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."
Everyone has a price.
Cue flame war in 3, 2, 1...
GENERATION 24: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
Over the last year Youtube has consistently been doing stupid things. I was about to stop using them altogether. This might just be the last straw if this becomes widespread.
The free ride is over. Give me a firefox plugin to block this crap otherwise GTG LOL
I'm in ur slashdot spamming ur forumz.
but illegally uploaded content by other users
You mean, possible copyright infringements?
How about "innocent until proven guilty"?
Whew. For a second there I read it as "Youtube to allow self-aware ads for major media players".
I wonder if youtube's Content ID system has a filter for fair use. I suppose technically they can go with, it's my site, I'll do what I want to.
However I have to say that it seems like a better option for the users than just removing their content.
I wonder where they would have time for advertising in this juggling video.
Is this how Google lets their inner Evil out?
Users will be allowed to upload some content into full-length commercials.
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.
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.
...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.
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?
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.
I can see it now..."LOL FUNNY!!! MAN LIGHTS FART," inadvertently sponsored by Bic Lighters and Kingston charcoal!
Seriously though, the auto-inserted ads could lead to some hilarious juxtapositions. I hope it's smarter than gmail, which always tries to sell me panties and "bachelorette party supplies."
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
MobileMe Terms of Service
1. Your Acceptance of Terms
Welcome to MobileMe
The following Terms of Service (âoeTOSâ) are between you and Apple and constitute a legal agreement that governs your use of the MobileMe product, software, services and websites (collectively referred to as the âoeServiceâ). You must agree to these TOS before you can use the Service. You can agree to these TOS by: a) actually using the Service, or b) clicking a box that indicates you agree to the Service, where such a box is made available to you. If you do not agree to any of the following terms, please do not use the Service. You should print or otherwise save a copy of these TOS for your records. "Apple" as used herein means Apple Inc., located at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California and, where applicable, Apple Sales International, Hollyhill Industrial Estate, Hollyhill, Cork, Ireland.
Legal Authority
To use and/or register for the Service you must be: a) of legal age to form a binding contract with Apple, and b) cannot be a person barred from receiving the Service under the laws of the United States or other applicable jurisdiction, including the country in which you reside or from where you use the Service. By accepting these TOS you represent that you understand and agree to the foregoing. If you are under the required legal age, but at least 13 years old, you may still use the Service (subject to applicable local law), but only if the account you are using was created and registered by your parent or legal guardian (see Section 3 below for further details).
Updates
Apple may update or change these TOS from time to time and recommends that you review the TOS on a regular basis. You can review the most current version of the TOS at any time at http://www.apple.com/legal/mobileme/. If Apple makes a change to the TOS, it will post the revised TOS on our website at the link as herein noted. You understand and agree that your continued use of the Service after the TOS has changed constitutes your acceptance of the TOS as revised. Without limiting the foregoing, if Apple makes a change to the TOS that materially impacts your use of the Service, Apple may post notice of any such change on our website and/or email you notice of any such change to your MobileMe account.
2. Description of the Service
System Requirements
Use of the Service requires one or more compatible devices, certain software and internet access with compatible ISP (broadband required for web applications); separate fees may apply. Some portions of the Service require Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard and iLife â(TM)08, available separately. Your use of the Service may be affected by certain combinations of hardware, software and/or internet access. High speed internet access is strongly recommended. Compatible device: Mac, PC, iPhone, or iPod touch. For Mac: Mac OS X v10.4.11, v10.5.4, or later; Safari 3, Firefox 2, or later. For PC: Windows Vista or Windows XP Home or Professional (SP2) or later; Internet Explorer 7, Safari 3, Firefox 2, or later; (Microsoft Outlook 2003 or later recommended). For iPhone and iPod touch: 2.0 software. iTunes 7.7 or later (free download from www.itunes.com/download). The Service is available in the following languages: English, French, Japanese and German.
Changing the Service
Apple reserves the right to modify or stop the Service (or any part thereof), either temporarily or permanently, at any time or from time to time, with or without prior notice to you. Without limiting the foregoing, Apple may post on our website and/or send email to your MobileMe account, notice of such changes to the Service. It is your responsibility to review our website and/or check your MobileMe email address for any such notices. You agree that Apple shall not be liable to you or any third party for any modification or cessation of the Service.
Limitations on Use
You agree to use the Service only for purposes as permitted by these TOS and an
So, if they don't want to run an expensive ad campaign they just upload strategically crippled clips through a straw-man, "discover" them and then allow them to stay (in exchange for free advertisement they embed and a share of the advertising revenue from those clips).
Nope, doesn't sound like a bad thing at all.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
I've known for months that they've been doing this, just because I've been getting email notices stating it.
I prefer the ads to silent or removed videos or suspended accounts.
So, will YouTube bother vetting these ads, or will they become the next great haven for unvetted rogue Flash ads that redirect you to malware sites?
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.
Everyone seems to want to host/control their own content. Many of them are offering their content for free just to reserve some level of control. If youtube allows them to cut the cost of hosting their own content AND make a profit while doing it why would anyone not allow youtube to host their content?
As youtube starts to focus on increasing the quality of what they stream we could potentially see a new alternative to cable/sat TV and maybe finally get an à la carte service we so desperately want!
One last thing I wanted to mention is how youtube really is the evolution of public access TV. We've lost a lot of it over the years and even more so when we finally go digital. Why doesn't youtube get government funding for hosting this content?
If I upload my own material to youtube, and youtube puts an ad on top of it, isn't that similar to marking it as their own, (or the advertisers). As the copyright holder, I don't think I want text over writing the video.
Considering the fact that Youtube takes all DMCA violations without investigation how will they handle these new ad requests? I mean will they really investigate if I send them a letter saying I own the rights to CSI and demand they post my ads? I would be pretty annoyed if they bend over backwards to make sure that doesn't happen, while at the same time banning users who posted material that was accidently DMCAed by a major corp. On the other hand if they don't filter these requests it could be pandemonium with everybody claiming the rights (and revenue) to every clip on the planet.
by allowing major media players to run their own ads on the video site for ... illegally uploaded content by other users
.
Major media players are going to be posting video advertisements for the illegally uploaded content (whatever the hell that is) of other users?
Surely the author means "on", "in", "within" or somesuch?
OMG!!! Ponies!!!
So its going to be like hulu.com
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.
I have to say... I think this is a great idea. I post weekly videos to Youtube and every once in a while will put music to them. The last one I put up had an old 80's song in it, and lo and behold, the next day I received a copyright "notice" that gave me 2 options: 1 - do nothing and have an ad to buy the song via iTunes or Amazon placed at the bottom of the vid while the music was playing, or 2 - dispute it. I have to say that I dont care if they want to put ads because I really am using their property without permission and it's a MUCH better option than having the video completely removed (which I have had happen in the past for an image of a product), or having your account closed.
same here. i'm sick of reading news or blog articles on sites like autoblog.com which refer to YouTube videos that have been removed.
it's especially stupid when Viacom has music videos taken down. the whole reason you make music videos is to promote an artist/song/album. if someone posts it online, they're just giving you more free publicity. you don't charge MTV for playing your music video on Headbangers Ball, so why would you complain about YouTube broadcasting a low-def version of your music video for millions of people to see?
YouTube's quickly turning into another Photobucket. cheap throwaway image hosts have long been contributing to the sea of dead images polluting online forums and message board archives. likewise, tons of dead YouTube videos can be found embedded in blog posts and even news articles these days because media corporations like Viacom are taking down YouTube uploads of news reports, music videos, TV clips, and even TV commercials.
i wouldn't even mind if such content were never posted to YouTube in the first place. at least then we wouldn't run into dead YouTube videos left and right. i just wish internet news sites and news blogs would learn to just avoid Viacom/NBC/Fox/etc.'s content. if those companies don't want the free publicity or promotion for their shows/artists, then just ignore them in your online reporting. cover indie bands or indie filmmakers. there's plenty of better quality free content out there that you know won't get taken down by the copyright holders.
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.
It's pretty difficult to have illegal content. You mean "expression" or more specifically, "video". Content is pretty much impossible to own.
So let's rewrite this correctly: "not only video posted by owners, but also video posted illegally by others".
I highly doubt gaining revenue from illegally obtained/generated content is legal. I assume it's assimilable to possession if stolen goods.
"Problems"? The Constitution doesn't guarantee a life without problems. All it says is that he is entitled to a fair trial before the Feds throw his sorry ass in jail. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal tenet that applies to trials, not public opinion.
The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
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?
I'm guessing it'll act similarly to the existing procedure for disputing copyright complaints.
Perhaps because it isn't true:
advertise
c.1430, "to take notice of," from M.Fr. advertiss-, prp. stem of a(d)vertir "warn," from L. advertere "turn toward," from ad- "toward" + vertere "to turn" see versus). Original sense remains in advert "to give attention to." Sense of advertise shifted to "give notice to others, warn" (1490) by influence of advertisement, which meant "public notice (of anything, but often of a sale)" by c.1460. The modern, commercial meaning was fully developed by 18c.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
If you'd like other opinions, you can read more here
I've been keeping an eye on the search results for YouTube videos silenced by WMG from it's original report on an earlier slashdot discussion of 13,600 videos, right now the number is at 294,000 videos and a lot of them have now been removed.
Looks like WMG are losing out on a very BIG advertising revenue stream by removing almost 1/3 million videos, and the number will most likely grow (1/2 million? 1 million?). If they had any intelligence they'd have turned this debacle into a new revenue stream. A lot of the videos silenced/removed have had millions of views, I certainly wouldn't say no to that level of page views if I could make money from it.
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
Major media players... like Windows Media Player and VLC!
So, YouTube has advertisements on their site? I guess ad blockers do a good job. Unless this scheme plans to interlace/whatever it within the actual video, do they expect it to work?
i'm sick of reading news or blog articles on sites like autoblog.com which refer to YouTube videos that have been removed.
For about the past month, I have noticed that YouTube has really begun dying. Too many big players have a stranglehold on it and it has really started to suck all around. Just like you, I keep running into removed videos embedded/linked from blogs. The annoying advertising has ramped up. YouTube started playing commercials mid-video. It works by locking up the flash player and forcing a commercial to play through before it unlocks.
It might be time to pull all my videos from YouTube and stop using my account. However, I don't know of any decent alternatives right now. Something decentralized would be really nice, like some system built on top of, say, Freenet (ignoring the large barrier to entry for normal people, and the slow speed). Then it would be out of control of anyone. For now we just need something small enough so it doesn't get enough attention to suffer, like YouTube of old times.
To help deal with some of the suckage, I almost exclusively use youtube-dl to access YouTube, which simply downloads a copy of the video. No ads (ads are all done by the Flash player) and I have my own downloaded copy, which YouTube can't arbitrarily remove at some point in the future.
Today I was searching for "acceptable in the 80s" by calvin harris, found the video clip at the sony bmg channel: "This video is not available in your country" (we're talking germany here, where btw everything from the 80s is unfortunately still acceptable, but that's another story). I bet Calvin Harris is happy that sony is in his best interest spreading the word about his music worldwide.
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
As an experiment, I deliberately posted a video to my YT channel with copyrighted music in the audio track (just happened to be a WMG artist).
Sure enough, I got a message telling me that the audio had bee muted -- no surprise there and I'm not "outraged" or upset.
As the second part of this experiment, I tried to get a legal license to use the offending track in that video.
You can read about my frustration and ultimate failure in that endeavor in a column I wrote called Why does the music industry want you to "steal"?.
It seems that WMG are more interested than cutting off their nose to spite their face than they are in actually leveraging YT for profit.
Likewise, I would have thought that Google's "smart guys" would have already twigged to the revenues they could make by putting a "one-click licensing" button on the "Upload" screen. If I could license a commercial track for (say) $5 I'd spring for it, and I suspect many others would too.
Yet another reason to stay away from what is becoming the media mafia's last haven. Who would want to watch adverts on TOP of watching what is already at YouTube: the pointless mental diarrhea of the most narcissistic assholes on the planet.