YouTube Terms of Service Updated
January 19, 2010
I have been thinking about Google and rich media. Rich media means multimedia. Multimedia means YouTube. These terms are important because Google uses a wide range of words and phrases to describe its rich media services and capabilities.
On January 14, 2010, Google posted “YouTube’s APIs and Refresher on our Terms of Service”. The write up does a good job of highlighting the major changes. My view of the changes is that they nudge the YouTube service forward to commercial payoff land.
For example, the point “Videos belong to their owners” is a gentle reminder that Google’s innovations in giving content owners a control panel on which to input settings is an important function. The more content owners input the rules for a particular content object, the more useful the Google control panel or content owner dashboard becomes in the upload process.
The focus on the YouTube video player is a reminder that consistency for Google is a positive. Google is pointing out that certain actions are not making the Google happy; for example, enable videos for download.
The third point is that the Google wants ads left alone. Period. Stripping ads is a no no. The person who wants to monetize a video can read the API monetization guide. If you have not looked at this API, it is worth a quick look. You can find the API monetization guide with some helpful links on the Google Code page in the write up “Using the YouTube APIs to Bu9ild Monetizable Applications.” We geese at Beyond Search think this is a pretty important chunk of info, by the way.
Finally, Google wants those who do charge for a video to make clear that Google is not charging. My hunch is that Google gets email complaining about fees for some YouTube videos and Google doesn’t have time to handle that type of email. Heck, Google has a tough time handling email for the Nexus One phone. It doesn’t need more email about an issue a content provider causes. Just my opinion, gentle reader.
You may want to add the YouTube API blog to your newsreader if you are into rich media, multimedia, video, or related content types.
Stephen E Arnold, January 19, 2010
A short article I wrote without anyone, including a TV or motion picture company, paying me for the effort. Is the Oscar committee in charge of this type of write up and disclosure. I will report to them to be sure.
Google and Face Recognition
January 18, 2010
You can read a good summary of a mainstream publication’s analysis of Google and its face recognition technology. Just navigate to Google Blogoscoped and check out “German Spiegel on Google Goggles’ Face Recognition and More”. The only problem is that the author of the write up did not consider the application of this system and method to video. To get the full picture of the Google facial recognition capability, you may want to skip the traditional publication and read US20100008547 “Method and System for Automated Annotation of Persons in Video Content”. You can find this document at the USPTO’s free patent document Web site, www.uspto.com. I find it interesting that open source information about a specific and significant Google system and method is ignored. Much easier to write without too much information I suppose. That’s what keeps the Larry and Sergey eat pizza book writers in high clover.
Stephen E Arnold, January 18, 2010
A freebie. Due to the direct reference to the USPTO, I herewith report that I was not paid to point out this omission about Google’s facial recognition technology.
Personalized Playlists
January 15, 2010
I read “PerfectStream: The Future for Personalized Video Playlists, Advertising?” and thought that it was a good idea. I think that the sentence that snagged me was:
Munich-based PerfectStream is taking the business-to-business route and hopes to license its technology out to media and tech companies that already have professionally-produced or user-generated content. It came out of stealth this week and has raised funding solely from Brandenburg.
I recall reading about personalized playlists somewhere else. Maybe a Google patent application. Interesting.
Stephen E Arnold, January 15, 2010
Sad to say a freebie. Possible patent research ahead. I will report my non-compensation to the ever vigilant USPTO.
Interactive Computing from Apple
January 6, 2010
Short honk: Take a peek at how Apple presented the tablet concept about 25 years ago. Voice interaction, touch screen, and sort of rich media. You can find the video on TUAW.com here. Search does not work exactly the way depicted in the video. Slow progress. Mom still calls in the video. Son ignores mom. That’s accurate for some I suppose.
Stephen E. Arnold, January 6, 2010
A freebie. To whom do I report? I know for apple related information it must be the USDA.
Real Canines and False Teeth
January 3, 2010
Read Staci Kramer’s “News Corp, Time Warner Cable Reach Deal Without Blackouts; Scripps Still On Bubble”. Rupert Murdoch’s threats succumbed to common sense and money, or was it money and common sense. Here, in my opinion, is the key point:
The deal announced some 19 hours after the New Year’s Eve midnight deadline covers the Fox television stations, Fox, Fox Cable Networks and Fox’s Regional Sports Networks for TWC’s 13 million households. It also applies to Bright House Networks’ 2.4 million subs; the operator has a heavy presence in Florida, which means a particular interest in avoiding black screens when Florida meets Cincinnati in the Allstate Sugar Bowl.
So what? I think it makes it clear that Mr. Murdoch may berate the Google, but when the money or the common sense clicks in, there will be a deal. Quite a negotiator that Mr. Murdoch. I really like his references to quality journalism and other bits of business confetti. Money and common sense or common sense and money.
Stephen E. Arnold, January 3, 2010
A freebie, gentle reader, a freebie. Maybe I should email spam Mr. Murdoch for mentioning his negotiating skills? He spammed me in 2009. I will report my work-for-free mode to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Mr. Murdoch wants to preserve the historic approach to information I think.
Netflix Jumps to Amazon
January 2, 2010
Want to enrage a giant, Oracular bull?
Bad news for Oracle, IBM as reported by Computerworld.com: Netflix is transferring its datacenter from Oracle on IBM hardware to Amazon Web Services’ (AWS) Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) in an effort to save capital. The switch comes as Netflix’s customer count is headed through the roof, and thus the cost and un-reliability of maintaining or expanding the existing data centers is becoming too great a burden.
Netflix was already patronizing AWS for other less critical applications like customer interfacing and even announced last May its intention to expand this relationship. They weren’t kidding around. The decision is prompted by three major cost points. First, Oracle on IBM is inherently “very expensive”. Second, it would have required long hours and great effort for Netflix to build their own data center when systems are added to AWS’s cloud with ease. And finally, “EC2’s pay-as-you-go model means costs are elastic,” so no more paying for unused resources stranded on service contract.
Besides those direct cost reductions, this transition will free up other engineering resources required to baby-sit the existing infrastructure to be re-tasked in other areas.
Netflix makes some compelling arguments here; it doesn’t take long for the dominoes to fall. Wonder if other companies will realize the same thing and follow suit. It would be prudent for Oracle, IBM to investigate what upgrade options exist to be more competitive with AWS and to prevent further customer turnover.
Sarah Rogers, January 2, 2011
Freebie
Chief Economist of Google Invents a Search Tool for Advertising
December 21, 2009
Most companies don’t have a chief economist. Google has a chief economist. The economist is Hal R. Varian.
Dr. Varian has good paper.
Dr. Varian worked on a Google team which includes other Google wizards. The invention is “search tool advertising”. Definitely clear. In prose any patent attorney would be proud to claim, US2009/0299816 says:
A content item is presented to at least one user via a first medium, where the content item identifies a target concept. The first medium can be, for instance, radio, television, print advertisements, or the Internet. The number of requests at a search tool for the target concept are measured subsequent to the presentation of the content item in the first medium. The difference (e.g, increase or decrease) in use of a second medium, e.g., the Internet, subsequent to the presentation of the content item in the first medium can be measured, which can be used to modify a value associated with a subsequent presentation of the content item using the first medium.
Speaks volumes, doesn’t it?
The diagrams are abstract. The claims, all 30 of them, make clear that the Google is moving forward with the use of semi autonomous agents to assemble content. Although focused on advertising, the “assembly” plumbing can be seen elsewhere in Google’s open source information. (You think I am going to list these co-occurrences in a free Web log? Wrong.)
Several points strike me of interest:
- The invention applies to text and other media; for example, television or radio
- Metrics make the little method hum; that is, data from the system feed back and inform subsequent decisions the semi autonomous agents make
- The use of the word “publisher” makes clear that the “digital Gutenberg” is alive and kicking. See [0030].
Stephen E. Arnold, December 21, 2009
Oyez, oyez, this is a freebie. I want to disclose this fact to the Economic Adjustment Office. Google competitors will have to make some adjustments due to Google economics. Where better to report and seek succor?
Google and TV
December 20, 2009
Short honk: With NBC in the Comcast camp, network television is disrupted. Two different outfits have spoken with me about Google’s technical capabilities in “television”. That information is buried amidst Google’s technical math speak. I can direct the two or three readers of this Web log to the image below and ask a few questions, which I don’t plan on answering. I wrote briefly about Fast Flip and neglected to put in a link that explains the number of Google partners for the service. You can get the details in eBrand’s “Google Adds 50 New Media Partners To “Fast Flip” Online News Project.” Note the “mobile version” link.
Now let’s do some of that B school and law school hypothetical stuff. Here’s an image from Google News, December 19, 2009, about 1 pm Eastern:
Notice the three “red” blobs. In my opinion, those are metaphorical drops of blood from the wounds that Google is about to inflict on the TV satraps.
Now the media survivability questions:
- What happens if Google generates a list of links to current videos that match a user’s history and other data?
- What happens when the post 1994 crowd uses mobile devices as their primary means of obtaining video content?
- Who can monetize these services?
- Have you seen Google TV?
If you don’t know the answers to these questions, you may want to do some Google technical paper reading. The “Sergey and Larry eat pizza” non fiction studies of Google may not nail the correct answers these questions.
Stephen E. Arnold, December 21, 2009
I wish to report to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, where some crazed and now unemployed media mavens may end up unless they plan for a new career, that this post is a free, public-service questionnaire.
Alternative Cinema
December 1, 2009
I had no idea what the phrase “alternative cinema” meant when I saw the headline “Alternative Cinema Content to Pass $500 Mil”. I do know what $500 million means. The article explains
The research from Screen Digest puts the global market in alternative content — think live opera screenings or traditional theater productions — to hit $526 million in five years, up from the lowly $45.7 million reached by the end of 2008. And while the U.S. market laid claim to two thirds of global revenues gathered from such content, Screen Digest says that will likely fall to under 50% as the appetite for non-movie programming across the rest of the world grows. The report entitled “Alternative Content in Cinemas: Market assessment and forecasts to 2014” says the cinema is fast becoming a “multi-arts venue” with the last two years posting a growth in alternative programming on the back of a boom in digital cinema screen technology.
I get it. As 20 somethings do other things and old geese like me stay home to watch the pips on our heart monitors, owners of motion picture complexes have to find a new draw. Vaudeville is too expensive. The occasional super church rental too dependent on one hour blocks on certain days. The birthday rentals are becoming less appealing even to the country club set. So what’s a cinema owner to do? Money give-aways are illegal.
The article makes clear that something is giving way beneath the foundation of the traditional cinema fare. The blockbusters ring the PC based cash register, but the day-to-day cash flow is less exciting. The article says:
The research from Screen Digest puts the global market in alternative content — think live opera screenings or traditional theater productions — to hit $526 million in five years, up from the lowly $45.7 million reached by the end of 2008. And while the U.S. market laid claim to two thirds of global revenues gathered from such content, Screen Digest says that will likely fall to under 50% as the appetite for non-movie programming across the rest of the world grows. The report entitled “Alternative Content in Cinemas: Market assessment and forecasts to 2014” says the cinema is fast becoming a “multi-arts venue” with the last two years posting a growth in alternative programming on the back of a boom in digital cinema screen technology.
Boy, this sounds a lot like what I can do sitting in front of my trusty iMac, my Windows 7 notebook, my Smartphone, or my flat screen TV which is hooked up to an Apple TV and a Mac Mini. With the Google offering lots of content, I wonder how the worlds of pay-per-view mixed martial arts, Googzilla, and guys hanging out around the moguls’ swimming pools in LA will intersect. Another disruption building force. Will the Google break through the crust of cluelessness? I don’t know. Maybe the answer will be on the new Google TV show.
Stephen Arnold, December 1, 2009
I officially disclose to the US Geological Survey that my seismic analogy was an uncompensated metaphor. That’s more than I can say of Bill Shakespeare, who had some patrons.
Google and Its Desired Repositories
November 21, 2009
I find “desired repositories” quite enticing. I was going to call this write up “A Repository Named Desire” but I was fearful that some lawyer responsible for the Tennessee Williams’ play would object. Most of the Sergey-and-Larry-eat-pizza Google pundits follow the red herrings dragged by the Googlers toward the end of each week. Not me. I pretty much ignore the Google public statements because those have a surreal quality for me. The messages seem oddly disconnected from what Google’s deep thinkers are * actually doing *. When Google does a webinar, it is too late for the competitors to do much more than go to their health club and work off their frustrations.
That looks simple. From US20090287664. Notice that the types of repositories are extensible.
If you want to see some of the fine tuning underway with the Google plumbing, take a peek at 20090287664, Determination of a Desired Repository. This is a continuation of a 2005(!) invention in case you thought the method looked familiar. You can find the write up at your favorite US government Web site, the USPTO. (Don’t you just love that search interface. Someone told me that the search engine was from OpenText, and I am trying to verify that statement.)
Here’s what caught my attention:
A system receives a search query from a user and searches a group of repositories, based on the search query, to identify, for each of the repositories, a set of search results. The system also identifies one of the repositories based on a likelihood that the user desires information from the identified repository and presents the set of search results associated with the identified repository.
Seems obvious, right? Now think of this at Google scale. Different problem? It is in my book. What has the Google accomplished? Just one claim. Desired repositories at Google scale.
Stephen Arnold, November 21, 2009
Again, I want to report to the USPTO that I was not paid to write yet another cryptic comment about a Google plumbing invention.
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
