Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Get Played. Get Paid. 78

vile8 writes "Bob Young, co-founder of Red Hat Software, is in the NY Times this morning covering a new co-operative business plan for viral video makers. Just like his Self-publishing site Lulu, the new plan provides 80% of the revenues back to the creators. It is based on something quite common, Co-ops. In this plan, if there were 5000 users at 14.95 each there would be 59,800 that would get divvied up among those that brought traffic to the site. The 'pro' users also get larger upload space, and longer cam captures. Other unique features of the site are the podcast generation per author, author vlog pages, and open-source-specific OGM video format conversions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Get Played. Get Paid.

Comments Filter:
  • by WinEveryGame ( 978424 ) * on Monday July 03, 2006 @12:45PM (#15650807) Homepage is simply a video sharing service.

    But on the other it would be cool to have a co-operative for video game developers. Is there one already? Or is the business model too hard for that?

    • Heh (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      At first I thought that it was an ad to "get laid."
      ...but then I remembered that this is Slashdot, and such an event is impossible to carry out in our realm of g33kdom.
    • Saw it.
      Read it.
      Duped it.

      Doesn't belong in "games" either. /. mods fail it.
    • I think it's referring to -- which is where the link goes anyways. *That* Lulu is a self-publishing website, aimed at authors who want to run short prints of their book for limited distribution. It allows them not to go through one of the big publishing houses and keep more of the money from their book sales to boot.
    • It is a video sharing service with a seeded co-op actually. One of the reasons we liked the co-op idea is that it fits open source and creative commons so very well.
    • There's one reasonably significant problem with game dev.

      With the exception of flash games, which seem reasonably difficult to code maliciously, any form of executable distributed by a site would reflect back on the owners of the site if it caused any problems. This means that people might have to take responsibility for their user's actions, which is unacceptable in any business model. Why should a company pay damages when a machine is trashed by a piece of malicious code that should have been a game.
  • Or... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nmb3000 ( 741169 ) <> on Monday July 03, 2006 @12:47PM (#15650830) Journal could just upload and watch movies for free on Google, You-Tube, etc.

    If there's one thing the Internet has shown, it's that people do *not* want to pay for content. This is what Google knows and it's why they base nearly all their revenue on contextual ads instead of trying to sell access to Gmail or Maps.

    This sounds like just another 'make easy money on teh interweb!' scheme that's going to disappear pretty quick.
    • Agreed. People don't like paying for content because they don't know if the content is good or not. Like whenever I google questions about a computer language I normally get the Stupid Experts Exchange site that wants me to login (and I think pay) to view the answer to the question). I do not want to pay because almost all the sites I see like that just have 5 million posts of people going me too I am having the same problem, but with no answer. I am not going to pay for stuff like that. Plus I can usual
      • I'd never pay for Expert Exchange, but on older questions you can just scroll down to see the answer. I think you only have to login for questions less than 6 months old or something. So they're not totally useless.
      • Re:Or... (Score:4, Informative)

        by just_another_sean ( 919159 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @12:59PM (#15650900) Journal
        Experts exchange bugs me too in a couple of ways, but you *do not* need to pay to see answers. Just scroll to the bottom of the page, past the ads, past the "Subscribe now!" junk and there's the thread. And although the "Accepted Answer" does not always appear to be what you need I find that Experts Exchange has a slightly higher average of useful replies then most forums. Of course, YMMV.

        There's plenty to hate about the way the site is designed, no need to make things up about it...
      • Agreed, I was looking up a problem with DOM and PHP and came across a link on the Experts Exchange site, where it showed me the question and claimed to have the answer to my problem and wanted me to register / pay to see it.

        I went back and hit the Google Cached copy only to find the ticket had been closed with no answer - I don't fancy my chances of being given a refund if I'd paid and then complained I'd been scammed.
      • Like the other replies to your post tell you that you can scroll down to see the thread and the answers (sometimes). I have found that the google cache of each page has all the replies to the question.
      • Apparently I'm in the minority here, but I use Experts Exchange all the time. Granted, I first paid for it because I got tired of seeing those results in google. But, I've found that there are many types of questions that I can get answered there with less effort than I would expend otherwise by googling for hours.
    • Yes, most anything that requires you to pay for stuff that you get free somewhere else won't work.

      Google's video service is going further than contextual ads. They are adding pre-roll video commercials, and will split the revenue with the video author. That sounds like a great service, is only google could make a better interface for them.

      If youtube could adopt that same model, they might just have something!

    • Or is it why google charges $3 for sports program streams 24 hours after the live event?
    • Re:Or... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by EL_mal0 ( 777947 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @01:02PM (#15650914)
      If there's one thing the Internet has shown, it's that people do *not* want to pay for content.

      The people at Apple might disagree with you (here []).

      • Getting that cash in the hands of those that created the videos is the distinction of []. Lulu is dedicated to helping creators share, collaborate, sell, and now co-op their IP, helping indy creators get known, grow, and get paid.
    • by b0r1s ( 170449 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @01:14PM (#15650987) Homepage
      But other free services like Vobbo [] do.

      Yet another competitor in an already very full market. Not seeing the purpose, but throw more money into the ring.
    • the year, some reasonable fee, IF, there was a toggle to filter out commercial ads/spam sites.
    • Actually viewers dont pay for the content. The creators get paid based on their share of the participation in the site, and funds the pool out of pocket 5k each month to start it off.
    • I don't mind paying for content under the following two conditions: 1) it is reasonably priced, and 2) the money gets back to those who created it - not those who think they deserve to afford a payment on a second yacht.
    • Yeah yeah yeah - too right, i',m not paying for content, but then agian I don't think thats what its about - i think its about getting paid FOR content and, i make good stuff and if i know it's gonna be popular and i'll make some good money - even if it's only out of one video a year - then a subscription's pissy in comparison.
      • Your right. The [] subscription model will pay for as long as your video is in the co-op pool and generating traffic... if you do one a year, and its so-so then you'll make a little back for your subscription. If it is truly good stuff then it will get traffic in a good chunk in the beginning and then a nice stream (see long tail). So if the first is paying for the subscription, and maybe some more, then the rest.... I mean, you can not like the model if it doesn't fit your content, but that doesn't so
    • Which is why [] doesn't make them... Did I blow your mind?
    • " could just upload and watch movies for free on Google, You-Tube, etc."

      You can watch videos for free on Lulu. You have to pay if you want to be a contributor. So why would you want to pay to contribute when you can contribute for free on YouTube and Google? Because those sites don't pay you money based on the share of audience you've attracted.
    • Actually, no one pays to watch the content. People who create videos can pay to have enhanced hosting (greater clip sizes, etc) and in return, we give them back 80% of that revenue, paid based on their share of the traffic.

      So we are paying creators in direct proportion to their virality. And we don't use ads to do it.

      There is also a free account that you can host an unlimited number of ~32M clips.

  • (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sir Holo ( 531007 ) * on Monday July 03, 2006 @12:58PM (#15650894)

    The video site [] has a similar setup, but they are connected to a TV network as well. Users submit videos, users watch them for free, and if other users mod them up enough, they get greenlit for airplay on the real TV channel. Then the makers get paid. $500 for your first greenlight.

    Lots of great video content there already.
    • Ha, check out the stats on how many people have actually been paid. [] is much more ambitious as to paying people.
    • Can you please explain where I can actually watch all of the content on the site? Every time I go there I am unable to find the viewing section and assume I must subscribe to the actual TV channel to watch it.

  • by zarthrag ( 650912 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @01:04PM (#15650939)
    "Get Laid, Get Paid"???

    Really had my attention for a sec...
  • Deceitful (Score:5, Informative)

    by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Monday July 03, 2006 @01:18PM (#15651012) Homepage

    Disregarding the actual content of the story, I the think submitter is being a bit deceptive. He is affiliated with the LuLu site (as seen by his link and comments [])

    He should at least have the good nature and objectivity to note that he is affiliated with story he is publicising

    • You'll note that if you roll over the vile8 author link you'll see it goes to, so while it may not be totally forthcoming I wouldn't call it deceptive.
      • Sorry, just couldn't let slashdot miss out on Bob news to the traditional media. And yeah, is an extension of We have been working for a couple years to make sure creators can share/use/sell their IP in whichever way they wish. This is another way:)
  • Two issues I see:

    Viral marketting works because people see and exchange videos etc. If You drive them to a pay link then most will just pass on the vid.

    If it allows downloading, then people will d/l and post or email teh vid outside of Lulu - which means real popular vids may get viewed without the author getting paid by lulu.

    I think Googles "we'll give you a cut of teh add revenue" is a smarter move since it incorporates the "payment" to Google (page views of ads) in viewing the vid, and it rewards popula
    • It might be. But what cut will you actually get? We aren't ruling out advertising, or several other channels, but if [] did it there would be a split with the creator just like everything else we do. We are very interested in finding the best way to get cash back to creators, and not corrupting their fame with the lack of recognition you get with an ad stuffed on a website. As far as people downloading movies... go ahead. There are rss2, atom, ipod feeds etc... and getting the video known will increase
    • If You drive them to a pay link then most will just pass on the vid.

      It does not cost money to watch videos on Lulu. Only to contribute. (and I think you can actually contribute for free, but if you want to make money (if you want to be part of the co-op) then you have to pay).
  • If I were going to try to make money with revenue sharing from video downloads, I'd go straight for porn video clips.

    The reality is that most people would rather watch porn than someone's vlog or singing elmo video.
  • Mark Ewing founded Red Hat in 1993. Bob Young's company, ACC Bookstores, bought out Mark in 1995 and Young became CEO until 1999.
    • Bob Young was responsible for helping bring Red Hat from an apartment built OS to a multi-national corporation, I call that co-founder. Interesting bit of trivia though.
      • Bob Young was responsible for helping bring Red Hat from an apartment built OS to a multi-national corporation, I call that co-founder.

        Bob Young came onto the scene 2 years after Red Hat was created. You can't co-found something that's already been found. ;)
    • Well except to "found" a company means to incorporate it. You are right, Marc (note spelling) began writing a Linux distribution he called Red Hat at about the same time I incorporated a company (ACC Corp. Inc.) to sell Linux related stuff in early 1993. In early 1995 we merged our two small businesses by having ACC pay Marc for the assets of his efforts (he had not incorporated a company at that time) in exchange for shares in ACC Corp. Inc. So technically I incorporated the company that became Red Hat
  • I misread the title, and I was so excited for a minute.

If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?