Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Goes After YouTube With New Online Video Posting Service (bloomberg.com)
Spencer Soper, writing for Bloomberg (edited and condensed): Amazon will let people post videos to its website and earn money from advertising, royalties and other sources, putting the company in more-direct competition with Google's YouTube. Amazon already offers movies and television programs over the Internet -- including its own original productions -- to compete with Netflix. The new product dubbed Video Direct will let Amazon give consumers more options about what to watch without an upfront fee because many of those posting videos will be paid based on how their content performs. Competing streaming services have been driving up the cost of this material. Amazon used a similar strategy to boost its inventory of electronic books through Kindle Direct Publishing, which lets authors bypass traditional publishers and reach readers directly by posting and selling their own e-books online. The Seattle-based e-commerce giant said the service is designed for "professional video producers," but its only requirements are that the videos be high definition and have closed-captioning for the hearing impaired.The company is offering 15 cents for every hour of viewing a video creator's content via Prime Video in the U.S, and six cents an hour for views outside of the U.S. Content creators can also allow Amazon to show their videos to any visitor for free. In such case, Amazon says it is offering 55 percent of all ad revenue their clips generate. Content creators can also sell their videos via its subscription service, or its rental its store -- in which case, Amazon will offer 50 percent of the revenue. YouTube has been long criticized for paying less to YouTube creators, forcing many to leave the platform, or look for alternate revenue channels.
There's more options out there than "YouTube or nothing".
Just curious. I've never seen that term before.
Cervixes? Servi-sex? What?
"This video is reserved exclusively for prime members." - coming soon to their exciting new video service.
Isn't Kindle Direct still broken with automated readers stealing a gross amount of revenue from legitimate authors? Who's to say the same thing won't happen here?
If the only requirements are HD and closed captioning then it shouldn't take long to knock up an hour's worth of HD black screen, with some captioned drivel, that can be endlessly "viewed" by bots.
..typo.
This really isn't a Youtube competitor, It's a Youtube Red(redtube?) competitor For Prime subscribers only, which limits the audience.
Is Amazon going to form its own "Social Networking" too?
Is Amazon going to form its own Search Engine?
Is Amazon going to form its own Email services?
Doing the "Me Too" thing now, is like closing the barn doors long after the horses have left.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
but pretty decent for homemade videos for fun.
If a 3 minute video gets 3 million views the video creator would get $22,500 USD. Assuming it takes two people who make videos for a living 2 weeks to make and edit a video, and that they are the only two people in the video, that works out to $35 an hour per person($22,500 / 640 hours).
So it is a competitor to CNN and Fox News?
So it is a competitor to CNN and Fox News?
Oh, for some mod points....
Everybody's already uploaded everything to YouTube, and the service is really good--all you need is an adblocker and it's just about perfect. Why would anybody switch to Amazon?
Oh.
My.
God.
Shut Slashdot down, people... We have a winner.
Oh boy, a service with a 5 syllable name that shortens to "VD". That should help with consumer uptake. "I got VD and I want to share it with all my friends!"
It's likely that bundling more benefits with Prime membership is very much on Amazon's minds, because Prime Video suffers terribly from a very poor selection of titles outside of USA. It's so bad that it becomes a strong reason for terminating your subscription once you've exhausted the short list of first-rate Prime films and lose interest in checking out obscure 2nd-rate ones.
The problem is simple: Amazon became too greedy, and doesn't ever put the best selling titles on Prime, not even in their limited period set. This makes Prime Video very disappointing unless you are happy to fill in with high-priced non-Prime titles. (It's mostly a problem outside the US, where Prime titles are far more restricted and largely mediocre.)
They could fix this by being less greedy and offering more blockbusters on Prime, but being less greedy isn't a core Amazon skill so they're probably looking for something cheap that could become a hook for Prime subscribers --- idea, user-created content!
Oh, for some mod points....
Oh my lord... quoted for so much truths! :)
Ugh, I really don't need longer videos. It's a shame intros and filler are being incentivized.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
When I think of Amazon, I think of buying stuff online. Perhaps even the upcoming new Top gear.
I cannot imagine thinking...hey.. I'll go to amazon a look at lol catz.
There is no way they can compete with youtube. Just like there was never any chance that google+ was going to take off. People think of Google as the place to go to search for what you want or to get your email, but not to post social media.
Same is true for Amazon and personal content.
Hell, I am even a Prime member and have not watched a single show their site. Why? Because while they have loads of shows, nearly everything I want to see is "extra" and I will never pay 3 dollars to watch a single episode of a TV show. Ever.
Maybe if it was like 10 cents, but 3 bucks? Nope.
And most folks I know think the same.
Youtube for random videos and Netflix or Hulu for streaming.
Though... I would use amazon to buy the router I would use to connect to those other services.
It really pisses me off when there is a breaking news story talking about something which launches today yet there is no link to the actual service! https://videodirect.amazon.com... <note>If I missed the link in the article disregard rant, thanks</note>
Vimeo's guidelines reject certain categories of video entirely.
But some older restrictions appear to been loosened:
You mentioned plural "more options out there". Which of said "more options" fills these gaps in what Vimeo allows users to post?
Not only was there no link to the service in the summary, there was not a single link in the article that was linked to!
How can we even have a discussion without knowing the details of the service.
Like for instance the unmentioned million dollar bonus for the top 100 videos in addition to the stated streaming payments...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What makes you think the established record labels and movie studios won't patrol Amazon's service at least as harshly as they patrol YouTube?
Can I lick it?
NO
Can I watch Prime Video on my Android device yet? Oh ...
I thought I would try this out. It asks me for my bank information and tax information before I can even post a video. Then it won't let me upload unless I create "Art" for 16:9 and 3:4 dimensions. This is not geared towards the typical YouTuber - this is geared towards professional video people.
Amazon can fully comply with the DMCA without implementing the abusive system Youtube created for their business partners. There is no need for a fucking take-down API that bypass the notice system, and there certainly is no need for proactive server-side scanning and automated take-downs.
Youtube ads went beyond annoying long ago. They should have known this would be inevitable, after all they are smart people according to them. Nice to see Amazon sticking it in where it hurts.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
there certainly is no need for proactive server-side scanning
As I read 17 USC 512(i)(1)(B), it requires providers taking advantage of the DMCA's safe harbor to "accommodate[...] standard technical measures", such as automatic identification of works whose copyright is often infringed, so long as said measures do "not impose substantial costs". What did I miss?
and automated take-downs.
Automated notices of claimed infringement wouldn't be quite as necessary if service providers blocked reuploads of the same work after having received "actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing" per 17 USC 512(c)(1)(A). When a service provider takes a work down upon notice of claimed infringement, the same work often remains available on the same provider at other URLs, even if the notice specifies that no accounts on that provider have been licensed to use a particular work. In addition, the work often doesn't stay down when either A. another user reuploads the work, or B. a user whose account had been terminated for repeat infringement creates a new account and reuploads the work. Only proactive or automated systems can make a dent in that sort of infringement.
My son and I make YouTube videos as a hobby, and in an average month we'll get around 15,000 hours per month of views. $0.15 per hour would be about 10x what YouTube's AdSense currently pays for those views.
If they can match YouTube's sheer volume, or even within an order of magnitude, this is a no-brainer for hobbiest content producers. I like YouTube overall, so if the only effect is that it raises AdSense's payout to compete, then it's a win-win.