YouTube's Easy Fix

There's so much talk about whether YouTube can contribute serious revenue to Google's bottom line because they don't right now have the right to put ads on content they haven't licensed. That seems easy enough to fix: Make the right to show ads part of the uploading agreement for the average user.  Offer a rev-share to sweeten the deal for anyone getting over a certain number of views.

No? What' the flaw in this argument.

3 comments:

alan herrell - the head lemur said...

What exactly do you do for a living?
Ownership in one hand License in the other. You Tube does not need either your permission nor need to share with you. You gave it all away.

Welcome to the Sharecroppers union!
You Tube T&C #6
C. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable.

If this is to hard for you we have a version that may be easier to read
http://www.ravinglunacy.org/index.php/2007/09/07/social-network-bill-of-rights/

Dorian Benkoil said...

Thanks, Alan. So, that's the flaw, as I asked. YouTube has the right. So why are they limiting their ads to content they've contracted for, instead of all UGC, too?

alan herrell - the head lemur said...

Fear of sharecropper revolt.

Everyone of these sites, YouTube,Flicker,Myspace,and the rest of the so called sharing sites, all have the same terms and conditions for participation.

Without 'UGC' there is no site. You only have to piss off a couple of folks to get the ball rolling and turn the hottest site into a ghost site.

The majority of these folks have only had pubic hair for a short while and are not into reading text, or understanding what they are giving away for their 15 seconds of fame.

99% of these folks do not understand that the act of creation and publication at least in the US automatically creates Copyright, which gives them all of the rights that they give away. Royalty Free!

YouTube is a special case, as they not only get these rights, but they immediately pass them on to everybody else. This is where they screwed themselves. Everybody else stops at granting users the same rights.

Monetizing content is too expensive.
Slapping ads around the viewer at the Youtube website is certainly something that is possible, but very unlikely as you need a whole herd of folks to monitor ads to content.
Some kid pounding a bunch of beers and then puking for distance is probably not going to be at the top of some beer companies sponsorship wish list.

Besides, somebody will get up their own nose over some aspect like model scarves for hamburger commercials.

Or infringment, trademark, copyright, vicarious liability, and so on.

As far as the 'reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display,', how much money do you think would actually be made producing 2006's Greatest YouTube hits on DVD, and pumping them out at WalMart?


There is also the the legality of such click wrap contracts. The issue is still very much up in the air.

But at the end of the day, every one of these discussions devolves into how to get advertisers to pay for it.

Which is not working very well for Newspapers, Televison, Radio, Magazines and any other advertiser supported media you care to name.

Which on the internet is an oxymoron of the first water. Companies can put up their own websites, talk to their customers and cutout Media FLacks, PR guys, and my personal favorite Social Media Consultants.

These guys and gals are all honking about how much ad money is coming here, and how they are the only ones to lead you to the promised land of greater profits and Lovemark status, but this is peaking and will begin to subside as companies realize that colored pixels are the same price as black and white ones, updates and new information are a few keystrokes away, and talking directly with their customers will increase their bottom lines faster than any ad campaign they can mount.

Monetizing strategy's are sucker bets. Especially on sharing sites.