YouTube To Allow Self-Serve Ads For Major Media Players 115
thefickler writes to tell us that YouTube plans on raising revenue by allowing major media players to run their own ads on the video site for, not only their own content, but illegally uploaded content by other users. "The site says CBS is already on board for the scheme, with other giants expected to join. The scheme will allow TV, movie and music companies to upload content and then sell advertising themselves, for example through images or animations which are overlaid on suitable sections of the clips. YouTube will then take a cut of this advertising revenue."
Re:Is this really all that bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. Yet it doesn't say what protections are in place for keeping CBS's ads out of clips mistakenly identified as belonging to CBS. Will companies like Lucasfilm put ads in legally allowed parodies like Chad Vader that actually have very little to do with actual Lucasfilm characters and nothing to do with their plots?
Re:Illegal upload (Score:3, Interesting)
They have to dump anything if they get a copyright complaint if they want to keep their Safe Harbor protections as per the DCMA.
I know, that's why I'm waiting for a swedish Youtube-equivalent to take over.
I was complaining about the term "illegal". Doublethink at its finest.
Google has been experiencing much slower growth in ad revenue lately and AdSense publisher revenues are much worse and are looking for new exciting revenue streams to try and get that triple digit growth rate again.
Yeah, driving youtube in the ground will surely make that happen.
Re:YouScrewd! (Score:3, Interesting)
So start your own or host your own movies. Flash has finally made it so that I can distribute stuff to people without too much hassle. Quicktime never seemed to work perfect, especially for the computer illiterate. Now I can just say "If you can use youtube, you can use my site". I use JW FLV Media Player [longtailvideo.com] to serve Rugby Songs [peoriarugby.com] and Game Films [purduerugby.com]*. I use some ffmpeg compressors to do it and in no time I have media that almost anyone can view and use.
* Yes. I am masochistic, never had my websites bench marked before...
Re:Illegal upload (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean, possible copyright infringements?
How about "innocent until proven guilty"?
Fair Use is an affirmative defense.
It means the defendant bears the burden of proof.
Copyright infringement really is "guilty until proven innocent",
especially when the facts of the case are not in dispute.
Re:I wonder... (Score:2, Interesting)
What banner ads? To be honest, I have never seen a SINGLE banner ad here on slashdot, or most places for that matter.
Ad-Blocker Plus since the day I installed Firefox.
Your argument falls kinda flat, since I seriously doubt the marketers keep track(or even know) of how many people actually stop using a service because of advertising frustrations. It would go AGAINST them if they were to actually make that information available to prospective advertisers.
I used to watch 10-12 hrs a week of Television. Now I watch MAYBE 1-2 hrs simply because the ads now comprise approx. 60% of the content on Comcast cable.
And, yeah, when I can no longer turn off the ads here on /., I'll stop coming here. Then, you might say, slashdot will fall and crumble without the advertising revenue. So be it. Find a business model that works.
Braaains (Score:3, Interesting)
So, will YouTube bother vetting these ads, or will they become the next great haven for unvetted rogue Flash ads that redirect you to malware sites?
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)
Your argument doesn't even make sense. If you're blocking the ads, they can't be bothering you, because you don't even see them, so why do you even care?
As for revenue, the advertisers are obviously making money, or they'd stop doing it. You think they just get a kick out of annoying people (or in your case being completely ignored)? Some idiot marketting drone is saying "Damn, I'm losing money, but annoying the shit out of everybody is worth it! Haha!"?
No, I don't think they will. I also block the ads here, but if I couldn't for some reason, I would subscribe before I stopped coming here. Not everybody is a cheap bastard.
Re:Illegal upload (Score:3, Interesting)
Not so bad! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I wonder... (Score:0, Interesting)
I don't like NoScript and AdBlock is meh. Most of the time it creates more work than I want to deal with (temp allow stuff to find out if its an ad or not then always allow or block it) and then disrupts the actual layout of the website and leaves large blank areas that are still in the way, just like the ads I now subconsciously ignore.
I don't like how whenever it updates it chooses to open up their homepage in Firefox afterwords. I don't like how I get nagged when blocking google-analytics (was testing; I don't really care if you know I live in WA).
I guess if I went to sites that were annoying it would be good, but when I find an annoying site I leave it and NEVER COME BACK.
To each their own though. Slashdot's baner ads are innocent enough and not intrusive. I pretty much never click on it (occasionally I like to look at ThinkGeek anyways and so I've twice used it.
Re:Does this mean we can post copyrighted content (Score:5, Interesting)
same here. i'm sick of reading news or blog articles on sites like autoblog.com which refer to YouTube videos that have been removed.
it's especially stupid when Viacom has music videos taken down. the whole reason you make music videos is to promote an artist/song/album. if someone posts it online, they're just giving you more free publicity. you don't charge MTV for playing your music video on Headbangers Ball, so why would you complain about YouTube broadcasting a low-def version of your music video for millions of people to see?
YouTube's quickly turning into another Photobucket. cheap throwaway image hosts have long been contributing to the sea of dead images polluting online forums and message board archives. likewise, tons of dead YouTube videos can be found embedded in blog posts and even news articles these days because media corporations like Viacom are taking down YouTube uploads of news reports, music videos, TV clips, and even TV commercials.
i wouldn't even mind if such content were never posted to YouTube in the first place. at least then we wouldn't run into dead YouTube videos left and right. i just wish internet news sites and news blogs would learn to just avoid Viacom/NBC/Fox/etc.'s content. if those companies don't want the free publicity or promotion for their shows/artists, then just ignore them in your online reporting. cover indie bands or indie filmmakers. there's plenty of better quality free content out there that you know won't get taken down by the copyright holders.
Re:I wonder... (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, I got my current, rather well paid job as a programmer less than two months ago despite the current economical situation.
I found the place by following a quite well targeted google ad on /. as the company had placed one for open spots. They still have some,
The Ad helped me a lot. It helped the company that was hiring. And /. got a bit of money from that too.
Buuuuut... I probably should have just used adBlock like the rest of you.
Seriously, get your heads out off your asses. Remove the default blocklists. Notice how many actually interesting, humorous, smart and useful ads exist. Then use adBlock to block the most annoying large flashes on the websites you use a lot by making blacklists of your own.
Almost 1/3 million silenced YouTube videos (Score:3, Interesting)
Looks like WMG are losing out on a very BIG advertising revenue stream by removing almost 1/3 million videos, and the number will most likely grow (1/2 million? 1 million?). If they had any intelligence they'd have turned this debacle into a new revenue stream. A lot of the videos silenced/removed have had millions of views, I certainly wouldn't say no to that level of page views if I could make money from it.