down the tubes
Over on Lost Remote, Cory Bergman explains why the blog is using YouTube to embed video in posts, rather than link to clips on the Comedy Central site. Although using YouTube implies a degree of copyright infringement, it is too difficult to find a linkable URI on the Comedy Central site, as well as a host of other sites. The only easy way to share the video content with readers (and promote Comedy Central programming) is to use the service. Bergman asks, “Why aren’t media sites copying YouTube search and share functionality?”
This is a good question, and I thought I would raise a tangential question. As John Battelle and others have pointed out, YouTube’s business model isn’t really sustainable. Although the site has become wildly popular in a short amount of time, the content that is driving people to the site is copyrighted material, like the Colbert Report clip on Lost Remote. Investors and larger businesses will balk at throwing more money at a company that is so vulnerable to litigation. And since YouTube uses a substantial amount of bandwidth, it will quickly burn through money.
So, I’ll ask, “Why doesn’t YouTube pursue the business-to-business market and license its technology to networks like Comedy Central?” Instead of competing with Google Video and sites like eBaumsworld, it should compete with the likes of Brightcove. YouTube has demonstrated that its Flash-based video service is easy to use and flexible enough for a variety of different Web formats, so why not approach content providers as an alternative to the current streaming technologies? Comedy Central (or any other TV network) has a great opportunity to promote its shows by allowing bloggers and MySpace users to embed clips in their blogs and, more generally, simplifying the architecture of their sites.
I guess YouTube has two or three hurdles it has to overcome. First, I don’t know the legal status of its technology. Is it sufficiently unique and sufficiently protected that YouTube could license it to networks? Or could Viacom (the parent of Comedy Central) develop a similar homegrown solution relatively quickly? Secondly, the quality of YouTube is fine for sharing video created with consumer-grade equipment, but it’s pretty poor compared to other technologies like QuickTime and RealPlayer that large TV organizations use. As Valleywag pointed out, “The resolution is 2002-quality.” I imagine YouTube is working on improving the quality and performance of their player. A final issue is that old-media TV networks are probably resistant to sharing their content. It may not be an accident that Comedy Central makes it difficult to blog clips from “The Colbert Report.” They want to drive viewers to their site. Of course, I and a thousand other bloggers think this is short-sighted, but it probably requires a shift in the culture of TV production. Moreover, while bloggers like me who adminster their own sites, have no problem with embedding outside content, the major providers of online presence might. While MySpace explained their upgrade to Flash 9 as a security measure, it may also be motivated by a desire to restrict what kinds of content are embedded on user pages. Despite these hurdles, YouTube’s solution for embedding video online could be a great solution for major content providers.
