Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

YouTube Killer (Media Portal w/ Revenue Sharing) 179

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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Killer (Media Portal w/ Revenue Sharing)

Comments Filter:
  • Possibly, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by laptop006 ( 37721 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:04AM (#15649473) Homepage Journal
    But more likely it's a paid ad...
    • Re:Possibly, (Score:3, Insightful)

      Tag this story slashvertisement.
    • Re:Possibly, (Score:5, Informative)

      by 70Bang ( 805280 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @10:31AM (#15649887)

      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:


      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.
    • Wowo, just like all the dozens of others that think they are going to kill YouTube. If Yahoo can't do it, then these little fly specks can't. Google is the closest competitor.

      There are plenty that advertise paying you for your videos, but honestly its too much trouble for someone that just wants to post the 100,000th mentos and diet coke video or a video of some girlfriends talking about masturbation.
  • Web2.1 (Score:5, Funny)

    by linvir ( 970218 ) * on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:05AM (#15649475)

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by linvir ( 970218 ) * on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:18AM (#15649531)
      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)) {
      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 (Score:5, Informative)

        by metarox ( 883747 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:54AM (#15649675) Homepage
        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.
        • This sort of thing is the reason I continue to post stuff about PHP despite my ignorance. Every time, someone comes along with some new information for me. I clean didn't know about that performance hit.
        • Degrades performance? Is there a technical argument and/or cite for that?

          It would seem the worst-case performance hit for an implementaton of the @ operator's behavior would be to push the value of the internal error_reporting variable to the stack, set the internal variable to 0, run the function, pop and restore. Granted, I'm thinking like an assembly programmer here (bad habit when dealing with high level languages like PHP, I'm sure) but I can't imagine it would take PHP's interpreter more than a

      • I really don't get PHP's whole "fail and spew crap out to the browser but continue executing" thing. They either need to stop execution completely or generate no warning and return some kind of error code. Clearly they are failing to check the return value of mysql_connect here, but even if they had that first warning would have been printed.

        In the PHP app I begrudgingly develop at work we have a custom error handler that upgrades all PHP warnings to fatal errors. This at least saves the embarassment of a

    • Re:Web2.1 (Score:3, Funny)

      by teslatug ( 543527 )
      You should have posted that at eellooff, you could have made $5.
  • Lulu.tv (Score:5, Informative)

    by samuel4242 ( 630369 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:05AM (#15649476)
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 88NoSoup4U88 ( 721233 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:16AM (#15649523)
      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 (Score:3, Insightful)

        no, not the people who cut 1 minute from Family Guy's episodes...

        That parenthetical remark raises a valid point though: What kind of controls are there going to be to ensure that someone isn't making money from another person's copyrighted material? This is less of a concern for popular media which everyone can identify (e.g. a clip from Family Guy) but would be a serious problem for independant content makers who choose to distribute their work over the internet.

        • Re:Lulu.tv (Score:4, Informative)

          by vile8 ( 796820 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:56AM (#15649685) Homepage
          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.
          • Lulu.tv is actually all creative commons. So copyrighted materials will not get paid.

            Is this your clever get-out clause to avoid having to pay anyone anything? Or are you only accepting material with the Creative-Commons-branded public domain notice?

            Seriously, please do not misuse "copyrighted" when you mean "unlicensed". It leads to confusion, and plays into the hands of the media cartels who wish to spread their two dangerous myths: that restrictive licenses are the only viable option, and that the world
          • Even if Lulu is creative commons, that would not stop an author from selling a high-def version and maintaining all copyrights to the high-def version.
    • I interviewed for the folks at revver.com. Don't even bother other with them ... It's basically a bunch of kids in a shitty building in Hollywood who have no clue about business or the real world. They handled me so unprofessionally that I can't imagine how they've managed to get a website up at all. They will *NEVER* make money.
    • I would still prefer YouTube because shared profit probably means they have to make more of it, which means more ads, and when it comes to ads I say no :)
  • by BecomingLumberg ( 949374 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:06AM (#15649483)
    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?).
    • fine, it's the youtube murderer.
    • I Agree (Score:1, Insightful)

      by badevlad ( 929181 )
      I agree with you. It is just promotional phrase. It is so rare, when one product or service completely replace another one.
    • Parent comment was articulated so well, I dub it the "_____-killer killer".
    • Yes, thank you! This drives me absolutely crazy. As soon as somebody says "this is sure to be a ____-killer", it's almost certain that it won't be. Especially when it comes to ipod-killers.
    • But we live in a "second place is first loser" society.
      • Tell that to those guys over at Mozilla. They seem to be pretty thrilled about the percentage they took back from MS.
        • Tell that to MS.
          • I, uh, don't think you used 'touche' correctly. You see, you need to counter my point first.

            I said that Moz was happy, even though they were in second place. MS is clearly happy and wealthy due to their dominance. However, IE7 is slated to be very Moz-esque due to the increased competition - proof that MS had its feathers ruffled.

            Lets try this again, shall we?

            You:But we live in a "second place is first loser" society.

            Me:Tell that to those guys over at Mozilla. They seem to be pretty thrilled about the

            • I don't think you understand my point either. Microsoft (and their fan boys) don't really care. Sure they stole a bunch of ideas for FF but they have a pretty solid track record of doing that in all their markets.

              The point is that from the peanut gallery, nobody cares. Average Joe American doesn't care who came in second place.
    • Hey, I have an idea for a new Web 2.0 site: killr.us! It's a glorified portal site linking to other Web 2.0 sites who are trying to kill each other. Users get to vote on which site is the most popular and which one is the most likely to kill someone.

      Look at my Web 2.0/Dotcom-compliant features:
      Web 2.0
      - Rounded corners!
      - Completely AJAX-based navigation!
      - The navigation uses a cloud of words in varying font sizes! Exclusively! Maybe we'll even use varying colors!!
      - The site uses XHTML 1.1, even thoug
    • These "$product-killer" descriptions remind me of book blurbs that always say things like "I know nothing comparable to it except The Lord of the Rings". It says very little about the book they're trying to sell - but it says a lot about the book it is being compared to.
    • Most people have already forgotten the concept of "mp3 player", and it's not really accurate anyway -- songs bought off iTunes aren't mp3, and newer iPods are capable of playing video, which obviously isn't mp3.

      By saying "iPod-killer", no one has a problem identifying what your product is.

      It also helps avoid the problem of accidently pretending you're first. Imagine if the article summary just said "Site that lets you upload and publish your own videos." Everyone would immediately say "YouTube ripoff! La
      • I do get your point, but I think it still does not explain the hyperbole. Although it *could* end YouTube, chances are that it will simply compete with YouTube and people will be just as likely to FW:OMG YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS HILARIOUZ!!!!!! a video from YouTube or this place or google.

        Calling a yet to mature product a ________-killer is simply thinly veiled fanboyism, and I think /. can do better.

        • We could also do better than calling a music player something so completely undescriptive as an "iPod". I was just explaining what "___-killer" translates into, and why it's useful to have such a term. I don't think "___-killers" actually exist in the literal meaning (destroying YouTube's profit completely), so I don't have the same problem with "___-killer" that I do with using "hacker" to refer to a cracker.

          If you have a better term, by all means, let's hear it. But I can tell you already, unless it in
  • Wasn't Google about to do something like this too?

    Either way, good to see that besides free hosting (don't underestimate that), people also are getting a share in revenue: I think this might lead to more creative/fun little movies being made.
    • Re:Good move (Score:2, Interesting)

      by tashanna ( 409911 )

      Either way, good to see that besides free hosting (don't underestimate that), people also are getting a share in revenue: I think this might lead to more creative/fun little movies being made.

      As soon as you add money, the signal-to-noise gets much, much worse. The "OMG, $$$$!!!" crowd will be uploading any piece of junk they can find in the hopes that it'll stick and they get a few pennies for the efforts. There's nothing like the Colbert Report posted 100 times to ruin it. It might've been better if Googl

      • And how many kids will think up some kind of hack to get money out of it? Remember those companies that used to pay you just for browsing the internet? Yeah, they'd display an ad banner, and for each hour you spent browsing the internet, you'd get money. So, you create a script that makes it look like you are browsing the internet, and run it all night, and then you get paid. I'm sure this will fall subject to some of the same scams. Post a video. Watch it a thousand times with a script, and get all yo
    • Re:Good move (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You're quite the optimist. I for one believe in the negative power of money. I think it will lead to another round of click-your-own-ads...
    • If Google would just become evil, they could win this in a day.
      The Google Adsense policy [google.com] states that:

      In order to avoid associations with copyright claims, website publishers may not display Google ads on web pages with MP3, Video, News Groups, and Image Results.

      If they want, they could pull all revenue of all these sites in a day, simply by stating they don't comply with the program policies. That would instantly strip all user profits except for the users of Google video program.
      Hopefully Google will n

    • I think this might lead to more creative/fun little movies being made.

      No, the people crossposting their stuff to Newgrounds, Albinoblacksheep, YouTube, Google Video and/or /f/ will just have another site to which they can upload their shit.
  • Problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Galston ( 895804 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:07AM (#15649488)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kaden ( 535652 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:29AM (#15649570)
      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.

      • Which is why I usually when putting any animation I made online, I make sure it has my email slightly watermarked on it.

        Most of the CG animation you see on the web is made by CG enthusiasts to be used on their portfolios/demo reels, and while I don't condone uploading someone else's work to sites like youtube without at the very least letting the owner know first, personally I wouldn't mind if any of mine ends up there since a possible future employer needing character animation might see it and like it, BU
    • The far bigger problem is one of profiting from someone else's copyright where one may upload a piece of a Family Guy episode or the Chronic of Narnia and then derive some profit from the ads before it.

      Such an idea is fine and dandy when you are talking about owner generated content, but given how many use YouTube, this just wouldn't work and open up many different people to litigation.
    • 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.

      Well, perhaps the fact that it was the most popular YouTube video. For it to become the most popular, it has to have been shared a lot. And due to how popular YouTube is, chances are that it will have already been riding its popularity wave.
    • Congratulations, you just invented EBaumsWorld!

      (see ebaumsworldsucks.com [ebaumsworldsucks.com] if you don't get it.)

  • So how come... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...every new site/service has to have a retarded name? eefoof, Okapipi, Dirty Rhino, Blue Hippo, come on!
    • by xtracto ( 837672 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:14AM (#15649513) Journal
      ...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?)
      • MicroSoft (what does these guys sell? micro and soft?)

        Toilet paper, of course.
        • Looks like I'm not the only one. I've always thought "microsoft" sounded like a word you would find on a toilet paper wapper on top of a little gold baloon to get your attention.

          New Charmin Brand Tissue Paper. Now with Micro-Softness.
      • Microsoft is especially funny because most of the "soft"ware they sell is anything but micro. It's mostly huge and bloated.
      • Re:So how come... (Score:3, Informative)

        Okay, Yahoo! doesn't really mean anything, but Google is a search engine that lets you search millions and millions of pages, so naming after a big number isn't bad. And Microsoft is a company that sells software for microcomputers. Sure, we don't really call them microcomputers, but we did when MS started up.
        • Yes, MS needs to update their name. How about:
          • Monobloat - from "Monopoly" and "Bloatware"
          • Offchance - from "Office" and "Chance it will run"
          • Billpay - (derivation is obvious)
        • Yahoo used to stand for something though.... rattles grey cells. Checks Google. Hmmm, according to Yahoo's history page it used to stand for "Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle", but I'm sure when I first came across it in the mid 90s it was 'Yet Another Hierarchically Organized ..." something. Ontology?

          • Well, yes, I know Yahoo stands for something, but the term itself doesn't hold any particular meaning relating to its area of business. I suppose you could claim you're saying "Yahoo!" because you found what you were looking for, but that's a bit of a stretch.
  • SPAM (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:09AM (#15649492)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by linvir ( 970218 ) * on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:30AM (#15649575)

      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.

  • Let's just hope that a naked fat english white man is the kind of thing that sells.
  • Oh great. A new exciting website... slashdotted already!
  • Speaking of video business models, Bob Young is in the NYTimes [nytimes.com] this morning covering www.lulu.tv [www.lulu.tv] and the business model of a creator co-op. Bob Young was actually talking specifically about the possibilities of sharing advertising back in his presentation at Linuxworld. [www.lulu.tv]

    It is good that open source folks are focusing on the business models for Internet Video as this is another place that if we are not careful will get yanked away from joe public and put into the hands of execs and studios that push their c
  • Not yet proven (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oahazmatt ( 868057 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:29AM (#15649568) Journal
    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!".
  • by ThomasBHardy ( 827616 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:31AM (#15649576)
    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.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      It looks like they plan to delete duplicates. Look at their wiki (linked under contact us) page. They also have a link to report dupes on every page.
  • slashdotted (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Britz ( 170620 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:40AM (#15649616)
    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?
    • Perhaps by increasing server capacity? :-p

      Or are you not giving a fairly unknown site with little ad revenue basis for an income stream that suddenly gets an enormous spike in traffic a chance?
  • No! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Gleng ( 537516 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:42AM (#15649626)

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

  • I can practically count on one hand the times I find a link to a YouTube video where the actual copyright owner has uploaded it, rather than it being a snippet of TV show, a film clip or a whole music video.

    Right now, it's a pain for the owners to constantly watch YouTube and remove them, particularly when it's usually fans of the people involved uploading them in barely-watchable low quality, just for fun.

    If people are starting to make actual money from this, however, the studios are going to smack it with
  • Great idea, poor technical implementation. Their MySQL is already dropping connections due to /. effect. Major fun when they start serving these extremely popular videos we're all going to upload.
  • So what happens if you're the first guy to upload the Numa Numa video?

    Just looking at the front page (where they show the PBJ Time flash) made me think people getting money off popular videos. It'd almost be like eBaum's World, but now it's more than one person making money off other people's work. Heck, it even looks like they're _encouraging_ it. Look at "step 2" on their front page: "Why let someone else find it and reap the rewards?"

    I mean, of course, there would be plenty of original content to go o
  • ...

    Wait you're not kidding? it's really called Eefoof?

  • I don't know if eefoof.com will be able to make it by sharing their revenue when youtube is rapidly losing money while keeping all of its own. The bandwidth requirements for serving video are nasty. Unless they switch to a p2p-amplified system (or find a much less expensive bandwidth source) they're probably frelled.
  • Do we really need even more inducement for people trying to become the next internet "big thing"? Here in my home town we have already had some idiot pasting posters around town saying "Who is the {insert town name>} Ninja???", with a web address at the bottom.

    The internet funnies have already become so contrived that people with little talent see it as their best chance for their 5 seconds of fame. Gone are the days when a gawky Turk called Mahir could accidentally become an internet fad, or that an
  • eefoof image hits for the month: 10,000
    FUNNY.JPG hits for the month: 100
    eefoof image ad revenue: $1,000
    FUNNY.JPG revenue earned: $10.00
    eefoof's expenses $5.00
    FUNNY.JPG earned you: $5.00

    Looks like opportunity for some Hollywood accounting [wikipedia.org]
  • What, already? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by samael ( 12612 ) <Andrew@Ducker.org.uk> on Monday July 03, 2006 @09:58AM (#15649696) Homepage
    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.
    • Anything that uses Flash instead of relying on perfectly usable browser plugins deserves to die. And you can't tell me it would take them more than a year to just embed the fucking file directly -- you know they're already downloading it in Flash anyway. Besides, why can't we have download links to the original file?
    • Couldn't we just want YouTube to be improved a bit rather than migrating en masse from site to site every 15 minutes?

      Yeah, because it's so fricking hard to click on another hyperlink or move your fingers to form a new URL. :-P

      Besides, the argument is fatally flawed which you try to hide by exaggerating things like a madman, making 1 year old = every 15 minutes.

      What's the problem with checking out another site after a year?

      The laziness of some seem to know no bounds.

      Or maybe you're just getting old.

  • by mtenhagen ( 450608 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @10:04AM (#15649724) Homepage
    I bet its more likely slashdot is a eefoof.com killer.
  • eefoof? is that supposed to be a play on e-foof? what is a foof? I went onto http://www.urbandictionary.com and looked up foof, just to make sure, because I remember a few of my ex's calling their vagina a foof. I thought it was a cute name too, better than the C word. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=foo f
  • Finally!! Now we can all make money on our porno videos!
  • Slashdotted (Score:2, Funny)

    by twistah ( 194990 )
    I think we've found the eefoof killer.
  • Unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material FOR PROFIT is clearly illegal. This will go down faster than Napster, and everyone who "shared" in the revenue could be liable for the full penalty.

    Don't do it, man...
  • Is this reminicent to a part in snow crash where it mentioned users uploading stuff and then getting paid depending on its popularity?
  • Dead site, couldn't back out. No content.
    Waste of time.
  • Uhmm... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by darkrowan ( 976992 )
    Any time you have the statment: Is this/This is a [insert hot popular item] killer, it isn't.
  • Participate For Payout sites aren't anything new; I receive a lot of spam each week telling me how I can earn oodles by sitting on my ass and filling out forms. However, it seems that more and more legitamite PFP sites are coming out of the woodwork, seemingly differing from the PTS sites of yore.

    The Pay To Surf (PTS) model requires you to do what you normally do while having banner ads running along some part of your screen. These have low pay out because it's simple to ignore the ads, so advertisers aren'
  • the profit sharing idea seems to be getting popular. There is a myspace/livejournal ish site at www.soulcast.com that does the same thing. I really love the soulcast site, but my love of it has nothing to do with the profit sharing. I just like their system better than myspace and livejournal. Check my sig for my soulcast blog
  • Not dead yet... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by clambake ( 37702 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @01:13PM (#15650982) Homepage
    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?
  • by bitspotter ( 455598 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @02:06PM (#15651320) Journal
    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.
    • 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.

      There's a quote for the ages. Very true.

      Not to mention that the money would add a whole new dimension to "cam-whoring." I'm thinking that FBI trouble wouldn't be too far behind the RIAA/MPAA.

"If it's not loud, it doesn't work!" -- Blank Reg, from "Max Headroom"