Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why YouTube Needs the Rights to Your Video

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the all-in-the-phrasing dept.

erlichson writes "There has been a lot of controversy over the YouTube terms of service. Why are consumers surprised? Fundamentally, YouTube's business model requires that they get the rights to redistribute your content. This note analyzes an alternative publishing model available to consumers that doesn't require granting a license to your content, but the trade-off is that you won't get the same level of distribution."

3 of 139 comments (clear)

  1. It's simple by Data+Link+Layer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you want to a massive amount of people to see what you have created you have to give the website you are posting it to right to use it anyway they want. Same works with deviantart and myspace, what is posted there they can use it free of charge. If you want it so only you can redistribute it then very few people will likley see it.

  2. same with journals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Same problem with publishing research. Some journals try to suppress your right to share your paper freely on the web. So generally only people who's institution has a subscription can see the content.

    The answer is competition - post your video on a website with better terms of service and publish in journals that don't have 'embargo' policies on sharing your own work.

    I don't want to equate the problems of ownership of cheezy webcam thong videos with the problem of ownership of academic research publications, but the main problem as I see it is that I'd rather sit around watching the aforementioned videos than read the dozens of journal articles I'm supposed to be reading instead. Christ I'm never going to graduate. F***! now I'm blathering on slashdot. Must turn off internet...

  3. Minors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How much of YouTube's content is submitted by teenagers? Quite a bit, I have seen.

    Minors cannot enter into contracts. Seems like a rather stunning flaw in thier business model.