Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

YouTube To Allow Self-Serve Ads For Major Media Players

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the go-ahead-upload-that-copywronged-clip dept.

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."

15 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Illegal upload by Jurily · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but illegally uploaded content by other users

    You mean, possible copyright infringements?

    How about "innocent until proven guilty"?

  2. Does this mean we can post copyrighted content now by sarahbau · · Score: 2, Insightful

    YouTube has been on a spree deleting lots of videos that use songs or parts of songs by Warner Music Group. I think I could stand having a short advertisement before watching a video (but not during it) if it meant people could post these videos again.

  3. I wonder... by Anachragnome · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...when all these brilliant marketing peoples will stop seeing advertising as another "revenue stream" and see it as "another reason not to use the service".

    Kinda like me.

    1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      God forbid the people creating these wonderful services have the money to support and run it in the future. What is this world coming to.

    2. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Feel free to use another site...

      And then a flood of people start using that site and the site owners see the bandwidth bill, they'll crap their pants and put ads up on their site too.

    3. Re:I wonder... by nicklott · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the services cost money to run and are free to use.

      For most websites advertising is not just another revenue stream, it's their ONLY revenue stream. Servers and bandwidth cost money, and if you're doing something right, lots of money. If you're doing something right with video it's a heinous amount of money. Having a successful website doesn't qualify you for instant magic payments, you have to go earn the money somehow.

      It's amazing that so many bright people who work with technology just don't get this concept (perhaps they live mainly in academia, where you do get magic payments)

      The subscription revenue model died out five years ago. It didn't work. It turns out most people prefer to have their content for free and see a few ads rather than pay $30 a year for no ads. I have seen sites that went the wrong direction (ad funded to subscription only) and they either very quickly reverted or died. Traffic dropped by 90-99%, revenue by 50-75%. They can make it in some very specialised sectors (eg finance, nautical weather) but by and large it's a dud model.

    4. Re:I wonder... by vux984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, I don't think they will. I also block the ads here, but if I couldn't for some reason, I would subscribe before I stopped coming here. Not everybody is a cheap bastard.

      I would subscribe when they make it worth my while by adding features to the subscribe site I find value in, not when they make the free site so abominably bad that would consider paying not to use it.

      Given most aren't subscribers, and most would leave if the site got that abominably bad, and the core value of the site is the people, there wouldn't be much point in subscribing to what was left any way.

  4. invasive popups are already annoying by Satanboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am already annoyed by the number of popups I see on youtube nowadays.

    I rarely use the site anymore just because its so damn annoying having all those little bubbles overlaying my video clip. I know I can close them, but its just bothersome and annoying.

    I wonder if this will be another nail in the coffin for the service?

  5. overlay on a video you haven't made yourself? by aleph42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay, so this sounds really smart at first: studios get some money when people watch something they have helped create, and the mashup artist gets some peace to show his stuff.

    But wait... the ad would not be beside the video, but *overlaid* ????

    So let me get this straight:

        - knock knock, we're from the 'church' of Scientology, and we own the content to that (anti-scientology) clip. Can we overlay it with an ad for us, which lasts for the whole duration of the video, and cover the whole screen?
        - Sure, I'm just an automated bot; pay me 10$ and you'll be on your way!

    --
    Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
  6. Re:Do no evil by ChienAndalu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, it's how they want to earn money. Please don't tell me you didn't see this coming.

  7. Re:YouScrewd! by CaptCovert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It may also cut down on the number of people that actually post to YouTube. If any company can claim a video is copyrighted and get ads placed all over it, what steps does the author have to declare the work a 'derivative' or 'artistic representation' (in other words, fight the copyright infringement claim)?

  8. But what if...? by tsstahl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What happens to misappropriated by Big Media content?

    Let's say my vid of "Babe" gets tagged as infringing by the group Styx or the owners of the pig movie. Now they are illegally profiting off of my IP, what recourse is there? Sure, the number of people in this situation will be small, but not insignificant.

  9. har! by phaetonic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So its going to be like hulu.com

  10. Re:Braaains by techess · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would guess so. I'm guessing that is why they've been vetting their videos. First they got rid of everything sexually explicit and now they are getting rid of things that are graphic. Probably because they don't want to piss off their advertisers. One of my favorite former youtube videos was of a guy who had wrapped tinfoil around his male parts and stuck it into an electric socket. No naughty bits showed (less than what you can see in a PG-13 movie) but they've pulled it from the site.

    Though I think I would laugh so hard I'd wet myself if the tinfoil video was followed by a Reynold commercial.

    --
    Don't anthropomorphize computers. They *hate* that.
  11. Before or After not in between! by myspace-cn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I really hope they place this advertising before or after the content of the video, instead of right across the intelligence of the video itself. Mangling the works.