Online Video
Latest
National Lampoon's original content arrives on Dailymotion in HD
Fans of acquiring their HD content via the internet have one more reason to celebrate today, as National Lampoon Inc. has agreed to place some of its original content on Dailymotion in glorious high-definition. Reportedly, both firms will "share in advertising revenues generated by the additional content," and while it seems that not all programming will be available in HD, at least some of the "premium" stuff will. No word on when the new material will start showing up, but the sooner the better, we say.
Browser-based WiTV video player gets sneak preview
WebwireTV got a sneak preview of a new online video client designed to compete with the likes of Joost and other higher quality online video offerings. The few differences between the two clients include a central content distribution model -- Joost uses P2P -- and support for Steve Jobs' hobby. Beyond that, WiTV doesn't have the same kind of content deals that Joost has, although the interface and the absence of any kind of software installation definitely shows potential.
Movie Gallery to enter on-line video rental service
Movie Gallery -- the media cats behind Hollywood Video and Game Crazy stores -- just announced a foray into the online video rental service. Set to launch sometime in mid-to-late 2007, the new service is meant to complement its brick-and-mortar business. They also announced an extension to their movie kiosk program by adding another 200 movie vending machines to the 74 units already occupying high traffic areas in malls and supermarkets. How the new rental service (no mention of download-to-own) will integrate (if at all) with their recently acquired MovieBeam service is unclear. One thing's for sure however, Blockbuster had better get a move on if they hope to compete in this redefined marketplace which is both busting at the seams while simultaneously converging.[Via eHomeUpgrade]
Skype founders to try online video distribution with Joost
Chances are that anyone remotely in the loop these days would be familiar with "Kazaa" and "Skype," but only time will tell if folks warm up to "Joost." The duo who founded one of the most popular P2P networks as well as a mainstay in every VoIP conversation are finally naming (and launching) its video distribution service, aiming to "cheaply and efficiently distribute high-quality video over the internet" via the same P2P technology that has treated them so well thus far. Unfortunately for them, the road from here is quite rocky, especially when you consider the already well-established iTunes Movie Store, YouTube, and the variety of download-to-burn services currently available. Additionally, Joost has yet to nail down any "marquee partnerships with top film or TV producers," which will almost certainly make gaining marketshare an all but impossible chore. The one thing this rendition has going for it, however, is the general experience in comparison to other alternatives, as reports liken it to a "TiVo-like layout" that gives users next to total control over the content at hand. The company has stated that it will support itself with internet ads that behave like television commercials, which presumably won't come as any shock to consumers partaking in what Joost has to offer. Unfortunately, there's no hard details on when the newfound service will go live nor about what content will be served up, but regardless, a little more competition (and a little less dictatorship) in online video distribution is more than welcome.
Movielink to allow movie transfers to DVDs?
Have you been shunning Movielink because you don't feel like watching all your movies on your PC screen? If so, you're obviously not alone. The missed business is making the online film distributor re-think their insistence on refusing burnability in their downloads; it's been discovered that software technology from Sonic Solutions has been purchased to presumably allow for the DRM-infested files to be burned to DVDs somehow playable in any off-the-shelf DVD player. This approach could get real sticky: how does it keep DRM implemented on native DVDs, how does it stop dupes from showing up everywhere, and at this point, will anyone even pay attention? It's already known that studios are already finding alternate ways to get their films to viewers over the 'net: Warner Bros. and Sony Pictures have already inked deals with Guba in hopes of making downloads feel a bit less restrictive. Whether this (supposed) change will be enough to revitalize Movielink remains to be seen; the bigger question, however, is whether there's actually that big of a pent up demand for a DVD download-and-burn service. [Via Digital Lifestyles]
CE-Oh no he didn't! Part IX - Gates watches pirated videos
We fell hard so in love with all these wonderful execu-quotes, we're giving them a series here on Engadget, ala Keepin' it real fake, etc. We doubt there's nary a person in our millions-large audience who hasn't occasionally partaken in a copyright-infringing YouTube clip (must we mention Lazy Sunday?), or a even a bad no-no Torrented film; we certainly couldn't dodge the accusation ourselves. But you've kind of got to hand it to the world's richest man -- someone known for his fine-tipped views on intellectual property and piracy -- admitting to, then backing out of, then copping to watching pirated video content. Peep this tidbit from Mr. Gates to Mossberg and Kara Swisher in a recent WSJ interview:Mossberg: Talk about YouTube. What do you think about that? Why aren't you doing something like that?Gates: If we did YouTube, we'd be in a lot of trouble. First of all, people would say, "How do you make money?" Second, they'd say, what about all that copyright violation taking place up there. It's a neat site. I saw a bunch of old Harlem Globetrotters movies up there the other night, it's great.Swisher: You watch physics lectures and Harlem Globetrotters?Gates: This social-networking thing takes you to crazy places.Swisher: But those were stolen, correct?Gates: Stolen's a strong word. It's copyrighted content that the owner wasn't paid for. So yes.Look, we aren't here to point fingers, and we do think they kind of backed him into a corner there. But call us crazy, maybe it's just time to face the fact that legal attacks to this and that video sharing site for short clips just ain't the way to get people to pay a hundred some-odd bucks for crappy cable service, y'know? Gates, we salute your candor, hypocritical though it may seem.[Via The Raw Feed]
The Clicker: YouTube's win-win-win
Every week Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:Recently we talked about the upstart sensation, YouTube. As a social phenomenon and a growing entity, YouTube's rise to glory has been nothing short of meteoric. In just one year YouTube has taken its business from zero to pumping out more than 35 Million streams per day, and it's still growing. That's pretty darn impressive, but, as the immortal Rod Tidwell once said, "Show me the money!" You see -- there's a fairly developed pattern when it comes to replacing existing media outlets with their internet counterparts. The first step is to see if people will buy what you're selling when the cost is zero. YouTube has clearly been successful in that regard. In fact, their success has even convinced media giant AOL to create their own (nearly) feature-for-feature knock-off (see: http://communityvideo.aol.com/). [Disclaimer: this publication's parent company is owned by AOL.]However, using venture capital money to subsidize the trafficking of copyrighted material is just the first step. Eventually, the fledgling business will have to hit step two: making money. It's there where the wheat is separated from the chaff. It's there where we find out if a new medium will enjoy long-term success or fizzle away like the pet rock. Take blogs for instance: While blogs began as simple online personal journals, it didn't take long for enterprising souls to recognize that blogs held much more power than simply sharing your cat's diet with your 12 "readers." Yes, the majority of the blogs out there are still "by the people for the people." Yet, the medium has also spawned quite a few commercial sites (this site included). It's this commercialization that ensures the future of the medium.But where is YouTube's legitimization? More specifically, where is the path to profitability? Millions of streams per day is quite impressive, but it's also quite expensive. Estimates for YouTube's traffic have been pegged as high as 200TB per day. No, that 'T' was not a typo; that's Terabytes. Bandwidth costs alone most likely approach one million dollars a month. Add on top of that the cost of running a service as massive as YouTube's, and you quickly come to the same conclusion: It's time for YouTube to stop growing and start making money.
Seven major studios line up to sell movies online
We have no idea why they chose today to do it, but today seven major movie studios announced they'll be selling movies online through Movielink and CinemaNow. Warner Bros, Universal, Sony, Paramount, Fox, and MGM will all be distributing first-run titles online -- definitely something they've never done before -- through Movielink for between 20 and 30 bones (way, way too much if you ask us), with older movies going for between $10 and $20. Lionsgate (and Sony) also announced distribution through CinemaNow. Really this was only a matter of time -- for these guys it was either sell these things online DRMed all to hell for way too much money (see above), go the subscription route (like Vongo, for example -- not likely) or continue whining without any justification whatsoever about pirates stealing movies in the Internet. At least now they can say they've legitimately offered their digital content up online (hey, you can even make a DVD backup for use only on Movielink-authorized computers), even though they still can't account for the artificial demand they try to create by releasing movies for purchase months after the films have gone out of theater.[Thanks, Phil]
