Video Goes Open Source on Wikipedia: New Format, New Player, New Editing/Sharing Tools
In a Beet.tv interview posted yesterday, Wikimedia deputy director Erik Moller gave a few clues as to the Foundation's train of thought when it comes to video editing and distribution.
In the interview clips, included below, Moller hints at the site's upcoming suite of editing tools and sharing options. He compares video to text and image content, subtextually posing the question: If other kinds of non-video content are so easy to grab, remix, and reuse, why not video, too?
"The typical video that we see on the web is basically a black box format in a Flash container. I can't easily manipulate it; I need to buy proprietary tools to really do things with it or even to rebroadcast it." All these factors go harshly against the free-as-in-beer, Creative Commons grain of Wikipedia/Wikimedia, so it should come as no surprise that the Foundation's video player and tools are to represent a dramatic shift from current web video standards.
Although videos have been part of the Wikimedia stable for a couple years through the open-source Ogg Theora format, the offering has been limited. Now, however, a Firefox 3.5 plugin called Firefogg will allow for server-side transcoding to the Ogg format. In addition to allowing for downloading and editing, the Ogg format also consumes significantly fewer resources during video playback.
Of course, any open-source technology that makes information free (both free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-free-to-move-about-the-Internet) is not without controversy. The Ogg codec's role in HTML 5 is of particular interest to those concerned with the evolution of web-based video.
Of particular interest to those concerned with the evolution of content ownership, however, is the Foundation's proposal, as stated by Moller, to allow users to "take a video, to crop it, to edit it, to take different assets and mix them into a single video - not just video... a text slide or... a slide show. You can mix videos, tag them with audio, obviously. So we want to build a completely open standards-based environment that people can use to remix video."
As we reported last month, when news of the new player was breaking, hundreds of thousands of public domain videos from sources such as the Internet Archive and Metavid will be available in the new format.
The editing tools to be made available later this year are led and funded by open source video company Kaltura. Moller also revealed to Beet.tv that Wikimedia is looking for a CDN partner to ensure streaming video performance.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Awesome!
This is going to revolutionize how we view content on the web. Sharing videos, posting up new content, and holding press conferences over the web is going to be the future. I look forward to posting this up to my blog - http://www.insidethewebb.com/
Wow ! This is special news for me. Thanks for this article.
Note: firefogg actually does the transcoding client side, not server side.
Problem is VERY VERY oversimplified. Unions, copyright, layers and LAYERS of content and clearance rights... Wikipedia has no idea the Pandora box they are opening. ...unfortunately. As someone who has actually MADE films... this is the problem with the web developemnt community... they do not understand that legacy ...or old media ...is a complicated and legalize issue for protections of labor individuals put in...and you need a significant legal apparatus first to make sure you do not hurt the guy or woman who spent their lifetime creating an image or sound or melody without life insurance and their family sacrificing...
getting screwed over by the patron who thinks they should get to have the product without giving that person their due.
I deal with this on a daily basis...if I use all of these contributors contributions ...for my own product (free or not) they get to say whether their work was for free for me. If I did not...yes ...they get to sue me.
dl: your point is completely unclear. Are you saying no-one should be allowed to easily edit video on the web just in case they get rights assignments wrong? Or what were you saying?
awesome news ...
am already liking wikipedia so much ... :)
The thing is, sometimes people do not want their videos remixed...
Video in this story is in a black-box proprietary Flash container. Thanks Internet.
like the way its a flash video tho >.
pradeek, the people who don't want their story or idea to be remixed by the society they shouldn't be part of that society on first place, let alone show their creation to it.
the human nature is to remix what ones sees and then to share their idea with others. people will do that will all means they have, at very least they'll retell what they saw, if they can they'll screen it the way they've seen it.
to want some to be allowed to retell through any media while others are only allowed use their speech is like asking for slavery back.
That's great, considering that Flash is a bit bulky and lower end machines lag when playing it. You can't force people to upgrade so more reliable and lower spec standards are great.
David Gerard
No offense but people are not thinking.
I'm saying this is a can of worms AND ...as someone again who should be saying along with the ignorance "yeah!!! I get free usage for my projects!"...I don't because I know what these people put in that I get licenses for using their creations... at minimum I always ask for permission. To open up usage with no checks...wikipedia is opening a huge can of worms
IT is so easy for a society to fall into, as we have seen so many times in societies before...that a lot of people...the majority of people who risked their lives, livelihoods and health (how many artists , scientists etc have forgone health insurance at the detriment of their own health to create something)... will get screwed from this who spent their lives creating one song, or one script.. or one acting performance after years ... or many producers have signatory status' with unions and they will be responsible if the union calls them out on a legal issue...the producer will then be responsible for the legal fall out of that.
This is not about the big bad corporations owning content...this is about the big bad majority saying I want that I am taking it... and all the indie artists and innovators and inventors getting decimated...because their inventions and creations will be worth nothing to investors.
Many artists that spent their lives worth and health on one song, one film, one performance will be decimated if there are no restrictions or "fair" use and "fair" permission. I hasten to argue...the most common "artist story" is the one of the person who risked their entire existence on a life, fate and world that gave them the reward of recognition once and only once... they often have sold out for a piece of residual use rights... and if someone can use it without asking... their creation and life was not worth any financial career or investment in what they and their families did.
This will not decimate studios and millionaires ...this will decimate lives spent creating under the entire focus of art.
If you think that is wrong or don't understand that...it is a sad day.
I spend my entire life using other people's materials...materials that I know what they often risked to create. The idea that they don't have the right for me to ask them to use it is vile. If a woman built a house and invested in the materials to create it would you say she didn't own it and anyone should be able to use it... if a man designed a tool would you say he has no right to be rewarded for spending his life learning and taking risks to create it?
and PS I don't worry about usage...my creations now are all sponsored to give away for free.
I am saying this for all the people who spend their lives in the layers of what it takes to make a film, a song, a set, a painting... who now society is saying they have no right to not allow everyone to use it for free... in any way they want without even asking.
dl,
I believe Wikimedia's plan actually helps with your cause. It makes people more aware of their rights (or non-rights) when it comes to using copyrighted or non-freely licensed media.
Wikimedia is one of the forerunners in recognizing artists' rights. If you have ever uploaded a photo without a clear statement of the rights under which you are distributing it, BOOM it gets deleted.
What this latest move does is say, "hey, if you made the work, if you license it freely, we'll give others tools to adapt or remix your work into something that could be even better."
What this latest move does NOT do is say, "hey, here are a bunch of video tools to rip off people's content." The history of the Wikimedia foundation is one of cautious people making VERY sure this doesn't happen.
Please get your facts straight. This is not an argument about pirating anything, stealing anything, and it's OK if artists want to charge money.
This is about working with artists who DO want their work to be freely available, and giving people tools to use those works.
By the way, I'm one of the aforementioned artists, and I've licensed my own work in such a way that it appears in Wikipedia articles.
I truly despise anything Wiki!
RT
www.anonymize.tk
I don't trust Wiki with this.
firefogg does encoding client-side, not server-side. that's the whole point. server-side encoding has been implemented for years, but this allows you to take, for example, your 10GB raw video and just tell it to upload - it will encode on your local machine and upload while its encoding. its super nice, esp. for low bandwidth conditions. please correct the error in the article though, thanks.
This is great because flash is proprietary and really sucks for video.
"I'm saying this is a can of worms AND ...as someone again who should be saying along with the ignorance "yeah!!! I get free usage for my projects!"...I don't because I know what these people put in that I get licenses for using their creations... at minimum I always ask for permission. To open up usage with no checks...wikipedia is opening a huge can of worms
IT is so easy for a society to fall into, as we have seen so many times in societies before...that a lot of people...the majority of people who risked their lives, livelihoods and health (how many artists , scientists etc have forgone health insurance at the detriment of their own health to create something)... will get screwed from this who spent their lives creating one song, or one script.. or one acting performance after years ... or many producers have signatory status' with unions and they will be responsible if the union calls them out on a legal issue...the producer will then be responsible for the legal fall out of that."
Your argument has nothing to do with video format. Your argument is understandable as I wouldn't want somebody uploading my ogg video to some proprietary wmv drm format and not giving me credit.
As he said in the video they have been using video on their website for four years now. They are just making it a little easier to transcode video. It is already easy to do in linux. They are just making a plugin for firefox which I applaud.
I hope this starts a trend and makes other sites see that paying for flash is a waste of money when ogg is a perfectly fine format that can easily replace flash. And you know what it works on my 64 bit linux computer. Adobe still has made a native 64 bit flash player for linux. I think that is ridiculous. You want something to be a defacto standard but yet you are cutting out versions. Doesn't make any sense. I get native 64 bit format with ogg.
video format on the web sucks and needs to be addressed.
Kaltura has an amazing video technology stack. Later this week MindTouch will also be making an announcement about our latest product release and it includes news involving Kaltura too. :-)
And of course, you can import, edit and encode ogg/theora with the Free Software tool LiVES (http://lives.sourceforge.net).
In fact, LiVES has supported ogg/theora format for over 3 years now, and the latest versions feature instant import of ogg/theora video !
suezz and marc
the problem is 2 fold - the layers of content that is in video and video makers often have licensing rights and contractual obligations themselves in their videos.
By someone uploading to wikipedia and giving rights to it...does not say they are giving rights to be used across the board separately... to be able to edit the video that they have delivered can have huge ramifications
thus people who don't understand an industry that has been around, evolving (correctly or incorrectly) now has ramifications that trickle down and up if someone down the chain of usage is suddenly changing those.
Licensing goes back through the videos. The more ways you are opening up to the public to do that...the more you are calling for forced legal ramifications by the base level content and work that was used to create it.
it is a can of worms and they are doing it backward.
bottom line is video is not a song...or a photo... it can have every type of performance and work included in it... the licensing is much much much more complicated. as it should be if you open up tweaking that
we have already started changing how we look at licensing for these kind of issues but for people who came before who already uploaded stuff... it may get very messy...and even more inhospitable to actually do the work
that's all I am saying but if the majority wants that go for it... corporate america or living room videos part time or high schoolers and college students will be the only ones making products
sorry but I am really tired of people who don't have any knowledge of legacy and details of contractual &signatory agreements that went into films/tv that effect distribution, broadcast, credentials, and exhibition... arguing about giving them away or changing the exhibition.
It's like listening to comments from another world, when Moller says you can't interact with a Flash video, or that you can't edit Flash video without spending on tooling, and "can't rebroadcast" (whatever that means). Bizarre.
If you can accomplish something new and useful, that's wonderful, we'll all be better off. But to misunderstand and mischaracterize what others have already offered... that's just plain weird.
jd/adobe
OMG!!!
Please some guy on free Software develop a free- use player now... it is not so complicated... let's revo' de internet !!!!
I don't trust Wiki with this
I suggested that Wikipedia use my company's web-based video editing / publishing / hosting software for no charge around three years ago. I suggested it was the ideal way to make free video content - but this turned out rather controversial. Some powerful people needed the tools to be free (as in speech, not as in beer), not just the output videos, in order to meet WPs wider aims. Some WP fanatics tried (unsuccessfully) to have me banned for making this offer!
I suggested that if they wanted software to be free (as in speech), they could buy it from me and then give it away themselves, but economics and idealism got in the way at the time.
You can see some of my home videos on http://clesh.com/ as well as on Wikipedia. All the ones on Wikipedia are free (as in speech - you can do what you like with them). The ones on Clesh are free to watch (as in beer), but I can remove them at any time and you cannot legally re-use them without my permission.
The writer dl is clearly knowledgeable in this area. One broadcaster I know says they have 1000 people involved in some way in each TV programme they make - not just writers / producers / directors / editors but also lawyers / actors / agents / loggers / researchers as well as HR people / accountants etc.
Making good quality video is very expensive, both in time and effort. The price of the editing tools is small in comparison - though the cost of inefficient tools in wasted effort is huge. I'm sure that the open source editing tools will end up good - in the way that Linux is. Reliable but for computer experts.
@Stephen: Clesh couldn't detect my sound setup, hence no sound. Video playback was more stuttery/hesitant than Flash video, which I'm no great fan of. Perhaps Clesh was passed over because it has some problems, at least on certain platforms? A goal of Wikipedia, from what I understand, is to make content available to the largest number of platforms. I appreciate what you're trying to accomplish and wish you all forward progress, but Clesh doesn't seem to be quite ready for Prime Time, at least on my platform. Ogg works just swell in my preferred video plugin for Firefox.
@dl: If you knew anything about Wikipedia, you'd know that every bit of content hosted is Creative Commons-licensed, no exceptions. There are no "layers," everything was either Public Domain beforehand, covered by Fair Usage law, or sourced, and licensed by, the contributor. So, no need for the hysterics about folks stealing content. Everything posted there is meant to be used freely by end users. Full stop. Now, read below...
A shocking revelation: as a content creater myself (graphic arts, music, video), the biggest thieves around, I feel, are my fellow "professional" content creators (print publishers, TV & radio station ad/program managers), who don't seem to be bothered the least about lifting a bit of my artistic output if it enhances their newspaper, radio or TV ad/project. I very seldom have problems with Joe Sixpack out there illegally making use of my content. It's almost always my fellow "pros" who seem to have no moral dilemmas about "borrowing" a bit of my soundtrack or video clip or photo or illustration to use in a commercial project. And yes, I've had to lower the hammer on more than one of 'em over the years. Never had to take Joe Sixpack to court, however. Ever.
So, let's not hear any more of this nonsense about Everyman being able to download and edit content. At least Everyman won't be running your soundtrack music illegally in a commercial airing on a TV station broadcasting to 4 million people, and making a pretty penny off it.
@Tony. Thanks for your feedback. A handful of systems don't play back sound out-of-the-box with Java applets. If you log into Clesh, you can ask on the Clesh Support chat room how to fix this on your machine.
Clesh is an editing system that happens to include some hosting and streaming for convenience. You can publish video at any bandwidth, and if the internet speed cannot keep up, it responds by preserving continuous audio playback with no pauses and as high a video frame rate as it can - keeping the frame quality consistent. Personally, I find the player stopping to catch up and then restarting - over and over again - much more annoying, especially if the video quality disintegrates to incomprehensible every time the video gets hard. Of course, you can export any format from Clesh if you prefer stop-start or download-first.
The Showreel shows some of the Clesh editing features. Obviously, features such as audio levels, video levels, saturation and white balance are not obvious on the finished version, but you certainly notice them if they are absent!
When using the Pro version you should have no problem getting full frame rate while editing. Once edited, you can always output as flash or as a podcast if you prefer. My own podcast is at http://pro.forscene.net/ss1/ipod.rss - after editing at 30fps in my web browser, this plays back at 30fps on my mobile phone.
There is a free version to try out - and that was the fundamental WP problem. Free to them means not only that it doesn't cost any money, but that there are essentially no restrictions on use, modification and re-publication. The issue was that if a brilliant free (as in beer) solution was provided, there would be no incentive to write a free (as in speech) version. They would rather have no solution for as long as it takes in order to create a gap to be filled by a free (as in speech) version.
The hidden cost is all the lost free (as in speech) videos that could have been made over the last three years, and the fact that they may never get an efficient editing system at all, wasting hours of volunteer video editor time. WP editor time is a scarce resource - all the time spent editing WP is less than the time spent in the US in one weekend watching ads.
In practice, WP are happy to pay for hardware, but not for software. But at least, as someone above has pointed out, WP doesn't allow piracy, instead encouraging the creation of free content.
This issue is too important so I can't let comments like the one above fromTony go...
Tony you obviously have no understanding whatsoever of how complicated usage rights can be with filmmaking and that the simplicity and newness and pace of change with distribution makes the Creative Commons issue complicated...and the more you give editing within a site...the more complicated the legacy of earlier uploaded content is. Filmmakers who were trying to do the right thing uploading video to share... have usage rights all over the place. Yes LAYERS dude. Do you understand about clearances of faces...images, sounds... etc work. Do you understand that details for exhibition in those clearances can be nuanced.
Fair use should cover those...but unfortunately there are people who after they give that clearance "bring down the hammer" (in many cases as they should). Those clearances and permissions and union signatory contracts are overwhelmingly complicated on exhibition outside what they deemed as fair use) and your statements show you do not understand that the Creative Commons license is not perfect yet... a documentary filmmaker who thought they were doing the right thing by sharing information (without consulting with a lawyer)that did not understand that creative Commons does not cover all the details of the original deal with it sounds like someone potentially like yourself who has to "bring the hammer down on them"
ugh
This is a can of worms...and Tony you are either independently wealthy, safely backed by corporate sponsorship or something else but clearly you have never labored on a complicated project like a feature film or television show without studio backing. and I am also no longer in that category ...but I am surrounded by them on a daily basis.
"the Ogg format also consumes significantly fewer resources during video playback."
Pure Mozilla brainswashing. FF's implementation of vorbis is a VERY high CPU consummer. The worst situation is when you have ultiple videos visible in the display area, it consumes a lot of CPU even if the video is not playing.
Even when there's only one video that is playing, it's about the same that Flash, while Flash still isn't capable of hardware acceleration. But if it's done correctly with flash player 10, it will be much, much faster.
Another thing : Quicktime requires about 2 to 3 times less CPU for a video than Flash and Firefox, even without hardware acceleration on OS X (where flash is soooo bad, but Quicktime is very fine while it's not on Windows).
Anyway, Ogg is a good solution for Wikipedia. There are good reasons for them to use it so there's no need to reuse Mozilla's propaganda.
Thats very good to see videos in such a format
Forscene is out of this world! Too bad for those who can't even comprehend it's capabilities and simplicity in use as a video editing platform that lives in your browser.. And most of all too bad for Wikipedia. This usually happens with bigger companies, they are too fat to stay on the edge... takes them some time to catch up with the fast runners.
Shower Enclosures, Shower Room, Steam Room
Nice move Wikipedia. Even if this service was supported about 1 year ago, adding a video file was a little bit difficult for non technical users. And the file size was limited to 20mb only. Video was the only thing missing on the website so this is a very expected move. See this article for a detailed view of this new feature: http://www.thehdstandard.com/video-broadcasting-news/video-streaming-on-wikipedia/
Catalin
Professional Streaming Consultant