Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Television Media The Internet Youtube

YouTube Co-founder Calls For Global Access To TV Online 140

An anonymous reader writes "YouTube co-founder Chad Hurley says internet users should be able to legitimately watch content from anywhere in the world at any time. He says the days of national TV networks controlling the global online rights to shows has to end. 'I think the business models are breaking down and the companies that are going to win in this new world are the ones that make it as easy as possible for the consumers to consume the content wherever and whenever they want.' Hurley also says YouTube will be bidding for more online live sports."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Co-founder Calls For Global Access To TV Online

Comments Filter:
  • by Wild_dog! ( 98536 ) on Saturday August 03, 2013 @11:48AM (#44465403)

    That is the only reason I pick up cable part of the year anymore.....American College Football.
    Finally, I will be able to drop cable entirely.

    • I only watch Cable to support anime ;P Toonami, of course
      • Sounds like another good reason for Cable.
        Fortunately for me I only need cable for Sept-mid January. Then I get to turn it off for the rest of the year.

  • Well... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by djupedal ( 584558 ) on Saturday August 03, 2013 @11:49AM (#44465411)
    This is just another chapter in the old 'information wants to be free' refrain. And while I'm down with that, I don't think there is much more to be done, as I've lived on three continents, and found it trivial to find broadcast content from other regions around the world if I just made the effort. Now if they are talking about bundling it all up and creating a delivery service, let me remind how expensive and controlled cable can be in the US, so if I had my druthers, I'd be more inclined to again bring things together on my own, say in the spirit of the guy in Cuba that used a pringles can to pick up CNN from the States, back in the day :) And really....there is a long list of countries that have strong feelings about what content is available to their citizens, from Singapore (small) to China (big). A full-on WeAreTheWorld channel isn't going to cut it, I think.
    • Samsung TV has Android in it []

      Combine the natural outcome of these stories... Look at the Xbox One debacle. It ain't pretty...

    • Free information is the death of all culture. It leads to the homogenization of society. It is why people are complaining about the stagnation of the arts since about 1995, when the internet started to become widespread. You ever notice how people's sense of style now is the same as back in 1993? Compare this to the massive stylistic shifts between 1953 to 1963 to 1973 to 1983 to 1993. Each decade was vastly different from the decade before.

      This cultural & artistic stagnation is because information

      • by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Saturday August 03, 2013 @12:31PM (#44465599)
        This is a very clever post because I can't decide if it's sarcastic or not, but I'll bite.

        Why shouldn't someone in rural Nebraska or Korea have the same right to an obscure band as someone who lives in NYC with access to record shops stocking obscure content? "Giving privilege to none?" Gimme a break.
      • Life should be unfair. It is better that way.

        Absolutely. And artists must starve, else where will they acquire the angst needed to create art?

      • Bla bla bla 'Like omaigaaaawd this is so FAAAAIR'

      • by grcumb ( 781340 )

        Free information is the death of all culture.

        That's an interesting way to put it, but there's some truth in the statement. Essentially, many struggles we're involved in right now, from ISOC v ITU to Manning/Snowden v Secrecy, from Apple v Samsung to SOPA/PIPA v The World... all of these derive from the impact of sharing, a thing that many aspects of our respective cultures protect us against. The mere presence of the internet implies that, by giving them away, we do in fact lose our differences. And that is the very essence of subversion.

      • by Sabriel ( 134364 )

        This cultural & artistic stagnation is because information is free.

        [strong Aussie accent] That's bullshit, mate. [/accent]

        The corporate mindset is built around profiting from disparity, and that applies to information too. Copyright is pervasive and imposed upon us by default, and Art is mostly built on the efforts and influences of those who came before, and just as subject to hoarding, fencing and chilling effects as any other endeavour. Cultural and artistic stagnation? You'll find it where corpora

  • If Google can pull this off (and no doubt they will), everyone will be like "TAKE MY MONEY PLEASE"

    That alone would be enough to convince me to switch to Google-everything. ATM, streaming sports semi-legally from other countries is a complete joke,

    Google certainly have the size, finance and power to do it; now it's a question of will.

    • So instead of having 3 or 4 American conglomerates controlling the media you have just 1. Google.

      Or if you are britsh just the BBC anyway.

      Remember when we all liked Apple and they were the good guys helping to stop DRM and MS with its predatory pricing? Man, those times have changed once Steve got some real power. Why do you think Google will be any different.

      They may even be more evil as having crappy expensive oligopoly that we have today.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        The bbc dosnt have aabsolute power over british tv we have commercial free to air ITV, channel 4, channel 5 and many other broadcasters if you buy a digital freeview box (free to view no subscription after the inital pruchase of the box which isnt tied to any broadcaster).

        Oh and of coure the ubiquitious fox/sky channel commercial susbcription channel

      • TV coverage of sports is a mess, and it's a little different than other TV programming. Sometimes sports are blacked out of their local markets, for no reason. Some events are aired over broadcasting networks and some through cable. If your college team isn't in the top 25, you're probably not going to be watching many games on TV, similar to how the coverage of the Olympics truly sucks. There's no reason for this in the age of digital streaming. If Google can break the stranglehold of sports' coverage
        • at least in football, when local sports are blacked out it is because they didn't sell out the stadium and want you to drive there to watch the game. Of course they blackout everything in a 80 mile circle of the stadium.

          other than that I agree completely. current TV coverage sucks, is generally useless and is far harder to find good bits.

          though I won't be greedy and can start small. let me have ala carte cable channels. then you will quickly see just how fast things change.

      • by Raenex ( 947668 )

        Remember when we all liked Apple and they were the good guys helping to stop DRM and MS with its predatory pricing?

        Umm, Apple has always been about premium pricing, and they've always been about proprietary computers. The Apple lovefest on Slashdot was a short-lived, hipster fad.

      • I'd prefer to have a ton of companies, competing for the market. But if they let Google get away (again) with being the first one and establishing a turf before they even bother noticing that it might be worthwhile to discuss the possibility of maybe entering the market, yes, what you fear will be the result.

        Google is not "more evil" than other companies. Google just acts and creates facts where self-absorbed managers of other companies are still busy hiring consultants to cover their asses with "studies" t

  • Copyright must be thrown into the dumpster. There is no other way around it. The right to distribute and share belongs to everybody.

    • I like how no one ever recalls AudioSoft.
    • I'm quite certain that Steve Jobs didn't have anything to do with creating the digital music market.

      You know who I think did? Shawn Fanning, John Fanning, and Sean Parker.
      • Thats cute ... you know I was sharing MP3s before Shawn made it out of grade school. You kids are cute, napster wasn't the start bud, it was the end of free music sharing.

        Any true warez rat knows popularity is the antithesis of doing it wrong.

      • He created the digital music market, as in, he was the first person who managed to persuade people to pay for music in significant numbers.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

      I'd give the credit to Napster. Everyone else was just figuring out how to monetize it. Without Napster the idea that people would want a huge digital-only collection of music wouldn't have existed.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    He says the days of national TV networks controlling the global online rights to shows has to end.

    And YouTube aka Google would like to replace this model with their own multinational/global monopol/business model because their "new world" would benefit them the most as the current status quo is unsatisfactory for there shareholders. In fact Google, like most multinational business, would like to remove all regional regulations and redtape as it hurts there bottom line. Ultimately it would be better for Google if we would all just watch the same program on the same channel in the same language at the sam

  • by Anonymous Coward

    This is purely about business, not about some noble stand to make the internet more free. Google benefits from having more video content available to everyone, and if they were able to license/play basically every sort of video content available on the internet then they could dominate video/monetize YouTube more effectively.

    • ...what he is really calling for is for government to pass laws that enable him to achieve his goal. So... coerce others to work with him.

      While it is a laudable goal, it will only come to fruition when he or someone else makes a convincing financial argument for it to the producers of the content.

      • by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples@gmail.BOHRcom minus physicist> on Saturday August 03, 2013 @01:00PM (#44465751) Homepage Journal
        Copyright is already coercion of the public. If YouTube is asking for coercion, it's asking governments to replace coercion that serves incumbent middlemen with coercion that serves the public.
        • No, its asking to replace the incumbent middleman with a new middleman, otherwise its the same.

        • by sycodon ( 149926 )

          Copyright enables the creators of content to enjoy the fruits of their labor. Just because they labored long ago doesn't mean it isn't the result of their efforts.

          If you built a house, do you think someone whould be able to move in 20 years later just because it was twenty years ago you built it?

          If they are being assholes with their copyright, don't watch/listen/read and they will go broke.

          Pretty fucking simple.

          • Copyright enables the creators of content to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

            Then why does copyright continue for 70 years after "the creators of content" have ceased to exist?

            If you built a house, do you think someone whould be able to move in 20 years later just because it was twenty years ago you built it?

            Someone who moves in 20 years later wouldn't have to pay the original builders again and certainly wouldn't have to pay a recurring royalty to the original builders.

            If they are being assholes with their copyright, don't watch/listen/read

            That's difficult if all grocery stores in the area have licensed the a-holes' music to play over the speaker system.

      • yeah i can just see the buffers in blazers who run major sports going altruistic and letting you tube stream all their content for free/reduced prices.
    • I'd wager that every sports fan in the world wants this, and Google is best positioned to provide it with the infrastructure they already have in place--they have live streamed events and premium channels on Youtube already. Of course it's a business move, but that doesn't preclude it from being in the best interests of consumers either.
  • Sorry. (Score:5, Funny)

    by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Saturday August 03, 2013 @12:16PM (#44465539)
    [We're sorry, but the comment you selected isn't available from your location. Please select another comment.]
    • Re:Sorry. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * <mojo@world3.nBLUEet minus berry> on Saturday August 03, 2013 @01:05PM (#44465789) Homepage Journal

      Correction: It's not available on your platform. The Pirate Bay has everything.

    • by Pinky3 ( 22411 )

      I get this all the time, but I can't complain. I believe in copyright. If a Taiwanese television station sells online rebroadcast rights to a website based in Shanghai with the restriction that only computers with IP addresses in the PRC can watch, that is its right. These same websites show "The Big Bang Theory" to the Chinese, but I can't watch it either.

      P.S. In fact, I can't watch TBBT on here in the US since my internet provider is Time Warner. 8=)

    • by Alejux ( 2800513 )
      That is the story of my life, being from Brazil. Sigh!
    • by jez9999 ( 618189 )

      [Content in this reply belongs to Universal Inc, Disney, and Dice Holdings Inc, one or more of whom have blocked it on copyright grounds.]

  • by westlake ( 615356 ) on Saturday August 03, 2013 @12:38PM (#44465633)

    He says the days of national TV networks controlling the global online rights to shows has to end.

    Historically. this gives the big budget Hollywood production dominance in all markets. It is why New Zealand becomes a standing stage set and nothing more. It is why governments impose domestic content requirements on theaters, broadcasters, and so on.

    ---- and why Disney is intent on calming the waters by green-lighting a multi-cultural Pacific Rim anime Big Hero 6 []

  • Offline viewing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples@gmail.BOHRcom minus physicist> on Saturday August 03, 2013 @01:07PM (#44465801) Homepage Journal

    users should be able to legitimately watch content from anywhere in the world at any time

    Does "anywhere" include on a city bus? What I'd like to be officially able to do is queue up some 1- to 10-minute videos to watch, download them (possibly using encryption) while connected to the Internet, disconnect, and watch them. Even if offline viewing were restricted to 360p, that'd still be better than having to pay hundreds of USD per year for cellular Internet for my Nexus 7 tablet.

    • is queue up some 1- to 10-minute videos to watch

      Or you could use the time constructively. Maybe consider some of your higher goals, what you *really* want to do, take the time to observe the world around you, maybe even dream a little. It's not necessary to fill every waking moment with entertainment.

      Or you could even read a book

      • Or you could use the time constructively.

        That's what I currently do. But my Dell Inspiron mini 1012 laptop will eventually break. With affordable 10" laptops having reached end of manufacturing at the end of last year [], doing constructive work on a device that fits on a crowded bus has become far more expensive.

      • The ignorant slashdot troll telling someone else how to use their time constructively, cute.

        Perhaps that commute is the one time of day he fills with entertainment, and the rest of the time he is doing great things?

        What if the commute is his only time to unwind and he's trying to fill it in with 10 minutes of something he couldn't otherwise fit into his schedule?

        Your comment is insanely short sighted. You're in such a hurry to knock him, you completely ignore the possibility that he may do exactly what you

    • by houghi ( 78078 )

      He said is should be legal (Free as in speech). he never said it should be free (as in beer).

      • Whether something requires payment and whether it requires a continuous connection to the Internet are orthogonal. I want to be able to pay for a rental, download the encrypted video, and watch it offline sometime in the next 24 hours. How do these video publishers expect people to use their product on airplanes?
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

      The Android YouTube app somewhat supports that. It can download videos it thinks you might be interested in (watch later list, recommendations, subscriptions etc.) while on wifi and then play them back later. You still need to be online for the first second to start playback, but it doesn't eat up your data allowance.

      Most buses in the UK seem to have free wifi anyway now.

      • You still need to be online for the first second

        I see how that would help people who already subscribe to cellular Internet for some other reason, but it doesn't appear to help the use case I described. In the United States, where YouTube and Slashdot are headquartered, some pay-as-you-go cellular Internet providers work on a "pay only on the days you use it" basis: $2 for the first second and $0 for the rest of the day.

        Most buses in the UK seem to have free wifi anyway now.

        It would cost even more to move to the UK than to get Internet on the bus in the US.

  • by FuzzNugget ( 2840687 ) on Saturday August 03, 2013 @01:18PM (#44465875)

    And both of them are horseshit.

    1) The entrenched interests have invested too much in existing legacy infrastructure to let this happen. Sure, they've already seen the returns hundreds or thousands of times over, but if they can wring it out longer, they will. It will take the majority of consumers demanding IP-based TV for this to change.

    2) Internet connectivity is mostly shit in North America. Either it's high bandwidth with a deprecating cap, or shitty bandwidth with no cap. Until telcos are reined in by regulation, forcing them to build out the fiber infrastructure for which billions in tax dollars were earmarked and quit this rent-seeking business model, we aren't going to have the sort of connectivity we need for universal IPTV. And let's not forget how a number of ISPs muddy the waters by running their own streaming services; again, due to piss-poor regulation.

  • by Joining Yet Again ( 2992179 ) on Saturday August 03, 2013 @01:58PM (#44466069)

    What Chad means is that he envisions a world where people only watch shitty Youtube videos all day, and Google gets a cut from showing an obligatory advert at the start.

    Quality programming is difficult to make, and distributing it efficiently (as opposed to the "fuck you and build a bigger pipe!" unicast method of distribution Youtube uses) is also a challenge. Showing crap worldwide when all you have to do is to build a streaming server, adorn it with sponsorship, and take advantage of having been early to the party... well, that's a job for the geniuses at Google to have their brainpower wasted on.

  • Cable/Satellite television is SO expensive alone, but if you want certain channels, you CANNOT pick and choose, Boomerang, for classic cartoons, is a premium package, the Horror Film channel is a mid-high range package, HBO is the highest tier, but to get an extra channel or two for those is even more! Here's how it goes, with my DirecTV subscription 80$-High tier package for Sci-Fi and Boomerang and such 40$-HBO,Showtime, etc... 20$-Extra HBO and Showtime channels That adds up to...140 dollars a month! Thi
    • I want to do so as well, if HULU Plus had AMC programming and could keep the full catalog available for any show you can view thru them, it would meet my needs but without AMC I have to buy episodes of walking dead the next day if I want to stay legal. If Youtube can get us access to all shows, all episodes with new episodes added at least a day or so after they air then I'll gladly subscribe then I can ditch my satellite service for good.
  • ... the optimal business model is one which will deliver the maximum revenue per hour from advertising or subscription fees. Free, or lower cost distribution (costs include making viewers sit through ads) will result in more low cost content pushing out the higher priced, higher quality programming. Eventually, we will have nothing but reality shows, ultimately resulting in programs like 'Ow! My Balls!' taking over.

  • by GodfatherofSoul ( 174979 ) on Saturday August 03, 2013 @02:51PM (#44466289)

    All I want is to watch Steelers games, but the only legal recourse is to buy DirecTV THEN buy Sunday Ticket which will run you $1200/year. All that for teh 10 or so games that won't be nationally televised.

    • I hear you. The only way I can watch Columbus Blue Jackets hockey legally would be to buy cable and get Fox Sports Ohio. There is a way to watch out-of-market NHL games on various devices, but no way to watch in-market games short of routing it all through a VPN or breaking down and getting cable.

      I guess the difference with you is that you don't live in the Pittsburgh metro area. It's still a problem for sports/teams that are not usually nationally broadcast. Be happy that your Steelers are good enough

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Hurley is free today, without hindrance, to create content that is wildly popular and distribute it worldwide without regards to the typical regional licensing model employed by Hollywood. Go for it, Chad. Be the change you want to see in others.

  • [] So far it only exists as a plugin for Plex with versions for XBMC and raspberry pi in development
  • A guy whose business model is based on streaming unlimited access to free content declares that his competitors are dead. Shocking.

  • It takes a lot of balls to make a statement like that when there isn't even a YouTube app for the frickin' ROKU, for God's sake. What YouTube really wants is to slap ads over the top of video made by every network on Earth.

The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first. -- Blaise Pascal