Why YouTube Needs the Rights to Your Video 139
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."
It's simple (Score:5, Interesting)
same with journals (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I don't want to equate the problems of ownership of cheezy webcam thong videos with the problem of ownership of academic research publications, but the main problem as I see it is that I'd rather sit around watching the aforementioned videos than read the dozens of journal articles I'm supposed to be reading instead. Christ I'm never going to graduate. F***! now I'm blathering on slashdot. Must turn off internet...
Youtube "makes money"?? (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought Youtube was going through cash like a late 90's .com, and haven't come close to making any money off of anyone's content yet. Maybe that's why these guys decided to compete with them, wrote their little blog post and got it on here: because they didn't realize that Youtube wasn't profitable? Or they're just figuring that they'll do it right where Youtube has missed the boat as far as making money...
Or maybe my brain isn't what it used to be and I'm completely wrong about this, and Youtube has been insanely profitable.
Minors (Score:5, Interesting)
Minors cannot enter into contracts. Seems like a rather stunning flaw in thier business model.
Controversy? Still? (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess it's just their competitors that wrote that article that want to keep the "controversial" label going, and apparently it's working.
Re:Minors (Score:2, Interesting)
a)False
b)Not all teenagers are minors
KFG
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
Technically, leftovers are still things you've essentially WORKED for. So even though one might benefit from it without working for it, doesn't mean someone else didn't put that amount of work in it to achieve it. Isn't that the real philosophy of the No Such Thing As A Free Lunch?
Essentially, it's like energy in a closed system: no matter what you do, nobody gains anything extra, it's always the same amount. You gain x here, but you'll lose x there.
In an "open system", one might wager something like the sun being a "free lunch". But even that could probably be argued.
If sharing surpluses is "a free lunch", then so is stealing.
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)
Technically, I used to get free lunches all the time, but I had to waste time listening to bad powerpoint presentations of sales people who I had no intention of buying anything from.
But seriously, nothing is free except air and the light from the sun, but cost is minimized to an extent it might as well be free. When your cost to produce comodities reaches near zero (bandwidth, hardware, and electricity) then your product or ad space could be sold for extremely low prices and you still make enourmous profit (depending)
However, we haven't reached that point (yet) mostly because it still costs an arm and a leg to host full streaming HD quality video and unless you are Comcast, Google, or Verizon you really don't have the resources needed to give it away for free forever like YouTube.
However, what happens in 20 years when bandwidth exceeds full motion HD video and you can download a 1000 TB in just a few seconds and you can host your own super webserver from your laptop? I mean full imersion can only go up to the point where we can't tell the difference between reality and our downloadable entertainment?
At that point in our lives (if we are still around) everything will literally become free at least with Intellectual Property (in a sense) because we've saturated the known universe with material that no one is going to bother paying for either through piracy or home made junk or reality TV etc. I dunno... Its just a guess.
However, in 20 years we might have robotics making things you buy at the store for free as well... But as they mentioned in the technological singularity article a few stories back... Well... It might be a moot point.
Revver (Score:5, Interesting)
[Disclaimer: I am one of the founders of Revver]
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, they are providers, just the opposite.
You might call them customers, but they don't act primarily consuming any YouTube product, they are the ones that provide the most important part of the bussiness.
Of course, what they require is fair enough to me. If they are going to host your content for free, they need first a license for that content, and as a legal shield, they ask for the right to edit your content, in case you are a stupid bastard who would sue them for publishing for example portions of your video instead of the whole of it.
The part where they retain rights to other distribution means is fair enough, provided they are actually paying for your distribution, they get some potential earnings, aside from the ads they can run with your videos.
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:3, Interesting)
You worked to get the money for the House, The Grill, the charcoal/propane, the lighter fluid, the matches, the food to cook on it, the beverages to drink (a surpluss of them since it's more then you will eat or drink).
Yet everyone you invited over can't have any of it? since it would be stealing (by your own admission) since they did nothing to earn it.
So would that be considered a Free lunch or Stealing?
Same goes for anything else, you work and work and work for something and decide to share it with the world but there are so many limits put on it against your will that anyone who looks at it, listens to it or uses it can get sued or harassed for doing what you had intended them to do.
Re:Minors (Score:4, Interesting)
pirate uploading (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why are consumers surprised? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yet everyone you invited over can't have any of it? since it would be stealing (by your own admission) since they did nothing to earn it."
this is bullshit. For starters, those are finite things. Once they are gone..you need to get more. It's not the same thing with digital goods.
"Same goes for anything else, you work and work and work for something and decide to share it with the world but there are so many limits put on it against your will that anyone who looks at it, listens to it or uses it can get sued or harassed for doing what you had intended them to do."
you are allowed to share the one copy you purchased. Going with your grill scenario: It would be equivalent of buying one bag and then giving the rest out to your friends at no cost.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a big problem-- Youtube may claim a license/ownership in their TOS. But if they try to sell the videos for profit, they will in all likelihood open themselves up to lawsuits from any subjects in the video who did not grant permission for their likeness to be used. You simply cannot film a person who is not a public figure (e.g. politician, celebrity) and distribute it without an agreement. Or to be precise, you CAN (it's not illegal) but you will be sued (especially if you make a profit) and you will most likely lose.
Say a high school kid films another guy lighting farts on fire at a party and throws it up on Youtube. Did the fart-lighter sign a personal release? How about the crowd of people in the background, especially if their voices can be heard? Did the owner of the house sign a location release? I'm not even going to get into the problems that will arise if a copyrighted song is playing in the background. If any of these parties think Youtube is making a profit from this video they could sue. I'm not even sure they're wrong, I certainly wouldn't want a video of myself circulating on the internet without my permission-- and I would certainly do what I could to put a stop to it if someone else was making a profit.
I should also add, by the way, that a minor cannot sign a release. So even if the fart-lighter says you could post the video, his parents might feel otherwise-- and, yes, they could sue.
This is a problem that's going to bite Youtube in the ass sooner or later-- say when the parents of the next Star Wars Kid sues Youtube for being a party in the distribution of the video. Since Youtube is licensing the video rather than washing their hands and saying they don't have anything to do with their content, they will certainly be named in any lawsuit. And if they're making a profit from this video they will certainly be liable for damages.
And no, I'm not a lawyer. But I have been an assistant producer at a production house that makes reality shows and documentaries and I've seen the great lengths they need to go to to secure releases-- and dealt with the legal department extensively over the inevitable problems. Producers actually have to take out insurance policies to protect themselves against oversights.
Re:OT: deviantArt (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I am so sick of MONEY defining everything. (Score:3, Interesting)