Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube To Pay For User-Generated Content

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the sharing-it dept.

Google 128

An anonymous reader writes "Speaking at the World Economic Forum, YouTube CEO Chad Hurley has revealed that the company plans to financially compensate users who produce and upload their content. With Google's purchase of YouTube last year, followed by more aggressive attempts to monetize the site (such as the deal struck with Verizon Wireless), it was inevitable that YouTube would come under pressure to share some of those fruits with ordinary users. But why didn't YouTube pay its users from the start? Hurley said: 'We didn't want to build a system that was motivated by monetary reward. We wanted to really build a true community around video. When you start out with giving money to people from day one, the people you do attract will just switch to the next provider who's paying more. We're at a scale now that we feel we can do that and still have a true community around video.'"

cancel ×

128 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Old "Home Made" Videos (5, Funny)

Mysteerie (972719) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784324)

Time to start uploading those old home made videos of the ex-girlfriend (that is if they are paying on a per view basis).

Re:Old "Home Made" Videos (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784494)

If they are pay per view don't forget to link them here for the Slashdot effect. Imagine sysadmins can have some fun with crontabs set to download their videos during slack time. Won't be long till the botnet owners figure this one out too. Need I continue? Nah, will leave it to you to Digg something up.

Re:Old "Home Made" Videos (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786840)

Hopefully it will actually be on the lines of pay per click on associated advertisements. Make the advertisements googles or something and you can leave it up to google to detect the bots, they already have to do this now. YouTube would then just act as a broker and take out their large chunk.

Re:Old "Home Made" Videos (1)

Orozco (639667) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784518)

this is /. therefore you are a virgin There you go, cp.tar :D

Re:Old "Home Made" Videos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784800)

Your ex-girlfriend?

You mean you switched hands, right?

Re:Old "Home Made" Videos (1)

spectro (80839) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785082)

Done already, just google "porn tube"

Re:Old "Home Made" Videos (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786882)

Dude, that site is for gay porn (literally). He explicitly said "girlfriend", so he wouldn't fit in there.

Re:Old "Home Made" Videos (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785266)

I can see it now down at the casting counch: "Great idea baby, only, make the boy a girl, make her pregnant, divorce the parents, give the dog incurable cancer and change the setting to Marin County"

So... (4, Insightful)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784330)

What is to stop the other "communities built around video" from doing the same and turning the thing into the "who'll pay more" type war they say they wanted to avoid?

It's an interesting move (I can't wait for the first "so now they'll pay me for my home pr0n" posts and the "this is /. therefore you are a virgin" replies), but if anyone else decides to pay their uploaders, how different is it going to be?

Well, paint me green and mod me Redundant (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784354)

... for the First Poster managed to do just the thing I... hmmm... postdicted. (Can't call it a prediction anymore, can I?)

Re:So... (5, Insightful)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784678)

What is to stop the other "communities built around video" from doing the same and turning the thing into the "who'll pay more" type war they say they wanted to avoid?
It's a matter of inertia and first-mover advantage. YouTube will have run away with the online video audience, much as eBay ran away with the auction marketplace more than 7 years ago.

Others might pay more for content but it won't change the fact that YouTube is where everyone visits.

By way of example, Yahoo! Auctions finally did away with fees a couple years ago. It did not suddenly catapult them to parity with eBay.

So long as YouTube doesn't do anything to endanger their organic draw (e.g. FaceBook's privacy gaffes, Friendster's performance issues), they are poised to hold onto their user base indefinitely.

Re:So... (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784752)

By way of example, Yahoo! Auctions finally did away with fees a couple years ago. It did not suddenly catapult them to parity with eBay.

Well, if YouTube is paying, and someone else is paying more, Yahoo! would have had to not only do away with fees, but start paying people to use it.

But since other such sites exist, this is just nitpicking. ;)

Re:For the time being... (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786450)


A big part of what made Youtube of interest was the fact that the videos were ORIGINAL, made without undue influence, absent the taint that money brings with it. I hope they at least have the courtesy to display an icon next to paid content- I won't be watching a single one of them. I see this as the start of a downward slide - If I want paid content, I'll watch TV or go to a movie.

Re:So... (1)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784686)

There's nothing to stop other sites from doing the same thing, in fact there already are other sites that do the same thing, i.e. Revver. The reason it won't turn into a war of "who will pay more" is the same reason that these sites have already not supplanted Youtube: market share, Youtube has far and away the most viewers of any video site.

Re:So... (1)

bitt3n (941736) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784964)

What is to stop the other "communities built around video" from doing the same and turning the thing into the "who'll pay more" type war they say they wanted to avoid?
apparently the answer hinges upon the web 2.0 definition of community, which appears to be "a group of mouth-breathing schmucks who will patronize your service out of inertia, even though they could get better money elsewhere."

Re:So... (1)

c_forq (924234) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785940)

even though they could get better money elsewhere

I could get a lot more money if I worked in Wyoming, but you won't find me doing that anytime soon. The community in question is actually a combination of established content and established links. If you want to get the people already on utube to switch to another site you have to have some sort of mechanism for them to keep their links to friends and subscription to producers, links to their favorite videos, and all of their videos - which isn't nearly as trivial as copying an address book and letting all of your contacts know your new e-mail address.

From Fascism to Democracy (0, Troll)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785178)

What is to stop the other "communities built around video" from doing the same and turning the thing into the "who'll pay more" type war they say they wanted to avoid?

Who cares? These communities were built on ideas of "democracy", yet haven't shared a single dime to the people actually doing the work. Taking the work of a million people and distributing the profits to a small group who control everything is not democracy, it's fascism.

Sharing the profits with the workers who actually create the content the people want to see is ultimately a good thing. If a fight breaks out over who gets paid more, then that's a better thing.

It'll mean true democracy is actually working for once with these websites instead of the current fascism labeled as democracy.

Re:From Fascism to Democracy (1)

rm69990 (885744) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786012)

Please explain how exactly Youtube is "fascist", a word that is thrown around by people who don't actually know what it means almost as much as words like FUD.

Bad/Evil/Greedy != Fascist

In-fact, what you have said sounds more like Saddam Huessin to me, who was definitely not fascist.

Re:From Fascism to Democracy (1)

Vicissidude (878310) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786324)

The system of government that takes the work of millions and allocates all profits to a small, centralized minority is not democracy. It is not even communism. The best comparison on an economic level is fascism, or even better, fascism's base authoritarianism.

The central control having complete power in this example is the company itself. Youtube accepts content generated and submitted by a huge community of regular people, assumes copyright ownership for itself, earns money based on that content, and never passes those profits to the community who created the content.

The company acts as dictator, setting the terms for what it will accept or not. If it doesn't like something, then it unilaterally removes that content, going against the idea of democratic rule.

In fact, this model is copied all over the net, from Youtube to Digg. This is done in the name of "democracy", but there is nothing democratic about this. Digg even goes a step further to suppressing opposition and criticism by removing content critical of Digg.

Re:So... (1)

ben there... (946946) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785924)

What is to stop the other "communities built around video" from doing the same and turning the thing into the "who'll pay more" type war they say they wanted to avoid?

It's an interesting move (I can't wait for the first "so now they'll pay me for my home pr0n" posts and the "this is /. therefore you are a virgin" replies), but if anyone else decides to pay their uploaders, how different is it going to be?
They already have. YouTube is not the first to pay for video uploads. Revver [revver.com] has been paying for uploads from the start, I believe. And really that's all I've ever heard about Revver: they'll pay you. Similar to what the summary says, it only ever attracted people who wanted to make money, not a real community.

User-generated? (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784334)

And they'll distinguish this reliably from copyright infringement how?

Re:User-generated? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784420)

Easy!

It will be shot with utter crap camcorders, have 30,000 special effect transisions and wipes from scene to scene, and the scenes will be less than 30 seconds long.

I.E. utter and total crap.

The indie film makers post their stuff as torrents elsewhere. Nobody wants to see what they created distributed as a incredibly horrid low bandwidth that youtube is.

Re:User-generated? (1)

shreevatsa (845645) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785022)

Yes, Youtube's quality is bad, and that of the user-generated content is worse. I guess that's why the title says that Youtube will pay for this. :-)

Re:User-generated? (1)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 7 years ago | (#17787050)

They will implement a Slashdot-like ranking system for the videos so we'll see many dupes and Piquepaille-submitted videos.

Re:User-generated? (1)

CUatTHEFINISH (970078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784572)

It's quite obvious to distinguish from copyrighted material to web cam material. I also would think Google is smart enough to figure out if content was copyrighted by a person that did not submit the video; they do have one of the best search engines after all.

Re:User-generated? (5, Interesting)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785014)

It's quite obvious to distinguish from copyrighted material to web cam material.

Webcam material is copyrighted too.

I also would think Google is smart enough to figure out if content was copyrighted by a person that did not submit the video

Lawyers often have a hard time figuring this out. I record (on my webcam, of which I currently have none) myself playing "This Land is Your Land." Ludlow denies that the copyright has lapsed. The version is one I learned from Jack Elliot (nobody does the original version anymore), but also happens to include variations from Pete and Arlo.

Who cares? Who doesn't? Who cares, but doesn't if they get a cut? Who cares, but doesn't if they get a cut, but don't actually deserve it?

And do I upload it, or does someone else? Whoever might own various copyrights on the subject material, the recording is mine. Maybe it isn't me, but they have my permission. It isn't about who made the content, but who has the right to distribute it. That could be anybody or nobody.

. . .they do have one of the best search engines after all.

Yes, but how many IP experts searching do they have?

Here is the classic way of figuring it out: upload it and see who, if anybody, complains, then call in the lawyers. In extreme cases perhaps even a jury. Juries are actually the closest thing we have to true assingers of IP rights.

KFG

P.S. (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785038)

Did I mention that Woody stole the tune from a Carter Family recording?

The water gets ever muddier.

KFG

Re:User-generated? (4, Informative)

kimvette (919543) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785782)

It's quite obvious to distinguish from copyrighted material to web cam material.
How so? Your post is automatically copyrighted since it was posted to an American site. I copied part of it (the statement above) in accordance with the Fair Use clause of Copyright Law. Do not confuse Copyright with professionalism. Hell, even that idiotic bigot Fred Phelps' material is copyrighted, even though he produces the most idiotic, incorrect, and unprofessional tripe on the planet on a daily basis.

Also: lassegg's material on youtube may have an amateurish feel, as does Kevin Smith's 1994 cult classic "Clerks" however their works are actually very well put together (given budget and time constraints), and although they may not have the slick, polished feel of a Disney or Dreamworks flick, the material is very enjoyable to watch and enables the underlying talent of those involved in those budget productions to shine through, despite the use of commodity, consumer-level equipment.

Again: Copyright != professional

Every written, audio, and video work produced in America is automatically protected by Copyright, unless it is explicitly disclaimed or is released into the public domain.

Re:User-generated? (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786804)

It's quite obvious to distinguish from copyrighted material to web cam material.

Really? I would say it's one of the hardest -- perhaps the hardest -- of the unsolved problems of the web today. Google can't possibly automate this completely, for the simple reason that by default, anything I create would be subject to copyright, but as the creator I can give up that right simply by declaring that I do so.

Google is so rich... (3, Interesting)

Kensai7 (1005287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784350)

Seems they need to new find ways to spend their fortunes...

Why don't they start working on their own OS to go head-to-head with Microsoft? If there is one company that can do it, Google Inc. is!

Re:Google is so rich... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784428)

Google should buy into Sun and repackage OpenSolaris as OpenGolaris and resurrect a kickin' laptop like this! [ebay.com]

Re:Google is so rich... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784728)

Who can take a sunrise
Sprinkle it in dew
Cover it in chocolate
and a miracle or two?

The googleman
The googleman can
The googleman can cause he mixes it with love and makes the world taste good

Who can take a rainbow
Wrap it is a sigh
Soak it in the sun
and make a strawberry lemon pie?

Children: The googleman?

Bill: The googleman
The googleman can
The googleman can cause he mixes it with love and makes the world taste good

Sergei Brin and Larry Page makes
Everything they bakes
Satisfying and delicious
Talk about your childhood wishes
You can even eat the dishes

Who can take tomorrow
Dip it in a deam
Seperate the sorrow
And collect up all the cream?

The googleman

Children:Sergei Brin and Larry Page can!

Bill: The googleman can cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good
And the world tastes good cause the googleman thinks it should

Re:Google is so rich... (1)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786634)

Google should do open source 3D CAD, using BRL-CAD as a foundation. There are millions of CAD users/companies locked into certain file formats and becoming a draftsman/designer is much more difficult than it used to be. No, wait, that was wrong. Attaining the skills currently thought necessary to be a draftsman is easy - it's the aptitude that is lost these days.

CAD software simplifies things up to the point where prospective drafters/designers need to be proficient with 5 or 6 different programs. At that point they become software specialists, not potential designers.

View fraud (3, Insightful)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784352)

Step 1: Upload bad/stupid/dumb/etc video
Step 2: Con people into viewing it
Step 3: Profit!

This is just asking for trouble.

Re:View fraud (1)

boingo82 (932244) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784424)

Sadly there's already a ton of this on YouTUBE, and money isn't even involved yet.

Re:View fraud (1)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784430)

Well, I guess they will check the ratings of a video as well...

Re:View fraud (2, Insightful)

nolife (233813) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784580)

I see the start of another round of self promotion for personal gain at the expense of everyone else.

MLM on Usenet, the "free not a scam" iPod deals, and now "pleZ view my video".

Effects on slashdot? We will all have to suffer through the almost on topic, almost related to the forum and some what mediocre comments that might add to the experience to the topic at hand from people would not normally post that low level of material but will now do it for the extra link exposure to their video.
This extra motivation to post dribble is just like the users that are trying to up their post count on blogs that prominently show your "member since date" and your "total post count" next to every post you make. Nothing like a person with 12864 posts in 6 months to a bargain deal blog or a fan site and 99% of them are 3 words or less.

Re:View fraud (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784624)

You are wrong
____
Check out my site [127.0.0.1] for free ring tones!

Re:View fraud (1)

CUatTHEFINISH (970078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784596)

Very true Tod. In fact, I think we need to bring out the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The same thing happened with Google Adsense. It's only a matter of time before they see that it's already happening with YouTube videos.

Re:View fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784908)

Exactly - and if youtube pays more money for popular videos than a clickfarm-attack costs, then youtube will look like the Digg frontpage in no time.

Re:View fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784732)

Doesn't matter. Even if you con idiots into watching a worthless video, those idiots still generate add revenue. Heck, anyone conned into watching a "bad/stupid/dump/etc" video is likely a prime target for advertisers.

Re:View fraud (1)

mattyrocks86 (881453) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785828)

sure you can con a few people into viewing your video, but if a video is actually interesting to enough people.. they will watch it.. and share the video with people they know, this is how videos on youtube get millions of views. you personally may dislike the videos, and you do not have to watch these videos, that is the joy of the internet. you select what you watch, not what big media shoves down your throat with radio/tv.

Re:View fraud (1)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786412)

Big media isn't shoving anything down anyones throat: You're willingly wolfing it down, just like with YouTube. Only big media makes an attempt to produce quality (and usually cancels it due to poor ratings).

Re:View fraud (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17786296)

Well said. Although all this new initiative does is add step 3, lol.

Don't suppose (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784386)

they got wind of any service that would pay for user content in the wind did they?

And they're not interested anymore? (1)

FunkeyMonk (1034108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784410)

Hurley said: 'We didn't want to build a system that was motivated by monetary reward. We wanted to really build a true community around video.'

And they're not interested in a "true community" anymore?
Pfft -- I checked out some other sites before that were offering money. I kept my videos on YouTube because I didn't want to monetize my own work!
So... will they pay me retroactively for my 60,000 views?

Re:And they're not interested anymore? (2, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784476)

I kept my videos on YouTube because I didn't want to monetize my own work!
They have software to monet-ize [ibiblio.org] videos? Cool!

Re:And they're not interested anymore? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785140)

I actually called for some modder to do that to Grand Prix Legends once. I'm tired of crappy not really photorealism in my games and would prefer good art. In fact one of the things I've always liked about GPL is the way the original graphics evoke good colored pencil work.

And just how frickin' cool would it be to drive a '67 F1 Ferrari around Spa-Monet?

I'm not sure I'm ready for Picasso or Dali coming at me at warp speed though. It's hard enough hitting your apexes clean without being sure where, or even what, they are.

KFG

Re:And they're not interested anymore? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785626)

I actually called for some modder to do that to Grand Prix Legends once. I'm tired of crappy not really photorealism in my games and would prefer good art. In fact one of the things I've always liked about GPL is the way the original graphics evoke good colored pencil work.

It's GPL, but they keep it proprietary? WTF?

Re:And they're not interested anymore? (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786320)

It's GPL, but they keep it proprietary? WTF?

It's very disconcerting when I move between GPL forums and GPL forums. I have to be very careful in defining what I'm talking about; especially in a GPL forum when I start talking about GPL, since a lot of people there aren't GPL aware.

KFG

Re:And they're not interested anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784948)

So... will they pay me retroactively for my 60,000 views?
of course they will. let's see 60,000 views that would come to..... 2 dollars canadian.

Let the lawsuits begin (4, Insightful)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784418)

Back when YouTube provided no profits to submitters, the original creators/sources/subjects of a video probably did not care if some fan/bystander copied and posted a video. As long as credit was given where credit was due, the original creator didn't care how it got posted. With pay-for-submissions, the original creator will care very much and object if someone posts their stuff and make money of their images. (We'll also see lawsuits over model releases -- selling a person's image for profit has its own legal complications)

And I'm sure there will be people of both malign and innocent intentions that will mine the web for videos, do some minimal mashup, intro, or clever titling and then submit them for fun-and-profit. In the time it takes one person to create, from scratch, a "good" video, someone else can copy, tweak, and flood YouTube with dozens or hundreds of copies of other peoples' videos.

I think its great and proper that YouTube should share the wealth with the creators of quality content. But I expect more than a few disputes over who created what.

Re:Let the lawsuits begin (1)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784988)

I suspect people will quickly learn how to watermark their work.

Anyone who hasn't is screwed.

Re:Let the lawsuits begin (1)

adpowers (153922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785166)

Exactly. I've uploaded a couple of videos, and at least one other person has uploaded a video of mine. My video is under a CC license, so I didn't mind, I just had to ask them to give attribution. However, if they start making money off of it, then I might start to get a little annoyed.

Re:Let the lawsuits begin (1)

skribe (26534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785376)

What CC license did you release it under? Non-commercial? I know video producers that have made several hundred thousand dollars by using CC-BY (by attribution) music and video in their works. All they did was drop in a credit. All perfectly legal.

CC-BY still has enough landmines (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785546)

I know video producers that have made several hundred thousand dollars by using CC-BY (by attribution) music and video in their works. All they did was drop in a credit. All perfectly legal.

Creative Commons Attribution License still has enough landmines in it to make commercial reuse a living h*ck. For instance, the owner of copyright in a CC-BY work can change the form of credit on future copies of others' derivative works. This is the very reason why CC-BY is not compatible with the GNU licenses. (See also discussion on wikisource-l [wikipedia.org] .)

Re:CC-BY still has enough landmines (1)

skribe (26534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786152)

It's not stopping producers from using the works and won't until a judge awards significant damages to the licensee. How many of them do you think can afford to sue?

Hello Spam (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784524)

Money changes everything. When you bring in money, you bring in the motivation to subvert the system by whatever means necessary to turn a buck.

Get ready to see your own videos reposted by others in their name. Of course, that's what "piracy" essentially is, so get ready to see the contenet industry filing a lot of lawsuits. Get ready to see the video recommendation system skewed to big-name media-backed "artists." Get ready to see annoying youtube links posted everywhere on the web.

Of course, there will probably be a lot more skillfully-produced and well thought-out material on youtube, too. But will it drown out the cool crazy stuff that's there now?

Not Money Motivated??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784536)

Ya right.

Sell outs! (4, Insightful)

nilbog (732352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784566)

I really liked the aspect of youtube that it was a level playing field for everyone - big and small. People generated content for the sake of generating content, or viral marketing campaigns (which I'm SOMETIMES okay with but are usually annoying). Now youtube is going to be a competition with people trying to generate crap that will get a lot of hits rather than good "for the sake of it" art.

Just like what happens to a lot of bands when they sell out and stop caring about the music...

Re:Sell outs! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784694)

"Just like what happens to a lot of bands when they sell out and stop caring about the music..."

Or, you know... try to expand their musical or artistic talent...

True, there is some "selling out" that is bad (especially when it's blatantly commercially influenced, and the end result just sucks), but face it: an occasional change every once in a while can be a good thing. I'm not talking about complete overhauls (ie. death metal to pop trash), but a mix-up every once in a while. In fact, some bands change so little over the years, I just can't stand to listen to their new stuff any more.

But then again, I've heard some radical departures from bands considered "sellouts" that sounded quite good. It all comes down to personal preference.

The real plan (2, Insightful)

luminate (318382) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784582)

1. Offer users a relatively tiny cut to boost traffic, hurt the competition and look generous/progressive at the same time.

2. Increase advertising to far more than make up for #1 ("The system would be rolled out in a couple of months, he said, and use a mixture of adverts, including short clips shown ahead of the actual film").

3. Profit!

Hmm. It actually looks like a pretty good plan...

Honesty (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784588)

"We didn't want to build a system that was motivated by monetary reward"

Umm, didn't want a system with monetary awards? That's why Youtube was sold for 1.3 billion and has ads?

Ohhh.. you meant didn't want monetary rewards for the users! i see.

oblig reference (0, Flamebait)

yule0 (1011067) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784592)

In Soviet Russia, youtube pays you!

Bad content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784594)

This will attract bad content too easily. There must be a point were growth stops (overpopulation, anyone? Artists/anything selling out, anyone?). These kinds of things are the plague of the world!

Metacafe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784652)

Wow, great idea! It sounds kind of like Metacafe [metacafe.com] .

AmericaFree.TV is doing this already... (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784676)

AmericaFree.TV offers a 50-50 advertising split to indy films as part of the IndyReels [indyreels.tv] program; the money is already going out to ePremier's [forbes.com] .

Of course, this is aimed at independent films, not just everyone's home video's.

shoot self in foot (1)

gsn (989808) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784698)

1) upload episodes of 24 and simpsons or any already heavily viewed video really
2) profit

or

1) upload some clip to youtube
2) have friendly neigborhood botnet controller set up fake views for share
3) profit

Seriously where is the revenue going to come from? They are already paying to license media content from the studios, now they are going to pay users who upload content. So how are they planning on making an actual profit? A five second ad before each clip? That will annoy most of us, and lead to some fun videos like anti-GM videos following GM commercial. Also I imagine a nasty suit from anyone who uploaded any popular video in the past because they helped build YouTube's popularity.

Copyright (1)

skinfitz (564041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784706)

...and, presumably you won't get paid if what you uploaded is copyright - as it should be and a great incentive to upload original content.

The 'community thing' is bullshit of course - I was only looking at metacafe the other day thinking wait... these guys will pay me for the views of my videos? Why am I using YouTube...?

If they didn't pay now, people would move to those who did - it's not about who pays most (yet - that will come in the future when people are used to being paid).

Re:Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784916)

This will be a huge advantage for TV studios trying to enforce thier copyrights. Now you can watch any major tv show on YouTube. If the uploaders start getting paid for this the studios then have a pretty strong case against them as well as their personal information YouTube has stored.

No huge loss though, the quality of those tv rips on YT is horrible.

Lookout for cheaters (4, Insightful)

geekd (14774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784718)

We did this at MP3.com back when it was the "real" MP3.com.

Lemme see if I remember correctly... We had a set amount of money to pay out each month. and we divided it based on some formula based on number of plays. Some of our top artists actually made a decent amount of money.

BUT.

We then had to have several people who's full time job was to catch cheaters. They used to tell me about all the various ways people would cheat. As you might imagine, people can get very ingenious when money is involved.

I'm sure a company like YouTube (google) has the staff to handle it, but my question is: is it worth the headaches? The points other posters brought up about copyright infringement and posting other people's videos are already a problem at YouTube. These are problems we didn't really have at MP3.com (our copyright infringement problems were us being stupid, not our users :) Paying users for plays is going to make these problems much worse.

--geekd

Re:Lookout for cheaters (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785380)

Some of our top artists actually made a decent amount of money.

I've still got a copy of Coffee & Pepto. I miss you guys. Why'ja go and get stupid?

. . .people can get very ingenious when money is involved.

And put far more effort into filching a dime than making a dollar. Won money is sweeter than earned money, but swindled money is the sweetest.

KFG

Re:Lookout for cheaters (1)

chrwei (771689) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785856)

google already has a system in place to catch cheaters for their ad buisness, the techniques are very similar.

I really doubt that they will make a paypal payment or somethign as soon as the upload happens, it is more likely be a quarterly check and only if the balance is above a certain amount, much like the click-through market. Pretty easy to figure out any copyright infringement in a couple months, and even better because to uplaod and be paid you would have to provide a mailing address. This alone will deter most infringement.

Re:Lookout for cheaters (1)

antek9 (305362) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786552)

I remember those days. I actually got a cheque mailed to me from MP3.COM once, it was something like 17 $. I couldn't really decide whether to frame it and hang it on a wall, or to go and cash it. It was the first money I ever made off of my music, so it had that special extra value to me.

But yeah, right, I don't remember any fuzz about someone uploading David Bowie tracks and claiming it as their own or something like that. Anyway, each and every track had to be screened in advance before going public, back then, right? Abuse like that would have been likely to be detected at that point, I guess.

Which might well be YouTube's and everybody's biggest fault these days: they will publish any video material nonetheless without delay and wait for someone to complain before they take down stuff. I know they expect to have some algorithms in place soon that are supposed to filter out copyrighted content, but I can't really see those not failing. There's just so many possibilities to just slightly modify some video.

Same as "paying" for Blood (1, Offtopic)

acro55 (969196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784772)

An interesting comparison is to consider why the red cross does not pay for blood "donations." We always hear the pitch to donate blood, but never let market forces solve the supply shortage. The red cross claims if they paid, then they would have all sorts of "undesirables" donating just to get the cash. Perhaps YouTube doesn't have to worry about quality control.

MP3.com Lives Again! (1)

neildiamond (610251) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784840)

Perhaps Google can actually afford to pay users this time around, but still. The former MP3.com CEO has shown little ability to actually turn a profit wiht any venture he touches. However, it is proof that Google will then go on to make their own version of Linux. Maybe they'll call it Gindows or Ginspire.

Re:MP3.com Lives Again! (1)

neildiamond (610251) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784852)

OH and to reply to my own comment. Does anyone else feel another Internet stock bubble coming? I can't wait.

Well... (1)

unkaggregate (855265) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784874)

Aside from the obvious popularity contest this will turn into with nothing of real interest to watch, I wonder what legal implications this will have for those of us who use downloading tools for You Tube. All the server sees is a video download, and it couldn't easily tell from the legitmate Flash Player or Video Downloader, right?

Also, as someone who actually wrote a program to crawl YouTube and download what it finds (in Perl no less), what legal implications does that have for me? Am I now a criminal for "falsibly generating views"?

And what about various tricks I've seen on other sites like this [newgrounds.com] where people just watch the first 2 seconds then exit out, knowing that that counts as a "view" and therefore inflates the view counter and enables the voting box?

Re:Well... (1)

y00tz (952744) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785044)

And what about various tricks I've seen on other sites like this where people just watch the first 2 seconds then exit out, knowing that that counts as a "view" and therefore inflates the view counter and enables the voting box?

Good point, I imagine if that was a serious concern, being written in Flash as it is, they could easily initialize and XX second boolean.

Bandwidth Costs (3, Interesting)

imuffin (196159) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784906)

I don't understand. Last year, the overwhelming consensus was that Youtube was losing phat sacks of cash everyday 'cuz their ad revenue couldn't possibly pay their bandwidth costs. And now they are making enough money to compensate uploaders for the privilege of hosting their videos? I'm sure their profit margin increased now that Google owns them so Youtube doesn't have to deal with a 3rd party ad agency, but does that really make that much of a difference to the bottom line? Or has bandwidth just gotten a lot cheaper? Or are they just looking to corner the market so that as bandwidth prices drop and Internet ads become more lucrative, they'll be in a position to profit?

Re:Bandwidth Costs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17784950)

all your bandwidth are belong to google

Re:Bandwidth Costs (2, Interesting)

LeDopore (898286) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786874)

I'm no 'net expert, but I've heard that bandwidth costs fall by about half every year. Ad revenue per view, on the other hand, should stay roughly constant (or it might go up if companies currently underestimate how much cash they could make by targeted video ads). In any case, as long as Google can automate the video hosting to a large degree, it's just a matter of time until ads will more than pay for bandwidth costs, and then the biggest company out there is going to be in a nice position.

18/20 (1)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784970)

18/20 of the top 20 videos are blatant copyright violations when I looked. There isn't much else down lower either.

It's gonna be funny as hell to watch the lawyers devour Google.

This is gonna really distract them from their core business of spying on everyone.

Re:18/20 (3, Insightful)

Kesh (65890) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785142)

Actually, there's a real easy way around this: if the profits don't go to the uploader, but to the copyright holder, then all those Simpsons clips won't earn Johnny Basement one penny, but Fox would be pretty happy.

Re:18/20 (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786726)

I have to say, this is the way to do it. But then, the YouTube folks would have to actually WATCH all the video on YouTube, and I think that's considered cruel and unusual and violates the Geneva Convention. Then they'd have to locate the copyright holder of the works in question. With the Simpsons, that's easy. With video of local Orlando band... How would you know it wasn't the uploader's stuff? (Assuming the description doesn't outright say so.)

Too late for some (3, Funny)

doroshjt (1044472) | more than 7 years ago | (#17784992)

If this was 5 years ago, the star wars kid would be rich beyond his wildest dreams.

Re:Too late for some (1)

Blue0ctane (968508) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786366)

Two words (or one, depending on how you look at it): Numa Numa.

I'll stick with Revver (1)

SnakeStu (60546) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785040)

Unless something significantly better comes along, I'm sticking with Revver. The pay has been decent so far for the relatively low effort I've put into it, and they have a history of respecting copyrights and rewarding creators, rather than a history of building audience by hosting copyright violations that ignore the rights of creators. Revver uses Creative Commons licensing, with some added terms to allow for appending an ad and supporting "affiliate" sharing. I can't imagine switching to YouTube, other than to create teasers that direct people over to my content on Revver.

Re:I'll stick with Revver (2, Interesting)

rh2600 (530311) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785916)

Likewise...

Revver (and others) have been doing this for a while, using their brains, not their brawn

All youtube did was allow users to steal my content from revver... but they did take it down, after I went through their notification progress...

Why didn't YouTube pay its users from the start (1)

popo (107611) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785070)

> "But why didn't YouTube pay its users from the start? "

Actually, this is a true story: they posted an ad on craigslist in their first months of business,
offering cute girls $100 to upload video blogs or videos of themselves and their friends.

Not one single girl responded.

There's a video on YouTube somewhere of the "early days" when the YouTube guys were discussing
this "plan". Its actually pretty funny.

Competition! (1)

Vewgle (947128) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785234)

They are doing this because they don't want to be outdone by the other (better) video sites that are paying and slowly but surely taking users away. (www.revver.com, www.metacafe.com just to name a few)

http://vewgle.com/ [vewgle.com] The video forum.

lack of understanding of real "community" (2, Interesting)

drDugan (219551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785330)

Whatever this man means by the word "community" - it is not what most humans understand it to be.

If you're paying some people to participate, they will not be there for community. In fact, having a mixed paid/volunteer crowd creates a situation where it is almost impossible to maintain community activities without significant hiding of information. Either you have a group who gives freely and members benefit from the giving, or you have people who are being paid to contribute and they run a cost/benefit in their head for their time to participate. You really can't have both simultaneously and keep the group together.

See a recent talk I gave on what a community really is http://tinyurl.com/22j9fy [tinyurl.com]

Re:lack of understanding of real "community" (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785456)

If you're paying some people to participate, they will not be there for community.

Ever see what happens to a mining town when the mine shuts down?

KFG

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17785738)

Natalie [youtube.com] is going to be rich.

Metacafe.com has been doing this... (1)

KeepQuiet (992584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17785946)

And it leads to old math tricks, computer 'hacks' being video taped, put online. It looks like content pollution to me.

A bone for the MPAA and ilk (2, Interesting)

skribe (26534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786578)

This also might be a way that they can fight the pending lawsuits by the studios. If you want to be paid for content you upload then YouTube will need certain details so they can pay you. They can then of course pass those details along to the relevant authorities if they come calling about a copyright violation. Let the uploader and the MPAA/studios slug it out.

So what about search engine payouts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17786592)

Will I now get paid whenever somebody uses Google to hit my websites? They make money off of indexing my user-generated non-commercial content.

Donating the YouTube sale proceeds to charity? (1)

BillGatesLoveChild (1046184) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786730)

> 'We didn't want to build a system that was motivated by monetary reward.'

He's talking about *you*. He was *very* motivated by monetary reward.

community my ass (1)

hyperstation (185147) | more than 7 years ago | (#17786858)

there's more community going on in a colony of retarded ants than on youtube. if anything, from cell phone videos of high school girls beating each other up to brazillian celebporn, youtube is a demonstration of how much true community has deteriorated since the advent of the internet. many would disagree, but i think that sites like myspace and youtube are doing more to regress society than to advance it, on the whole.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?