The Great YouTube debate

[Lighthammer]

In light of some of the many developments with YouTube I have some open thoughts for the community to think about.

I am of the opinion that YouTube and even moreover subbed anime has illustrated end users desire to access media when THEY want to.

Instead of everyone slapping YouTube for copyright violation after copyright violation, I think it would be MORE prudent to look at YouTube's popularity and take advantage of it. YouTube PROBABLY represents the next real breakthrough in media practically replacing cable and satalite TV respectively. Youtube's media can be accessed whenever we want and not have to plan our day around seeing it. Many companies and TV stations have seen this and have STARTED to attempt to catch up to YouTube but no place, save YouTube has brought together the possibility of having TV Shows from a vast majority of networks across several countries available one place.

Instead of putting YouTube into legal quandary after legal quandary making it the next Napster, it would be wise to make it the next media revolution and strealine it to be the first searchable, online complete media library.

[Conan-san]

To be blunt, it's all to ensure Jhony Brittish Boy doesn't see the oh so holy shows that the UK will never get on DVD or anything.

I'm of the opinion that that whole thing about Inuyasha being licened over here was a lie created purely to piss us off.

[Karl Olson]

Yes, but until the copyright holders decide themselves to use it as a content distribution method (and many of them are, and likely many more will as they get a cut of the ad revenue,) they are not fully with in their rights to protect their copyrights, they are legally obligated to protect their copyrights less they get into a more serious legal battle and lose their copyrights entirely because they effectively allowed their material to become public domain by not protecting it.

Beyond that point, there is the simple issue that to legally anime distribute in a fashion nearing the speed of fan-subtitlers in the US is, at the moment, impossible to do. There simply isn't enough corporate organization between the US and Japanese companies, even with pre-licensed titles, to get subtitled content out in a quick fashion, and even if there was, the Japanese rights-holders do not want inexpensive R1 DVDs being reverse imported. Meanwhile, they won't tolerate content being distributed without their consent, especially via a system that literally profits from it. They can sort of turn a blind-eye to people who make no money from the exchange of their goods to some extent because if there is ever a legal situation where someone tried to use that as precedent for allowing the for-profit use of their content, it probably wouldn't hold up as proof they weren't protecting their copyrights, though the fact there is even a possibility means that if they wanted to sue people who didn't make a dime from the distribution, they'd be within rights as otherwise they risk losing their copyright entirely. However, in the case of something like YouTube where advertisements are sold, and especially on the precipice of YouTube paying content providers using that ad money, people who are illegally uploading content must be booted from the service both to ensure that the people who actually create content might embrace the service, and to ensure that people who create content don't have an entirely valid and legitimately pressing reason to sue YouTube and by extension Google for everything they're worth. If you want to see that transition to a universal library now, you're going to have to deal with the fact that JoeBlow3954 can not legally upload the latest episodes of Nana, let alone something licensed in the US and other countries like Naruto. Yeah, the proof-of-concept is there, but to make that a legal reality where people actually still bother to spend money making anime, the people operating outside of those legal bounds have to kicked off the service. It's a bit antagonistic, but it's what it takes to give these services any chance of becoming legit.

Frankly, it's not as easy as saying "people want it now, so give it to them to make them happy." Somewhere in there, the people who are busting their butts in animation studios and tiny apartments (many key animators work out of the home because they don't make enough money to afford commuting to the main studio) to create this content need to be payed for their efforts, and as long as people other than original content creators put up videos on YouTube and services of that ilk, the content creators will have no reason to embrace technology because it's damaging them instead. The people who decide "I'm watching this on YouTube/BitTorrent and then I'm not buying the DVD," are at best taking food out of the mouths' of animators (and their families,) but at worst are then giving that food to someone else. That, anyway you want to cut it, is an unjustice and no different to the HongKong bootleggers. Yeah, the actions of some of these enforcement bodies have been equally crass at points (the RIAA, the MPAA and their international analogues are often a bunch of thugs and crooks in their own fashion, and they certainly have bought legislation that at best boarders on unconstitutional,) but to try to justify stealing by effectively saying that impatience justifies any action is just as morally bankrupt. It's tantamount to saying "it's ok for me to steal this car, because I want it now, and I can't wait for a time where I'm in a position to afford it."

So, if you're so impatient, buy the R2s and learn Japanese. If you can't wait for R2 DVDs, move to Japan or get things arranged to watch Japanese stations legally (pay a friend in Japan to set up a Slingbox or LocationFreeTV unit with a cable or satellite connection - that way, you're atleast paying for Japanese cable which ultimately supports the studios making anime.) Of course, a lot of headaches are dodged by just buying the R1 release. Sure, downloading the fansubs if you're impatient is still unquestionably and obscenely illegal (hence why we don't allow open discussion of them on this forum barring legal-type debates like this, and even then, I would probably be with in the rules to close this at any point,) but if you're atleast buying the DVDs when they come, you're helping for the most part.

In which case, demands that YouTube be given a break when they are actually making money off stolen content (albeit because their user base often has no regard for the law,) are null and void. Until they can shape up, YouTube and other ad-supported, for-profit video sites, are perhaps the most illegal and fiscally damaging place on the net to watch anime (barring content uploaded by the original rights holders.)

[Conan-san]

Well that's fine and I do respect that there are issues therein.

I just find the whole thing where a place that speaks the same language geting told to spin on it when they want to watch the damn show a little bit more than anoying.

If anything, the demand herein is to a) make geting the stuff easyer for those who want it and if it's for a pirce, I'll slap that money down/watch the adverts damnit.
and
b) make it so that someone who lives outside of the US can buy and see.
I find it most laughable when Adult Swim (To use an example, applogies for the lack of anime within) needs two websites, one for the americas and another for the United Kingdom (That is not to bash the great work Bravo did to get us as such, it's just silly and a waste of the WORLD wide web)

And I know as a matter of fact that Death Note is going to be america-locked aswell and I'll be right here blowing steam off about it.

[MeggieMay]

Well the Torchwood and Adventures of Sarah Jane websites are locked to everyone who isn't in the UK, so it isn't like sites and streams being locked is a "american-only" thing (and I'd like to be able to access those sites, FWIW).

As for places that are in multipule countries and have websites for each - well doing that can cut down on the confusion. Just because you're savy enough to understand there are multipule versions of some TV networks around the world doesn't mean all people using the WWW understand it. BTW, if you want a mild example of that just go check out the Cartoon Network folder here. Someone is trying to find out information on programming block that ran on the version of Cartoon Network they watched in Kuwait and they seem rather frustrated that no one here knows what they are talking about :shrug:.

One last thing - just because someone lives in the United States doesn't mean that they'll have access to DVD's anymore than any other country. I personally would love to buy a R1 copy of the entire series of Blake's Seven but it is highly unlikely to ever happen due to the BBC being totally incompetent and granting rights to the show (and some others) in perpetuity to some small mom and pop outfit when they gave out the VHS rights (beyond poorly written licencing agreement). So far, the BBC has not been able to break that contract so no U.S. DVD, HD DVD, or Blue Rays, or other future video formats until someone fixes that mess :mad:.

[Lighthammer]

Yes, but until the copyright holders ...

Let me cut it off right there.

The opening post wasn't meant to be a legal quagmire suggesting that copyright holders should back off and let Youtube grow as it is now --- the opening post is meant to illustrate that if groups come together to make it a reputable source of media WITH the copyright holders working together on the same front, then it's new technology that will change the entire scape of the entertainment world.

With a little bit of effort working TOGETHER, the entire scape of things could become a very good thing for everyone. Let's face it, common ground on this topic shouldn't be hard to find especially if everyone who owns their own personal 747 air liner doesn't irrationally get involved and start screaming "SUE EVERYONE WITH AN INTERNET CONNECTION".

There's so much potential here as long as a mission statement is defined. There's a lot of profit potential out there for such a venture. Beyond that, I think its fair to say fans across all generas will love it.

[Hanshotfirst113]

See, I can see YouTube getting legally prosecuted akin to Napster, probably soon.

[Hordesman]

Given how I watched YGo on TiVo and fast-forwarded commercials... I got free programming but ended up supporting the show in other ways: buying manga, the uncut DVDs, and assorted Mattel product. Digimon? I paid for tv tapes, watched the commercials and spent money on both domestic and Japanese merchandise. And now, I don't have the time to watch tv episodes on my computer. Plus, I like sitting on my couch and watching stuff too much, sipping water and all, when I'm kicking back. When I'm at my comp, it's work time. But the instant access thing does build up fan fervor, which usually translates into sales- if not for the content itself. Maybe it's just me, but I don't know if I'd be as big a Harry Potter fan if I didn't listen to 2+ hours of people discussing it when I go exercising with my ipod on... Certainly, I won't have picked up the Tonner dolls. Web access to content, fan discourse... it can be a form of advertsising that doesn't repel people. Licensing's getting more important, especially since the ppl with the wider budgets are more likely to have TiVo.

[NightOption]

There is no way that youtube or any internet streaming video site will surpass television. It won't even come close.

[Rasputin]

There is no way that youtube or any internet streaming video site will surpass television. It won't even come close.

*snigger* You will be eating those words come the next decade. I guarantee it. Youtube has grown stupendously in only a year and a half as it is. The only reason it looks so scrabby now is because of limited bandwidth. That's fast becoming a non-issue.

Of course, in order to make sure the next logical step of Youtube...effectively televisual quality copyrighted content on-demand...ensures that the people who make the stuff in the first place are actually able to eat, then something a tad more organised is needed.

Of course you could argue that this sort of thing is happening now anyway with Joost. http://www.joost.com/

[Karl Olson]

Actually, one can argue YouTube and the internet in general have already rendered linear media dead. The key is profiting from it, and the thing is, that is slowly coming together in fashion where the end user still gets "free" content (IE: it's ad-supported, just like on broadcast TV.) However, you'll only get the big content creators involved if people stop breaking the law and instead put pressure (IE: write some letters) on content providers to move to internet distribution.

In other words, be righteous in your actions if you wish to effect positive change.

[Wounded_Dragon]

It's in the copyright holder's best interest to find some way to show it online anyway. The lead sentence in a recent Reuters article: "U.S. television networks draw a younger, wealthier and better-educated audience when they run their shows over the Internet, according to a study released Wednesday."("TV shown online found to have more desirable viewers" Reutersm 1/25/2007)

[Lighthammer]

Actually, one can argue YouTube and the internet in general have already rendered linear media dead. The key is profiting from it, and the thing is, that is slowly coming together in fashion where the end user still gets "free" content (IE: it's ad-supported, just like on broadcast TV.) However, you'll only get the big content creators involved if people stop breaking the law and instead put pressure (IE: write some letters) on content providers to move to internet distribution.

In other words, be righteous in your actions if you wish to effect positive change.

See, if YouTube tweaked things a bit and maybe made things friendly for say Windows Media Edition to the point people could watch YouTube in good quality on TV, then it does render linear TV useless.

Honestly, I would much rather give YouTube $20 or $30 a month and be guaranteed the content there will stay the same and possibly get better then pay Comcast or DirectTV a king's ransom for technology that's outdated.

[Chris Wood]

See, if YouTube tweaked things a bit and maybe made things friendly for say Windows Media Edition to the point people could watch YouTube in good quality on TV, then it does render linear TV useless.

Honestly, I would much rather give YouTube $20 or $30 a month and be guaranteed the content there will stay the same and possibly get better then pay Comcast or DirectTV a king's ransom for technology that's outdated.

If they did that the copyright holders would really throw a fit. Why would people buy/rent DVDs if they could watch DVD quality YouTube clips on TV?

[Lighthammer]

For the second time in this thread we're jumping to conclusions :sad:

If money would be paid for said service without mitigating the current content and looking to grow future content, the money would reasonably HAVE to go towards making the copyright holders happy, encouraging other companies to broadcast content and/or use YouTube as a means to show their programs and marketing/R&D to further the profitability of the network.

Let's be reasonable here folks. From post #1 of this thread, I haven't made a suggestion illustrating, intending or suggesting the copyright holders are going to be screwed.

What I am advocating is YouTube as the next Comcast or DirectTV with one very important difference --- EVERYTHING the network provides is "On Demand" and live TV that is streamed is a completely DIFFERENT service that might be reserved exclusively for such programing as network news or weather.

The concept is very new and getting everyone to play nice and make it happen likely will be much easier said then done but, if walking into future problems with an intent to make YouTube into a network of sorts instead of a video version of "Geocities".

Its all about the end results and goals. My main suggestion here in is for YouTube to have vision to make this thing a successful network.

[Karl Olson]

YouTube isn't doing to be the company to provide that (atleast any time in the near future,) Apple and Microsoft are, and they'll be doing so in a serious fashion within the year, and completely inside of the law (something YouTube can't do at the moment with their current content uploading system - it's too easy to upload illegal content.) Both Apple and Microsoft are setting things up so that by using either a computer that's already in the house tied to a video download service and an extender unit of some type, or by using a standalone unit directly tied to a download service, you'll have video and audio content on demand. It's not a flat-rate system in either case (well, the IPTV stuff on XBox360 might be,) but as the colossal failure of Rhapsody and the rampant success of Itunes has shown, paying for individual pieces of content that you own outright seems to beat the "access only as long as you to maintain payment" model, though I can imagine at a price level similar to what cable or satellite service costs, a monthly payment for unlimited access service would be put forward if it seemed like there were enough interested customers to make it profitable. OTOH, unlimited access be more like the nearly 10 grand a year package DirectTV offers where you get every last channel and package and unlimited pay-per-view programming.

[Rasputin]

All hail, for the Long Tail has arrived!

[Sparticus]

Honestly, I would much rather give YouTube $20 or $30 a month and be guaranteed the content there will stay the same and possibly get better then pay Comcast or DirectTV a king's ransom for technology that's outdated.

YES. I (well, my family) has DirectTV - and it's great, but we only watch maybe a dozen channels, the rest is just crap. :shrug:

[Crimefighter]

If people are gonna share videos, they are gonna share videos, no matter what anyone says. They can sue Google/Youtube out of existance but guess what, the individual users will just use another venue...and there's plenty of places other than Youtube to go. At worst they'll use the rather tedious binary groups on Usenet as a last resort.

[Karl Olson]

If people are gonna share videos, they are gonna share videos, no matter what anyone says. They can sue Google/Youtube out of existance but guess what, the individual users will just use another venue...and there's plenty of places other than Youtube to go. At worst they'll use the rather tedious binary groups on Usenet as a last resort.

Ah, but by destroying the means that are easy to use like YouTube, they undercut the vast majority of the piracy at hand. Your average "lucky if he/she doesn't have loads of spyware and virii on their computer" internet user doesn't have the get up and go to even maintain their computer properly, let alone navigate Usenet or even IRC serves. Usenet (and IRC) is the internet equivalent to the people selling bootlegs out of their back of their car, IE: difficult to prosecute (as even though you can track who is doing what, it's all single person suits - it's tedious compared to taking on a Napster or YouTube,) and it's usually so small time their isn't any interest in prosecuting it (though the swath of lawsuits the RIAA has pushed forward with ultimately proves they aren't above going through person by person.)

However, what they hate most are companies (and rightfully so,) are companies profiting from their work in a wide and unabashed scale. YouTube fits that bill. Google Video, even though they've managed to strike some deals for pay video, fits that bill all too often as well. Even upcoming sites like DivX's Stage 6 which is still beta has loaded of pirated content, and more importantly, it's easy to get and they make money from people watching it. Usenet definitely lacks ease of use for at least 80 percent of internet users, and the profit motive isn't really there in the same fashion.

Meanwhile, you can bet that noone wants to deliver content for you for less than the industry standard. You might get more for that 40-60 bucks if it shifts to IPTV/On-Demand systems as the business model, but they still want to wring that much out a month. Yes, their is the possibility competition might force a price shift, but they could just as easily say "for what you pay now, you get twice as much," and while you'd getting better value for money, you'd still see 50 bucks out of your wallet every month.

Basically, reality and legality says that the entertainment companies are going to win any lawsuit they take on when it comes to a service like YouTube (because even w/o DMCA-type laws, it's a straight up copyright violation,) and that even if YouTube goes legit, it's not going to change the cost of media radically (if it does, it's only because the amount of advertising associated with it explodes in amount shown and cost to the advertiser.)

PS: I'm closing the thread, not to get the last word, but because from what I can tell it boils down to the same saw "if people want stuff for free, they'll get it." Toon Zone doesn't condone that, so this thread is done.