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 Share Revenue With 20-year-old Filmmaker

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the can-i-have-some-youtube-please dept.

The Almighty Buck 72

destinyland writes "YouTube just has signed a deal to share ad revenue with 20-year-old Brandon Fletcher. YouTube had already said they'd implement revenue sharing this summer, but this indicates they're willing to put their money where their mouth was. 10 Zen Monkeys has a funny chronicle of Brandon's enviable march to YouTube money. 9 weeks ago he flew to California to demand YouTube feature his video on their front page. A security guard refused to let him off the elevator — but he made crucial contacts which helped seal the deal 9 weeks later. Taking this business to the next level makes sense in the here and now, when some 70 percent of internet users are streaming video."

cancel ×

72 comments

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

Global figures? (3, Insightful)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 7 years ago | (#19625825)

70 percent of internet users are streaming video


No, this is just USSA users, not the whole Internet.

Re:Global figures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19626493)

No, this is just USSA users

USSA? Is that a weird way of spelling broadband?

Re:Global figures? (2, Funny)

Cal Paterson (881180) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626651)

It's probably a tongue in cheek reference about how similar the USA is to the USSR.

Re:Global figures? (1)

Choedius (82566) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632633)

It's probably a tongue in cheek reference about how similar the USA is to the USSR.

In USSA, cheek in tongue... you?

Sorry, that's the best I can do being a second born child and all.

Re:Global figures? (1)

igny (716218) | more than 7 years ago | (#19627687)

USSA, is it United Soviet States of America or United Socialist States of America?

OT: Your sig (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19628407)

You should at least give credit where credit is due. Your quotation is by Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut, not Yogi Berra.

Re:Global figures? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19631383)

United Shrub-loving States of America since the fucktarded USians love Shrub so much they chose to elect him twice to screw the rest of the world.

Re:Global figures? (1)

I(rispee_I(reme (310391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19631919)

Cue screed re: Bush was only elected once.

Re:Global figures? (1)

Jeremy_Bee (1064620) | more than 7 years ago | (#19628023)

In addition to being US only, if you read the New York Times article referenced, (hard to do since it's so poorly written), the "70%" of internet users stream video" claim should actually be "70% of internet users have accessed streaming video lately" i.e. - they have clicked on a link. These are not necessarily bleeding edge internet-video adopters. This is your grandmother clicking on a video link to a news story or teenagers swapping camera-mugging webcam videos.

There is also no backup for these claims, and no specifics on how the numbers are calculated except some indications on the comScore Inc. site (the source of the data), that point towards a simple packet sniffing operation. In other words, statements like "people are clicking on videos a lot lately" or "videos are really popular lately" are likely to be just as accurate and informative.

This is a good example of how a story evolves when it moves from one source to another. The comScore Inc. study is specific to types of data traffic on the net, but by the time it's in the New York Times it's "...the computer (is) well on its way toward total entertainment domination in the home." Then this general propensity for video consumption, and the feeling that "something is happening" with online video, is used to bolster the slashdot article.

What the heck is up with slashdot today anyway? First this, then at the top of the page this morning, a SLASHvertisement for a tablecloth? Has it really come to that? Articles about high-tech tablecloths?

What is this, Engadget or Giz?
Are we now going to see articles about how great the Zune is, or how evil Apple is?

Re:Global figures? (1)

Durf (866206) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632453)

Well, according to my email in-box, 70% of Internet users want to sell me \/1@gr@ . . .

YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (5, Insightful)

babbling (952366) | more than 7 years ago | (#19625839)

They're picking and choosing who they share revenue with as though the traffic they receive from some videos is worth more than the traffic they receive from other videos.

Google should implement this in the same way they do for Blogger. Just let people use their AdSense accounts on YouTube.

Re:YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19626159)

Some videos are better than others.

Re:YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (4, Interesting)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626179)

It is a bad way to do it.

The single main reason why is because the people with the most traffic on YouTube are also usually the people producing the worst actual content; they're populist attention seekers producing mindless drivel, purely for the sake of their own self-promotion.

There are people on YouTube producing material that is genuinely worthwhile, and that isn't purely superficial...but such people are never who you're going to see on the front page, and thus they also aren't the people who YouTube are going to pay. Thus, the erosion of the signal-to-noise ratio actually becomes a self-reinforcing negative spiral.

Re:YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (2, Informative)

destinyland (578448) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626235)

This story has YouTube's reponse to that [blorge.com] . YouTube originally said they'd wanted their users to be motivated by passion for sharing their videos -- and not for money. Now they're selectively offering the money as a way to "incubate" those projects that they think have potential.

Re:YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 7 years ago | (#19634033)

More likely google is just trying to get more users to post to you tube by offering revenue sharing as a carrot, goggle sharing revenue, I don't know why but the term micropayments immediately springs to mind, with a different connotation to the standard definition ;).

Re:YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (2, Funny)

ForumTroll (900233) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626271)

The single main reason why is because the people with the most traffic on YouTube are also usually the people producing the worst actual content; they're populist attention seekers producing mindless drivel, purely for the sake of their own self-promotion.
You couldn't have described the "20-year-old filmmaker" from this article any better... His show is basically a terrible MySpace version of Blind Date. Come to think of it, it's actually quite the feat since I was unaware that it was possible to make a show worse than Blind Date.

Re:YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (5, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626359)

What is a MySpace version of Blind Date like?

Is it just some eleven year old girl meeting some 48 year old gym teacher in a hotel room, followed by an hour of Nancy Grace talking about shutting down the internet to save the children?

Come to think of it, why in the hell would you date someone who uses myspace?! What could be a bigger and more consistent sign of being an attention whore? It should be an enormous warning flag to run the other way.

Re:YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (1)

toddian (997999) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626877)

mod parent up, true and funny

Re:YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#19627733)

Come to think of it, why in the hell would you date someone who uses myspace?!

A huge percentage of people under the age of 25 do now. You'd be a little lonely (although I doubt this affects most Slashdotters ;).

FWIW I met my last girlfriend over MySpace, and she wasn't an attention whore. She thought I was an arsehole though, hence why she's my "last" girlfriend...

Re:YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626561)

You couldn't have described the "20-year-old filmmaker" from this article any better...

I've had a YouTube account since last November, and have spent at least a certain amount of time watching the material that gets produced there.

Although there are a lot of people who, I believe, genuinely are motivated by a desire to be creative, there is also a particular group of individuals (the organisers of the "As One" events are actually the best example of this) who are motivated purely by a desire for popularity and whatever other social or material gains they can obtain for themselves, as a byproduct of said popularity.

The real problem is that the people who in fact are not genuine, can sometimes have at least a certain degree of ability at creating a convincing illusion that they are. It thus becomes difficult to seperate the fake populists from the genuinely creatively oriented.

Re:YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (1)

kubrick (27291) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626443)

Thus, the erosion of the signal-to-noise ratio actually becomes a self-reinforcing negative spiral.

Sounds like a reflection of wider popular culture to me. It's certainly nothing peculiar to YouTube.

Re:YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19626767)

"populist attention seekers producing mindless drivel, purely for the sake of their own self-promotion."

That pretty much sums up every media market since fire was invented.

Stupidest content = highest ratings. It's carved in stone on top of Mount Sinai.

Re:YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (1)

PMBjornerud (947233) | more than 7 years ago | (#19630957)

There are people on YouTube producing material that is genuinely worthwhile, and that isn't purely superficial...but such people are never who you're going to see on the front page, and thus they also aren't the people who YouTube are going to pay. Thus, the erosion of the signal-to-noise ratio actually becomes a self-reinforcing negative spiral.
If it's really that awful, why don't you make your own version of YouTube and capture that market segment?

If the majority of people want mindless drivel, obviously some site should take care of that segment. If there is another segment wanting genuinely worthwhile material, and youtube does not deliver it, that it an untapped market. The start of a businessplan. Why are you so negative?

There are countless video sites springing up everywhere. One simple change would be to introduce a moderation system instead of ranking every single video after "number of times viewed". I might watch a video and think it's shit.

This negative spiral you describe is actually not that different from trolling and flaming on discussion boards. Generating controversies, and people waste their time on it without thinking. This is just a sign of an immature technological solution, and definetely something that can be improved. Maybe why we're seeing all those new video sites...

YouTube is the big one now, but I don't expect things to stay this way for eternity. I have several issues with it myself. Soon, we'll have a wide range of video sites, using different implementations to facilitate different ways to search and view videos. I really don't think there is a one-size-fits-all approach which will make a single site dominate web video. Just as we have more than one popular site using text.

And where exactly will AdSense get its context fro (1)

melted (227442) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626293)

And where exactly will AdSense get its context from? It's not like it can analyze video to show contextual ads. Not yet at least.

Re:And where exactly will AdSense get its context (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626485)

Tags and descriptions, presumably the same way YouTube finds "related videos".

Re:YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (0)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626323)

It's bad enough that we give attention to people who are "producing content" on video sites. The last thing we need to do is give them money, too. This is only going to encourage them to do more "content producing".

The internet is not television. Save your videos of your stupid twelve year old ass half naked dancing and lip synching for your boyfriend and save your stupid videos of buddies getting hit in the nuts for Bob Sagget.

It seems sadly inevitable that the internet is going to become nothing more than a billion channels of shitty self-involved assholes streaming video of themselves constantly - as if any of us give a shit. Websites based around community and discussion and *gasp* text will be what a quality newspaper today is to USA Today or prime time television. Why produce actual meaningful content or consume actual meaningful content when you can veg out in front of Lost and Heroes for eight hours after you get home from work? Or alternately, when you can just sit in front of youtube and watch 80 year old hams sing stupid music with stupid warbly voices and depressed teenage girls whore themselves out for attention to all the middle aged tards subscribing to their channels?

The internet is slowly turning into a version of the future depicted in the film Idiocracy.

Re:YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (1)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 7 years ago | (#19628385)

Google should implement this in the same way they do for Blogger. Just let people use their AdSense accounts on YouTube


This is a problem that I have with may websites that make money off of user summited content: the company should share the money with those producing the value. Particularly annoying is Flickr. A little while ago they added a feature where people can buy prints of photos but they do not share that money with the person who took the photo. It's terribly annoying because I know so many semi-pro photographers who would flock to flickr if they could get a cut of the action.

-Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

Re:YouTube are NOT doing this the right way! (1)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 7 years ago | (#19628999)

Semi-pro photographers should pony up for a SmugMug account. Easier to use than flickr, faster than flickr, completely unlimited, with photo ordering & revenue sharing under the uploaders control, and absolutely no claims of ownership to your data.

http://www.smugmug.com/ [smugmug.com]

Details? (0, Redundant)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 7 years ago | (#19625863)

Are they giving him a share of the overall revenues (unlikely), or a percentage of adclicks on his videos? (Which seems more likely, despite the oddity of wanting to be paid for someone clicking away from your content...)

Re:Details? (1)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626107)

That's not an "oddity". The whole idea of advertising is that you get paid for someone looking at something other than your content.

Does Youtube generate revenue yet??? (2, Interesting)

CPE1704TKS (995414) | more than 7 years ago | (#19625911)

I don't recall seeing any ads on Youtube, so how can they share revenues that they seemingly don't have?

As well, I fully expect them NOT to have ads, at least not in the near future. Once Youtube actually starts making money, it will make them even more vulnerable to lawsuits from copyright holders when users upload infringing material. The fact that Youtube could generate revenue from copyright-infringing material will make the case stronger that they are encouraging users to flaunt copyright rules, and make them more vulnerable to lawsuits. I think that's the only reason why Google hasn't posted ads there, because they are trying to figure out how to protect themselves from getting their asses sued.

Re:Does Youtube generate revenue yet??? (3, Informative)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626027)

Actually youtube does have ads on their pages just not on the videos themselves: example of a video page that has ad revenue sharing enabled [youtube.com] .

While I can't go into the details of a deal that I am aware of, one might want to note that the headline says "Share Revenue" and not "pay for ad-clicks".

I agree that they are being very selective with who they decide to pay, but there may be more to it than meets the eye. Promoting content creators who submit regular high quality videos to youtube certainly couldn't hurt them, and considering the importance of youtube to Apple's recent ventures may add some additional perspective as well.

I am surprised that slashdot found this story newsworthy... I thought that youtube has been pretty receptive to most vloggers who go to the trouble to contact them about revenue sharing.

why not just... (1)

mikesum (840054) | more than 7 years ago | (#19625943)

use a site that pays you to begin with, like revver ? [revver.com]

Re:why not just... (2, Insightful)

Flentil (765056) | more than 7 years ago | (#19625995)

Metacafe pays anyone with enough views as well, so long as it's original content. I think YouTube needs to start sharing more fairly like these sites do. It's not like they can't afford to share a little on all popular videos. These smaller sites are doing it already.

Indie film makers should jump on the opportunity (0, Redundant)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 7 years ago | (#19625977)

Have a look here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=101169 [dvxuser.com]
This is a very interesting discussion I am currently having with indie film makers, on how to use the internet and video sharing sites to produce web TV series and make money out of the whole deal.

When will they share revenue with Viacom, et al? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19626005)

It's great that this kid got his break, but YouTube's real value is commercially-owned content.

Re:When will they share revenue with Viacom, et al (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626039)

In a year this 'kid' might produce commercially owned content :) In 5 years, he might have an own studio.

Re:When will they share revenue with Viacom, et al (0)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626055)

who the fuck watches anything much on youtube except for short clips? tiny low res movies anyone?

Re:When will they share revenue with Viacom, et al (1)

kithchung (1116051) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626135)

crappy high def hollywood produced movies are still crap. I'm not defending youtube content, but why attack the medium when it's content quality people keep complaining about?

Re:When will they share revenue with Viacom, et al (3, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626343)

Hollywood produces movies to appeal to the population at large in an attempt to make money. Idiots on websites produce videos to satisfy their deprived ego and to substitute for the mommy and daddy they never had and take the place of friends they can't manage to make. I don't know about you, but I prefer to consume content that was at least made with the intention of entertaining or educating me (in turn for a buck) than content that was produced to coax me into posting a "OMG LUV DAT ASS MOMMA - HOOK ME UP WIT DAT!".

The best way Google could reward those who produce content for their site is by offering them free sterilization after 1,000 views.

Re:When will they share revenue with Viacom, et al (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19627087)

But there are tons of great short clips that are commercially owned. 99% of my YouTube visits pre-Google acquisition were for clips of old cartoons, music videos and bits from news and TV shows.

These days, on one end there is huge negative buzz among content owners against YouTube and on the other end Google is scrambling to make tools to automate content removal and make it more accurate and efficient. The founders are insisting that the attraction of YouTube has always been skateboarding dog and burping baby videos.

With most of the good stuff getting yanked YouTube is quickly becoming useless. You can't even view important historical events [eff.org] or pop culture items there anymore. All that will remain by next year will be a bunch of self-absorbed jerks with webcams.

Wow! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19626043)

An uppity privileged wannabe movie mogul kiddie, and his name is Brandon. Who'd have guessed?

Subject (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19626061)

after watching his garbage vid embeded in the link, man just goes to show how fuggin stupid youtube is. Yes, i've seen Blind Date, no I do not want to see the Myspace version of Blind Date. Purely pathetic, and the fact that this guy made even $1 on it just goes to show that the internet, while capable of so much, is just gonna turn into the next TV. Mindless bullshit only motivated by $$$. Thats not the bad part, the bad part is that people will actually watch this garbage.

Promotion (3, Funny)

niceone (992278) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626145)

A security guard refused to let him off the elevator -- but he made crucial contacts which helped seal the deal 9 weeks later

Eh? Was the Secutiry Guard promoted to Head of Revenue Sharing in the intervening 9 weeks?

Re:Promotion (1)

destinyland (578448) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626251)

That's one of the details in the funny story [10zenmonkeys.com] .

...he wrote back cheerily, saying that an employee "took me out to eat, gave me some YouTube shirts and told me to come back!" But when he went back to camp in YouTube's lobby, a security guard stopped him at the elevator...

So, We've lost all grasp of English finally? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19626155)

What's with all the numerals starting sentences?
Spell out the damned things. Good grief.

Then again, this is Slashdot. I should know better than to think we have any sembalance of grammar.

Is it just me? (3, Insightful)

edittard (805475) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626229)

Am I the only one who detects a distinct odor of hype around this story? Tries to force his way into the building ... and then they make a deal with him? Sounds like something from a (bad) movie.

Re:Is it just me? (1)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626341)

This guy wreaks of wanting so very badly to be more than he really is. This is allot of smoke, but will probably just fade in a few weeks once the /. and Digg hordes stop looking for his Blind Date tripe. At least I hope so anyways. One Blind Date show is bad enough.

Re:Is it just me? (2, Insightful)

lastchance_000 (847415) | more than 7 years ago | (#19627761)

This guy wreaks of wanting so very badly to be more than he really is.
You've just described everyone in the tv and film industries.

Re:Is it just me? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19629669)

>This guy wreaks of
The word is "reeks".

>This is allot of smoke
So, how much smoke is one allot?

Re:Is it just me? (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 7 years ago | (#19631653)

"Am I the only one who detects a distinct odor of hype around this story?"

yep... how come no one else realized this though? There's tons of Youtube videos on there that get hundreds of thousands of views, why aren't they getting a percentage too?

I don't see this going well. If youtube gives this guy a few bucks for his stupid "show" then 99% of all future videos will be people trying to make a quick buck. Every video will be either something shocking or barely dressed teen girls shaking their ass.

The internet's last gasp. (4, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626375)

I think we can officially say goodbye to the real internet. Some of you may not be old enough to remember this, but there was a time when people produced content and communities on the internet for no other reason than they cared and enjoyed doing it. Even before the internet, people would spend hundreds or thousands of dollars putting networks of computers together in their home, ordering a dozen or two dozen lines from the local phone company and feeding that trunk into a bank of modems so they could operate a free dial-up community.

People didn't plaster advertising on every page of everything they created. People didn't write articles in their blogs with the sole intention of drawing readers who would boost their ad revenue. People didn't produce self-involved videos in the hope of becoming the next big thing.

There was a time when people created and consumed out of simple interest and passion. Now, everyone from six years old to ninety years old wants to get rich off advertising on their blog, their website, their stupid pointless youtube videos, their comments on other people's blogs, their half-assed website ideas that they hope will get bought up for half a billion by Yahoo! or Google.

Want to see what putting ad banner revenue at the top of the list for encouraging you to find *something* to post on your blog every single day does to the net? Go look at the top ten or twenty RSS feeds. Especially the tech related ones. They are all copies of each other. On a given day, they simply commit blog-incest and rape each other's ideas and posts. By the end of the day, you'll see the same stupid story (usually about a new product, of course) twenty times on twenty of the top RSS feeds. Why? Well, you have to post SOMETHING. Anything, to draw people back to look at more ads while they're reading through your copy and pasted (and often poorly worded) material.

There are days where I wonder why any of us bother to care about "saving the internet" from being overrun by commercial entities and corporations and governments who want it to be nothing more than another commodity or another pipe through which to funnel products and purches into our homes. Why bother? The average Joe and his little sister and his dad are doing just fine turning the internet into one giant ad-plastered cess-pool of sell-outs.

Re:The internet's last gasp. (3, Insightful)

destinyland (578448) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626499)

You forgot to say: "I am aware of the irony of using the internet to decry the internet's over-commercialization..."

Re:The internet's last gasp. (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626813)

First, I don't think that fits the definition of irony. It doesn't even fit the definition of hypocrisey. Perhaps the phrase "it is fitting that one would decry the internet's over commercialization by posting on the internet".

Also, I didn't make or desire to make a buck doing it. So . . . no.

Re:The internet's last gasp. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19634573)

It was a Simpsons reference. Sideshow Bob was threatening to use a bomb he stole at an air show to get broadcasters to stop transmitting TV.

Here's the original:
Sideshow Bob - "By the way, I'm aware of the irony of appearing on TV in order to decry it. So don't bother pointing that out."

Re:The internet's last gasp. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19626823)

You seem to be using some alternative definition of irony.

If he had an ad in his post, you might have had a point, otherwise you've missed his.

Re:The internet's last gasp. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19627749)

Seriously, though, I can't even see how that would fit Alanis Morisette's definition of "irony." Could you explain?

Re:The internet's last gasp. (1)

FFFish (7567) | more than 7 years ago | (#19628755)

There is absolutely nothing ironic in it. You might wish to consult a dictionary or S&W.

Re:The internet's last gasp. (1)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 7 years ago | (#19631215)

It's like music bands singing songs about how bad the record companies are. You remember, like the ones for sale at your record store for $20, under the Colombia label. Better get used to it, mate.

Re:The internet's last gasp. (-1, Troll)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626677)

I think we can officially say goodbye to the real internet. Some of you may not be old enough to remember this, but there was a time when people produced content and communities on the internet for no other reason than they cared and enjoyed doing it.

Bah, humbug.

The original Internet crowd was primarily made up of human leftovers of a number of different kinds; sexual deviants, social rejects, the autistic, and the terminally mentally ill. They were people whose main incentive for coming online was due simply to the fact that nobody offline wanted to be reminded of their existence. It was a means for them to achieve some degree of dubious social interaction with others of their own kind, while at the same time, mercifully sparing anyone the unspeakable horror of being exposed to their presence in an actual physical sense. While online, their corporeal forms could thankfully remain locked in their customary subterranean environments.

These days, the basement-dwelling freaks that I'm talking about here still inhabit the same purely textual cracks in the cybernetic pavement that they did back then. The only difference is that we're now on the other side of the extremely brief period when the protocols they use (primarily Usenet and IRC) entered something vaguely approaching mainstream awareness.

And yes, like every other untamed frontier to have ever been encountered by human beings before it, the Internet too has been swamped by a tidal wave of sociopathic, utterly amoral, suicidal capitalism of the kind that apparently exists on a literally genetic level within the American heart.

I once read of the effect of commercialism on the Internet being described as, "the greatest human conversation to have ever been held having been silenced." I thought then, as I do now, that the only thing truly great about that description was the degree of pretentiousness and self-indulgence inherent within it.

The Internet was never a "community" in a primarily positive sense at all; rather, it was initially simply a gigantic virtual psychiatric inpatient unit. If online commercialism has done anything truly positive for the net at all, it is that it has forced the human cockroaches that originally inhabited it to need to bury themselves even more deeply in order to avoid contact with mainstream society.

Re:The internet's last gasp. (1)

X.25 (255792) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626985)

The original Internet crowd was primarily made up of human leftovers of a number of different kinds; sexual deviants, social rejects, the autistic, and the terminally mentally ill. They were people whose main incentive for coming online was due simply to the fact that nobody offline wanted to be reminded of their existence. It was a means for them to achieve some degree of dubious social interaction with others of their own kind, while at the same time, mercifully sparing anyone the unspeakable horror of being exposed to their presence in an actual physical sense. While online, their corporeal forms could thankfully remain locked in their customary subterranean environments.

I think this was either written by a whine generator (there are quite few of them around), or a person who fits into all 4 categories listed.

Re:The internet's last gasp. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19626957)

Your a looser! LOLOLOL

Stepping away from the keyboard and getting a real life, look into it.

Re:The internet's last gasp. (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 7 years ago | (#19633579)

Your a looser! LOLOLOL

Err, are you kidding, or not, or french? I'm confused..

Re:The internet's last gasp. (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 7 years ago | (#19627895)

The "real internet" never existed... not the way you're imagining it. There was a time when ISPs were small and had a few servers to support, 2 or 3 guy operations with a T1 connection... and there were Universities with T3s and a lot of computers hooked up to them... and of course dialup, Geocities, AOL and wait for it... Starcraft discussion boards on Compuserve....

Sure that all existed but it was an industry in it's infancy trying to tread water until some real money could be made... and letting people do what they wanted in the meanwhile to support the infrastructure and drive interest in the services.

Then critical mass hit... now it's The Internet, and international communications system supported by government, commercial (public and private) and not for profits as well as individuals and consumers.

It's no longer a private playground for the in-the-know crowd to chatter about things they think are important.

Re:The internet's last gasp. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19637477)

Then: Some people produced content and communities on the internet for no other reason than they cared and enjoyed doing it. Many other people didn't know what the internet was.

Now: More people produce content and communities on the internet for no other reason than they care and enjoye doing it. Many other people use the internet to make a quick buck.

The thing you fail to understand, with all your ill-conceived ranting, is that the effect of commercialization has had and will continue to have a net positive effect on the communities of people who actually care. You just have to ignore what you don't like, and it's not that hard to do.

Youtube proved once and for all - (4, Insightful)

Shohat (959481) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626551)

YouTube (and Digg actually) proved once and for all, that "Web 2.0" is NOT about user generated content, but commercial-grade content being selected by users.
As a blogger, it's hard for me to say this, but honestly almost nobody reads (or shoud read) blogs but bloggers (and journalists, etc...), almost nobody watches vlogs but other vloggers, and in the end of the day, these are probably barely 5% of the Internet users. Regretfully, Google with it's idiotic blog fetish constantly sticks blog links into the result page, and I, like many others have already learned how to avoid blog-looking URLs. The ridiculous thing, is that too often the results are actually short stories that just link to the content users are looking for.
YouTube's "most watched" top 100 are a clear indication to that - the top videos are generally news, Sport clips, music videos, show episodes. Out of top 100, there might be 4-5 original user-made videos, everything else is pretty much "The best things that were on TV today". And if you aggregate total Blogosphere's/Video sharing /Bookmarking sites/ output into some top-topic list, you will see that the content is dictated daily by CNN, NYT, BBC, Wired, Cnet, etc... The user generated "content" is just the middleman in 95% percent of the cases.

Just from Ads (1)

briancnorton (586947) | more than 7 years ago | (#19626875)

70% of users streaming video? I guess that includes me if you include the annoying ads on slashdot

Youtube is way behind the curve (1)

rh2600 (530311) | more than 7 years ago | (#19629797)

I find it a little silly that we get news items about how YouTube will be implementing revenue sharing with contributors - like that makes them somehow amazing and benevolent. Other sites like metacafe and revver have been doing this for ages.

Case in point, my silly wii-mote fatality clip [revver.com] has earned me ~US$900 so far...

Re:Youtube is way behind the curve (1)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 7 years ago | (#19631231)

That is a smart way to advertize your video! But then again, with such a title I have a lot of troubles trying not to watch it.

Re:Youtube is way behind the curve (1)

Nicolay77 (258497) | more than 7 years ago | (#19638091)

And how that works?

I did not found adds in the page you linked. So how revver makes any money at all?

TubeSucker is the best YouTube Downloader (0, Offtopic)

Chingalaputa (1056838) | more than 7 years ago | (#19632163)

http://www.newrad.com/software/tubesucker/ [newrad.com] TubeSucker is the most powerful YouTube Video Downloader and Media Player System on the planet. TubeSucker - YouTube Video Downloader makes downloading videos from the internet and watching them from your PC or TV quick and easy. Type in a search topic or artist name, click and go! Come back later and have tons of videos on your hard drive ready for instant playback. Watch 1000's of videos on your hard drive with no internet delays. TubeSucker's Media Control Center, with its easy-to-use built-in media player, lets you do everything you would want with all of your media files in one easy-to-use seemless system. Everything you need is all right there in one application, which makes the whole process of downloading, viewing, and emailing videos seemless and fun. TubeSucker is loaded with too many features to even list, but it is the integration of all of those features into a single easy-to-use system that makes all the difference. Download Videos of all your MP3's with one click. And then run it again for live in concert versions of your MP3's (or other type of music file). Simultaneously Download up to 8 videos at a time for super fast downloading with just one instance of TubeSucker running. Run multiple copies on your PC at the same time, each running different searches, giving you the ability to download 8, 16, 24, even 32 videos at a time. Download Videos From ANY WebSite

Why can't YouTube (1)

www.youtube.com (1125457) | more than 7 years ago | (#19793445)

Why can't they make good on the revenue sharing amongst everyone else?! Me thinks they don't wants to??
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>