YouTube pulls a Hulu -- yanking API access from TV-connected devi

[vividweb]

Will this affect SageTV?

http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/20/y...pcorn-hour-ot/

manufacturers streaming directly via the API as Popcorn Hour did are no longer welcome without cutting a seven figure check to license access.

Hmmmm

[voidpt]

Looks like it. Here are some stuff from the YouTube API ToS:

II. Prohibitions

Your API Client will not, and You will not encourage or create functionality for Your users or other third parties to:

...

10. use the YouTube API in connection with any API Client created for use on television set top boxes, television game consoles, or video screens packaged and marketed as television sets;

11. access any portion of any YouTube audiovisual content by any means other than use of a YouTube player or other video player expressly authorized by YouTube;

...

So many angles on this. I don't even know were to start. Not a big user of YouTube personally. So won't affect me directly. I might be wrong, but if I'm reading it all correctly. YouTube has in a few years served video for free and made video junkies out of a good percentage of internet population. Now they're cutting the supply to a lot of middlemen (those TV's & boxes with built in direct API access), making the junkies pissed. Then they say to the middlemen, no problem, just hand over a 7 figure sum, and we're square

O boy, I think I'll just grab my , sit back, and enjoy the show

PS: One solution for SageTV is to make the YouTube XL flash interface work on HD200 & through the SageTV Client. If not, i think YouTube videos are bye bye for now.

[skyonic]

wondering if sage is next

http://digital.limberis.com/2009/11/...our.html#links

TV-friendly website that they are no longer welcome to access its content. The new Hulu-ish Terms of Service (section II, item 10) restricts API clients from the ability to "use the YouTube API in connection with any API Client created for use on television set top boxes, television game consoles, or video screens packaged and marketed as television sets;" according to Popcorn Hour COO Alex Limberis this applies to all with the exception of "a few strategic partner's Google has singled out" -- PlayStation 3, Wii, TiVo, Panasonic, Samsung and other licensed hardware is safe.

* merged *

[Brent]

I mentioned this at GeekTonic this week. I expect it will be pulled from SageTV eventually. And it would take the devs at SageTV a while to get YouTube XL working too.

I'd miss it a tiny bit, but honestly do not use YouTube on SageTV often enough to care all that much.

[reggie14]

I wouldn't think it would be possible for Sage to support the Youtube XL interface. I think devices like the Wii are able to do that by running a version of the Opera browser, which includes limited flash support. Could Sage do something like that? Perhaps, but I would think it would either be too expensive to license, and/or too much work to create.

[Brent]

Update to the Engadget Post:

Originally Posted by Engadget

After speaking with Alex we've got a better view of the situation -- as is clear from the TOS, under the new rules manufacturers streaming directly via the API as Popcorn Hour did are no longer welcome without cutting a seven figure check to license access. Google did offer to allow continued access via its YouTube XL interface, but for devices like Popcorn hour's not built around flash, that possible solution proved to be technologically unfeasible. Obviously these changes apply to all, but as of yet we're not aware of anyone other than Popcorn Hour that has been contacted directly about it.

So based on that, I don't see SageTV having YouTube going forward. They certainly can't afford (and probably wouldn't want to if they could afford) a 7 figure check for licensing. And the HD200 doesn't have flash as mentioned above so.....

I don't think YouTube as it is now is worth it anyway, although we may change our mind as Google puts more decent content through YouTube in the future...

PS: Just to be clear, I don't know if SageTV will actually pull YouTube - I'm just speculating that it's inevitable based on what happened with the PCH and the new YouTube TOS...

[tmiranda]

I have not looked at the details of this yet and am not a technical guru, but I do not think Sage accesses the videos through the API. As far as YouTube is concerned Sage looks like a web browser. Are they eliminating web browser access or fundamentally changing the way it works?

Technical gurus feel free to chime in.

[evilpenguin]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

I have not looked at the details of this yet and am not a technical guru, but I do not think Sage accesses the videos through the API. As far as YouTube is concerned Sage looks like a web browser. Are they eliminating web browser access or fundamentally changing the way it works?

Technical gurus feel free to chime in.

Yep, from what I've seen Sage just uses simple webscrapping rather than an API.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by evilpenguin

Yep, from what I've seen Sage just uses simple webscrapping rather than an API.

Which is probably not Googles "favorite" method either

[matt91]

what about access via PlayOn?

[evilpenguin]

Originally Posted by matt91

what about access via PlayOn?

Might not even be necessary, if Sage needs to pull the plug on official support, as long as downloading YouTube videos is as simple as it is now, it'd be a trivial 3rd party plug-in using the new external feed generator code that Sage added for the PlayON plug-in.

[voidpt]

Originally Posted by Brent

Which is probably not Googles "favorite" method either

So true. Update v2 on Engadget:

Originally Posted by Engadget

After the break is Google's response, stating Popcorn Hour and the like have been in violation of the above TOS for over a year, from its perspective, this is a simple matter of defending its rights from "video scraping technology." As we mentioned above that means most are in no danger of losing access, but fans of these media streamers will have to live without it, until either YouTube can control the experience or the manufacturer pays up.

And. Google's statement (also from Engadget):

Originally Posted by Engadget

Since July of 2008, YouTube's Terms of Service has restricted implementations for televisions based on our APIs. YouTube has been in active discussions with various developers on how best to implement YouTube on set top boxes and TVs. There are several companies, however, that have deployed solutions, like video scraping technology, to circumvent the rules and violate YouTube's Terms of Service. Companies that have negotiated agreements to use our APIs, like TiVo, Sony, Panasonic and PS3 are not impacted.

Although a 7 figure sum is mentioned, there is probably a <base fee> + <fee per box>. And I guess that would not end up in 7 figures for SageTV. Cost anyway, that will make the box more expensive.

[Brent]

Google is well within its rights to do this.

sort of off topic:
But this sort of thing goes right along with my concern (I'm a pessimist at heart) of giving google control of all of my data - in "the cloud."

I think google is great, innovative, useful, cool and all of that stuff. Much like Microsoft and Apple are at times. But The concept of gmail, contacts, calendar, the OS (Google Chrome), the phone (google voice and android) etc etc worries me a little. What happens when they decide they need to charge a little for that e-mail or phone function etc etc etc. Like one of the commenters on that Engadget post said, what happens to that netbook w/google chrome on it if Google decides not to support that manufacturer any longer... Your information and data on the "cloud" that they own is not yours - it's theirs and they can decide to do with it what they will with the switch of a TOS.

fwiw, I have the similar concerns with Apple (iPhone etc) and Facebook (photos etc).

I know, I'm taking this beyond what is likely but you have to consider these things.

[voidpt]

Originally Posted by Brent

I know, I'm taking this beyond what is likely but you have to consider these things.

<off-topic, rant mode: on>

I do agree. It's not being a pessimist from my point of view. More a conservative realist Point is. We, as internet users, are getting complacent when it comes to 'good intentions' of organizations and companies. There are very few idealistic companies who grow to a certain size who do not tip over to let money rule the decision making (ROI is king).

Another thing that I just realized a little time ago. Privacy. Last versions of Internet Explorer has this "protect you from unsafe websites" feature called "SmartScreen Filter". But what does that mean, look at this description from Microsoft IE8:

Originally Posted by Microsoft

When you use SmartScreen Filter to check websites automatically or manually, the address of the website you are visiting will be sent to Microsoft, together with standard computer information and the SmartScreen Filter version number. To help protect your privacy, the information sent to Microsoft is encrypted.

Information that may be associated with the address, such as search terms or data you entered in forms might be included. For example, if you visited the Microsoft.com search web site at http://search.microsoft.com and entered "Seattle" as the search term, the full address http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?q=Seattle&qsc0=0&FORM=QBMH1&mkt=en-US will be sent. Address strings might unintentionally contain personal information, but this information, like the other information sent, is not used to identify, contact or target advertising to you. In addition, Microsoft filters address strings to try to remove personal information where possible.

From time-to-time, information about your usage of SmartScreen Filter will also be sent to Microsoft such as the time and total number of websites browsed since an address was sent to Microsoft for analysis. Some information about files that you download from the web such as name and file path may also be sent to Microsoft. Some website addresses that are sent to Microsoft may be stored along with additional information including web browser version, operating system version, SmartScreen Filter version, the browser language, and information about whether Compatibility View was enabled for the website. A unique identifier generated by Internet Explorer is also sent. The unique identifier is a randomly generated number that does not contain any personal information and is not used to identify you. This information, along with the information described above, is only used to analyze performance and improve the quality of our products and services.

Had this been at the start of the Internet age with the Mosaic browser and other tools, there would have been an outcry of protests. But it looks like we are getting numb to these nicely named 'features'. But we should be more aware, especially when nearly every ToS is written in a way that includes the right to change it, without notice, at any time. I seem to remember that they sometimes even word them to make it 'legal' to make new terms retroactive.

<off-topic, rant mode: off>

Back to YouTube. I know they need some revenue stream. Not everything on the internet can be free. One just need to find a reasonable balance to it. Not use a sledgehammer to put their point through

[hemicuda]

Originally Posted by voidpt

<off-topic, rant mode: on>
A unique identifier generated by Internet Explorer is also sent. The unique identifier is a randomly generated number that does not contain any personal information and is not used to identify you.

If it's not used to "identify" you then why does it need to be "unique?" Doesn't that by definition imply identification of the source?

I'm getting sick and tired of being sick and tired of the bait and switch tactics of these online "services." Get people hooked on/used to using something for free then start charging or restricting access.

I don't use google or youtube video often enough to matter that much. it's still nice to have the access to look something up once a month or so.

[GKusnick]

Originally Posted by hemicuda

If it's not used to "identify" you then why does it need to be "unique?" Doesn't that by definition imply identification of the source?

Nope. A dollar bill has a unique serial number, but that doesn't tell you anything at all about the person whose wallet it came out of.

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by hemicuda

I'm getting sick and tired of being sick and tired of the bait and switch tactics of these online "services." Get people hooked on/used to using something for free then start charging or restricting access

That's called Capitalism. If you like the product enough you will pay for it. If you don't like it enough you will not pay. If you find a cheaper or free alternative you will use that. There is no God given right for free online services.

[TBacker]

It looks like YouTube is now actively trying to block third party apps from using their service.

I just saw a post on Engadget that says they've forced the Popcorn Hour media devices to stop using YouTube.

I also think in the past few months that the Sage guys have been chasing evasive code changes from YouTube breaking support in Sage.

Perhaps YouTube is planning their own software app for submitted videos and actual television program delivery (ala Hulu, iTunes, etc.). They're all now clamoring for a piece of the online video delivery pie.

* split from other topic & merged here *

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by Brent

But this sort of thing goes right along with my concern (I'm a pessimist at heart) of giving google control of all of my data - in "the cloud."

I think google is great, innovative, useful, cool and all of that stuff. Much like Microsoft and Apple are at times. But The concept of gmail, contacts, calendar, the OS (Google Chrome), the phone (google voice and android) etc etc worries me a little. What happens when they decide they need to charge a little for that e-mail or phone function etc etc etc. Like one of the commenters on that Engadget post said, what happens to that netbook w/google chrome on it if Google decides not to support that manufacturer any longer... Your information and data on the "cloud" that they own is not yours - it's theirs and they can decide to do with it what they will with the switch of a TOS.

fwiw, I have the similar concerns with Apple (iPhone etc) and Facebook (photos etc).

I know, I'm taking this beyond what is likely but you have to consider these things.

I'm right there with ya. When it comes to gadgets and gizmos and things electronic, my least favorite word is "proprietary". Which is why I don't own (nor will I ever own) anything with an "i" in front of it.

I have to say, I don't use youtube a lot, but I will miss impressing visitors with the ability to access it. Anything that SageTV has, that their cable or satellite system doesn't, makes me feel superior. (I kid, I kid.... sorta)

[hemicuda]

Originally Posted by tmiranda

That's called Capitalism. If you like the product enough you will pay for it. If you don't like it enough you will not pay. If you find a cheaper or free alternative you will use that. There is no God given right for free online services.

You get the win on that point, obviously. Probably should have kept my "mouth" shut on this. I tend to over reach initially to news like this.