The Joost look and feel is being widely copied by others, even before the company officially launches.
Last week the second Joost look-alike popped up: DNAStream. Like the first Joost clone, created by Paul Yanez, it basically appropriates the Joost look and feel and presents it in a web browser through a Flash interface (Joost itself is available only as a download). Unlike Yanez’s version, DNAStream is presenting itself as a business and doesn’t talk about Joost at all. DNAStream is shown above on the right, next to Joost.
These copycats put Joost in a difficult position. The last thing they want to do is end up in a legal tangle. Most startups shy away from litigation anyway, but Joost may want to avoid lawsuits even more than usual - Founders Niklas Zennström and Janus Friis have gone through litigation hell because of Kazaa, the P2P file sharing service they created before Skype.
Will Joost eventually take steps to shut down copycat sites? DNAStream is probably just different enough to avoid a lawsuit (although there is lots of infringing content on the site that will catch the eye of copyright holders). Yanez’s site, which is a duplicate look and feel to Joost and clearly violates Joost trademarks as well as copyrights, remains up after being live for over a month (and he’s also created Babelgum and AppleTV look-alikes). Given the very positive reception it has received from bloggers and others, Joost may want to find a quiet way to eventually shut it down.
See all
Post
I can tell you dont like dnastream too much, just by the photo.
While joost gets a beautiful looking female, poor dnastream get a ghetto.
All DNAStream is getting videos only from YouTube and other sites not from major channels, they may look like Joost they are way off from it. But if Joost has more programs they promised before, they don’t have to worry, it seems they are lagging behind.
How many Bridezilla episodes can you watch? Joost needs to worry about content, not interface.
The usability is very important but content is king!
Joost’s biggest downfall has always been that you have to download it. DNAStream is the best thing that ever happened for Joost - hopefully it will get them cracking on a web-based version. Now that would be sweet.
Who is coming up with these names? What does DNA have to do with watching videos? Hulu, Cuill, DNAStream. Horrible picks.
So let me get this straight. Someone makes a new site to look like an exisiting site and that makes them ‘ clearly guilty of copyright infringement” ? Even with a different user interface? Even if one has to be downloaded and the other not?
If that’s the case Mike, you surely were not the first to use the Word Press Blog and you are guilty of infringing on someone. Hell, every WP user is guilty of copyright infringement. I’m sure you looked at other WP blogs before launching TC. Gimme a break will ya!
Don’t agree at all.
These services are nothing similar and they don’t even look similar.
agree w #5 about time btw DNA has a fxy lady introducing the service too (nt that i care
They have to take necessary lawful actions otherwise their website going to suffer.
I agree with @5 as well. There is no way you can stop copycats cropping up. Yeh, DNAstream could probably be the best thing happening for Joost.
If you try both services then you will know why Joost is not going to sue these guys. Although they have a similar interface, the quality of the content is very very different. I have a 40 something inch monitor that I use with my laptop (where I downloaded Joost client). The Joost content is honestly almost better than satellite. DNAstream is ok, but you can clearly tell this is some web content and if I play it on the same monitor the images a not clear at all.
I noticed this too, I tried bablegum too, but it was very buggy. The flash interface is also a lot more processor intensive ( as it requires a lot more blurring to make the quality seem ok).
The one thing that annoys me about Joost is the adverts in-between small content, say music videos. They need to figure out a better way of dishing ads which isn’t so intrusive, and isn’t based on the end of clips. (like say every 20min). Otherwise joost is fantastic.
just check out this website you will get free Rapidshare Premium Accounts for 6 months -http://topmostreviews.wordpress.com
This is what happens if you take risk and ask for VCs. Any self-funded startups will dare to copy and create better product. What can you do with Copyright protection?
If you use VC money to sue copycats… You still lose money too. you have pay attorney fees, document fees, and other fees.
I feel soo bad for Joost. They took all Vc money. Now, Joost product is full of crap. Joost just killed the hype, founder’s frame, and future IPO. I don’t think Joost will make into market.
Youtube wins.
A question for Mr. Arrington, are you a lawyer to make such claims?
“Yanez’s site, which is a duplicate look and feel to Joost and clearly violates Joost trademarks as well as copyrights”
Using your comments they should sue and would win easily correct?
Do you have ownership in Joost?
Confused how you can convict people so easily in your blog.
I wonder if Joost goes to court and loses, can they sue you since they can use your advice? or can Yanez’s lawyers sue you for liable?
JUST MY OPINION and thoughts.
Wonder if the copycats will be able to duplicate the New UI in flash that is supposedly coming to Joost next week .
http://www.joost.com/blog/2007.....st-upgrade!.html
Atually, Joost sucks ! Poor VC’s..oh well…VC money is usually for lazy people anyway. Saves all the work. LMAO
A question for Mr. Arrington, are you a lawyer to make such claims?
Actually Mike is a lawyer
VC always lie to young entrepenurers.
Some countries don’t accept U.S currency. I have no idea how long is tranfer million dollar another country. Have you ever tried to transfer U.S dollar to Germany dollar or overseas dollars?
Geeze. Fu*king banks reject world currecy. I don’t think life is about money. Life is about how you built product that can change the world.
I guess I should of read the about us section first
I spent a few years as a corporate attorney at O’Melveny & Myers and Wilson Sonsini, working exclusively with technology companies. My clients included idealab, Netscape, Pixar, Apple and a bunch of startups, venture funds and investment banks
Just when I read lawyer crap you always see “alleged” cause are you not innocent until proven guilty? Or a opinion statement like “To me it seems like a clear case of copyright”
Or am I just wrong?
how is the user interface of dnastream a copy-cat?
because it uses transparent windows? hardly unique to joost.
because the windows are on the four sides of the screen? where else would you put controls for a TV? in the middle of the screen?!
maybe you’re referring to the right-pointing arrow to represent play.
i find that labeling any site that has a similar concept to joost a ‘copycat’ is a disservice to tech startups everywhere. what if one of these sites began before joost? would you rework all your joost posts to read ‘joost, a copycat of site xyz’? IPTV is a broad field and there should be many players.
Plus the implication that Joost has some moral or legal standing to ’shutdown’ a site because of a similar user interface is the same draconian thinking that gave us the DMCA. If there is some copyright infringement on UI elements, hopefully Joost would alert them to the fact and they would make a change. No lawyers needed.
Not to avoid this topic but I have a much bigger question to pose to this community: Do you all really think that Joost is going to be successful? Does anyone feel the need to invest the time, download the client and wait for them to get it right?
I, for one, do not care about Joost. Call me crazy but my head is already spinning with the web currently.
If Joost use Lawyer to sue copyright holders.
1. They will waste time and not getting innovation work done.
2. They still lose money in court and other legal fees.
3. They will lose IPO marketshares if they planning to sue copyright violators
4. They will lose their patient and employees
5. They will lose company reputation, success and frame.
Joost might have hardtime repay back to VC investor and getting extra VC rounds.
Joost need to create something like TV box or DirectTV.
This is reason why Joost can’t sue…
http://www.alexa.com/data/deta.....Fjoost.com
Come on man… It’s not startup that kill joost.
Who killing Joost? –> Founder
Who create media hype? –> Founder
Who is blame? –> Founder
Who created Joost? —> Founder
What did Joost founder spend? Nothing.
I think founder of Joost should’ve gone back and did FLASH instead of download program.
who cares they all suck
tv should be broadcast on the web
trading tennis is a great blog
visit before the us open
Uh, the only similarity between the two is that their controls are on a “smoked glass” panel. Can’t wait till you sue Technorati for using the same green that links to the TechCrunch forum.
As others have pointed out, Joosts problem is content, not U/I. It’s all boring crap. Unless they change that, some competitor will swallow them - even if they go for a Win3.1 looking interface.
What’s killing hype ?
Wasting Time and talking to media — Like Powerset.
Hmmm, have you ever used full screen quicktime? It had that sort of interface long before Joost.
This is a joke right? A video player with a picture in the background…. this is intellectual property?
Showing a video at full screen with video controls is not something owned by joost!
How about some informed analysis instead of off the cuff opinions?
Twenty years of software lawsuits has shown you can’t sue for similar user interface designs. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation proved it decisively in 1994. Unless Joost has received patents on their UI controls (which I doubt), they are out of luck.
As for trademarks, since the other services aren’t using the Joost mark to advertise their service, I don’t see that angle either.
All the talk of flash versus download is missing a key point…
The flash based solutions are NOT p2p, meaning they suffer from download costs… maybe in the day of youtube being bought for $1.6B means losing money because of bandwidth is ok, but I think the Joost’ers think differently…
Remember, this is round 3 of there p2p startups (kazaa, skype, now joost). Their bandwidth cost is pretty darn close to zero because every Joost player is also a server.
I agree with Ali - We need more Hot Chicks on the Net!!
Bring on da Bootylicious Babes!!
;PPP
I Hope + Pray there will be some Web3.0 Hotties @ TechCrunch 40 + not just a bunch o boring Nerds + Money Dudes in Suits*
Not having watched Joost, I don’t know what their content is like, but they wouldn’t have to do much with their upcoming Flash ui to improve on DNA’s offering. I have a 4Mbs cable connection and DNA was jerky (buffering) and blurred and none of the links or controls worked for me, though the audio was fine. Why waste money suing them when they can blow them out of the water with content and clarity? I imagine Joost’s developers will be going through their code with a fine tooth comb now though, whereas if these competitors hadn’t come on the scene Joost may not have had the incentive to do better. Only time will tell if they have taken notice and worked on code and not lawyers.
Oh, and Ali and Billy, go back to your webcams and stop bothering the grown-ups.
There’s IPTV that is 100 times better than Joost…. Microsoft. They are working IPTV for internet explorer for free.
Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, Google might make IPTV browser for free. Google brought Maxthon. They were planning to release IPTV browers for free.
I bet three years… Apple is still working secret IPTV browser.
Here’s company. I think they will make free IPTV browser and to increase internet users.
Yahoo
ASK!
Google
Microsoft
Amazon
Apple
Dell (also)
maybe skype
maybe facebook
There’s IPTV mashup. you and draw picture on newsachor face or draw football prints.
Dominic #7 - you quote me inaccurately and then trash me based on the quote. well done.
#16 - Tony - the Yanez site is literally and admittedly a copy of joost, so i don’t see your point (other than random trolling).
BR - actually, the Yanez site IS using the Joost trademarks. Did any of you actually click on the site?
Joost? Never heard of it. Now! MS Livestation, yeah baby! That’s where it’s at!
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
DNAstream looks like a fullscreen youtube to me, nothing special until h264 becomes more popular.
Joost will only make money off viewers and they can only succeed if they can get unique content. DNAstream and clones can make money selling/leasing the player to other websites as well as building viewership on their own sites.
DNAstream seems less risky but wont become the next youtube.
Where is this joost trademark stuff? I dont see it.
to 41…
if it’s about making money, I doubt youtube is even breaking even yet because of the bandwidth expense.
joost on the other hand has literally no bandwidth expense at all, or server hardware, datacenter, etc. so rather than loosing money and waiting for the ad revenue to exceed bandwidth costs (which even the biggest video site in the world has not figured out yet), joost will be making money and hence can stay in for the long haul
@ Beng Joost does have data-centers and servers but of course they need as many of them as a traditional centralised system .The current data centers are in Luxembourg ,London and Los Angeles and expanding as the network grows worldwide .
Colm Maccargaith, Joosts Network Architect ,explains Joosts network in this video
http://www.scaryideas.com/video/2362/
This video also explains why they need a client .
Dirk van Gulick Joosts CTO calls Joost a TV Browser .
of course they have data centers, but nothing compared to what they would have if they were serving every single video like youtube
The Joost product is not really that innovative. A Flash Interface with WMV video I mean please. It is not really a breakthrough in TV on the Internet. — It is a bit like the millions of Kontiki clones out there from Sky, Virgin and the BBC. And the 2nd rate content that Joost displays on their service is never gonna be enough to compete with Cable TV, Torrent or youtube.
I have great respect for both Kazaah and Skype which I belive is great innovative ideas but I think the Joost product is flat, boring and a disappointment if not a slight embarressment on the otherwise great reputation of the two founders.
I would like to comment something related to this:
-DNAstream didn’t copy Joost at all. We worked in parallel and we first saw two weeks before we launch our site on May 31st in Spain. We were working on this since January. Try to do a full screen TV interface with a black background and check if it “breathes” like Joost.
-DNAstream.tv is much more than a “Joost like” interface. We have a recommendation algorithm behind that let users receive the kind of content they like more depending on their own rating.
It’s the content, stupid!
Content, content and content. The Flash interface is definitely better, needs improvements, but still…
I need an invite to Joost.
E-mail: jippiepost (at) hotmail.com