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.'"

3 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Old "Home Made" Videos by Mysteerie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Time to start uploading those old home made videos of the ex-girlfriend (that is if they are paying on a per view basis).

  2. Re:So... by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is to stop the other "communities built around video" from doing the same and turning the thing into the "who'll pay more" type war they say they wanted to avoid?
    It's a matter of inertia and first-mover advantage. YouTube will have run away with the online video audience, much as eBay ran away with the auction marketplace more than 7 years ago.

    Others might pay more for content but it won't change the fact that YouTube is where everyone visits.

    By way of example, Yahoo! Auctions finally did away with fees a couple years ago. It did not suddenly catapult them to parity with eBay.

    So long as YouTube doesn't do anything to endanger their organic draw (e.g. FaceBook's privacy gaffes, Friendster's performance issues), they are poised to hold onto their user base indefinitely.

    --

    There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
  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