Why YouTube Needs the Rights to Your Video

erlichson writes "There has been a lot of controversy over the YouTube terms of service. Why are consumers surprised? Fundamentally, YouTube's business model requires that they get the rights to redistribute your content. This note analyzes an alternative publishing model available to consumers that doesn't require granting a license to your content, but the trade-off is that you won't get the same level of distribution."

Why are consumers surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because many think there is such at thing as a free lunch. They are wrong but that's what they think.
Just post a story here about ads and banner blockers and you will see.

I wonder

[Mysteerie]

If youtube will start selling dvd's of mixed content. I.e. top 100 view videos of 2006, etc...

Wow!

[TheSpoom]

A comparison of Phanfare and Youtube by Phanfare! Clearly as unbiased as one can get.

Slashvertisement?

[Anonymous Coward]

This note analyzes an alternative publishing model available to consumers that doesn't require granting a license to your content...

s/analyses/advertises/

would this stop OS content distribution?

[hguorbray]

Asked and Answered (I think)

I wonder if creative commons licensed videos would be a problem for YouTube with these new terms?

If they restricted redistribution of content that was emanating from their site or assigned themselves any extra rights regarding editing or ownnership or restricted further distribution I think that it might.

They would probably just say that you can't put up any content with a license which would be violated by their doing what they wanted with it.

-What's the speed of Dark?

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[pla]

Because many think there is such at thing as a free lunch.

Uploading a music video certainly goes to far. Small clips from a movie might come under fair use. But when people post what amount to home movies - Yes, they most certainly do have every right to upload that to YouTube.

Free lunches exist - And in fact, when not in a climate of scarcity, people (and even many "dumb" animals) will gladly share that of which they have a huge surplus. Well, "bits" exist in as close to a limitless supply as anything we've ever experienced, and plenty of people will gladly share their bits, even with trolls like you.


And as for banner ads... Please, tell me who gets the free lunch from whom in that situation - The parasites that think they own my eyeballs just because they put up a web-page, or the people who choose not to read the Chick pamphlets that come with that "free" lemonade?

Or, put another way, does exploiting the human feeling of gratitude count as more or less sociopathic than suppressing that same feeling? Personally, I'd say the former commits a deliberately "evil" action, while the latter results as a learned response from dealing with assholes falling into the first category. YMMV.

Re:Wow!

[smackenzie]

Why was this modded offtopic? TFA is a Phanfare blog entry that, while not being particularly offensive in handling another business model, is clearly commercial. The article summary doesn't do a good job mentioning that this is a Phanfare note, comparing Phanfare to YouTube!

Re:Minors

[Bieeanda]

I'd venture to suggest that at least thirty to forty percent of the stuff on Youtube is also copyrighted to someone other than the poster, as well, which makes contractual claims entertaining too. Every time some twit's collection of full episode rips gets taken down, they just go ahead and re-upload them.

Re:would this stop OS content distribution?

[BrynM]

I wonder if creative commons licensed videos would be a problem for YouTube with these new terms?

By uploading the content to their server, they could argue that you are granting them a seperate specific license (their terms of service) and thus do not have to abide by the license you offer to the general public.

They would probably just say that you can't put up any content with a license which would be violated by their doing what they wanted with it.

With a seperate license granted, this becomes moot.

Rant about 'consumers'

[wish bot]

Did you think for a moment about your use of the word 'consumers'? Yes, I know it was in the summary as well, and that this is a general trend rather than something specific to Slashdot. We're talking about people uploading (possibly) their OWN CONTENT to YouTube, and we call them 'consumers'? In almost every post on Slashdot these day, when we're talking about a collective group of persons, the word 'consumers' is used.

There used to be some better words - 'people', 'citizens', 'females under 25', etc.

All that this indiscriminate use of the word 'consumers' does is reinforce the notion that your sole purpose in life is to consume.

Stop it with the 'consumers' bullshit. Be people again. Give some respect to all these other individuals in the world by calling them 'people' too.

/rant

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many businesses which provide "free" service and don't lay claim to your content. In fact I believe that YouTube is going to get into hot water if they go ahead with the "all uploads are belong to us" plan. There's lots of illegal stuff on YouTube and now it's not yours but theirs, so if there ever was a shadow of a doubt that they're breaching copyright, they can kiss that goodbye now.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[anagama]

With the BBQ, there is some expectation of a quid pro quo -- you invite your buddies over and in a vague sense, probably expect your buddies to invite you over some time and stick a "free" beer in your hand. Now, people don't go around keeping spreadsheets of how many beers their buddies owe them, but we've all probably experienced the friend who becomes a mooch and eventually, the mooch isn't invited to more BBQs. In essence, the mooch got a few free lunches by violating a common social expectation.

Re:Why are consumers surprised?

[Seiruu]

True, but like I said, it's not about (individual) perspectives.

Technically, you can buy a friend a beer without ever getting anything back, goodbye party or whatever. Does that mean the beer is free? For him it is, but realistically, it costed you to give him that beer. So it's not a free lunch.

In your case, you lost something which he gained. So which part of that would be the "free lunch"? It's not, you paid for it, he got it.

TANSTAAFL is absolutely true

[MerlynEmrys67]

Doesn't mean you have to define it with money. Worked for a startup that the CEO would pay for lunch on a quite regular bassis. His comment was that the lunch was to guarantee attendance - so he (or anyone else) could say things that everyone in the company needed to know.

Cost to Me - 0
Time I spent - 1 hour

So the cost was 1 hour of my time that I used to pay for lunch.

Cost to the CEO - 15ish * #employees, obviously worth it to him for an hour of our time.

So yes, I believe in TANSTAAFL - a firm believer... There is a cost to EVERYTHING, you just have to figure out what it is, and if you are willing to pay it.

Re:Rant about 'consumers'

[masterzora]

Then they extend this to believing information has intrinsic value. That it can be property. That it costs money to exchange information.

This sounds familiar.... US History is coming back to me.

"How can somebody own land?" -- Native Americans when Europeans came to the Americas.

Yes, I firmly believe that information shouldn't be owned, but that doesn't mean it can't be. Ownership is merely an agreement between people and/or society. So long as the majority of society agrees that information has intrinsic value and that it can be property and have cost, it does and it can.

Re:same with journals

[DerekLyons]

Same problem with publishing research. Some journals try to suppress your right to share your paper freely on the web. So generally only people who's institution has a subscription can see the content.
 
The answer is competition - post your video on a website with better terms of service and publish in journals that don't have 'embargo' policies on sharing your own work.

My brother-in-law (a professor who must publish or perish) puts it succinctly - "I can publish in 'free' journals that few read and that grant commitees don't trust, that lack a track record and may disappear tommorow. Or I can publish where distribution is more limited - but it is available to my colleagues and grant committees and has a long and stable track record".

Re:I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most people qualify two levels of this. There's the personal level where I grab a tv show off p2p that I missed on tv (or being australian a commerical tv station has held off showing for 5 years) which most people are okay with because they've probably done it at least once (with video tapes for decades). Then there is the commercial level which is less well recieved. The people mass producing and selling company level amounts of material. Personal use v Commercial. And youtube would definitely fall on the commercial side.