MGM First To Post Full-Length Features To YouTube 116
Lithal13 writes to tell us that MGM studios will soon be the first major movie studio to post a complete feature-length film on YouTube. Some credit commercial video site Hulu.com for the mended relationship between YouTube parent Google and Hollywood. "YouTube has developed systems that help keep pirated clips off the site and is developing video players that present clearer images than the site's standard player. When it comes to financial terms, Google has proven much more flexible than in the past, according to three studio sources. [...] The only obstacles to Google and YouTube getting more studios to post full-length movies is Google's insistence on a particular ad format, say the sources. They declined to say which ad unit Google prefers. The other hurdle is that some studios are skeptical that users will accept all the ads that need to accompany a feature film in order to make it profitable."
What about limits? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about limits? (Score:5, Informative)
What about people from other countries (other than the US) that have even less than Comcast limits?
I confidently predict that it won't be available for us, so that part is a non-issue.
However a lot of ISPs here in the UK are bitching and moaning about the BBC's iPlayer (online TV catchup service), which they reckon has significantly increased their bandwidth usage. Of course they would like the BBC to pay them as well as the end user paying for their broadband (less enlightened debate over net neutrality in this country, but the same old issues). I can only see increased capping/tiering on broadband if this sort of service becomes more common.
Re:What about limits? (Score:4, Insightful)
it's sort of sad to see how the situation with ISP's is going.
A few years back there were thousands of them all keen to stab each other in the back and undercut each other.
Caps kept dropping and quality was going up fast.
Now we're down to a handful of providers who tend to play nice with each other. Caps are dropping, prices are rising, and it's harder than ever for anyone without a few hundred million spare change to get peering.
Re:What about limits? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps watching videos online is not as cheap as everyone originally believed. Perhaps buying mass-produced DVDs truly is a cheaper method of distribution?
As for years ago: We had telephone lines which allowed us to pick whatever dialup ISP we wanted. That's why there were thousands. That's no longer an option with broadband, due to government-dictated monopolies that control the neighborhood. (I get to choose either Comcast or Verizon; not much of a choice.) As a result most of the videos I watch are low-definition 0.5 Mbit/s streams that are just-barely watchable, in order to limit my monthly bill.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>(I get to choose either Comcast or Verizon; not much of a choice
To clarify - Comcast has a government-dictated monopoly over cable. Verizon has a government-dictated monopoly over phones. Both of these monopolies offer internet over their lines as a "side business" to their main business.
I also have Netscape Dialup. It only costs $7 a month, and they don't have any caps, but the 50 kbit/s line can only handle 16 gigabytes per month, maximum.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know. Do you have a weblink to an article, so I can read more about it?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That does not apply to my single-family house. The monopoly comes from the Lancaster County Commissioners who gave Comcast exclusive rights to provide cable television to this area.
Not up here... (Score:4, Informative)
Except in Canada, where Bell has to play nice and share their copper with the other kids. In my city, there's no less than 18 DSL providers I can pick and choose from:
http://canadianisp.ca/ [canadianisp.ca]
Re: (Score:1)
Except in Canada, where Bell has to play nice and share their copper with the other kids.
In the US, the phone companies also have to share the copper. Just the copper though, not the fiber. Which is why you see Verizon cutting the copper from your house when they install your FIOS.
Re: (Score:1)
Watching videos online is likely cheaper, unless lots of people watch the same thing over and over, it's not cached and they are users who are unlikely to click ads (there are a fair number of these, what, 5%?).
YouTube quality sucks. 700MB .AVIs are ok, but too much hassle to display on my TV.
I prefer DVD for the quality. I rent from zip.ca for a "pricy" $25/mo for 4 movies at a time. I get on average 10 movies a month. That's $2.50 to view a movie once, which is all I really need. DVDs should be $5 or
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Depends on where you live. In many markets, there are small DSL providers and a few larger ones too. They just are not as well advertised.
Try looking in the yellow pages for internet providers. You might be surprised. Some of the smaller providers might charge a bit more, but you may get better customer service.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So why don't these companies start using P2P technology. Keep network trafic within the networks.
There is some new music listening (legal) software that I have seen recently supported by adds and stuff and I looked into the technology behind it. Apparently it caches some of the users files on their computer and shares them with other users listening to the same songs. Exactly the same type of technology as torrents.
So basically if your neighbor has recently watched the same movie as you are watching now. Th
Re: (Score:2)
So why don't these companies start using P2P technology.
Because they don't want you to have a copy of the movie or tv show stored on your computer, that you might later figure-out how to copy into a different folder & keep. With direct streaming from nbc.com or bbc.uk, nothing gets stored except a few seconds worth of buffered data.
What about quality? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't see it as a given [eventechnologies.com] that "quality := large amounts of bandwith".
Re: (Score:2)
Viewing their samples (not to mention that they are NOT sd resolution despite what they claim), their supposed "magical breakthrough" codec appears to have the quality of early DivX revisions.
I see:
1) blurring out of details
2) blocks
3) dct noise
Their claim that they can compress SD video to 750kbps and HD to 3Mbps at good quality is completely unfounded.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about limits? (Score:4, Interesting)
Even at YouTube quality, my wife's 2-4 hours a day would add up to well over 30 GB per month. She watched Thai lakorn (soap operas) and Thai music videos. Since none of the large satellite providers offer Thai channels, YouTube was the only available option to listen to broadcasts in her native language.
I see bandwidth caps preventing greater usage of such services for things like watching full length movies. Where a few years ago we had a computer that accessed the internet, now we have multiple computers, an Ipod Touch, PS3, Wii, and Xbox 360 all using Internet resources and media and all requiring updates. The bandwidth caps are being implemented at a time when more and more home devices are using the Internet, and adding to the speed that you will hit your capacity.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest the amount surprised me, but I am sure it's all streaming YouTube and not other applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even at YouTube quality, my wife's 2-4 hours a day would add up to well over 30 GB per month.
Does she rewatch any of them? If so, you can copy Flash* files out of the /tmp/ folder and watch with VLC.
Re: (Score:2)
These problems will continue to plague us as long as we allow them to. There is a simple and relatively inexpensive solution, which is to build a mesh network and just make an end-run around the ISPs. The internet was meant to be peer-to-peer and today we have the technology to make that happen! If you want to change the world, get or make a mesh networking AP (I bought an AMD geode development board off eBay for $30) and built some high gain antennae to go with it.
Exactly how many ads should there be? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
of course, many movies have paid product placements -- ads -- already. Isn't that the slashdot business model? Make a movie, paid for via product placement, and give it away for free?
Re: (Score:2)
Some users, yes.
For the rest of us, it's:
Re: (Score:2)
>>>can't anything be pure anymore!?
The DVD or Bluray versions doesn't have any annoying ads during the movie. And, when you get something for nothing (like free movies on youtube) it has to be paid somehow. Better the advertisers pay it then me. Otherwise I simply won't bother. I'll go read a book instead (~20 hours of entertainment for just 5 bucks).
Re: (Score:1)
The DVD or Bluray versions doesn't have any annoying ads during the movie.
So you mean they removed the scene where Tony Stark was eating that Whopper from Burger King? Of course, personally I found that whole scene to be a rather humorous way of performing product placement, so I guess while it was an ad, it fails at being an annoying ad.
U.S. only? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:U.S. only? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you should talk to whoever owns your country's distribution rights to MGM works and convince them to participate in this instead of ignoring international copyright treaties and treating it like the mean ol' 'mericans won't share their toys with you just because you talk funny.
Re: (Score:1)
Just what nobody needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just what nobody needed (Score:5, Informative)
Youporn.com [youporn.com] has done something right, then. Seeking to the 75% mark of a video (before any buffering) jumps to and loads quite quickly and easily. ;-)
Re:Just what nobody needed (Score:4, Insightful)
If I were writing a video player for a porn site I would have it buffer the last X% of the film before buffering the start. Isn't that the part the viewers care about?
(I was going to make a joke about it being the climax of the film but actually, when you think about it, makes sense to program it that way so it's a serious comment)
Re: (Score:1)
...You can do the same on Youtube
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When will they allow regular users to upload movies longer than 10 minutes? I have a few rugby games I want to share with friends. If you encode it right, it's passable for my needs.
Instead I have to do a system of hacks to make a playlist, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These are Rugby games. Most Rugby players think the internet is www and only usable for Porn only. I have a hard enough time showing Alumni (1970-2008) how to use a list-serv and College kids (yes, College kids) how to use a web forum.
Asking them to download codecs, torrent program, download a file which is NOT the movie (torrent file), wait X amount of time for the movie to download, then play it? Not. Going. To. Happen.
Unless it's embeddable on a website and nearly idiot proof, it's not going to get seen.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They did until a couple of years ago, when they were forced to do the limits because people were uploading complete TV shows (sans ads) and movies and decided the majority of stuff posted on YouTube that was original and not broadcasting for someone else were under 1
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost the problem as with eBay. When people search for Purdue Rugby, I want for them to be able to find our videos. People search for Videos on YouTube.
I currently have most of the videos in 'high quality' on our website with JW FLV [jeroenwijering.com] player. More locations = more eyes.
Plus as with most things, if someone can't get something working on my site. They think it's my fault. If someone can't get something working on YouTube(Google, EBay, Facebook, etc) they think it's their fault.
Re: (Score:2)
But then of course *you'll* be liable for copyright infringement if you upload whole TV programs. Easier, cheaper and more discrete to use dvds to share your videos.
* I have no affiliation with the linked site, it came up in a search.
Re: (Score:1)
I already hate the video quality on the short vids what good will be streaming a full length film?
FTFS
YouTube has developed systems that help keep pirated clips off the site and is developing video players that present clearer images than the site's standard player.
Re: (Score:1)
Fast forward always works for me on a number of sites, incl. YouTube
Picture quality (Score:2)
MGM studios will soon be the first major movie studio to post a complete feature-length film on YouTube
And the picture quality is still better than the DVD release (for God's sake, don't waste money on The Outer Limits. They should be ashamed.)
Type of ads (Score:1)
I don't even watch movies on free TV over here as I cannot have my film interrupted by the film being presented by some company followed by 5 mins of other ads. It's a real deal-breaker for me.
I've also seen those little banner ads come at the bootom of a streaming video which you can then click the 'x' to get rid of, that would be
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm OK with the way Hulu [hulu.com] handles their ads in TV shows. They have about the same number of commercials-per-episode that a Network station would air. HOWEVER each commercial break consists of only 1 ad which is between 15-30 seconds.
I'm willing to put up with their ad system without a problem. Sure it breaks the flow but most TV shows end their scenes assuming that a network will air a commercial in between.
As for films, I use my NetFlix account for them. As weak as Netflix's OnDemand movie listing is, H
Re: (Score:1)
Then they can just get up and walk away with the sound muted on their computer as the ads load, go grab some popcorn or something, then come back and start the movie from the beginning, right after the ads.
If the videos weren't crappy quality, I don't think I would mind waiting a couple extra minutes for the ads to end, when downloading it from bittorrent or going out to the movies would
Just like movie theater abuse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do they mean equivalent to the enforced advertising already present in a regular movie theater?
-- one Coke short filmvertisement
-- one long length car commercial
-- 4 movie trailers
-- a long format Coke advertisement
-- a hip clothing advertisement
-- a charitable organization fund drive appeal
-- 4 more movie trailers
If MGM attempts to recreate the movie theater captive audience advertising innundation effect, this will fail miserably.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's why, on the rare occasion I go to a theatre I pick my seat. Then go get popcorn and stuff. By the time I get back to my seat, most of the commercials are over.
And the fact that they have so many commercials is one of the biggest reasons that I hardly ever go to a theatre anymore. (way to go guys...)
Re: (Score:1)
I've met a few people who have said they "love" the previews. What's up with that?
Re: (Score:2)
I loved the previews in the 80s and early 90s. They were for movies. They were entertaining to watch, since they were for the same genre as the feature film, and they gave you a couple extra minutes to find your seat or grab a box of popcorn.
Now adays you can see those on the internet, and the movie theaters show more coke and car commercials.
Re: (Score:2)
They're welcome to the previews if they want to watch. I'd rather do something else for 20 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Arriving at a movie on time just to sit down and be inundated with ads after paying 10/ticket + 5+/pop + 5+/popcorn, makes me tremble with anger. One of many reasons that I don't go to theaters much anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't go to regular theaters at all anymore for exactly that reason. It's been 5 or 6 years for me.
I haven't been to Chunky's [chunkys.com] in a while either, but they're acceptable to me because there was only a silent slideshow of ads prior to the movie trailers being shown. I could read if alone, or talk to friends if not, during that.
Re: (Score:2)
My local area theaters generally have a sideshow of ads (especially car and Coke ads), movie trivia, and what not prior to start time. At start time: there is there is in some order: Previews, a short (usually less than 30 second) reminder that concessions are available, some little video reminding people that there is no smoking, to turn of cell phones, and throw away trash (instead of leaving it laying around). Somewhere there will also be something that shows the name of the Cinema chain, which might be
Re: (Score:1)
It cant fail much more miserably than the cinema experience you just described. The 8 trailers almost always give the impression that Hollywood doesn't know its audience anymore.
PS. You forgot the 4 anti-piracy campaigns dotted about at random points in the trailers
Re: (Score:2)
See how much impact those anti-piracy campaigns have? No one remembers them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Just like movie theater abuse? (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
"The other hurdle is that some studios are skeptical that users will accept all the ads that need to accompany a feature film in order to make it profitable."
You mean, aside from the 10 minutes of previews and actual commercial ads that precede theater films, or the 15 minutes of ads, unskippable warnings, and "DON'T BE A DVD PIRATE! PIRATING IS STEALING" infomercials that precede the feature on every goddamn dvd?
No, I don't believe I'll be surprised at whatever Hollywood deems "necessary" to make something profitable. I mean, according to Hollywood accountants Spider Man, Forrest Gump, and Lord of the Rings all failed to make a profit, right? Of course we can trust them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember what it was? Assuming it was not pornography, I'm guessing it was a minor movie studio, no?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the $10 or more that we *paid* to actually see the movie.
Re: (Score:1)
Unskippable warnings? (Score:2)
I don't have problems skipping any warnings with xine.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, according to Hollywood accountants Spider Man, Forrest Gump, and Lord of the Rings all failed to make a profit, right? Of course we can trust them.
These films all had "revenues" and "costs". The difference between the two is "profit". Now, just because some of the "costs" include "lines of blow off a dead hooker" or "funding for an unrelated project in the production company that DIDN'T make any money" it doesn't make the "profit" calculation is completely fraudulent.
Speaking of youtube (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone else having problems going to it right now? I'm getting 500 errors
Re:Speaking of youtube (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone else having problems going to it right now? I'm getting 500 errors
Wow, that's a lot of errors. I probably would have given up after 9 or 10 myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh great.. (Score:2)
How can they NOT profit? (Score:2)
How can they NOT "step 3" profit? (Score:2)
"For the minimal ammount of effort required on the studio's part, if even one person clicks on an ad..."
Spam works on a similar model and we all can see how well that works. "If only the other guy would..."
"...the studio has turned a profit for their endevor. The movie is already (if it's one that anyone wants to see) paid off by ticket sales and DVD sales."
However you're forgetting the slash "new and improved" business "I don't want you to make any money" model. Everything will be available via a broadband
Residuals (Score:2)
For the minimal ammount of effort required on the studio's part, if even one person clicks on an ad, the studio has turned a profit for their endevor.
At least twenty percent of this goes to residuals [wikipedia.org]. Some goes to the lawyers who negotiated conditions for online reruns. And some goes to parties that I'm not ready to look up right now.
The important part here is not "full length movie" (Score:2)
it is "by a major studio"
There are tons of full length movies already on there, youtube just wants to skip the middleman:)
Uncut and Commercial Free (Score:2, Redundant)
Uncut and Utopia Free. (Score:3, Insightful)
"I can already download movies uncut and commercial free from the Pirate Bay and other torrent sites."
Which is all the more reason to keep it locked in the vault. Yes I'll spare you the lecture but threatening people with their worst nightmares isn't going to get you all what you want.
"So, unless this service gives me full screen movies, uncut and commercial free, despite my not living in the US, chances are I'll not be using it."
Baby steps oh desperate one. They still have to get one working in the US firs
Re: (Score:2)
It's not truly "more reason to keep it locked in the vault". Torrents exist. Denying that they don't provide a better product for consumers is just stupid, and trying to keep content locked up only drives MORE people to torrents. It's really just basic economics. People aren't stupid... they want the product that gives them the most benefit for the best price and least amount of work. As it stands, you get a better product for putting in a little bit of work to figure out how to use bittorrent and find
Re: (Score:2)
There's a certain irony to your sig.
And for the mods: yes, this is relevant to the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, they're full screen, not limited to a quarter screen box with ads surrounding it.
If you can't figure out how to click youtube's full screen button, that's pretty sad.
Can you get your pirate bay content on demand, not having to wait for a download?
Interesting (Score:1)
Interesting⦠(Score:1)
hmm...perhaps the time has come for me to mainline that youtube set-top-box project...
This could work... (Score:3, Interesting)
If they post the right movies.
Aren't MGM (and the movies in question) owned by Sony now?
It's called taking a risk! (Score:1)
So? Take the risk. The worst that's going to happen is they don't. Youtube pays for the bandwidth. The worst loss for a studio is going to be people watching instead of buying the DVD, but that's not going to financially cripple the studios.
Ad time (Score:2)
studios are skeptical that users will accept all the ads that need to accompany a feature film in order to make it profitable.
It depends on how many ads they run. I watch Hulu a bit to catch shows I've missed or not seen in years. They generally have one 15-second commercial every 10 minutes or so. It is far less than broadcast television.
If they are going to have breaks anyway, I wish they were a bit longer. It would give me time to get a snack.
Re: (Score:1)
If they are going to have breaks anyway, I wish they were a bit longer. It would give me time to get a snack.
And there is your reason why they don't do that...
Re: (Score:2)
If they are going to have breaks anyway, I wish they were a bit longer. It would give me time to get a snack.
Yes, if only they could develop a technology for Hulu that would allow people enough time to get snacks...to pause the action if you will. A button, perhaps. ;)
define profitable (Score:1)
This focus on "profitable" is disturbing. I don't have a problem with them making a profit, but movie studios have historically had a warped idea of what profitable means. Internet distribution is different enough from theater and dvd/blueray/tape/laserdisk distribution to warrant a genuine rethink.
Consider, while long term, the goal is no doubt to replace physical delivery with internet delivery, are we there yet? The market is clearly not yet mature, so the focus should be more on cost recovery than on
Won't work for me anyway... (Score:1)
Yeah right... (Score:1)
>The other hurdle is that some studios are skeptical that users will accept all the ads that need to >accompany a feature film in order to make it profitable
Yeah right, like there is any difference between this and ads for 30 minutes before the movie about ...smash!
anything but movie stuff. I dont need to know subaru has a new car when i go to see the incredible hulk....it makes me mad....want to
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I cant...which is why I torrent
If it's anything like Hulu, I'll check it out (Score:2, Interesting)