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

[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

[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.

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...

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.

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: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....

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: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.

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?