YouTube Has Paid More Than $30 billion To Creators, Artists, and Others Over the Last Three Years (theverge.com) 58
YouTube has paid out more than $30 billion to creators, artists, and media organizations over the last three years, according to a new letter published by CEO Susan Wojcicki. From a report: In Wojcicki's first letter to creators of 2021, the CEO spent some time addressing YouTube's growth. The number of new channels that joined the company's Partner Program, which allows creators to earn advertising revenue, more than doubled in 2020. YouTube also "contributed approximately $16 billion to the U.S. GDP in 2019, supporting the equivalent of 345,000 full time jobs," according to an Oxford Economics report that Wojcicki highlights. The letter also focuses on the work YouTube's team still has in front of them. Mainly, transparency, especially where content strikes and advertising dollars are concerned. Wojcicki noted that at the "scale we operate, it's hard for creators to keep up with changing Community Guidelines." Wojcicki's letter states that YouTube wants to be better about communicating changes to avoid channel strikes. After three strikes within a 90-day period, a channel is terminated.
can you put this article (Score:4, Funny)
Arrgh! So confess already! (Score:4, Insightful)
in a youtube video? its the only place i visit besides slashdot anymore,
Anyone who spends so much time on YouTube must be dodging paying for cable. Fess up!
Yeah, I'm trying to build a joke on your joke in lieu of the Funny mod point I never get to give.
Anyway, on the substance of the story, YouTube is still the biggest pirate ship sailing the Internet, and the $30 billion is a pittance compared to the legal market value of the violated copyrights. One-website case for repeal of Section 230. If you know of a bigger one, let's see your case. But I'll just focus on three aspects that bother me most:
One is pirating fresh videos, often by streaming them live. YouTube's excuse must be that they need time to take them down, but by that time the crime is gone. If YouTube wanted to actually stop the piracy, then it would be quite easy by acting on the searches so that the pirates' videos are not visible. If the searches that led to the stolen content started returning only the legitimate content on the channels of the legitimate owners of the content, then the pirates would be SOoL and out of business.
But the second aspect is much worse. That's the links to malware installers so your kids can watch "free" movies and other stolen content. Pwned by your own 6-year-old.
Even worse is #3. How much of the pittance ever gets to the actual creators? The original idea of the copyright was to reward people for creating new works of art for the grand benefit of society.
Then again, I suppose we can also dismiss it as one of those technical problems soon to be cured by technology. Pretty soon we'll all have AI-powered smartphones that can create any content we want as quickly as we can describe what we want to see or hear! Naw, not cool enough. Our smartphones will know what we want BEFORE we ask! (Actually, I'm living in dread of the day when the google's AlphaGo Zero is allowed to play the game of the stock market. The google will have all the money in the world within a day or two. Yeah, it's imaginary money, but the EVIL of today's google is real.)
(They say giving [mod points] feels good, but I can't remember that far back. At least 5 or 10 years? (New theory of how my no-mod-point flag got set: Maybe I cancelled too many of my own mod points with later replies?)
Re: (Score:1)
You and I don't get mod points because we post too often.
We're ALREADY steering the discussion by our posts, so we don't get to further steer it by doing mods.
If you only post once or twice a week for maybe 4-8 weeks you'll get mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I'll be a monkey's uncle. Or at least a quasi-monkey's descendant. So that's it. I have to shut up to get some mod points, eh?
Excuse me, but I think that incentive system is broken. But then I have to confess that I would like to steer some discussions away from AC drivel. (But mostly I comment or reply to try to figure out what I think about the topic. It's the writing process itself that gets to me...)
The funny thing about ACs is that I don't actually care. I just don't want to see them. No time for
Re: Arrgh! So confess already! (Score:2)
I can't speak for others, but I generally assume threads of conversation are going to be written by different people. Most conversations worth reading will involve several people pickup the OP's or GP's argument. So, just because you aren't seeing the AC doesn't mean the conversation has stopped.
Re: (Score:2)
Usually it's pretty easy to see what is going on even if there are some AC insertions in the middle. But now you're forcing me to confess to another exceptional case. It's actually a sort of good thing that Slashdot allows for "manually" looking at an AC comment or reply when it is referenced by other parts of a discussion and the context has become unclear. (Most obviously when a new joke is based on a callback.)
My main concern is with the kind of AC trolls who are just fishing for attention. But I might b
Re: (Score:1)
it isn't my job to clean up their drivel..
Yes it is, at your end, not at the server. Can't have you censoring what other people may want to see.
But I might be projecting from my own tit-for-tat vulnerabilities. Make that "But I probably am projecting ..."?
Yes... As your response will confirm
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-1
thankyouverymuch (Score:1)
good doggy.... do it again, for the viewing audience
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-2
Attaboy! Here's your treat (Score:1)
The bot performs on my command, any command
Last word to you
Public masturbation of 1673220 (Score:2)
Z^-3
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube is still the biggest pirate ship sailing the Internet, and the $30 billion is a pittance compared to the legal market value of the violated copyrights. One-website case for repeal of Section 230. If you know of a bigger one, let's see your case.
No, 47 USC 230 has nothing to do with copyrights. In fact it specifically doesn't apply to that per 47 USC 230(e)(2).
You mean 17 USC 512, the DCMA safe harbor that protects YouTube from being sued if they act appropriately on 'take-down' notices.
YouTube's excuse must be that they need time to take them down, but by that time the crime is gone.
Well, it's not like the site was founded by Barry Allen and Wally West (which should be obvious as they switched to h.264 and mp4 a long time ago) -- they do need time to review requests, review the offending videos, decide whether to act on the requests (they do ge
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the clarifications and even the specific citations and I would be interested in discussing the topics, but I feel like I must know better than to try to discuss such things with a lawyer. At least that's how I feel about lawyers. (You might actually be a nice lawyer. I have met a few in my many years. But most of them were otherwise. To put it in your own words, "Not their job to care." About right and wrong, as I see things.)
Well, I will say one more thing, but I'm apparently drawing myself off
Re: (Score:2)
I'm happy to discuss general issues, just not specific issues you're having. If you have a specific legal issue you need help with, you should hire an attorney. You should not think that I'm working for you or that we have an attorney-client relationship; I'm not and we don't.
To put it in your own words, "Not their job to care." About right and wrong, as I see things.)
1) Lawyers are basically hired guns. Our job is to aid our clients to the extent that they have a real argument and not a frivolous one, regardless of our personal opinions. (Though we do need to give clients good advice, even if it is
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly minor reactions, but your opening links back to your sig. Precision, precision. I might be your client, though it's unlikely, but even if you were my lawyer, nothing I can recall seeing on Slashdot qualifies as something I would have taken as legal advice.
With regards to your first numbered topic, I think you're describing the successful lawyers. At least that's the impression I've gotten from many discussions over the years regarding their own criteria for success. Being able to reject cases was rig
Re: (Score:2)
but your opening links back to your sig
Well, it's important.
the rules are mostly written by the most cheaply bribed politicians, and the people with the bribes are not morally neutral.
It's not necessarily bribes (even quasi-legal ones, like eventually getting rewarded with a cushy consultancy or lobbying position); popular yet bad ideas account for a lot.
But what YouTube is doing is still mostly wrong and YouTube is doing harm and letting other people pay for the damages.
Re: YouTube and copyright issues, things could be better, but I don't view their behavior as 'wrong.' Perhaps self-defeating from a policy perspective, but even then I strongly feel that the burden of enforcing a copyright should fall chiefly on the copyright holder. If they don't care enough to actively search for
Re: (Score:2)
You can definitely find pirated material on YouTube, but it doesn't get posted by people in the $30b Partner Program. When Google is cutting you a check, they become a lot more interested in whether your content is legal or not. In 2020 I looked through a lot of guitar lessons, music theory & production stuff on YT. All those guys have to avoid using even short snippets of copyrighted music, because it's detected - in automated fashion - and Google instantly "de-monetizes" the video, which means none of
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see the rest of the data, especially the financials and the view counts, but my basic reaction is "Where did the money come from?" Numbering the main possibilities for ease of reference: (1) Is this generous sharing of actual revenue they earned through hard work distributing the content? (2) Is this a pittance from real revenue generated by the program? Or (3) Is this just disguised advertising and a 'corporate reputation' investment where the money is actually coming from elsewhere? In the thi
Re: (Score:2)
I know they've been raising the bar for how many subscriptions a channel needs to become a Partner. I think they've decreased the payout per view as well. They've certainly started playing more ads than they used to. Unless there's been some huge dip in the value of a YouTube ad (one thing I haven't heard) they are definitely moving in a certain direction, the direction of profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the additional data. My understanding was that YouTube has never earned a direct profit? At least not as defined by (within?) its own services and revenue streams. When you say they are moving in "the direction of profits", do you mean they are still struggling to get out of the red, or do you mean that YouTube is profitable and trying to become more so? (However even if they have a positive cash flow now, the capital investment was enormous and they must be getting killed by depreciation.)
A bit
Re: (Score:1)
I was wondering why my Slashdot video was trending on my channel again.
I don't think the word "trending" means what you think it means Chris. The word "trending" isn't a synonymous with "slightly higher background noises than usual". Let me explain; to be a "trend" a YouTube video should have at the very least ~100,000 very recent views but none of your 267 videos ever got more than 10,000 views and your average is around 40 views so it is safe to say that none of your videos have ever been "trending" Chris.
I told you years ago that quantity isn't a replacement for quality Ch
Meaningless dribble (Score:2)
Re: Meaningless dribble (Score:2)
You probably mean "drivel".
And in return... (Score:1)
Numbers... (Score:1)
According to this Verge article from a year ago [theverge.com] they cleared ~$20billion last year. If they earned 20 and paid ~$10billion to content producers on average each year, that means that they are paying out about 50% of revenue.
Seems like an unlikely high payout.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it hard to believe? It's common knowledge that the content creator gets 55% of the ad revenue [investopedia.com] generated on their videos. For superchats, they get 70% [streamgeeks.us].
All to a select few (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of it probably went to the agencies of pop stars and to a few Youtube super-celebrities. 345,000 full-time jobs? They'd be lucky if 3,450 people are making full-time money at this.
Re: (Score:2)
You might be surprised. As well as people doing it full time there are many doing it part time or as a hobby. Many of them have other sources of income as well, e.g. Twitch or Patreon. A lot of Twitch streamers post highlights on YouTube, it's just another way to consume their content.
I actually really like YouTube, content wise. The company not so much, they need to do better by the content creators and make their app suck a lot less. But what is there is often really good stuff. Catering to niches that tr
Re: (Score:3)
You probably don't spend much time on Youtube, or only to watch TV content / Mainstream music. Youtube is full of content creators, which is their main job.
They're not all making a ton of money (though many do make a decent living) but I would think each EU country has one or two thousands folks doing that as their full time job. Large channels employ fairly large teams. Lots of small channels are made by students building their communities over time, then going full-time when they take off.
Backwards (Score:5, Insightful)
Youtube's take should be like 20%. Instead we don't even know what their take is, because the article doesn't say how much youtube brought in. Basically it's however much they feel like.
Re:Backwards (Score:4, Informative)
Youtube's take should be like 20%. Instead we don't even know what their take is, because the article doesn't say how much youtube brought in. Basically it's however much they feel like.
It isn't a secret [sec.gov]. YouTube ads brought in . . . 2017: 8,150 million, 2018: 11,155 million, 2019: 15,149 million. Which is 34.5 billion over three years, so their take was 13%. Happier now?
If you can get paid for content than why not. (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing really bugs me about YouTube, is when you are looking for how to do a particular function, or see how someone solved a particular problem in code. They give you a link to a YouTube video. Where I am scrubbing past minutes of useless data like how to use the Dev Environment, what menus to select... To the point where they use that one line of code, and perhaps explain using different language on what the parameters do for a built in function.
I am finding more an more code examples are on YouTube vs other sites like Stack Exchange, this may be due to Google promoting its own content over an other site. But I also think for many of the people who are generating this content. They figure why not make it on YouTube, where if it is popular enough than Ill get paid, vs just giving it for free.
Many sites are making money from user content, in which the content providers are not getting a dime.
However there is a flip side to this also. Popular doesn't always mean correct or right. To make a YouTube video popular enough to get money from it, you need to make it entertaining enough for people to watch it. To keep something entertaining, you will need to speak to the lowest common denominator (normally an 8th grade education level) where if you try to explain content in too much depth, people will get board and stop watching.
We see this across all fields of information, Religion, Politics, News, Science Reporting... Even communicating with other departments. People want to hear I made my program run faster. While I am actually excited that I found a way to code it to run in O(log(n)) Performance, where it was originally running in O(n) performance. Even if I am talking to other people who studied computer science, because it doesn't seem all colleges teach Big O notation to express algorithmic performance.
This is the problem with 21st century information. To profit off of the information you know, you need to keep most of it to yourself, or share with a small group of people, and explain it to the rest of the people in very simple terms, and do it in a way that is entertaining for them. Entertaining is often less threatening to them, to be less threatening, you cannot force the person to change the way they are thinking about other things. So Learning is stunted.
Re: (Score:2)
For things like coding questions, video is a terrible format. Just go directly to stackoverflow, and skip the general search. Or, if you must use Google, restrict your search: "my question site:stackoverflow.com". This sill only give you results from the named website.
Also: If you have some good information yourself, put it on your private website. Spend a couple of second thinking about SEO - making sure to describe the content with the keywords someone would use in a search. Many years ago, I put together
Re: If you can get paid for content than why not. (Score:2)
99% of non code related YouTube tutorials would also be better served by a static document. Video is good for broad, imprecise knowledge. When the basic principles are more important that getting a specific answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's true, but the algorithms have ensured that creators get paid if their videos include a lot of fluff. An answer that can be found in 30 seconds as text is bloated to 20 minutes because the creator adds tons fo fluff about setting up a dev environment and all that in order to boost their numbers to make money.
Similar to how in school yo
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the growing number of valid answers on YouTube, Limiting to stackoverflow may lead me to cutting my arm off. For the actual Answer may be on YouTube, And StackOverflow isn't perfect either.
Often finding people asking a question with the top response being "Why do you want to do that? Do this instead." Which annoys the hell out of me, because I will normally try to find out how to do something that isn't part of the normal operations of the tool, software language.
Did you miss the mantra of the 20th Century? (Score:2)
This is the problem with 21st century information. To profit off of the information you know, you need to keep most of it to yourself, or share with a small group of people, and explain it to the rest of the people in very simple terms, and do it in a way that is entertaining for them.
21st Century will be about INFORMATION.
Information is POWER
What part are you missing?
Get stuck here (Score:2)
creators, artists, and media organizations (Score:5, Interesting)
What percentage was paid to creators and artist and how much was paid to the like of Disney?
Re: (Score:2)
What percentage was paid to creators and artist and how much was paid to the like of Disney?
Good question. It would be super interesting to see the distribution of the $30 billion. Even as anonymized data, I'd like to see the number of recipients and how much of the $30 billion was distributed to high-earners.
$30 billion and promoted violence and fake news (Score:1)
Congrats, "Do no evil" bastards!
Creators, Artists and "others" (Score:3)
The "others" presumably being the people who make Elsa and Spiderman videos and similar stuff.
Youtube is, like most streaming services, terribly bad at rewarding the people who make the things we actually come there for.
Use some of those billions.... (Score:4, Insightful)
What ads? (Score:1)
Come on, you're on Slashdot. Ad and stats blocking plugins are part of your defense in depth security strategy. If the web browser doesn't make the request in the first place, then the malvertising ad isn't retrieved and executed.
Roughly... (Score:1)
You tube is killing the web expericence (Score:2)
Should have just burned it. (Score:1)