The BBC iPlayer

The BBC iPlayer has grown in both usability and popularity since its launch over two years ago. It’s now a must-use service for all residents in the U.K. and those outside of the U.K. who have found a way to circumvent the geo-blocking.

The man now overseeing the iPlayer as part of his job as the BBC’s director of Future Media and Technology is Erik Huggers. And he recently spoke to The Telegraph about the future of the iPlayer at the Changing Media Summit 2010.

iPlayer 3.0

The iPlayer 3.0 beta is set to launch soon. And it will bring integration with various social networking sites to the TV on-demand service. Deals with Facebook, Twitter, and Bebo are already in place, with more sure to follow.

IPlayer users will be asked to integrate their accounts with the BBC site. Them every time they sign in and use the iPlayer, they will also be connected to the social networks they use. This will enable them to see what their friends are watching or listening to, and vice versa.

The only other feature of the new-look iPlayer discussed was a new embeddable video player being rolled out across the whole of the BBC’s online presence. So, online video is clearly at the very heart of the larger BBC Web redesign.

Social Networking

It could be argued that the BBC is playing catchup in offering social network integration with the iPlayer, as social networking sites have grown phenomenally over the past couple of years, most notably Facebook and Twitter.

The effect this integration could have on viewing figures cannot be underestimated. Social networking sites are known to drive traffic to external sites in a big way, and if your friends are watching a show you’ve maybe never even heard of, there’ll be a temptation to give it a try.

Record Viewing Figures

With that in mind, I suspect the iPlayer’s viewing figures are going to continue growing, as they have been all along.

The iPlayer hit the 100 million requests milestone in December 2009, but February saw that figure increase to more than 116 million. That’s a whopping 81% year-on-year increase.

Related Ad

Buy ‘The Social Networking Toolkit for Business’ on Amazon

Movie Piracy

Movie piracy has been with us for decades. The advent of home video made piracy a huge problem for Hollywood, and DVD and Blu-ray have continued that trend. But it’s the Internet that truly made piracy mainstream and something everyone does.

That is if you believe sharing media files on the Internet is piracy, of course. The law says it is, naturally.

File-sharing sites are probably more numerous now than ever before, with both well-known and underground options available to anyone who wants to acquire a media file – be it movie, TV show, game, computer program, or whatever – for free online.

And The Piracy Oscar Goes To…

TorrentFreak recently compiled data pertaining to the ten movies nominated for ‘Best Picture’ at the 2010 Academy Awards. The real winner of the Oscar is expected to come from Avatar and The Hurt Locker. And yet these two films play second (and third) fiddle to District 9 in the piracy stakes.

TorrentFreak’s Piracy Oscars

1. District 9 – 12,639,000
2. Avatar – 11,326,000
3. The Hurt Locker – 7,930,000
4. Up – 5,437,000
5. Inglourious Basterds – 5,376,000
6. Precious – 4,922,000
7. Up In The Air – 4,855,000
8. A Serious Man – 3,836,000
9. The Blind Side – 1,845,000
10. An Education – 683,000

It’s important to note that these films range in age considerably, and so high quality torrents have been available to download for varying lengths of time. Had they all been available for the same length of time then Avatar would undoubtedly take the number one spot.

Hollywood’s Fightback

Hollywood, the movie studios, and the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) have collectively tried to nip movie piracy on the Web in the bud. And they must have thought they were getting somewhere when they won their case against The Pirate Bay.

But nothing has really changed. The Pirate Bay as merely one conduit for movie piracy. And there are plenty of other options open to people willing to break the law and download movies online.

Conclusions

The point is that Hollywood hasn’t yet got a handle on Internet piracy. It isn’t going anywhere, whatever efforts are made to that end.

The key for the movie studios is to both utilize the technology to their own advantage and make sure there are legal, low-cost alternatives which could help discourage people from taking this route. Until then, all the Oscar hopefuls will be heavily-pirated ad infinitum.

But as the $2 billion box-office takings of Avatar prove, it’s not like Internet piracy is really harming Hollywood anyway.

Related Ad

ZML.com – Cheap Movie Downloads

Hulu Loses Big Names

Two of the most popular shows on Hulu are The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Unfortunately, neither will be available to watch on Hulu after March 9 as Viacom has decided in its infinite wisdom to pull all Comedy Central content from the site.

This is a big deal when you consider The Daily Show is only behind Lost and Family Guy in terms of the number of viewers it gains on Hulu. So if even those kinds of viewing figures aren’t making it worth Viacom’s while what about the less popular shows?

Hulu’s Big Problem

This sums Hulu’s problem up in a nutshell. While it’s the most popular TV catchup service on the Web in the U.S., it is wholly reliant on the networks and content creators for its product. If that disappears then Hulu is left with nothing to sell. Or at least no content to sell advertising against.

The same is true for any content aggregator, of course, but Hulu is slap-bang in the middle of an emerging market which could still evolve in a number of ways. And it could turn out that Hulu is crowded out of the market by initiatives such as TV Everywhere.

Viacom Threatens To Sue

For viewers this news won’t mean too much. Both shows will still be viewable online (in the U.S. only, naturally) on their own Web sites. However, the art of embedding is going to be affected.

While Hulu has the whole show and allows users to crop whichever section they want to, Comedy Central only makes certain clips available. Which is bound to lead to unauthorized clips being uploaded on sites such as YouTube.

The Hollywood Reporter quotes PR rep Tony Fox in saying, “My feeling is if (websites) are making money on our copyrighted content, then that is a problem.” he also answered, “Yes, we intend to do so,” when asked if Viacom will now target sites and bloggers who post clips from the shows in question.

Ars Technica got spun a different story, but it’s clear the company will be closely monitoring online video sites after The Daily Show and The Colbert report are removed from Hulu.

Conclusions

Viacom and Hulu were reportedly discussing a deal right up until the last minute, but one which pleased both sides couldn’t be found. My guess would be Viacom was after a bigger slice of the revenue pie, and Hulu cannot really afford to give up any more at this time.

Maybe when Hulu starts charging Viacom will have a change of heart. In fact, I’d suggest it’s inevitable.

Google Video Upload

In 2006, before Google acquired YouTube, a short video appeared on the now-defunct Google Video showing a disabled teenager being bullied by a group of his peers. One of the teenagers had uploaded the video, which remained on the site for a couple of months until complaints were received.

At that point, Google removed the video as fast as it could, and helped the Italian police track down the people responsible. The female uploader and several of her classmates were sentenced to 10 months community service.

That surely should have been the end of this sorry story, but it wasn’t.

Google Execs Charged

In July 2008, four Google executives were charged with criminal defamation and a failure to comply with the Italian privacy code. All over a video that had nothing whatsoever to do with any of them. They merely worked for the company which hosted the video online.

Italian prosecutors then spent more than a year building a case against the quartet before the trial began in October 2009, with reports in November suggesting that jail time was being sought.

Google Execs Convicted

The verdict was announced this morning, and while all four of the men on trial were absolved of the defamation claim, three were convicted of bypassing Italian privacy laws.

The three convicted men, David Drummond, Peter Fleischer, and George Reyes have each received a suspended six-month sentence.

Google has responded to this verdict and sentencing in a vitriolic blog post, stating:

“In essence this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload.”

“It attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built. Common sense dictates that only the person who films and uploads a video to a hosting platform could take the steps necessary to protect the privacy and obtain the consent of the people they are filming.”

And I have to agree. This verdict is complete nonsense and would appear to go against established European Union laws which state that companies hosting content have a safe harbor so long as content found to be illegal is removed upon request. Which it clearly was in this case.

The Future For YouTube?

This verdict, if upheld on appeal, could be very serious for Google, YouTube, and all content-hosting companies in Italy, Europe, and beyond. As it implies they are responsible for the content being uploaded at all time, no matter what action is taken after the event.

For YouTube specifically, this kind of case could only be prevented in the future by all UGC videos being moderated before they appear on the site. Which, with 20 hours of video uploaded every minute worldwide, would be a near-impossible task.

YouTube Video Rentals

YouTube signaled its intent to start charging for some videos last September, with rumors of a movie rental service priced at $3.99-a-film emerging.

The trail then went cold until January of this year when YouTube officially released the first five offerings under the new service. Until then, the service had merely been trialled by Google employees.

Sundance Film Festival Trial

The first offerings were The Cove, Bass Ackwards, One Too Many Mornings, Homewrecker, and Children of Invention, all independent films from the 2010 Sundance Film Festival which would otherwise have struggled to find an audience.

The trial ended when the festival did, and the total revenue brought in by the trial was $10,709.16. This isn’t a huge amount of money, especially for a site as popular as YouTube or a company as big as Google.

But it was a good enough start to justify an expansion of the service, proving that should the right content, and a fair amount of it, be made available that it could prove to be another way of bringing in revenue to YouTube. Which, lest we forget, has yet to turn a profit.

Expanding The Library

NewTeeVee now reports that YouTube has expanded the service to include more videos, more content providers, and a greater variation of genres. Rather than just independent filmmakers, genres such as sport, travel, cooking, and education are now also available.

Not that YouTube is publicizing the service yet. In fact, it’s all being rolled out very quietly and with no fanfare. Then again, the video rentals service is still in beta, and will likely be for some time to come.

Conclusions

YouTube obviously has high hopes that there’s a profitable future in offering video rentals, and not just in the form of movies. And I don’t doubt this is the case.

Although most people will still only use YouTube for the free UGC that is at its core, there is a significant proportion of people happy and willing to pay for content, if that content is what they’re seeking.

Related Ad

Purchase TV shows and movies from Amazon Video on Demand

The results of two recent court cases in the U.K. suggest that linking to but not hosting copyrighted content isn’t illegal, at least in Europe. Both TV-Links and the music-oriented OiNK have been cleared in the last month of the charges brought against them.

Linking Vs. Hosting

Hosting copyrighted content is illegal. That is an accepted part of the legal system. However, things get a little murkier and confused when a site is acting as a third-party, a go-between matching those hosting the content and those seeking it.

This has been tested in court a number of times, and the results have been mixed to say the least. In the U.S. it would appear linking is illegal, and sites such as Google only get away with it because of their Web directory nature, and even they have to remove links if asked to.

However, in the U.K., and potentially all countries in the European Union, linking to copyrighted material is not illegal.

TV-Links

TV-Links was a UK-based site which linked to movies and TV shows hosted on the likes of YouTube, MySpace Video, DailyMotion etc. in the days before those sites were so quick to take down infringing content as they are now.

But in 2007 TV-Links was closed down after the police and FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft) claimed it was “facilitating” copyright infringement.

It’s taken over two years for the case to reach court, but as TorrentFreak reports, it ended with the admins David Rock and David Overton winning.

The judge referred to Section 17 of the European Commerce Directive 2000, which gives sites a full defense if on trial in England and Wales for merely linking to another site’s content. In effect, it cannot be illegal to act as a conduit rather than the deliverer.

OiNK

The TV-Links win follows on from Alan Ellis, the creator of OiNK.cd, last month being cleared of conspiracy to defraud for supposedly making money from the sharing of music files.

Interestingly, Ellis used the Google defense (a similar defense was argued unsuccessfully by The Pirate Bay), stating, “All I do is really like Google, to really provide a connection between people. None of the music is on my Web site.”

And it worked.

Conclusions

This doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily OK to link to copyrighted material without permission. However, the TV-Links case in particular could set a precedent for similar cases in the future, at least in the U.K. and possibly other E.U. countries.

Apple iPad

Apple’s head honcho Steve Jobs unveiled the long-anticipated iPad at the end of January. It’s a touchscreen tablet pitched somewhere between smartphones and notebook PCs. And it could change the way we consume digital media. Possibly.

Apple wants the iPad to become the device for media on the go. The screen makes it ideal for watching video, but there’s also gaming, e-books, and music which could be given a new lease of life from the iPad.

And it seems the content creators which Apple needs to partner with are coming round to the idea.

Hulu Without Flash?

One of the big problems with the iPad is the lack of Flash support. Apple and Adobe just don’t see eye-to-eye, and that could affect the iPad’s ability to stream video or display games. At least in the short term until HTML5 becomes dominant.

No Flash means no Hulu. Which is a shame because the iPad would be ideal for watching Hulu on the go.

But Hulu realizes this, and TechCrunch claims an industry insider as being confident Hulu is working on an iPad-friendly version of the site. With its videos already encoded in the H.264 standard, this wouldn’t actually be as difficult as first imagined.

The obvious advantage for Hulu would be the chance to charge for access through the iPad-friendly site. The company could either charge for the app or make it a subscription service, possibly only available to premium users when it likely switches to a pay model later this year.

99 Cent Shows

Even before the iPad was unveiled, we reported how Apple was seeking a deal with the big American TV networks to slash prices of episodes from the current $1.99 to just 99 cents. This would follow a similar deal with the music industry in 2003 and signal a coming of age for online video.

The FT is reporting that some of those TV networks are coming round to the idea, with the iPad playing a big part in their change of heart. If such a deal goes through then iTunes could corner the market in the same way it has done already with music downloads.

Conclusions

This is just the start of the deals we’re likely to see emerging in the run up to the launch of the iPad in two months time. If the Apple tablet is going to be as big as some analysts think then purveyors of video would be mad to miss out.

Related Ad

Purchase TV shows and movies from Apple iTunes

SeeSaw

SeeSaw is the service which has risen from the ashes of Project Kangaroo, an attempt to build a one-stop shop for all British TV catch-up services. And SeeSaw fulfills that original remit, drawing its content from the likes of the BBC, Channel 4, and Five.

Arqiva spent an estimated $8 million on the infrastructure for SeeSaw, and the company intends to turn a profit. That’s why although it’s currently a free, advertising-backed endeavor, the future will likely see paid-for options as well, possibly with international programming at its heart.

User Experience

Arqiva has taken the minimalist approach to online video. The colors are basic, the interface easy to navigate, the menu and program options simple enough for even a child to understand. Which is a good thing, and owes much to both the style of the iPlayer and Hulu.

The homepage currently displays a rolling carousel of content at the top, with ‘Catch Up TV’, ‘What’s New’, and ‘All-Star Casts’ sub-menus completing the line up. The latter is part of the offering that will change according to current events. So, SeeSaw’s editors will offer playlists of content that may appeal for a particular reason at a given time.

You can choose one of the shows on the homepage or navigate via a topbar listing categories (such as Comedy and Sport) and Channels (currently only BBC, 4oD, and Five).

Video Playback

Clicking on a show brings up the video, details of the chosen program, and further episodes if applicable. Navigating the site is quick, although that could change when more people begin using it after the full launch.

Starting the video means the pre-roll ads begin. There are typically two or three on each show. The quality of the video is brilliant, much better than seen on the MSN Video Player, and the option to choose from ‘Low’, ‘Medium’, and ‘High’ bandwidth settings is welcome.

Nothing Original

Watching content on the SeeSaw beta is a fine experience, but the problem is the content itself. The current offerings are a fraction of what you can get from the sources themselves, and there’s little reason (beyond the changing playlists) to choose SeeSaw over the source it’s drawing its content from.

SeeSaw has the ambition and the core components necessary to make it a great service. But as always content is key. Arqiva is no doubt busy behind the scenes forging new content deals to add to what is there already. But until they’re in place, SeeSaw is unnecessary in the big scheme of things.

Give it six months and a host of new content and then it may well be the service it promises to be.

Boxee Vs. Hulu History

It was almost a year ago when Hulu decided to pull its content from Boxee. TV.com also lost out. The decision was made after the networks and cable companies declared they didn’t like the way their premium content was being viewed on television via Boxee via Hulu.

In essence, they were only happy with Hulu while it remained a computer-only affair. Boxee enabled Hulu to be experienced on TVs and that just wouldn’t do as it may influence people’s decision to cancel their cable subscriptions in favor of online video.

Boxee responded by issuing a workaround to the Hulu block. Which Hulu then plugged, only for Boxee to unplug it. The cat and mouse game has continued since then, with some Boxee users able to watch Hulu programming and others not.

NBC Explains To Congress

Congress is holding a hearing concerning Comcast’s proposed acquisition of NBC Universal. And it was during this that Jeff Zucker, President and CEO of NBC, was asked about Hulu blocking Boxee users from accessing its programming.

Zucker was clearly surprised by the line of questioning and faltered the answer:

“This was a decision made by the Hulu management to, uh, what Boxee was doing was illegally taking the content that was on Hulu without any business deal. And, you know, all, all the, we have several distributors, actually many distributors of the Hulu content that we have legal distribution deals with so we don’t preclude distribution deals. What we preclude are those who illegally take that content.”

He was then asked whether NBC would negotiate with Boxee, to which he replied, “We have always said that we’re open to negotiations.”

Why Hulu Is Wrong

Zucker, and consequently Hulu, is fundamentally wrong on this one. As Boxee explains in a measured blog response, Boxee accesses content using a Web browser. There is no taking of video, no adding of adverts. In fact, it works exactly the same way as Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, and the Hulu Desktop.

And yet Boxee has been singled out for exclusion from access while Microsoft, Mozilla, Google and the rest happily act as a go-between without any of these so-called “legal distribution deals” in place that Zucker referred to.

Conclusions

There is absolutely no logic to Hulu’s continued banning of Boxee. And Zucker’s response to the question about it and Boxee’s explanation of why he is wrong frame the issue in as succinct a way as possible.

Let’s hope Hulu and Boxee either do now come to some arrangement or that Congress pushes further for an explanation of the issues involved. Because it makes no sense whatsoever, especially as Boxee would increase Hulu’s potential audience.

YouTube Trials Rentals

YouTube has now officially entered the market for movie rentals, having offered movies from the Sundance Film Festival for $3.99 apiece for the ten days that the festival lasted.

YouTube has had a relationship with independent filmmakers for a while now, as it offers another opportunity for them to get their work out there and in the eye-line of a bigger audience. And audiences don’t come much bigger than YouTube’s.

The trial run has now ended and the results are in.

Movie Rentals Trial Results

According to the New York Times, YouTube’s movie rentals trial ended with the company bringing in $10,709.16 in revenue. The five films combined were bought and viewed a total of 2,684 times.

This breaks down further into the results for the five films that were initially offered. The Cove was watched 1,103 times; One Too Many Mornings, 340; Homewrecker, 355 times; Children of Invention, 490 times; and Bass Ackwards, 396. Each was available for $3.99.

Success Or Failure?

Some have suggested this total signals a failure for YouTube, but I disagree. This was only ever intended as a small trial with films only a niche audience would appreciate.

What’s more, YouTube didn’t make a big deal out of it, letting the experiment find its own course rather than be influenced by high-profile ads on YouTube and its parent company Google.

YouTube spokesman Chris Dale even stated, “It definitely exceeded our expectations given all the barriers.” Which implies YouTube is happy with the results and has seen enough revenue and, more importantly promise, to up the ante next time around.

Conclusions

$10,000 isn’t much money in the big scheme of things, but it shows there could be a future there for YouTube to offer movie rentals in a bigger way in the future.

As always content is key. Independent films are one thing but if YouTube could make deals with the big studios for recently-released movies then the prospects move onto a different plain entirely.

And I have no doubts YouTube is already making those deals.

Related Ad

Movie downloads at ZML.com