Renetto v. YouTube - Renetto's In YouTube's House

YouTube star Renetto's been at odds with the YouTube execs of late, so I thought I'd chime in with my take on his problem. Basically, he wants to be able to say what he wants when he wants. I'm explaining that YouTube and digital media is too monetized with corporate sponsors who are sensitive to their image, so much so they are fearful of comments left that could lead to embarrassment. Renetto can play their game, what would it harm?

Viacom and Judge Louis L. Stanton Rob YouTube Users of Privacy

On Thursday July 3rd, U.S. District Court Judge Louis L. Stanton forced YouTube to give Viacom -- which owns shows like "The Daily Show", and "The Colbert Report" -- records that show what videos you and I have been watching.

Here in this video , I explain that the implications are dangerous and could help, for example, the Chinese Government find and kill Tibetan protesters. In this, a private company could purchase the data from Viacom and then resell it to the Chinese Government.

The Chinese Government could use the IP address information to find the general location of Tibetan protesters, go to their areas, and kill them. That's a possible scenario.

I considered the court's "restriction" on use of the material by Viacom. But that's the problem: the block is on how the data is used -- there's no specific prohibition of the sale of the information.

The reason for all of these actions, if you've not followed the story is that Viacom has sued YouTube for allegations of copywrite infringement. Viacom lost on the majority of motions, but the one that's sticking asks for YouTube to essentially share records of what videos you and I have been watching, and that includes IP adresses.

I can't see the need for the data. Viacom claims that they wish to learn if audience views to a Viacom show on YouTube are greater than that for amateur shows like LonelyGirl15. They don't need all of that information to see that LonelyGirl15 has a larger audience traffic than "The Colbert Report" on YouTube.

You can complain about this decision. In the video, and here, I give the contact information for Judge Stanton and his Law Clerk, Samson Enzer.

The contact info is this: Phone number for Judge Stanton: 212-805-0252 and the fax is 212-805-0359. Mr. Enzer is on Linkedin and Facebook. You can contact him directly from this blog post.

Hulu Lanches, But It's No YouTube Challenger - Hulu Will Fail In Two Years

Hulu was tagged as a YouTube challenger, but one visit to its site tells me that is not the case, and that was confirmed by CrunchBase , which wrote...

Hulu is NBC Universal and News Corporation’s online video joint venture. The site is set to launch in the Fall around October and will focus on professional content and not take on YouTube directly as a viral video destination. The site raised $100 million in financing from Providence Equity Partners.

Hulu videos will be played in their own embeddable branded player. Content from at least a dozen TV networks and two major film studios is promised. Initial distribution partners include AOL, Comcast, MSN, MySpace and Yahoo.

Jason Kilar, hulu’s CEO, explains “Objectively, Hulu is short, easy to spell, easy to pronounce, and rhymes with itself. Subjectively, Hulu strikes us as an inherently fun name, one that captures the spirit of the service we’re building.” However, we’re not so sure it was the wisest name to pick.

It's rumored that News Corp./NBC have acquired Bejing-based startup Mojiti and will use its platform for the basis of Hulu.

NBC has always tried -- and failed -- to capture the Internet for it's use. This is the latest go around. NBC misses the boat because it is trying to use Hulu as a basis for its TV shows, even charging for each episode. That news left this blogger to say...

"NBC executives are crazy if they think I am going to Pay $5 an episode for TV Shows. I live overseas, but will happily ban watching any and ALL NBC shows. $1.99 per show or less than $35 a season is not bad. I hate to see what else they are going to do."

And that's the point. NBC executives are crazy. The problem is no one's telling them so. Look, if you've got TV programs no one will see on TV, people aren't going to rush to see them in droves online. NBC was bitching about iTunes and only making $15 million but that's because few people knew NBC shows were on iTunes. Plus, for those that did go to iTunes, they had a chance to get other content, not provided by NBC. That's all NBC's fault that they didn't work to promote their iTunes presence. Tisk.

I mean how stupid is this. You have this great way to tell millions of people about something at once, and you don't use it. NBC did not tell its viewers about iTunes on a consistent basis, and so it failed. No big surprise to me. And guess what. NBC's going to repeat the error with Hulu.

It will also be no big surprise when Hulu fails, either. I'll give it two years, tops. For more on the reasons why, stay tuned. And for another set of good reasons, check out Mr. Bren's take.

Zennie's Video Take On The CNN / YouTube Debate - Score The Debate For Barack Obama

Mark Cuban Says Advertisers Have Leverage In Pricing Ads For Video - Really?

In his latest blog post, Mark Cuban takes a look at the impact that Nielsen's release of commercial data has had on the discussion of how ads in videos should be priced.

He says "So riddle me this. If the Internet is the ultimate DVR for video, will advertisers put comparable pricing parameters on internet video that they are trying to put on TV DVR commercial viewing ? If they do, and only pay for videos viewed within 3 days of the video being posted, won't that put a huge crimp in the internet video business ?"

My basic reponse is that there's an apples and oranges comparison here. Videos are ran over and over again each day. Plus, because they're within an optimized webpage, they're looked up in a search engine. Thus, if the video concerns a Paris Hilton issue that is discussed on the TV news, the search for that will go up, and thus cause a new round of views for the applicable video.

For the video meter to stop running in this case would be unfair and not negotiable from the standpoint of the video producer. A commercial withing a video, or a sponsored video is part of the video. Thus, it "moves" with the video -- if the video is found on Mamma.com, the ad will be there, and so on.

This is an entirely new approach to commercial message distribution. I don't think one can compare it to current TV commercial economics. I also don't think advertisers really have a good clue what's going on in new media. Many of them can't even define Web 2.0