Quantcast

Youtube is gonna suck now

Westy

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,408
20,197
Sleazattle
Oh no. We will miss out on threads with no text and a single Youtube link. My life is no longer worth living.
 
binary visions

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,098
1,144
NC
Funny part is that I think it'd be far easier for companies to profit from a clip being aired on a place like YouTube. If you have no option to get on YouTube to look at something, trolling the Bittorrent or Gnutella networks is the next best option, and there are no controls over that.

If these companies worked with YouTube and developed ways to tag their copyrighted videos, it might lead to a more mainstream ways of sharing profits. YouTube would benefit from increased traffic, and Viacom would benefit from a piece of the advertising revenue or some kind of royalty payment. These attempts to lock down or destroy methods for getting copyrighted media are fruitless. Working within the medium is a better option. Hell, look at how popular iTunes is? Take a familiar medium, tag a reasonable price onto it, and boom - people are lining up. It's helped by the popularity of the iPod, of course, but it's still a successful venture.

But hey, what the hell do I know?
 
VTApe

VTApe

Monkey
Feb 5, 2005
213
20
Vermont
not really related but my 14 year old brother's band is on youtube... they're pretty damn good for being so young, they played last weekend at the Webster in Hartford, CT... band's name is 12SR if anyone's seen it
 
jimmydean

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
41,155
13,323
Portland, OR
There have been some solid marketing jobs done through youtube. I agree with BV in the exposure being worth a lot more the what they might lose in revenue for a 4 minute clip of a show.

It's Napster all over again.
 
sanjuro

sanjuro

Tube Smuggler
Sep 13, 2004
17,373
0
SF
jimmydean said:
There have been some solid marketing jobs done through youtube. I agree with BV in the exposure being worth a lot more the what they might lose in revenue for a 4 minute clip of a show.

It's Napster all over again.
Click to expand...
I think it starts with a grainy 3 minute video and in a couple of years it becomes a HD quality download of an entire program in 10 seconds.

I don't want to be Lars Ulrich, but Viacom does own the rights to these shows, and I respect their desire to protect them.

Youtube didn't produce these programs so why should they be able to show them for free.
 
binary visions

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,098
1,144
NC
sanjuro said:
I don't want to be Lars Ulrich, but Viacom does own the rights to these shows, and I respect their desire to protect them.

Youtube didn't produce these programs so why should they be able to show them for free.
Click to expand...
That's my point - of course Viacom owns the rights and should be profiting from having them displayed. I just think they'd profit a hell of a lot more by striking a deal with YouTube than by trying to get everything just ripped off the site. Industry models need to change. Information and media is too easy to pass around now, and rather than trying to restrict the flow of it - which is virtually impossible - I think the industry needs to adapt and try to benefit from it.

Not a single viewer would notice or care if their files were tagged as Viacom property and a piece of YouTube's ad revenue went to Viacom. Hits are being driven to YouTube, part of that goes to Viacom, the users see it as transparent... Everyone wins. When higher quality media is available on a place like YouTube, then perhaps they need to move to an iTunes-like model of a small charge for each item.
 
jimmydean

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
41,155
13,323
Portland, OR
binary visions said:
That's my point - of course Viacom owns the rights and should be profiting from having them displayed. I just think they'd profit a hell of a lot more by striking a deal with YouTube than by trying to get everything just ripped off the site. Industry models need to change. Information and media is too easy to pass around now, and rather than trying to restrict the flow of it - which is virtually impossible - I think the industry needs to adapt and try to benefit from it.

Not a single viewer would notice or care if their files were tagged as Viacom property and a piece of YouTube's ad revenue went to Viacom. Hits are being driven to YouTube, part of that goes to Viacom, the users see it as transparent... Everyone wins. When higher quality media is available on a place like YouTube, then perhaps they need to move to an iTunes-like model of a small charge for each item.
Click to expand...
That was my point. Some bands that embraced Napster made a lot of money off it. Hell, you could buy Napster hats and shirts from the Offspring's website.

Look at what ABC does with Lost. They tack on a commercial a couple times in a few choice breakpoints and everyone is happy. If Viacom associates a clip on YouTube with another show, or an advertisement, then they get better exposure rather than the backlash from pulling stuff people want to see.
 
ohio

ohio

The Fresno Kid
Nov 26, 2001
6,649
24
SF, CA
This lawsuit will be used as leverage in contract negotiations to set the balance of profit sharing.

That is all.
 
binary visions

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,098
1,144
NC
Secret Squirrel said:
Hmmm....I was going to lowball myself at around 225 for the advice that you gave...now I think I'll go up to 275. They'll for sure want to hear it from me...sucker!!!
Click to expand...
Pssh. You don't have the resume for it. I have three certifications and a Master's in Blindingly Obvious Deductions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom