Slashdot Mirror
Google To Monetize Content From Consenting YouTubers
sufijazz writes "Google has announced its intention to allow advertisers to monetize the contents of YouTube videos. 'The ads accompanying the outbound YouTube clips won't be in a video format. Instead, they will appear as a graphic straddling the video or as a link along the bottom. Google won't be pulling clips from YouTube's entire library ... The material sent to other Web sites will be confined to video from providers who sign consent forms. With the new twist, Web sites participating in AdSense now can sign up to specify the kinds of YouTube videos they want shown on their pages.' Everyone sees a cut in this plan, evidently. Both the creator of the video as well as anyone that embeds it on their website will receive a share of the profits. The company has yet to specify the percent each party gets."
Submitter using his thesaurus without really understanding the word? 'Commercialize' perhaps, but not 'monetize'
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Or, perhaps, you are able to watch those videos because of the revenue generated by the ads.
A certain percent is split with the video's creator(s). What percentage? Zero!
It seems to go one step further: YouTube videos with these ads will be automatically placed on websites depending on keywords, etc. So not only does a website creator have automatic ads on their site, they have automatic YouTube videos on their sites as well.
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
He gets to watch the video. What's not cut-y about that? Not only that, he gets to choose which videos he wishes to watch, and can therefore choose not to watch any ads at all. So yes, everyone sees a cut in this plan. It's just that before now, Google was missing out somewhat.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.