Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google Launches Pay-Per-View Web Video

Posted by Hemos on Mon Jun 27, 2005 07:00 AM
from the yes-it-is-true dept.
Businesses Google The Internet Television Media
Elliot Shepherd writes "According to John Batelle, on Monday Google is launching in-browser video playback based on VLC. Google has been accepting video uploads in April, including allowing the video owner to specify that payment is required, through the Google Payment Program." Update: 06/27 22:21 GMT by T : An anonymous reader writes "Google Video is now up. The about page describes what kinds of content has been uploaded to their servers so far -- mostly a random assortment of stuff from Gamespot's archives, a few things from Greenpeace, a Google recruiting video, some breakdancing videos, and other randomness. The in-browser video plugin works seamlessly (although Windows only for now). Looks like it has potential." Check the top entry on Google Blog for a few more words on it, too.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Google Launches Pay-Per-View Web Video 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Mirror (Score:5, Informative)

    by Broke Mirror (862603) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:01AM (#12919155)
    Mirror (Coral Cache): http://battellemedia.com.nyud.net:8090/archives/00 1658.php [nyud.net]

  • Scary... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2005, @07:04AM (#12919165)
    Google is providing their infrastructure free of charge to let anyone upload video and have it be found.

    So no matter what you search for, you're likely to come across a movie of someone etching "penis" in the snow

  • Codec compatibility (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dannyitc (892023) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:06AM (#12919169)
    With VLC's ability to play pretty much any codec under the sun (including microsoft and realmedia's proprietary formats), maybe we'll begin to see more out-of-box compatibility with competing video players. I bet a lot of end-users are tired of codec searching any time they want to watch a certain video.
    • maybe we'll begin to see more out-of-box compatibility with competing video players

      or maybe we will see video player vendors creating new codecs, modifying existing ones and threatening patent enforcement to try to stay ahead of the game...

      Show of hands?

    • Re:Codec compatibility (Score:5, Insightful)

      by interiot (50685) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:27AM (#12919267) Homepage
      Kind of reminds me of the time when your main source of porn was BBS's, and every once in a while, a really intriguing filename would be sufficient motivation to go off and find a viewer for that image format.

      And then along came webbrowsers, and suddenly every image produced was either JPEG or GIF. And it was good.

    • That's actually not true.

      VLC only includes open source code, including codecs. There are no open source RealMedia codecs or WMV 9 or 10 codecs, hence they are not supported in VLC.
        • " then why can i watch any wmv file i dl off the net?"

          Probably because they're not WMV9 or 10. Earlier WMV versions were reverse engineered and are included in VLC's codecs.

    • Re:Codec compatibility (Score:4, Informative)

      by Saeger (456549) <farrellj&gmail,com> on Monday June 27 2005, @08:13AM (#12919527) Homepage
      Actually, VLC doesn't play proprietary codecs unless you install them separately -- the same deal with linux's MPlayer.

      The legal way to get those codecs is to download and install each official player+codec combo, and then use your choice of player to use the codec; even then their EULA may say you can't use the codec separate from THEIR player.

      Howerver the best way to get the codecs -- but not technically legal way, because of software patent BS -- is to google for and download what's called a "codec pack". The best one for Windoze is called the "K-Lite Mega Codec Pack" [free-codecs.com], which comes with Media Player Classic, BSPlayer, as well as almost every video/audio codec under the sun. For Linux, the best (and only?) codec pack available is the MPlayer essential codec pack [mplayerhq.hu], which is actually just an archive of windows .dll codecs, which MPlayer, VLC, and other players will fall back on if there is no open source alternative codec to use.

      • Actually, I believe I misspoke. Realmedia isn't supported by VLC, but RealAlternative [free-codecs.com] is a good non-real player that's worked with every realmedia type I've used. It seems that the way it plays realmedia files (by using realmedia's own .dll files) is illegal, and with all the patent dodging VLC's had to do I believe they're trying at all cost trying not to step on any of the big players' toes. I don't have experience with wmv10 files specifically, but I do know that the windows version of VLC is the one w

  • Content control? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mister Impressive (875697) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:07AM (#12919176)
    What kind of content control does Google have in place for this service? (I haven't looked into it)

    Is every file looked through to make sure it's not copyrighted? Or if the file depicts illegal activity, etc?

    On the same note, would Google take files out if someone paid them to (eg. insulting clips, though not illegal, may tarnish a reputable name or something)
    • "Is every file looked through to make sure it's not copyrighted? "

      All content is copyrighted by default. Doesn't your comment just reflect the tyrany that copyright has become? Aren't you suggesting Google becomes judge jury and pre-censors all to avoid the risk of a copyright infringement?

      Or did I misunderstand your comment?
      • You've probably misunderstood my comment, partially my fault with ambiguous wording.

        I meant will Google check through all the files to make sure things like hollywood films, tv shows, etc...
          • I doubt the parent was trying to say that google should pander to big business and walk all over smaller copyright holders...

            Yeah, you hold a copyright for your material by default...BUT...as far as I understand it (and IANAL), when you upload that material to a service and offer it for download for free, you are extending authorization for people to use it. If it's not a default extension of authorization, I'm almost certain that google would have looked into this and required the use of some type of ag
    • Read the FAQ. https://upload.video.google.com/video_faq.html [google.com] PS: Why did the preceeding post get modded Interesting? It's a troll at best the more I think about it. :(
  • Very interesting move. Thanks Google again :-)

    TFA says nothing about patents problems that VLC and other media players are facing (see http://www.videolan.org/patents.html [videolan.org]). But with Google in the bandwagon, I guess this problem can be solved with a win on the open source front :-)

    • "But with Google in the bandwagon, I guess this problem can be solved with a win on the open source front :-)"

      Or realistically google will just create a special version of VLC in which they license the proprietary codecs and OSS and VLC gain nothing. That or they will transcode everything into an OSS and patent friendly format that VLC can play without running into any patent issues.

      Either way there are no guarantees that this will help OSS in any way or help VLC with its patent issues. Sorry to be negati

  • Reminds me of my childhood (Score:4, Funny)

    by A beautiful mind (821714) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:08AM (#12919181)
    Something about Mission Impossible.

    After viewing the video: "This message will self destruct in 5 seconds".

  • Misleading Title (Score:5, Insightful)

    by irokie (697424) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:11AM (#12919189) Homepage
    The title of this story is completely misleading. Google aren't releasing a pay-per-view thing. In fact, TFA said that those videos which were tagged free were the ones that would be available at first...

    "Plenty of folks uploaded video to Google with a payment option, and that has yet to roll out"

  • What next... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dissillus (806067) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:12AM (#12919198) Homepage
    ...PPV pr0n on Google?

    Sign me up.

  • To pay or not to pay...? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mister_llah (891540) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:12AM (#12919199) Homepage Journal
    This would depend fully on the content, I think... who would pay to see TV shows and such when they could use a TV?

    Movie "rentals" aren't out of the question, to be sure... ... but if the service is akin to, say, a subscription to CNN.com or something... I am not sure how well it would do (heck, any pay-for-video service on the web, I just am not sure on how it would do) ...

    ===

    Admitedly, I've tried one (albeit for free, as the network was in beta) ... http://www.ruckusnetwork.com/ [ruckusnetwork.com]

    Essentially its needs its own web browser, so I guess technically Google's got a leg up (and their video format is different, Ruckus uses WMV) ... but in the end, would I pay for them?

    Probably not.

    Someone might, I suppose, but how many need to before it becomes profitable?
    • I ask what they intend to use because as a 'pay to use' service' (when it goes) ... they are vague as to what has been uploaded for video hosting and any future plans...

      I doubt people are going to pay to see the Leeeeroy Jenkins video, let's say...

      So they have to have some sort of plan...

      ===

      [and conversely, I doubt people will pay Google for them to host the Leeeroy Jenkins video, but then again, people do crazier things every day]

    • Re:To pay or not to pay...? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ensign Zatrole (895082) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:19AM (#12919229)
      This would depend fully on the content, I think... who would pay to see TV shows and such when they could use a TV?
      I would. There are a lot of TV shows that'll never make it to the country where I live, and if they do, it'll take me several years. Now, I do download this stuff off bittorrent already, but I might be persuaded to pay a reasonable fee to download it legally, if the people producing the TV shows would allow it. Also, I don't have a TV, because the socialist country I live in requires me to pay a license fee to even own a television, even if I never watch the crappy government-owned free-to-air channels.
      • I think you'd be surprised that Italy, one of the G7 countries and led now by Berlusconi (to the right of Attila the Hoon, some would say) has the exact same tax. 100 euros per year, regardless of whether your tv is not connected to the network and you use it only for gaming.

    • Re:To pay or not to pay...? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by grahamm (8844) <gmurray@webwayone.co.uk> on Monday June 27 2005, @07:27AM (#12919271) Homepage
      who would pay to see TV shows and such when they could use a TV?
      1) People who cannot receive the station which airs the show and where the show will either never been shown by stations they can receive or there will be a long delay before the show is shown. This applies especially to shows from stations in countries other than that where the would be viewer lives. 2) When you miss the show and there is not an imminent repeat.

  • Pr0n (Score:3, Funny)

    by king-manic (409855) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:12AM (#12919201)
    Ahh google, tapping deeper into what really runs the internet.

  • And version 8.2.2 of VLC was released yesterday (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27 2005, @07:14AM (#12919209)
    ...so I'll have to try out the upgrade :)

  • google = content brokers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aendeuryu (844048) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:17AM (#12919219)
    I think I've started figuring google out.

    Microsoft and Linux and MacOSX might actually be on the way out, or at least on the way to obscurity. All of these offer interfaces to the computer, and that's useful in its own way, but I think one thing that Google has figured out is that mastery of the computer is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. It's throwing an abstracted layer over the top of it all and owning that layer, and making it useful enough that people eventually aren't going to care what OS they're running, so long as it'll give us what google has to offer.

    Google maps. Translation services. Multimedia access. Shopping/Pricing comparison. News. Wikipedia (well, not exclusively, but you get my point). Limitless-space email. They're coming closer to giving us what we expect computers to give their users in Sci-Fi movies.

    Google's on the verge of becoming THE content broker. What's odd is that from this point of view, Yahoo is more of a player than Microsoft at this point. But they've got to be worrying. Most of what google's done has been collecting and mining, but with Google maps developing the way it is, it's obvious that they're doing more than just throwing a bunch of computer clusters at a problem.

    Anyways, if this is what they're about, the consistency behind all their new forays, then maybe Microsoft's already lost the battle to Google, but they're stuck on what no longer matters as much, which is people's relationship to the computer. Google, by focusing on people's relationship to the content, is miles ahead now.

    Yeah, yeah, -1 full of shit or totally obvious, but I really think this is the way it's going.
    • Anyways, if this is what they're about, the consistency behind all their new forays, then maybe Microsoft's already lost the battle to Google, but they're stuck on what no longer matters as much, which is people's relationship to the computer.

      Yes, Google is gaining a lot of momentum, and simply because of their good reputation, simple marketing tactics from a certain large company [google.com] doesn't seem to work alone to beat them; the redesigned MSN Search seem to have hardly even put a dent in the natural associat

    • Google is nowhere near being THE content broker. For instance, Factiva has more than 9,000 newspaper, major trade publications and market research providers. I can think of many other aggregators such as Lexis-Nexis, Thompson that have been operating in the space for decades - and Google can't touch them for usefulness.

      This is not to say Google may not be developing a whole new content set - which will make them a more useful content provider. However, if you are in a position to have to answer any questi

  • Few details (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:18AM (#12919221)
    Google approached my company about uploading our content. We ultimately decided against it since they couldn't tell us what the terms were going to be. For example:

    Me: How are you going to protect copyrighted material from being copied?
    Google: We're working on that.

    Me: You say video can be free or fee based. How does that work?
    Google: We'd prefer free content, but you can also charge a fee. We will have a payment mechanism in place.

    Me: In a fee-based scenario, what "cut" does Google want?
    Google: We haven't decided.

    Me: What if I upload free content and a LOT of people like/view it? How does Google make money?
    Google: We reserve the right to charge the uploader if the content becomes "very popular."

    Me: Define "very popular".
    Google: We don't know yet.

    Me: Why should I upload content if you can't answer these basic questions?
    Google: You just should.

    So unless they're just planning to get lots of home videos, I didn't see any real incentive for a content provider to participate. It costs real money to produce content so companies aren't going to just give it away.

    Cheers,
    • from their FAQ: You can also set the price to zero and allow users to access and play your video for free. This will potentially give you wider distribution than those who choose to charge a price. If our costs to play your video on Google are extraordinary, we may charge users a fee (if you've specified zero as the price for your video) or take a larger revenue share of the price (if you've set a price greater than zero for your video) to cover some of these costs. For example, if you upload a high definit
      • I've got a funny feeling the GP wasn't meant to be a direct transcription from his conversation ;-) I cannot believe you actually thought the entire thing was a verbatum replay of the conversation! Its pretty clear he is trying to convey that at least of the time they spoke to him they really had no answers to the most basic questions reguarding the service.

        If this conversation really happend or not I don't know, but having three words you don't think are a direct quote from Google when its pretty clear

  • about time ! (Score:5, Funny)

    by MarsDude (74832) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:21AM (#12919239) Homepage
    It has been days since they launched a new service ;-) I was starting to get worried.

  • Paying for it... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by corneliusagain (810256) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:26AM (#12919262)
    This does seem to back up the picture of the google Wallet / G-Money initiative as a way of allowing google to provide services funded not by advertising but by something close to micro-payment [slashdot.org].

    Call it an iTunes for everything that's not music, an Amazon for self-published eBooks, or an eBay for digital content, whatever you call it, there might well be space there for a big player...?

  • TFA discusses Open Source Implications (Score:4, Interesting)

    by putko (753330) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:37AM (#12919310) Homepage Journal
    TFA mentions some really neat stuff: Google is giving away the code. That means that folks will be able to take open source browsers, and extend them to use the video streaming code. You could set up your own streaming service too.

    When I first heard about the Google's video hosting service, I thought, "SO WHAT."

    But if others set up compatible porn video streamers, and others make firefox work with the video service well, then suddenly the combination of the video streaming and the video features (built in to browser) suddenly make them "gotta have" features --- esp. if porn video sites pop up.

    Suddenly IE and WMV start looking totally behind the times. MicroSoft won't be able to integrate those features cheaply if they are done under a GPL: they are totally hosed, and have to play an expensive catchup game. Fine -- they do "embrace and extend", but it will cost them a lot of time and money.

    In the meanwhile, pornlovers will have switched over, and M$ will be looking pretty useless.

    If the people at Google are doing this on purpose, you have to give them credit for doing to Billy what he's done to so, so many others!

  • Buy my video!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Diakoneo (853127) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:39AM (#12919318)
    This reminds me of Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash. He had a sub-plot centered around these techno-nerds that wired themselves up with a suit of computers and cameras.
    They would run around everywhere there might be something remotely interesting going on and capture it. Then they'd copyright it and offer it for sale. If someone wanted it, they paid a royalty and could download it. It was all centered around some big company with lots of storage that made money off of hosting the video and getting it copyrighted. Kind of a higher-tech paparazzi, I guess.

  • From TFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rbarreira (836272) on Monday June 27 2005, @07:52AM (#12919390) Homepage
    The company also intends to make its VLC code available to the open source community as part of their Google code project.

    Of course they do, VLC is a GPL license project...
    • they just happen to have this insane amount of cash. I much prefer their way of spending the cash to the microsoft way : buying patents & sueing people.

      The filosophy of all the semeingly nutty google projects is pretty simple : start 10 projects in the hope that one of them becomes wildly successfull. The other 9 are just duds

    • No. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They're trying to provide a global information infrastructure, and so far they are succeeding.
    • Im not sure that this particular project is outside of Google's remit. Essentially they are an information storage and retrieval company and this new tech seems to fit that pattern.

      GBrowser probably doesnt (didnt) but this is a company that encourages staff to explore their own avenues so there is bound to be some diversity.

    • Look at the number of services that Yahoo is offering. They are neither the best provider for financial quotes nor the best webmail service, but they're still very popular and make money from advertising. They just need to be very good in one area (e.g. search) and because of the portal style the other areas of the site will also get traffic. After all, Google makes money from advertising.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.