Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Television Media The Internet Entertainment

YouTube Adds Full-Length Television Shows 197

thefickler writes "YouTube has moved to put full-length television shows on its site for the first time. Historically, YouTube has hosted a bewildering and attractive variety of video clips, the vast majority of which have been under ten minutes in length. YouTube has announced that it had finalized a deal with CBS to offer shows such as Star Trek, MacGyver, Beverly Hills 90210, and The Young and the Restless. I can't wait to watch The Young and the Restless!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Adds Full-Length Television Shows

Comments Filter:
  • Still using Flash (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Daengbo ( 523424 ) <daengbo&gmail,com> on Monday October 13, 2008 @07:32AM (#25353353) Homepage Journal
    I'd like to see Google switch over to the video tag and a free codec. That would make everything perfect.
  • What Next? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nicknamenottaken ( 1384173 ) on Monday October 13, 2008 @07:38AM (#25353409)
    I think it is a smart idea to have star trek on youtube to compensate for the rest of the proposed garbage listed in the story. Hopefully the trend of 1 in 4 television shows on youtube not being garbage will continue.
  • Censorship Sucks. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by liquidMONKEY ( 749280 ) on Monday October 13, 2008 @07:56AM (#25353511)
    Californication is censored, both language and nudity-wise, on YouTube. Normally for most programs it wouldn't matter, but it was the raunchy stuff that really propelled the comedy along in this case. Either have the full-length shows uncensored (possibly with a warning for moral individuals), or GTFO.
  • Please no (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hcdejong ( 561314 ) <hobbes@nOspam.xmsnet.nl> on Monday October 13, 2008 @08:16AM (#25353669)

    With short clips the YouTube UI is bad enough. For full-length TV shows I want:
    - a UI that can be controlled from arbitrary input devices, e.g. an IR remote and rotary controller (Griffin Powermate). Sitting at your computer doesn't cut it, I want control from my comfy chair.
    - a full-featured UI with controls for skip forward/reverse (at short/long intervals), aspect ratio, mute, etc.
    Basically, I want the VLC UI.

  • by Monkey-some ( 1178115 ) on Monday October 13, 2008 @08:29AM (#25353757)

    I was totally agreeing with until I saw my young niece watch some children serie through youtube without even bothering to put it full screen...not that she's technologically impaired but it's only that she was instant messaging around, browsing and "studying" in the meantime.

  • by g253 ( 855070 ) on Monday October 13, 2008 @09:25AM (#25354345)
    You may be right that Youtube's is still inferior to Tv's resolution, although I find it good enough for watching on the computer or on an ordinary 5 years old TV... And it's even better than a worn-out VHS ;)

    But that's not the point here : the important thing is that they're streaming full episodes, legally, on youtube. That's a change in policy, it sets a good precedent, and it could even help to make the average consumer think about so-called piracy ("why can't I download it off mininova if I can watch it on youtube?").
    So while the low res might make it less appealing to the average nerd, it's still a Good Thing. (although the region locking is rubbish)
  • by MobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) on Monday October 13, 2008 @10:25AM (#25355051)

    The videos are still encoded to 480x360 at the most. That's hardly "better than TV".

    -uso.

    It's at a point where with most shows it really doesn't matter. It's not like TV was the lowest point you could possibly go to make out what's going on.

    This conversation is academic anyway. If YouTube is going to compete with Hulu AND with its users, chances are the quality will be higher than what they have right now. You're better off waiting-and-seeing than saying you don't like the numbers and never checking it out.

  • by RazzleDazzle ( 442937 ) on Monday October 13, 2008 @11:19AM (#25355911) Journal

    Your "nearly perfect" solution seems way more complicated than necessary but to each his own.

    As for my "bet" maybe you need to practice on google searching, I did a single search and found this

    http://www.freeproxy.info/en/free_proxy/cgi-proxy.htm [freeproxy.info]

    The few I tried worked right off the bat.

    I suppose doing something like TOR might work too.. though you might not get a US proxy I suppose. Maybe their are config options? I've never even downloaded it or seen it in use.

  • by electrictroy ( 912290 ) on Monday October 13, 2008 @12:49PM (#25357517)

    Ya know, it's only been three years since ABC first started putting television shows online. And it was only a "limited test" because they were afraid it would hurt their Nielsen Ratings for over-the-air television. They thought the internet might cause financial losses.

    We've come a long way since those dark days when networks were afraid of the internet.

  • Re:Still using Flash (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Monday October 13, 2008 @12:52PM (#25357563)
    With all the patent trolls, nobody knows whether those technologies are patent free either. From the Dirac FAQ [diracvideo.org].

    Do you infringe any patents?

    The short answer is that we don't know for certain, but we're pretty sure we don't.

    We haven't employed armies of lawyers to trawl through the tens of thousands of video compression techniques. That's not the way to invent a successful algorithm. Instead we've tried to use techniques of long standing in novel ways.

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Working...