Filed under: Features, Home Entertainment

Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

Riddle me this — what do you get when you cross the cost savings of a peer-to-peer network with the stability, reliability, and security of a traditional CDN (Content Delivery Network)? The answer, if one Seattle startup has its way, might just be on-demand DVD-quality video at a fraction of the current cost.

Sitting atop Seattle’s famed FX McRory’s building in the picturesque Pioneer Square, a group of 15 dedicated employees at GridNetworks is attempting to go where many have ventured but few have succeeded; they’re attempting to morph the concept of peer-to-peer into a business.

Last week I sat down with GridNetworks CEO, Jeff Payne, and VP of Sales and Marketing, Bo Wandell, to get the lowdown on their new service. Click on to find out what I gleaned from their vision for Grid.

Continue reading The Clicker: Living on the Grid

 

Permalink | Email this | Comments

---

BOLD MOVES: THE FUTURE OF FORD A new documentary series. Be part of the transformation as it happens in real-time

Office Depot Featured Gadget: Xbox 360 Platinum System Packs the power to bring games to life!

Filed under: Features, HDTV, Home Entertainment

Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

There is nothing quite like a format war to get keyboards a’clacking… and why not? We, the media, love a format war. Oh sure — it screws the consumer: two perfectly good technologies rot away on shelves or, even worse, in R&D labs; countless advertising dollars are wasted; years of use are lost forever. Yes, that’s all bad, but look on the bright side: format wars give us a chance to get in touch with that little Dvorak inside us all. They allow pundits and fanboys alike to boldly and without reservation declare winners months, years, or even decades ahead of their impeding victory.

Just this week my colleague and an editor at HDbeat, Ben Drawbaugh, did just that. Ben, armed with the questionable logic of “higher prices attract the customer,” pronounced Blu-ray to be the winner. The siren-like call to pick a winner is irresistible, I know. I too have been bitten by the declaration bug in the past.

With that said, today we step back and do something different. Today we offer the unrealistic fanciful suggestion that the two forces join together and end this “war.”

I know what you’re thinking: “They’ve tried that.” While that might be true, we’ll consider for a minute a different type of union. We’ll consider a union where we get to where we’re eventually going anyway. We just get there years ahead of time.

Allow me to explain.

Despite the fun of picking a camp and sticking with it, we all know how this will actually end. Much like the battle of yore (and by that I mean DVD+ vs. DVD-), this duel will eventually be settled by dual players. Frankly, it makes too much sense not to be. For all the back and forth “we’re better than you” rhetoric exchanged between the parties, the two really aren’t that different. Both offer the same array of codecs and are driven by very similar power requirements. Essentially (and without intending any slight towards the HD DVD camp), anything an HD DVD player can do, a Blu-ray can do also*.

There are two key differences between the players. The first is the navigation system. This is nothing that a little money can’t solve. Diehard proponents can argue the advantages of each player and format until they’re Blu blue in the face, but customers frankly couldn’t care less. The second difference, the laser pickup, is a tougher problem since the two systems aren’t compatible. Blu-ray stores its data 0.1mm from the surface of the disk. HD DVD’s data (like DVDs) on the other hand is 0.6mm from the surface. CDs are at yet another depth (1.1mm). However, this isn’t a deal-breaker either. Between the different lasers required for CD, DVD, and next-gen (be it HD DVD or BD) content, the boxes will likely require multiple lasers anyway — and that’s only if Ricoh doesn’t have something to say about it.

In what could be the turning point in this whole ordeal, Ricoh announced in the beginning of July that they had developed a diffraction plate capable of reading all types of lasers. This is the first step in dual box.

With the end of this war being a fait a compli (we all know it will end up in a stalemate), I hereby suggest the following absurd optimistic plan.

Blu-ray and HD DVD need to get together, find a manufacturer willing to produce a dual box, and then they should both endorse the hell out it. “Huh?” you ask. “Why would they want to do that?” That’s simple. Until now we’ve been under the impression that each camp wants to win at the expense of the other. Sure, that makes sense. But it’s actually so much better when they can both just soak the consumer.

If both parties started loudly praising dual players, they could a) both collect licensing fees from a single box (sure to be passed on to the consumer) b) essentially force all players to be dual (lest the player manufacturers risk looking bad). This plan has other benefits. First, it would mean years of selling boxes instead of years of convincing consumers that their flavor is the right flavor of next-gen shiny disks. Second, each gets to capture the whole market instead of just their portion of it.

Yes, there are drawbacks which make this plan, well, unlikely, to say the least. Most notably and most ironically is the PS3 factor. It’s ironic in that the PS3 was hailed as the force that was supposed to kick-start the next-gen revolution. Instead it might be the best reason Sony has to drag this thing out to the end of time. Likewise, they’re also battling in the title license space and neither wants to give away an advantage there. Yet even considering these obstacles, someone in each camp certainly must realize that the above will eventually happen. The question is simply whether or not the two camps have the foresight to be an active part of it.

* The opposite, however, is not true. In many ways HD DVD is a subset of Blu-ray. Blu-ray adds additional levels of security, but, more importantly, HD DVD utilizes a more stringent subset of VC-1. For example HD DVD has a max GOP length of .6 seconds while Blu-ray can reach 2 seconds (if you stay under 15Mbps otherwise it’s 1 second). BD has a bigger buffer and a higher peak. In other words, clips encoded for HD DVD will play on Blu-ray. The opposite can’t be said.

---

If have comments or suggestions for future columns, drop me a line at theclicker@theevilempire.com.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Features, Portable Audio, Portable Video

Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

Upon learning of Microsoft’s rumored iPod competitor, the Zune, iPod fanatics could be heard around the globe: “It’s just an iPod rip-off.” “Can’t the boys in Redmond do anything without copying the mighty Jobs?”, loyal Appleists screamed at the top of their lungs. “It’s got a scroll-wheel. It’s got a screen. It will probably play music too! Will the copying ever stop?”

While all of the above may be true, repeat after me: It’s not about the player. Don’t get me wrong — the iPod is a nifty little machine. In classic Apple style, the iPod is sleek and stylish; its clean lines and rolled edges ooze class and quality. Heck, the iPod is nearly lickable. However, while going to market with such a device certainly doesn’t hurt your chances, it’s not the root of the iPod’s success. The secret to Apple’s success in the online music market has always been the ease of a) buying music and b) getting music onto the device. It’s really that simple. In short, it’s all about the ecosystem.

For years the debate has raged on. Microsoft has stood firm; they have boldly and publicly declared, “We give the user choices. We’re not about an end-to-end solution. Our PlaysForSure program allows a user to pick the device that best suits his or her needs. Blah Blah Blah.” Apple, on the other hand, has chosen a different route. Much like Henry Ford’s oft-quoted response to choice in the Model-T, Apple has said, “You can use any device you want as long as it’s the iPod.” There is no doubt who the winner was in round one. The overwhelming success of the iPod speaks volumes.

Does that mean that Microsoft was wrong? Perhaps not. Perhaps they were just being a tad disingenuous in regard to their true plans. It’s quite possible that we’re just now seeing Microsoft’s first real play in the digital audio player market. Perhaps, just perhaps, Microsoft has been stalling. And while claiming that Microsoft has just been stalling (as opposed to, say, clueless) might give them credit for an inordinate amount of self-awareness, we must closely examine this particular situation. Here are a couple things to consider.

Much to the chagrin of die-hard Apple fans, Microsoft actually does produce decent hardware. Their mice, keyboards, and routers (when they were still being produced), are all considered to be top of the line. Some might even argue that Microsoft is too good at industrial design. After all, we’ve all experienced the extreme emotional letdown after discovering Microsoft’s OEM partners will be producing watered-down versions of the Microsoft prototypes. The lack of a Microsoft produced media device has very little to do with Microsoft’s actual ability to produce one.

More likely, Microsoft has chosen not to produce their own DAP because they have lacked the software infrastructure needed to come close to iTunes’ ease of use. That’s right, ironically, the software giant’s Achilles heel hasn’t been the hardware. Try as they might, they just couldn’t produce the seamless software to compete with Apple. Windows Media Player has historically been a confusing mess, and while Windows Media Player 11 looks to be making some improvements, it would still fail the “could your mother do it” test. The iPod, of course, does not.

Well, all that could be about to change. With Zune, the race begins in earnest. Freed from the burden of the Windows Media Player legacy, the Xbox team could get a chance to show that they too can do “easy as Apple pie.”

We all knew that this time would come. Predictions that the Xbox was a “way to get into the living room” are as old as the Xbox itself. There was never any doubt that Microsoft would do something in the arena. You don’t sink billions of dollars into a product without a greater plan — and now, finally, we might just be about to see some of the goods.

If recent rumors are to be believed, the upcoming device will not be part of the standard PlaysForSure program. The implications of this rumor are quite interesting. While it’s possible that this could simply mean a deeper focus on URGE, it’s far more Allard-like to consider an end-to-end solution delivered via the 360. And why not? Xbox has already integrated your personal music into the games. Buying that music through them is the next logical step, especially if it’s their DAP you’re using. Furthermore, this level of integration would be a perfect fit for both their emerging social network and also their emerging economy of points. That’s right — by charging people “points” for songs, Xbox might just be able to break from the standard 99-cent price point.

Besides the much-discussed WiFi integration and its resulting music-sharing feature possibilities, creating an Xbox end-to-end solution could offer other interesting song-sale opportunities. For instance, imagine being able to listen to the soundtracks of any of your Live competitors. Like a song you here mid-game? Bookmark it. Buy it later. It’s a natural fit.

Yes, Apple’s platform has trounced Microsoft’s in the media device market wars. However, Apple would be foolish to believe that they’re going up against Microsoft this time. This time they could be going up against Xbox, and if it really is the ecosystem that’s helping to drive iPod sales, Apple could just have a fight on its hands this time.

---

If you have comments or suggestions for future columns feel free to drop me a line at theclicker@theevilempire.com.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Features

Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

It’s official; the video blogging world is coming into its own. The harbinger to this digital coming of age? Well it might just be the explosion of everybody’s favorite rocket, Rocketboom. After all — a medium can’t be truly successful if there aren’t the predictable pulls over money and the ever-present “creative control.”

Arguably the most successful video blog ever, Rocketboom and its host Amanda Congdon have heretofore been the poster children for video blog victory. Fueled by its seductively simple recipe of one part clever writing, one part quirky-but-likeable-host, and about ten parts really tight sweaters, Rocketboom has from its October 2004 inception grown to a massive daily audience of 250,000.

In December of 2005 Rocketboom took yet another step towards legitimization when it became featured content on TiVo’s video download offering.

Rocketboom followed up on this TiVo victory in February by selling its first advertisement block (via eBay) for $40,000 dollars. Over the course of the following months Rocketboom sold other chunks of advertising, and while it hadn’t sold enough advertising to firmly label it a long-term success, the future for Rocketboom was definitely looking bright.

Yet, despite the introduction of money (or perhaps because of it) all was not well in Rocketboom land. And while Rocketboom is a product of the Internet, the story is as old as television itself. It’s the age old battle between the “talent” and the “management.”

On July 5th Amanda Congdon let the world know via a self-produced video blog entry that her tenure at Rocketboom had rather abruptly come to an end. What followed over the next 24 hours made Britney Spears’ latest Dateline interview look like a well-oiled PR machine. Andrew Baron, the site’s founder and majority owner, said she made unrealistic demands. Congdon shot back, all but using the phrase “constructive termination” to describe her new role in the organization. It was a mess, and the result is an “unboomed” Amanda and a Rocketboom looking for a replacement.

To the outside observer this might look like just another typical playground spat where one child boldly announces to the others “I’m taking my ball and going home.” However, underneath the adolescent name-calling and airing of public laundry, there actually is a serious issue which has the potential to affect the entire industry: when it comes to video blogging, who really owns the brand?

Yes, it’s clear that Andrew Baron as 51% owner (as opposed to Congdon’s 49%) of Rocketboom owns the Rocketboom name. However, is that really the brand that matters? Many viewers are quick to point out that Amanda is the “brand” to which they relate. At the end of the day it’s possible that the same refreshing “just Amanda and the camera” style which helped vault Rocketboom to internet stardom ironically might also be its downfall.

Unlike traditional “talent” vs. “management” debates where the talent is held in check by a certain amount of infrastructure, video blogs have very little to keep a well-liked host / writer tied to a brand. Furthermore, the audience for these shows is often bloggers and similarly tied-in viewers. This could spell disaster for a company like Rocketboom, but it could also have an adverse effect on companies looking for funding in the field. As one ex-VC put it, “I think that you’ll see a lot of companies re-examining their non-compete clauses when it comes to on-air talent. You just can’t afford to let your brand walk out the door.”

As for what this means for Rocketboom’s relationship with TiVo, TiVo declined to comment on their Rocketboom deal and whether or not the departure of Congdon will have an effect on it.

The next few weeks will certainly tell us a lot about the industry. Will Congdon be quick to grab the reins and start her own video blog? Will bloggers spread word of the new home? Will this result in a mass exodus of Rocketboom viewers?

One thing is clear. After this latest incident both Congdon and Baron will probably spend a little more time and be a little more careful before they pick their next partners.

---

If you have comments or suggestions for future columns feel free to drop me a line at theclicker@theevilempire.com.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: HDTV, Home Entertainment

Stephen Speicher contributes The Clicker, an opinion column on entertainment and technology:

Congratulations!  You’ve taken the first step; you’ve decided to buy a new television.  

The problem, as you quickly discovered, is that the world of televisions is a crowded place.  Determining which set is worthy of your hard-earned cash can be a daunting experience. Oh sure, you’ve done a little research. “Research,” of course means that you cornered the first “TV geek” friend you could find and asked him (uh, or her) the ridiculously open-ended question “Which TV should I buy?”  

Your friend, having been suckered by this question before, looked at you with an expression that clearly said, “Would you walk into a random doctor’s office and nonchalantly ask ‘What surgery should I have?’” and went on to do some skillful hand-waving that ultimately deflected your question. Your friend (no idiot) knows that if he actually answered the question, he’d forever be held responsible for the “quirks” any TV is bound to have.

We here at Engadget feel your pain. We don’t feel your pain enough to tell you what to get, but we do feel your pain.  So, to help you out a little, we’ve compiled a list of “IT” TV’s. Below are five of the top “mob-selected” televisions.  In some cases they are the best of the best. In other cases they provide good value.  However, in each case, you won’t be alone if you’re looking at these sets.  In short, these are five of the top buzz-worthy TVs, and just for fun we’ve included each set’s “IT” girl equivalent.

#5 Westinghouse LVM-42W2

It’s been a long time since the Westinghouse brand-name has been relevant. This once-proud American firm long ago sold its credibility, tradition, trust name to the highest bidder. The result was a long dark period for Westinghouse products. Well, that could just be changing with this latest line of LCD televisions. 

Since re-emerging on the scene, Westinghouse has released a slew of 1080p LCD televisions. Targeted at the price-conscious consumer, the LVM-42W2 packs quite a few goodies for its relatively low price. Its 8ms pixel response time greatly reduces the ghosting often associated with early-generation LCD televisions, and its ability to accept 1080p signals will be much appreciated by future PS3 owners. Overall, it’s considered a solid performer for those looking to join the 1080p crowd without breaking the bank.

The closest “IT” girl to the Westinghouse? Paris Hilton, of course. It comes from a once proud name.  It’s rail thin and cheap. (And yes, I did get this far without using the phrase “bang for your buck.”)

#4 Samsung HL-S5679W

Samsung DLPs are the Lindsay Lohan of the television market. Just when you think that they’re looking a little bit worn and are about to lose their “IT” status, BAM! They do something to get the public interested again. 

In the case of this latest Samsung, they’ve made the jump to an LED light-source. This change accomplishes a few things. First, it eliminates the need for a color-wheel. (Note: that doesn’t necessarily equate to the elimination of rainbows. The rainbows are caused by the sequential layering of colors. Until they switch to a three-chip solution, there will always be the theoretical possibility of seeing rainbows. With that said, eliminating the wheel should, in practice, eliminate rainbows.) The LED light source also means a quick boot-up and a “bulb” which, for all intents and purposes, will last for the life of the television set. Add to the mix improved color accuracy, and you’ve got yourself a little more life out of the Samsung DLP line.

#3 Sony KDS-50A2000, KDS-55A2000, KDS-60A200

If you’ve always drooled over the picture quality of Sony’s SXRD (Silicon Crystal Reflective Display) rear-projection televisions. But couldn’t afford the hefty price tag of the Qualia 006 (the first generation), or later you boycotted the KDS-RXBR1 series (the second generation) because it didn’t accept 1080p signals, this new line might just be for you — third time’s a charm, after all.

While you will certainly pay a premium for the KDS over similarly-sized DLP units, you’ll also get a picture few can argue with. They’ve also finally fixed what many considered the fatal flaw of past versions of the SXRD line — its inputs now accept 1080p. Like its predecessors, the new KDS line runs at a native 1920 x 1080 resolution via a three-chip SXRD set-up.

The equivalent “IT” girl? Eva Longoria. Why? No reason in particular. It’s just quite nice to look at and a little more upscale than your typical teeny-bopper TVs.

#2 NEC 50xr5

If you crave those gorgeous black levels but don’t have the room for a CRT (or you simply lack the willingness to deal with a traditional CRT rear-projection in this digital world) plasma is still king. While Panasonic and Pioneer are certainly darlings, NEC is quietly making some noise with their 50xr5 model.

Wrapped in a sturdy but quietly elegant casing, the 50xr5 displays a very well-balanced picture. Skin tones are rich and true. Black levels excel. While not 1080p, the NEC does an admirable job putting that 1365 x 768 resolution to work. The end result is a picture that makes you forget that you’re watching TV, and, in the end, isn’t that what it’s all about?

And, for those keeping track at home, you can’t look at the delicate beveled casing and the rich skin-tones and not immediately think Keira Knightly.

#1 VPL-VW100 AKA “The Ruby”

It should come as little shock to anyone that the number one “IT” TV (well, projector really) is Sony’s gem, the Ruby. The VPL-VW100 is nearly identical to its older sibling, the $30k Qualia 004, but rings up at one third the price.

The Ruby is the dream projector for those with the ability to buy at the $10k price-range. In fact, when Engadget headquarters was looking to blanket all four walls of the conference room with digital projection, there was little debate — the quad set of Rubys gave just the performance needed to create our own private holo-deck.

The VPL-VW100 pumps out full 1920 x 1080 (1080p) resolution, accepts 1080p signals, and is whisper-quiet. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up.

The Ruby is the Charlize Theron of projectors. It’s gorgeous. It’s versatile and, most importantly, it’s got the skills to back it up.

You see — picking a new TV can be as easy as choosing your “IT” girl of choice.  So get out there and pick one because heaven knows that Bea Arthur model of yours isn’t doing that Xbox 360 any justice.

---

If you have comments or suggestions for future columns feel free to drop me a line at theclicker@theevilempire.com.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

“But the Sitcom is dead,” you explain. That might be true, but “Lost” sure isn’t. J.J. Abrams’ wildly-successful drama has been the geek favorite for almost two years. How did it do when compared with a dude dancing? Not so well; “Evolution of Dance” has now been watched more times than last week’s episode of Lost (14.6 million viewers last week).

At this point some of you might be muttering to yourselves, “That’s not a fair comparison. You’re counting the total times “Evolution of Dance” has been watched. It’s had months to hit those numbers.” OK – that’s true. Some might argue that, when all is said and done, that might not matter, but for argument’s sake let’s give in on that point.

Instead, let’s use only one week’s worth of data. At this point last week “Evolution of Dance” had been watched a mere nine million times. That means the clip has accumulated 6+ million views this week alone. How does 6+ million views compare to network programming? Well, most weeks this would top comedy favorites like “The Office” and “My Name is Earl.” Likewise, it would prove to be kryptonite to the WB’s Smallville. Heck, 6+ million views is the pinnacle of success for WB shows.

The problem, of course, with this line of thinking is the length of the clips. If you make the assumption that the average YouTube view is 3-4 minutes long (“Evolution of Dance” is actually 6 minutes long), you’d have to stream a whole lot more clips to come close to the networks with a three-hour primetime (e.g. NBC, ABC, etc.). However, the WB might just be within YouTube’s grasp. Let’s dive further.

In order to properly compare YouTube to The WB, we’ll need to invent a new metric. We’ll call it “Eyeball Minutes” or EMs for short. YouTube EMs are fairly easy to calculate. 40 million streams each in the neighborhood of 3.5 minutes comes to 140 million EMs per day.

EMs for the WB are harder to track down, but we’ll take a stab at it. Let’s assume that, on average, the WB attracts 3.5 million viewers for its 2 hour primetime lineup. We’ll also assume that each show has the standard 45 minutes per hour of content. That means the WB’s EMs equate to 315 per night.

So, perhaps YouTube isn’t quite there in terms of viewership, but it’s growing. Besides — the WB had a decade head start.

Just for fun let’s do one other comparison. Let’s look at ad revenue:

Again we will use “Evolution of Dance” as a comparison. If you still don’t think that micro-content could be a macro business, consider the following. Six minutes of network content would be accompanied by 1 minute and 30 seconds of advertising. For a show with 15 million viewers, expect an ad rate in the neighborhood of 200k per 30 second slot. That’s right; “Evolution of Dance” would garner 600k dollars in ad revenue if calculated with basic “network math.”

Don’t get me wrong; nobody expects advertisers to pay anywhere close to these numbers for an ad on YouTube (yet). Despite the extremely captive audience and the ability to pinpoint ads to a degree that would be unthinkable for broadcast television, it’s (still) a pipedream. However, if micro-content could generate even just a fraction of the broadcast ad revenue, we’re talking big money.

How much money? Well, if YouTube was able to apply the same fuzzy “broadcast math” (as we did with the above “Evolution Of Dance” clip) to the entirety of its traffic, it would net them a cool $340 Million per year in revenue, and, heck, they’re still growing.

---

If you have comments or suggestions for future columns feel free to drop me a line at theclicker@theevilempire.com.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Features, Home Entertainment

Stop growing? Yes, stop growing. YouTube's success might just be killing them. They've already gained the elusive "mindshare." People are familiar with YouTube. People know YouTube. Any further growth is just an ego-quest; it's not a quest for money and it's certainly not a quest for a sustainable business. Furthermore, added growth might just hinder long-term aspirations. With the majority of their traffic falling into one of two camps: a) illegal traffic (e.g. the much-talked-about "Lazy Sunday" clip) or b) traffic which will never make them a cent, it's time for YouTube to take a step back and ask the question "How do we attract more quality and less quantity?" The answer (as always) is money.

There's an old eBay story (whether or not it's apocryphal I can't say) that goes something like the following: it was when eBay started charging for its auctions that the site became useful. Until that point in eBay's existence, "good" auctions were often hard to find amidst the sea of "bad" auctions. By adding a little money into the mix, serious buyers were able to find serious sellers and vice versa. While not exactly the same thing, it is time for YouTube to start courting quality content producers.

"How might this work?" you say. Well, I'm glad you asked.

This past week I must have watched Judson Laipply's "Evolution of Dance" clip five times. It was funny. It was quite funny, actually. It's a shame that Judson won't get paid for that work. Imagine, on the other hand, if YouTube had placed an advertisement before that clip and paid Judson for every time that clip was watched. Take this a step further. Imagine if you, as a website owner, were also given a cut of the advertising revenue every time someone watched that clip on your website. All of a sudden you've got a system whereby quality content owners are eager to submit their work and websites have an incentive to find the best quality clips to feature on their sites. It's the elusive win-win-win.

There's often an attitude that advertising ruins things. While it's true that ads can be annoying, ads or, more to the point, the money they represent have an uncanny ability to drive quality. By giving people and organizations proper incentive to use YouTube's distribution system, money could help to achieve the goal of making quality content extremely web-portable. This in turn, would drive YouTube's ultimate success.

---

If you have comments or suggestions for future columns feel free to drop me a line at theclicker@theevilempire.com.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Features, Home Entertainment

That’s not to say that YouTube’s success has come entirely from amateur content. Like all newly-emerging
media companies, YouTube has had its run-ins with the established media giants. Earlier this year, YouTube was on the
receiving end of an NBC nastygram which ever-so-politely requested the removal of the cult hit “Lazy Sunday”
(aka The Chronic-what-cles of Narnia” ). The company acquiesced (as is its policy) and removed the offending clip.
Perhaps as a result of this (and other network threats requests) YouTube made some modifications to its
policies in order to avoid future copyright issues. Most notably, the company now limits the length of uploaded videos
to 10 minutes or shorter.

Ironically enough, however, it’s YouTube’s philosophy of small, digestible
content and their willingness to avoid copyright issues that has positioned them to answer the age-old question of
“What is fair use?”

While fair use discussion has, in the past few years, been dominated by DVD
ripping and TV Show “sharing,” YouTube might just find itself at the heart of the another oft-overlooked
aspect of fair use, reporting and education. Just as blogs have re-written the rules of print media, YouTube has
quietly positioned themselves (or found themselves) at what could be the heart of the next major copyright battle:
video clips. You see, spread throughout the amateur videos are a slew of tightly-edited clips designed to illustrate
points. These clips are often the property of a media giant. However, as uploaded and used, many of these clips
represent “reporting.”

For instance, maybe you’re preparing a blog post about the refereeing
in the NBA playoffs. Sure, you could attempt to describe the events in question blow-by-blow. However, that just
doesn’t have the impact of including the video clips. It’s much easier and more effective to just show why href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7iTtjMTUkw"> Raja Bell was suspended for a game or href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFcinlrgojk"> why Reggie Evans is now the most feared man among the male
population. YouTube makes this possible.

In an effort to distance themselves from “works in their
entirety” and thus stay on the righteous side of Fair Use, YouTube has attracted a new breed of
“reporter.” Sites use YouTube to quickly post video proof of the latest current events or examples of their
points.

While, in the past, the RIAA, the MPAA, the NAB, etc. have been able to bully media services that
trafficked in copyrighted material, the same brute-force logic of “It’s mine, you can’t play it” is no
longer applicable with much of the YouTube content. Unlike some of its less legitimate brothers, YouTube is doing
everything it reasonably can to respect the honest rights of the copyright holders. YouTube has shown very little
interest in bolstering its userbase through flagrant copyright violations. YouTube has even been lauded by industry
groups for its responsiveness to DCMA issues. However, that’s not to say that YouTube will bend to the will of
industries.

It’s this compliance with the spirit of copyright law that would make YouTube an awfully tough
opponent should content owners ever try to challenge YouTube’s right to post content. Will big media content owners
cross the line with their removal requests? Will YouTube be forced to take a stand? Will they be the advocates of Fair
Use that we hope they will be when the content isn’t as cut and dry as “Lazy Sunday?” It’s unclear. What is
clear is that YouTube might just have the ability to wrestle back some of the content-rights users have been slowly
losing. Let’s hope they exercise it when the time comes.

---

If you have comments or suggestions
for future columns feel free to drop me a line at theclicker@theevilempire.com.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Features, Home Entertainment, Media PCs

"This isn't some program that we can port for you."

"Bill... listen clearly: Apple wants to build a Media Center box with Windows Media Center Edition pre-installed."

"Don't you already have an OS? Marmot? Crocodile? Aardvark?..."

"Tiger, Bill, It's called Tiger. Why do you always have to do that joke?"

"HA! It's always funny, Steve. It's always funny."

Bill paused and pondered the enormity of it all. Finally he would have an OEM whom he could trust to get it right.

"Well… who am I to say no?"

"That's great. I'll have my people call your people."

With business concluded they talked for a few more minutes. Bill admitted that he used an iPod. Steve implied that Windows was his work OS. In truth, both already knew each other's secret. The conversation was pleasant if not revealing.

Steve gathered his belongings and headed for the door.

"One more thing," Bill said with a half chuckle. "Do you have a codename for this project?"

"Yes. We call it iRobot." Steve said as the door closed behind him.

---

Officially the above meeting never took place and, quite frankly, the concept is little more than the fanciful dream of one writer. However, once the knee-jerk reaction wears off, one must ask the obvious question, "Why not?"

Yes, the idea is: insane, ludicrous, downright stupid, and, once again, insane. However, that doesn't mean that it's wholly without merit.

Let's look at the facts.

Fact 1: There is one thing that both the most ardent Apple fans and the Microsoft loyalists will always agree on: Apple has made a pretty good living producing hardware that's elegant, fashionable, and over-priced when viewed strictly on a function-for-function basis with its competition.

If ever a computer called for Apple's expertise, it's in the world of Media Centers. While traditional PC OEMs such as Sony and HP have been getting better, none have been able to strike a chord with the buying public like Apple would. Apple could immediately step in and corner the market.

Fact 2: Steve Jobs has shown little interest in going the route of the DVR. Apple has dipped its foot into the pool with Front Row, but few consumers are likely to buy a dedicated computer for Front Row. This means that the entire dedicated Media Center market would be fresh meat fruit for Apple. Show me a business that doesn't like exploiting a non-cannibalizing market-segment and I'll show you a company with a losing business plan.

Fact 3: Apple does have a long-term strategy for being in the living-room. It's clear that digital entertainment will play a large part in the future of entertainment. Don't expect Apple to miss out on it. However, Apple believes in attacking the problem closer to the source. Expect Apple to do deals closer to the content layer and to then, once these deals are in place, provide alternate distribution mechanisms. The problem is that this takes time and often produces a "chicken and egg" scenario.

Fact 4: It's not really a technical problem. Apple's move to the Intel platform and their subsequent unveiling of Boot Camp put them in a great position to take the next logical step.

Does this mean Apple would be abandoning MacOS? Heck no. This all returns back to the secret codename, "iRobot." The plan is simple. Each of Apple's Media Center boxes would ship with both operating systems. Slowly but surely these boxes would find their way into the living rooms of the world. Then, one day, when Apple was, once again, ready to change the world, Steve Jobs would climb into his secret tower and begin transmitting "the signal."

All around the world the pleasant blue LEDs on the front of these sleeper-agent Media Center PCs would change to the more ominous RED. This would alert owners that it was now time to give these boxes the OS Alt-TAB and return their boxes back to their rightful state. It was time for them to return to being Macs.

---

If you have comments or suggestions for future columns feel free to drop me a line at theclicker@theevilempire.com.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Filed under: Features, Home Entertainment

You see — there are a couple of crucial pieces of information that you need to know. First, you need to
understand that one aspect of both Blu-ray and HD DVD that rarely gets press-coverage is that each has a provision for
using red lasers (the same type used in today’s DVD players) in conjunction with their advanced codecs. In the case of
Blu-ray it’s called BD-9 and in the case of HD DVD it’s HD DVD-9.

In each case, the concept is simple: it’s
nearly exactly the same content that’s placed on the higher-capacity blue-laser-based discs but instead the content is
put on the same DVD media that we’ve come to love and adore. The thought behind the inclusion of red lasers was
two-fold: a) in order to maintain backwards compatibility with current DVDs it had to be there and b) there is a set of
content that really doesn’t need all the space of the fully-implemented Blu-ray or HD DVD standard. As a result,
companies such as Warner Bros., in an effort to lower production costs on a certain subset of their content (e.g. TV
Episode compilations), demanded its inclusion.

The second piece of information that you need to understand
is that, in many cases, an entire HD movie will actually fit on a standard DVD. Yes, it’s true that at 8-9 MBit/second
you won’t see transparency to the source. However, for an average length film with no "extras" most people
would be hard-pressed to tell the difference; they have neither the equipment nor the eyes to do so. In fact, nearly
three years ago (a lifetime in terms of development) Terminator 2 was released on a standard DVD using a very similar
encoding scheme to those used in both Blu-ray and HD DVD . Since then, both the VC-1 encoding process and H.264
encoding have made tremendous improvements and continue to get more efficient with each passing month.
/>"So what’s the problem?" you ask, "both BD-9 and HD DVD-9 use the same laser, the same media, the same
codecs, and the same (well mostly) content protection scheme – why can’t you just make one disc that will play in
both players?" The answer, as stupid as it seems, is the navigation system. While nearly every aspect of the disc
is the same, HD DVD uses the Microsoft-developed iHD while Blu-ray uses a Java-based system. By using two different
navigation systems, both parties have excluded the possibility of dual-system HD discs.

"Why would they
do this?" Well… Many might argue that it was simply a case of NIH (not invented here) where two stubborn groups
were just unwilling to bend — each thinking they held all the cards. It’s only trained conspiracy experts who know the
real reason: doing so hurts independent content producers.

Where major studios have the clout, the finances,
and the time to release two different versions of the same content using the latest disks, independent producers don’t.
Doing so means twice as much inventory, twice as many production hassles, etc. Furthermore, it is the independent
producers (be they filmmakers or even home enthusiasts) who would have been more likely to utilize the red laser
feature. In the case of small production houses, they might already have invested in DVD-burners. In the case of
enthusiasts, they might choose to create a disc they know will be compatible with their friend’s HD player.

By limiting the usefulness of the red portion of the two specs, the DVD Forum and the BDA can push people
towards the discs that make them money and not towards a possible "HD on Red" compromise. Additionally, the
studios are able to limit their competition to only those companies which can afford to produce and stock all three
versions.

So there you have it – the "real" reason they sabotaged the red laser’s usefulness
in Blu-ray and HD DVD. Now I’ve to get out of this room; the tinfoil is making my head sweat and I’m out of saltines and
peanut butter.

If you have comments or suggestions for future columns, drop
me a line at theclicker@theevilempire.com.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments