The world most popular video sharing site Youtube was hacked recently targeting a page of a popular singer.

The attack, exploiting a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the site’s comment section allowed hackers to partly control the Youtube page of Justin Bieber by flashing banner messages that suggested the singer had died in a car crash and also redirected users to porn sites.

Although the attack itself didn’t involve malware infections, it potentially put at risk YouTube cookies of users who visited a compromised page, but it couldn’t be used to access their Google accounts, Google said. As a precaution, Google suggested YouTube users should log out of their account and log back in again.

“Comments were temporarily hidden by default within an hour [of discovering the problem], and we released a complete fix for the issue in about two hours. We’re continuing to study the vulnerability to help prevent similar issues in the future,” a Google spokesman said.

A legal battle that has been going on for more than three years has finally come to an end. Viacom’s $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against Google’s video-sharing site YouTube has been dismissed by the court.

New York judge Judge Louis L. Stanton granted Google’s motion for summary judgement.“This is an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the web to communicate and share experiences with each other. We’re excited about this decision and look forward to renewing our focus on supporting the incredible variety of ideas and expression that billions of people post and watch on YouTube every day around the world,” wrote Kent Walker, Google vice president and general counsel, in an official blog post.

Read it here

YouTube has a new on-site editing feature that lets users manipulate the videos they upload. Video-makers can cut clips, join them together and add sound effects from Google’s AudioSwap library. The speed at which these features work can be effected by the user’s Internet connection bandwidth, but YouTube says it isn’t worried about the deluge of additional data that digital editing sometimes produces.

The application lets users merge clips into a longer video or edit down a video, among other things. Google said it will add new features based on user feedback.

The video editor is available on TestTube, which is a laboratory of sorts for YouTube.

About the YouTube Editor

Pakistan has blocked the popular video sharing website YouTube in a bid to contain “blasphemous” material, officials said on Thursday.

The blockade came hours after the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) directed Internet service providers to stop access to social network Facebook indefinitely on Wednesday because of an online competition to draw the Prophet Mohammad.

Wahaj-us-Siraj, the CEO of Nayatel, an Internet service provider, said PTA issued an order late on Wednesday seeking an “immediate” blockade of YouTube. “It was a serious instruction as they wanted us to do it quickly and let them know after that,” he said.

YouTube was also blocked in the Muslim country in 2007 for about a year for what it called un-Islamic videos. A PTA official, who declined to be identified, said the action was taken after the authority determined that some caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad were transferred from Facebook to YouTube.

Get full story

Google’s YouTube and the Universal Music Group, the world’s largest music label, are in advanced discussions over a licensing agreement that could lead to the creation of a premium site for music videos, according a person briefed on the talks.

The discussions remain fluid and the terms of the agreement, which could not be learned, are still being negotiated. A final deal could still be weeks away, and its terms may be different from those being discussed currently, the person said.

The proposed agreement represent the latest effort by YouTube, the online video service, to attract premium content that might lure higher-priced advertisements. Music videos are among the most popular content on YouTube, but they have failed to produce significant revenue for YouTube or the music labels.

YouTube declined to comment on the talks, but in an e-mail statement it said: “We are always working with our partners to find creative ways to connect music, musicians and fans.”

A spokesman for Universal Music Group, which is owned by Vivendi, could not be reached for comment.

All the major labels have tried to renegotiate licensing agreements with YouTube that were signed in 2006 and 2007.

Music companies have been disappointed with those agreements, which have included a small fee for every video watched and a share of the advertising revenue.

Recently, YouTube added buttons next to some of its videos that fans can click on to buy songs from iTunes or Amazon.com, with a portion of the revenue going to the music labels.

Sony Music Entertainment reached a new agreement with YouTube this year. But discussions with other labels, including Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and EMI, have dragged on.

In December, Warner Music Group removed its music videos from YouTube saying it “simply cannot accept terms that fail to appropriately and fairly compensate recording artists, songwriters, labels and publishers for the value they provide.”

The proposed agreement between YouTube and Universal Music Group is more sweeping than existing deals and could include the creation of a site that showcases not only music videos, but also other content related to musicians and bands, according to the person briefed on the discussions.

Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, alluded to the challenges in hammering out deals with the labels at an investor conference on Tuesday. He said the two sides had disagreed over “how to compensate the music industry for the use of their music in things which are promotional.” Mr. Schmidt said he did not know how the disagreement would be resolved. -NyTimes

A federal judge in New York has ordered Google to turn over to Viacom a database linking users of YouTube, the Web’s largest video site by far, with every clip they have watched there.

The order raised concerns among users and privacy advocates that the online video viewing habits of tens of millions of people could be exposed. But Google and Viacom said they were hoping to come up with a way to protect the anonymity of YouTube viewers.

Viacom said that the information would be safeguarded by a protective order restricting access to the data to outside advisers, who will use it solely to press Viacom’s $1 billion copyright suit against Google.

Still, the judge’s order, which was made public late Wednesday, renewed concerns among privacy advocates that Internet companies like Google are collecting unprecedented amounts of private information that could be misused or could unexpectedly fall into the hands of third parties.

For every video on YouTube, the judge required Google to turn over to Viacom the login name of every user who watched it, and the address of their computer, known as an I.P., or Internet protocol, address. Both companies have argued that such data cannot be used to unmask the identities of individual users with certainty. But in many cases, technology experts and others have been able to link I.P. addresses to individuals using records of their online activities.

Google and Viacom said they had had discussions about ways to ensure the data is further protected to assure anonymity.

“We are disappointed the court granted Viacom’s overreaching demand for viewing history,” Catherine Lacavera, Google’s senior litigation counsel, said in a statement. “We are asking Viacom to respect users’ privacy and allow us to anonymize the logs before producing them under the court’s order.”

Michael Fricklas, Viacom’s general counsel said: “We are investigating techniques, including anonymization, to enhance the security of information that will be produced.”

Mr. Fricklas added that Viacom would not have direct access to the information Google produces, and that its use would be strictly limited. Viacom would not, for example, be able to chase down users who illegally posted clips from “The Colbert Report” on YouTube.

“The information that is produced by Google is going to be limited to outside advisers who can use it solely for the purpose of enforcing our rights against YouTube and Google,” Mr. Fricklas said. “I can unequivocally state that we will not use any of this information to enforce rights against end users.”

In a letter sent Thursday, Google’s lawyers asked their counterparts at Viacom to agree to allow Google to remove information from the data that could potentially be used to identify individuals.

“We request that plaintiffs agree that YouTube may redact usernames and I.P. addresses from the viewing data in the interests of protecting user privacy,” wrote David H. Kramer, a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Viacom did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.

Privacy advocates said they welcomed Viacom’s commitment to using the information only for the purposes of the litigation, but they remained concerned about protecting user rights.

“Users should have the right to challenge and contest the production of this deeply private information,” said Kurt Opsahl, senior staff lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Such right is protected by law, he said.

Mr. Opsahl said that even records that did not include a user’s login name and I.P. address might be able to be associated with specific individuals. He said he believed the judge’s order violated the federal Video Privacy Protection Act.

Congress passed the law to protect the video rental records of individuals, after a newspaper disclosed the rental records of Robert H. Bork, then a Supreme Court nominee.

United States District Court Judge Louis L. Stanton, who is presiding over Viacom’s lawsuit against Google and YouTube, said that Google could “cite no authority barring them from disclosing such information in civil discovery proceedings, and their privacy concerns are speculative.” He said the information could help Viacom make its case.

“A markedly higher proportion of infringing-video watching may bear on plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim, and defendants’ substantial noninfringing use defense,” he wrote.-NyTimes

The JVC Everio GZ-MS100 features a unique one touch upload that makes it a breeze uploading your favorite moments to Youtube.

Features and Specifications

• Compact Slim Design
• One Touch Upload to YouTube™ on the internet
• Konica Minolta 35x optical Lens and 800x digital
• Records directly to a SD / SDHC memory card (card not included)
• 1 hour recording at the highest quality (Ultra-DVD Movie) with a 4GB SDHC memory card.
• 1/6-inch 680K pixel CCD
• Gigabrid Engine
• 2.7-inch 16:9 widescreen LCD

Price? Around $350

Via CrunchGear

New data released Wednesday show online views of videos soared 66 percent in the U.S. in February from a year earlier, with TV networks grabbing just a pittance of those eyeballs.

The numbers from comScore Inc. underscore a problem being discussed by network executives this week at the National Association of Broadcasters annual meeting in Las Vegas, as they search for ways to drive viewers to their Web sites and TV channels.

Some networks said their online strategies involve trying to stay ahead of video pirates who upload broadcast content online just minutes after it hits the airwaves.

The culprits often post the footage on Google Inc.’s YouTube, the dominant video service in the new survey.

YouTube racked up one-third of the estimated 10 billion views of online video in February, up from 15 percent last year, according to comScore.

“We still see our content pop up on YouTube,” CNN.com Executive Producer Sandy Malcolm said during the broadcasters meeting. CNN is a unit of Time Warner Inc.

“You deal with it,” she said. “You try to work with them on rights and things, but I don’t think you can completely stop it. You just try to beat the tide and try to get your content out as fast as you can.”

Excluding AOL.com, Time Warner sites including CNN.com grabbed just a 1.3 percent share of video views on the Internet in February, or roughly 133 million views, comScore reported.

Other TV-based entities remained back in the pack, with Walt Disney Co.’s ABC.com attracting 98 million views, or a 1 percent share.

Even as the YouTube juggernaut continued to attract more viewers, comScore analyst Andrew Lipsman said TV networks were fighting back.

He cited last month’s launch of Hulu.com, a video Web site that’s a joint venture of General Electric Co.’s NBC Universal and News Corp.

“It seems there’s a certain amount of attention and investment going online right now,” Lipsman said.

The move was necessary to adapt to “irreversible shifts” in the content delivery business, said Sheau Ng, NBC Universal’s vice president of broadcast and consumer technology.

“The point is to make legitimate content easily available,” Ng said. “At the same time, you need to tell the local police watch out for this counterfeit stuff.”

Hulu Chief Executive Jason Kilar said the joint venture was taking “an offensive approach” against rogue video traders such as users of the BitTorrent file-sharing system.

Hulu embeds video ads in its streams, which can be clipped, e-mailed and posted to other Web sites, all while the company continues to track viewership and maintain ad revenue.

“I don’t think piracy will ever be shut down,” Kilar said. “The best way to compete in that environment is to create something and embrace something like a Hulu.”

YouTube said it has made efforts to clamp down on pirated content and since October has offered content owners the chance to slap ads on even unlicensed video copies and share revenue.

“We’re happy to partner with any and all content creators to do with their content as they wish: monetize it, track it or pull it off the site,” YouTube spokesman Ricardo Reyes said. “We don’t want infringing content on YouTube.”

BBC, the government-mandated British broadcaster, said the rapid move to online viewing among young people was a potential threat to its fee-collecting structure.

In December, it launched its iPlayer, an online service that replays TV shows for a week. It has since had 42 million streams or downloads.

“Are our younger audiences drifting away from the TV as the centerpiece of their experience? Absolutely,” said BBC’s platforms executive, Troy, who uses only one name. “This is our next generation of license fee payers. If we don’t respond to the need to make ourselves relevant and accessible in new and convenient ways, we risk losing our relevance with the very people that fund us.”

Clyde Smith, senior vice president of global broadcast technology and standards at Time Warner’s Turner Broadcasting System, said online details and clips of shows can create incredible brand loyalty, even if some “sampling” occurs.

As an example, some fans have downloaded audio copies of popular TBS shows, re-enacted scenes with puppets and posted the shows back online — which he called “viral marketing.”

In other instances, fans have copied versions of programs like “Frisky Dingo” from its Adult Swim channel and reposted them elsewhere on the Internet, without regard to the royalty rights of the show creators or the associated advertising dollars involved.

“Quite frankly, we can’t afford to produce it and run it just one time and then have it distributed everywhere,” Smith said. “What are the risks the industry’s willing to take in the new media spaces? I think that’s what the industry is deciding right now.”-AP

Google has launched new digital “watermarking” technology on YouTube in an attempt to stop copyrighted movies and TV programmes from appearing on the popular online video service.Called YouTube Video Identification, the new technology has been in development for months with content partners including Time Warner and Disney.

Over six hours of video are uploaded onto YouTube every minute and since it was bought by Google last year for $1.65bn (£810m), the site has increasingly been targeted by media companies who accuse it of aiding people in breaching copyright.

Last March, Viacom, owner of Hollywood studios Paramount and DreamWorks, launched a $1bn lawsuit against YouTube for copyright infringement.

The new technology, launched in “beta test” form yesterday, allows media companies to send their content to Google so it can be digitally “fingerprinted” or “watermarked”, allowing them to control what happens if anyone tries to put all or part of it on YouTube.

Media companies can prevent clips from or an entire watermarked programme or movie from ever being uploaded to YouTube; or they can allow this content to be put on the site and track how many times it is watched; or allow their content to be uploaded by anyone and make money from it by using Google’s advertising platform to place adverts alongside it.

Google maintains that the technology goes well beyond its legal requirement for dealing with copyrighted material on YouTube.

Find your copyrighted clip

But the new technology will not deal with the estimated millions of clips of copyrighted material already on the website. Media companies will have to follow the traditional route of finding their copyrighted material and demanding YouTube remove it.

Google already watermarks copyrighted clips that media companies want removed so they cannot be uploaded by someone else. But that only works if someone attempts to upload the same clip. The new technology, however, watermarks an entire movie or TV programme so none of its can be put on the site without its legal owner’s knowledge.

Anyone trying to put this type of content on the site will see a warning message telling them the content’s owner has barred it from YouTube and telling them they can appeal the ruling if they feel the content is not subject to copyright.

“Only the rights owner can know whether their content is available online with their permission or not – no technology can replace this,” admitted a spokesman for YouTube. “But what technology can do is make it easier for rights owners to express their decisions about how their content is used online.”

“This is what we have built – a simpler way for rights owners to express their content policies. This means that rights owners who want to use and help us refine our video ID system will be providing the necessary information to help us identify their work, and what they want done when that recognition happens. We aim to make that process as convenient as possible.”-Guardian Unlimited