Slashdot Mirror


Sony Pictures in Talks With YouTube

CNet is reporting that Sony Pictures may be in talks with YouTube to license full length movies to the video sharing site. Set to post nearly a half a billion dollars in losses this year, YouTube could certainly use some juice to combat sites like NBC-owned Hulu which already has an array of movies for streaming. "Details about what a final agreement could look like are sparse, but any partnership between the two powerhouses would likely benefit both. Representatives from both companies declined to comment. Word of the negotiations comes a week after Disney announced it had licensed short-form content to YouTube. Those clips will come from a range of Disney brands, including ABC and ESPN. For YouTube, obtaining short-form clips from Disney is an important step but still doesn't provide what YouTube needs most."

23 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. Doubtlessly, the pickings therein... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...will make the most mediocre offerings on Netflix instant viewing seem absolutely stellar by comparison.

  2. YouTube nearly bankrupt? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

    >>>Set to post nearly a half a billion dollars in losses this year

    Youtube is the most-popular video site. It should be making hand-over-fist in dollars. How can this be?

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:YouTube nearly bankrupt? by Karganeth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe it's because nobody purchases anything from YouTube.

    2. Re:YouTube nearly bankrupt? by Albanach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Youtube is the most-popular video site. It should be making hand-over-fist in dollars. How can this be?

      It's because youtube typically has no adverts on user submitted videos. If google made money off of copyright material they'd be looking at big lawsuits. So they typically only have advertising on licensed content. They need more deals like the one suggested to deliver more advertising revenue.

    3. Re:YouTube nearly bankrupt? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Youtube is the most-popular video site. It should be making hand-over-fist in dollars. How can this be?

      Being most-popular is not an advantage when no one has figured out how to profit from it. Most-popular means highest costs in bandwidth, servers, etc.

      Ad spend is shrinking globally. How exactly is YouTube going to make money when everyone and their dog uses their servers and bandwidth for free?

      Reminds me of the dotcom boom... sure, we're losing money on every transaction, but we'll make up for it in volume.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:YouTube nearly bankrupt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      YouTube makes virtually nothing in advertising and have extraordinarly high bandwidth cost. Short videos, like the majority of the ones on YouTube, are difficult to monetize. People won't wait through a 30 second video ad, so the best you can do is overlays and advertising outside the video.

      For full length quality content, like that featured on Hulu people will have the patience to wait through 4-5 15 second ads over the length of a 45 minute TV show. Hulu is also able to snatch up traffic from people that used to pirate the same shows they watch on Hulu. Most people would much rather directly stream a fairly high quality video, than wait 3 hours for some pixelated piece of crap rared into 50 different password protected files.

    5. Re:YouTube nearly bankrupt? by CyberSlammer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, let's see...considering just about every music artist has had their music video removed over the past year might have something to do with it. Not to mention TV show clips have disappeared, it's pretty much turned into who is the next numa numa or Star Wars kid.....lame.

    6. Re:YouTube nearly bankrupt? by sexconker · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hulu's quality pales in comparison to that of a decent encode you could:

      Make yourself
      Download from the intertubes.

    7. Re:YouTube nearly bankrupt? by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 4, Informative

      Prolly the bandwidth. From the universal repository of knowledge that is wikipedia "n March 2008, YouTube's bandwidth costs were estimated at approximately US$1 million a day".

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    8. Re:YouTube nearly bankrupt? by Feminist-Mom · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That makes sense. Added to the cost of the zillion employees they have to comb the thing for video that need to be taken down, or at least to write the software. And the constant legal issues. Throw in just the machines, and now I see that is reasonable as a loss, esp. that they don't sell anything. On the other hand everyone I know generally uses it as a first choice. Maybe in a few years it will make money. Remember the (good?) old days when Amazon didn't show a profit for years?

    9. Re:YouTube nearly bankrupt? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most people would much rather directly stream a fairly high quality video, than wait 3 hours for some pixelated piece of crap rared into 50 different password protected files.

      I don't know where you've been pirating, but the worst case is 50 different non-protected rar files. Quality is generally very good, much better than Hulu. Additionally, I can play it wherever I want, without an Internet connection, without waiting through 15-30 seconds of ad at every seek, on any video player that can handle it -- which means my own keybindings, not Hulu's -- oh, and Flash sucks for video, compared to just about any standalone video player.

      I stopped watching Naruto when it got picked up by Hulu -- and thus, Dattebayo stopped subbing it -- and thus, quality, both of the subs and of the encode, dropped massively. Additionally, in order to display the Hulu and Viz Network logos, the entire video was encoded at a 4:3 resolution with black bars. Thanks to being played through Flash, I couldn't do the usual mplayer trick to crop those out. That means there are ginormous black bars inside of ginormous black bars, making the video look tiny on my full HD monitor (widescreen, of course).

      You've provided a good summary of Hulu's business model, but the simple truth is, piracy continues to provide better quality in just about every respect. The only advantage Hulu provides is that it streams out of the box on most systems -- no need to install a BitTorrent client, then PeerGuardian, then wait a half hour or so for whatever it is to download.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    10. Re:YouTube nearly bankrupt? by skarphace · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, the users are already paying to their ISPs for their bandwidth. Couldn't Youtube demand a cut of that, or at least get "free" bandwidth for better quality service to the provider's customers?

      If the ISPs don't cooperate, Youtube could always downgrade the videos or display adds like "Your XX ISP doesn't want to play ball which might mean more costs to you. May we recommend this YY provider in your area?"

      So it's cool if you break net neutrality rules if it's in Google's favor? Sheesh...

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
  3. I just had a look at Hulu by Mystery00 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I just had a look at Hulu and got this:

    We're sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed within the United States.

    Google combating who? The only competition is torrent.

    --
    "we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
    1. Re:I just had a look at Hulu by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google combating who? The only competition is torrent.

      Google combating the licensors of the content, who wish their distribution channels in non-US markets to remain free of easy, legal online competition. Pandora has the same issue with streaming audio.

      Hulu competes with bt for content delivery, but is also competes with DVDs, VHS, movie theaters, etc. That last one is pretty important -- many movies are just hitting theaters overseas when DVDs or online distribution is released to the US market.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  4. YouTube isn't a Company by MrNonchalant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's be clear. YouTube isn't set to post anything, let alone a loss. Google as a whole will post huge profits again, albeit below last year, and that will be that.

  5. And the players line up.... by GPLDAN · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sony Playstation 3 firmware upgrade added the link-in to Youtube during the last upgrade. Anyone who DIDN'T see this coming was blind.

    Sony and it's empire vs. Microsoft and Disney and ABC on the other. Paramount is on the Hulu/Xbox side, owning NBC which really started moving so much of its stuff to Hulu, all the SNL episodes and lots of its archive stuff.

    This fight will expand to be a USA vs. the world thing. If I am over at Google/Youtube my strategy is to take licensing outside the states. Get international content exclusive to Youtube with the Playstation tie in. Get broadband deals done with the major providers in Europe. Isolate the Hulu guys to providing US content only.

    Content is king, and it's like suddenly everyone realized the general public couldn't do it. There are only so many videos of your guild's Epic WoW raid or cats flushing toilets that will hold an ad revenue stream in place.

    Sony can really break the Hulu grip if they eschew any embedded commercials in the video streams. Grab Fox Studios and maybe Lionsgate, get New Line Cinema and it's game over.

    Should be interesting...

  6. Re:See no evil by MicktheMech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It would be more like hating the government in general. I believe they call themselves libertarians.

  7. Re:People don't have any standards anymore ... by sexconker · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah right.

    It'd be in a .DLM wrapper (DownLoadMax) with the Super Downloaded Video codec for video and SDDS and ATRAC for the audio tracks.

    Also, you'd need an SDVF (Super Downloaded Video File) player to play it. The logo would look neat but you'd never see it on any consumer device from anyone but Sony.

    BluRay titles from Sony will feature a digital copy of the film in SDV format, but you will still have to download them to a super memory stick super. All you get is an authorization code. Some collector's editions may include the copy on a separate useless mini frisbee (umf) disc.

    (Hint: I am referencing betamax, sdds, super audio cd, minidisc, umd, memory stick pro, and other sony abortions).

  8. Signs by Nerdfest · · Score: 3, Funny

    Isn't Sony being consumer friendly one of the signs of the coming apocalypse? I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to start hoarding food and weapons.

  9. Vimeo is strict by tepples · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Vimeo's guidelines are even stricter than YouTube's. You can't upload public domain videos, and you can't upload videos on behalf of an author who is someone else. You can't upload videos to promote your business. You can't upload videos of video games at all because you aren't the game's author.

  10. Re:People don't have any standards anymore ... by feepness · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am referencing betamax, sdds, super audio cd, minidisc, umd, memory stick pro, and other sony abortions).

    Yes, that'll definitely get you some mod points around these parts.

    (Hint: I am referencing the fact that you are making hyperbolic statements to get attention.)

  11. More of this in the next two weeks by PhillC · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I think we'll see a lot more announcements like this in the next 2 weeks - other Studios and TV Broadcasters putting long form content on YouTube, laden with advertising to generate revenue. The adverts will be pre-roll, mid-roll and possibly post-roll as well.

    I also prophesise that YouTube/Google will not understand broadcast timecodes and will require everything in simple seconds, to two decimal places. Why do they need timecodes? To know where to insert the advertising of course. Will users be able to skip the advertising mid-roll? Not a chance. And what problems will timecodes in seconds, with two decimal places, create? I believe we'll see adverts inserted at the incorrect places as different frame rates between PAL, NTSC and film content are not taken into account, or ad breaks that are placed in content at obvious points like fades/transitions/mixes (whatever you'd like to call them) will be a few frames incorrect, so the transition will happen slightly before or after the ad break.

    I also predict that YouTube won't really understand about TV resolution and will request everything at 640x480 frame size, rather than say 720x576 for PAL. I predict they may also have problems dealing with Full Height Anamorphic content, but of course that's just a hunch.

    Don't ask me how I know, just looking into my crystal ball you understand.......

    --
    Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
  12. Re:See no evil by ScotlynHatt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, it would be similar to hating Sony because they have repeatedly controlled media formats to death, installed malicious software secretly, and ignored the modern standards for many of their products. I mean c'mon, Bush, Obama, and Libertarian references!? Really?