There are a variety of factors that explain the hyper success of YouTube: ease-of-use, guerilla marketing and the power of sharing.
Recently, however, YouTube violated its principle of sharing (and community); that is, it changed its Terms and Conditions (TOC). This is a common feature of Web sites – to handle the legal technicalities. In fact, it's usually a bunch of jargon that most users simply ignore.
Well, given the size of YouTube, some users did read the latest TOC – and it caused an immediate stir in the blogosphere.
Essentially, the new YouTube TOC grants the company the right to sell your content. In legalese: YouTube gets a "worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions ..."
Trying to put out the fire, a YouTube spokesperson indicated that the company does not own the user-generated content.
Although, the clause does give YouTube the right to make money off your content. And, there is no sharing. All the money goes to YouTube.
Interestingly enough, there are other video sites that are giving its content creators a cut of the revenue, such as Revver and Eefoof.com.
Then again, should users really complain? After all, YouTube.com is subsidizing the cost of hosting videos. Besides, YouTube.com gets over 100 million video views per day (and is far ahead of other major sites, like Yahoo, Microsoft and Google). In other words, aspiring film producers have a ready audience for their work.
So, why not allow YouTube.com to make a buck?












Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-24-2006 @ 11:58AM
EJ Passeos said...
No surprise here.
Billy Gates is always good for a quote and at the All Things Digital WSJ conference, he completely ridiculed YouTube by saying his--and really any other--company could NEVER get away with the copyright infringement on YouTube.
Now, they can make $ of the childish videos here. According to the WSJ last week (or so), other sites are allowing the user to make money.
7-24-2006 @ 12:45PM
Taylor York said...
1. Not all video's on YouTube are childish.
2. Youtube obviously doesnt care about its clientbase at all if they arent even going to try to profit share.
If i put any sort of time and money into a video, I know i wouldn't post it on YouTube after reading this.
7-24-2006 @ 1:19PM
Zuma Dogg said...
As someone who has used YouTube to the fullest recently, using it to get coverage in L.A. Times, PBS, VH1, KABC-7, KTLA and other national and international coverage of my "Zuma Dogg Fights City Hall" videos on YouTube -- it saddens me to read this, and I guess it's time to move on to the next site. Anyway, do a search for "Zuma Dogg" on YouTube and you can see what all the media buzz surrounding my videos are about.
Thanks,
Zuma Dogg
Public Advocate
Running for L.A. City Council
7-24-2006 @ 8:34PM
Davy said...
I produced a short film a couple years ago that was well recieved locally and thought that putting it on the web would be a great way to increase exposure. I was litterally about to post the short film on the site when news broke about the change in TOC. Now I don't think YouTube is the place for it. I just don't like the idea that they can pretty much do what they want with my work.