these executives this. It's just too bad that execs never trust their own technology staff. As far as they're concerned, we're just a bunch of whiners and worry-warts. :-/

Besides, someone might save that 2 minute Craig Ferguson clip to their hard drive. OMG, OMG, OMG! The world will end! What will they do?!? (Shh! No one tell them about VCRs!)

That being said, I'm sure this move is actually more political than technical. Which only makes Viacoms position that much worse. Do they really want to cover over their political maneuvering by making themselves look uneducated?

From the Joost website:

Yesterday, we were The Venice Project(TM). Today, we're Joost(TM). Tomorrow, we're yours!

And that would make us, YourJoost(TM)! Which you can watch on a tube. Sort of like a... YourTube(TM). Or something.

Who writes this stuff?

Re:Great thinking guys

[truthsearch]

One of the nice things we see in music these days is the little guy creating and distributing high-quality audio. I'd like to see the same for video. The problem so far is that only these behemoth companies own the current content and can afford large production and distribution. If finally we'd see some significant competition from startups then Viacom and others might be forced to let go a little. If some hot new show distributed freely over the internet took eyeballs away from Viacom content maybe they'd be forced to come to their senses. Maybe.

Re:Great thinking guys

[Philip K Dickhead]

The idea here, is to block Google as the emerging media powerhouse.

I know it is probably ill-conceived, and the touted 'intellectual property' reasons are more secondary cover - than they are prime motivator.

Everyone is afraid of GOOG - telcos, TV and Cable channels, Hollywood and Microsoft. Watch them position and align to marginalize and even criminalize them. It is pretty pathetic. The 'content providers' especially. They want a 'pay at the gate' scenario, and will compromise/misunderstand every technology to get there.

Re:Great thinking guys

[HTH NE1]

Many video cards include an S-Video output. Coupled with an available audio output, it is a simple matter to run the pair through an external digital video encoder to get it into DV, then crop it to get an unencumbered copy. I've done it for my employer (I was assured we had permission for the purpose for which it was used).

The video was below SD quality, but if it was greater I could have done multiple captures and stitched the frames together given enough overlap. You don't even need timecodes when you have jump cuts.

Re:Great thinking guys

[giorgiofr]

The success of shows like Pure Pwnage tends to prove that significant competition *is* indeed starting to exist. Of course it's just a start but I believe that over time many more shows will follow.

Re:Great thinking guys

[gEvil (beta)]

(Shh! No one tell them about VCRs!)

You're forgetting that their response was almost identical when VCRs first came out.

Re:Great thinking guys

[morgan_greywolf]

As you know, it's not about copyrights or money. It's about control. The media industry doesn't want to lose control of content. If anyone can upload, then anyone can upload content -- it doesn't even matter who's it is. They've been calling the shots, deciding what people should see and how the pairs of eyeballs should be divided up amongst them. Google/YouTube creates anarchy and chaos where they no longer have control over what people see and what people do with what they see.

Mass media isn't so profitable if everyone can participate. That's what it's all about and that's what it's always been all about. Everything else is misdirection.

Re:Great thinking guys

[AKAImBatman]

I'm not forgetting. I'm being incredibly sarcastic. The world didn't end with the invention of the VCR, and the world won't end with users being able to record Youtube content.

Thanks for trying to point that out, though. :)

Re:Great thinking guys

[krotkruton]

2. No one cares about Joost?

You're looking at it from the wrong angle. See, they know it will be secure because no one cares about Joost. What better way to keep people from "stealing" your IP than to create a new service that is a clone of already popular and well-established services so that no one cares to use it? Genius, I tell ya.

Re:Great thinking guys

[gEvil (beta)]

Sorry about that. Severe sarcasm is sometimes hard to spot, especially around these parts...

Re:Great thinking guys

[loganrapp]

Don't worry. Google is going to buy Joost and then Viacom will really be fucked.

Re:Great thinking guys

[sadler121]

Could it be due to this maybe?

Re:Great thinking guys

[rainman_bc]

As far as they're concerned, we're just a bunch of whiners and worry-warts. :-

Isn't completely unfounded. Many IT people are just that unfortunately. People on a power trip who want to call anything and everything a security hole without first stopping to think that not every network resource be as tight as a nun's twat. Case and point, I ( and others I know ) have had conversations with IT people something like:

"I need an FTP server set up so someone can send me some data".

"No, it's a security hole" says ignorant IT person.

"They're sending me some photoshop files that aren't security problems" says I.

"Doesn't matter, I don't want an outward facing FTP server on our network. It's a security hole. Have them mail you a CD instead".

Of course I reply: "why don't you just pull the ethernet cable from all computers along with any disk drives, after all, each has their share of security risks too"

It's ass hats like that in IT who don't know about SFTP, SCP or FTP with SSL and are on a power trip to call everything they don't want to do a security hole.

Truth is, the company I work for now is very successful and has a world class IT department, and is the first time I haven't seen IT people who act like that.

Re:Great thinking guys

[14erCleaner]

Actually, it's all about money. They want control of their own media artifacts so that they can make money off of them. Whether that will actually come to pass is extremely unlikely. Nobody is going to care about Joost for the exact reason that Viacom likes it: because random people can't post videos there.

Re:Great thinking guys

[Kazoo the Clown]

I've seem programs that do frame averaging for microscopes or telescopes, but not yet one that would take multiple capture passes and average them to reduce noise-- I've got some old VHS camera shots I'd like to clean up as much as possible, and have done an S-Video grab but if I could grab it multiple times and average, that would be great-- what's out there that could help to facilitate that? Getting them in sync could be tricky as I don't have either timecode or jump cuts-- it's just a continuous clip of camera video...

Re:Great thinking guys

[Dekortage]

"...it's not about copyrights or money. It's about control."

Uh... the control is about the money. The copyrights are about the money. Even the money is about more damn money. Maybe that's what you meant by "mass media isn't so profitable if everyone can participate"... but that's not what you started out to say.

Re:Great thinking guys

[BecomingLumberg]

Actually, I doubt it matters. If they have a deal in place, and they legally upload to Joost, I am sure they will include commercials. They are banking that the open tap means that viewers will watch the easily available copy with commercials instead of pirating one just to take the commercials out.

Re:Great thinking guys

[MrNiceguy_KS]

My prototype sarcasm detector works pretty well with the spoken word, but let me tell you, it's been a lot of fun trying to get it to work with text.

-DING-

It caught that one, but only because I talk while I type.

Re:Great thinking guys

[OldeTimeGeek]

I've had this conversation - it usually goes something like this:

"We need to have an FTP server to get some files from an outside company."

"Ok, we already have something set up to do that. Here's how to use it."

"That's too much trouble. We want to use our own."

"Well, we don't usually do that, but if you really need it, we'll need to get authorization to place it in our DMZ - it'll take about two weeks."

"Why do I need to put it there? We're already running one here - why can't you just let our customer connect to it? I'm not an idiot. It's secure."

"We never said that you were."

"Then what's the problem?"

"Even assuming that you've set everything up correctly, which you probably did, we don't permit connections to systems on our internal network.

Why?

"Because, honestly, if we did this every time we were asked, we wouldn't need a DMZ."

"This is only one connection. If you'd take off your tinfoil hat for a minute..."

--- You can guess the how this usually went from there ... ---

You're probably more than competent to do this. Some of the people who make these kind of requests are. From experience, however, we know that the vast majority of people who make these requests have little to no clue as to how to set up a secure system. We'd love to let everybody do what they want to do (especially if they know the difference between "want" and "need"), but there's only so many hours in a day...

Re:Great thinking guys

[Mex]

Pff. That's too much work. I just use FRAPs and record anything on my PC screen.

Re:Great thinking guys

[ClosedSource]

It's typical for companies to be fearful when a new competitor comes along, but the fear is usually unreasonably strong. Remember how brick-and-motar businesses were going to go belly-up because of Internet stores? Remember how thin clients, Java, Lotus Notes, etc were going to wipe out MS? Remember "Push" technology?

In ten years we'll look back at Google and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Re:Great thinking guys

[iminplaya]

I just know if it wasn't for the printing press, none of this would be happening.

Note: Tune your sarcasm detectors appropriately.

Re:Great thinking guys

[ClosedSource]

My sarcasm detectors are properly tuned, but my obscure point detectors apparently aren't.

Re:Great thinking guys

[iminplaya]

From the fear of competetion, starting with Gutenberg's invention, came copyright. The snowflake that started today's avalanche of IP laws and silly licensing.

Re:Great thinking guys

[ClosedSource]

It wasn't a fear of competition, it was the fear of not getting paid for your work (unless you see printing somebody's book without paying them a royalty, legitimate competition).

Re:Great thinking guys

[iminplaya]

If that's what you want to believe, so be it. I can't argue with anybody over their faith. There is a preponderance of evidence showing that the real intent of IP law, since the very beginning, is as I described it, but here I am, arguing against a religion, built on the propaganda from mystics, not based in any particular fact.

Re:Great thinking guys

[rtb61]

More specifically nobody will want joost because you will have to install software to watch it. Not that installing software from the net is always bad, but hey you would have to be pretty gullible to install software approved by mass media companies who spend their whole lives lying.

They lie about the products they market. They lie about the quality of the content they produce. The lie about the the true nature of the people they use to present those products.

They lie about politicians that will support them to get those politicians elected.

They lie about politicians who won't support them and who will actually represent the electorate to try to prevent them from being elected.

They lie about news to support companies that spend their marketing dollars with them. They have even been known to lie about the software they wont you to install, or more specifically the software that they wont to install.

Face it, those bastards basically lie, cheat and steal all of the time, and it will be like never before I install software approved and controlled by them, that they can change at will. Nobody wanted that kind of software from google a company that you currently can sort of, mostly, sometimes, trust but who would want it from a bunch of asswipe pigopolists, let's not talk about joost, lets talk about who owns and really controls them, that site has that whole smarmy hip PR/B$ feel and polish about it (it really sucks when the marketdroids go overboard, you can all but feel the insincerity dripping off those slimy web pages).

There's no known exploit 'cause nobody's cared

[HarryCaul]

Enough to make one. If there's content people want, they'll break joost too.

It's as if they never learn...

Re:There's no known exploit 'cause nobody's cared

[romland]

They will never learn.

I'm part of the beta of Joost and I'm not sure what the MOZILLA PUBLIC LICENSE 1.1 means in terms of distributing your source code, but there is MPL code in the distributed binary package.

So, what tickles me funny is if they have to open up the source due to this. Would Viacom mind?

Anyway, MPL might not mean that you have to share the source -- I can't be arsed to look it up.

Re:There's no known exploit 'cause nobody's cared

[pla]

Enough to make one. If there's content people want, they'll break joost too

Why bother?

This doesn't mean you won't get the same content on YouTube, exactly like you can today. It just makes an alternative source for one type of content, namely, music videos.

This doesn't even relieve Viacom of their burden under the DMCA to find and fire off a takedown to Google for each infringing video. They apparently have confused "we won't license this to you" with "people will stop uploading infringing material". Silly Viacom... We outnumber you a million to one, do you really think you can find and remove content faster than we can re-upload it?



Now, if Joost starts hosting significantly higher quality (like HD) content, sure, you'll see a crack for it. But AFAIK, they currently have the same pixellated crap as GooTube, so why would anyone switch?

Re:There's no known exploit 'cause nobody's cared

[mverwijs]

Yes, they will most likely crack Joost. That will not keep this from being a huge success.

Joost is free, easy, instant access to primary content. No Joe Sixpack that I know of is going to be wanting anything more.

Just click on a movie and 2 seconds later, it starts. Why (apart from the annoying ads) would Joe Sixpack want to be downloading the 'cracked' version through bittorrent/edonkey/whatever?

Kindest regards,

mverwijs, occasional beta-tester for joost.

Re:There's no known exploit 'cause nobody's cared

[Buran]

You're assuming that the general public will use these services at all. A lot of the people interested in online video want to be able to save what they get.

the point?

[tomstdenis]

Of grainy videos and horrible low bitrate audio? I just don't get the point of watching music videos over the net. For me, audio quality is paramount, and 32kbps WMA doesn't cut it.

That and most music videos are shite anyways. Just some half-naked plastic whore dancing around to music that other people wrote. The actual quality song and accompanying video are fairly rare nowadays...

If I wanted to look at naked women via the web, I wouldn't turn to shitty music videos.

Tom

Re:the point?

[Paulrothrock]

I've been watching the lectures from Beyond Belief 2006 using Google Video and the audio and video quality are pretty good, and are very interesting and intellectually stimulating. If it hadn't been for Google Video, I probably wouldn't have seen this footage. Hosting video is extremely expensive and

In other words, there's more to internet video than naked women.

/me waits for the inevitable "You must be new here" reply.

Re:the point?

[eln]

Music videos? Who's talking about music videos? MTV hasn't played music videos in more than a decade. We're talking about TV shows here.

Re:the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, there's more to internet video than naked women.

Yeah, but I'm not in to naked me.

Re:the point?

[tomstdenis]

I've seen MTV shows [Ice-T's rap school] ... whoa people watch that shit? No offense to Ice T, but that show is retarded. A bunch of honky prep kids can't rap without years of training. First, they have no musical training, they can't hold a beat, have no tune, etc. Second, they're 12 years old. They're not even mentally developed enough to think up a proper rap, etc.

Then you got the other shows, one with a bunch of people at a beachside house, I don't even get what that show is about.

Oh then pimp my ride, that's awesome. Take a run down POS and bling it out. Turning it into the most expensive beacon of "rip me off please" ever..

Rather watch Little Britain. At least they got integrity. :-)

Tom

1.65bn in stock later

[Shivetya]

What does Google have in its YouTube acquisition?

Probably a lot of angry stock holders is my future bet.

I hope they have something big in the works because its sure a lot to pay for a site that is suddenly looking mighty bare.

Re:1.65bn in stock later

[truthsearch]

My guess is Google is betting on real user content. If they get enough high quality "home-made videos" they believe they'll still get a huge viewership without any copyright infringement issues. And some shows will still put up some limited content to get people interested in tuning in on traditional TV.

Re:1.65bn in stock later

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

Um.... A little publicity, a little goodwill, ads next to the YouTube content, good programmers, and a method of distribution they consider the future. Not so good on a cash-on-a-barrel level, but quite good for a company with some vision....

Re:1.65bn in stock later

[Anonymous Coward]

Um.... A little publicity, a little goodwill, ads next to the YouTube content, good programmers, and a method of distribution they consider the future. Not so good on a cash-on-a-barrel level, but quite good for a company with some vision....

Yes, because Google buying other startups (like Dodgeball has worked wonders. Please note that Dodgeball hasn't had any increase in development since being purchased and other similar services have taken off with new ideas and better features because Google refuses to allow more development.

Boo.

Re:1.65bn in stock later

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

I'm not really much of a Google fanboy anymore. I'm not saying the Great GOOG isn't a good company, but I'm under the impression they can do more wrong than I thought they could a few years ago. The question was what they got out of their 1.65B. My statement and argument were that it wasn't nothing.

Big companies naturally tend towards stifling development. Stratification comes in quickly, there's not as much motivation to produce quickly and excellently, and the tried and true features absolutely must continue to be pretty compatible with what they were before. GOOG tried to avoid the problems that come with these challenges. They have not, in my opinion, been surpassingly successful. I have hope, but doubt as well.

It's the little stories like this that sadden me quite a bit.

Re:1.65bn in stock later

[tim90402]

What does Google have in its YouTube acquisition? By overpaying for YouTube, Google unleashed millions in VC capital and entrepreneural energy toward becoming the next Google acquisition. People love to gamble. Offering a giant prize for a few winners will generate more vigorous effort than paying the same amount out in salaries. Plus, all those new companies trying to make a name will spend a lot on Internet advertising, contributing directly to Google's bottom line.

Re:1.65bn in stock later

[anothy]

Probably a lot of angry stock holders is my future bet.

because, y'know, google stockholders hate making money.

when google announced their intention to purchase YouTube (including the cost), GOOG was at about $426. by the time the acquisition closed, GOOG was a $489; most of that jump was in the two weeks after the announcement, around the middle of october - a period during which there was no other significant news. granted, things have slowed down a bit since then, but the trend still remains significantly positive.

i don't understand what google intends to do with YouTube, but if they want to use their ridiculously over-valued stock to buy ridiculously over-priced companies, i'm willing to give them a chance to show me that they've got something in mind i can't see.

Re:1.65bn in stock later

[ClosedSource]

Well, if the shareholders bought Google stock just before the announcement and sold after the acquisition closed they made about 14% profit. Note that you could have made much, much more money selling "worthless" dot-bomb stocks at the right time in the boom years. Long-term shareholders are going to be angry if the acquisition doesn't actually lead to real profits.

Is the smaller audience more beneficial?

[rizzo320]

You have to wonder what Viacom is thinking here. Joost's market share is much smaller than the other video services (Google, YouTube, Yahoo, etc). Is copyright protection such an issue that they would shun the market leaders?

I'm still not sure why there is such a big deal about copyrighted video on YouTube. The advertising you get for your show being uploaded to the site is probably worth much more than the marginal lost you may have incurred from it being uploaded. I don't anyone is interested in archiving the lower quality flash video files from their site. Pirates will always get the shows from bittorent or other P2P services. The only thing I can think of is they are worried about loosing web traffic from each shows website. Why not cross link to the videos on YouTube from their websites?

The entertainment industry really needs to start getting creative. They need to learn to work with these new technologies and trends, rather than against them.

Re:Is the smaller audience more beneficial?

[AKAImBatman]

You have to wonder what Viacom is thinking here. Is copyright protection such an issue that they would shun the market leaders?

Realisticly, it's an attempt by Viacom to place pressure on GooTube to do what they want. What they want is for Google to offer ultra-restrictive access to their... [my] precious... video content. Furthermore, they want Google to invent a foolproof copyright checker (as if such a thing is possible) to prevent average users from uploading Daily Show and Stephen Colbert clips. They're using the Joost deal as a bargaining chip to make Google do what they want.

In reality, this will end one of two ways:

1. Google will reply with a big, "So what?" and Viacom will only pay lip service to their Joost contract. A year down the road, Viacom will come back to YouTube with a cry of "me too!" when they notice how well the advertising is working for their competitors.

2. Google will appease Viacom with special features like: Prominent display of their content on the YouTube front page. Viacom will gruffly agree (when that's really one of the outcomes they were hoping for), but "only if you guys crack down harder on copyright violations!" Joost will get dropped like a rock.

Now if this was the Google of old, I'd say they will go with the first option. But given the slow progress of Google toward becoming Just Another Big Business(TM), I'd say it's just as likely that they'll take door #2.

Re:Is the smaller audience more beneficial?

[Kazoo the Clown]

We've seen them do this before. There's two likely strategies here:

1. Bargaining chip with Google/YouTube

2. They actually think their content is so desirable that everyone will come rushing to Joost when that's the only place you can get it.

If they're smart it's #1, but we've seen them operate based on #2 before as well, so I'd say it's anybodies guess at this point.

Color Me Stupid but:

[dragonsomnolent]

If users can't upload, how then is it a p2p (as opposed to just having a metric ton of servers out there?) I couldn't find anything that said it was a p2p (or that users couldn't upload) on their website. www.joost.com

Re:Color Me Stupid but:

[jspayne]

It is P2P in the sense that Joost gets to use you bandwidth so they can make money on their DRM laden crap.

Re:Color Me Stupid but:

[dragonsomnolent]

So their going to control what I upload? Only color me stupid if I sign up for this. Thanks for the clarification.

Re:Color Me Stupid but:

[R2.0]

You misunderstand - you don't get to upload anything, at least by the colloquial definition.

Joost is basically a locked down Bittorent with some big ass servers to provide data when there are no peers available with the content you want. Content is only placed there by commercial interests, NOT users - that's the bid draw to the Viacoms of the world. Joost is using it's users' bandwidth and disk space; users get free content with 1/100th the advertising as regular TV (so the creators say).

My opinion - it will be a success like Kazaa and Skype - make the originators a shitpot of money, and the buyer will be left with a product of questionable legality/profit potential.

Re:Color Me Stupid but:

[jspayne]

Correct, but the confusion is over the term "upload". No, you cannot take a video on your PC and put it on Joost. However, Joost will be using your upstream bandwidth to send Joost licensed videos to other subscribers.

Re:Color Me Stupid but:

[Slashdot Junky]

My Time Warner cable upstream speed sucks, and at present, the connection is very unreliable. My mother's Charter upstream speed sucks as well. So, I wonder what plan Joost and other similar services have for broadband connections like mine where high speed is primarily a downstream feature.

Later,
-Slashdot Junky

Re:Color Me Stupid but:

[senatorpjt]

Probably involves something about blocking the port for incoming connections on your firewall...

It seems to me like this would be a problem... Nobody is going to want to give away their bandwidth to Viacom. I suspect the hack to prevent uploading will be swift.

another one sided distribution system

[mrcdeckard]

although the summary focused on the "guarantee" of security joost represented for viacom, i think the one-sided distribution model is the big difference. i think, fundamentally, google's business plan revolves around letting end users become the content providers, and google just indexes all of the content -- they make it possible to navigate. this is a view orthogonal to what we're seeing with the media companies, of course. they want to create the content, own it, and control it. they don't want to sell it, but to license it.

the problem, of course, is a matter of generating quality content from the user side.

1/3 of the content i "consume" is probably user-generated. if it weren't for movies/netflix, and television bits on youtube, it would be much closer to 100%. i can certainly envision a future where it becomes more and more fragmented as the tools to generate content become cheaper and cheaper.

mr c

Re:another one sided distribution system

[encoderer]

Your guess is certainly as good as mine, but my question is this: If googles plan was _really_ just to index YouTube as part of it's mission to blah blah all the worlds data, why would they need to BUY the site? I mean, they can index it without owning it. Witness: every other fricken site on the internet. ....So....

My theory is that Google is going to use YouTube as it's platform for jumping into Video-based advertising.

Everyone knows that they're an advertising company. Their purchase of dMarc last year confirmed that. They say they're having a tough go of the radio advertising industry but they have enough revenue that they can keep trying and trying until something sticks.

Eventually, they're going to want to distribute targeted advertising via IPTV. I think it _will_ happen eventually, but you don't just go from text ads to serving targeted video to 175MM households. You need some stepping stones, of which YouTube, I'm convinced, is just the first.

Re:another one sided distribution system

[Kazoo the Clown]

I just don't seen the interest in commercial content on sites like YouTube. The quality is so sucky and/or the time to download is, one or the other. Plus, I would prefer to watch higher quality content on my TV, not my computer, but I ain't gonna buy some kind of YouTube->Tivo box, because my VCR/DVD player does fine in that regard as far as I'm concerned. I go to YouTube 100% for user generated content, because it's quirky, funny and/or amateurish, which I have been known to find quite entertaining. Better than the commercial versions of "Reality" TV which are pure crap equiv. to Phil Donohue, "let's see how stupid we can get people to act," and which are not entertaining to me in the slightest. If I want good commercial stuff (IMHO mostly 10yrs old or more, anyway) I'll either tune in the TV and/or time-delay VCR, or buy it on DVD. When I want to see what odd things people are doing in their living rooms on their own that's when I go to YouTube...

Ladies and Gentlemen!!!!

[get quad]

....start your Torrent Clients!! Did the xxIA not get the memo that Pandora's box was opened and the key flushed down the internet tubes?

Re:Ladies and Gentlemen!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the xxIA not get the memo

What is the RIIA? Is that a new rock 'n roll group? Those darn kids and their unholy music! It sounds like they're doing it on the radio I tell you!

(Insert joke about "sex on the telly" HERE)

Re:Ladies and Gentlemen!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the RIIA? Is that a new rock 'n roll group?

"Her name is RIIA and she dances on the sand..."

Correction

[the_macman]

At the moment is it quite easy to download and store video content from YouTube, but no such feature for Joost is known to exist

Fixed that there for ya.

Something Lost

[JPMaximilian]

TA:

Truth be told, Joost is nothing like YouTube. Joost is all about TV-length programming, although it can show shorter clips and even feature-length films. Most importantly, Joost is focused on commercial video content, not the user creations that have made YouTube so popular. To wit, you cannot upload content to Joost, making it a "secure" distribution medium in the eyes of many in the entertainment industry. The ability for users to upload their own videos onto YouTube is a large part of it's appeal. The article admits that user creations have made YouTube popular, why would you want to get away from that? I guess to appease the big shot content owners. Additionally, I bet joe-end-user hasn't heard of Joost, whereas YouTube is mainstream.

Re:Something Lost

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Well, no one knew about YouTube either couple of years ago. So that Joost is unknown is not that big a detriment. With bagfuls of cash they can get name recognition like Big Daddy. Again securing video content against the analog hole is impossible. Further all it takes is a software video driver that sits between the CPU and the hardware to create a T. With enough oomph in the CPU it can be done and nothing can be done to secure against it.

That is why Vista is big on signed drivers and devices that comply with "display only no copy" connectors and cables. Still it will only prevent casual copying and backing up content. The real pirates will circumvent all this with ease.

It is also possible for both Joost and YouTube and may be couple of more players in the market. With the commercial skipping dvrs, the advertisement supported network TV is dead. It will become what AM radio is today. TV shows will be like magazines. You can copy the Time Magazine if you care but why would you? There is market for hundreds of magazines and about five or six distribution frameworks. You Tube will be one. Joost may or may not be the second.

Re:Something Lost

[Anonymous Coward]

name recognition like Big Daddy

Who?

No, seriously. I've never heard of them. Nice example there.

Re:Something Lost

[elcid73]

The article admits that user creations have made YouTube popular, why would you want to get away from that?

Seems pretty clear to me... to get get away from user creations that made YouTube popular and focus on something else that might make them popular. A different niche... like television length content. I wouldn't mind something like that. YouTube is fine for a quick clip of something funny, but I'd like to go to a place that had (legally) all the Saturday Night Live skits, or other TV content, something of that nature which (without having to go to each station/show/corporate website to see them)

Just because "user creations" are popular doesn't mean that's the only forumula for online video.

Re:Joost is nothing and stupid.

[Timesprout]

If getting $2.6 billion for Skype qualifies as nothing and stupid then I want to be a retarded nonentity

The real story here

[liam193]

It's also a 'secure' distribution medium in the eyes of many in the entertainment industry, since users can't upload content themselves

Regardless of your position on the fair-use/control of content (by fair-use I mean being able to play content you legally on whatever device, etc. you wish), this statement smells of "monopolistic" activity. Unlawful activities do not start at users uploading content. They start with users uploading content they don't own (or even before that). The idea that an organization would believe it is appropriate to say a service is only 'secure' because we're the only ones who can submit content to it goes against everything that a free-market society believes. That one single quote does not say that users can't pirate content; rather, it says that we're the only organization with the rights to create and distribute our content.

In my opinion, that is the big story here. Not the decision to choose one delivery method over another.

Re:The real story here

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent down. That didn't make any sense.

You're projecting. What they meant is that since users can't submit videos, the site is secure against copyright infringement, because you aren't allowed to anonymously submit unscreened content for distribution.

The fact that the concept of user sumbitted content in general is offensive to them, and the fact that they are a clear monopoly that is infamous for abusing it is a side issue that has nothing to do with the quote. If you want to talk about underlying motives fine, but the meaning of the quote is obvious.

I'm as much of a copy-left zealot as the next guy, but knee-jerk reactionary translations like that don't help the cause. They just make us look ridiculous, and completely derranged.

Re:The real story here

[T.E.D.]

(by fair-use I mean being able to play content you legally on whatever device, etc. you wish)

So by "fair-use" you mean something that has nothing to do with Fair Use?

The Fair Use clauses are all about allowing partial reproductions for the purpose of research, criticism, review, and/or parody. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your desire to enjoy a song off a CD you bought on your iPod. Not that this is a bad thing. It just has nothing to do with Fair Use.

Wow, this says it all, if anything does

[iminplaya]

...since users can't upload content themselves.

Of course. Only big content providers should be allowed to upload anything at all. Don't give these people a dime, please. "Don't feed the bears".

And now, Louie!

[Alari]

Who's got something for me?

We do!

What is it?

Joost!

JOOST?! I WANNA DIP MY BALLS IN IT!

---

When they removed the Louie clips from YouTube, they just gave me a reason to actually pirate their content.

Yes, that's right, it's their fault that I have to steal from them. =P

Does anyone know if I will be able to Dip My Balls In It with Joost?

What exactly is Joost's interest?

[BlackCobra43]

For the end user, Joost offers nothing he/she couldn't get otherwise. It even offers significantly LESS, since you can't upload and share your own videos. It will NEVER get even HALF the userbase of YouTube, which dooms it to failure as a "p2p" (more like b2pvr (business to peer via mafiAA, and god knows THAT's the wave of the future *rolls eyes*) network. So why exactly would anyone who currently "pirates" be interested in such a crummy service?

Re:What exactly is Joost's interest?

[hey!]

Comparing joost and youtube is a bit of a apples and oranges scenario.

IIRC, Joost is the diametric opposite of YouTube. The user experience in YouTube is P2P, but the technology is B2C. For Joost, the user experience is (I am guessing) B2C, but the technology is P2P.

Again , I don't know a lot about Joost (I'm not a TV watcher), but it sounds to me like something that would be attractive to content providers because it offers a familiar business model. It's like Joost is a cable network that delivers over the Internet.

Re:What exactly is Joost's interest?

[jfengel]

Your P2P/B2C analysis is spot on. The difference between Joost and a cable provider is that Joost focuses more in on-demand than cable providers. (Cable "networks" are realy content providers; Joost is a distribution and therefore more like a cable provider.)

Despite the familiarity of the business model, it's a considerable change from the network's point of view. By playing, say, "Lost" on Wednesdays at 9 PM (or whenever it is) they can focus their marketing around an event, and a regularly scheduled event at that.

There is limited time in that schedule, so a few dozen TV shows per season receive huge promotions, and they're always looking for Big Wins like Friends or American Idol. There's no room on the schedule for any sort of niches. The presence of alternative TV networks for nice markets hasn't changed the model very much; the networks still focus exclusively on ultra-wide appeal.

Joost radically changes that model, and the networks will probably take considerable time to adjust to that. Right now they're largely the owners of that valuable resource: people's evenings. Various things have been chipping away at that: niche cable networks, video games, and time people spend on the Internet doing non-watching things.

On Demand has worked for movies, but it's only very recently that people have tried it for shorter works. Joost's competition isn't YouTube, but iTunes "Music" Store.

Re:What exactly is Joost's interest?

[Negadecimal]

LESS, since you can't upload and share your own videos. It will NEVER get even HALF the userbase of YouTube

And has satellite/broadcast/cable TV lost subscriber base because they don't let you broadcast your own content? Nope...because they have exclusive content that people want, and can't get anywhere else.

If anything, that's the model to compare Joost to; and it wins over conventional TV because it allows high-def, 100% on-demand content, with minimal delay between request and viewing. People go to YouTube for 20 second chuckles. People watch TV because they want their games, cooking shows, and full-length (and cheesy) movies.

Re:What exactly is Joost's interest?

[tim90402]

the networks still focus exclusively on ultra-wide appeal. And so must also the commercials. Joost will enable ads to be targetted toward a particular viewer, rather than the broad demographic of people who watch a certain show.

Re:What exactly is Joost's interest?

[FunFactor100]

High Def with Joost? uhh...apparently it's 320MB/hr...not quite high def.

Viacom != CBS

[no_such_user]

Viacom and CBS split up about a year ago. I believe CBS has a pretty tight deal going on with YouTube, actually.

Re:Viacom != CBS

[SnowZero]

Here's a link backing it up.

Frankly, I think CBS has the right idea with youtube; Short clips are a great way to advertise your TV shows, and also people will sit through 5-10 seconds ads in order to get the known quality of a specific uploader (i.e. CBS in this case). Right now, the only thing hurting them is that you can't do a youtube search limited to a specific user, and any random Joe can put "CBS" in his tags. I would expect google to fix that eventually.

Others will jump on the bandwagon when they realize CBS is benefiting from youtube. Joost is actually orthogonal, since it is about full-length shows rather than clips. Smart TV channels would likely post on both, using youtube clips to advertise shows on TV as well as Joost. Of course with the inevitable cracking of Joost's DRM, that will likely cause the channels to pull any new content, and doom joost's entire business model.

the competition

[The Queen]

What about veoh? Where, by the way, you can see more original shows like The House Between.

None of this is tangible in any way--all for PR

[postbigbang]

Consider: Viacom and others have little bargaining power against the huge number of ways that users can seed content so that it's difficult for engines to find. People would have to actually look at videos to find a 24hrs episode-- it's easy to mask content so that a trawler wouldn't find it. So each and every content owner, lacking a decent solution of their own, will try and position themselves against GooTube in anyway they can, including the Joost Ruse just announnced. It's incumbent on content providers to at least appear that they're trying to protect their assets. Just dumping the content would rile the hell out of Wall Street-- as in 'giving away the store' sorts of criticisms. It's completely natural, even if Joost never sees the light of day, to have invented them.

Re:None of this is tangible in any way--all for PR

[Kazoo the Clown]

Actually, I would think a fuzzy match of various excerpts of the soundtrack could be pretty difficult to circumvent without undesirably changing the track, and would be pretty easy to search on as well. By chopping up and reducing the track ala speech recognition technology to a skeletal representation of the essential components of dialog, the resultant data wouldn't have to be all that large to store in a database. Neither pitch or time shifting could be done on it too much before the results wouldn't be useful-- and sound-clip fuzzy matching could easily be made to work within that range and then some. Unless the track is re-dubbed by people in their garage using lines rewritten for different verbiage, I'd think an engine could be pretty accurate at matching-- and if they went to such a re-dubbing extent, the result would again be undesirable for those wishing to watch the original content. Even the use of clips in an assemblage could be detected, providing a certain minimum length is involved. It ain't rocket science...

Re:None of this is tangible in any way--all for PR

[postbigbang]

Without eliciting a DCMA take down, let's say we disagree, and on my part, wholeheartedly so.

Ho-hum

[Lisandro]

It's also a 'secure' distribution medium in the eyes of many in the entertainment industry, since users can't upload content themselves.

...which is exactly why it won't be nowhere as popular as YouTube. Viacom should understand that there's more to YT than evil hackers trying to steal their precious copyrighted material.

sure, but where do I see money?

[flicman]

I'm working on something that is exactly what you describe, but I need an answer to the question that will take this from hobby to Viacom-killing profession, and that question is "How do I see money?" Who pays for it? Sure, I can get investors once, but after they don't see their money back, I'm sunk. Is this the type of thing that I can pay for with Google ads? Only if people can't scrape the video and watch it offline. Only if they can't post it on YouTube.

Nope, the distribution model is fucked. All hail technology, making it easier and easier to distribute content for which there's no commercial incentive!

Re:sure, but where do I see money?

[truthsearch]

Commercials and/or product placement. I can imagine some "internet shows" having commercials, but we know someone will cut them out and re-upload them. So I image they'll go the other route that currently pays: product placement within the show. If Coke will pay one of your actors to sip a soda during a show you get money and no one will cut it and redistribute. If the show needs a car, and Toyota is willing to pay to have it be one of their cars, then that's great. As long as it doesn't obstruct the actual presentation I believe product placements are the way to go for online content.

Re:sure, but where do I see money?

[Standmic]

I've seen a couple YouTube videos with very short (10, maybe 15 second) intro commercials that I found acceptable. If I'm watching a couple minute clip from the Daily Show or Comedy Central, I don't mind a ten second ad, and the majority of viewers probably won't either. An ad in front of some crappy homemade video? That won't fly.

Yes, people could recut the video and post it elsewhere, but is it really going to be worth the time and effort? If the video is already on a top tier video site (YouTube, Google Video, etc), then the answer is probably not.

By the time the video is popular enough to catch the attention of someone who would repost it, the original video is going to have too much traffic coming at it from that the repost won't even get significant notice.

Re:sure, but where do I see money?

[Deagol]

Nope, the distribution model is fucked. All hail technology, making it easier and easier to distribute content for which there's no commercial incentive!

How short-sighted! If Sarah Michelle Gellar never got a dime for doing Buffy, she's still rakin' in the bucks for whatever cosmetic company she does commercials for all the time. Sure she won't be rolling naked in quite as large a pile of money as before, but shit, it's still good coin.

Oh, you mean financial incentive for the *producers*? Well, maybe in the age of free online content, stars will have an item in their contracts that says x% of any endorsement proceeds go back to the producers who are responsible for their fame to begin with for Y number of months/years. Shit... older TV/movie stars of yesteryear make tons of money with product endorsements. Sure, the SAG will kick and scream, but hey, this is progress!

That's just one simple (and likely stillborn) idea from someone who hasn't the slightest idea of how show biz actually works. The point is, though, that producers and actors alike will need to both bend to the new reality of free online content. If revenues tied to in-show adverts will be no more, then both parties need to suck it up, get used to slightly less revenue than the old model, and try new things.

People are still stuck using old revenue models with new distributions models. I doubt you can adapt one to new technology but not the other, at least if you want to make any money. Content producers need to be creative in ways to make money, rather than being creative in ways to restrict the availability of content (which only pisses off the audience).

Re:sure, but where do I see money?

[lmpeters]

Commercials and/or product placement.

I have two thoughts. First, if an online show (on YouTube or elsewhere) is popular enough, maybe viewers would want to (try to) produce their own online shows (remember, imitation is the most sincere form of flattery)? If so, you might argue that the show implicitly advertises whatever equipment is used to produce it, and assuming the imitators would want to have the same equipment as is used by the original show (to achieve the same level of technical quality), the company that makes the equipment would benefit by supporting the show financially.

Second, I seem to remember listening to a few old radio shows (circa 1950) were able to run with only a singular sponsor. The Burns and Allen Show, for example, was sponsored by Maxwell House (the coffee brand), and every so often the characters would talk about why they drink Maxwell House coffee, how it's "good to the last drop", etc. No other advertisements or product placements Perhaps in this age of multi-million dollar TV shows, where fully 1/3 of your average TV show is commercials, the public has forgotten that it used to be possible to produce quality entertainment for much less, even when inflation is accounted for.

Disclaimer: I am not an MBA, I am not in the Entertainment industry, and I am not old enough to have listened to Burns and Allen when they were new.

Re:sure, but where do I see money?

[JoelMartinez]

But what about the canadian v1agr4 supplier, and m4nh0od size increasement purveyors? how will they convince Wil Wheaton to place their products in his "inDigital" show? ;-)

Re:sure, but where do I see money?

[LilGuy]

I agree with your post. I watch all my Daily Show and Colbert Report online at comedycentral.com but up until recently I was very disinclined to do so because of the 30 - 45 second commercial in between each 2 minute clip. Thankfully now you can almost watch an entire show without a single commercial... why? I don't know, but I like it.

Re:sure, but where do I see money?

[ClosedSource]

Sarah Michelle Gellar is paid to do commercials soley because she is well-known through TV and movies that used the old revenue models. How many actors are getting big bucks doing commercials just on the basis of a YouTube video?

Re:sure, but where do I see money?

[SethJohnson]

Perhaps in this age of multi-million dollar TV shows, where fully 1/3 of your average TV show is commercials, the public has forgotten that it used to be possible to produce quality entertainment for much less, even when inflation is accounted for.

The media companies don't look at this topic as a zero-sum game (commercial segments OR product placement). Instead, the greedheads typically pile product placements into their content IN ADDITION to commercial breaks. Check a hit show like 30 Rock or The Office. The characters are swarmed with logos and spouting references to corporate brands throughout the dialogue. It would be nice if a media company thought to remove the commercial breaks and attract viewers through a less-disjointed viewing experience such as you recommend.

Seth

Re:sure, but where do I see money?

[Deagol]

The advertisers who use Ms. Gellar's image for pimping their products don't give a rat's ass about the revenue model of the medium that gave her stardom. All they care about is that she's a "famous" person and that she can push their products.

If, for example, Jolt Cola wanted to pay Star Wars Kid up for commercial appearances, they'd do so solely because he was perceived as a "famous" person that could push a product, in spite of the fact that he's not an actor or earned money elsewhere.

Now.... if your point was noting the chicken/egg paradox of migrating to my lame revenue model, then you indeed have a point. Some producer and set of actors would need to risk producing a show "for nothing" in the hopes that they'll reap returns on their investment when the actors become famous and start doing product endorsements. If it worked, then the model could catch on a snowball into a new era media revenue. As with all new ventures, it takes invested money, a plan, and luck/skill.

Re:sure, but where do I see money?

[ClosedSource]

"The advertisers who use Ms. Gellar's image for pimping their products don't give a rat's ass about the revenue model of the medium that gave her stardom."

I never said they did. The point is that she's famous because millions of dollars have been spent directly or indirectly to make it so.

"If, for example, Jolt Cola wanted to pay Star Wars Kid up for commercial appearances, they'd do so solely because he was perceived as a "famous" person that could push a product, in spite of the fact that he's not an actor or earned money elsewhere."

Sure, but the point is they're not hiring him and he's not all that famous to the general public. Perhaps he could do commercials for products targeted to young Star Wars fans (I'll bet 90% of SW fans over 30 have never heard of him).

"Now.... if your point was noting the chicken/egg paradox of migrating to my lame revenue model, then you indeed have a point. Some producer and set of actors would need to risk producing a show "for nothing" in the hopes that they'll reap returns on their investment when the actors become famous and start doing product endorsements. If it worked, then the model could catch on a snowball into a new era media revenue. As with all new ventures, it takes invested money, a plan, and luck/skill."

What you describe is pretty much the way things work now. A producer puts up money and takes a chance that a network or studio will pick up the show and that it will be a hit. You hire cheap unknowns to act in it. If it's a long-term hit the actors start demanding more money and eventually it gets too expensive to make and you quit.

Make no mistake though, you have to have some money to invest at the start or you can't make a quality show.

Re:sure, but where do I see money?

[rtb61]

Truth be told that whole advertising model is falling over. Now that the counter message from users who are pissed off with cheap crap overpriced products with multi million dollar advertising budgets, is louder than the advertising, now matter how much they spend on the advertising, that whole marketing model is screwed.

So the whole concept of mass media screaming about individuals of no great worth being the greatest or of being famous for being famous is pointless. The whole point of advertising as news, or B$ celebrity was all about marketing. They only made celebrities celebrities so the media those marionettes were in could be more readily sold (apart from comedians who write their own stuff).

Sure mass media marketing/news still works on the less connected amongst us, but those that is does work on tend to have very little money to spend, hence the whole issue is pointless apart from selling beer and junk food.

The whole distribution model is changing from a few to many to a many to many model, so the old world mass media companies will either adapt or die. As for that whole 20th century 'celebrity' shlick, it is thankfully dying, and no loss there. Thanks to the Internet, those 'celebrities' are becoming more well known for the egotistical freaks they actually are rather the the PR/B$ advertising as news image they try to hide behind.

Anyhow, with more than fifty years of reruns what new content is needed, and remember those reruns ain't reruns for the generations that haven't seen them yet.

it sounds like the usual crap

[abes]

Let me start of by saying, I don't mind paying for watching programs. If they're reasonably short, I don't even mind the occasional ad. But I also don't have unlimited resources. Buying content from iTunes still seems too expensive to me. I'd like to get The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Battlestar Gallatica, Mythbusters, and possibly Psych. That very quickly comes close to just getting cable TV. Which I don't want for several reasons (one of them, is I'm unable to do a 1 year contract).

So I've been waiting for IPTV. Technically, I don't understand why it would be so difficult to do. I mean, Comedy Central's Motherload already does it. Only crappily. You can't actualy get the full show, and the picture is *really* *really* small. But I guess there are other reasons that I may never fully understand. Though, in my naivate, I'm going to suggest greed as being on the top of the list.

And as the article pointed out, Youtube and Joost serve two different purposes. I mean, I guess it would be nice to get anything I wanted on Youtube, but the clips I've seen are never the full show, and once again, that is what I'd like. Watching short clips of a funny show just aggrevate me.

And so I'm actually excited about Joost. I mean, I still am not exactly sure how it will work, since the details seem to be a bit skimpy, but at least it has the potential. Then I skim over some of the shows that Viacom is releasing, and it all looks like crap. Especially since I don't see the Daily Show on their list. It's a 'will include' list, but that usually means what they don't list are only crappier crap.

Perhaps it's something as simple as them testing the market, and not wanting to release their 'prized possessions', but that seems stupid to me. The shows they have listed, I, nor do I suspect most people, care to see. So they'll run it for a while, claim low viewership, and end the program. And then they'll cite the stats as to why they'll never do anything with the interweb again. Assholes.

It's not that I think all their claims are invalid .. their sales model is based on the fact that with old-style TV, you have to watch the crap they want you to watch. You have to watch the ads, you have to watch a specific time, and if it's crap, you'll watch anyways.

It's not that it's impossible to come up with a new sales-model. They just have no interest in doing so.

Re:it sounds like the usual crap

[RKBA]

.. their sales model is based on the fact that with old-style TV, you have to watch the crap they want you to watch

Actually I think pay-per-view in general and Joost in particular is just an extension of the movie theatre model. You pay each time you want to watch a movie, which is effectively "renting" a viewing and is in line with the overall movement to rent software in general by means of crap like so called "Product Activation" (as well as remote product DE-ACTIVATION), DRM, etc., rather than selling it, and should be resisted with every fiber of our being.

Re:it sounds like the usual crap

[abes]

I'm not a fan of pay-per-view either, but if it's reasonably priced, I'd probably cave in. For most movies and TV shows, I actually don't have much desire to own them. The ones that I do, I'll probably buy the DVD set. Especially considering that HDs are limited in size, I'm going to start deleting files for the shows I don't care to watch again anyways.

I would be a much more willing to pay a subscription fee to 'rent' an unlimited number of videos, somewhat like the Napster model. I should note, I think this is a *stupid* model for music, and do want to own and control all the music in my collection. But I think there is a clear divide between music and videos. At least for me.

It's also different from renting software. There is the similarity that many companies realize how much more money they can rake in if someone has to pay a monthly fee. But like music, I expect my music to always work wherever and whenever. Again, that model exists for movies. For about $10 you can own just about any movie, and use to your heart's content. It's just most TV and movies don't have a high reusability value.

Re:it sounds like the usual crap

[Creepy Crawler]

---So I've been waiting for IPTV. Technically, I don't understand why it would be so difficult to do. I mean, Comedy Central's Motherload already does it. Only crappily. You can't actualy get the full show, and the picture is *really* *really* small. But I guess there are other reasons that I may never fully understand. Though, in my naivate, I'm going to suggest greed as being on the top of the list.

---And as the article pointed out, Youtube and Joost serve two different purposes. I mean, I guess it would be nice to get anything I wanted on Youtube, but the clips I've seen are never the full show, and once again, that is what I'd like. Watching short clips of a funny show just aggrevate me.

---It's not that it's impossible to come up with a new sales-model. They just have no interest in doing so.

Well, it seems your only real answer is Piratebay. It really is a shame, isnt it? The copyright violators will have the best rights, yet the honorable among us will be taken advantage of time and time again.

Download and store video?

[Tmack]

At the moment is it quite easy to download and store video content from YouTube, but no such exploit for Joost is known to exist.

Sure there is. Its just not as direct as they are thinking. Since its digital media being displayed on screen, all ya gotta do is dump the video memory of the screen area where its displayed to disk. Instant saved video. There are numerous software packages out there to do this, some free, some not, but all designed specifically for this. Similar to using a tape recorder to record the music from the radio, or a camcorder to record a TV show, but in pure digital fashion, since its pulling the direct digital image from ram. Just another tech developed to fuel the pr0n industry, mostly used for people to record webcams ;)

Tm

Re:Download and store video?

[Stormx2]

A very good point, sir. If anyone is interested, wikipedia has a very good article on this. The jist of it is that as long as you are displaying content to the user, there is absolutely no way you can stop people making copies of it.

This is the problem execs have, they're out of touch with the whole engineering side of their projects, and when it comes to "plugging the analog hole" they can't just say "stop people from downloading it". The moment you start streaming the content you're caching it, at least in your RAM

"no such exploit is known to exist"

[ion_]

At the moment is it quite easy to download and store video content from YouTube, but no such exploit for Joost is known to exist.

3... 2... 1...

(Also: "exploit", huh?)

It's amazing how none of you get it

[evianhat]

So many people here are comparing Joost to YouTube. They're not the same. They're not *meant* to be the same. Joost is about high-quality (video and audio) content. Stuff that I can watch on my 70" HDTV with Bose surround sound. Not stuff to be played through my crappy laptop speakers. Do you all honestly think that the guys behind both Kazaa and Skype *don't* know what they're doing?

Re:It's amazing how none of you get it

[Anonymous Coward]

um, yes?

Re:It's amazing how none of you get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually no one gets it, cause no one cares. AND THAT'S THE POINT. Joost is some fanciful niche thing that's doomed to fail. It will fail because it won't have enough customers.

KIDS are the money spenders on frivolous bullshit and entertainment.

They don't own 70" TVs with bose theater speakers.

Yes there is some money to be made from 70 inch TV owners, but not much.

You're selective, and part with your cash ever so sparingly.

kids on the other hand will spends wads of cash, in droves, as long as they can't pirate it.

so joost is pretty much a niche, and for a mega distribution company to think it's the way of the future is at best a bit misguided, and at worst, just plain fucking stupid.

Re:It's amazing how none of you get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the content on Joost right now is in between VHS and SVCD quality. I wouldn't want to see this on a 70 inch screen.

here we go again

[bechthros]

"no such exploit for Joost is known to exist" ...yet.

we're working on that

[flicman]

you might be surprised to hear that there aren't yet established currency amounts for online product-placement investments. It will work, and I'm hoping that it'll work with our product, but I'm not the businessman I'd probably need to be to make this work. As much as it hurts me to say this, it may be time to hire an MBA.

Joost to be ignored by larger net population

[smcdow]

... users can't upload content themselves.

Exactly why Joost is destined to become irrelevant.

Re:Joost to be ignored by larger net population

[10537]

Good point -- after all, TV is irrelevant because you can't upload anything, and nobody goes to the movies any more because it's not full of crappy 30 second videos of no-talent morons doing something stupid. You must be some kind of genius!

Re:Joost is nothing and stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

If getting $2.6 billion for Skype qualifies as nothing and stupid then I want to be a retarded nonentity

It's not a commutative relationship. You can be a retarded nonentity and still not get your $2.6 billion.

user's can't upload

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>>>>>It's also a 'secure' distribution medium in the eyes of many in the entertainment industry, since users can't upload content themselves.'"

  This is big media's wet dream. Shovel crap in people's faces and lock out the independants.

Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, shows had names like Texaco Star Theater

Têtes à claques

[guardia]

This has already happened here in Quebec, Canada. Check the small sketches at http://www.tetesaclaques.tv/ . You won't see anything to compete with 24 or something, but it sure is very popular here.

It'll be more secure all right...

[vanyel]

...because no one will use it. They'll have full control.

zudeo is the only one that has it right: download quality clips, now that I'll do...when they get something actually interesting... streaming post stamps? I've got better things to do with my time...

p2p video is not grainy or low bitrate

[grimJester]

Pic

Since the bandwith costs for the uploader don't scale with number of users, you can easily stream video with the same quality as the average DVD rip.

YouTube != Peer2Peer, Content Authentication

[serodores]

There are 2 benefits for Viacom doing this, the way that I see it, copy protection aside. First off, YouTube (from what I understand) is a standard Client/Server model. Sure, they have tons of bandwidth, but that can only hold out for so long. Imagine if every movie and every cable channel was on YouTube, and everyone who watches TV did it over YouTube. I don't think they could match the cost they're getting per click with the bandwidth cost that would require.

Secondly, by using Joost with P2P, over a source that they define, you at least have a way of authenticating original content and content consumers. Sure, people could hack the protocols Joost uses, and reference other servers, but then Joost/Viacom could go after these rogue servers, and hunt them down. By allowing user uploaded content, YouTube can't support this.

no such exploit for Joost is known to exist?

[S*arter]

I don't have the time to read the 200-odd comments posted before me on this topic, I do hope there is at least 1 in there that expresses this but, just in case no one hit this nail: A major corporation (viacom) stupidity struggles in some arcane batlle over copyrighted material? There are established venues for income, that all local yocals have invested in for decades- to the delight of compnies like Viacom (though they are few and far between). Screen capture anyone? Why is it still not widely understood that if it appears onscreen it will be recorded to other medium, or even, if it is heard it can as well be uncontrollably, albeit at reduced professional quality, recoreded? I rarley hear these sentiments! Wow. Insofar as Viacom on this topic is concerned, Isn't this (the internet) simply an important marketing/sales vessel, to be treated and utilized as such? I can almost hear them in the Monday morning meetings: "so, what do we do with this internet thing?" Unreal, in today's "Digital Age". Maybe I am the fool, and all the ruckus is just more marketing....

So this is the place we get invites? :)

[Galeo]

If so, please help me by sending one!! I would love to test Joost!! ( matthe . smit (at) gmail (dot) com Thanks!

Re:So this is the place we get invites? :)

[Mantorp]

send me your extras :) mantorp at gmail

Re:So this is the place we get invites? :)

[10537]

It must be your lucky day -- consider yourselves invited!

capturing Joost

[mgabrys_sf]

Right - windows users never heard of Snap X. Anything sent to my screen I can convert to a quicktime MOV, of any quality. Content - you're nabbed and ready to be uploaded elsewhere. Oops - I'm sorry - did that fuck up Joost's marketing plan?

Gosh I'm sorry about that.

Bah!

[eno2001]

This is all just totally Joostless! I am SOOOOOO pissed. Screw you Viacom. Like we care if you won't let us play in your reindeer games. There's some hot mares over here that look just fine...

Just as clueless as the music industry

[earthbound kid]

At the moment is it quite easy to download and store video content from YouTube, but no such exploit for Joost is known to exist.'

All of these shows are normal TV shows that are broadcast over the air/on cable. Any show on TV can be (and most are) digitized and uploaded to P2P sites after having all the commercials stripped out. In fact, since pirates usually digitize the HD streams of TV shows, they offer much higher quality than either YouTube or the iTunes store.

It looks like the TV people are just as dumb as the music people: DRM doesn't make sense if you also give away your product in a DRM-free format!

Eh...er...

[KKlaus]

Sure but that show would be lonelygirl15, and uh... all I'm saying is that because of what's catchy to males on the internet, the transition is going to be embarrassing.

Re:Eh...er...

[Cylix]

She managed to get noticed...

Can't say the same thing for a 100,000 other actresses.

Time will tell if she gets paid well for her time.

CopyFight is Good Business

[Doc Ruby]

This distribution deal is a move that is good for the Internet media revolution. For one, it establishes a real competitor to YouTube with content people will actually want to watch. Without bundling that content with the network: Joost is just the distributor, owning no rights.

But more importantly, it puts copyrighted content into a YouTube competitor that can challenge YouTube if YouTube has the content. That means that YouTube's copyright enforcement doesn't happen in an vacuum of arbitrary claims and baseless decisions. When Joost complains, it will have a copy of the content and a copy of the contract with the content owner. The process to enforce copyright between the two corporations can take place in the well understood realm of corporate negotiations and lawsuits.

Of course, it would be better for everyone (including Viacom, and especially YouTube and Joost) if copyrights didn't slow down every media transaction. But until copyrights actually are peeled back to a legitimate scope, duration and enforcement regime, getting competitors with paper trails to manage it is the best we can do, and better than nothing.

Already failed.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's also a 'secure' distribution medium in the eyes of many in the entertainment industry, since users can't upload content themselves.'"

If users cannot upload their own videos, then this service will NEVER, EVER go anywhere. It has already failed. That's just how simple it is these days.

I can see this working...

[potat0man]

**screeching tires**

"NOOOOOO! Jimmy's dead!!!!!" **sobbing**

Character turns to audience, "Well, thank goodness we have Allstate to take care of us in this time of difficulty. Funerals, lawyers, death is expensive. I'm glad we got little Jimmy the coverage he needed."

And cut to more sobbing.

Not all products can be placed very easily into a show. It cuts out a big portion of the market that content-producers can sell to.

Let me get this straight...

[solune]

It's secure because people can't upload???? An earlier sentiment expresses my doubts on that matter --It's doubtful it'll go too far.

Even worse, to me this is a giant "fuck you" to the home creators who utilize Youtube for their own fun. I, for one, like some of the user stuff I've seen, and even the snippets of commercial stuff has got me looking for more content.

I barely watched the Daily show until I was turned on to some great clips on youtube.

Joost sounds more like squeezing the old top-down media format (television) into the "fancy thinkin' box" to me.

3... 2... 1...

[qzulla]

At the moment is it quite easy to download and store video content from YouTube, but no such exploit for Joost is known to exist.

[cough] Snapz Pro X [cough]

qz

Another "the Joost control the media" story

[Eternal Vigilance]

Oy! I could just plotz.

IPTV is here

[modeless]

Have you visited ABC.com or NBC.com lately? Actually, I wouldn't blame you for missing it, because they haven't exactly been sounding the trumpets about this. They've buried it under piles of throwaway interview clips and crapisodes, I mean webisodes. But if you click around for a while, you'll eventually come across the fabled Full-Episode player, where you can actually, really, right now watch the entire current season run of all of ABC and NBC shows, free with ads.

Ignoring the player app (a typical Flash monstrosity), ABC is actually doing everything right: There are 3-4 commercials per show, which you can choose to watch at any time (by skipping forward). Some commercials are longer than 30 seconds; if you're interested you can keep watching it, but if not you can skip the rest! Once you've watched a commercial, that part of the show is "unlocked", so you never have to watch the same commercial twice (Hallelujah!). It's actually possible to watch all the commercials upfront and then see the entire show with no breaks.

It's amazing to me that this made it through the corporate innovation-crushing machine. If ABC's player had a decent full-screen mode, and better quality video, it would basically be my perfect ad-supported-TV-watching experience.

Wayne's World

[hitchhacker]

As long as it doesn't obstruct the actual presentation I believe product placements are the way to go for online content.

You mean like that part in Wayne's World?

-metric

I disagree; internet video commercials work.

[arete]

I don't think you're right about people stripping away commercials meaning the model fails. You're never going to have a situation as bad as TiVo - where nontechnical people can watch stuff directly from your official network, using the front-end you intended, and still automatically strip away ads without doing anything, and do it forever. Because if that happens in the Internet world, you release a new slightly-different version of your client and a slightly different API. And then the people making the stripping clients race to catch up - but then everybody has to get the new stripping client from somewhere. (And that's leaving out the crazy DMCA, which means with a tiny bit of useless encryption you could sue everyone who does this.)

If you put out high quality video from a high quality network with a _moderate_ level of ads, people will watch the ads rather than go through the trouble of hunting for the newest uploaded version from unknown sources. (And remember, the easier it is for users to find it, the easier it is for YOU to find it. You don't have to wipe it off the net, you just have to make it slightly inconvenient to find compared to going to your site.)

This is even more true if you actually DO let them download the video in standard formats (ads included) - because if you only let them stream or only use a specific player then people have THAT as a reason to download the converted one - NOT the ads.

The key is not to be too greedy.