YouTube - is it becoming less for YOU?

Published on August 27, 2007 By foreverserenity In Websites

Google now owns YouTube. I'm sure many of you have heard that bit of news recently. I've heard nothing but complaints since they have become the owners. For one, users who post video contents that are not originals are no longer able to do so. If they do post it, it gets taken down immediately. The reason for this is copyright infringement and other real property rights that I won't go into at this writing.

I can't say I blame them as anyone who does post another person's product or work without permission and especially not giving props where and when it is due, that definitely smacks of a lawsuit by the owner(s) of said video(s)! YouTube owners do have to protect themselves, wouldn't you? I've had this conversation with my son who is an avid YouTube fan, mostly because he's into games and anything to do with Sonic and Megaman. One of his argument was, yes, he understands all that (them protecting themselves), however, even contents that were permissable by the owners and posted with the knowledge of the owners are being taken down and that's just wrong! They (Google) doing this to any and everything that gets posted is making YouTube not fun anymore.

I have also read that YouTube is now advertising on it's site. It has given permission to some of it's corporate partners to advertise on its' website. The ads will be semi-transparent and run across the face of the video being viewed. It will only take about 10 seconds and if the viewer wants to see the ad they simply have to click on it and it will open up and take them into the advertisement, the ad will then run longer than 10 seconds.

Many of the comments left on the blogged article I read had different opinions about this. Some (including the writer) felt that YouTube was becoming more like TV; the writer also mentioned that YouTube would feel like less of a community; one reader wondered if the advertisers will ask permission of the user who posts their video, if they can run an ad over their video; while another commented that maybe since the users are posting for free, YouTube might begin to say to users that they can post their videos only if they allow them to run ads on their work.

Whatever the comments for or against this new development on YouTube, the fact is that users are allowed to do what they do for free and the owners of the site do have a say in what the site contents are and they also have to make money, they are after all, a business! Although one could argue that without the users, YouTube would not be what it is today and thus they deserve some consideration from its owners.

WWW Link

Comments

HG_Eliminator

on Aug 27, 2007

I agree with them removing ripped works...any author of any medium should have full control of their property, whether it be graphics,music,video,etc. sad to say it seems the majority of todays Internet culture at large has no problem with breaking laws and tossing morality aside if it fits them...Digital theft is among the largest and most widely accepted among the Internet users..there has become this sub mentality that everything should be free and if not .. steal it....these same users would throw a hissy fit if folks started just walking in to their houses and walking out with their stuff.

I applaud You tube for finally stepping up and protecting the authors......

as for the ads...i think the ads should be off to the side or run first before the videos like MSN does...not on top of them....

Zydor

on Aug 27, 2007

The commercial side of it was inevitable, YouTube has never made a profit. There was litte point taking them to court, there was no money to win..... anyway, if they had forced closure over copyright in lieu of cash, the wrath of the YouTube user would have been dire to any litigating company's Finance Director pondering his end of year bottom line

Now its a new ball game, all of a sudden "the owners" have got cash, so in rolls the litigation, in many cases rightly so, it does need cleaning up somewhat.

It will be interesting to see how it evolves, YouTube is dead, long live YouTube as they say .....

foreverserenity

on Aug 27, 2007

I agree with them removing ripped works...any author of any medium should have full control of their property, whether it be graphics,music,video,etc.

No disagreement there!

as for the ads...i think the ads should be off to the side or run first before the videos like MSN does...not on top of them....

Yes, that would be much better, but then they have made them semi transparent soooo.....

it does need cleaning up somewhat.

Definitely! The users themselves do copy other users work too which is also wrong! My son did a pretty creative spin on a Megaman video and he found out that someone copied his original work and he wasn't too pleased with that!

It will be interesting to see how it evolves

Yes, this will be something to watch!

NightTrainthedark

on Aug 27, 2007

Youtube's founders saw this all coming and cashed out at the perfect time. The copyright heat had just begun when they sold out, google having a ton of money had nothing to do with it. It was one of Google's bad moves in my opinion.

foreverserenity

on Aug 27, 2007

Youtube's founders saw this all coming and cashed out at the perfect time.

I agree!

google having a ton of money had nothing to do with it. It was one of Google's bad moves in my opinion

I guess they figured that they are "Google" and they can handle the heat, after all, look at the empire they have built!

ZubaZ

on Aug 27, 2007

YouTube has to make money to last long term. Money usually comes fro subscriptions, per upload or download fees or advertising. I think ads are the best model for YouTube and Google is the master of unobtrusive, targeted ads.

I think it's a no brainer and not that big a deal as long as I have a say in what ads will not play on my videos. If I, for example created an anti-abortion video, I wouldn't want Google to parse it, see that it dealt with abortion, and sell ads for services that are pro-choice*.

Google had to know when they bought YouTube that they were going to have to clean house to avoid ALL the lawsuits . .but any user should have known that would have to happen at some point.

Note: this is the most extreme example I could think of . . let's not go off on an pro-choice/pro-life tangent.

foreverserenity

on Aug 27, 2007

Note: this is the most extreme example I could think of . . let's not go off on an pro-choice/pro-life tangent.

Point taken and good analogy!

Texas Wahine

on Aug 27, 2007

Does this mean I wouldn't be able to find South Park and SNL clips anymore?

foreverserenity

on Aug 28, 2007

Does this mean I wouldn't be able to find South Park and SNL clips anymore?

That's a strong possibility! My son linked from Megaman that he enjoyed and they took it down. So it looks like they are cleaning house!

Dr Guy

on Aug 29, 2007

I am not a haunter of YouTube. I check it out when directed to go there. But my question deals with what they consider original subject matter. Is the Hillary Ad? Macaca? I understand about the Simpsons and such, but it will be where they draw the line that makes or breaks them.

foreverserenity

on Aug 30, 2007

but it will be where they draw the line that makes or breaks them.

I agree. Many users are becoming frustrated with how they are doing the clean up. They have every right to but they have yet to really define what is considered original work, and that's a very good question.

AngelaMarie88

on Aug 30, 2007

I agree with them removing ripped works...any author of any medium should have full control of their property, whether it be graphics,music,video,etc.

Bummer because although I knew that "illegal" things were up there, I still enjoyed it when I had a song in my head (like some obscure but much-loved song from past decades) I could go to YouTube and hear it / see it.

My son, as recently as today has been randomly singing out, "Domo arigacho Mystery Obacho." 4-year-old-ese translation: "Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto."

I just googled the song to find out how to spell it, and it looks like it's still available on YouTube along with a heap of other Styx songs, at least as I'm writing this. I've seen a lot of homegrown music videos assembled by passionate fans, so I wonder if those violate copyright laws?

they have yet to really define what is considered original work, and that's a very good question.

Good question indeed.

foreverserenity

on Aug 30, 2007

I could go to YouTube and hear it / see it

Which a lot of people loved to do!

Jythier

on Aug 30, 2007

Now that I think about it, it's becoming a lot MORE 'you.' Now you have to post your own stuff, and no longer can just post other people's stuff.

Of course, it's just going to turn into videoblogs. Sad, but hey, what else can you do?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!