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".
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.