Now Blockbuster Wants To Sell You A Proprietary Box So It Can Sell You Streamed Movies

from the broken-record dept

Stop us if you've heard this before: a company wants to sell people a box so they can pay to download movies. Sound familiar? That's because plenty of companies have tried it before -- all with little success. Consumers haven't shown much interest in buying service-specific hardware so they can buy movie downloads from a single provider for a number of reasons: poor selection of movies, the cost of downloads, the cost of the hardware, download times, and lack of portability to name a few. What's amazing is that so many companies keep lining up with their own efforts, without ever really fixing any of the problems, as if time will solve them. Now, it's Blockbuster's turn, as it's announced a $99 box that can access $2 movie downloads. Blockbuster says its service is different than all the failed ones before it because it has "more recent" movies. Netflix's streaming service has 12,000 films and TV shows -- less than 10 percent of its collection, thanks to Hollywood licensing schemes. Blockbuster has a whopping 2,000. But they're newer, they swear. So not only has Blockbuster failed to solve one of the problems of these services (narrow selection), they've exacerbated it and are calling it a feature. Now that sounds like the path to success.

Filed Under: movies, settop box, streaming, videos
Companies: blockbuster, netflix

Monty Python Puts All Its Content On YouTube To Increase Sales Of Scarce Goods

from the good-for-them dept

As quite a few folks have sent in, it appears that the always funny team of folks who made up Monty Python actually seem to get the concept of giving away infinite goods to increase the value of scarce goods. They've set up a Monty Python channel on YouTube, where they'll be putting up pretty much all of their videos in high quality. The video announcing this is quite amusing, and a good contrast to all those content providers who decided to sue YouTube, rather than learn to embrace it: First, it points out that plenty of folks have already been posting content to YouTube, and while they could sue, instead, they decided to fight free videos with free videos by putting up their own versions -- in higher quality. There's a funny segment where the Monty Python crew reacts to being told that all of this content will be available for free, and then the video notes that while this content will be free, they're hoping people viewing the videos will go to the Pythonline site and buy DVDs (scarce goods) of their movies as well. What an idea. Instead of suing, give fans what they want, and give them a reason to buy. Ideally, they would provide extra reasons to buy the DVDs, rather than just praying that people will, but this is definitely a much better reaction than so many others.

Filed Under: business models, monty python, scarce goods, videos, youtube

Italy Moves Forward With Plan To Prosecute Google Execs Over Online Video

from the bad,-bad-precedent dept

Earlier this year, we were somewhat stunned that prosecutors in Italy would be charging four Google execs with criminal charges, because some kids had posted a video of themselves taunting a boy with Down Syndrome on Google's Italian video hosting site. The execs in question obviously had absolutely nothing to do with the video. The kids who filmed and uploaded the video have been charged separately, and it makes absolutely no sense to then charge executives at the company that provided the tool. Why is Italy not also charging the executives of the company who made the mobile phone that was used to film the video? Or the executives of the ISP that was used to upload the video? Or the administrators of the school where the video was filmed? Any of those would make just as much sense as suing Google execs.

We had hoped that, perhaps, an inkling of common sense would come into the proceedings, but instead, it appears that the Italian prosecutor is moving forward and demanding the execs appear in court for a trial starting early next year. If this moves forward, it sets a horrible precedent, effectively allowing prosecutors to blame just about anyone who is tangentially connected to a crime. It's a travesty of justice, and the Italian justice system should be ashamed that it's even gotten this far.

Filed Under: italy, liability, videos
Companies: google

Weird Al File Sharing Censorship Was To Mock MTV

from the it's-all-explained dept

Last week we broke the story of Weird Al Yankovic's "Don't Download This Song" video being bleeped on MTV when the names of file sharing apps were mentioned. The NY Times thankfully got to the bottom of the story after a conversation with Weird Al himself. Apparently, MTV had told him two years ago (when the video was released) that they would not play it on TV without the file sharing names taken out. Yankovic himself added the beeps and tried to make them as extreme as possible to highlight the ridiculousness of it all:

Instead of subtly removing or obscuring the words in the track, I made the creative decision to bleep them out as obnoxiously as possible, so that there would be no mistake I was being censored.

He doesn't know if the video ever actually aired on TV, so it's likely no one even saw the bleeped video until MTV launched their online video site. He points out, as we noted, that the uncensored version is available on YouTube, but doesn't explain why embedding that video is forbidden as well.

Filed Under: bleeps, music, videos, weird al
Companies: mtv

MySpace And MTV Catch Up To YouTube On Ad Spamming Uploaded Videos

from the this-is-revolutionary? dept

For quite some time, YouTube has allowed copyright holders to "claim" videos that contain their content. Rather than demanding a takedown, these claims allow Google to place ads on the videos and share some of the revenue with the copyright holder. That seems a lot better than random takedowns, and in fact Google's program has been very successful. So it should come as no surprise that others, including MySpace and MTV are about to offer the same deal. What's unclear, though, is why some are claiming that this is revolutionary. Seeing as YouTube has been doing it for a year, it's difficult to see how there's much to get excited about here.

Filed Under: ads, copyright, uploads, videos
Companies: mtv, myspace

Facebook Using DMCA Notices To Takedown Private Videos?

from the say-what-now? dept

You may remember last month that we had a story about Google taking down a video on Google Video for copyright infringement, even though the video itself (a brief Christmas home movie) was set to private, and only 3 or 4 people had seen it. We were curious as to why Google would be scanning videos set to private and taking them down. At least in that case, Google admitted that it was an automated scanner (though never explained why it was reviewing private videos).

However, some friends of mine are now facing a similar, but more worrisome, situation with Facebook. A friend got married back in July, and some other friends who were in attendance filmed various parts of the wedding ceremony and reception. As is pretty common these days, they later took the best clips from those videos, set them to music and posted them to Facebook -- but set the videos to only be shared directly with friends. My friend Hersh used two songs dubbed over the video, one by a relatively unknown artist, Xavier Naidoo, and one by Kanye West. My friend Michael had an entirely different video, and used two different songs. One by the Deftones, and one by Jason Mraz.

Even though both videos were posted in July, and both were set to be only viewable to friends, rather than made public, both Hersh and Michael received DMCA takedown notices from Facebook with the videos taken down. The takedowns (which both sent me) don't specify that Facebook received a takedown, though they do point them to a "counter-notification" page, which is what the DMCA would offer. So, from what's been presented, it's unclear if Facebook actually received a DMCA or just decided on its own to take down two private videos of the same event on the same day.

While, technically, (and this point is arguable) these videos may be infringing, there's a good case to be made that they were fair use. They most certainly were not commercial in nature, and most clearly did not diminish the commercial potential of the works in question. In fact, Hersh named 3 of our friends who specifically had asked him who Xavier Naidoo was, so they could go find more of his music. Now Hersh can no longer promote Naidoo's music. That seems to go against everything that copyright is supposed to be about.

Neither is going to file a counternotice, because of the gray area concerning whether or not this is fair use (something Hersh understands quite well as a law student), and Facebook's form makes you swear under penalty of perjury that the content is legal. The whole incident raises a bunch of questions about how Facebook goes about taking down private videos, and why such videos are considered copyright infringement in the first place. In the meantime, if you have videos with backing music in them, apparently you're not welcome at Facebook.

Filed Under: automated takedown, dmca, good faith beliefs, privacy, takedown, videos
Companies: facebook

YouTube Tells McCain He Doesn't Get Special DMCA Treatment

from the change-the-law-and-we'll-talk dept

Earlier this week, we pointed out the letter the McCain campaign had sent YouTube concerning observing fair use before complying with takedown notices on political videos. As we noted at the time, the problem with the situation wasn't with YouTube, but with the DMCA (which McCain voted for, by the way). Now, YouTube's Zahavah Levine has responded to the letter, and made the same point. YouTube won't change its practices because that would be granting special privileges to the campaign rather than everyone else. Instead, YouTube hopes that McCain will help fix the law so that this isn't a problem going forward:

While we agree with you that the U.S. presidential election-related content is invaluable and worthy of the highest level of protection, there is a lot of other content on our global site that our users around the world find to be equally important, including, by way of example only, political campaigns from around the globe at all levels of government, human rights movements, and other important voices. We try to be careful not to favor one category of content on our site over others, and to treat all of our users fairly, regardless of whether they are an individual, a large corporation or a candidate for public office.

The real problem here is individuals and entities that abuse the DMCA takedown process....

We look forward to working with Senator (or President) McCain on ways to combat abuse of the DMCA takedown process on YouTube, including by way of example, strengthening the fair use doctrine....

This is the right response. As problematic as the takedown process is, the answer should be to fix the law -- not make special exceptions for politicians.

Filed Under: campaign, copyright, dmca, fair use, john mccain, takedowns, videos, william patry, zahavah levine
Companies: google, youtube

McCain Campaign Sends Letter To YouTube Defending Fair Use

from the what-the...? dept

This is impressive, and somewhat unexpected. It's rather rare to see politicians (other than maginal ones, at least) showing any sort of recognition of fair use. It's certainly not an issue you'd expect to see raised by a presidential candidate (of either party). However, John McCain's campaign has sent a letter to YouTube complaining about the site's unwillingness to consider fair use in videos before taking them down. You can read the whole letter at that link or below (if you're not reading via a feed):

The letter basically notes that YouTube seems a bit too fast on the trigger in pulling down content based on DMCA takedown notices, in part parroting the some of the recent ruling where a judge said that those sending DMCA notices need to at least take fair use into consideration. Of course, that was directed at the sender of the DMCA takedown notice, not the recipient, as in this case. I'm sure the McCain campaign recognizes that YouTube is completely within its legal rights to automatically pull down the content, but in sending this letter the campaign is suggesting that, specific to videos put up by either political campaign (the letter cc's the Obama campaign), that YouTube take into account fair use.

The letter is addressed to YouTube's founder, Chad Hurley, as well as Google's Senior Copyright Counsel, William Patry (who we've talked about and quoted here many times) and Zahavah Levine, who is General Counsel for YouTube, who I've met and spoken with in the past. Both Patry and Levine are well aware of the legal issues here (probably better than just about anyone else), so it will be quite interesting to see how they respond. The real issue here has almost nothing to do with Google/YouTube -- but with the way the DMCA itself is structured. Since it provides clear safe harbor for a recipient of a takedown notice if they take down the content, it's a reasonable business decision to simply take down the content and then follow the proper procedures for letting the uploader file a response notice.

While it certainly would be nice for YouTube to take into account fair use before deciding whether or not to pull down the content, the real problem is with the law itself, and the incentives it puts in place for any recipient of such a letter. If the McCain (or Obama) campaign were really concerned with that, they should not just ask for this special exception to YouTube's official policies, but should promise to push for a change to the DMCA that makes an explicit point that recipients of such takedown notices shall retain their safe harbor protections even if they refuse to take down content, if they have a reasonable belief that the content in question is being used in accordance with fair use rules.

Filed Under: campaign, copyright, dmca, fair use, john mccain, takedowns, videos, william patry, zahavah levine
Companies: google, youtube

Lexus Gets Into The Video Hosting Business...?

from the apparently dept

So, we were a little confused recently when Toyota sued a nude model for using the name Alexus, as it seemed difficult to believe there would be any "confusion" between the two. However, who knew that Lexus was getting into the entertainment business? We've talked in the past about BMW's famous BMW Films effort, as an example of how the future of advertising needs to recognize the blurring lines between content and advertising. In BMW's case, each film was directed by a famous filmmaker, starred actor Clive Owen, and included a BMW that tended to act as something of a co-star. The films were entertaining as pure content, rather than as traditional advertising.

Since then, we've seen plenty of other companies try similar things, with varying degrees of success. For example, the recent set of Microsoft ads involving Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates received a very mixed reaction -- in part because people expected them to be like traditional ads, pitching a specific product, rather than creating a story line that was entertaining in its own right.

Now, one of our readers, William Jackson, points us to an experiment apparently by the car company, Lexus (a part of Toyota). It's called L Studio, and appears to be something of a web video platform, showing a bunch of professionally produced videos. As Jackson notes, some of them do involve a Lexus, such as this documentary about an artist creating a piece of artwork out of a Lexus: However, others seem to have absolutely nothing to do with Lexus automobiles at all, and often star recognizable actors, such as this video starring Famke Janssen trying to juggle her dating life with her dog: I'm sure some will complain that these sorts of videos don't make any sense, as they do nothing to promote the vehicles -- but it may be worth seeing where this campaign goes from here. Some of the videos are entertaining and help put Lexus' brand around "lifestyle" content, and that could get people to start associating the Lexus brand with a certain type of lifestyle. Sure, it might not be as "in your face" as sponsoring a TV show or doing product placement, but if the content is good and gets people to seek it out rather than intrude on what they're doing, this could be a very effective branding campaign.

Filed Under: advertising, advertising is content, hosting, videos
Companies: lexus, toyota

What Does The Internet Have To Do With The Finnish School Shooting?

from the absolutely-nothing dept

The story of the Finnish school shooting that left 11 people (including the shooter) dead is certainly a tragedy, and you can understand why people immediately respond to such things by looking for something to blame, or some law or process that needs to be changed -- but at some point you have to admit that it's going to be impossible to totally prevent such actions. Yet, for some reason, people always want to place some sort of "blame" for these sorts of things on the internet. Witness comments from Finnish Prime Minister, Matti Vanhanen, where he talks about various changes to look at, such as with gun laws, but also says:

"The internet and YouTube forums... are not another planet. This is part of our world and we adults have the responsibility to check what is happening, and create borders and safety there."

But, the thing is, those channels are being monitored, and they were watched in this case. In fact, as nearly every press report on the shooting mentions, police visited the shooter a day before the shooting, due to a YouTube video he posted where he was heard pointing a gun at the camera and saying "you will die next." So it's difficult to see how the internet is even remotely worth calling out here. The internet was used to alert authorities, it's just that there wasn't any evidence of a crime or intention to commit a crime at that point. So why bring it up at all?

Filed Under: blame game, finland, internet, school shooting, videos