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."
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".
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)
No, it's how they want to earn money. Please don't tell me you didn't see this coming.
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 start your own or host your own movies. Flash has finally made it so that I can distribute stuff to people without too much hassle. Quicktime never seemed to work perfect, especially for the computer illiterate. Now I can just say "If you can use youtube, you can use my site". I use JW FLV Media Player to serve Rugby Songs and Game Films*. I use some ffmpeg compressors to do it and in no time I have media that almost anyone can view and use.
* Yes. I am masochistic, never had my websites bench marked before...
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)?
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.
I think you wave that right when you choose to upload to YouTube and abide by their ToS.
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.
No need for a firefox plugin. You can block this crap simply by adding "127.0.0.1 slashdot.org" to your etc/hosts file.
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.
I highly doubt gaining revenue from illegally obtained/generated content is legal. I assume it's assimilable to possession if stolen goods.
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.
Yeah. I totally agree. I laughed so hard at that fantastic juggling I really worked up an appetite.
So I picked up a fresh, delicious, tasty, meaty, turkey-filled, cold cut combo. I eat three every day just to keep me strong. Talk about a hole in one!
Subway sandwiches will drive away your hunger!
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".