you can bet the takedown rule is going to be challenged. YT can check for porn, but cant check for copyrights ? Plus, they dont just host for others, they host for their own financial benefit.
Then there will the argument that they induce people to break copyright laws by not doing the obvious. Now the DMCA doesnt say you have to do the obvious, but judges and courts usually do.
Then the question of why is it that other videohosting sites have no problem preventing copyrighted materials from being uploaded,and the question will be asked if that is what seperates Youtube from other sites and has been more than minimally responsible for their success.
Then there will be every rights owner with any derivative earnings possible that will sue to get their share. Just like they did napster.
Then of course we will have to see the "training" that will come from the MPAA and RIAA after the lawsuits expand from just warning the utes of America not only about the dangers of downloading, butnow uploading.
Think Major League Baseball is going to just sit by as highlights of every game are uploaded so people dont have to buy their various online video offerings ? They will ask them to take down everything on the site they can find. Then they will sue and ask a judge why YT cant post warnings for people not to upload baseball, as they do porn. Then a tv show like the Letterman show will do the same thing with monologues, guests whatever.
the list of people who will sue will be long.
And for the record, we sold broadast.com to Y! for 28mm shares, and the latest comscore shows Y! being the top streaming destination on the net.
First, you are right, they arent HD.
do you pay for the newshost or whoever hosts the rips ? How much ? SOmeone pays for the hosting and bandwidth required to deliver the movie to you... Or havent you figured out how you pay for it yet ?
How long do you tie up your PC and your net connection to download.. again,
you are paying, you just might not have figured out how much yet.
Not that all people are going to care about quality right now. They wont. But there is a reason why people dumped perfectly good LPs for CDs, VHS for always scratching DVDs, etc.
When cost is equal, people will always choose quality. Of course there will always be some people who would rather tie up their PCs downloading rather than spending 3 bucks at blockbuster or would rather watch a videocam version of a movie early rather than go to a theater.. Fortunately they are in the minority,and fortunately, most people dont upgrade their PCs every 6 months like many slashdotters who think that they are a reflection of the realworld.
EVery PC in america sold in the past 10 years can play an MP3 file. How many people have PCs that can even play back HD level files, even using Divx or other codecs ? Not enough to make a dent in the business. Yes, I know that number will grow over time, but the intersection between that number and people wanting to download movies will continue to be tiny
Finally, ANYONE who thinks bandwidth to the home will increase enough to make multiGB downloads as easy as downloading an MP3 file is an idiot and not paying attention to the realworld.
Right now there isnt enough bandwidth on most Cable systems to add HD networks at 19mbs let alone increase bandwidth to the home beyond 10mbs.
Its going to take a lot of time and money from the cable companies to node out to enable enough bandwidth to hit 50mbs and that aint going to happen anytime soon. Its not onlya technical issue, its a political issue. COntent companies may be stupid, but they aint stupid enough not to push hard against MSOs who try to jack up bandwidth so that more things can be downloaded. Particularly since MSOs want hit movies to help spur VOD, which as none of the geniuses on the board have pointed out is delivered in a unicast fashion , and eats up bandwidth like a pig, requiring a stream for each VOD file accessed by users.
file sizes have the opportunity to grow far faster than deployable bandwidth over the next 5 or more years.
And let me repeat one time for those who obviously arent up to speed on the HD world, what you see from an HD download, or even what you see broadcast in HD, isnot full HD quality. Its compressed using MPeg2. MPeg2 looks like shit compared to uncompressed HD. The smart people in the industry will use compression not to reduce the size of MPeg2 equivalency , but to fit lossless uncompressed (i realize its an oxymoron, but that is how its described) into the 19.x mbs available.
And if anyone here wants to tie up their systems for days to encode those files for P2P, Bittorrent or whatever, they are welcome to try
Yeah you are right slashnutt.. After encoding thousands of hours personally at broadcast.com with every codec known at the time, I am just know discovering compression.
please. HOw much HD have you worked with ? Have you ever seen uncompressed HD and compared it to MPeg2, WMV or any of the compression that might be used ?
Beyond that.. Find an HD file ts file, and then use your PC to encode it to a 600MB file......Then find an uncompressed HD file, and see ifyou can even load it on your PC to encode it and redistribute it.
And there are lots of companies who want to store movies like you suggest.. Feel free to putyour money where your keyboard is.
Slashdot Mirror
exactly. which means they can do the same things for copyrighted material.
great post
you can bet the takedown rule is going to be challenged. YT can check for porn, but cant check for copyrights ? Plus, they dont just host for others, they host for their own financial benefit. Then there will the argument that they induce people to break copyright laws by not doing the obvious. Now the DMCA doesnt say you have to do the obvious, but judges and courts usually do. Then the question of why is it that other videohosting sites have no problem preventing copyrighted materials from being uploaded ,and the question will be asked if that is what seperates Youtube from other sites and has been more than minimally responsible for their success.
Then there will be every rights owner with any derivative earnings possible that will sue to get their share. Just like they did napster.
Then of course we will have to see the "training" that will come from the MPAA and RIAA after the lawsuits expand from just warning the utes of America not only about the dangers of downloading, butnow uploading.
Think Major League Baseball is going to just sit by as highlights of every game are uploaded so people dont have to buy their various online video offerings ? They will ask them to take down everything on the site they can find. Then they will sue and ask a judge why YT cant post warnings for people not to upload baseball, as they do porn. Then a tv show like the Letterman show will do the same thing with monologues, guests whatever.
the list of people who will sue will be long.
And for the record, we sold broadast.com to Y! for 28mm shares, and the latest comscore shows Y! being the top streaming destination on the net.
First, you are right, they arent HD. do you pay for the newshost or whoever hosts the rips ? How much ? SOmeone pays for the hosting and bandwidth required to deliver the movie to you... Or havent you figured out how you pay for it yet ? How long do you tie up your PC and your net connection to download.. again, you are paying, you just might not have figured out how much yet. Not that all people are going to care about quality right now. They wont. But there is a reason why people dumped perfectly good LPs for CDs, VHS for always scratching DVDs, etc. When cost is equal, people will always choose quality. Of course there will always be some people who would rather tie up their PCs downloading rather than spending 3 bucks at blockbuster or would rather watch a videocam version of a movie early rather than go to a theater.. Fortunately they are in the minority,and fortunately, most people dont upgrade their PCs every 6 months like many slashdotters who think that they are a reflection of the realworld. EVery PC in america sold in the past 10 years can play an MP3 file. How many people have PCs that can even play back HD level files, even using Divx or other codecs ? Not enough to make a dent in the business. Yes, I know that number will grow over time, but the intersection between that number and people wanting to download movies will continue to be tiny Finally, ANYONE who thinks bandwidth to the home will increase enough to make multiGB downloads as easy as downloading an MP3 file is an idiot and not paying attention to the realworld. Right now there isnt enough bandwidth on most Cable systems to add HD networks at 19mbs let alone increase bandwidth to the home beyond 10mbs. Its going to take a lot of time and money from the cable companies to node out to enable enough bandwidth to hit 50mbs and that aint going to happen anytime soon. Its not onlya technical issue, its a political issue. COntent companies may be stupid, but they aint stupid enough not to push hard against MSOs who try to jack up bandwidth so that more things can be downloaded. Particularly since MSOs want hit movies to help spur VOD, which as none of the geniuses on the board have pointed out is delivered in a unicast fashion , and eats up bandwidth like a pig, requiring a stream for each VOD file accessed by users. file sizes have the opportunity to grow far faster than deployable bandwidth over the next 5 or more years. And let me repeat one time for those who obviously arent up to speed on the HD world, what you see from an HD download, or even what you see broadcast in HD, isnot full HD quality. Its compressed using MPeg2. MPeg2 looks like shit compared to uncompressed HD. The smart people in the industry will use compression not to reduce the size of MPeg2 equivalency , but to fit lossless uncompressed (i realize its an oxymoron, but that is how its described) into the 19.x mbs available. And if anyone here wants to tie up their systems for days to encode those files for P2P, Bittorrent or whatever, they are welcome to try
Yeah you are right slashnutt.. After encoding thousands of hours personally at broadcast.com with every codec known at the time, I am just know discovering compression. please. HOw much HD have you worked with ? Have you ever seen uncompressed HD and compared it to MPeg2, WMV or any of the compression that might be used ? Beyond that.. Find an HD file ts file, and then use your PC to encode it to a 600MB file......Then find an uncompressed HD file, and see ifyou can even load it on your PC to encode it and redistribute it. And there are lots of companies who want to store movies like you suggest.. Feel free to putyour money where your keyboard is.