Original Content Coming To YouTube? 119
itwbennett writes "Rumors of original, professionally-produced content channels coming to YouTube are heating up. Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal reported on it, invoking pro skateboarder Tony Hawk as one of the star attractions. Now The Hollywood Reporter is saying the channels may be launched early next year, with an official announcement coming later this month. 'Originally the story was that YouTube was going to invest $100 million in this content, but now that number has been bumped up to $150 million,' says blogger Peter Smith. 'Does that sound like a lot? Consider Netflix is rumored to be spending $100 million on House of Cards, a single original series that the company is backing. YouTube is said to be delivering 24 channels of original content.'"
Can we PLEASE get Firefly back? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
nuf said
I feel for ya, but you're more likely to see the Slashdot Channel first.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Meh... It always sounds like a good idea to bring a really great series like "Firefly" (Or "Arrested Development" - which is why I am not as excited as I ought to be about it actually coming back) back... But when it is brought back it's never quite the same and is almost always disappointing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's because it is usually brought back by a different group of people who just bought the rights. If you can't get a huge chuck of both the creatives and the cast it's almost always a flop. On the other hand if you get those folks or if you "reimagine" it in a really well done way alla BSG then sometimes there is gold in them there hills.
Re: (Score:2)
Family Guy being one of the ones not being disappointing.
I still think a Trek show could do well on something like this. A NEW Trek show is I think the only show that I'd pay close to the existing rates the various PPV providers (internet based, not cable based -- the cable based ones are even more ridiculously priced) cost.
Re: (Score:3)
These guys [thestreet.com] think it's a viable product for Netflix.
Apparently 'cult' now means 'profitable in the long-tail'.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love this, too, if the original team came back. Especially Whedon and the writing crew. Unfortunately, Shepherd is dead. :(
'Castle' seems to be doing well, so don't know if you could get Fillion back any time soon.
Might be best just to leave it be. Would be a shame if a revival tarnished the show.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no way a revival could tarnish that show, if all the original writers and cast come back.
Of course, you would need to completely ignore the movie entirely, or just accept that the characters magically came back to life. Shepherd is dead, but remember that Wash died too. Wash really helped bring some comedy to the show.
All of the characters in that show have gone in to do pretty well in other TV shows and movies, so I think they could only be better as actors. It's only been 10 years, so everybody
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And how the FUCK did I forget to mention Wash dying in Serenity?!?!?!!?!?
Though the AC's idea of sticking in the new series between the original and Serenity is a good idea. There is no real timeline connection between the 2, so it could run as long as it wanted to.
Re: (Score:1)
I just found FireFly, watching it now in fact,"War Stories"
- always something playing in the background.
Great stories, too bad there's just 14 and a movie.
Seeing Morena Baccarin (StarGate) and Jewel Staite (Stargate: Atlantis)
when they were younger, is also a kick.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck that, I want Twin Peaks.
Re: (Score:2)
It's my understanding that David Lynch was forced to wrap up Laura Palmer's death, and left the show because of it. The majority of the second season was largely shit. If for no other reason than the focus on Donna and James' soap opera exploits. Lynch had returned to wrap up the second season, however. He once more made it interesting with the introduction of the White Lodge. Sadly, the show was cancelled on one helluva cliffhanger. It's unfortunate that Lynch decided to retread the Palmer case in the film
No original content? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean there's currently no original content on YouTube? That means they are stealing 48hrs of video per minute! And they said they weren't evil!
Re: (Score:2)
"You mean there's currently no original content on YouTube?"
There are umpteen million original content cat videos when I last checked.
Re: (Score:2)
What they're of course meaning is "commercial content made specifically for release on YouTube", like direct-to-video/DVD movies. But I don't think that needs explaining.
Yet my first reaction to that was "oh, isn't that there, yet?". Like free-to-air TV, it can be a platform to reach a large non-paying audience for content that comes with advertising, or is sponsored or whatever. There must be some kind of business model possible to make money off videos posted directly on YouTube. Without YouTube (Google)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If it isn't made by big corporations, it doesn't count. Sure there is lots of "stuff" by hobbyists, small companies or - even worse - people who do stuff for free. But they're all just pirates, communists, socialists and terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually quite a few people make their living on YouTube. For some it is their only job. Many of them life in L.A.
Just look up YouTube Partner program. These are people who get a large cut from the ad revenue of the ads on the videos they produce.
Obviously thse are people who get millions of views and produce new videos atleast 2 times a week.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It says professionally produced original content.
You read the summary (or even the article)? I am pretty sure that's a no-no around here.
1. Misinterpret headline.
2. Post rant.
This is how it's normally done.
Re: (Score:1)
USA only? WebM? (Score:1)
Are they launching yet another USA-only service or will they realize the potential market in all the other countries is much greater than the USA alone?
Will they use these new channels to try and push WebM adoption on their users or will they use the industry-standard H.264? Will Flash be required, no matter which CODEC is used?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not aware of any videos being WebM only, there are plenty of H.264 only videos, but all the videos I've seen that offer WebM are also available in H.264 and Flash varieties.
Re: (Score:2)
Are they launching yet another USA-only service or will they realize the potential market in all the other countries is much greater than the USA alone?
Will they use these new channels to try and push WebM adoption on their users or will they use the industry-standard H.264? Will Flash be required, no matter which CODEC is used?
I don't know about WebM, but their service will not be USA-only. It's YouTube owned content. The vast majority of the reasons why US content is not available world wide, or at the same time, has to do with shortsighted retarded fuckfaced retarded dipshit Entertainment Executives. I'll tell you how I really feel later :)
If it does come out, don't worry, you will be able to see it everywhere except Pakistan. Pakistan won't be YouTube's fault either.
Self-publication (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it will be as bad. Look, for example, at an industry that's already moving quickly to all-digital distribution: PC video games.
There is, currently, one clear winner as far as platforms go: Steam. However, that has not stopped others (Direct2Drive, Desura, GameTap, GOG, Impulse, Origin) from existing and being profitable.
Most crucially, however, many games are available on multiple. For one example, the indie game "VVVVVV" (yes, that's a real title) is available on Steam, Desura, Direct2Drive a
Re: (Score:2)
It would seem that, for whatever reason, when an industry moves online, it tends to lose retailer exclusivity. I won't speculate as to why, but it definitely seems to be the case, at least from that one data point.
I can give you some thought about that.
In a brick & mortar retailer shelf space is scarce. Premium shelf space (e.g. at eye level, next to the cash register) is even scarcer. Online there is no limit to shelf space, and premium shelf space (web site front page) can be rotated much easier so also in effect has a lot more of that. There is simply much less need for exclusive contracts between retailers and publishers. This will help a lot. The online market place being much newer and much more in develop
Re: (Score:2)
You are kidding right. Premium space on the web is even more valuable in my opinion. One of the reasons Apple does well, is they use their premium space damn well. They don't overlap releases of their core products so they can devote their premium space (their front page) to one product for months at a time.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is a very poor example as they always have just a few products in their current line-up. I just checked their home page - getting an enormous image of Jobs - and went to their store.
They have:
One phone. The iPhone. In one current model.
Two laptops: macbook pro and macbook air. Each with a few different models, but just a few.
The iPod - four different editions, a few models each.
The iPad2 (the original iPad is gone of course).
The Mac Pro, Mac Mini and iMac lines - each with just a few models in t
When comparing to Netflix... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:When comparing to Netflix... (Score:4, Interesting)
They should buy up indy content. Sure, they can't buy content in nice big packages but they won't be forced content they don't want in these bundles like Netflix seems to suffer from. For every good show/fiilm they stream there is 100 more they got because it was in a bundle. The production value on non studio tv/film is getting really high really fast. This could be a great outlet for original content made outside the normal channels.
Maybe it's time to reward everyone who helped make YouTube what it is today by giving them an outlet for producing higher quality content that will never see the light of day on current TV/Film distribution methods.
Define professional? (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect what they really mean is "content produced by people associated with Hollywood who have been paid upfront by a sponsor." Because to the extent of people creating content as a part time or full time job for which they get paid (either directly or through advertising, merchandising, or some other secondary deal) there's already quite a lot of professional content on YouTube.
Re:Define professional? (Score:4, Informative)
As has already been pointed out (sarcastically) there's plenty of original content on YouTube already, so what's new about this is that it's professional? How exactly are they defining professional though?
The article means original content BY YouTube themselve as I read it. YouTube is going to compete with the producers you talk about.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly are they defining professional though?
Don't you know? It's Tony Hawk PRO skater. This isn't just some average guy grinding on the curb, but a PRO. It says right so on the box. Hell, I'm getting my own channel, I'm a PROgrammer and I'm good at PROcastination. That's twice the professionalism of Mr Hawk.
I expect what they really mean is "content produced by people associated with Hollywood who have been paid upfront by a sponsor."
Well, there goes my ticket to riches... Oh well, I think I'll go flush some buffers for a while then. (See what you're missing out on ???)
Re: (Score:2)
They mean they're going to copy the Johnny Test story of three Snooze Tube success stories being put into a movie. It will end just as badly.
will this end or increase potential lawsuits? (Score:2)
i guess it will increase the risk of potential lawsuits
as there may be more money and people involved
so, if your tv is on in the background, watch out
Not original content? (Score:2)
I thought that YouTube was all about original content, albeit amateur videos of the type people used to send in to America's "Funniest" home videos, and people on scene at disasters etc.
And of course coverage of protests in undemocratic countries
Re: (Score:3)
Like Vermont?
Re: (Score:2)
Like Vermont?
He said 'countries', not 'counties'.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one part of YouTube. But then there are the thousands of clips from TV shows, movies, sports, and games. The only time I see "original" content on YouTube is when someone gives me a link to a funny clip of a dog dancing or something. The rest of the time I am looking for a specific sports play, a scene from a movie/TV show, etc. About the only time I browse is when I type in "funny monkey." (Hey, I find monkeys funny)
Or see what Journey Quest is doing with $60k (Score:5, Interesting)
Really, $100 million for a retred of yet another generic format TV program? Where the only thing that entertains anymore is putting extreme gore/fear/violence/sex into the content.
We have tons of small-house production studios that are doing amazing work on a shoe-string budget comparitively.
For $100M we could have a dozens full length Journey Quest seasons, or a bunch of new Dorkness Rising movies with even better production quality.
Instead it's "Hey look, Jack Bower disembowls a terrorist and feeds his intestins to a 5 year old to get him to admit that he hid his keys!"
-Rick
Re: (Score:3)
There's a pretty big audience gap between a show about some geeks doing stuff nobody cares about and famous people (admittedly still doing stuff nobody cares about).
Re: (Score:2)
Man, Jack's hard-core. I usually just offer the 5 year old a soda or something to tell me where they've hid my keys. Terrorist intestines seems a little overkill!
Re: (Score:3)
Really, $100 million for a retred of yet another generic format TV program?
Most of the money is going to Kevin Spacey merely to appear and have his name at the front of each episode. People are generally drawn to stars, that's where the value is. The "generic format" is just a substrate.
We have tons of small-house production studios that are doing amazing work on a shoe-string budget comparitively. (sic)
Red vs. Blue doesn't have the sort of audience reach they're looking for. Now I can't speak for the demographics of "Dorkness Rising," but...
Re: (Score:2)
Red vs. Blue doesn't have the sort of audience reach they're looking for. Now I can't speak for the demographics of "Dorkness Rising," but...
I supose that no program has the audience reach they're looking for, until they advertise and push it.
I mean, LotR and the Hobbit shouldn't have any sort of audience reach either by that measure, but they get advertised and pushed to the point that the insignificant cult following that they enjoy is moot compared to the massive throngs of consumers who have been convinced that it's the greatest thing ever invented for the next 5 minutes.
Just saying, I'd much rather see them come up with 100 hours of a wide
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, LotR and the Hobbit shouldn't have any sort of audience reach either by that measure
And it continues to be a rather nichy thing, but:
* if you put a buncha million dollar battles on screen
* and Viggo Mortensen, and Magneto, and Steven Tyler's hot daughter, and Will Turner
* and bankrupt New Line Cinema marketing it.
...suddenly you've got something a lotta people wanna see. If people wanted to see LotR for the story then they could just get the Bakshi out of the library. But again, the story is a substrate.
Just saying, I'd much rather see them come up with 100 hours of a wide variety of content from small house producers than 3 hours of generic retred with the stars for the same cost
Variety is expensive and overrated. The vast majority of people just want to be ente
Re: (Score:2)
Really, $100 million for a retred of yet another generic format TV program?
If you look at it, $100 million would be a rather reasonable figure if you consider you're getting Spacey and Fincher-level talent -- for a standard 26 ep order that's two series at a little under $2 million an ep. The Sopranos, in 1999, cost about $2 million an ep, that's in line with what The Wire and other series were spending at the time. Terra Nova costs $4 million an ep and the pilot cost $20 million, amortized over the season.
Just what we need (Score:1)
More professionally created "reality" TV. I would rather spork my eyes out.
Existing original channels? (Score:5, Informative)
YouTube already has tons of existing channels of original content. I'm particularly fond o:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Blendtec [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/user/MyHarto [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/user/EpicMealTime [youtube.com]
The difference is that they do this on their own dime, and get money from YouTube after the fact with revenue sharing. I guess this new model would be YouTube sponsoring the production of video to begin with. But YouTube does actually have tons of original content for all kinds of tastes. But I wouldn't say any of it has the production values of what you see on major networks.
Re: (Score:2)
What, you mean like traditional TV is distracting everyone from watching My Drunk Kitchen?
Funny, that doesn't seem to be happening.
Re: (Score:1)
And these
http://www.youtube.com/user/freddiew [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/user/NurdRage [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/user/MysteryGuitarMan [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/user/FlippyCat [youtube.com]
Great probably more reality tv (Score:2)
no fucking thanks Gimme so god damn good shows. WTF happened to shows like Seinfled, Third Rock From The Sun, Newsradio, Dark Skies, Star Trek spin offs, Space Above and Beyond,
Re: (Score:2)
Seinfeld ratings were dropping (plus it was costing a ton per episode by the end) :(
Never watched 3rd Rock.
Newsradio was a shadow of itself after Hartman got killed (bitch!)
I remember watching Dark Skies, but have no idea what it was about now.
Star Trek just ran itself into the ground (a prequel series, really?). Give it 5-10 years and a new one should pop up, especially since the latest movie did well.
Space Above and Beyond was a great show. Great cast, nice plot. No one watched (and a crap ending).
I'll
Re: (Score:1)
That's not what the Wikipedia article says. According to this, it was growing higher every season with the last season highest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seinfeld#Ratings_history [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, OK. Must have messed that up with another show (Friends?). Maybe Seinfeld was due to salary demands, then?
Re: (Score:1)
Mad Men, Weeds, Walking Dead, Boardwalk Empire, Dexter, 30 Rock, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Its Always Sunny In Philadelphia, Breaking Bad, Archer, The Office, etc etc. And that's whats just on now. Go back over the past ten years and you've got the Sopranos, The Shield, Lost, Arrested Development, and of course BSG. Reality shows not withstanding, I'll take the past decade of TV over any other. Hell, they even brought Futurama, Family Guy, and now Arrested Dev. back. There will always be formula cop shows
Re: (Score:2)
yes and what about phones that JUST MAKE CALLS!!
That my explain (Score:1)
House of Cards (Score:4, Informative)
House of Cards, a single original series that the company is backing
Au contraire [wikipedia.org].
They might think so (Score:2)
Does anyone expect original? (Score:1)
Matt Mulholland (Score:2)
They need to pay Matt Mulholland [youtube.com] for original material. He's funny and talented as all get out.
Need to Fix their TV Apps First (Score:3)
This gels nice with the fact that most new TVs include a youtube app, but I've yet to see one of those apps let me access my favorites or subscriptions, instead preferring to show me the same top 10 list (with the same people on it), month after month.
Not a huge fan of their mobile apps either since buffering seems to be a concept beyond youtube's comprehension. Get the software out of beta mode and then worry about the content.
Original my ass (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about "original" content, it's about professional Hollywood content. In other words: "Television".
And there hasn't been anything original on television since...um...well, let me get back to you on that.
This is about the amazing success of amateur-produced material on Youtube making the big corporations livid because it means they're not getting paid. They don't want you to draw a single breath that does not in some way take money out of your pocket and put it in theirs.
Do any of you really feel the need to "fix" Youtube by adding more "professionally produced Hollywood content"?
This is just another example of the corporate world being caught flat-footed by the Internet. It should remind us that if the Internet had been started by the corporate world, all it would be is cable television on your computer. Every single corporate incursion into the Internet makes it less of what people want and more of what the corporations want, which is an endless siphon of wealth from us to them.
Re:Original my ass (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just another example of the corporate world being caught flat-footed by the Internet.
If that were true, then Netflix would be dictating Kevin Spacey and David Fincher's price, not the other way around. Do you really believe executives at Columbia and 20th Century-Fox are being caught "flat-footed" by Lolcats, 40 minute reviews of Star Wars movies and time-lapse photography of flowers blooming on Vimeo?
Do any of you really feel the need to "fix" Youtube by adding more "professionally produced Hollywood content"?
The problem is you're thinking of Youtube as a content producer when it's really just a distribution medium. You'll still have the same people making movies that have always been making them, you just will be seeing it streaming on your Roku box instead of buying a DVD pressed by Buena Vista Pictures Distribution.
Youtube's problem is that they've now been stuck with the stigma of a bargain-bin distributor-- "Youtube" is a garbage brand, in the same way the $2 DVDs in the Walgreen's bin are garbage, and that takes more and more of a cut from ad revenues while the established distributors form themselves around Hulu and Apple and Netflix at the top of the value hierarchy. People actually pay money to watch movies on iTunes and Hulu, and now Youtube wants in on that action.
Re: (Score:2)
Kevin Spacey still makes movies? I thought after the disastrous Bobby Darin biopic that he was marooned in voiceover-land, which by the way, he was very good as the voice of Gertie in Moon.
I guess he'll be "dictating" the terms Netflix will pay for The Father of Invention. No wonder Netflix was recently on death's door.
Actually, I think Spacey's been on a slow downward spiral since his best work, Hurlyburly.
Re: (Score:2)
Kevin Spacey still makes movies? I thought after the disastrous Bobby Darin biopic that he was marooned in voiceover-land, which by the way, he was very good as the voice of Gertie in Moon.
I guess he'll be "dictating" the terms Netflix will pay for The Father of Invention.
You know, he didn't put a gun to their head. There's a lot of things he could be doing and a series for Netflix is actually something of a risk, particularly after "Bubble" and the established trend of programming on Crackle.com, FunnyOrDie and the whole motley crew.
How much is Kevin Spacey worth? It's sortof an interesting process, what happens is there are a bunch of companies called "foreign sales agents" that market scripts and movie stars to international film and television distributors, and they ca
Re: (Score:2)
"Mediocrity"? You think handing it over to Hollywood keeps it from being mediocre? Wait, let me take this in. Kevin Spacey is going to keep YouTube from being mediocre? Excuse me for a second while I ponder that one. He couldn't even keep K-Pax from being mediocre, and he's going to save YouTube? And you may describe YouTube a lot of ways, but "mediocre" is not one most people will pick.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to make it sound like Kevin Spacey is bad, but your real problem is with the system and that he's still a successful entertainer and you're still a moralistic aesthete. Are we supposed to ban Kevin Spacey and David Fincher from the Internet, or just ban them from charging money?
You know they aren't taking away the ability to self-publish on YouTube, it's all still there and will remain there. You just can't accept the fact that nobody wants to watch that stuff. Or maybe they want to watch it for 3
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know how right you are. As a professor of critical and literary theory, my job description very specifically included the term "moralistic aesthete".
Yes, but almost all of them are better than "The Fath
Re: (Score:2)
You don't know how right you are. As a professor of critical and literary theory, my job description very specifically included the term "moralistic aesthete".
Well, you know what they say about those that can, and those that cannot, perfesser.
Are you sure you didn't just write some Kurzweil-esque thesis in 1996 about democratization of media and the toppling of the established power structures, and now since it isn't happening you're taking it personally?
Also I think you have to distinguish between the goals of entertainment and art. Entertainment is shit people watch for money to feel better. Art isn't. Critical theory isn't an appropriate methodology for det
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes. That's why in 2007, on the day after my 50th birthday, I quit academia to score films and teach tai chi.
Since then, I've written 11 film scores, two of them for independent features.
I say "film score" because I'm old. All but two of the "films" were shot on digital media, mostly using those Red Digital Cinema cameras. Of course, I'm not directly involved in shooting them, but I do like to hang around for the cateri
Re: (Score:2)
"I guess I just hate the fact that the Internet has become a shopping mall on crack."
It's worse than that Jim, there's a thundering philosophical problem going on. We were careful with the net, we have the greatest window of (sorta) free world wide communication ever. Problem is, "what is communication". If you listened to a bunch of guys just chillin' on a Sunday over Pizza and Beer/Soda (depending on your age group), the level of conversation is ... on the order of LolDogs and Titties. Maybe some bitching
Re: (Score:2)
There's no problem to solve. Watch whatever you want. There's so much choice nowadays that I think people just like to bitch when others watch something they don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they were caught "flat-footed" by a distribution medium which has obsoleted the television medium. The only thing that nowadays TV still has that the internet doesn't is the industrialized content, but with the advent of sites such as http://www.southparkstudios.com/ [southparkstudios.com], http://www.thedailyshow.com/ [thedailyshow.com] and
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how three websites owned by Viacom are catching old media flat-footed. There's no doubt that television distibution will die, but it's not clear that that's going to fundamentally change the corporate players, the funding mechanism for new projects or the diversity of new projects.
The point is, if Trey Parker and Matt Stone switched to pure Internet distribution today, they'd be out of business in a week. If you want to create your own passion project nothing is stopping you, but if you make som
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about "original" content, it's about professional Hollywood content. In other words: "Television".
Warner Brothers and Netherrealm Studios produced an entire original series called Mortal Kombat: Legacy [youtube.com] for YouTube.
The series did quite well and actually had a number of viewing hits that were fairly competitive with the top 5 cable TV shows at the time.
Disclaimer: I work for Netherrealm Studios which is owned by WB but nothing I say is directly representative of either company.
I would prefer (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
good start, then buy the music industry (Score:1)
Buffering Original Content (Score:1)
How about fixing the interface first? (Score:3)
Original content is surely interesting, but how about fixing the interface to bring it closer to a regular TV viewing experience or just improving it in general? One thing for example currently completely missing for no good reasons are user created channels, i.e. content of similar topic, but from different creators. What Youtube currently calls channels is all just content from the same creator, running on a single account. Want to merge the work of multiple people into a single channel? Not possible. Want to run multiple regular channels from a single account? Can't do that either. The subscription system is also rather terrible, as it allows no grouping sorting or prioritizing, thus a high traffic channel will completely flood the subscription list and make it way to easy to missing new content on low traffic channels. Even something that should be completly trivial like watching a multi part video on Youtube is a complete clusterfuck, as you end up having to manually search for all the other parts as Youtubes doesn't really provide good ways to group videos together.
I do like the random user created content on Youtube quite a bit, but viewing it is far harder then it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be fine with just one fix.. If you full-screen a video in a playlist that's playing automatically, make all the rest also auto-full-screen when they start.
Really annoys me when I have to stand up and fullscreen playlist videos..
Re: (Score:2)
That's fixed, moving videos up and down a playlist is now possible.
Re: (Score:2)
They call it a "playlist".
The problem with playlist is that, while they allow you to group videos, those groups are essentially invisible in the regular interface. If you come across a video that is part of a playlist, you don't actually see any hint that there exist a playlists with that video, instead you just see the random related videos. Right now I have no idea how I am even supposed so find a playlist, I can see them on the users account page, but I don't see any way to actually search for them or come across them. The only u
on this original content. (Score:2)
What is original? (Score:1)
Isn't it ALL original content? (Minus the official music videos and movie trailers)
What makes 'official' original content; it's produced by Google? it's costs over n dollars to produce? it airs on basic cable after it's no longer popular on You Tube?