YouTube Lifts Time Limit for Videos | Hacker News Reader

YouTube Lifts Time Limit for Videos

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

107 pointsJ3L240440 comments

Am I the only one who hates it when people talk about "copyrighted material" as if only mainstream commercial TV and movies are copyrighted? Every video uploaded to YouTube is copyrighted (OK, except for amazingly old video and video produced by the US government). Of course people are going to upload longer copyrighted material. What they mean to say is "copyright violating material."

But the big question is, can uploaders stitch together all those existing "1/9," "2/9" etc. videos so we can put that whole era behind us?

So was the original pre-June 11-minute limit a product of the MPEG LA rules where videos "12 minutes in length" (used to) have special rules and royalties? Or was that coincidental?

"Congratulations! Your account is now enabled for uploads longer than 15 minutes. Click the Upload button below to select a video."

I guess I finally have a reason to celebrate 560,016 total upload views :-) I wonder what I should upload first! Maybe I can do a 24 hour silent video and call it modern art.

You could start with Andy Warhol's Empire. It's 8 hours of the Empire State Building. Yeah, the Empire State Building... for 8 hours :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_%281964_film%29

Wow, that must be the only movie ever made that takes longer to watch than it did to make.

(It was filmed at 24fps for 6 hours, 36 min, but is shown at 16fps for 8 hours 5 minutes).

bit offtopic here: i have most of the videos from arsdigita(aduni) courses - all in .rm format. Would anyone know of optimized conversion to youtube compatible format?

uploading these lectures (with attribution) is something i would like to do.

Good plan. I have the DVD's if higher quality is needed (or maybe that's what you have too?)

By the way, it's a serious threat to Vimeo.

I was thinking to start a premium account at Vimeo for publishing educational videos. Now I can go with Youtube.

The question is whether you would really want to go with YT?

I mean the quality of the comments, the quality of the design (yes it's sheit).

Vimeo seems like a much better space to seed your content.

Why not use both? I'd imagine the more views the better for educational videos.

I've always used YT for traffic, and Vimeo for display on a website.

Exactly!!

Youtube generates a ton of serendipity watchers.

Someone should make an alternative discussion site for videos, with a good comment system (eg. HN, reddit). I'm not sure if there are legal issues though.

You might want to use only one site if checking both sites to respond to comments would take too much time.

Or even a professional online video platform if you need more control over quality and branding. There are several providers who offer plans starting at or less than $100/month.

disclaimer: I work for Brightcove

Is "less than $100/month" supposed to sound cheap? That's still an order of magnitude more than what he was looking at.

For all of the idiosyncrasies having to do with being a video host with robust player technology, $100/month sounds cheap to me for your own thing.

Disclaimer: I work for blip.tv.

Thanks guys.

Indeed my choice is Youtube, Vimeo, Brightcove or Blip.tv :)

key word left out of HN title: "some"

It's left out, but if anything I'd say without is more accurate, given this part:

>... beginning with a subset of users.

Nowhere does it claim to only remove limits from "some" videos, merely "for some people right now", and it also doesn't imply it won't reach everyone. Though I haven't seen anything from YouTube, so it could be that that is the case.

Actually, I feel the title is accurate. Some restrictions are always assumed -- for example, you need an internet connection to upload to Youtube. This restriction prevents many more people from uploading than the actual restrictions mentioned in the article. For those who didn't read the article, an account with a good history is required for uploading. Yes, not everybody has one of those, but anybody with an internet connection can get one of those.

Not so much. My first thought, after all, was "Hooray, now I can watch Top Gear and Doctor Who episodes which aren't split into six different sections!" I don't really want to watch 60-minute videos of someone's cat.

(Incidentally, before anyone gets on my arse about copyright violation which I usually disapprove of, I feel justified in pirating Top Gear and Doctor Who since they're shown for free on the (Australian) ABC or SBS. I pay Australian taxes despite not being resident there, so I damn well should be able to watch what I've already paid for.)

I don't think you'll get to do that even with the relaxed time limits. The lifting of the time restriction means that YouTube is confident enough in its content detection algorithms that they're no longer relying on arbitrary length limits as a restriction on copyright violations. This means that any unauthorized Top Gear or Dr. Who videos will probably be flagged and taken down within hours of their posting.

Exactly, that's what I was saying. The only reason I'd want longer videos is so I can watch stuff which I legally can't, so the fact that they're allowing it now is not a great source of excitement to me.

I thought there was already a subset of users who could go over the 15 minute limit. Is there anything new here? I can see this being cool once they no longer have the limit; and I think that is where they are going based on this article, but I can't really tell you.

Before today, certain accounts could go beyond the 15 minute limit (partner accounts, director accounts, things like that). Starting today, regular YouTube users who have been on the site for a while and haven't caused any copyright problems for YouTube can also go beyond that 15 minutes. Power to the people.

Awesome, thanks for the further bit of information.

This is useless for 99% of the content creators out there. Only filmmakers/movie studios/or education use would benefit from this. People should realize that most online video content needs to be snack size (2-5 minutes MAX).

Audiences are too fickle to watch more than a few minutes of video. The average video is watched 2 minutes and then people taper off. They would rather consume more pieces of video (quantity) than more of a single video.

In the lean-back environment, this would be a different story.

We're actually seeing the exact opposite on blip.tv. Average video length on our site of popular content is about 13 minutes.

This is fantastic. They've found a sweetspot between going no limit (Google Video) and YouTube as it was before.

I look forward to seeing my StarCraft 2 matches in one session. :)

FTA: "The new feature will be available only to a subset of users who have never violated copyright rules"

I wonder how this works with the false-flagging and the DMCA abuse that I've heard of. While their algorithms can detect if your video has someone else's content, I'm not so sure it can detect if the usage is considered fair use.

I wonder if this has anything to do with server resources; IE is 1 30-minute video less intensive and take up less space than 3 10-minute videos? (Considering that most long videos are just cut into parts.)

If so, I'd imagine it would have an impact, considering the sheer size of YouTube's userbase.

Not really. A 30 minute video file might be slightly smaller than three 10 minute video files but the difference would be negligible.

What's happened is that YouTube has developed a way to identify infringing content, and profit from it.

They can find an "illegal" clip of a TV show or movie, contact the copyright owner, and with their permission leave it on the site but serve up advertising alongside, splitting the revenue with the legitimate owner. Everybody wins. Allowing longer videos will let them do the same thing with full episodes or feature movies.

Gotcha.

But wouldn't longer movies being in multiple pages/clips serve more advertising? I realize that the clips may not even be uploaded if a time limit is imposed, but I would assume that more clips = more potential ad clicks.

I suppose also that the advances in Content ID (the copyright checking system) may only be effective on longer clips.

All in all, there are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches, and maybe YouTube is just taking the least complicated route.

Youtube supports what are essentially commercial breaks on long videos already. The uploader can even choose to place them at logical breaks in the video.

I was watching some in-the-ER/ridealong-with-the-cops type videos on a Youtube channel the other night, and the video would be interrupted on occasion by video ads in between scenes, etc.

I see. I should probably watch more Youtube before I start asking obvious questions about it.

Thanks!

It's in Google's best interest to lift the time limit for all videos. Keeping people in the YouTube app on GoogleTV is best for Google. Pro-sumer content creators need to be able to post their full-length video on YouTube.

So do I count as having "violated copyright rules" because Content ID incorrectly attributed the music in one of my videos to some artist I've never heard of? Which, by the way, is not uncommon.

I'm sure you do. I am a "ContentID criminal" for the same reason. Youtube isn't really the place I would choose for hosting my content after dealing with that...

Funny... I got the message that I could upload longer videos, but the bullet points next to the upload button still say "Shorter than 15 minutes."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com