YouTube Killer (Media Portal w/ Revenue Sharing)

MattPF writes "eefoof.com is a user-submitted content site similar to YouTube/Google Video which allows users to submit Videos, Images, Flash and Audio while receiving a share of the site's ad revenue. For example, if someone uploads a really popular video that accounts for a lot of traffic in a given month, the user will receive a good portion of the video ad revenue for the month. Could this be the YouTube killer?"

Possibly,

But more likely it's a paid ad...

Re:Possibly,

Possibly? But more likely it's a paid ad...

Has someone been sniffing the fireworks smoke a little early and a bit too much?

Hover your mouse over MattPE and see what is displayed:

http://www.eefoof.com/

Some bonehead (I won't go back and read who the editor was) that let that message go through without checking an obvious connection). I demand a recount on the editorial elections to see if he really received enough votes. Besides, you'd think MattPE would have an id other than eefoof.com when he submitted his message.

The problem is he's going to get a Slashdot effect just because people are going to jump the gun instead of walking away from his site entirely.

Web2.1

The shameless self-promotion on Slashdot and Digg (and probably elsewhere) kind of grates, but you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. You have to swallow your pride a little when you're starting out, so please give them a break on this. Think of it like this: we're getting a chance to get in early while the contribution:pageview ratio is skewed, and we have an opportunity to perhaps make a little money.

But then again, it's not exactly the first advert in history to offer me a 'chance to make real money'. Apparently I could be making $2000/hour just by filling out surveys online!

It is, however, the most Web2.0-compliant [linuxvirus.net] site I've ever seen. If it is at all possible to compete with or even oust YouTube, 'eefoof' certainly seems to be the site for the job.

PHP quality

Warning: mysql_connect(): Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (2) in /home/webadmin/domains/eefoof.com/public_html/incl udes/setup.php on line 19

Warning: mysql_select_db(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL-Link resource in /home/webadmin/domains/eefoof.com/public_html/incl udes/setup.php on line 20

Warning: mysql_query(): Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (2) in /home/webadmin/domains/eefoof.com/public_html/incl udes/track.php on line 61

Warning: mysql_query(): A link to the server could not be established in /home/webadmin/domains/eefoof.com/public_html/incl udes/track.php on line 61
Logo register login

Holy shit! Have these people ever heard of is_resource()?

if(!is_resource($database_connection)) {
show_error_message();
dont_try_to_make_any_mor e_database_calls();
}

And what about prepending mysql_connect with a @ to hide the error messages from naughty boys who you don't want knowing the location of your web dir and your mysql socket?

$database_connection = @mysql_connect($host, $user, $pass);

It's not often that I'm out-noobed in PHP, but these guys have managed it.

Re:PHP quality

The usage of @ degrades performance drastically, you're better off shutting the errors off with ini_set( 'display_errors', 0 ); and having everything go to the log file. OTOH a minimal amount of error checking wouldn't be bad either so you can customize the error messages triggered.

Re:Web2.1

"eellooff"?? What the hell? You should at least make some effort to get their name right! It's eefoof.

Anything else just sounds completely retarded!!

Lulu.tv

It looks like several are doing this. The NYT has a story about Lulu.tv [nytimes.com] today. And it mentions revver.com [revver.com] is doing something similar.

Re:Lulu.tv

mmm, nice, so someone can upload his movies to all these sites and enjoy the revenue of all of 'em: Someone, quick, write me a script for auto-submitting stuff to all those sites! :D

Would be seriously cool if creative people (no, not the people who cut 1 minute from Family Guy's episodes) could earn themselves a nice buck with their stuff that way (and there is always the opportunity to lead people to your own site, where they would be able to buy the high def version of the movie)

Re:Lulu.tv

Lulu.tv is actually all creative commons. So copyrighted materials will not get paid. Stealing an episode of family guy will get you a big fat 0 (unless you created it). We do not endorse copyright infringement, but instead wish to replace it with CC licensing for all. Technically we aren't paying for the shows though either, we are paying based on a bunch of factors which mostly include getting lots of people to come participate in the site.

The new killer-killer...

Can we stop using the phrase ______-killer? A product can have weight on its own merit, and some companies to coexist even if there is a clear top dog (google, anyone?).

Problem

What is to stop anyone from going to YouTube, searching for the most popular videos of the moment and uploading them to the new site. They would then be getting Ad money for videos that didn't belong to them.

Re:Problem

In theory? The actual creators of the videos could sue you for violating their copyright.

In reality? Most videos will probably not be uploaded by the people who created them/own the rights to them, because suing someone over pennies of ad revenue isn't a realistic solution for the college students who generally are creating these videos.

Re:So how come...

...every new site/service has to have a retarded name? eefoof, Okapipi, Dirty Rhino, Blue Hippo, come on!

Haha, and that is nothing, have you heard about Yahoo!, Google, MicroSoft (what does these guys sell? micro and soft?)

SPAM

These clowns have been spamming this junk all over the Net today.

Creating fake accounts, pretending to be people jumping on the bandwagon, etc.

Die, spammers, die.

Re:SPAM

There is a beautiful kind of irony in it though. Because of their haste to sell themselves, they've overstepped their own capacity and blasted themselves offline through sheer volume of traffic.

Perhaps if they'd had a little patience, and spread the big traffic spikes out over a few days, they'd actually be able to benefit from them. As it stands now, I just tried to create an account, got a bunch of database errors, and gave up.

I probably won't be back.

Not yet proven

I love these headlines. "DS Killer", "Microsoft iPod Killer". Whether a bias opinion or bad judgement by the submitter, few companies would like to have their product labeled as the "other brand killer", for the reasons that 1) it still keeps the other product in the potential-customer's mind and 2) it does give the company developing said 'killer' a rather aggressive and nasty appearance that may backfire. "Why do you want to kill my iPod, mister? I love my iPod!"

Also, look for the revenue sharing to occassionally go towards legal fees, as I'm sure there will be more than one-piece of copyrighted material available for view. Someone will upload clips of Korgoth of Barbaria that someone missed, or something along those lines, and then either complain about not getting paid for the traffic, or having to fight off Time Warner lawyers.

And reverting back to my original point, can we please stop diagnosing something as something else's 'killer'? The market is very finicky, and often things that take off are things no one thought would. I laughed at the iPod when it first came out, now I own one. The PSP was supposed to outsell the DS by a phenomenal margin, and that's not hapening. And most of all, it has less of a chance of happening if someone starts showing off their design and yelling "but it's better and has go-faster stripes!".

The Fundamental Problem...

The fundamental problem with this business model is that even on services where there's no revenue attached, you get 20 people uploading the same videos. When you attach money to it, you can guarantee that any popular post gets re-posted 25,000 times by others hoping to make a buck. Then what happens when someone posts up entertainment skits produced by others? Now you are making revenue from someone else's works. This just seems to have a giant "TOO COMPLICATED TO SURVIVE" stamped on it's forehead.

slashdotted

If they can't survive a slashdotting of their front page, how are they going stream large media files to an audience big enough that the revenue share we would get would is an amount greater than a couple cents?

No!

You can't kill YouTube. Everyone knows that the internet won't work without tubes! [slashdot.org]

What, already?

YouTube's been around for just over a year and already we're looking for its killer? Couldn't we just want YouTube to be improved a bit rather than migrating en masse from site to site every 15 minutes?

Or maybe I'm just getting old.

eefoof.com killer

I bet its more likely slashdot is a eefoof.com killer.

Not dead yet...

I'm curious why people don't think this "kill feature" would take all of *one weekend* for YouTube or GoFish or any of the other video sites to copy in two seconds if it were looking like a good idea?

"eefoof" is the sound mafia victims make

I'm starting a pool on how long it takes before copyright holders sue them for paying unauthorized posters.

YouTube is bad enough, but there's no money involved to spur posting. If there's one thing a cartel hates worse than people giving away their stuff for free, it's people people giving away their stuff for money.