It will likely be a few months before Adobe rolls out 10.1 to everyone, but the impact of this move will likely be felt both in the short and long terms.  Short term, hardware decoded Flash video could be a real boost tonettop PC’s and netbooks, allowing them to really become cheap and easy media playback devices.  In the longer view, however, Flash’s innovation here could really cement its central role as they delivery avenue for video of all kinds over the Internet, dealing serious blows to both Microsoft’s Quicksilver, but also any other competitors still out there.  Unknown is what Flash video’s dominance will mean for the file-sharing and downloading communities.  Will video pirates move away from downloading entire shows via Bittorrent to instead watch free streaming episodes on Hulu -like services if quality differences disappear?  Will more cable customers ditch their TV services in favor of going completely for over-the-top video?  Such suppositions may be quite speculative at this point, but with the changes to Flash on the horizon, they are becoming more plausible every day.

YouTube is reportedly in discussions with several Hollywood studios to allow users to stream movies on-demand.

Talks with Lions Gate Entertainment, Sony Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, and Warner Brothers are now centered around how to share revenue between them and YouTube.

The price is rumored to be around $3.99, the same price charged by Apple’s iTunes.

“We hope to expand on both our great relationship with the movie studios and the selection and types of videos we offer our community,” said YouTube spokesman Chris Dale.

YouTube first began offering a section for FREE full-length movie streaming this past April, but it’s been limited to B-rated movies and documentaries.

Stay tuned.

jared@zeropaid.com

The ZeroPaid Facebook fan page is an easy way to stay up to date on various topics that Zeropaid.com covers including digital music, file sharing, technology and more. It also allows YOU the visitor to post links, photos and videos. Think of it like the forums on Zeropaid but a little more open…

Topic
How has the past 10 years changed the way you purchase and/or listen to music?

Submission Details
We want you to be as creative as possible with your video submission, show us your computers, your stereo setup or how  your garage band when from novice to nerd. Tell us how your life before iPods and MP3 players influenced the way you listen to music today.

This is your chance to voice your opinion on digital music and how file sharing has influenced your purchasing habits using the most popular social networking website.

The winner will be decided based on the following:

• Originality
• Creativity
• Quality

A user uploaded several clips of the copyright debate that took place on BNN. BNN then found out about the clips being uploaded to YouTube and issued a complaint and had the clips taken down. That caused the user to post accusations on a blog that the network is actively trying to censor the copyright debate. Quite the accusations. Is it true? Rose Noonan, the Sales Coordinator of BNN told ZeroPaid, no.

“BNN is certainly not trying to censor or silence the Canadian copyright debate – or any other topic.” Noonan told ZeroPaid.

So, if it wasn’t censorship, then what was it?

“The removal of BNN clips took place because the clips were posted without permission.” Noonan explained. She continued, “This is the only reason. The material was produced by, and is owned by BNN – Business News Network.”

The blogger making these accusations said that there was evidence that suggested that the only clips that were being removed were copyright debate related.

“When it became evident that numerous unauthorized BNN clips were posted on Youtube, a request was made that they remove all of the clips. This process involves finding each individual URL and sending them to Youtube to request that they be taken down. Attempts were made to find all the clips, but if there are still some there, that is an indication that a few may have been overlooked. There was never any intention to target clips of any topic.” Noonan said.

“In total,” Noonan said, “over 193 BNN clips were removed from Youtube – less than 3% of these clips were related to copyright. They were clips covering numerous topics and certainly not limited to copyright issues or anything else.”

Now that we received the other side of the story, a more probable explanation can be made. In instances in the past regarding other copyright infringement notices on YouTube where multiple clips are taken down, it’s possible that for the side of copyright owners to merely see it as just taking down unauthorized material from multiple sources. Meanwhile, on the other side of the infringement notice, the incident is much more personal. The notice is directed at you, as a user, in particular and can give off the impression that this take down was directed at you specifically – and when it’s political in nature, it can be very easy to take that take down notice as merely a case of a big faceless corporation trying to remove important debates from the public because of certain viewpoints – even though in this case, that wasn’t the case.

This case for BNN is easily a political mine field given thepolitically sensitive nature of copyright. One of the major arguments in the copyright debate is, in fact, that copyright can be used as a tool for censoring free speech. How does a copyright holder try to take down copyrighted material when the subject of that video is copyright in the first place? Did the take down indirectly affect free speech? Technically speaking, yes, there is a grain of truth to be had here. Ultimately speaking, the larger accusation that BNN wants to cover up or censor any debate in particular isn’t necessarily true. The take downs related to copyright were a tiny part of a larger round of take downs by the network with no debate targeting in mind.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

There are plenty of ways to see this as ironic. By actively trying to remove the clips in the first place, it brings more publicity to those clips in the first place. If the accusation turns out to be true, it also highlights a perfect example of when copyright can be used to suppress free speech. the video clips have since been placed back up onto not only YouTube, but another video sharing site as well. Those clips and commentary on the matter can be found on the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights.

“Over a year ago,” the blog posting says, “following the introduction of Bill C-61 we posted two videos to YouTube relating to Canadian copyright reform. These videos originally aired on the Business News Network formerly Report on Business TV. One video featured Canadian copyright scholar/expert Howard Knopf squaring off against Stevan Mitchell of the Entertainment Software Association (Howard Knopf Coming To The Defense Of Canadian Consumers – YouTube).”

“The second video featured professor Jeremy de Beer sparring with CRIA lobbyist, Barry Sookman over the implications of Bill C-61 (Jeremy de Beer & Barry Sookman On Bill C-61 – YouTube). On June 22, 2009 YouTube notified us that these videos had been removed citing a copyright complaint from The Business News Network.” The posting continued.

“Just a few days prior to our videos being pulled Jesse Hirsh tweeted that YouTube had just pulled one of his videos.” The posting explained, adding, “A BNN clip which had Jesse taking on a CRIA representative (Jesse Hirsh on RoBTV Regarding BitTorrent – YouTube). What was happening? Was BNN demanding every clip posted on YouTube be taken down or were they targeting clips relating to Canadian copyright reform only? A quick search of YouTube would indicate the latter.”

Copyright is a touchy subject for many Canadians. It’s, in part, why Bill C-60 and Bill C-61 died on the order paper and the issue hasn’t, so far, been resurrected by the current government. Many in Canada know how copyright can affect their day-to-day lives and any bill that encroaches on their rights, such as through anti-circumvention measures, can easily be seen as a threat at this point. It’s not hard to imagine the foreign interests who want to push for tighter copyright laws are not happy about the situation.

It’s not hard to see this latest development as an attempt to try and change the debate in Canada – at this point, a failed attempt that could backfire. Still, there’s little doubt that if the clips in question are removed again, they’ll find their way on other sites as well.

Update: BNN has refuted these accusations.

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

There was an interesting development from the hugely popular video sharing site. A report from Billboard says that SPPF has sued YouTube saying that over 100 music videos from their catalogue appeared on the site. All this after a previous episode where SPPF demanded the content be taken down (which, consequently, were taken down) only to have the video’s be re-uploaded by their users.

YouTube issued a statement saying that SPPF didn’t use their content ID system which prevents others uploading similar content.

While using the content ID system may have helped, one user discovered at one point that the system is far from perfect. Regardless, one might wonder if the fact that the labels decided not to use the system would hurt them in any legal case against the site.

Of course, there was another interesting tidbit BillBoard uncovered:

Meanwhile, SPPF also unveiled results for 2008, with a 14.9% increase in income to €14.5 million ($20.2 million). The rise was mainly due to various exceptional items and to an increase in music video income, thanks to the growth of digital terrestrial television (DTT) channels.

If there was an argument to be made that having an unauthorized video uploaded on YouTube will do harm for record labels, the fact that their revenues increase will not likely help that argument.

Of course, SPPF is far from the only entity to sue the website. Last year, French Broadcaster TF1 sued YouTube for €100 million. That was on top of the Italian Media Companies half a billion Euro lawsuit. Lawsuits, at one point, became so frequent that some observers renamed the site “SueTube” given that the site seemed to be, at that time, attracting a large number of lawsuits.

[Hat tip: Open Rights Group]

Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

YouTube recently unveiled a new section for TV shows and full-length movies. With partners like Crackle, CBS, MGM, Lionsgate, Starz and more it now offers thousands of TV episodes and hundreds of movies for visitors to watch, comment on, favorite and share.

"This addition is one of many efforts underway to ensure that we’re offering you all the different kinds of video you want to see, from bedroom vlogs and citizen journalism reports to music videos and full-length films and TV shows," it says.

YouTube no doubt wishes to compete with other streaming sites like Hulu, a joint venture between News Corp. and NBC Universal, and which offers a wide variety of TV shows and movies to watch.

The only drawbacks so far are availability and content.

The new sections are currently limited to users from the US, probably over copyright squabbling, but it does say that it hopes to expand to other regions "as soon as possible."

As for content, it lacks the selection of movies that Hulu has been able to hone so far with titles like "Sexy Beast," which I highly, highly recommend by the way, "Cheech and Chong’s Next Movie," or "Three O’Clock High" to name a few. YouTube so far only answers with "The Mod Squad" and "St Elmo’s Fire."

It also doesn’t compare to Hulu when it comes to TV shows either. Hulu has "Heroes," "The Simpsons," "24," "The Office," and my all-time favorite "It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia," and tons more. YouTube has mainly older fare like "Alf," "Charlie’s Angels," and ‘NewsRadio."

But, I can’t complain. Another legal streaming site on the block just means more viewing options, and perhaps in time it’ll have a better selection to choose from.

Stay tuned.

jared@zeropaid.com

The EFF is currently highlighting a new legal victory for video sharing sites. The case is known as the UMG vs. Veoh case where UMG sued video sharing site Veoh for the activities of it’s users – some of which uploaded copyright infringing material on the site.

Veoh argued that their activities of offering a medium to post content falls under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “Safe harbour” provisions which says that, among other things, that internet services are not liable for the actions of their users – a provision that seems to be glossed over like a mere suggestion these days with the copyright industry demanding ISPs to fight copyright infringement.

UMG (Universal Music Group) counter argued, saying that hosting companies should be liable for every bit a user uploads.

All too often when these cases come up, user generated websites are frequently branded as little more than a vehicle for copyright infringement. Like the internet itself, when one makes an argument that labels, say, a video sharing site as something simple like a medium for piracy, it’s far too easy to argue many ways in which that given site is not. Examples of possible counter arguments include the fact that it’s a learning tool (plug in virtually any software product and add “tutorial” to see what we mean), or an independent musician site (OK-Go is one of the more famous examples of musicians jump-starting their careers with a viral video), a website for magicians (where magic tricks are often a popular keyword), a gaming website (where speedrun is a good keyword for something like this), a tool for businesses to host video content (many businesses like small town newspapers are jumping onto YouTube to post their small town journalism reports, or a cleverly well produced advertisement for companies like BlendTec for their rather famous ‘Will it Blend?’ series), or even an education tool where students can post final projects like animations. Pretty much anything in general one can think of is more than likely posted on a video-sharing site.

Still, it’s an effective weapon the copyright industry has against such sites by saying that users just go there to pirate their content as it gives them a public relations edge that actually works for a lot of people. Make everyone think that people just go there just to watch music videos and there will be those that will easily believe them.

The EFF concludes with the following:

Relying on the statutory language, as well as the legislative history, the court concluded that all of these activities are covered by the DMCA Section 512(c) safe harbor. Lots of online service providers will greet this ruling with relief. If the court had accepted UMG’s arguments, every web host would lose the safe harbor as soon as it made web pages available to the public. The ruling should also help YouTube in its ongoing battle with Viacom, which also turns on the continuing strength of the DMCA safe harbors.

But the Veoh ruling also points out a surprising irony: while YouTube and Viacom are fighting their interminable litigation trench war, many interesting DMCA legal questions are being resolved in smaller, faster-moving cases involving companies like Veoh. At this rate, the highly-anticipated Viacom v. YouTube lawsuit may end up a footnote in the legal fights that define the rules governing user-generated content.

It might be worth noting that the legal battles going on with the DMCA in the United States will more than likely be little more than the tip of the iceberg with legal questions being raised with video sharing sites since many broadcasters from around the world have also sued YouTube for copyright infringement. As much as the copyright industry likes to, from time to time, believe that the US laws apply to other countries, the DMCA only covers US cases and international cases will be far more complex. Worst case scenario in the future, some countries will end up being either blocked by or blocking YouTube due to a court decision not deciding in a video-sharing sites favour. It’ll have a negative effect on video sharing sites, but it’s unlikely that it’ll be a fatal one – especially if the lawsuits in the US end up failing to take down YouTube (and YouTube’s position seems to be more favourable as a result of this legal victory).

Controversy has taken hold in Australia recently over what happened to a 60 year old man now charged for child abuse. The report comes from the Sydney Morning Herald which says that Chris Illingworth liked a viral video posted on YouTube so much, that he re-posted it on a similar website known as LiveLeak.

Apparently, the act of re-posting that particular video was enough to get his house raided by police. Apparently, the video was originally broadcast on US television, but authorities said that since the video was re-posted by an Australian, the Australian is subject to Australian law. Authorities also said that the child was being abused even though the clip depicts the child laughing and smiling by the end of it.

The report also says that the Electronic Frontier Australia (EFA) has contacted the defendant and offered to help defend him.

It’s unclear what authorities were looking for while raiding the defendants house.

NewTeeVee recently posted a story about BinTube, software that claims to be able to stream videos on UseNet.

The complexities of UseNet may have some skeptical about the software. What about file corruption and repairing the parts through Par files? According to the FAQ:

Automatic Decoding, Combining, Extraction and Repair:
All the steps required to download binaries from Usenet are performed simultaneously and in a multithreaded fashion.

[...]Full support of NZB files.

[...]Smart Repair File Download:
BinTube Media Player downloads Parity files (Par files) only when repair is needed. If repair is needed only the minimum amount of data required for the repair is downloaded.

So, is this some kind of hoax? Vapor ware? Not according to one reporter. NewTeeVee actually had a chance to test drive the software and actually says that, more often than not, it actually works:

Granted, BinTube isn’t perfect. The program fails to play some titles at all, and others can only be played back after a complete download. More often that not, it works just as advertised, playing videos in near real time after just a few minutes of initial downloading. But aside from that, functionality is pretty limited. Downloads have to be manually deleted after you’re done watching them, and it’s not possible to automatically download each new episode of a specific show.

It certainly is an interesting development. BinTube also features a search function which searches through UseNet for files. This feature is similar to that of the main feature of BinSearch. They both can search for anything on UseNet.

It’s unlikely that this will become the next YouTube where everyone uses it. This is mainly because connecting to UseNet is often the main stumbling block for many users. Not every p2p user will pay to have access to content, even if it’s a guarantee that there’s no need to watch out for share ratios and that there’s always going to be a download speed that’s as fast as your connection allows it. Some users don’t have an ISP that provides UseNet – though some may be lucky even if the retention rate is as bad as a few days.

BinTube website

Via p2p-blog.

digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Streaming_Coming_to_UseNet’;