Why YouTube Needs the Rights to Your Video

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."

Comments

Why are consumers surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because many think there is such at thing as a free lunch. They are wrong but that's what they think.
Just post a story here about ads and banner blockers and you will see.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[pla]

Because many think there is such at thing as a free lunch.

Uploading a music video certainly goes to far. Small clips from a movie might come under fair use. But when people post what amount to home movies - Yes, they most certainly do have every right to upload that to YouTube.

Free lunches exist - And in fact, when not in a climate of scarcity, people (and even many "dumb" animals) will gladly share that of which they have a huge surplus. Well, "bits" exist in as close to a limitless supply as anything we've ever experienced, and plenty of people will gladly share their bits, even with trolls like you.


And as for banner ads... Please, tell me who gets the free lunch from whom in that situation - The parasites that think they own my eyeballs just because they put up a web-page, or the people who choose not to read the Chick pamphlets that come with that "free" lemonade?

Or, put another way, does exploiting the human feeling of gratitude count as more or less sociopathic than suppressing that same feeling? Personally, I'd say the former commits a deliberately "evil" action, while the latter results as a learned response from dealing with assholes falling into the first category. YMMV.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Seiruu]

Is sharing a surplus actually a Free Lunch philosophy?

Technically, leftovers are still things you've essentially WORKED for. So even though one might benefit from it without working for it, doesn't mean someone else didn't put that amount of work in it to achieve it. Isn't that the real philosophy of the No Such Thing As A Free Lunch?

Essentially, it's like energy in a closed system: no matter what you do, nobody gains anything extra, it's always the same amount. You gain x here, but you'll lose x there.

In an "open system", one might wager something like the sun being a "free lunch". But even that could probably be argued.

If sharing surpluses is "a free lunch", then so is stealing.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[vertinox]

Because many think there is such at thing as a free lunch. They are wrong but that's what they think.

Technically, I used to get free lunches all the time, but I had to waste time listening to bad powerpoint presentations of sales people who I had no intention of buying anything from.

But seriously, nothing is free except air and the light from the sun, but cost is minimized to an extent it might as well be free. When your cost to produce comodities reaches near zero (bandwidth, hardware, and electricity) then your product or ad space could be sold for extremely low prices and you still make enourmous profit (depending)

However, we haven't reached that point (yet) mostly because it still costs an arm and a leg to host full streaming HD quality video and unless you are Comcast, Google, or Verizon you really don't have the resources needed to give it away for free forever like YouTube.

However, what happens in 20 years when bandwidth exceeds full motion HD video and you can download a 1000 TB in just a few seconds and you can host your own super webserver from your laptop? I mean full imersion can only go up to the point where we can't tell the difference between reality and our downloadable entertainment?

At that point in our lives (if we are still around) everything will literally become free at least with Intellectual Property (in a sense) because we've saturated the known universe with material that no one is going to bother paying for either through piracy or home made junk or reality TV etc. I dunno... Its just a guess.

However, in 20 years we might have robotics making things you buy at the store for free as well... But as they mentioned in the technological singularity article a few stories back... Well... It might be a moot point.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[anagama]

With the BBQ, there is some expectation of a quid pro quo -- you invite your buddies over and in a vague sense, probably expect your buddies to invite you over some time and stick a "free" beer in your hand. Now, people don't go around keeping spreadsheets of how many beers their buddies owe them, but we've all probably experienced the friend who becomes a mooch and eventually, the mooch isn't invited to more BBQs. In essence, the mooch got a few free lunches by violating a common social expectation.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Seiruu]

True, but like I said, it's not about (individual) perspectives.

Technically, you can buy a friend a beer without ever getting anything back, goodbye party or whatever. Does that mean the beer is free? For him it is, but realistically, it costed you to give him that beer. So it's not a free lunch.

In your case, you lost something which he gained. So which part of that would be the "free lunch"? It's not, you paid for it, he got it.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

If nothing else, I'm heartened by the fact that others consider beer lunch too.

Renaming

[Eightyford]

I heard they were renaming their company to OURTUBE.com

Re:Renaming

[LordMydrin]

Actually, I think it would be UsTube.com or WeTube.com, since 'you' is not a possessive form. Oh, wait... you were joking... :-D

Wow!

[TheSpoom]

A comparison of Phanfare and Youtube by Phanfare! Clearly as unbiased as one can get.

Re:Wow!

[smackenzie]

Why was this modded offtopic? TFA is a Phanfare blog entry that, while not being particularly offensive in handling another business model, is clearly commercial. The article summary doesn't do a good job mentioning that this is a Phanfare note, comparing Phanfare to YouTube!

It's simple

[Data Link Layer]

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.

would this stop OS content distribution?

[hguorbray]

Asked and Answered (I think)

I wonder if creative commons licensed videos would be a problem for YouTube with these new terms?

If they restricted redistribution of content that was emanating from their site or assigned themselves any extra rights regarding editing or ownnership or restricted further distribution I think that it might.

They would probably just say that you can't put up any content with a license which would be violated by their doing what they wanted with it.

-What's the speed of Dark?

Re:would this stop OS content distribution?

[BrynM]

I wonder if creative commons licensed videos would be a problem for YouTube with these new terms?

By uploading the content to their server, they could argue that you are granting them a seperate specific license (their terms of service) and thus do not have to abide by the license you offer to the general public.

They would probably just say that you can't put up any content with a license which would be violated by their doing what they wanted with it.

With a seperate license granted, this becomes moot.

same with journals

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Youtube "makes money"??

[gumbo]

From the article:

Folks are apparently surprised that when you post your video to YouTube, you give them the right to distribute it, sell ads against it, and generally make money from it. But this is YouTube's business model. They aggregate an audience around consumer generated video and make money by selling access to that audience in one way or another.

I thought Youtube was going through cash like a late 90's .com, and haven't come close to making any money off of anyone's content yet. Maybe that's why these guys decided to compete with them, wrote their little blog post and got it on here: because they didn't realize that Youtube wasn't profitable? Or they're just figuring that they'll do it right where Youtube has missed the boat as far as making money...

Or maybe my brain isn't what it used to be and I'm completely wrong about this, and Youtube has been insanely profitable.

The license is retractable

[bagofbeans]

Per licence in OP, "The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website.". So a user just has to remove the material to retract the license...

Minors

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Minors

[Bieeanda]

I'd venture to suggest that at least thirty to forty percent of the stuff on Youtube is also copyrighted to someone other than the poster, as well, which makes contractual claims entertaining too. Every time some twit's collection of full episode rips gets taken down, they just go ahead and re-upload them.

Re:Minors

[nullforce]

Minors can enter into contracts; however, they can exit or void most contracts while they remain under the age of maturity. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/can- a-minor-contract.html

Re:Minors

[aarku]

Interesting point... So minors can't technically buy any software with a license agreement on it?

Phanfare

[linvir]

With Phanfare, you are paying to publish and archive your video. Not only do you retain the rights to your content, but we claim no right to distribute, remarket, or otherwise make money on your content

Wow! What an incredibly innovative publishing model! Wait, I'd better make sure I have this right:

1. I pay them
2. They provide a service in return

AMAZING! It's almost like a paid photobucket account, or say, a normal hosting service, but look! It's got flash, a free trial, a mix of over and undersized fonts, and lots of glaring colours, so it's obviously Web 2.0 and therefore a new idea entirely!

Controversy? Still?

[gumbo]

By the way, is there really still any controversy over Youtube's new TOS? Even the EFF guy came out and said that it's not a big deal:

YouTube wants to CYA itself in case it flows into new formats with old videos, e.g., cell phone downloads. They don't want to have to go back and relicense all the content in new mediums. And its also true that simply yanking the video will cut off all their rights, which is a powerful weapon to keep them in check.

I guess it's just their competitors that wrote that article that want to keep the "controversial" label going, and apparently it's working.

Rant about 'consumers'

[wish bot]

Did you think for a moment about your use of the word 'consumers'? Yes, I know it was in the summary as well, and that this is a general trend rather than something specific to Slashdot. We're talking about people uploading (possibly) their OWN CONTENT to YouTube, and we call them 'consumers'? In almost every post on Slashdot these day, when we're talking about a collective group of persons, the word 'consumers' is used.

There used to be some better words - 'people', 'citizens', 'females under 25', etc.

All that this indiscriminate use of the word 'consumers' does is reinforce the notion that your sole purpose in life is to consume.

Stop it with the 'consumers' bullshit. Be people again. Give some respect to all these other individuals in the world by calling them 'people' too.

/rant

Revver

[Sanity]

Revver asks only for the right to distribute your content (under a Creative Commons no-derivs license) with unobtrusive advertising attached, and they share the revenue with you on a 50:50 basis. Revver's model is also more "behind the scenes" than YouTube. Revver users include EepyBird (the mentos and diet coke fountain guys), and Ze Frank, a popular video-blogger. EepyBird has already made over $30,000 through Revver in just a few weeks.

[Disclaimer: I am one of the founders of Revver]

OT: deviantArt

[kn0tw0rk]

As an artist that has put up stuff on dA, I'd like to say that originally I was loathe to put 'content' up there, but as I thought about wether I wanted exposure or to retain complete control/ownership I decided that I'd rather get exposure. But I have chosen which works I wanted to put up there, which is primarily my older works, and have several recent pieces that I wont put up as I feel they are superior to my earlier ones.

And its not like dA have total ownership of the pieces I've put up, IIRC they have a limited license to cover themselves legally, and I can still put up the pictures on another site if I choose. One day when I decide to upgrade my membership there so I can sell prints, dA will still only have a limited license and I could still sell prints at local markets/fairs.

Maybe I'm going about this wrong, as I'm not 100% sure of what is the right way to do this, so if anyone from the /. gallery wants to comment, feel free.

TANSTAAFL is absolutely true

[MerlynEmrys67]

Doesn't mean you have to define it with money. Worked for a startup that the CEO would pay for lunch on a quite regular bassis. His comment was that the lunch was to guarantee attendance - so he (or anyone else) could say things that everyone in the company needed to know.

Cost to Me - 0
Time I spent - 1 hour

So the cost was 1 hour of my time that I used to pay for lunch.

Cost to the CEO - 15ish * #employees, obviously worth it to him for an hour of our time.

So yes, I believe in TANSTAAFL - a firm believer... There is a cost to EVERYTHING, you just have to figure out what it is, and if you are willing to pay it.

Re:I wonder

[apflwr3]

Here's a big problem-- Youtube may claim a license/ownership in their TOS. But if they try to sell the videos for profit, they will in all likelihood open themselves up to lawsuits from any subjects in the video who did not grant permission for their likeness to be used. You simply cannot film a person who is not a public figure (e.g. politician, celebrity) and distribute it without an agreement. Or to be precise, you CAN (it's not illegal) but you will be sued (especially if you make a profit) and you will most likely lose.

Say a high school kid films another guy lighting farts on fire at a party and throws it up on Youtube. Did the fart-lighter sign a personal release? How about the crowd of people in the background, especially if their voices can be heard? Did the owner of the house sign a location release? I'm not even going to get into the problems that will arise if a copyrighted song is playing in the background. If any of these parties think Youtube is making a profit from this video they could sue. I'm not even sure they're wrong, I certainly wouldn't want a video of myself circulating on the internet without my permission-- and I would certainly do what I could to put a stop to it if someone else was making a profit.

I should also add, by the way, that a minor cannot sign a release. So even if the fart-lighter says you could post the video, his parents might feel otherwise-- and, yes, they could sue.

This is a problem that's going to bite Youtube in the ass sooner or later-- say when the parents of the next Star Wars Kid sues Youtube for being a party in the distribution of the video. Since Youtube is licensing the video rather than washing their hands and saying they don't have anything to do with their content, they will certainly be named in any lawsuit. And if they're making a profit from this video they will certainly be liable for damages.

And no, I'm not a lawyer. But I have been an assistant producer at a production house that makes reality shows and documentaries and I've seen the great lengths they need to go to to secure releases-- and dealt with the legal department extensively over the inevitable problems. Producers actually have to take out insurance policies to protect themselves against oversights.