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."
nothing to do with games (Score:4, Informative)
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)
...but then I remembered that this is Slashdot, and such an event is impossible to carry out in our realm of g33kdom.
Re:nothing to do with games (Score:1)
Read it.
Duped it.
Doesn't belong in "games" either.
Re:nothing to do with games (Score:1)
Re:nothing to do with games (Score:2, Informative)
Re:nothing to do with games (Score:2)
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.
Re:But (Score:2)
Re:But (Score:1)
But, if you were a /. reader, and somehow did manage -- perhaps the partner got paid -- to get laid, would the resulting clip get played?
This is the big question.
Re:But (Score:1)
Re:But (Score:1, Funny)
Or... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Or... (Score:2)
Re:Or... (Score:2)
Re:Or... (Score:4, Informative)
There's plenty to hate about the way the site is designed, no need to make things up about it...
Re:Or... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Or... (Score:1)
Re:Or... (Score:1)
Re:Or... (Score:2)
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!
Re:Or... (Score:2)
Re:Or... (Score:4, Interesting)
The people at Apple might disagree with you (here [go.com]).
Re:Or... (Score:1)
Google, Youtube don't do cam captures... (Score:5, Informative)
Yet another competitor in an already very full market. Not seeing the purpose, but throw more money into the ring.
I'd pay for a good search engine... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Or... (Score:1)
Re:Or... (Score:2)
Re:Or... (Score:1)
Re:Or... (Score:1)
Re:Or... (Score:1)
Re:Or... (Score:1)
Re:Or... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Or... (Score:1)
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.
--jeremy
Current.tv (Score:3, Informative)
The video site http://www.current.tv/ [current.tv] 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.
Re:Current.tv (Score:1)
Re:Current.tv (Score:2)
Re:What a douche (Score:2)
Re:What a douche (Score:2)
*dons flamesuit*
Re:What a douche (Score:2)
However I doubt Bob Young does *any* video editing.
Re:What a douche (Score:1)
Re:What a douche (Score:1)
Did anyone else read.... (Score:5, Funny)
Really had my attention for a sec...
Re:Did anyone else read.... (Score:1)
Re:Did anyone else read.... (Score:2)
Re:Did anyone else read.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Did anyone else read.... (Score:1)
Deceitful (Score:5, Informative)
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 [slashdot.org])
He should at least have the good nature and objectivity to note that he is affiliated with story he is publicising
Re:Deceitful (Score:2)
Re:Deceitful (Score:1)
Re:Revver (Score:1)
Re:Revver (Score:1)
Tell that to every NASCAR driver on the circuit. Pardon me, gotta go watch the Firecracker^H^H^H^HPepsi 400 on ma PVR.
Self limiting (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Self limiting (Score:1)
Re:Self limiting (Score:2)
Another question - how do you enforce creator rights - one of your popular downloads is a Star Trek vid.
Re:Self limiting (Score:2)
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).
Pay for play video? Welcome to Amatuer Porn (Score:2)
The reality is that most people would rather watch porn than someone's vlog or singing elmo video.
Re:Pay for play video? Welcome to Amatuer Porn (Score:2)
Of course, being that most-downloaded video clip is not easy. I wonder if it would be worth paying people to hype your clip up around the internet.
Re:Pay for play video? Welcome to Amatuer Porn (Score:1)
Bob Young wasn't co-founder of Red Hat (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bob Young wasn't co-founder of Red Hat (Score:1)
Re:Bob Young wasn't co-founder of Red Hat (Score:1)
Bob Young came onto the scene 2 years after Red Hat was created. You can't co-found something that's already been found.
Re:Bob Young wasn't co-founder of Red Hat (Score:2, Informative)
I'm so disappointed... (Score:2)
Re:I'm so disappointed... (Score:1)