TechBloggin.com

A large portion of YouTube videos are watched on other sites in embeddable players (like the one below of Erepublik CEO Alexis Bonte giving us an Elevator Pitch). But if someone watches a YouTube video on a site other than YouTube, does it count towards the total views of that video? Apparently not, or at least not always.

One TechCrunch reader had a video of his picked up by a popular site, where it generated 15,000 views, but the YouTube view counter for that video only went up by about 1,000 views. Perplexed, he sent YouTube an email, and received the following response (bold added for emphasis):

“Hi there,

Thanks for your email. I would like you to know, if a user views the video
on the external website itself, it is not added to the view count of the
video on YouTube. However, if a user is directed to the YouTube site on
clicking the embedded video on the external website, it would register as
an additional count to the video views.

Additionally, changes to video and account information on our site such as
video view count can take a few hours to update and synchronize. We’re
constantly working to make that happen a lot faster and appreciate your
patience.

Regards,

Shweta
The YouTube Team”

This is just from a support rep who may be mistaken about YouTube’s policy on counting views (we have an email in to YouTube asking for clarification), but her response does suggest that at least some views from other sites do not count. One reason for this might be that some external sites put YouTube videos on autoplay whenever the page they are on loads. That can game the whole YouTube popularity system, so YouTube does not count autoplays, as NewTeevee recently found out. And indeed, our reader’s video was on a site that autoplayed his video. (For more on how the various video sites count views, see this TubeMogul report).

Mystery solved, right? Well, not exactly. We use YouTube for all the videos on Elevator Pitches, and we don’t set those to autoplay. Viewers have to click on them to watch.

Yesterday, we hit play repeatedly on a bunch of videos on Elevator Pitches, and then went over to their YouTube to see if any of the views registered. Nada. Then we started watching the videos on YouTube itself. Still nada. Maybe it’s the time delay, though. We really can’t tell. Because the views do change a few hours later, there is just no way of knowing if it was from us or someone else.

So as a final test, I’ve embedded an Elevator Pitch below from the CEO of Erepublik, a massive online social strategy game. At the time of this post the video has been viewed only 490 times. We’ll see if we can move that number up at all from here.

Update: We’ve received word from a YouTube spokesperson who told us:

Viewcounts are important to the community and are a reflection of the interests and intents of video viewers. Autoplaybacks are not counted toward the visible “views” numbers displayed on the YouTube site because autoplaybacks are not viewer initiated. The majority of videos are not affected by this.

Update 2: The view count for the video below is up to 1,786 views by Saturday morning. Most of those are presumably from this post, and took a while to register. So maybe Google does know how to count but it can only count very slowly.

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Source: Erick Schonfeld

written by

Filed under: Digital Cameras

We won’t fault you for forgetting all about Samsung’s SC-MX20 — after all, it was crammed deep beneath a host of other Sammy camcorders when announced at CES earlier this year. Nevertheless, we’ve received a few more vital details about said shooter today, and aside from boasting a 680K pixel CCD sensor (720 x 480 resolution), this one also features a 34x optical zoom, Advanced Image Stabilization, face detection, an SD / SDHC card slot, a battery good for three hours, a 2.7-inch LCD monitor (on a swivel, no less) and ten automatic scene modes for extra good times. Additionally, the unit packs a special shooting mode that captures in a resolution and format perfect for YouTube, so those terrified of converting will surely be breathing a sigh of relief. Expect this one to land next month in red, white, black and blue for a very manageable $279.99.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Source: Darren Murph

written by

The recent court order directing Google to hand over data to Viacom about every YouTube video ever watched strikes many people as an absurd overreach of the law into the privacy of anyone who has ever used YouTube (i.e., almost everyone on the Internet). Google should definitely keep fighting the ruling if it can.

But if it can’t, perhaps it should comply with it in a creative way. The data in question are data logs containing the records of every video watched on YouTube, by whom, and at what times. The court is also ordering that Google hand over all videos that have ever been taken down for any reason. The logs alone take up 12 terabytes. Google should print them out and deliver them on paper.

It would literally fill up the Library of Congress. That is roughly the equivalent of all the printed books in the Library of Congress (by one estimate, others put it at 20 terabytes—either way, it’s a lot of paper). The court order never states what form, the data must be delivered in.

(Photo via, appropriately enough, the Library of Congress And hat tip to reader Paul Christiansen for the original suggestion).
Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

Source: Erick Schonfeld

written by

The ongoing Google/YouTube-Viacom litigation has now officially spilled over to users with a court order requiring Google to turn over massive amounts of user data to Viacom. If the data is actually released, the consequences could be far more serious than the 2006 AOL Search debacle.

Louis L. Stanton, the senior judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, issued the opinion and order, which is here (PDF).

That data includes every YouTube username, the associated IP address and the videos that user has watched on YouTube. Google will also be required to hand over copies of every video removed from Youtube for any reason (DMCA notices or user-initiated deletions). Stanton dismissed Google’s argument that the order will violate user privacy, saying such privacy concerns are merely “speculative.”

Meanwhile, the judge denied Viacom’s request that Google turn over YouTube’s source code as it could “cause catastrophic competitive harm to Google by sharing them with others who might create their own programs without making the same investment.”

I can understand why Judge Stanton, who graduated from law school in 1955, may be completely and utterly clueless when it comes to online video services. But perhaps one of his bright young clerks or interns could have told him that (1) handing over user names and a list of videos they’ve watched to a highly litigious copyright holder is extremely likely to result in lawsuits against those users that have watched copyrighted content on YouTube, and (2) YouTube’s source code is about as valuable as the hard drive it would be delivered on, since the core Flash technology is owned by Adobe and there are countless YouTube clones out there, most of which offer higher quality video.

YouTube’s core value is in it’s network effect - the library of content along with its massive user base.

The privacy fallout of this ruling is spectacular. The EFF has already chimed in, noting that the order is highly likely to be in violation of federal law.

Judge Stanton doesn’t seem to care much about that law, for now. And he clearly doesn’t understand that far more data is being transferred than is necessary to comply with Viacom’s core stated concern, which is to understand the popularity of copyright infringing v. non-infringing material. Viacom has asked for far more data than that, and there’s only one use for that data: to sue individual users (or shake them down via the threat of lawsuit, which has been perfected by the RIAA) who have watched a few music videos or television shows on YouTube.

I say this with the utmost respect, but Judge Stanton is a moron. And Google simply cannot hand this data over without facing a class action lawsuit of staggering proportions.

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

Source: Michael Arrington

written by

Who says nothing good comes from getting deadpooled?

Blake Machado was the winner of a YouTube announcement contest we held a couple weeks back. He was the first to guess correctly that YouTube would come out with some new APIs to spread its influence over the web. The prize was an iPod shuffle.

Turns out YouTube’s announcement was particularly poignant for Blake given his connection to the previous deadpooled Stage6. As he revealed to us after winning:

Ironically guessing/winning this is bitter-sweet. I was the PM of
Stage6 and this is an area where we had planned to beat YouTube to the
punch and gain some, hopefully, extremely positive results. We would
have as it was scheduled for Feb. release — oh well.

So how’d we comfort him in his time of need? Etched a reminder of that deadpooling into his “consolation” prize, of course. You’re welcome, Blake.
Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

Source: Mark Hendrickson

written by

In mid 2005 I profiled YouTube for the first time. As Steve Rubel noted, the best way to describe it was “like Flickr, but for videos.” At the time few people saw the massive upside for YouTube, which was built completely on freely available Flash technology from Adobe. Flickr seemed like the far more interesting product.

Just a few months earlier Flickr had been acquired by Yahoo. And given how slow things were moving in 2005, few people thought YouTube would have the kind of success that Flickr had seen. But just a year later YouTube was suddenly worth $1.65 billion, and users were frustrated that they could upload their vacation photos to Flickr, but not the videos.

Yahoo has long promised to bring video to Flickr. In May 2007 co-founder Stewart Butterfield told us that users would be able to upload videos “soon.” This was reconfirmed in August 2007. But now, nearly three years after Yahoo bought them, and on their fourth birthday as a company, users are not able to upload videos to their Flickr accounts.

But rumors are flying that Yahoo intends to integrate video into Flickr very soon, perhaps in the next three weeks. Part of the delay may have been a long internal debate about how to make Flickr Video special and distinct from what YouTube already offers. They apparently have come to some product decisions, and will be making an announcement soon.

Yahoo PR and other employees are still dead quiet on the subject (I asked every one of them at the party tonight), but the buzz is growing and the leaks haven’t been totally contained. Get ready for Flickr Video. It’s coming. Really.
Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Source: Michael Arrington

written by

YouTube disappeared from the internet for between 1-2 hours today, according to reader reports and others.

YouTube went down around 11:30am PST and came back some time later.

The interesting side of the outage is an allegation from OpenDNS that Pakistan Telecom hijacked YouTube’s IP address space resulting in a worldwide outage. They note that the issue was subsequently rectified by PCCW, but it raises the question: is it really that easy to take one of the largest destinations online down?

There is no official word from YouTube as yet on the cause of the downtime.

(thanks to Mauricio Idarraga for the tip)

Crunch Network: MobileCrunch Mobile Gadgets and Applications, Delivered Daily.

Source: Duncan Riley

written by

With Toshiba’s announcement that it is to cease manufacture of HD DVD players, the High-Definition format wars are now over. With Blu-Ray left standing, some, such as Rob Beschizza at Wired are now saying that digital downloads will now kill Blu-Ray.

It’s an argument I want to support and many of you reading this will feel is a sound one, but it’s not going to happen anytime shortly. Here’s a few reasons why

Old Habits/ Age Dies Hard
I’m probably in the last generation who will ever remember a world without widespread computer use and internet everywhere. Younger generations (often called the “digital generation”) only know a world where anything can be accessed or downloaded at the click of a mouse button. To paraphrase many a politician, the young people are the future, and the next generation has nearly already abandoned CD’s, and physical media like DVDs and Blu-ray are next. But that doesn’t account for the many others who, as Rob Beschizza points out, already buy DVDs by the millions and will likely buy Blu-Ray now that HD wars are over (and as they did before DVD’s with VHS). Substantial generations have grown up with physical media, and this isn’t about to change tomorrow. Like music downloads though it will start to change, but like music that is going to take at least 5-10 years.

Access (or I want to watch movies on my TV)
I asked my mother the other day why she hadn’t downloaded something (legally of course) after she had purchased the physical media instead. Her response was simply that she didn’t want to watch it on her computer. Although many reading this will never give a second thought to watching video on their computer, there are still people who prefer consuming video on their TV sets. To be fair, HD on a 1080p 40″ TV set provides a better experience that on my 17″ Macbook Pro, although the TV set doesn’t easily come to bed with me.

There are ways of brining digital downloads to TV sets, but none have anywhere near the penetration yet to offer a serious alternative to DVD and Blu-Ray. Apple is now offering HD movie downloads via their Apple TV box, but try and find more than a handful of people who own an Apple TV. Others offer a similar service such as Vudu, and there’s even Microsoft Media Center, and yet none are mainstream. Until such time net or network enabled devices become mainstream, TV and physical media will retain the upper hand.

Broadband limitations
The US internet community cried long and hard when Time Warner announced it was considering capping downloads on its internet plans in January, and yet I’m sure most non-Americans reading about it would have simply said welcome to our reality. The problem going forward is the days of cheap unlimited internet access in the United States may well be coming to an end as more and more download video and use P2P services. The low cost of bandwidth itself was a historical quirk that came about due to the first dot com bubble. That extra remnant capacity is being used now, and the costs of increasing capacity will likely be passed on to consumers. If this means more capped internet plans that immediately puts a constraint on the amount of video that can be downloaded. Outside of the United States this is already the case with capped plans in many countries, restraining potential growth in downloads (simply users will only be able to download so much content.)

Combine this with the need for high speed internet access that isn’t universally available. Digital video will not become dominant where it takes hours, sometimes days to download, when users can simply rent or buy the title on physical media.

Conclusion
As I said in the introduction, I’m all for the supremacy of digital downloads. I own two net enabled TV devices, a Zensonic network DVD player that allows me to stream content from any computer in the house or my NAS drive to my main TV set, and I’ve recently added an Apple TV to my line up. I wouldn’t swap this setup, and yet I’m still in the vast minority. Blu-Ray will likely be the last big/ mainstream physical media technology ever and it will have a strong future. The various factors needed for mainstream digital downloading and viewing will eventually combine to finally kill Blu-Ray (and the domination of all physical media) sometime between 2010 and 2020.
Crunch Network: CrunchBoard because it’s time for you to find a new Job2.0

Source: Duncan Riley

written by