Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Co-founder Calls For Global Access To TV Online
An anonymous reader writes "YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley says internet users should be able to legitimately watch content from anywhere in the world at any time. He says the days of national TV networks controlling the global online rights to shows has to end. 'I think the business models are breaking down and the companies that are going to win in this new world are the ones that make it as easy as possible for the consumers to consume the content wherever and whenever they want.' Hurley also says YouTube will be bidding for more online live sports."
That is the only reason I pick up cable part of the year anymore.....American College Football.
Finally, I will be able to drop cable entirely.
This is just another chapter in the old 'information wants to be free' refrain. And while I'm down with that, I don't think there is much more to be done, as I've lived on three continents, and found it trivial to find broadcast content from other regions around the world if I just made the effort. Now if they are talking about bundling it all up and creating a delivery service, let me remind how expensive and controlled cable can be in the US, so if I had my druthers, I'd be more inclined to again bring things together on my own, say in the spirit of the guy in Cuba that used a pringles can to pick up CNN from the States, back in the day :)
And really....there is a long list of countries that have strong feelings about what content is available to their citizens, from Singapore (small) to China (big). A full-on WeAreTheWorld channel isn't going to cut it, I think.
If Google can pull this off (and no doubt they will), everyone will be like "TAKE MY MONEY PLEASE"
That alone would be enough to convince me to switch to Google-everything. ATM, streaming sports semi-legally from other countries is a complete joke,
Google certainly have the size, finance and power to do it; now it's a question of will.
Copyright must be thrown into the dumpster. There is no other way around it. The right to distribute and share belongs to everybody.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Everyone in the world should be able to access "The Kardashians" for free, from any device, whenever they want.
*sniff* that's what the patriots fought for 230 years ago.
For the same reason you are paying taxes in general I guess, a form of altruism that keeps things civilized.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Steve Jobs 'single-handedly' created the digital music market
He says the days of national TV networks controlling the global online rights to shows has to end.
And YouTube aka Google would like to replace this model with their own multinational/global monopol/business model because their "new world" would benefit them the most as the current status quo is unsatisfactory for there shareholders. In fact Google, like most multinational business, would like to remove all regional regulations and redtape as it hurts there bottom line. Ultimately it would be better for Google if we would all just watch the same program on the same channel in the same language at the same time, as profits could be maximised.
*Yawn* The doublespeak of corporations is not as subtle as it once was.
This is purely about business, not about some noble stand to make the internet more free. Google benefits from having more video content available to everyone, and if they were able to license/play basically every sort of video content available on the internet then they could dominate video/monetize YouTube more effectively.
[We're sorry, but the comment you selected isn't available from your location. Please select another comment.]
Samsung TV has Android in it http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/01/technology/security/tv-hack/index.html?iid=HP_River
Combine the natural outcome of these stories... Look at the Xbox One debacle. It ain't pretty...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
In the hope that the US people might accidentally watch it instead of Fox News.
So why should UK citizens pay £145/year just so other people around the world can watch the BBC for free?
All BBC has to do is stick some ads in its stream to help pay for the rest of us. Brits could watch the streams ad-free. I know ads will drive some Slashdotters absolutely apoplecticly apeshit bananas, but I'd watch some ads if it meant I could watch BBC content.
Free information is the death of all culture. It leads to the homogenization of society. It is why people are complaining about the stagnation of the arts since about 1995, when the internet started to become widespread. You ever notice how people's sense of style now is the same as back in 1993? Compare this to the massive stylistic shifts between 1953 to 1963 to 1973 to 1983 to 1993. Each decade was vastly different from the decade before.
This cultural & artistic stagnation is because information is free. It is because everyone in the world has access to the same information, which is not good.
Acquiring information should have a cost associated with it. Before the internet, you actually had to find a record shop to find obscure bands, costing time and effort. Now, there is no cost associated with this horrible consumer lifestyle associated with free information, and everyone has access to the same information, giving privilege to none.
People should NOT have the same information as everyone else. People should be divided and separated, as this inequality is what causes art to happen.
Life should be unfair. It is better that way.
...what he is really calling for is for government to pass laws that enable him to achieve his goal. So... coerce others to work with him.
While it is a laudable goal, it will only come to fruition when he or someone else makes a convincing financial argument for it to the producers of the content.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The BBC already has a commercial outfit that allows other countries to buy BBC content. In that respect the rest of the world is helping finance the UK viewers and getting some decent programmes into the bargain.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
He says the days of national TV networks controlling the global online rights to shows has to end.
Historically. this gives the big budget Hollywood production dominance in all markets. It is why New Zealand becomes a standing stage set and nothing more. It is why governments impose domestic content requirements on theaters, broadcasters, and so on.
---- and why Disney is intent on calming the waters by green-lighting a multi-cultural Pacific Rim anime Big Hero 6
I'd consider paying for it but, sadly, it's not an option for those outside the U.K.
if you want people to think you know what you are talking about, just put ".com" at the end of everything you say.com
You classmate's half-sister is blowing sailors in the alley and you probably are too.
Right now you have a balance/constant struggle between companies that produce content and those that deliver it.
If the producer controls the delivery, they can shove as much crap along with it as you can stand. Ridiculous restrictions, long commercial breaks, or play this stupid game or answer this stupid quiz. It is one thing to be able to just checkout mentally while a commercial airs if you wish to, another thing to be forced to interact to continue viewing.
You realise the Internet is not a broadcast medium, right?
Whose fault is it that IP multicast over the public Internet remains unimplemented?
Copyright is already coercion of the public. If YouTube is asking for coercion, it's asking governments to replace coercion that serves incumbent middlemen with coercion that serves the public.
users should be able to legitimately watch content from anywhere in the world at any time
Does "anywhere" include on a city bus? What I'd like to be officially able to do is queue up some 1- to 10-minute videos to watch, download them (possibly using encryption) while connected to the Internet, disconnect, and watch them. Even if offline viewing were restricted to 360p, that'd still be better than having to pay hundreds of USD per year for cellular Internet for my Nexus 7 tablet.
I agree about normal entertainment, but not the "you can't watch this Olympics stream in your country" stuff.
One of the reasons I stopped with Hulu was because they went from one 15s commercial every 10 minutes to 6 30 second commercial blocks all the time, just as if it were broadcast TV.
Well, I can go watch it on my tivo thanks, and skip all that crap.
If YouTube goes past one skippable 30s commercial, or one 15s non-skippable, I'm outta there, too.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
And both of them are horseshit.
1) The entrenched interests have invested too much in existing legacy infrastructure to let this happen. Sure, they've already seen the returns hundreds or thousands of times over, but if they can wring it out longer, they will. It will take the majority of consumers demanding IP-based TV for this to change.
2) Internet connectivity is mostly shit in North America. Either it's high bandwidth with a deprecating cap, or shitty bandwidth with no cap. Until telcos are reined in by regulation, forcing them to build out the fiber infrastructure for which billions in tax dollars were earmarked and quit this rent-seeking business model, we aren't going to have the sort of connectivity we need for universal IPTV. And let's not forget how a number of ISPs muddy the waters by running their own streaming services; again, due to piss-poor regulation.
is queue up some 1- to 10-minute videos to watch
Or you could use the time constructively. Maybe consider some of your higher goals, what you *really* want to do, take the time to observe the world around you, maybe even dream a little. It's not necessary to fill every waking moment with entertainment.
Or you could even read a book
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Was it moderated down because it expressed an opinion contrary to that of major publishers of non-free works? Or was it moderated down because it made a claim that a field of law ought to be discarded and failed to back up this claim with evidence? I'm inclined to assume the latter.
There is the issue of copyright and broadcast rights. This is another major stumbling block. All the Actors will need to sign away their rights globally and not just for a few countries. That will take years and years as the Actors Guilds will state that their members survive of repeat fees and license deals for other countries.
Then the broadcasters will need licenses to broadcast or let their stuff be seen online in different countries. This will cost mega bucks as countries seek to protect their national TV service.
While this is a wonderful idea and immensly appealing to the few remaining broadcasters of quality left but it ain't gonna fly.
Or you could use the time constructively.
That's what I currently do. But my Dell Inspiron mini 1012 laptop will eventually break. With affordable 10" laptops having reached end of manufacturing at the end of last year, doing constructive work on a device that fits on a crowded bus has become far more expensive.
What Chad means is that he envisions a world where people only watch shitty Youtube videos all day, and Google gets a cut from showing an obligatory advert at the start.
Quality programming is difficult to make, and distributing it efficiently (as opposed to the "fuck you and build a bigger pipe!" unicast method of distribution Youtube uses) is also a challenge. Showing crap worldwide when all you have to do is to build a streaming server, adorn it with sponsorship, and take advantage of having been early to the party... well, that's a job for the geniuses at Google to have their brainpower wasted on.
Why should people in the USA pay for VOA? Really not much comparison of course since UK residents are probably actually watching the BBC, whereas I think I've hit the VOA web site a handful of times in as many years and never watched or listened to a VOA broadcast.
Quality aside, why should residents of any country pay for something that benefits another country? US residents pay for foreign aid of dubious merit. At least overseas residents can ignore the BBC if they don't like it. African farmers, OTOH... kinda hard to ignore grain being dumped on your struggling agriculture industry, or arms being supplied to your enemies...
Cable/Satellite television is SO expensive alone, but if you want certain channels, you CANNOT pick and choose, Boomerang, for classic cartoons, is a premium package, the Horror Film channel is a mid-high range package, HBO is the highest tier, but to get an extra channel or two for those is even more! Here's how it goes, with my DirecTV subscription 80$-High tier package for Sci-Fi and Boomerang and such 40$-HBO,Showtime, etc... 20$-Extra HBO and Showtime channels That adds up to...140 dollars a month! This is why I just wanna switch my family to streaming from a media center.
People once told me 68K ram was all we needed,
Have gnu, will travel.
All I want is to watch Steelers games, but the only legal recourse is to buy DirecTV THEN buy Sunday Ticket which will run you $1200/year. All that for teh 10 or so games that won't be nationally televised.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
I don't live in the UK but I would happily pay BBC 145 quid a year so I can watch their full advert-free coverage of F1 races, soccer and rugby matches. It doesn't even have to be live, I'm happy to watch them time-delayed. Ironically, I know of people who pay for a VPN service to watch BBC sports coverage online, that's money that goes to the VPN service when BBC could've easily pocketed the money if they offered a paid subscription from anywhere in the world.
What's stopping BBC from doing this? They got re-broadcast contracts with local stations, most likely with an exclusivity clause for that region. But these type of contracts are out-dated now with broadband internet becoming so ubiquitous, and in the end we the consumers lose out, because the local stations never carry everything from BBC, or for something like F1 don't show the pre- or post-race programmes.
this will not fly. especially with news. pr00f of the pudding is the propaganda. /tunnel /VPN your (already) paid-tv signal thru a looong tube to :(
if however you are inclined to DIY (and miss your daily brainwashing) there are until now boxes that will translate
cable-satellite:QAM to ethernet: tcp/ip so as to extend
your hard earned remote island.
secret negotiations are prolly ungoing to limit the new de/encrypted-QAM chips to output only to HDMI
blue yellow green
Hurley is free today, without hindrance, to create content that is wildly popular and distribute it worldwide without regards to the typical regional licensing model employed by Hollywood. Go for it, Chad. Be the change you want to see in others.
Ah to get a handjob from a librarian in an island paradise country. Thank you Anonymous Coward and thank you brain for your Freudian misreadings.
The argument is that it would serve the public to replace the middleman that that geodiscriminates with the middleman that does not.
http://mikew.github.io/ss-plex.bundle/ So far it only exists as a plugin for Plex with versions for XBMC and raspberry pi in development
Or you could buy tickets to a Blue Jackets game and travel to the stadium to watch it in person.
The ignorant slashdot troll telling someone else how to use their time constructively, cute.
Perhaps that commute is the one time of day he fills with entertainment, and the rest of the time he is doing great things?
What if the commute is his only time to unwind and he's trying to fill it in with 10 minutes of something he couldn't otherwise fit into his schedule?
Your comment is insanely short sighted. You're in such a hurry to knock him, you completely ignore the possibility that he may do exactly what you speak of the rest of his time.
Hell, these videos could be segments Cosmos episodes, what then? Is that not enlightening yourself?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I vote for long thread.
Let's take this idea one step further. We're living in a global village, but the banking system, the mobile phone system, the transportation systems, the electronic interfaces are country specific.
Doesn't FTA satellite already accomplish this? Over the net would be cool, but it's a bit wasteful if you can just buy a $50 set top and not use bandwidth.
Just because it's on YouTube doesn't make it free. Google would do well to agree with TV channels whether they want their product with ads or with pay per view, both on a revenue share model.
A guy whose business model is based on streaming unlimited access to free content declares that his competitors are dead. Shocking.
Ok then, would you be so kind sir as to altruistically pay a small stipend on the proceeds generated from the luxury item tea, so that our good king to be can have a new jacuzzi and polo field?
Well, you can always go ahead and toss your TV into the Mersey.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It takes a lot of balls to make a statement like that when there isn't even a YouTube app for the frickin' ROKU, for God's sake. What YouTube really wants is to slap ads over the top of video made by every network on Earth.
Good luck on finding some of those sports covered fully live on the BBC. Only half the F1 races in a season are shown live on the BBC any more (the half they don't show, they have highlights of qualifying and the race hours later). "Soccer" matches (aka Premier League) aren't shown live at all on the BBC - they have highlights shown in the evening (MOTD/MOTD 2 shows). There's only limited rugby on the BBC as well.
The BBC are weak on most sports, though they do cover world championships for swimming, athletics (Diamond League too) and skiing (though Ski Sunday is an appalling effort now - more apres-ski than actual racing). Sadly, in the UK, it's Sky who dominate most sports coverage (and charge a *lot* for it), though BT have muscled in with football and rugby recently.
yes it will be interesting to see if BT can make a dent in Murdoch/SKY domination of Football.
Why shouldn't people elsewhere in the world be able to pay the same £145/year to watch the BBC? I'm sure many people would pay, and it would bring more money into the country.
Copyright enables the creators of content to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
Then why does copyright continue for 70 years after "the creators of content" have ceased to exist?
If you built a house, do you think someone whould be able to move in 20 years later just because it was twenty years ago you built it?
Someone who moves in 20 years later wouldn't have to pay the original builders again and certainly wouldn't have to pay a recurring royalty to the original builders.
If they are being assholes with their copyright, don't watch/listen/read
That's difficult if all grocery stores in the area have licensed the a-holes' music to play over the speaker system.
What's the difference between ESPN getting $100 a year from a YouTube subscriber and ESPN getting $100 a year from a Dish or Comcast subscriber?
Whether something requires payment and whether it requires a continuous connection to the Internet are orthogonal. I want to be able to pay for a rental, download the encrypted video, and watch it offline sometime in the next 24 hours. How do these video publishers expect people to use their product on airplanes?
You still need to be online for the first second
I see how that would help people who already subscribe to cellular Internet for some other reason, but it doesn't appear to help the use case I described. In the United States, where YouTube and Slashdot are headquartered, some pay-as-you-go cellular Internet providers work on a "pay only on the days you use it" basis: $2 for the first second and $0 for the rest of the day.
Most buses in the UK seem to have free wifi anyway now.
It would cost even more to move to the UK than to get Internet on the bus in the US.
And politicians get a chunk of it... So, nobody with the right controls in a country would like to allow people (consumers) watch how cheap things are in another place.
The business models of German TV stations mostly are based on there being no competition, that's why they kicked out Austrian TV from Germany.
Who would watch a bad dub of the Simpsons when you could just watch the original... a year earlier... and with the jokes intact?
Wrong. There is an option. BBC iPlayer Global (http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/outside_the_uk/iplayer_outsideuk_app) app for iOS is available for those outside the UK. Sure, the choice of programming is not as extensive, but its cheap(ish) and at the moment there is a summer offer so a one year sub costs EUR 49. Personally speaking I'd wish more broadcasters would open up... just because I don't live in your country I would actually like to watch your programming, and, heck, I'd even pay for it (if it wasn't too extortionate).
It has nothing to do with being a UK citizen but with being UK resident.