Filed under: Announcements & Events, Digital Media, Mobile Phones, P2P technology, Movies, MP3, Digital Audio & Games
The South by Southwest festival that took place last weekend was a great opportunity for Chad Hurley (YouTube co-founder) to talk about his plans for the future, and they include the launching of a video network similar to Facebook.
A post by Adweek informs that Chard Hurley and Digg’s founder Kevin Rose had an on-stage chat about launching a video network that will focus on creating a place for people “to work together and create content”. The service, Hurley added, will be launched in approximately one month.
The whole operation will be accommodated by a former aircraft hangar which has been transformed into a 41,000-square foot studio. Here, people can put their minds to work, collaborate and make use of high-end equipment. Furthermore, YouTube is considering modifying the comment section in order to enable a rather professional take on how people rate and feedback the uploaded content.
The idea of making a good profit out of video content is not new to the business mind; for example, Autodesk bought (for $60 million) the mobile video service called Socialcam.
So, besides their plan to launch a legitimate music streaming service, YouTube is taking a swing at other areas of interest. This year is going to be full of events!
Filed under: Announcements & Events, Digital Media, Mobile Phones, P2P technology, Entertainment Industry
The rumor has it that YouTube is taking a leap of faith by shaking hands with several major music studios in order to launch a music streaming service.
According to a report by Fortune, Google’s YouTube is planning on launching a music streaming service this year. However, YouTube’s mission is not going to be an easy one, especially with services like Spotify, SoundCloud and Vevo being its strongest competitors. Also to remember is the fact that Apple is supposedly working on launching a similar streaming service.
Nonetheless, artists and rightholders are nothing but happy with the news. This is also a sign that the music industry is taking baby steps into accepting a digital era that helps with distribution, but complaints about insufficient royalties are still expressed by the industry.
However, YouTube and Apple alone could be enough to boost the music industry’s financial power. On that note, Spotify is finding itself on a difficult position as the service could be facing higher bills once YouTube and Apple join the market.
How will this affect the market share altogether remains to be seen, but until then we can only hope that YouTube (and Apple) is up to the task.
Filed under: Announcements & Events, Digital Media, Mobile Phones, P2P technology, Legal P2P News & Issues
After customers of several French internet providers complained about having problems watching online content on Google’s YouTube, France’s regulator decided to open an investigation in order to decide whether the ISPs are blocking the video service on purpose or not.
At the time being, ARCEP is scrutinizing both the ISPs’ financial and technical conditions and the online content services in order to determine if there’s a problem in their infrastructure.
Moreover, the French regulator had also targeted three other companies (their names remain undisclosed), as it’s believed that internet providers are either not putting money into their infrastructure or simply violate network neutrality.
The investigation was opened on November the 22th, following the complaints of more than 16.000 customers (83% of them being subscribed to Free, 47% to Orange, and 46% to SFR) about low speeds when watching content on YouTube. Also, three French senators asked the country’s digital economy minister to look into the problem.
The connection issues, however, are not limited to Google’s YouTube.
“The quality of connection is inadequate in almost all operators,” said UFC Que Choisir’s survey.
The question that comes into UFC Que Choisir’s mind is whether these problems are caused by a poor infrastructure or if it’s a method to make content services pay more. The latter is most likely since there’s a precedent.
By that we mean that Cogent, the company responsible with YouTube’s peering interconnections and one of the largest internet providers, complained (to the Autorité De La Concurrence) that Orange refused its connections, as the provider needs more money in order to provide with the necessary ports to direct Cogent’s traffic.
As a response, the competition regulator said that the ISP (in this case Orange) is entitled to charge more money. The government’s involvement in this matter came as a surprise, since most of the interconnections between major internet providers, CDNs and web content companies are negotiated by private deals.
On the other hand, internet providers argue that Google and similar companies are making money off the sweat of internet providers. Google, along with other companies, replied that facts are exactly the opposite – content providers are the main reason for customers to upgrade their broadband subscriptions, thus bringing revenues to internet providers.
ISPs’ argument sounds plausible to the Autorité De La Concurrence, as the regulator said that France Telecom is providing with lower interconnection prices than the market value.
The issue is a delicate one, as internet providers are concerned about their revenues, saying that delivering broadband speeds costs more money. They’re also worried about losing their pay TV subscribers, since there’s an increasing demand for online video content.
The outcome could have significant repercussions within and beyond France’s borders. On one hand, Google could be forced (through commercial agreements and a potential new legislation) to pay extra, in some parts of Europe, for their right to post news from other sources. On the other, the broadband outcome could set a precedent for other telecommunication regulators who are currently facing the same problem(s).
Last but not least, there’s also the issue of governmental involvement and regulations which could allow this institution to decide who can connect to whom and how much will it cost.
In that sense, the OECD warned about the repercussions of such an involvement, saying that it could upset the economic balance of companies which rely on the Internet.
“As incumbent networks adopt IP technology, there is a risk of conflict between legacy pricing and regulatory models and the more efficient internet model of traffic exchange. By drawing a “bright line” between the two models, regulatory authorities can ensure that the inefficiencies of traditional voice markets will not take hold on the internet… That these “rules of the game” are so ubiquitous and serviceable indicates a degree of public unanimity that an external regulator would be hard-pressed to create. The parties to these agreements include not only internet backbone, access, and content distribution networks, but also universities, NGOs, branches of government, individuals, businesses and enterprises of all sorts—a universality of the constituents of the internet that extends far beyond the reach of any regulatory body’s influence,” reads their report.
ARCEP’s decision will come early this year.
Filed under: Announcements & Events, Digital Media, Mobile Phones, P2P technology, File-Sharing Programs, Networks & Services
We pretty much understand why a company that did everything to stay within the legal boundaries of copyright laws got shut down (read Megaupload), and why authorities keep on turning a blind eye to Google’s YouTube. We understand, but we don’t agree.
In a nutshell, what Megaupload did was to provide with hosting services for its users. Besides the large amounts of legal content, Megaupload’s servers were also hosting copyrighted content, including videos and movies; however, Kim’s company was protected under the DMCA. Did this “minor” fact contributed to anything? Well, it did for a while. That until US authorities decided to put up their foot down and on Kim’s business.
Unlike Megaupload, It’s a wonderful life for YouTube, with no worries, not even that there’s A Christmas Without Snow. Fret not, because Kim is planning for A Fairly Odd Christmas. We’re talking, of course, about the incoming revamped Mega.
All in all, what’s really important is to not be Home Alone at the end of this year, but with those close to you, celebrating this wonderful thing we call life. Maybe even watch A Christmas Carol in front of your fireplace.
Happy new year, to all of you out there!
Filed under: Announcements & Events, Legal P2P News & Issues, Movies, MP3, Digital Audio & Games
The world’s most popular video website is using what they call Content ID – a program which helps the portal stay within the legal boundaries by automatically removing unlicensed content based on take-down requests.
YouTube is using Content ID since four years now, and the time for a change in its algorithm has come. The website decided to improve the appeals process to help uploaders fight gratuitous take-down requests.
Furthermore, according to YouTube’s statement, Content ID will now be able to detect false take-down notices, thus minimizing the risk of massive take-downs.
“Users have always had the ability to dispute Content ID claims on their videos if they believe those claims are invalid. Prior to today, if a content owner rejected that dispute, the user was left with no recourse for certain types of Content ID claims (e.g., monetize claims). Based upon feedback from our community, today we’re introducing an appeals process that gives eligible users a new choice when dealing with a rejected dispute. When the user files an appeal, a content owner has two options: release the claim or file a formal DMCA notification,” reads the portal’s blog post.
Ever since Content ID was put in place, more than 3,000 content owners made use of it, supplying YouTube with over 300,000 reference files. In other words, once the content owner uploads a song on YouTube, it can ask the portal to remove unauthorized copies of that song or monetize them by being part of YouTube’s advertising program.
Combine this with the DMCA and we have two effects: one is that of helping uploaders to protect their content, and the second is that of convincing content owners to embrace monetization rather than driving YouTube to be the bad guy.
You can read about all that’s changed here.