digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

YouTube to Share Revenue With Users

hosted.ap.org — Chad Hurley, co-founder of YouTube, said Saturday that the wildly successful site will start sharing revenue with its millions of users.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • canewediggit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+237while this sounds like a great idea, doesn't this mean that all these users uploading copyrighted content will now be sued? if they're going to be paid, they have to identify themselves, so now they can be easily tracked. and if they're making $$$ using someone else's material, well.......

    lip syncing to a 50 cent track? lawsuit. mash-up of colbert and o'reily? lawsuit. use the oc theme song in the background of your lonelygirl15 rip-off? lawsuit.

    content creators should get paid, but how much of youtube's content is actually 100% original?
    • jriley101, on 10/12/2007, -25/+4Well I guess it is just like how http://www.techtagg.com was the first one to share revenue with users for a Digg like site. I think it makes sense at some point for all user generated content sites to someone share some of their revenue with their users. If this is indeed true then it would be an awesome news!
    • halbe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17What happened to the complete copyrights you give up when you upload your videos. I thought that they basically own it when you post it.
    • kursefour20, on 10/12/2007, -1/+37We'll I think it's going to be like Metacafe.com "Producer Rewards" where you can enroll certain video's to get revenue. The rest of the video's are just to view like Youtube.com is doing now. Now if they still decide to put a video with copyright infringement acts after reading the Terms and Conditions, then that's when they are in trouble.
    • sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -1/+83Great... now every jackass with a webcam will be spamming their youtube videos all over digg and every other social network.
    • Rapishorrid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@canewediggit
      that's probably half the reason they are doing this
    • plamoni, on 10/12/2007, -2/+64The only downside is that YouTube has been a giant money pit since it launched... Last I heard they were dropping about a million bucks a month on bandwidth...

      So when they say "revenue sharing," does that mean they're going to start charging you? :-)
    • swOhio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25I'm sick to my stomach thinking about two ***** kids making thousands of dollars acting like jackasses lip syncing the pokemon theme song. I still don't understand why people watch some of the "most popular" users/vidoes.
    • m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@plamoni

      No. It's called making money from advertisers.

      So what I see happening is either an ad clip before the video, or like Revver where you get PPC marketing done at the end of the video.
    • BlackSheep720, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18i guess this means a lot more videos will be being submitted to digg
    • kunalthakar, on 10/12/2007, -11/+2EDIT: == Wrong story == Sorry.

      The problem with either Compiz or Beryl is that neither of them are stable enough for installation in a desktop. Beryl is just too flaky on my current desktop. If the situation doesn't improve rapidly by the time Feisty releases, I think including Desktop bling would be a bad move.
    • ninjoah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3greedtube.com did it first...
    • 4NDr01D, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2good for them

      revver can suck it
    • TheCount, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Well there goes Youtube. As soon as you involve money into the system, all the lame bastards will show up to try and game the system.
    • JackDanger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@plamoni

      YouTube *was* spending $1mil/month on bandwidth until they were bought by Google. Google owns the most beastly fiber-optic network in the world and it's cost them far less to run YouTube.
    • ariza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5REVVER.com has been sharing advertising with users for a few years now. This is nothing new.

      My guess is that YouTube users will need to create a GoogleCheckout account to manage payments from YouTube. That way Google will continue their assault on PayPal.
    • seaotter02, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26@4NDr01D

      So let me recap for you. Revver has:
      1) Better terms of use than Youtube
      2) been paying for creating content for over a year
      3) been paying for sharing content for over a year
      4) an open API orders of magnitude more advanced than Youtube's (http://developer.revver.com/api)
      5) better quality videos
      6) QuickTime downloads on all videos
      7) customizable branding on their flash player
      8) an advanced JS widget (http://developer.revver.com/widget)
      9) pays creators any time their content is used (paying users for the Verizon service that Youtube does not pay users for)

      Yeah, Revver should suck it. They sound horrible.
    • Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"while this sounds like a great idea, doesn't this mean that all these users uploading copyrighted content will now be sued?"

      Not really as directors who abide by the money making rules will be the only ones who can receive money, that would make it simple and ensure original creativity.
    • locojones, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Doesn't a company actually have to have revenue in order to share it?
    • Mikecol, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Since when does Google not have revenue?
    • gamesector, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3One thing is for sure. If this happens, I'm buggered. My account is basically just tv shows...
    • orientis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd like to see anyone lip-synching to 50 cent put in jail.

      Every time I go looking for video clips - say Weird Al clips - the search results are full of ***** like "Weird Al - Bohemian Polka - ME AND MY SISTER MADE THIS TRIBUTE TO WEIRD AL LOLZ". News Flash: Only your mother thinks you are funny. Fan-made video clips for things that are already inherently silly is beyond stupid. It's metastupid.
  • arunforce, on 10/12/2007, -21/+9That profit joke has finally been answered (here goes my harsh attempt):

    1. Record a Fight
    2. Go to Youtube.com
    3. Upload (the ?????)
    4. Profit!!!

    I'm lame. ='(
  • dpvu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27Time to break out the webcams!

    Let's all make videos about how sad and depressing life is and reap the profits.
    • Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If it's worth watching I'll watch it, otherwise you can go stuff it you stupid ugly retard!!!!

      Just joking.. I always thought to comment on Youtube videos you must want the director to die a hopeless death.
      (half the comments on Youtube are actually 'this' ugly)
    • trevor1189, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3I'm going to make a video screaming at the 1000 other people who submitted this story even though it was clearly on digg already. Just do a search for Youtube revenue and you'll see what I mean.

      On the other hand maybe I should submit it too, after all it is on my blog.

      http://mytechnewsblog.blogspot.com
  • busch30pack, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Just as Kevin predicted.
    • toast1226, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I'm pretty sure it was Alex who predicted this. If I remember correctly in a diggnation podcast, Kevin didn't think it'd work out.
  • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Great. So when is Digg going to start splitting ad profits with link submitters? Anyone else feel even a little ripped off that all these social sites are making money off of your work?
    • Fhionnlaoch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I don't see how they're making money since all the google adsense links are to the diggnation podcast (at least, that's how it is for me the majority of the time).
    • TheNik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You mentioned that and I looked. Every ad on this page was for Diggnation (when I was looking at it). :P
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2As I'm looking at them, they aren't. But that's irrelevant. Digg is making money one way or the other. They are making money from our work. With the exception of providing hardware & software, they don't actually do any work themselves. We do. So it only seems fair to split the company profits with it's *employees*.
    • m3mn0n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5They facilitate the entire interaction. The value is in the interaction.

      And this facilitation costs money (servers, bandwidth, developers).

      So you, being a user of the service, should help keep this value by clicking ads to support them in paying all the bills.

      If they make more than what goes out, that's good because it means more growth in all the areas I mentioned. More servers, bandwidth, developers thus features. And thus more value.

      If it means someone like Kevin gets to buy a new BMW, well, good for him. =)
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@m3mn0n - That's all well and good, but the value of Digg is in the submissions. If we all stopped submitting stories tomorrow, Digg would be out of business in a month.
    • Squigly, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1@Fhionnlaoch

      Firefox + ad-block + Filter Set G Updater = :D
  • rjodwyer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4You realise that youtube makes a loss. Google is funding this.
  • JavertHolmes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16YouTube before: people would spam the ***** out of other people's video comments and sites such as Digg to boost their view count.

    YouTube after: same as YouTube before, but now people have a financial incentive to spam. This makes YouTube or the web in general better how?
  • rowlodge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1everything i have has got unlicensed music and unlicensed video...won't work.
  • smroge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Has YouTube become profitable itself yet?
    • ccheath, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1i believe that since google bought it and began to help out with their 'fiber network' the b/w costs have gone down

      i bet that they're making some money now
      ... it wouldn't be smart to offer this revenue sharing unless they were making some profit
  • i619, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4chad hurley, 1992 called, it wants its haircut back!
    • catullus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you're forgetting the fact that Chad Hurley now OWNS 1992.. yes... the year
  • smish420, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0*gets out webcam and starts lip syncing to 50 cent song*
  • KnightMareInc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Share revenue based on what?Hits?Favorites?Sounds like people will spam their clips alot more on digg.
  • JGCollins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Chad Hurley, one word: bronzer.
  • smish420, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1wait wait wait, isnt that the guy from The Da Vinci Code?
  • 4815162342, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Who called this? Was it Alex or Kevin?
  • n3il89, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here is the actual YouTube link of Hurley saying this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlYtu63_uDE
  • djphatjive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Youtube is nothing without copyright infringement.
  • Whoboy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet time to upload hundreds of ***** videos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • westoncampbell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'll stick with MetaCafe... MetaCafe + YouTube = $$$ if I post all the same videos to both. Yeah baby!
  • Skysurfer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Youtube's position on user submissions already states they can pretty much do anything they want with the video until you remove it, so I'll be watching to see what changes are made on this policy. One way to look at it is that it's great they are going to compensate users, but I wonder how granular that will be. For instance, let's say I upload a video of my new five month old son doing something amazing (of which he does every day of course), and some ad agency wants to use that. So Youtube sells them a license for $50K - what do I see from that? A flat fee or a percentage of the total licensing revenue? Then what happens if I take the video off the site once it's been sold? The horse is pretty much out of the barn at that point.

    Questions, questions...

    The Youtube policy I reference is here (section 5, paragraph B): http://www.youtube.com/t/terms

    • stalinvlad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It would have to be really crazy amazing to get $50K
      Would your wife earn that doing a video?
    • xister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2From the UA: "C. In connection with User Submissions, you further agree that you will not: (edit) post advertisements or solicitations of business: "

      So no more "Will it Blend?"

      (ducks and runs for cover)
  • SamsLembas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I would rather have my videos be big enough that people can actually see them.... Or at least just kinda see them.
  • Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"while this sounds like a great idea, doesn't this mean that all these users uploading copyrighted content will now be sued?"

    Nope, Videos with Copyrighted Content most likey will not be able to share in the revenue.

    Ebaums world will die a slow and painful death
  • jbklego, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3what revenue?
  • leonwestbrook, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2this will make ego maniacs like Renetto head to swell much larger
  • EXJustin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2 I think many of you aren't seeing the big picture. To those who say that this will only spawn lawsuits over copyrighted material, I'm sure they can regulate their advertising and make sure those submitting stolen content are not getting paid (Perhaps through the use of contractual "studio" profiles). To those who say "What revenue?", you have to give to get. By offering revenue to users, youtube is reaching out to thousands of would be directors who only needed a little incentive to go out and buy some decent equipment and produce quality content.

    This is a huge idea because it could possibly elevate youtube from the cesspool of Colbert clips, freak accidents, news bloopers, and random garbage that many people perceive it to be (unjustly so, there is currently plenty of engaging, quality content on youtube, just not enough) to a breeding ground for decently produced quality content that could finally tip the scales in favor of Internet video, establishing youtube and other online video sites as the new FOXs and CNNs. By then, trust me there will be plenty of revenue. All they need is a well designed system for integrating advertising into specific director profiles.
  • surfpark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Profiting from your videos will most likely be conducted in the manner of Adsense. For example, Adsense doesn't care where your content is as long as you're directing traffic to their advertisers. I suspect that videos made for profit will have advertisements in their stream. It won't be about if YouTube makes a profit as a whole, but rather if advertisers are willing to pay to be seen on these most-watched videos.

    I do think this is forward thinking, but there will be legal issues involved. There is a big difference to simply taking down a video verses revoking cash profits from a user. I have a feeling the profits will be held in escrow (ala PayPal) for a while before anyone sees a real cent.
  • krisper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Wow, imagine people actually generating original content and making money from it instead of uploading last weeks episode of Galactica, and patting themselves on the back at what brave, brave cultural insurgents they are.
  • stalinvlad, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yes but my valentines day special where I cover a Barbie doll in my Mans Milk can't be posted onto uptight You-Tube
    • xister, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Shoot it (no pun intended) in an interesting way and call it art if they question it... ;)
  • landrew, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Wow, this is a very interesting development. It makes a lot of sense that content producers should be compensated for their work. It is great that YouTube and others are recognizing it!
  • scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You can rest assured I wont be clicking on many videos when this comes into effect.

    The thought of making most of those ***** douchehole video bloggers any money... ugh.
  • mudanoman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have been making money on Youtube videos on Flixya.com about 6 months ago :)
  • goonmaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0metacafe have been doing this for ages already,
    everyone seems to worship google but they never do anything original - they basically buy everything worthwhile and put their logo on it.
  • t0ny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wish they did this sooner when this video http://youtube.com/watch?v=tR21apqxxHo of mine got 33k views... It rules have a stupid video that is related to a video on the home page :).
    Like I was saying I dont expect to get paid anything but it would be nice.
  • DougO, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1YouTube has revenue? Who Knew?
  • armyvet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"felt revenue-sharing would build a community of users motivated by making money, rather than their love of videos. But that as the site has grown, the three, who continue to run the company, have come to see financial remuneration as a way of improving content."

    So what they're saying is that free enterprise works? Wow, go figure!

  • juicebag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This will inevitably lead to the downfall of the internet. People will be constantly spamming crappy videos they made on every known orifice of the internet to make money.
  • brianbb98, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1just great..... lonelygirl15 will have funding and will post EVEN MORE videos... just great..
  • gatorsrule21, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1What revenue?
  • JeremyL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Show me the money
  • sparkmonkeyz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yay!!!
  • JonAce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Can't wait for my $0.001 USD!
  • danc4498, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Users profiting from posting Daily Show clips. Something tells me this'll cause media companies to think twice before allowing Youtube to post videos.
  • darkcaps, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah the more copyrighted videos you post the more money you get.
  • Stewage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Idiocracy here we come!
  • NeoRicen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What revenue?
  • DMUX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1man that sucks, too bad they deleted my account for no reason a while back, I guess they didn't like all my really popular lockpicking videos so they up and deleted everything with no reason why
  • digitalsmash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Could it be...that they want to entice more people (esp. teens) into doing things like the "lonelygirl15" thing to gain more popularity for themselves, as well as gain a regular flow of traffic from those who come by everyday to watch the new "episodes? I really hope not! I'd rather see the good, copyrighted stuff! While it seems like a good business strategy, it's quite likely that it could one day lead to the demise of You Tube....espcially if the copyrighted content is elminiated in the process of screening and monitoring submissions for paying people. If You Tube does it without eliminating the copyrighted content...they would probably do alright.
  • devzer0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1... and since we have negative revenue, you OWE us money!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHA !!!
  • bizchris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think both the 0% revenue issue and the copyright issue might both be included in their strategy - it shifts the focus to sharing revenue on original content (instead of copyrighted stuff). So it could be a smart way for them to get people away from copyrighted materials and into producing a unique, and legally incontestable, revenue stream.
  • BoredWealth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This is the wave of the future. Users should be paid a share of the ad revenues. That's the idea behind my site: http://www.boredwealth.com/
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.