Ten years ago this week, online music pioneer Justin Frankel released a little application dubbed Gnutella that enabled file sharing through a distributed P2P network. Frankel, whose previous claim to fame was programming the then hugely-popular Winamp MP3 player software, supposedly named the client after his favorite hazelnut cream spread, and the first version published online was really more of a proof of concept than anything else.

Still, Gnutella hit a nerve. Napster had been sued three months before, and many file sharers were rightfully fearing that the music industry would eventually prevail in court and force Napster to switch off its servers. With Gnutella, no such switch existed, as the client was allowing direct P2P connections without the help of any centralized server. Add to it the fact that Gnutella, unlike Napster, allowed users to swap videos and software as well as MP3s, and you begin to see why many immediately viewed Gnutella as the next step in P2P file sharing.

A step, one should add, that made Frankel’s employer AOL more than a little nervous. It only took the Internet giant a day to force Frankel and his colleagues to take down Gnutella – but even that was too long, as countless sites quickly started to first mirror, then build upon Frankel’s official Gnutella client. There’s always been a little bit of mystery surrounding the exact happenings of those days, but some people have been musing that a person with a surprising amount of insider knowledge showed up in one of the first IRC chat rooms dedicated to Gnutella soon after AOL pulled the plug, only to provide some very detailed information about the inner workings of the client’s P2P protocol.

Speaking of IRC: Early versions of the software didn’t really have any way for users to connect, save for entering another user’s IP address, which is why IRC quickly became an integral part of the early days of Gnutella. It was also in those IRC chat rooms that the myth of Gnutella as a seemingly invincible P2P protocol was born, and the fact that AOL tried but couldn’t contain the software seemed to fit right into that picture. Gnutella was one of the very first P2P apps I ever wrote about, so I lurked in those chat rooms as well, where people were cheering the fact that someone finally found a file sharing solution that couldn’t be shut down. I still remember one IRC user saying: “We’ve started a damn cult again!”

Only Gnutella wasn’t really ready to be a cult. The network routed search requests from peer to peer, leading to an exponential growth of traffic as its network became bigger. Napster programmer Jordan Ritter described the problem early on in a paper titled “Why Gnutella Can’t Scale. No, Really,” and Frankel himself, who has hardly ever gone on the record about Gnutella, once stated that he was fully aware of “how poorly it would scale” when he released the client.

Still, Gnutella captured the imagination of many, one of them being Mark Gorton, founder of the New York-based Lime Group. Gorton was at the time pursuing a vision of automating businesses through structured data, and Gnutella, as something that could, for example, distribute real estate listings wrapped in XML, seemed to fit that image quite nicely. Early versions of the Gnutella client of Gorton’s LimeWire venture were still written with this vision in mind, hoping to build a P2P network that could eventually be used to do all kinds of things with which we’re now familiar on the web, thanks to web services.

LimeWire’s engineers joined a growing group of developers loosely connected through web sites like the long-defunct Gnutella.wego.com (whose admin Gene Kan tragically committed suicide in 2002) and mailing lists like the one for the Gnutella Developer Forum, and one of the first issues to be tackled was scalability. The introduction of a two-tiered system of ordinary clients and so-called Ultrapeers helped grow both the network as a whole and each user’s search horizon. The idea was also later adopted by the developers of KaZaA, whose own take on this two-tiered approach still lives on in Skype’s P2P network.

Technical improvements like these helped Gnutella to grow, but the competition was quick to catch up. Bram Cohen unveiled a first version of BitTorrent only two years after Frankel had published Gnutella, and BitTorrent quickly became the file sharing client of choice for sharing videos online. Part of BitTorrent’s quick rise to fame was its modular simplicity: Cohen had outsourced much of the search and indexing of files to torrent web sites, only handling the actual distribution of data within the client. Gnutella on the other hand was meant to work without any web server. That made it much more invincible, but also much less accessible to users who migrated from apps and clients to a world of web services.

Another issue that has plagued Gnutella from the beginning is not technical, but legal. The protocol was supposed to outsmart trigger-happy lawyers, but the mere fact that there wasn’t a central switch to turn off the Gnutella network didn’t stop rights holders from going after people and companies associated with it. Lawsuits and legal threats forced Morpheus, Xolox, Bearshare and a number of other companies and developers to throw the towel.

LimeWire got sued by the music industry as well in 2006, but that hasn’t stopped the company from continuing with the development and monetization of its client. LimeWire’s client also utilizes BitTorrent these days, but LimeWire’s VP of Product Management Jason Herskowitz told me during a phone conversation that Gnutella has “worked really well” for the company, and that its engineers are looking into ways to make Gnutella once again more attractive to developers by exposing some of its functionality through web services. “There is still a long future ahead for Gnutella,” he predicted.

Not everyone agrees with that outlook. Adam Fisk, who was hired by LimeWire as one of its first developers in the summer of 2000, but left the company in 2004 to eventually start his own P2P venture dubbed Littleshot, believes that some core assumptions of the Gnutella protocol are outdated. “I don’t think that distributed P2P search makes any sense,” he told me, explaining that the very server-less search functionality that made Gnutella superior to Napster also ended up being its biggest burden, and that it would be much easier to have servers handle search and just use P2P to deliver data – a recipe that has already helped BitTorrent succeed.

Sure, LimeWire and some other Gnutella clients could still stick around for a long time, Fisk admitted, but he was skeptical that we would ever see any significant new project based on Gnutella. “That would be shocking,” he said.

Photo courtesy of (CC BY-SA) Flickr user Jessica  Diamond.

Related content on GigaOm Pro: What’s Next for the Cloud? Distributed Architectures (subscription required)

Our top story this week was about bad news for the big guys: Google, Facebook, Digg's top users. As you catch up on the news, be sure to watch the conversation about China, tech and democracy that took place between activist/artist Ai Weiwei, Twitter's Jack Dorsey and ReadWriteWeb's Richard MacManus. We also continued our exploration of the significant Internet trends of 2010, including Real-Time Web, Mobile Web and Internet of Things.

Note: We've refreshed the format for our longest running feature, the Weekly Wrapup. It now focuses more explicitly on the key trends that ReadWriteWeb is tracking in 2010, as well as giving you the highlights from the leading story of the week. Let us know your thoughts on the new format.

Sponsor

Story of the Week: Nexus One's woes, spies love Facebook, top Diggers lose power

• Oops: Google Denied Trademark on Android Nexus One
• Big Changes Are Coming to Digg: More Power to Publishers, Less Power to Top Diggers
• How US Government Spies Use Facebook (Updated)
• Cartoon: Can't Go to SXSW? We Feel Your Pain
• Nexus One Flopped, but Android Didn't

More coverage and analysis from ReadWriteWeb

Announcing the ReadWriteWeb Mobile Summit

Join us for the ReadWriteWeb Mobile Summit on May 7 in Mountain View, California as we explore the latest mobile development trends, both the technology and the emerging business applications. Be a part of the discussion on geo-location services, augmented reality, native app vs. browser-based, commerce and marketing, mobile social networking and the Internet of Things. Sponsorship enquiries: sales@readwriteweb.com,

Register now for the ReadWriteWeb Mobile Summit and get early bird rates - only $295.

Mobile Web

• Microsoft Updates Bing iPhone App and Removes It from All International iTunes Stores
• Blockbuster Brings New Releases to Android, Windows Mobile Phones
• Mobile App Marketplace: $17.5 Billion by 2012

More Mobile Web coverage

Internet of Things

• 
• Internet of Things Explained (Video)
• 6 Ways to Better Living: Inside an Internet of Things Home
• 8 Ways to Better Understand the Internet of Things

More Internet of Things coverage

Check Out The ReadWriteWeb iPhone App

We recently launched the official ReadWriteWeb iPhone app. As well as enabling you to read ReadWriteWeb while on the go or lying on the couch, we've made it easy to share ReadWriteWeb posts directly from your iPhone, on Twitter and Facebook. You can also follow the RWW team on Twitter, directly from the app. We invite you to download it now from iTunes.

Real-Time Web

• 
• OneRiot Brings Its Real-Time Ads to the Web
• Why Wikipedia Should Be Trusted As A Breaking News Source

More Real-Time Web coverage. Don't miss the next wave of opportunity on the Web supported by real-time technology! Get ReadWriteWeb's report, The Real-Time Web and its Future.

ReadWriteStart

Our channel ReadWriteStart, sponsored by Microsoft BizSpark, is dedicated to profiling startups and entrepreneurs.

• The Death of the Pageview
• Micropayments and Subscriptions: How Business Models for Startups are Shifting
• 6 ReadWriteStart Lists: Our Best Startup Advice

ReadWriteEnterprise

Our channel ReadWriteEnterprise is devoted to 'enterprise 2.0' and using social software inside organizations.

• Provider Fail: Vodafone Sells HTC Smartphone Loaded With Malware
• Google Apps Offers Migration for Microsoft Exchange

ReadWriteCloud

Our channel ReadWriteCloud, sponsored by VMware and Intel, is dedicated to Virtualization and Cloud Computing.

• IBM Makes A Major Move Into The Cloud; Amazon Is In Its Sights
• Rulers of the Cloud: Will Amazon's Computing Fabric Become a New Economy?
• The Oracle Effect: Sun's Best and Brightest Move On to New Places

That's a wrap for another week! Enjoy your weekend everyone.

Discuss

Three million people used the March Madness On Demand video player to catch the first round of the NCAA Men’s College Basketball Championship online yesterday, according to a press release sent out by CBS Sports today. Sports fans watched a total of 3.4 million hours of live streaming video and audio online yesterday, 20 percent more than in 2009. And the most-watched game even saw 50 percent more traffic than last year’s most popular first day face-off.

We’ll leave it to others to speculate how much of a productivity killer March Madness is, but the fact that CBS saw its biggest spike in traffic in the hour after 2pm Eastern — 533k streaming hours for the full hour, with a peak of 147k streaming hours between 2:45 and 2:59 p.m. — suggests that the championship may actually be an ideal lunch time companion, at least for us West Coasters.

Yesterday’s most popular game happened to be the match between Florida and BYU, with a total of 521k hours of streaming video and audio. Those new audience records are another validation for CBS’s strategy to air full live games without access restrictions online, a strategy that’s also been paying off with advertisers, who have spent a total of $37 million on ads for March Madness On Demand this year.

However, one should take CBS’s claim that this was “the largest single day of traffic for a live sport event on the Internet” with a grain of salt: The 2008 Olympics had a huge online worldwide online audience, with 1.6 million viewers tuning in simultaneously through the Chinese P2P video client PPLive during the opening ceremony alone.

Related content on NewTeeVee: Where to Watch March Madness Online

Related content on GigaOm Pro: Connected Consumer Tuned In to TVs in Q4 (subscription required)

Let’s say it’s 2005 and online video is in its infancy. If you’re a Chad Hurley, Steve Chen and Jawed Karim, how much would it cost to start up and run a video sharing site with the hopes of flipping it for more than $1.6 billion? As of this week we know, thanks to confidential Profit and loss information released as part of filings that have been made public in the copyright infringement case between Viacom and YouTube.

Based on those filings, we were able to put together some numbers about how much it cost to run YouTube leading up to the Google acquisition. During the first 18 months of YouTube’s operations, from February 2005 when the domain was first purchased through August 2006 when it was desperately seeking acquirers, the fledgling video company spent more than $11.5 million to grow its user base big enough to become attractive to Google.

Most of that money — about $8 million or so — went to paying for infrastructure needed to run the site, with a vast majority of that money going toward the site’s web hosting costs. In the three months from June 2006 through August 2006, the company was spending about $1 million each month on hosting costs alone, and that wasn’t even taking into account data center costs that YouTube was also paying for or ad serving costs as the firm began selling its own advertising.

In addition to web infrastructure costs, YouTube had other operating expenses and personnel costs to contend with. In the first 18 months of its existence, YouTube spent about $3.6 million on employee compensation, travel, facilities, costs and the like. By November 2005, its regular operating expenses were about even with infrastructure costs — at a little more than $130,000 per month, but not long after that, the company’s web hosting bills really started to take off as the video sharing site gained traction.

It wasn’t until December 2005 that YouTube started clocking revenue — a meager $15,000 during that month — and by that point, the company had spent more than $400,000 on operating and infrastructure expenses. But costs began to increase rapidly after that, and topped out at about $2.6 million during August 2006 — just two months before Google’s purchase of the company was made public.

YouTube was never profitable before the Google acquisition — in fact, it pulled in just $5 million in revenues during its first 18 months — but it came close in August 2006, which might have been one reason that Google had an interest in the firm. That month, it posted revenues of $2.5 million. The site did post a gross profit of more than $575,000 during the month if you don’t take into account its monthly operating expenses. Otherwise, with total opex of about $2.6 million, the site fell about $100,000 shy of hitting profitability.

The site raised about $11.5 million in two rounds of financing before being bought by Google in a deal valued in excess of $1.65 billion in October 2006 — which wasn’t a bad return on investment for YouTube’s investors or founders. Famously, though, YouTube has yet to reach profitability, in part because Google had remained committed to growing its user base after its acquisition.

As reported in Viacom’s filings, Google CEO Eric Schmidt mandated for the company to focus on aggressively growing the site, aiming “to grow playbacks to 1b/day [one billion per day].” That mandate remained in place until early 2008, when Schmidt decided the site should shift its focus to monetization of its video assets. Since then, the company has been increasingly focused on bringing more premium content to the site and increasing the number of videos it can place ads against. That focus means that the online video site might finally become profitable this year, according to some analyst projections.

Related content on GigaOM Pro:

Will Automated Rights Management Take Down Fair Use? (subscription required)

When you watch Stupid for Movies, an independently-produced movie chat show live-streaming weekly on Ustream at 8 PM PST, you see Los Angeles-based film critics Mark Keizer and Wade Major sitting side by side on a red-curtained set that invokes the golden days of Siskel and Ebert at the Movies, reacting to an enthusiastic audience’s applause. Keizer and Major banter back and forth about the week’s new releases and films the audience should “Buy, Burn or Rent,” while director Mike Rotman chimes in occasionally on the banter.

With five cameras, a small crew and live-streaming technology provided by NewTek, Stupid For Movies has been running for two months now, with the live episodes archived on Blip the following day. Last night’s episode’s stream received a total of 5,799 views, with 300 live viewers tuned in around 8:40 PM PST — a viewership number that is only built upon once the episode is archived and spread around to its distribution partners.

The magic all happens in a converted garage up in the San Fernando Valley — one of Los Angeles’ most suburban sectors, where most of the houses look the same. Inside that garage, though, is a surprisingly professional operation crammed into a space that would barely be able to fit two Volvos.

The exterior of the studio/garage.

The production behind-the-scenes was a mix of laid-back and professional, with the breaks provided by short clips from films used to adjust camera angles and touch up makeup. On screen, that attitude carried through: Both hosts were confident and relaxed on camera, with only the occasional moment of hamming on the part of Major. (Mocking Major’s shirt appears to be a running theme.)

I consider myself a movie nerd, but watching Keizer and Major identify random obscure films from the last 40 years made me feel ignorant — their film knowledge is wide and all-encompassing, to the point where it seemed that many of the films suggested by viewers for the Buy/Rent/Burn segment were submitted just in the hopes of stumping them (which only sort of happened once with the old Wes Craven film Deadly Friend, though they quickly recalled it once given a hint).

Major and Keiser get ready for their close-ups.

The key to Siskel and Ebert’s dynamic was always that they weren’t prone to agreeing with each other, but while Keizer and Major (who also host IGN’s Digigods podcast) do demonstrate some distinctively different taste in films, Major estimated in a post-shoot conversation that they agree with each other about 65 or 70 percent of the time. What that contributes to, though, is a very distinctive point-of-view about the film world, one that has no patience for video game movies and dismisses the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles films out of hand — but does genuinely love film. The audience attracted to such a perspective is thus pretty specific, but with real potential for loyalty.

Rotman, who’s known Keizer and Major for years, has been working in web video for some time and currently directs The Kevin Pollak Chat Show on Sundays. When he came up with the idea for Stupid For Movies, he shopped it around to a few different parties but wasn’t happy with any of the deals he got — hence deciding to produce the show on his own, a decision made easier when he found a house for rent that had a soundproofed garage, thanks to its former tenant, a musician.

Chad Vader waits to chime in via Skype.

Currently on Stupid for Movies, online video legend Chad Vader does a weekly news rundown and at least once so far, Kevin Pollak has Skyped in to give the guys grief. Future plans for the next few weeks include bringing in celebrities to discuss their favorite movies ever, more giveaways, and possibly a sponsorship by one of the obvious movie-related brands online, leaving Stupid poised to become a much bigger player in the live-streaming world — especially for those who love movies.

Related GigaOm Pro Content (subscription required): Case Study: 1 vs. 100 Live’s Glimpse of the Future

Crashed web sites, stolen credit card info — imagine seeing the damage caused by Internet viruses and worms unleashed on a fleet of vehicles. The results could include vehicle location data used with malicious intent, the prevention of a plug-in vehicle battery from recharging, remote starting of a car, or even — as a disgruntled young former car salesman in Texas has demonstrated this week — stranding drivers with a car that won’t start and a horn that won’t quit.

Here’s what happened in Texas, as Wired and the Austin News report: A terminated employee from a car dealership called the Texas Auto Center logged into the company’s web-based system and was able to remotely wreak havoc on more than 100 vehicles. The dealership’s system is able to disable the starter system and trigger incessant horn honking for customers that have fallen behind on car payments. It’s meant to serve as an alternative to repossessing the vehicle, and the ex-Texas Auto Center employee, arrested Thursday on charges of computer intrusion, was able to set off the horn command at will and make it so drivers couldn’t start their cars.

Cars are growing ever more connected to communication networks, and upcoming generations of electric vehicles will take it a step further with connections to the power grid. Already, electric car makers have unveiled smartphone apps designed to let users to remotely control certain vehicle functions and battery charging. Down the road, we’ll likely see not only electricity flowing to cars from the grid, but also the flow of data between cars, the grid, home energy management systems, utilities and third-party service providers.

As Ford’s director of connected services Doug VanDagens told us recently (GigaOM Pro, subscription required), “For electric vehicles, connectivity to the web and data are “required over and above what gas engines require.” Apps can use data — about topography, traffic, battery and vehicle health, infrastructure availability, driving behavior — to help orient drivers in the nascent world of electric mobility, both in and out of their vehicle.

While these tools and technologies could help reduce fuel consumption, make electric vehicles more convenient, and enable utilities to prevent excess strain on the power grid as plug-in cars create new demand, that shift to an increasingly digital transportation system brings with it (as Katie has explained in the context of the smart grid buildout) one of the banes of the Internet: hacking.

The stakes, of course, are very different. Certainly nobody wants a virus on their PC. But the prospect of a hacker seizing control of some aspect of a car — a ton of metal capable of going 60-plus MPH, that costs tens of thousands of dollars, and that maybe has a battery in its belly that requires a sophisticated system of thermal controls – is a far scarier thought.

The potential consequences of cyber attacks on a digital power grid could be similarly frightening. Andy Karsner said back in 2008, when he was with the Department of Energy: “This isn’t the cyber-attacking that you think of just for passwords. This is the capacity to destroy hardware in your home, at airports, at military bases, your car, if its connected through the grid.”

We should note that remote immobilization systems like the one involved in the Austin incident have been in use for a decade or more, and yet we have not seen vehicles crippled en masse by hackers. But companies should realize this could be a sensitive issue among consumers, while both companies and regulators need to recognize risks that go along with the transition to increasingly digital and connected systems for transportation and power.

Image courtesy of Defragged’s photostream Flickr Creative Commons.

March 24 will mark the day that the first sports game ever will be broadcast live in 3-D to a U.S. audience, thanks to a cooperation between MSG and Cablevision. Hockey-loving Cablevision subscribers will be able to catch the Rangers face off against the Islanders on iO TV channel 1300, according to Engadget. New York-based fans will also be able to watch the game live at at the Theater at Madison Square Garden. You know, just in case you haven’t spent $3000 on one of the 3D TV sets that have only been available for a few weeks.

MSG said that it is currently in discussions with other operators about carrying the game as well, but Cablevision definitely scored a bit of a prize with this one. Comcast announced earlier this week that it will broadcast the Masters Tournament in 3-D, which would have given it the bragging rights for the first 3-d sports event ever broadcast in the U.S. ESPN previously announced that it will start a 3-D network in time for the World Cup in June, and DirecTV also has some 3-D sports coverage in the works for the coming months.

Rangers vs. Islanders will be shot with technology from 3ality Digital, which also powered BSkyB’s January 3-D Premiere League Soccer broadcast.

Related content on GigaOm Pro: Are We Putting the 3-D Cart Before the Horse? (subscription required)

The first time you walk into an Apple Store and pick up an iPad, you’ll understand the hype: Apple has managed to create a beautiful, thoughtfully designed, compelling product in a space where mediocrity was, until now, status quo. But odds are you probably won’t buy one — at least not yet. And that’s OK.

For despite the high level of anticipation for and proclamations associated with the launch of the Apple device, the fact remains that outside of a few select vertical uses (like medicine), tablets are constrained by their own form factor, stuck in the nether realm between productivity and portability. Standing onstage during the device’s unveiling, Steve Jobs himself posed a question that acutely underscores the tablet dilemma: Is there room for a third category of product that sits between your two most essential devices, the laptop and phone? As much as I’m looking forward to the iPad, I’m still not sure there is.

To date, no one’s been able to scale tablets as a core personal computing product, though it’s certainly not for lack of effort. Just about every player in the electronics world has given tablets a go, from Nokia with its Maemo-based N-series Internet communicators to Dell with its Android-based mini-slates to all manner of Windows-based convertible and slate tablet PCs. But the problem with all of them — and the iPad may also be included — isn’t that they’ve been unable to offer fundamentally differentiated experiences from the devices we already own and carry.

Think back to the iPod — before it existed, there wasn’t such a thing as taking your entire music (and eventually, video) library with you wherever you went. But the concept proved to be so elemental that it transcended the iPod as a device, and became a staple in nearly every product Apple makes, from iTunes on the Mac to the iPhone. In his iPad launch presentation, Jobs seemed pretty clear about the fact that the iPad won’t replace your phone or laptop (at least not any time soon), and yet Apple has still been deficient in demonstrating more than scaled-up iPhone experiences (like browsing, light email, and gaming) or scaled-down desktop experiences (like iWork).

Of course, it would be a failure of imagination to assume there won’t eventually be something built on the iPad platform that simply couldn’t be hosted on a phone or laptop. But so far Apple hasn’t shown it to us, which may be why so many are still lukewarm on the device’s prospects. This also might be why iBooks was January’s dark horse announcement — it was the only app Apple showed off that seems to call out for the iPad by name. But long-form reading is still arguably better suited to devices like the Kindle and Nook, which benefit from E Ink displays, while shorter-form media (namely periodicals) went all but ignored by Apple, which punted to publication-specific apps like the New York Times reader. Had Apple attempted to create a new, ubiquitous, standard format for magazines and newspapers, and leveraged its sales infrastructure for subscription content, the iPad might have been hailed as the iPod of publishing.

There’s no question Apple has (re)defined the tablet dialog and raised the bar for the space moving forward. For browsing the web, the iPad experience is second to none; the product itself almost seems to melt away, leaving the user to feel as though they’re literally reaching in and touching the content. And by the time the iPad’s price drops in a year or two, Apple may be able to parlay a groundbreaking product into a market leadership position. But in the mean time, the countdown to launch has begun and Cupertino’s set its sights on building yet another market, we’ll have to see just how many people are ready to put their money where Apple’s tablet is.

Ryan Block is the co-founder of gdgt and the former editor in chief of Engadget. Disclosure: gdgt is backed by True Ventures, a venture capital firm that is an investor in the parent company of this blog, Giga Omni Media. Om Malik, founder of Giga Omni Media, is also a venture partner at True.

The e-book war between Amazon.com and Apple is
getting uglier. Dennis Johnson cites a report in Publishers Marketplace (subscription required) that alleges that Amazon.com is telling publishers that if they switch to an agency model (ala Macmillan) , they will lose Amazon as a platform for both e-books and print.

This battle, which in many ways mirrors similar struggles between record labels and online music stores, underscores some of the challenges that moving into widespread digital distribution for a formerly non-digital product can bring.

The Agency Model Conundrum

Recently, Macmillian’s CEO John Sargent explained the agency model, as it relates to e-book sales, in his blog:

“Starting at the end of March, we will move from the ‘retail model’ of selling e-books (publishers sell to retailers, who then sell to readers at a price that the retailer determines) to the ‘agency model’ (publishers set the price, and retailers take a commission on the sale to readers).”

In other words, Macmillan wants to be able to control how much digital books are sold for on a per-book basis. Much like music publishers fought (and eventually won) the right to sell certain digital tracks or digital albums for more (or less, in some cases) than the $0.99 per track/$9.99 per album standard, publishers want that same control.

Amazon disagrees. And while it did acquiesce to Macmillan’s position at the end of January, it apparently has no plans of making those same concessions for future publishers.

In the Publishers Marketplace report, Michael Cader writes:

“At least one independent publisher of scale was told categorically by Amazon in a recent phone call initiated by the retailer that Amazon would not negotiate agency selling terms with any other publishers outside of the five initial Apple partners. This publisher was told that if they switched to an agency model for e-books, Amazon would stop selling their entire list, in print and digital form. In conversation, Amazon is said to have reiterated that as matter of policy they are declining to negotiate an agency model with any publisher outside of the five who have already announced agreements with Apple’s iBookstore.”

In other words, the agreements that have been made with the five publishers signed to work with Apple — Macmillan, Harper Collins, Penguin, Hachette, and Simon & Schuster — will not be passed on to smaller publishers.

It seems even the agreement with the other four publishers outside of Macmillan (known as Agency Four) isn’t set in stone.

Cader also writes:

“The indications are that if the Agency Four have not finalized new digital sales agreements with Amazon prior to the launch of Apple’s iPad, they could face delisting from direct sale at Amazon, as Macmillan did.”

Translation: If those publishers don’t finalize a new digital agreement with Amazon before the launch of the iPad, they risk being removed from Amazon.com

Amazon Is Biggest Now, But For How Long?

Because it is both the biggest seller of e-books and print books, Amazon has enormous power in the publishing industry. However, it’s unclear how long it will be able to play hardball with publishers, especially as formidable competitors like Apple (with iTunes) and Google emerge.

Apple, interestingly, held a reverse stance with music executives for many years before finally changing course in January of 2009 with the introduction of variable pricing. However, one reason Apple was able to exert so much influence over record labels pricing was because until Amazon launched its service (again, Amazon took the reverse approach with music, letting publishers set variable pricing for tracks and albums), there was no real competitor in the digital music space.

Amazon isn’t quite as lucky. First, e-books have been around for years and are available in a variety of formats from a variety of different storefronts. In fact, Amazon sold digital books long before it introduced the Kindle.

The e-book market has evolved much more quickly than the digital music space, which leaves less wiggle room for retailers, like Amazon, to exert pressure.

However, make no mistake, for smaller publishers, the risk of losing listings on Amazon.com is still probably a big enough threat to have an effect.

We’ll keep following this situation as it develops.

[via John Gruber]

Reviews: Google

Tags: amazon, apple, business, ebook price war, ebooks, ipad, Kindle, Macmillan

By Tim Conneally, Betanews

This week, documents from Viacom's billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube for copyright infringement were published, and the three-year-long-and-counting lawsuit has again been brought to the public's attention. In case you haven't been following the case, here's a quick timeline of the major events that led up to the lawsuit, and those that occurred since the original complaint was filed:

May 24, 2005- Viacom subpoenas YouTube for information about a user who uploaded clips from Paramount Pictures' "Twin Towers."

June 2005- Viacom's board of directors approves a plan to spin off assets, which become known as the new Viacom, Inc. That new company is given control of Paramount, while the core company reforms as CBS Corp.

January 2006- 20th Century Fox sues YouTube to have content from Fox TV shows such as The Simpsons and 24 removed from YouTube.

June 2006- YouTube and NBC partner to create NBC channel on YouTube for Internet exclusives, clips, and trailers.

July 2006- Viacom and NBC Universal back journalist Robert Tur in his suit against YouTube for illegally posting his videos of the 1992 L.A. riots. The legal brief said, "YouTube incorrectly contends that the DMCA permits it to avoid any responsibility for the content on its commercial website and completely shift the burden to content owners to discover and notify it of infringements."

September 2006- YouTube signs content deal with Warner to host the company's music videos.

October 9, 2006- CBS and YouTube announce a strategic content and advertising partnership.

October 2006- Viacom and YouTube reach a content syndication agreement.

October 20, 2006- Google Buys YouTube for $1.65 Billion.

December 2006- Viacom reportedly walks away from negotiations with NBC Universal, CBS Corp., and Fox Interactive about creating a TV-centric YouTube competitor site.

February 2007- Viacom retracts its content agreement with Google, pulls everything off the site.

February 2007- YouTube's pending content deal with CBS halts.

March 2007- Viacom Sues Google for over 63,000 separate counts of copyright infringement seeking $1 billion in damages. YouTube protects itself with the "Safe Harbor" provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

March 2007- Viacom General Counsel Michael Fricklas in a Washington Post op-ed says that YouTube was not just a passive content host, and that it is fully aware of what it does. "If the public knows what's there, then YouTube's management surely does. YouTube's own terms of use give it clear rights, notably the right to take anything down."

May 2007- Google signs YouTube content deal with record label EMI.

May 2007- British Premier League files class action suit against YouTube for copyright infringement, says Google "knowingly misappropriated and exploited this valuable property," when it allowed users to post footage from its football games.

June 2007- YouTube introduces Content ID to help content owners identify if their content is being used, gives them the option to remove unauthorized content, or monetize it.

July 2007- Google CEO Eric Schmidt says Viacom was "built from lawsuits."

August 2007- Google asks Comedy Central personalities Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to testify against Viacom in copyright hearings. Comedy Central is a Viacom property.

October 2007- Viacom joins MySpace, Microsoft, Veoh, and Dailymotion in signing the "Copyright Principles for User Generated Content Services," hoping it will become a sort of "television code" of online copyright protection.

March 2008- Viacom President and CEO Phillippe Dauman says "We've already achieved a number of things with this lawsuit. It took a long time, but because of our actions, YouTube has moved in the right direction. They're where they should have been all along."

May 2008- Google claims Viacom's suit threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression," claims it could have a chilling effect on all Internet communications.

June 2008- New York District Court rules that Google has to turn over user IDs and IP addresses to Viacom. Angry users upload nearly 5,000 "Viacom Sucks" videos to YouTube. Google is later allowed to make this data anonymous.

July 2008- Movie studio Lionsgate partners with YouTube for a branded channel with ad-supported official content from the studio.

October 2008- The McCain/Palin presidential campaign asked YouTube to stop taking down campaign videos that incorporated clips of news broadcasts. YouTube said that it was doing so at the request of broadcasters who objected to the use of their copyrighted footage.

April 2009- Content owners discus "TV Anywhere" plan to tie Web-based video content into cable subscription fees. Viacom CEO Dauman says, "People are used to paying for video subscriptions," sees it as a good idea.

June 2009- "TV Everywhere" network scheme launches.

July 2009- Some claims from the Premier League's 2007 suit against YouTube are dismissed, but claims for "statutory damages for works not registered in the US" are allowed.

September 2009- Google gives individual copyright holders access to the Insight metrics of YouTube videos that contain their intellectual property according to Content ID.

October 2009- Viacom presents "smoking gun" evidence for its case: internal e-mails from YouTube staff that show "actual knowledge" that copyright infringement was taking place on the video sharing site.

November 2009- Google announces YouTube Direct, a system where media outlets can directly communicate with users and arrange rebroadcasting rights on a one-to-one basis.

March 2010- Some of Viacom's "smoking gun" documents go public, company claims "YouTube was intentionally built on infringement."

Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

Want to watch a March Madness live stream on your Android mobile phone? Then let’s hope that you’ve got some good friends at Adobe. The company’s Platform Evangelist Ryan Stewart just published a video on YouTube that demonstrates watching March Madness live via 3G on a Google Nexus one, thanks to a yet-unreleased version 10.1 of Flash for Android (hat tip to Flashstreamworks.com).

Stewart’s demo makes use of the fact that CBS is offering a live Flash stream of the tournament in addition to its Silverlight-based March Madness player. Silverlight users will get better video quality (up to 1.8Mbps), but the Flash stream should be good enough to watch on a mobile device like the Nexus One. Adobe has announced that it will release Flash 10.1 for Android within the first half of 2010. The company showed off a version of 10.1 running on a Nexus One in January, and it has been cooperating with third-party developers on Flash applications for Android, like the recently-demoed Tunevision jukebox.

March Madness host network CBS is offering iPhone users its own mobile solution to follow the NCAA Men’s College Basketball Tournament in real time, but not for free: The network’s March Madness app provides live streams via 3G and WiFi connections for a price of $9.99. Adobe’s Nexus One demo, on the other hand, simply plays the streams in a browser, so there’s no need to purchase an application.

Related content on NewTeeVee: Where to Watch March Madness Online

Related content on GigaOm Pro: Google’s Mobile Strategy: Understanding the Nexus One (subscription required)

BBC sites are responsible for 40 percent of the visits to iPlayer, according to Hitwise.

The BBC will make viewing of its on-demand videos more social by adding Facebook, Twitter and Bebo integration into its widely popular iPlayer online video application, according to a report in the Daily Telegraph. The addition of more social sharing features has the potential to greatly increase usage and viewer engagement for the iPlayer, which continues to post record numbers month after month.

In an interview with the Telegraph, the BBC’s director of future media and technology, Erik Huggers, said that social sharing features would be built into the iPlayer 3.0 beta, which is set to launch soon. According to Huggers, partnerships with the various social networking sites have already been signed, but the Beeb has been waiting until the release of the newest version of its player before making the new features available to users.

The integration will allow users to easily share what they are watching or listening to with friends and contacts on the social networking site. But for the integration to work, they will have to first register an account and log into the BBC iPlayer before adding their Facebook, Twitter and Bebo information to that account. Once that information is stored, they will no longer have to log into the services separately to post updates to their account from the iPlayer.

We’ve long believed that media companies can benefit by adding more social features around online video viewing. As we’ve seen in the case of CNN’s integration with Facebook at the Obama inauguration, social networks can do a lot to drive interest in online video, particularly for live events.

While the iPlayer could see a boost from social sharing, the video catchup service is doing just fine on its own, posting record numbers (again!) for the month of February. The iPlayer site was visited by an average of 1.4 million people per day , with 3.5 million requests for TV and radio programs during the month. But the most telling stat might be the amount of time viewers spent on the site. iPlayer viewers spent more than an hour — 64 minutes — catching up on TV programs online.

Related content on NewTeeVee: Watching the iPlayer Around The World: BBC, Meet VPN

Related content from GigaOM Pro: Can Enterprise Privacy Survive Social Networking? (subscription required)

Apple had high hopes of delivering an all-you-can-eat buffet of television shows in the form of a subscriptions service by the time its iPad hits the market next month, but opposition from networks has forced the company to adopt Plan B: a push towards lower pricing for a la carte downloads.

Apple has put hold its plan to offer the 'best of TV' as a $30 per month subscription service...

WM Recorder is the easiest way to record Windows Media™ streaming Video or Audio content. With one click, you can save music videos, music, news feeds, radio broadcasts, subscription or pay-per-view content, corporate webcasts, and anything else. RM Recorder brings the same easy-to-use one-click recording capability to Real Video and Audio streams. Supports Windows Media, Real Audio, Real Video, Flash Video (FLV), Mpeg, QuickTime, Streaming MP3 Shoutcast.