Slashdot Mirror
YouTube To Allow Self-Serve Ads For Major Media Players
thefickler writes to tell us that YouTube plans on raising revenue by allowing major media players to run their own ads on the video site for, not only their own content, but illegally uploaded content by other users. "The site says CBS is already on board for the scheme, with other giants expected to join. The scheme will allow TV, movie and music companies to upload content and then sell advertising themselves, for example through images or animations which are overlaid on suitable sections of the clips. YouTube will then take a cut of this advertising revenue."
The summary seems to be describing this as if it's a bad thing.
FTA:
The firms will also be able to take advantage of YouTube's Content ID system which attempts to identify copyrighted material which has been uploaded without permission. Firms taking part in the scheme can opt for such clips, rather than being taken offline as normal, to remain on the site but with advertising added.
So rather than youtube deleting every TV show/music video/sports clip/etc. uploaded by users that violates copyright, the company that owns the copyrights to the video can now sell ad space on the video. It's not like they're selling ad space to CBS for someone's video blog, the person doesn't legally have the right to upload a video that someone else owns, at least now the videos can stay up, but with annoying ads.
Innocent until proven guilty?
It's not Google's job to decide who is guilty and who isn't. They have to dump anything if they get a copyright complaint if they want to keep their Safe Harbor protections as per the DCMA.
Google has been experiencing much slower growth in ad revenue lately and AdSense publisher revenues are much worse and are looking for new exciting revenue streams to try and get that triple digit growth rate again.
Here's a tip: putting the link to your juggling video into your sig is probably easier than trying to find a lame way to work it into all your comments.
See comment history: http://slashdot.org/~screenbert
So, I guess you're a /. subscriber as well?
Or have you not noticed the banners on all the pages?
Marketing people will stop seeing advertising as a revenue stream when people actually stop using a service because of the advertisements. Or, to put it another way: marketing people will stop seeing advertising as another revenue stream when it actually stops being a revenue stream.
I think you wave that right when you choose to upload to YouTube and abide by their ToS.
what steps does the author have to declare the work a 'derivative' or 'artistic representation' (in other words, fight the copyright infringement claim)?
I had one of my videos, a comparison between "Take Me Out" by Franz Ferdinand and Mr. Resetti's theme from Nintendo's Animal Crossing: Wild World, trigger YouTube's audio recognition. Knowing that the sort of critical commentary in "Cryptomnesia: Animal Crossing" would probably fall squarely within the bounds of fair use as described by 17 USC 107, I clicked the dispute button. I was given a choice among A. the work was misidentified, B. the use is not subject to copyright, or C. I can prove a license from the copyright owner. I clicked B, gave a one-sentence explanation of the nature of the criticism in the video, and submitted the dispute.
I highly doubt gaining revenue from illegally obtained/generated content is legal. I assume it's assimilable to possession if stolen goods.
Probably around the same time that all services and content becomes free to create and run with all their employees volunteering to keep it running without being paid.
What a horrible question. Do you honestly expect someone to run a service providing trillions of video streams and never take any money from it? How exactly is the bandwidth going to be paid for? How will the employees be paid?
Advertising is currently the only viable solution to this problem. If you think you have a better one, implement it and put Google out of business.
He's being impeached. In Illinois, you don't even have to commit a crime to be impeached. It's like being fired.
To bring this back into relevency, youtube's a little different though.
1) You can't block their video ads.
2) The quality of service they offer is completely dependent on their users.
They won't disappear because of all the small-fry users getting pissed and leaving. But they certainly won't have the mindshare of the masses as a place to host homemade videos online.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."