YouTube - Articles - Zimbio

Free Online YouTube-Style Porn Threatens Studios

Fri, 23 Aug 2008 16:29:00 GMT

posted by AussiePB
AFTER years of booming sales supported by videotapes, DVDs and the internet, the adult film industry is being challenged by easy video-sharing websites offering explicit content for free.

"We're dealing with rampant piracy, tons of free content," said Steven Hirsch, co-founder of Vivid, the best-known adult film studio.

Vivid once earned 80 per cent of its roughly $100 million a year from DVD sales, but last year that fell to 30 per cent, Mr Hirsch said.

The challenge of the internet, a topic of discussion at the biggest adult film expo of the year in Las Vegas last week, has already presented itself to the music and mainstream film industries.

Much of the online competition for the US porn world, based largely in southern California, comes from websites like XTube.com which allow users to upload their own videos in a similar format to YouTube.

Some of the videos on XTube, based in Toronto, Canada, come from commercial studios while others are posted by amateurs.

"We're not pirates. We are providing a service that people think they can use to pirate," said Lance Cassidy, one of XTube's founders.

The website has 200,000 free videos, typically 30 seconds to two minutes long, and about 1 per cent of visitors buy DVDs or video streams, resulting in millions of dollars of annual revenue, sales director Curtis Potec said. About two thirds of XTube's viewers are gay, Mr Potec said.

"We've had tons and tons of people tell us this is the future of the adult industry," Mr Potec said.

"Most of the money is ads, on any site, mainstream or adult."

Scott Coffman, president of Adult Entertainment Broadcast Network (AEBN) in North Carolina, says his company started a YouTube-type site a year-and-a-half ago to generate revenue through advertising and drive traffic to pay-per-minute sites.

AEBN limits free clips to three minutes. Users make about a quarter of them.

"They don't convert that well when you give away so much. There is a fine line between giving away something small, a teaser... and giving away the whole thing," Mr Coffman said.

He said his company had revenue of about $100 million a year and was facing a lawsuit from Vivid accusing AEBN of piracy.

Mr Hirsch of Vivid said he would also sue other video-sharing sites.

"This industry is going to have to get together and look at these guys that are putting out the stuff for free... so they are going to have to get in line and start paying for it," Mr Hirsch said.

"If that doesn't happen and we see all of this free content out there, people are not going to be able to afford to produce movies anymore."

Videotapes, fewer prosecutions, DVDs and internet advertising has created an unprecedented boom the US adult film industry since the 1980s.

Many studios post short clips on internet video-sharing sites as advertising to sell more movies.

"This is something we constantly discuss in our office. Is it too much," said Garion Hall, chief executive of Abbywinters.com, an Australian-based company.

Hall said only one out of 500 viewers clicked over to his site from free clips and of those only one in 50 subscribed.

Some adult industry executives say a solution may lie in future distribution deals with big US companies such as AT&T, Verizon Communications, Comcast and Apple.

An Apple spokeswoman said the company would not comment if it had held past talks or was interested in distributing adult product.

A spokeswoman for Comcast, the largest US cable provider, said the firm offered adult content in its video-on-demand service but said she knew of no talks for mobile adult distribution.

Sales of sex films to mobile devices occur in Europe but have yet to take off in the US.

"We won't make money through adult content," said Verizon Wireless spokesman Ken Muche.

AT&T did not comment.

Jay Grdina, president of ClubJenna Inc, a division of Playboy, said sharing previews was a mistake.

"We're getting bitten by our own sword," he said.

Grdina, former husband and on-scene partner of Jenna Jameson, one of the industry's most famous porn stars, said he has met companies such as Microsoft and Apple to seek wireless and other distribution deals that could allow easy downloads to devices such as iPods.

A spokesman for Microsoft said they were not in talks to distribute adult content.

"The revenues are massive," Grdina said.

"(But) the biggest fear is share price: what are the shareholders going to say?"

Courtesy of news.com.au

Compliments of Aussie Pete :)

Revenue On YouTube | Would Pre-Vetting All Video Help Google Make Money On YouTube?

Fri, 12 Jul 2008 05:00:30 GMT

posted by ChrisTV

Over the past few months, there has been a lot of talk about how Google are trying, and ultimately failing at this point, to make YouTube the revenue-getting machine its traffic indicates it could, and should, be.

A couple of days ago, it leaked that Google were going to be reversing a long-held conviction, and putting pre-roll and post-roll adverts on to the site - a move very likely to upset regular visitors.

Only For Approved Content

It was also reported that these adverts were only to appear on videos which have been approved by media companies and other partners. A move obviously prompted by the legal wrangle with Viacom currently playing out in court.

Approved content only accounts for about 4% of the total videos on YouTube, and for that, Google is expecting to make about $200 million in revenue this year. So the question now being asked is: Should Google up the rate of approved videos?

Pre-Vetting To Increase Revenue?

Mark Cuban asks that question on Blog Maverick, and puts a clear and well-thought out argument forward. Basically saying that the extra revenue generated would pay for the automatic and manual reviewing of video content on being uplaoded on to the site.

There is currently over 10 hours of content uploaded to the site every minute, so that would be quite a job for a data center to handle, but the extra revenue generated could indeed make it a viable option.

As Cuban says, Google is already doing this exact same process for the 4% of videos that do pass the copyright-free content owned tests already, so it’s not as though it would be a completely new system to set up and manage.

Video-Vetting Backlash

Purely for the business of revenue-generating, this would obviously work, but in the pursuit of profit, how much would Google be risking in terms of YouTube losing its status as the ultimate video destination, and one which isn’t subject to pre-vetting.

Back in March, Steve Chen, one of the original founders of YouTube, argued that video vetting would ruin the ease and immediacy that the site currently offers to people who want to upload video content to the Web.

Revenue Vs User Satisfaction

The Christian YouTube clone GodTube does use pre-vetting, and it means videos take a while to make it on to the site. I’m not too sure that YouTube veterans would take too kindly to a change such as this.

It means Google are in a position where it has to make a decision to risk annoying its many millions of users, but making extra revenue, or leaving things as they are, and making less. I’m guessing the former.

What one YouTube video can do for the weird and unwholesome

Tue, 30 Apr 2008 01:33:03 GMT

posted by iludiumphosdex

JOEL McNALLY, A SATIRIC COLUMNIST WHO WRITES FOR THE NEW, "VIRTUAL" VERSION OF THE CAPITAL TIMES out of Madison, Wisconsin, had these comments the other day about a video just posted on YouTube by the Milwaukee Police Department in the hope of obtaining the public's help in identifying suspects in a recent notorious robbery attempt @ a supermarket/liquor store:

The hottest shoot-'em-up filmed in Milwaukee isn't the upcoming Dillinger movie starring Johnny Depp. It's a video posted on the popular Web site, YouTube, by the Milwaukee Police Department.

Police claim they posted the Milwaukee shootout filmed by a surveillance camera at Villard Food and Liquor on the national Web site to seek assistance in identifying an alleged shoplifter involved in the gunfight.

But the thousands of computer hits generated across the country have nothing to do with any sudden, overwhelming desire of the nation's citizenry to assist Milwaukee in cracking down on shoplifting.

The video offers all the sleazy attraction of a particularly horrible car crash.

Also, because all of the parties on both sides of the shootout and a violent beating that preceded it are black, the video apparently has become must-see TV for the nation's racists.

One particularly obscene, racist rant posted on YouTube labels all the participants and even an endangered bystander as monkeys.

"I don't get it," says the writer, who actually has no idea how ignorant he really is. "We gave them jobs, food and a place to sleep. Take them out of the cotton fields and look what happens."

But, of course, the real national and local debate into which the video feeds is the argument over the desirability of carrying handguns.

Gun enthusiasts who equate carrying handguns with public safety consider the video an argument for the more, the merrier. After an apparent shoplifter is surrounded by four men and beaten with a baseball bat, he leaves the store and returns later with a gun.

You see the man striding quickly through the door, determined to create mayhem. Then you see him stop short without even raising his weapon when he sees that the clerk behind the counter has a gun trained on him.

As the customer meekly retreats from the store, however, he turns and begins firing. The store clerk opens fire at the same time. Incredibly, a woman in a green jacket calmly walks between the shooters and out of the store in the middle of the gunfight.

Only fortune and bad aim prevented a public massacre.

Any rational viewing of the video makes it a far cry from an NRA recruiting commercial. In fact, it undercuts just about every argument gun supporters make for the proliferation of handguns.

The video clearly shows how the easy availability of guns escalates an already violent society into a potentially deadly, violent society.

The shootout is the most shocking event in the video. The second most shocking is the violent beating of the man with fists and a baseball bat by four men. Reportedly, it was over the theft of a stick of deodorant.

With guns so readily available, any victim of a one-sided gang beating thinks he has an easy means to even up the score. But, of course, when guns are everywhere, you never know when somebody else is going to get the drop on you.

Gun supporters see that as incredibly good news. To them, it's just great that an angry victim of a beating bent on blowing away store employees was driven away by a hail of bullets in the other direction.

But most of us are far more likely to identify with innocent customers in a convenience store on a Sunday afternoon, when this barrage of gunfire took place.

Do we really want to live in the society that the supporters of concealed carry are so eager to create where such shootouts can suddenly break out anywhere anytime? What kind of public safety is that?

Another one of the basic premises of concealed carry also is refuted by the video.

That is the claim that bad guys with guns will somehow make a rational decision not to use them if they think their intended victims might also be armed.

Golly, do you think anyone would have a clue that a store where shoplifters are beaten with a baseball bat might just possibly have a gun behind the counter as well?

The protection of private property and the shooting of bad guys are so widely supported in our society that some were outraged to learn the police had asked the district attorney to determine whether the store clerk should be charged as a felon illegally in possession of a firearm.

They needn't have worried. A few days later, the deputy district attorney announced the clerk would not be charged, citing self-defense. Prosecutors know juries are unlikely to convict store clerks for protecting their businesses with deadly weapons unless the criminal violations and reckless endangerment of the public are overwhelming. And maybe not even then.

But the next time the Legislature tries to put even more guns on our streets, think about getting caught in the crossfire of more Sunday afternoon shootouts in Milwaukee.

And in case you're wondering about the video in question, here 'tis:

So much for the NRA thinking that "happiness is a WARM gun!!!"

(BTW, readers: If you have any designs on posting race-baiting or otherwise pandering comments in response, be aware that such will be deleted, as this happens to be the kind of blog designed for reading by all the family. Likewise with anything containing the Seven Dirty Words and their variants.)

glitter-graphics.com

YouTube Adds Geosearch - Find Video Tagged From Any Location | Google Search Expertise

Sun, 14 Jul 2008 03:00:14 GMT

posted by ChrisTV

Now that YouTube is owned by search expert Google, you’d think it would be easier than it is to find the video you are looking for in amongst its glut of content. But it’s currently quite a hard task.

It could be about to get easier however, at least if you want to find a video from, or about, a certain location. YouTube is now experimenting with geosearch - the ability to find videos tagged with a location name.

A Use For The Technology

The ability for video uploaders to add location tags has been present for over a year, but up until now, users haven’t really been able to do anything with that information.

According to CNET, the technology is now being trialled, with YouTube product manager Brian Glick announcing that a full release would be launched “really soon”.

YouTube Users Benefit

Both Google Earth and Google Maps already have YouTube integrated in to them. This new innovation would mean YouTube users would also benefit from the cross-fertilisation as well as users of these two services.

Video search isn’t an easy art to master, but tagging is one of the easiest ways to get good results. With Google in control, hopefully YouTube will be able to lead the way in video search technology and methods.

YouTube Revenue-Sharing Deal With Lionsgate | Distributing Clips From Independent Studio

Wed, 17 Jul 2008 01:37:20 GMT

posted by ChrisTV

The challenge for YouTube to make some money from the millions of viewers it gets each month continues, but a new deal with independent film studio Lionsgate could help at least a little bit.

It was revealed just yesterday that YouTube nabbed about 35% of the total videos viewed online in the US during May, so there’s certainly the viewers there to make revenue possible.

Lionsgate Branded YouTube Channel

The latest deal, announced by Google CEO Eric Schmidt at a industry conference, sees clips from Lionsgate movies appearing on a branded video channel on the site.

Pre-roll adverts will appear alongside the clips, and Google will share the revenue with the studio. Pre-roll and post-roll adverts are thought to be being trialled on certain clips on the site.

The Future Of YouTube?

This is likely to just be the first of many such deals made between YouTube and media companies. Each one is likely to see adverts appear on pre-vetted video clips, with some kind of revenue share in place.

While deals such as this one aren’t going to make YouTube a fortune, and won’t really be the best way to utilise the massive market-share it currently enjoys, they do at least signal an intention to move towards making the site a more profitable venture for Google.