MGM First To Post Full-Length Features To YouTube

Lithal13 writes to tell us that MGM studios will soon be the first major movie studio to post a complete feature-length film on YouTube. Some credit commercial video site Hulu.com for the mended relationship between YouTube parent Google and Hollywood. "YouTube has developed systems that help keep pirated clips off the site and is developing video players that present clearer images than the site's standard player. When it comes to financial terms, Google has proven much more flexible than in the past, according to three studio sources. [...] The only obstacles to Google and YouTube getting more studios to post full-length movies is Google's insistence on a particular ad format, say the sources. They declined to say which ad unit Google prefers. The other hurdle is that some studios are skeptical that users will accept all the ads that need to accompany a feature film in order to make it profitable."

Comments

What about limits?

[Vipersfate]

It's great and all to have full length features, but what of these limits recently imposed on downloading? What about people from other countries (other than the US) that have even less than Comcast limits?

Re:What about limits?

[Tx]

What about people from other countries (other than the US) that have even less than Comcast limits?

I confidently predict that it won't be available for us, so that part is a non-issue.

However a lot of ISPs here in the UK are bitching and moaning about the BBC's iPlayer (online TV catchup service), which they reckon has significantly increased their bandwidth usage. Of course they would like the BBC to pay them as well as the end user paying for their broadband (less enlightened debate over net neutrality in this country, but the same old issues). I can only see increased capping/tiering on broadband if this sort of service becomes more common.

Re:What about limits?

[HungryHobo]

it's sort of sad to see how the situation with ISP's is going.
A few years back there were thousands of them all keen to stab each other in the back and undercut each other.
Caps kept dropping and quality was going up fast.
Now we're down to a handful of providers who tend to play nice with each other. Caps are dropping, prices are rising, and it's harder than ever for anyone without a few hundred million spare change to get peering.

Re:What about limits?

[theaveng]

Perhaps watching videos online is not as cheap as everyone originally believed. Perhaps buying mass-produced DVDs truly is a cheaper method of distribution?

As for years ago: We had telephone lines which allowed us to pick whatever dialup ISP we wanted. That's why there were thousands. That's no longer an option with broadband, due to government-dictated monopolies that control the neighborhood. (I get to choose either Comcast or Verizon; not much of a choice.) As a result most of the videos I watch are low-definition 0.5 Mbit/s streams that are just-barely watchable, in order to limit my monthly bill.

Re:What about limits?

[squiggleslash]

Given the ridiculously low bitrates YouTube employs, I can guarantee it will not be a problem for 99.999% of users.

Even HD downloads (720p, from services like Apple's iTS) tend to weigh in at around 4-6Gb at the moment (2-3Gb per hour), which would give you around 50 full-length HD movies a month if you have a Comcastic Internet connection. DVD-quality, done at H.264, tends to go for around half a gig per hour, or around one gig per movie, which gives you 250 full-length ED movies, 500 hours of video, per month, or around 16 hours of video PER DAY.

And realistically, the limits aren't going to go down either.

The golden age of IPTV, where you subscribe to the TV stations you want individually, is quite possible with the existing infrastructure and Internet services. What we need are standardized STBs to hook up to the TVs, and TV stations willing to offer subscriptions.

Re:What about limits?

[Xian97]

A recent slashdot article discussed AT&Ts proposed plan of tiered bandwidth usage. For the 3 mbs service that I have, a 60 GB per month cap was mentioned. At full usage a 3 mbs connection is a little less than 1.5 GB per hour and the cap would be reached in 40 hours. That's just over an hour of HD video per day. That leaves nothing available for other downloads such as software updates or demos.

Even at YouTube quality, my wife's 2-4 hours a day would add up to well over 30 GB per month. She watched Thai lakorn (soap operas) and Thai music videos. Since none of the large satellite providers offer Thai channels, YouTube was the only available option to listen to broadcasts in her native language.

I see bandwidth caps preventing greater usage of such services for things like watching full length movies. Where a few years ago we had a computer that accessed the internet, now we have multiple computers, an Ipod Touch, PS3, Wii, and Xbox 360 all using Internet resources and media and all requiring updates. The bandwidth caps are being implemented at a time when more and more home devices are using the Internet, and adding to the speed that you will hit your capacity.

Re:What about limits?

[squiggleslash]

You're not going to use it at "full usage" though. You need to look at the applications you'll be using and how they use bandwidth. The reason you need 3Mbps for something approaching DVD-quality video isn't because it's a constant 3Mbps stream, but because when there's a lot of action, the stream will need to "burst" up to rates that high.

Like I said, the current standard is around .5Gb per hour for DVD quality video, and around 2-3Gb for HD (720p) - that's based on what services like Apple's iTS and Netflix are doing. At those speeds, you're talking about 120 hours of DVD quality video (four hours a day), though only about 20 hours of HD quality video. But HD isn't really an option on 3Mbps except for buffered downloads, so the chances of you actually wanting to watch 20 hours of HD a month on your current connection is fairly small.

I'm not saying I agree with the 60Gb cap, I don't and I find the caps a completely wrong solution to the problem. But I don't think it will impact you in any way in terms of your use of DSL for watching movies from legitimate download/streaming services.

Just what nobody needed

[meist3r]

Full length movie on Youtube? I already hate the video quality on the short vids what good will be streaming a full length film? And then probably region locked and javascript ads that reload the window and have me buffer the entire film again. Come to think of it, ever tried to fast forward through an flv file? Just doesn't work properly -ever. I call this a waste of time. And who wanted to see 1930s movies on youtube anyhow. It's not exactly like they'll give us something new and interesting.

Re:Just what nobody needed

[corychristison]

Come to think of it, ever tried to fast forward through an flv file? Just doesn't work properly -ever

Youporn.com has done something right, then. Seeking to the 75% mark of a video (before any buffering) jumps to and loads quite quickly and easily. ;-)

Re:Just what nobody needed

[sukotto]

If I were writing a video player for a porn site I would have it buffer the last X% of the film before buffering the start. Isn't that the part the viewers care about?

(I was going to make a joke about it being the climax of the film but actually, when you think about it, makes sense to program it that way so it's a serious comment)

Re:Exactly how many ads should there be?

[larry bagina]

of course, many movies have paid product placements -- ads -- already. Isn't that the slashdot business model? Make a movie, paid for via product placement, and give it away for free?

Just like movie theater abuse?

[GaryOlson]

The other hurdle is that some studios are skeptical that users will accept all the ads that need to accompany a feature film in order to make it profitable.

Do they mean equivalent to the enforced advertising already present in a regular movie theater?
-- one Coke short filmvertisement
-- one long length car commercial
-- 4 movie trailers
-- a long format Coke advertisement
-- a hip clothing advertisement
-- a charitable organization fund drive appeal
-- 4 more movie trailers

If MGM attempts to recreate the movie theater captive audience advertising innundation effect, this will fail miserably.

Re:Just like movie theater abuse?

[hal2814]

Don't forget about the slideshow they show over and over and over again if you get there anywhere near showtime, especially the overly-simplistic movie trivia. Mrs. Doubtfire is the movie where Robin Williams played a British nanny? Really? I had no idea. I thought it was Mrs. Featherbottom...

Huh?

[argStyopa]

"The other hurdle is that some studios are skeptical that users will accept all the ads that need to accompany a feature film in order to make it profitable."

You mean, aside from the 10 minutes of previews and actual commercial ads that precede theater films, or the 15 minutes of ads, unskippable warnings, and "DON'T BE A DVD PIRATE! PIRATING IS STEALING" infomercials that precede the feature on every goddamn dvd?

No, I don't believe I'll be surprised at whatever Hollywood deems "necessary" to make something profitable. I mean, according to Hollywood accountants Spider Man, Forrest Gump, and Lord of the Rings all failed to make a profit, right? Of course we can trust them.

Not up here...

[gravyface]

Except in Canada, where Bell has to play nice and share their copper with the other kids. In my city, there's no less than 18 DSL providers I can pick and choose from:
http://canadianisp.ca/

Re:Speaking of youtube

[Eccles]

Anyone else having problems going to it right now? I'm getting 500 errors

Wow, that's a lot of errors. I probably would have given up after 9 or 10 myself.

Re:U.S. only?

[Duradin]

Perhaps you should talk to whoever owns your country's distribution rights to MGM works and convince them to participate in this instead of ignoring international copyright treaties and treating it like the mean ol' 'mericans won't share their toys with you just because you talk funny.