Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube To Pay For User-Generated Content

Posted by kdawson on from the sharing-it dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Speaking at the World Economic Forum, YouTube CEO Chad Hurley has revealed that the company plans to financially compensate users who produce and upload their content. With Google's purchase of YouTube last year, followed by more aggressive attempts to monetize the site (such as the deal struck with Verizon Wireless), it was inevitable that YouTube would come under pressure to share some of those fruits with ordinary users. But why didn't YouTube pay its users from the start? Hurley said: 'We didn't want to build a system that was motivated by monetary reward. We wanted to really build a true community around video. When you start out with giving money to people from day one, the people you do attract will just switch to the next provider who's paying more. We're at a scale now that we feel we can do that and still have a true community around video.'"

7 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Google is so rich... by Kensai7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seems they need to new find ways to spend their fortunes...

    Why don't they start working on their own OS to go head-to-head with Microsoft? If there is one company that can do it, Google Inc. is!

    --
    "Sum Ergo Cogito"
  2. Bandwidth Costs by imuffin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't understand. Last year, the overwhelming consensus was that Youtube was losing phat sacks of cash everyday 'cuz their ad revenue couldn't possibly pay their bandwidth costs. And now they are making enough money to compensate uploaders for the privilege of hosting their videos? I'm sure their profit margin increased now that Google owns them so Youtube doesn't have to deal with a 3rd party ad agency, but does that really make that much of a difference to the bottom line? Or has bandwidth just gotten a lot cheaper? Or are they just looking to corner the market so that as bandwidth prices drop and Internet ads become more lucrative, they'll be in a position to profit?

    1. Re:Bandwidth Costs by LeDopore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm no 'net expert, but I've heard that bandwidth costs fall by about half every year. Ad revenue per view, on the other hand, should stay roughly constant (or it might go up if companies currently underestimate how much cash they could make by targeted video ads). In any case, as long as Google can automate the video hosting to a large degree, it's just a matter of time until ads will more than pay for bandwidth costs, and then the biggest company out there is going to be in a nice position.

      --
      Expected time to finish is 1 hour and 60 minutes.
  3. Re:User-generated? by kfg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's quite obvious to distinguish from copyrighted material to web cam material.

    Webcam material is copyrighted too.

    I also would think Google is smart enough to figure out if content was copyrighted by a person that did not submit the video

    Lawyers often have a hard time figuring this out. I record (on my webcam, of which I currently have none) myself playing "This Land is Your Land." Ludlow denies that the copyright has lapsed. The version is one I learned from Jack Elliot (nobody does the original version anymore), but also happens to include variations from Pete and Arlo.

    Who cares? Who doesn't? Who cares, but doesn't if they get a cut? Who cares, but doesn't if they get a cut, but don't actually deserve it?

    And do I upload it, or does someone else? Whoever might own various copyrights on the subject material, the recording is mine. Maybe it isn't me, but they have my permission. It isn't about who made the content, but who has the right to distribute it. That could be anybody or nobody.

    . . .they do have one of the best search engines after all.

    Yes, but how many IP experts searching do they have?

    Here is the classic way of figuring it out: upload it and see who, if anybody, complains, then call in the lawyers. In extreme cases perhaps even a jury. Juries are actually the closest thing we have to true assingers of IP rights.

    KFG

  4. lack of understanding of real "community" by drDugan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whatever this man means by the word "community" - it is not what most humans understand it to be.

    If you're paying some people to participate, they will not be there for community. In fact, having a mixed paid/volunteer crowd creates a situation where it is almost impossible to maintain community activities without significant hiding of information. Either you have a group who gives freely and members benefit from the giving, or you have people who are being paid to contribute and they run a cost/benefit in their head for their time to participate. You really can't have both simultaneously and keep the group together.

    See a recent talk I gave on what a community really is http://tinyurl.com/22j9fy

  5. Re:I'll stick with Revver by rh2600 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Likewise...

    Revver (and others) have been doing this for a while, using their brains, not their brawn

    All youtube did was allow users to steal my content from revver... but they did take it down, after I went through their notification progress...

  6. A bone for the MPAA and ilk by skribe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This also might be a way that they can fight the pending lawsuits by the studios. If you want to be paid for content you upload then YouTube will need certain details so they can pay you. They can then of course pass those details along to the relevant authorities if they come calling about a copyright violation. Let the uploader and the MPAA/studios slug it out.

    --
    Blog