Google video

December 24, 2005 11:10 AM

What is the catch for uploading to Google Video? It looks like a great place to share one's own videos, but what are the cons of posting videos there (letting Google eat all the bandwidth costs) instead of on my own site? Why not move all of one's multimedia content there?
posted by shannymara to Computers & Internet (23 answers total)

The catch is that you're giving Google a free, permanent, non-revocable license to use your content in any way they see fit:

Google shall have the right to retain and use any such Information in current or future products or services, without further compensation to you. To the extent such Information is protectable under intellectual property laws, you agree to cooperate with Google as needed to obtain such protection as Google may desire and you agree to assign your rights to such Information to Google.

That's probably about it.
posted by trevyn at 11:19 AM on December 24, 2005

Lack of control. You have to use their client.
posted by tiamat at 11:33 AM on December 24, 2005

People outside the US can't see it.
posted by dong_resin at 11:55 AM on December 24, 2005

I don't know about the rest of the world, but I have had no problems watching Google Videos in Canada.
posted by smitt at 11:57 AM on December 24, 2005

People outside the US can't see it.

Wrong. SOME people can't see some things (local laws and all that).
posted by slater at 12:26 PM on December 24, 2005

I don't know about the rest of the world, but I have had no problems watching Google Videos in Canada.

For pretty much all practical, non-government purposes Canada == US. The distinction only matters when governmental regulations apply.
posted by delmoi at 12:27 PM on December 24, 2005

delmoi: You haven't spent much time talking to Canadians about that point, have you?
posted by Kickstart70 at 12:45 PM on December 24, 2005

As a Canadian, delmoi is pretty much right. The cdn:usian relationship is a classic example of Freud's narcissism of slight difference.
posted by Rumple at 12:54 PM on December 24, 2005

Well, at least he didn't use the assignment operator Canada = US.
posted by rolypolyman at 1:36 PM on December 24, 2005

Oh, and via Digg, it appears offering a downloadable copy of your video is not really practical... which may be a plus or minus. Thus, what tiamat said.
posted by rolypolyman at 1:39 PM on December 24, 2005

i can see things from chile, fwiw. not that i've looked at much, but the top gear link in the blue was from there, right?
posted by andrew cooke at 1:47 PM on December 24, 2005

Perhaps this site can help for those in countries that video.google.com doesn't serve.
posted by TimeFactor at 2:05 PM on December 24, 2005

As a Canadian, delmoi is 100% wrong. D'you live in Windsor, Rumple?
posted by Count Ziggurat at 2:43 PM on December 24, 2005

Wrong. SOME people can't see some things (local laws and all that).

Well, why am I made to figure out what Google is willing to serve to where, when I can simply use something else? "SOME people can't see some things" = "people can't see it" if you reach an international audience and aren't interested in being second-guessed every time you use it.
posted by dong_resin at 3:13 PM on December 24, 2005

As I remember my complaints of not being able to see the video came form the UK over a video of something like a fat kid dancing. Not sure how that graphs to local laws.
posted by dong_resin at 3:15 PM on December 24, 2005

Google will have detailed statistics on who was viewing your media, does Google share that information with you?

If people share links to the media with friends, they'll be passing around links to Google, rather than links to your site and so your content enhances Google's "brand" rather than your own.
posted by Good Brain at 3:19 PM on December 24, 2005

Google Video just asks you what countries you want the video available from; you can easily pick "All Countries."
posted by reverendX at 5:16 PM on December 24, 2005

I'm in Malaysia and I can watch Google Video.

Cons: I can't download them (which would be a better alternative since I'm on dialup) and even on broadband it gets rather choppy.
posted by divabat at 6:21 PM on December 24, 2005

Videos on Google Video look terrible to me: jerky; sound drop-outs; poor resolution. Ugh. I hope they fix it.
posted by Dr. Wu at 7:17 PM on December 24, 2005

One benefit, is that slower computers can view google videos pretty well. It's the only place where I can watch videos on my Fujitsu P1100 lifebook (tiny wimpy sub-notebook).
posted by parallax7d at 9:10 AM on December 25, 2005

As a videoblogger, Google Video was definitely something I checked out. In addition to country issues, the technology was problematic for me. It takes whatever you give it and turns it into a kind of Flash presentation. In my case, when I uploaded a Quicktime .MOV file with multiple tracks, all that would get displayed/played on Google Video was one track. And yes, it's a pain to save the video locally, let alone aggregate it for "video podcasts."

There are other free media hosts out there. Ourmedia/Internet Archive is an old standby that I still use. I've also been experimenting with Blip.tv. Video is such a demanding application, though, I wonder if any totally free model will really last for long.
posted by pzarquon at 8:15 PM on December 25, 2005

i second ourmedia.
posted by BigBrownBear at 8:42 AM on December 26, 2005

Another con is that it can take quite a while for a video to go live. I've had to wait a whole day for a video to show up.
posted by smackfu at 7:32 AM on December 28, 2005