Since the advent of web2.0 and the nefarious abundance of fallacy in news stories propagated by the mainstream media, an increasing number of individuals have begun turning to the Internet and subsequently Youtube to find and view political coverage. Youtube has become a haven for political junkies consequently plumping the site with snarky commentary arguing every point of view from here to Guantanamo bay. Recognizing this high degree of politically charged activity Google has decided to debut one of its innovative new technologies on what could be called the 'Youtube Politics Homepage'.
Will this new tech bring about a shift in the way politicians attempt to garner votes? Have Politicians attempted to manipulate the technology in their favor?
Google is currently exploring all possible methods of milking the Youtube cow despite having deemed revenues from the website to be immaterial during it Q1 filing.
It has now dawned upon Google that professionally made content is more lucrative to advertisers than amateur videos, and can help it recover the $1.65 billion Youtube acquisition costs. The search engine major’s enlightenment will greatly benefit Hollywood companies, who have been clamoring about the ease with which their interests are compromised on piracy hotbeds like Youtube.
Google knows that to monetize copyrighted movie and TV videos with advertisements it will have to legitimize their use first, which it plans to do with revenue sharing deals with major Hollywood studios. It recently struck a revenue sharing deal with Lionsgate and is in talks with other media companies, although very little is known at this stage.
Does it mean that Google will completely prevent users from uploading copyrighted content - something it has failed to do hitherto? Most probably that won’t be the case as it is currently working on a new technology that will help identify copyrighted content and allow its rightful owners to display ads next to it without the video being taken down.
Tivo’s long awaited YouTube player goes live today, it was first announced back in March. This lets Tivo users stream YouTube videos right to their boxes. It is part of the Tivo 9.4 update that is going out to all Tivo’s this month, but you have to have Series 3 or better to get the feature. Series 2 owners are left out in the cold.
Right now you can't log into your YouTube account but there is a minor update coming in 2 months will incorporate that feature. Tivo says in a press release, “Soon, users will also be able to log into their YouTube accounts directly through the TV to access their videos, channels and playlists, making the experience even richer.”
Now, if Tivo would just make it so I could Stream my TV to my laptop over the internet, like on Slingbox, I’d be in heaven!
High definition used to be synonymous with high price, but today everything from HDTVs to now HD camcorders can be had without downgrading that upcoming anniversary gift from a diamond bracelet to a cubic zirconia. But a high definition camcorder for under 200 bones? You betcha.
DXG's new pocket-sized camcorder looks to capture not only the budget market, but tries to appeal to the social computing crowd at the same time. For MSRP $179, the DXG-567V HD packs a 5.0 megapixel CMOS sensor the company claims is capable of H.264 video compression at up to a 1280x720 resolution at 30 frames-per-second. And while it may look like an MP3 player at a glance, DXG says the simplified controls are intended to make it easy to use for "even Grandma Selma." She can even get one in pink if she desires. Or blue, black, or red.
Out of the box, DXG includes ArcSoft's TotalMedia Extreme video editing software, and the company's own Rapid Blog Manager software, so Selma's grandkids have a quick and easy way to upload videos to YouTube's repository of gems like 'Leave Brittany Alone' (NSFW) and, well, this (hey, hey).
It seems that either Viacom came to their senses about making Google turn over user data on YouTube, or they didn’t like the bad press that their suit was generating. They have reached a deal to protect the privacy YouTube watchers everywhere and will allow Google to anonymize YouTube user data.
Previously Viacom succeeded in getting Judge Louis Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to order Google to turn over as evidence a database what videos users watch, the users' computer addresses, and their usernames. Many groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that the order "threatens to expose deeply private information" and violated the Video Privacy Protection Act. Whether the Act, created when VCRs were high tech, could be applied to YouTube was debatable. Viacom and Google’s deal avoids the legal snarl all together.
If you are into deciphering legalese (and we can assume you are into self flagellation too) you can read the details here.
As Google looks to sell more ads for its YouTube subsidiary in an attempt to make the video site more profitable, San Francisco video ad network VideoEgg thinks it has a better way. VideoEgg announced the launch of five new kinds of video ads designed to "give advertisers more effective engagement with users inside social environments." The new features include:
LIVE: Use real-time RSS feeds to continually update the ad experience
LOCAL: Deliver ZIP code-specific messaging
RICH: Easily deploy and track a rich multi-video ad experience to increase user interactivity
SHOP: Bring the browser to the user, merchandising multiple items in a single real-time ad experiences
SHARE: Viral capabilities help spread the message through virtually any communication or social channel
VideoEgg's pricing model is based on a cost per engagement (CPE) instead of tallying up page views or click counts. And while VideoEgg hasn't made mention of Google or YouTube, the new features might make for a better alternative than the pre- and post-roll ads Google is reportedly trying to sell.
At just four months old, VideoEgg's future has yet to be decided, but in that short, over 50 brands including Microsoft, Comcast, Disney, Nike, GM, Hershey, and others have advertised across the VideoEgg network. Could Google/YouTube be next?
Once upon a time, YouTube could be relied on to find that funny snippet from last night's sitcom episode to share with family and friends that may have missed it. Now it's a crap shoot whether the video you're looking for will exist, or if it's been deleted over copyright concerns like so many others. And if you do find the clip you're looking for, are you giving up any privacy rights to watch it? Throw in the crummy video quality (Tip: Add &fmt=18 to the end of YouTube URLs), and one has to wonder if there's any suckage left to bestow upon YouTube.
Apparently there is; The Wall Street Journal reports Google is looking to sell pre-roll and post-roll ads because, well, the expected $200 million in anticipated ad revenue this year evidently isn't enough. Or course, Google must first find willing advertisers, a task that could prove more difficult than it seems. According to the story, Google is only selling ads against video clips that been approved by media companies and other partners, which equates to just 4 percent of the total clips on YouTube. That means the overwhelming majority of videos don't seem to be worth anything to the company. At this pace, could it be long before they're also not worth anything to viewers?
He blamed digital distribution and rampant file-sharing for broadcast TV’s woes. He has a point as digital distribution hasn’t even fully taken off and the Youtubes and iTunes might just be the precursor of bigger things to come, and digitally distributed content will hold sway be it game consoles or TVs.
However, broadcast TV is not going anywhere in large parts of the world that still don’t have a high broadband penetration rate. We have all been told how a certain technology or gadget is headed for its grave only for it to survive; even the radio has managed to survived till now. Tell the whole world what you think about broadcast TV’s fate in the comments section.
Following up from a previous post, Google is asking Viacom to respect users’ privacy and let them to anonymize the logs before handling them over to Viacom under the court order. “We are disappointed the court granted Viacom’s overreaching demand for viewing history,” Google said.
Efluxmedia.com says that Viacom had said in a New York Times interview, “The information that is produced by Google is going to be limited to outside advisors who can use it solely for the purpose of enforcing our rights against YouTube.”
So the data is going to go to third parties. Somehow, that doesn’t make me feel any better about user privacy. We can hope that there will be a legal challenge mounted in the next few days against releasing user data unfiltered to Viacom.
Have you been uploading copyright protected content on YouTube? Have you even been looking at it? Viacom wants to know, and a Judge has ruled in the recent Viacom v. Google case that Google has to turn over “all data from the Logging database concerning each time a YouTube video has been viewed on the YouTube website or through embedding on a third-party website”.
Kurt Opsahl with the Electronic Frontier Foundation disagrees with the courts ruling arguing that the court, “erroneously ignores the protections of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), and threatens to expose deeply private information about what videos are watched by YouTube users”. The VPPA was passed in 1988 as a result of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental history being published during his Supreme Court nomination.
I agree with Opsahl, someone’s YouTube history should be just as private as their video rental history. Privacy is harder and harder to maintain in a world where technology is outstripping existing laws, which often must be judged by people with little experience in technology. We certainly don’t need which version of Star Wars Kid we were watching to be available for anyone to look at, or for companies to go trolling for lawsuits in data. Where do you come down on the issue?