Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Get Played. Get Paid.

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the the-return-of-the-bob dept.

vile8 writes "Bob Young, co-founder of Red Hat Software, is in the NY Times this morning covering a new co-operative business plan for viral video makers. Just like his Self-publishing site Lulu, the new plan provides 80% of the revenues back to the creators. It is based on something quite common, Co-ops. In this plan, if there were 5000 users at 14.95 each there would be 59,800 that would get divvied up among those that brought traffic to the site. The 'pro' users also get larger upload space, and longer cam captures. Other unique features of the site are the podcast generation per author, author vlog pages, and open-source-specific OGM video format conversions."

78 comments

  1. nothing to do with games by WinEveryGame · · Score: 3, Informative
    lulu.tv is simply a video sharing service.

    But on the other it would be cool to have a co-operative for video game developers. Is there one already? Or is the business model too hard for that?

    1. Re:nothing to do with games by utopianfiat · · Score: 1

      Saw it.
      Read it.
      Duped it.

      Doesn't belong in "games" either. /. mods fail it.

      --
      +5, Truth
    2. Re:nothing to do with games by allacds · · Score: 1

      I think it's referring to lulu.com -- which is where the link goes anyways. *That* Lulu is a self-publishing website, aimed at authors who want to run short prints of their book for limited distribution. It allows them not to go through one of the big publishing houses and keep more of the money from their book sales to boot.

    3. Re:nothing to do with games by vile8 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is a video sharing service with a seeded co-op actually. One of the reasons we liked the co-op idea is that it fits open source and creative commons so very well.

    4. Re:nothing to do with games by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      There's one reasonably significant problem with game dev.

      With the exception of flash games, which seem reasonably difficult to code maliciously, any form of executable distributed by a site would reflect back on the owners of the site if it caused any problems. This means that people might have to take responsibility for their user's actions, which is unacceptable in any business model. Why should a company pay damages when a machine is trashed by a piece of malicious code that should have been a game.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
  2. Or... by nmb3000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...you could just upload and watch movies for free on Google, You-Tube, etc.

    If there's one thing the Internet has shown, it's that people do *not* want to pay for content. This is what Google knows and it's why they base nearly all their revenue on contextual ads instead of trying to sell access to Gmail or Maps.

    This sounds like just another 'make easy money on teh interweb!' scheme that's going to disappear pretty quick.

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
    1. Re:Or... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Agreed. People don't like paying for content because they don't know if the content is good or not. Like whenever I google questions about a computer language I normally get the Stupid Experts Exchange site that wants me to login (and I think pay) to view the answer to the question). I do not want to pay because almost all the sites I see like that just have 5 million posts of people going me too I am having the same problem, but with no answer. I am not going to pay for stuff like that. Plus I can usually find the answer a further down. I really wish Google would lower the ranks of Expert Exchange.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Or... by slashkitty · · Score: 1
      Yes, most anything that requires you to pay for stuff that you get free somewhere else won't work.

      Google's video service is going further than contextual ads. They are adding pre-roll video commercials, and will split the revenue with the video author. That sounds like a great service, is only google could make a better interface for them.

      If youtube could adopt that same model, they might just have something!

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    3. Re:Or... by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      I'd never pay for Expert Exchange, but on older questions you can just scroll down to see the answer. I think you only have to login for questions less than 6 months old or something. So they're not totally useless.

    4. Re:Or... by just_another_sean · · Score: 3, Informative

      Experts exchange bugs me too in a couple of ways, but you *do not* need to pay to see answers. Just scroll to the bottom of the page, past the ads, past the "Subscribe now!" junk and there's the thread. And although the "Accepted Answer" does not always appear to be what you need I find that Experts Exchange has a slightly higher average of useful replies then most forums. Of course, YMMV.

      There's plenty to hate about the way the site is designed, no need to make things up about it...

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    5. Re:Or... by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

      Or is it why google charges $3 for sports program streams 24 hours after the live event?

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    6. Re:Or... by EL_mal0 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      If there's one thing the Internet has shown, it's that people do *not* want to pay for content.

      The people at Apple might disagree with you (here).

    7. Re:Or... by @madeus · · Score: 1

      Agreed, I was looking up a problem with DOM and PHP and came across a link on the Experts Exchange site, where it showed me the question and claimed to have the answer to my problem and wanted me to register / pay to see it.

      I went back and hit the Google Cached copy only to find the ticket had been closed with no answer - I don't fancy my chances of being given a refund if I'd paid and then complained I'd been scammed.

    8. Re:Or... by RpiMatty · · Score: 1

      Like the other replies to your post tell you that you can scroll down to see the thread and the answers (sometimes). I have found that the google cache of each page has all the replies to the question.

    9. Re:Or... by vile8 · · Score: 1

      Actually viewers dont pay for the content. The creators get paid based on their share of the participation in the site, and lulu.tv funds the pool out of pocket 5k each month to start it off.

    10. Re:Or... by symbolic · · Score: 1

      I don't mind paying for content under the following two conditions: 1) it is reasonably priced, and 2) the money gets back to those who created it - not those who think they deserve to afford a payment on a second yacht.

    11. Re:Or... by Mickeythegill · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah yeah - too right, i',m not paying for content, but then agian I don't think thats what its about - i think its about getting paid FOR content and, i make good stuff and if i know it's gonna be popular and i'll make some good money - even if it's only out of one video a year - then a subscription's pissy in comparison.

    12. Re:Or... by vile8 · · Score: 1

      Which is why lulu.tv doesn't make them... Did I blow your mind?

    13. Re:Or... by vile8 · · Score: 1

      Getting that cash in the hands of those that created the videos is the distinction of lulu.tv. Lulu is dedicated to helping creators share, collaborate, sell, and now co-op their IP, helping indy creators get known, grow, and get paid.

    14. Re:Or... by vile8 · · Score: 1

      Exactly the point of the site.

    15. Re:Or... by vile8 · · Score: 1

      Your right. The lulu.tv subscription model will pay for as long as your video is in the co-op pool and generating traffic... if you do one a year, and its so-so then you'll make a little back for your subscription. If it is truly good stuff then it will get traffic in a good chunk in the beginning and then a nice stream (see long tail). So if the first is paying for the subscription, and maybe some more, then the rest.... I mean, you can not like the model if it doesn't fit your content, but that doesn't sound like the case.

    16. Re:Or... by WiggyWack · · Score: 1

      "...you could just upload and watch movies for free on Google, You-Tube, etc."

      You can watch videos for free on Lulu. You have to pay if you want to be a contributor. So why would you want to pay to contribute when you can contribute for free on YouTube and Google? Because those sites don't pay you money based on the share of audience you've attracted.

      --
      Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
    17. Re:Or... by HappyEngineer · · Score: 1

      Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I use Experts Exchange all the time. Granted, I first paid for it because I got tired of seeing those results in google. But, I've found that there are many types of questions that I can get answered there with less effort than I would expend otherwise by googling for hours.

      --
      Cow Cube
    18. Re:Or... by jeremy_hogan · · Score: 1

      Actually, no one pays to watch the content. People who create videos can pay to have enhanced hosting (greater clip sizes, etc) and in return, we give them back 80% of that revenue, paid based on their share of the traffic.

      So we are paying creators in direct proportion to their virality. And we don't use ads to do it.

      There is also a free account that you can host an unlimited number of ~32M clips.

      --jeremy

  3. Re:But by neonprimetime · · Score: 1

    Remember, this is /. so I don't think you have much of a chance.

  4. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    At first I thought that it was an ad to "get laid."
     
    ...but then I remembered that this is Slashdot, and such an event is impossible to carry out in our realm of g33kdom.

  5. Current.tv by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2, Informative


    The video site http://www.current.tv/ has a similar setup, but they are connected to a TV network as well. Users submit videos, users watch them for free, and if other users mod them up enough, they get greenlit for airplay on the real TV channel. Then the makers get paid. $500 for your first greenlight.

    Lots of great video content there already.

    1. Re:Current.tv by vile8 · · Score: 1

      Ha, check out the stats on how many people have actually been paid. Lulu.tv is much more ambitious as to paying people.

    2. Re:Current.tv by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Can you please explain where I can actually watch all of the Current.tv content on the site? Every time I go there I am unable to find the viewing section and assume I must subscribe to the actual TV channel to watch it.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  6. Re:But by peteMG · · Score: 1

    But, if you were a /. reader, and somehow did manage -- perhaps the partner got paid -- to get laid, would the resulting clip get played?

    This is the big question.

  7. Did anyone else read.... by zarthrag · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Get Laid, Get Paid"???

    Really had my attention for a sec...

    --
    Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    1. Re:Did anyone else read.... by grommit · · Score: 1

      You post on Slashdot, do you really think that a "Get Laid, Get Paid" system will net you any money at all?

    2. Re:Did anyone else read.... by zarthrag · · Score: 1

      Hence my suprise! However brief.

      --
      Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    3. Re:Did anyone else read.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is possible, however unpalatable

    4. Re:Did anyone else read.... by nacturation · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is an article about Lulu... you're thinking of the Bubba service.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    5. Re:Did anyone else read.... by LoonyMike · · Score: 0

      It's the dreaded P bug once again.

    6. Re:Did anyone else read.... by SP33doh · · Score: 0

      yay for man prostitution!

    7. Re:Did anyone else read.... by vile8 · · Score: 1

      I tried to get the term for a member in the co-op to be "pro-creator" but it died in congress:)

  8. Google, Youtube don't do cam captures... by b0r1s · · Score: 4, Informative

    But other free services like Vobbo do.

    Yet another competitor in an already very full market. Not seeing the purpose, but throw more money into the ring.

    --
    Mooniacs for iOS and Android
  9. Deceitful by kevin_conaway · · Score: 4, Informative

    Disregarding the actual content of the story, I the think submitter is being a bit deceptive. He is affiliated with the LuLu site (as seen by his link and comments)

    He should at least have the good nature and objectivity to note that he is affiliated with story he is publicising

    1. Re:Deceitful by nacturation · · Score: 1

      You'll note that if you roll over the vile8 author link you'll see it goes to vile8@lulu.com, so while it may not be totally forthcoming I wouldn't call it deceptive.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    2. Re:Deceitful by vile8 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, just couldn't let slashdot miss out on Bob news to the traditional media. And yeah, lulu.tv is an extension of lulu.com. We have been working for a couple years to make sure creators can share/use/sell their IP in whichever way they wish. This is another way:)

    3. Re:Deceitful by Salzorin · · Score: 0

      You're right, undisclosed self-promotion is shameful and despicable!

      --
      In Soviet Russia these Soviet Russia jokes aren't considered the least bit amusing...
  10. I'd pay for a good search engine... by zogger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...by the year, some reasonable fee, IF, there was a toggle to filter out commercial ads/spam sites.

  11. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Good catch, moderators - few things are more -1, Offtopic on Slashdot than getting laid.

  12. Too late, Bob Young by klenwell · · Score: 0

    eefoof.com conquered the market this morning. Now if they couldn't only get their servers back up and running...

    --
    Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
  13. Revver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does this differ from Revver, which also sez it can get you paid for what you upload?

    1. Re:Revver by vile8 · · Score: 1

      Revver pays based on an advertising model. lulu.tv is a co-op, that is paying out 80% of what we take in. Aside from that we dont ship your video onto peoples websites as it seems like a less effective (though we could be wrong) way for the creator to make a name for themselves (though they are free to embed it). Instead using the co-op we don't have to rely on that type of marketing and instead provide downloads, xml feeds of every variety, and try to encourage sharing to raise interest in the creator, instead of whatever company the ad is pimping. Chances are the ad based variety is a good model too, its just a different model with less advantages for the author to create fame for themselves.

    2. Re:Revver by fdiskit · · Score: 1
      Chances are the ad based variety is a good model too, its just a different model with less advantages for the author to create fame for themselves.

      Tell that to every NASCAR driver on the circuit. Pardon me, gotta go watch the Firecracker^H^H^H^HPepsi 400 on ma PVR.

  14. Re:But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're posting on /. about wanting to get laid. Believe me you're already deeply, badly, permanently fucked.

  15. Self limiting by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Two issues I see:

    Viral marketting works because people see and exchange videos etc. If You drive them to a pay link then most will just pass on the vid.

    If it allows downloading, then people will d/l and post or email teh vid outside of Lulu - which means real popular vids may get viewed without the author getting paid by lulu.

    I think Googles "we'll give you a cut of teh add revenue" is a smarter move since it incorporates the "payment" to Google (page views of ads) in viewing the vid, and it rewards popular vids becasue they drive viewing ads and thus money to Google; while not requiring money from either party - iploader or viewer.

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:Self limiting by vile8 · · Score: 1

      It might be. But what cut will you actually get? We aren't ruling out advertising, or several other channels, but if lulu.tv did it there would be a split with the creator just like everything else we do. We are very interested in finding the best way to get cash back to creators, and not corrupting their fame with the lack of recognition you get with an ad stuffed on a website. As far as people downloading movies... go ahead. There are rss2, atom, ipod feeds etc... and getting the video known will increase the chance you'll be interested in the creators next works. So come back and check them out... we don't bite... at least not if you have a mildly css capable browser;-D

    2. Re:Self limiting by WiggyWack · · Score: 1

      If You drive them to a pay link then most will just pass on the vid.

      It does not cost money to watch videos on Lulu. Only to contribute. (and I think you can actually contribute for free, but if you want to make money (if you want to be part of the co-op) then you have to pay).

      --
      Macintosh humor! MacComedy.com
    3. Re:Self limiting by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      It'll be interesting to see how it works.

      Another question - how do you enforce creator rights - one of your popular downloads is a Star Trek vid.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  16. Re:What a douche by geoffspear · · Score: 1

    Maybe he's smart enough to use the best tool for a job. If you're not, then you fail it, Stalyn.

    --
    Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  17. Pay for play video? Welcome to Amatuer Porn by poopie · · Score: 1

    If I were going to try to make money with revenue sharing from video downloads, I'd go straight for porn video clips.

    The reality is that most people would rather watch porn than someone's vlog or singing elmo video.

    1. Re:Pay for play video? Welcome to Amatuer Porn by mmkkbb · · Score: 1

      The most-downloaded goofy video meme of the week will get more hits than your average porn clip.

      Of course, being that most-downloaded video clip is not easy. I wonder if it would be worth paying people to hype your clip up around the internet.

      --
      -mkb
    2. Re:Pay for play video? Welcome to Amatuer Porn by vile8 · · Score: 1

      plus how much pr0n do you need? we don't do it at lulu.tv and the experience is actually moderated (see. differences between us and youtube) so that only the good stuff comes to the surface, else your relegated to the belly of the beast.

  18. Bob Young wasn't co-founder of Red Hat by McPierce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Mark Ewing founded Red Hat in 1993. Bob Young's company, ACC Bookstores, bought out Mark in 1995 and Young became CEO until 1999.

    --
    Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"
    1. Re:Bob Young wasn't co-founder of Red Hat by vile8 · · Score: 1

      Bob Young was responsible for helping bring Red Hat from an apartment built OS to a multi-national corporation, I call that co-founder. Interesting bit of trivia though.

    2. Re:Bob Young wasn't co-founder of Red Hat by McPierce · · Score: 1
      Bob Young was responsible for helping bring Red Hat from an apartment built OS to a multi-national corporation, I call that co-founder.


      Bob Young came onto the scene 2 years after Red Hat was created. You can't co-found something that's already been found. ;)
      --
      Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"
    3. Re:Bob Young wasn't co-founder of Red Hat by lulucircus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well except to "found" a company means to incorporate it. You are right, Marc (note spelling) began writing a Linux distribution he called Red Hat at about the same time I incorporated a company (ACC Corp. Inc.) to sell Linux related stuff in early 1993. In early 1995 we merged our two small businesses by having ACC pay Marc for the assets of his efforts (he had not incorporated a company at that time) in exchange for shares in ACC Corp. Inc. So technically I incorporated the company that became Red Hat, Inc. But Marc started the Linux distribution project that became the basis for Red Hat, Inc. We agreed very early on to refer to each other as "co-founders" simply because it was too confusing to figure out which of us actually founded Red Hat since neither of us had a law degree. ;-) Cheers, Bob.

  19. Re:What a douche by abigsmurf · · Score: 1
    Linux isn't actually known for it's professional video editing programs...

    *dons flamesuit*

  20. Get Played. Get Paid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and be stupified by misusing the word "get."

  21. Re:What a douche by charlieman · · Score: 1

    It's just he is SO confident of his RedHat-inity that he is not afraid of showing his MacOSX-ine side.

  22. Re:What a douche by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but there's some decent consumer stuff.

  23. I'm so disappointed... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    I misread the title, and I was so excited for a minute.

    1. Re:I'm so disappointed... by vile8 · · Score: 1

      Talk about a freudian slip eh? I just knew I liked the slogan, but it took the slashdot readers to explain why:)

  24. Re:What a douche by Stalyn · · Score: 1

    Cinelerra

    However I doubt Bob Young does *any* video editing.

    --
    The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
  25. Re:But by vile8 · · Score: 1

    I have to imagine that would go something like the tourettes guy, then... yes.

  26. Re:What a douche by vile8 · · Score: 1

    Actually there is a host of programs: ffmpeg, mencoder and mplayer, vlc, flvtool2, just to name a few. Linux is an AMAZING video editing platform... but I have to say, the macs are damn fine looking laptops and run a great many open source apps with little trouble. Though hand-editing command line options for video is never easy or fun, there are even packages like ffmpeg-x which runs on both platforms. He actually knows his codecs and history pretty well.

  27. Not only spamming, but ineptly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey OP, if you're going to shill for your employer (and I'm not judging you on that, let yer conscience be yer guide on that), then at the very least have the sense to spam effectively!

    The link you provided doesn't send anybody to a news article. It sends us to some kind of a log-in page.

    I'm certainly not going to log in to read some bloody newspaper article. And there are about a million Slashdotters right behind me saying, "Me, neither!"

    You must be new here. Or a moderator :-)

  28. Dead website by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Copyright arguments and legal troubles are going to kill this site fast as you can blink. Who made the video and who uploaded it? Are they using copyrighted materiel? Ect.

  29. So slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are things like this so slow? They tout the greatness of their support of the open OGM standard. Nevermind the fact that it's so depreciated the author himself declared Matroska to be the better format.