Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Videos Going Offline; Time To Grab What You Want

Posted by timothy on from the when-it-clouds-it-pours dept.

An anonymous reader writes "I received this email this morning: 'Later this month, hosted video content on Google Video will no longer be available for playback. Google Video stopped taking uploads in May 2009 and now we're removing the remaining hosted content... On April 29, 2011, videos that have been uploaded to Google Video will no longer be available for playback.' They've added a download button for saving your content but it expires after May 13, 2011 and they encourage users to move the content to YouTube." Not all is lost, though. Writes reader none295: "If you want to help archive Google Video, get some Linux machines running and join us in IRC (EFNet #archiveteam / #googlegrape)."

14 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. The cloud. by GWRedDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yet another example for people who say that the cloud is a good place to permanently store their data....

    1. Re:The cloud. by MahJongKong · · Score: 2

      You can't expect a free service to stay online forever.

    2. Re:The cloud. by Osgeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you cant expect a paid service to stay online forever.

      if you care about it you have your own copy

    3. Re:The cloud. by Threni · · Score: 2

      it's swings and roundabouts, though. If you only have your own copy and it's not online somewhere, then you're at risk of theft, fire, flood, magnets, children pouring water on your pc etc etc. A professionally backed up cloud is way safer.

      It's safer to say "If you care about it you have your own copy AND a copy on the cloud".

    4. Re:The cloud. by DarkJC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here's what I don't understand: why can't they just move the Google Video content over to youtube themselves? They own both services. Why make everyone who wants to keep their video download it locally and reupload it back to Google's servers?

    5. Re:The cloud. by TheLink · · Score: 2

      Because the MPAA and RIAA will try to get lots of $$$ from them?

      --
    6. Re:The cloud. by Xest · · Score: 2

      I wondered the same, but Google Video has always been much less restricted than YouTube in terms of content.

      Unless it's changed one example that comes to mind is that YouTube never used to allow the raw unedited footage of the Sknyliv airshow disaster, yet Google video did.

      So even if they moved it across I suspect there is some content that would be lost forever, which is bad news for anyone wanting to see what the real aftermath of a fighter jet crashing into a crowd is. You know, just in case you ever needed to. On a serious note though I suspect there are many many more things that would be lost once YouTube vastly stricter restrictions come into play.

      Or in other words, YouTube is basically just a kids playground, Google videos was actually a relatively unfiltered video archive.

  2. Why? by Osgeld · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why didnt they just dump it all on youtube in the first place?

  3. Re:Oh no! by simp · · Score: 4, Funny

    "This video contains content from EMI, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

    Thanks for the notice EMI. Next time I want to buy audio/video content I will make sure to block you too. Just returning the favor...

  4. "blip.tv" not too bad by Animats · · Score: 2

    I've been putting my video on blip.tv instead of YouTube. It's strictly a hosting and streaming service - no one will find your video on blip.tv unless it's linked from elsewhere. It streams nicely, though.

  5. Why Doesn't Google Move It All to YouTube? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why doesn't Google just make all the Google Video content available as YouTube videos instead? Why not even keep redirecting Google Video URLs to the converted YouTube version? It seems like a lot more work for Google to manage the shutdown than to move it to YouTube, to say nothing of the work by users and lost value when video doesn't make the transition.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  6. Re:Sometimes I *want* to give them my money by kent_eh · · Score: 2

    +1 insightful

    and if some smart ass answers for that specific movie, I've got a list of dozens of others that I would buy if it were available from a legitimate source.
    (of course, most of them would be public domain by now under the original rules, but that's another debate)

    --

    ---
    "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  7. Only Your Videos by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    I went to check on one of the long videos I've recommended to folks and there was no download button. It seems that's only there for your own videos. Which seems odd, didn't Google Video used to always have a download button, for people who don't know how to find Flash cache files?

    Anyway, it wasn't clear to me from the summary that this is only for your own files. Abandoned videos will be abandoned, apparently.

    But, hey, good news, a better quality verison was on YouTube. This might even be the longest video I've ever seen on YouTube. (p.s. good documentary for history and/or economics geeks).

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  8. One answer by trawg · · Score: 2

    It's possible that Google have looked at the Google Video stats and seen that only a small proportion of videos are actually watched. For them to assume everything is still valid, worthwhile content people care about and move it over is probably a decent chunk of work, not to mention all the resources it would consume to do so.

    So, putting the onus on the people who actually care about the video to do something with it is a pretty big cost-saver for them. I agree it would still be nice of them to do it though, even as a temporary measure so it's not "lost" when they down the service.