First of all, remember the name.. YOUTUBE. remember the tagline... BROADCAST YOURSELF. Thats what their focus was supposed to be on. The User Generated Content.
But they realized, or maybe knew all along, that a more lucrative goal would be to become TV for the net. And as the inevitable happened... pirated shows being uploaded, they were fine with it and the loads of traffic it brought them. It might not be the case now but at one point these pirated shows were regularly featured on their front page. So.... if they really want to avoid the problem, they would need to do things like curating/moderating (could be crowdsourced), banning users, limiting upload sizes and relying more on webcam recordings etc... But they dont want to only be the longtail king. They want that juicy torso content be they want that MSM head too. Directors? MSM deals? Fact is, they got lucky but they also took advantage of the sudden boom of this online video revolution and enjoyed the ride to being the top trafficked video site. This has nothing to do with the open media revolution. This is the open pirate video revolution. And it doesnt last forever. On 13 Mar 2007 13:16:20 -0700, Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's not entirely true, YT itself is not uploading the clips, the > users are. Now I understand it's a fine line and I am not defending > the practice of copyrighted clips on YT. But they do remove clips once > they have been notified, that is a fact. Now does it stop people from > uploading clips? Of course not. That is why they (big media) is > fighting so hard for DRM, which is another story for another day. YT > may have it's fault but I have to say that they have been extremely > proactive in trying to secure content and partner with studios. > > My guess is that they money Viacom wanted up front was so outragous the > Google balked and now they are suing them. That is why I said it will > only get worse. the sums that they are asking for effectly guarentees > that companies like YT can not make a profit from advertising, because > what they would have to charge in turn for said advertising no one > could afford. > > The whole attitude of the RIAA and these media companies right now > is, "OK, we realize that people are going to pirate our stuff so to > make up for it, you need to give us X amount of dollars for the > privlage of showing our stuff AND Y sum to make up for those nasty > pirates". They are forceing these start ups to assume the risk, for > their own failing.....it's silly.....but it will happen. And that will > be bad for all of us. > > Look at how much you spend each month on re-occuring bills right now, > that are not directly related to your living expenses... > > phone bill, cell bill, cable bill, a fee for this, a fee for > that....think about it..... > > Heath > http://batmangeek7.blogspot.com > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > "Bill Cammack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > That's absolutely right. There's no reason that YouTube should have > > been able to get away with pirating everything under the sun and > > essentially ignoring requests of the original content creators to > > remove their materials from their site. It's the exact same >argument > > that's been brought up here over and over about sites being able to > > aggregate our content sans repercussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Sull http://vlogdir.com (a project) http://SpreadTheMedia.org (my blog) http://interdigitate.com (otherly) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
