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."

9 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. Self-Aware Ads. by Fumus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Whew. For a second there I read it as "Youtube to allow self-aware ads for major media players".

  3. Is this really all that bad? by Zakabog · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Is this really all that bad? by mr_mischief · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree. Yet it doesn't say what protections are in place for keeping CBS's ads out of clips mistakenly identified as belonging to CBS. Will companies like Lucasfilm put ads in legally allowed parodies like Chad Vader that actually have very little to do with actual Lucasfilm characters and nothing to do with their plots?

  4. Nice by Gizzmonic · · Score: 5, Funny

    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)
  5. Re:Replacement on "Fair Use" Videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  6. Re:I wonder... by CaptCovert · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Re:Uh oh by CarpetShark · · Score: 4, Funny

    Give me a firefox plugin to block this crap otherwise GTG LOL

    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.

  8. Re:Does this mean we can post copyrighted content by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.