The deal is done.
This is very good news indeed.
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GOOGLE_YOUTUBE_SUMMARY_BOX?SITE=NDBIS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-10-09-17-46-48

Will it be merged with Google Video?

You won’t see that much of a difference in YouTube but it is a very big advertising opportunity to Google. With so many people trying to sue YouTube for copyright violation they had no choice but be bought by Google since Google can deal with legal issues better than they can and Google has better technology that can deal with copyrighted material.

There is going to be a lot of competition in online video distribution and Google knows that they need as many allies as possible knowing that they are going to have a very severe battle against the likes of AOL, Verizon, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix etc.

As we know it the internet is changing and Google becoming this powerful is a very good thing because a lot of people want to privatize the internet. With Google’s video service, independent Producers and Journalists have a way to make money by selling their programs online with the potential to reach the same amount of people as the big film companies although Amazon and FilmBaby is just as friendly toward independent producers which is why I think a partnership with Amazon or Film Baby would be just as good as a partnership with Youtube.

I think I'm going to start calling it GooTube. (that's gonna catch on!)

I think I'm going to start calling it GooTube. (that's gonna catch on!)

Har, har... pretty clever name! Has potential.

-gb-

At first I thought it was a reference to pornographic content. . .

With so many people trying to sue YouTube for copyright violation they had no choice but be bought by Google since Google can deal with legal issues better than they can and Google has better technology that can deal with copyrighted material.

Google's "technology" isn't any better equipped to deal with copyright violations. The only way to deal with that is to screen every single video and make users validate their accounts with legitimate email addresses and other forms of ID while making them assume full responsibilities. And even that won't stop it.

I'm surprised that Google (or any other company) would want to pick up YouTube due to all the legal issues. The only thing I can figure is that as already mentioned, it's a huge potential advertising venue with all that traffic. Perhaps they feel there's a lot of ad revenue to be made there if they can stave off the litigation.

Har, har... pretty clever name! Has potential.

-gb-



Or 'Yoogle'

Google's "technology" isn't any better equipped to deal with copyright violations. The only way to deal with that is to screen every single video and make users validate their accounts with legitimate email addresses and other forms of ID while making them assume full responsibilities. And even that won't stop it.
I'm not so sure that's accurate. It's been stated in many articles that Google's search capability will help with the battle on copyright restrictions. It may not eliminate the need to screen videos, but I think it will definately be used to narrow down substance that needs to be screened by a human.

I posted a link to an article in area 51 before the deal was done:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=76998

Being part of a deep-pocketed larger company could be attractive for a startup company whose longer-term survival could be jeopardized by a major lawsuit over intellectual property. By pairing with Google, YouTube may have found the financial power, as well as the technical know-how, it needs to address those concerns, Forrester's Bernoff said.

and

By snaring YouTube, Google would be in a better position to partner with the likes of Apple Computer and its iTunes music store, according to Stephen DiMarco, vice president of marketing and client services for Compete Inc., a Boston-based consulting firm.

I'm not so sure that's accurate. It's been stated in many articles that Google's search capability will help with the battle on copyright restrictions. It may not eliminate the need to screen videos, but I think it will definately be used to narrow down substance that needs to be screened by a human.

I think it will help with some things, but most videos submitted to YouTube are untraceable. They are nothing more than a video clip with some arbitrary name. Google's search and metadata capabilities can probably help flag potential videos by referencing key words in descriptions and whatnot, but there is no way that they can tell a clip recorded from a primetime TV show apart from a clip shot on someones home video camera. I think a lot of these companies are hoping that upcoming DRM features in Windows Vista and OSX Leopard will help control a lot of this, but just like any other copy protection, there's always a way around it. So far all the articles I've seen talking about how Google's technology is going to really curb the copyright violations and related issues are just a bunch of hot air. We can stick them up on the wall along with all the past claims of digital DNA, voice signatures and all the other stuff that was supposed to protect various types of copyrighted media, and while it showed promise in preliminary testing, it was of absolutely no real world use in practice.

So, if you can tell me how Google is better equipped to sort through 200,000 or more submissions per day consisting of descriptions like "chk dis out d00dz!!!" and a filename of b1z0tchpwnsyerm0m.wmv and internal file info headers all left blank or filled in with complete garbage and still be able to tell me if the clip is in violation of someone's copyright, then please do.

Attrition.

It's all about catching a few.

Millions of people speed every day and don't get caught. Millions more WOULD but don't because they've BEEN caught, or know someone who's been caught, or know they can't afford to get caught.

Here's an interesting development:

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17604&ch=infotech

They are using facial recognition to track characters and create an index of sorts. They used Buffy as an example, and they also used closed-captioning information and original scripts, so that made it easier. But the idea of keying on faces for indexing raises a lot of possibilities in filtering copyrighted material.

Here are some Google bits of information.


'Gootube' deal ups the ante for Google's rivals
http://www.theage.com.au/news/biztech/gootube-deal-ups-the-ante-for-googles-rivals/2006/10/23/1161455663117.html


The search for influence: Google becomes a political player
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,,1930030,00.html
I know that this sounds political but it does tie into their video distribution goals.

Amateur 'video bloggers' under threat from EU broadcast rules
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2407359,00.html
This may end up being a bigger problem to Google than copyright violations

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/009200610250311.htm

'Gootube' deal ups the ante for Google's rivals
http://www.theage.com.au/news/biztech/gootube-deal-ups-the-ante-for-googles-rivals/2006/10/23/1161455663117.html
Somebody owes me money!

Wow...i hope this encourages Google Video to upgrade on thier video quality...

I shot some VERY good looking video on a Panasonic AG-DVX100A...30p...well lit...the works! I edited it any all that good stuff them decided to post it on Good Video to show a friend... THE VIDEO LOOKED HORIBLE!!!!! I was amazed...it went from looking like a true high-quality, well shot piece of work to something thrown together by my nephew...
Point being...Google would benefit it they could only get something to make thier websites video quality a little more acceptable (to the eyes...)

Garrison Hayes,
What did you convert your file to when you uploaded it to Google? Because to get the best quality you would have to upload the full AVI file. Google’s videos look better when they are downloaded to your computer rather than the standard stream. Bought videos looks better than the free ones. When the video is sent to Google it gets compressed to 480X360.

That is why I host my own videos.

Garrison Hayes,
What did you convert your file to when you uploaded it to Google? Because to get the best quality you would have to upload the full AVI file. Google’s videos look better when they are downloaded to your computer rather than the standard stream. Bought videos looks better than the free ones. When the video is sent to Google it gets compressed to 480X360.

Paulo,
The thing is, i know on another site i used for Video hosting the best format for your video was a ".mov" file...so i tried that in GV (Google Video), and as i stated earlier the video looked horrible...
You are actually the first person to tell my that ".avi" was the better format...DONT GET ME WRONG! i'm not saying you're wrong...just never heard that before...i'll look into it though. Thanks...

P.S. I was watching some "Dave Chappelle" skits and the quallity was pretty amazing...i'm taking it that Comedy Central sent thier videos straight to google so that they could upload them themselves...(this is what i'm assuming.)

The AVI file is straight from your camcorder without any compression. This is definitely the best way to send it to Google but the file will be around 13 gigs per hour. You would definitely need to keep your computer on for around a day uploading your footage depending on how long it is. Google does not except mailings. Even the major studios have to upload everything.

http://video.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=26562&topic=8690


Quality Recommendations:

If possible, we suggest uploading the original source file. However, we recommend the specifications below for maximum quality and reasonable file size:

- MPEG4 (mp3 or mp4 audio) at 2 mbps
- MPEG2 (mp3 or mp4 audio) at 5 mbps
- 30 frames per second
- 640x480 resolution
- 4:3 frame
- de-interlace


Here is a video put together by a couple of my friends. The video was converted to h.264 before it was uploaded to Google.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8476646597687020027&q=art617&hl=en

The AVI file is straight from your camcorder without any compression. This is definitely the best way to send it to Google but the file will be around 13 gigs per hour. You would definitely need to keep your computer on for around a day uploading your footage depending on how long it is. Google does not except mailings. Even the major studios have to upload everything.

http://video.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=26562&topic=8690



Here is a video put together by a couple of my friends. The video was converted to h.264 before it was uploaded to Google.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8476646597687020027&q=art617&hl=en


Thats interesting...the only problem is a Edit in Avid Xpress Pro HD...meaning i dont have any AVI options...
I use sorensen squeeze for file conversion...no AVI option.
I'll defenitly play around with the mp4 option though.

MP4 is one of the file formats reccomended by YouTube for upload.

Garrison Hayes,
Have you had any luck.

http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/4595657.html
I wonder if the students aren’t allowed to download from YouTube as well.

http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/4595657.html
I wonder if the students aren’t allowed to download from YouTube as well.
For a moment I thought they had ethical concerns.

Garrison Hayes,
Have you had any luck.

It was a little better in the .MP4 and .MPG format, i'm still not a true believer in GV, but it was a step towards the better.

Thanks Paulo.

For a moment I thought they had ethical concerns.

Ya know...

Verizon, YouTube see a future for mobile video
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/verizon-youtube-see-future-mobile/story.aspx?guid=%7B0E3D29F0-180C-408D-A45D-A0CB08199BD7%7D

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/12/07/sky_signs_google/
http://techdigest.tv/2006/12/sky_broadband_t_1.html
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/story_business_island.asp?j=82146975&p=8zy47z6x