YouTube Can Now Monetize Smaller Creators' Videos All Around the World (telegraphindia.com) 117
The Telegraph reports:
Video-sharing platform YouTube has announced changes in its terms of services, which confer the company the right to monetise all content on its platform by placing advertisements along its videos from channels that are not covered by its partner programme. From June onwards, content created by those who have not enrolled for the YouTube partner programme will also run advertisements curated by YouTube.
The creators/uploaders will not earn any revenue from these promotions...
"You grant YouTube the right to monetise your content on the service (and such monetisation may include displaying ads on or within content or charging users a fee for access)," said the updated terms of service. "This agreement does not entitle you to any payments...." This was already in effect in the U.S. from November last year and will now be extended across other geographies effective from June. According to industry observers, the change in terms of service is motivated by the fast growing revenue channels from YouTube advertisements. For the March quarter of 2021, Alphabet, Google's parent, earned a revenue of $6 billion from YouTube advertising, posting a year on year growth of 49 per cent...
Philipp Schindler, senior vice president and chief business officer, Google explained to the analysts on what is driving such growth... "Advertisers are using YouTube now to reach the audiences they can't find anywhere else. And remember, more 18-to-49-year-olds are actually watching YouTube than all linear TV combined...." According to official figures, over 2 billion logged in users visit YouTube every month and every day people watch over a billion hours of video on the platform...
"Today there are two models in place - either the subscriber pays or the advertiser pays. It is inevitable that all platforms will follow one or the other and viewers and content creators have to accept that," said a media and entertainment industry analyst requesting anonymity.
YouTube reminds users that its Terms of Service also "already state that you cannot collect any information that might identify a person without their permission. While this has always included facial recognition information, the new Terms make that explicitly clear."
The creators/uploaders will not earn any revenue from these promotions...
"You grant YouTube the right to monetise your content on the service (and such monetisation may include displaying ads on or within content or charging users a fee for access)," said the updated terms of service. "This agreement does not entitle you to any payments...." This was already in effect in the U.S. from November last year and will now be extended across other geographies effective from June. According to industry observers, the change in terms of service is motivated by the fast growing revenue channels from YouTube advertisements. For the March quarter of 2021, Alphabet, Google's parent, earned a revenue of $6 billion from YouTube advertising, posting a year on year growth of 49 per cent...
Philipp Schindler, senior vice president and chief business officer, Google explained to the analysts on what is driving such growth... "Advertisers are using YouTube now to reach the audiences they can't find anywhere else. And remember, more 18-to-49-year-olds are actually watching YouTube than all linear TV combined...." According to official figures, over 2 billion logged in users visit YouTube every month and every day people watch over a billion hours of video on the platform...
"Today there are two models in place - either the subscriber pays or the advertiser pays. It is inevitable that all platforms will follow one or the other and viewers and content creators have to accept that," said a media and entertainment industry analyst requesting anonymity.
YouTube reminds users that its Terms of Service also "already state that you cannot collect any information that might identify a person without their permission. While this has always included facial recognition information, the new Terms make that explicitly clear."
YouTube has adverts? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Half of youtube is ads these days, ads masquerading as content.
Re:YouTube has adverts? (Score:5, Informative)
its because those of us who dont like shit ads use safescript and adblock. i havent seen a youtube ad in years.
Re:YouTube has adverts? (Score:4, Interesting)
Neither have I, but recently on my iPad they started to reappear even with the ad-blocker. Seems it's time to look for a new ad-blocker.
Do you know of any ad-blocker for iOS that still filters ads in youtube (web site, not app)?
Re: (Score:2)
I've noticed the occasional ad slipping through, it looks like youtube is trying harder against ad blockers. They're wasting their time, I literally mute the sound and scroll the page down if an ad makes it through. I can't stand ads they're sickening racist sexist classist etc ultra-capitalism and insult the intelligence.
If they put ads on my videos I will remove them all. I think they were doing that on the sly before anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
sorry, unfortunately i dont frequent slashdot anymore. and i have not found anything viable for ios since they made it almost impossible to jailbreak. i just dont try to use youtube or the such on my ios device(iphone) if its something you use at home i hear piholes work rather well but thats not going to obviously work anywhere else. theyre easy to setup though.
Re: (Score:2)
Smart YouTube Next on Android TV and YouTube Vanced on phones and tablets.
Both also include Sponsor Block, which auto-skips in-video ads.
Re: (Score:2)
thats nice and all but i dont use any android devices.
Re: (Score:3)
Very true. Before I get into my thoughts on the matter I'd like to talk about my favourite game, Raid: Shadow Legends.
I don't blame creators for looking for endorsements and referral money. YouTube monetisation is pretty fragile. Even presence on the platform can be taken away at anytime, meaning it is sensible to get alternative income streams and alternative hosting. Some creators do a decent job with preventing the adverts from becoming too intrusive. Internet Comment Etiquette is at the point where his
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points. Instead I just wanted to add that I actually stopped using ad block. I figured I owed quality creators something. I almost reinstalled a blocker but Destin from smarter every day is just too nice a guy and I always felt guilty and decided to just unsub from any channel that runs ads more than once at the beginning and end of the video.
Re: YouTube has adverts? (Score:2)
Yeah, same here. I don't mind watching an advert if even a small fraction is going to the creator. I tend to simply unsubscribe or click out of videos where they ho overboard with adverts. Some of them get quite ridiculous in placing advert slots, with an advert every 3-4 minutes.
I wish YouTube would also stop accepting excessively long adverts. It's bizarre to have a 20 minute advert when I'm watching a 10 minute video.
Re: (Score:2)
ofc not on desktop, but on cellphone they're hard to block. i have never bothered watching videos at all on my phone just because of this, having crap constantly being floated in your face makes it unusable. it's insane and i have no problem just opting out.
Re: (Score:3)
On Android just use newpipe. Instantly 0 ads. On iOS just throw it out, also 0 ads
Re: (Score:2)
ads? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have ads even with ad blocker.
Re: (Score:2)
I get ads in YT movies even with AdBlock installed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks! I will.
Re: (Score:2)
Recently, I have noted that with the adblocker enabled, some videos on YT will just not start playing. Not all videos, but some. They must be testing something designed to not let you watch unless you disable them. On the videos that behave this way, both Adblock Plus and uBlock Origin cause this behavior. Both need to be disabled for those videos to play.
Re: (Score:2)
Ads destroy watching pleasure (Score:2)
It's time all YouTubers flock to a new place with fewer or no ads. This new place will of course also get infested with ads. And so we hop from one site to the next, following our video-making heroes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin as a form of payment would lock into orbit the idea of "ease of printing money" and "ease of being separated from it". Currently we hide the cat and mouse game of "money makes the world go around" behind ads and piracy where the real payees are customers who do buy things, and everyone else freeloads. Good thing open-source doesn't come with ads.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait to pay a $20 transaction fee to watch a video.
Re: (Score:2)
Ads are only necessary when people create content people won’t pay for.
Put your content up on your dime, try to convince people to pay for it, and if you can’t then shut it down. Just like any other business.
Re: (Score:2)
Ads are only necessary when people create content people won’t pay for.
Put your content up on your dime, try to convince people to pay for it, and if you can’t then shut it down. Just like any other business.
Alternatively, put your content up on your own dime and let people enjoy it without paying and without ads. This only works if having people consume your content is an end in itself, worth the cost of creation and distribution. If such costs are low enough, many artists will go this route.
Re: (Score:2)
Being an artist is a full time job. They can't do their work without some form of pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Being an artist is a full time job. They can't do their work without some form of pay.
Being an artist is not necessarily a full-time job. If you make your art available for free, and somebody likes it enough to sponsor you, then it can be a full-time job. Until then it is a hobby.
Re: (Score:2)
Being an artist is not necessarily a full-time job.
True, but it takes time and effort to make something good - or, for some things, to make it at all. Part-time or hobby artists will, by necessity, concentrate on low-effort products. They can make a TikTok video, but they can't make a full feature film by working on it a couple of hours on Sundays.
This means most of the free stuff is really low quality; the effort shifts from artists to customers, who now have to sift through the flood of low quality crap to find the occasional gem. As a customer this makes
Re: (Score:2)
Being an artist is not necessarily a full-time job.
True, but it takes time and effort to make something good - or, for some things, to make it at all. Part-time or hobby artists will, by necessity, concentrate on low-effort products. They can make a TikTok video, but they can't make a full feature film by working on it a couple of hours on Sundays.
It takes a long time to make something good working part-time, but it is by no means impossible. A dedicated part-timer can spend years building his creation, whereas a full-time person might get it done in a month.
This means most of the free stuff is really low quality; the effort shifts from artists to customers, who now have to sift through the flood of low quality crap to find the occasional gem. As a customer this makes it difficult and often not worth it.
You have overlooked critics, who will pour through the dross and recommend the gens to those who follow them. Books pretty much work that way today.
Re: (Score:2)
You have overlooked critics, who will pour through the dross and recommend the gens to those who follow them.
First, critics are part of the same ecosystem. Unless they're paid for their work, they will also be part-timer amateurs. I don't expect most of them to have the time (or patience) to work their way through the mountain of dross to dig out a pearl once in a long while. Second, my experience with critics has always been poor; I rarely find someone whose recommendations consistently match my tastes (and don't get me started on automated recommendation systems, such as the ones from Goodreads or Netflix).
Books pretty much work that way today.
No, n
Re: (Score:2)
You have overlooked critics, who will pour through the dross and recommend the gens to those who follow them.
First, critics are part of the same ecosystem. Unless they're paid for their work, they will also be part-timer amateurs. I don't expect most of them to have the time (or patience) to work their way through the mountain of dross to dig out a pearl once in a long while. Second, my experience with critics has always been poor; I rarely find someone whose recommendations consistently match my tastes (and don't get me started on automated recommendation systems, such as the ones from Goodreads or Netflix).
The work of critics can be distributed. Everyone does their share of digging through the dross, but also listens to people they trust. Good critics will emerge from such an enviornment.
Books pretty much work that way today.
No, no, they don't. Book publishing has a full slew of paid people whose job is to separate the grain from the chaff. From writers' agents who can redirect some book to the most appropriate market, to readers going through the slush piles and selecting maybe a few percent of the submitted items, to editors who work with the writers to fix issues and polish the book, to proofreaders making sure a minimum of errors make it through to the published work. The only part of book publishing that works the way you describe it is the self-publishing vanity segment - and this is as bad of a mess as the TikTok/YouTube market.
Actually, I was thinking of the self-publishing industry. However, a friend of mine, a professor at a prestigious university, wrote a book about corporate taxation. I proofread it for him, with my attentions straying into the territory of an editor, since the line between those roles is somewhat flexible. There is no rea
Re: (Score:2)
I watched this [youtu.be] yesterday about a particular movie and one of the things driven home is just how much work is involved in entertaining people. A lesson I suspect most here aren't familiar with. To them all art is easy and therefore should be free. Programming is also easy and should be free. e.g. open-source.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed! Many people think that the person who presents the video is the only one who works on it, but many have a whole team behind them. They also don't work for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep great point. A ran a social network for a dozen years that way. If you enjoy it and/or it’s worth something it will fly. If not maybe you should find something else to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep great point. A ran a social network for a dozen years that way. If you enjoy it and/or it’s worth something it will fly. If not maybe you should find something else to do.
Similarly, I run a small web site with no ads and no sunscription fees. Software I write for my own pleasure, and sound effects I create for community theatre are available to anyone who might find them useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why does YT show me ads on the channels I pay a membership for? (or would show, if I didn't have an ad blocker; but testing on my membership channels with the ad blocker disabled shows ads). I am paying for the content, logically I shouldn't get ads. But YT is of a different opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Get YouTube Premium instead of channel membership. Membership is like Patreon, it's there for you to easily donate to the channel and get some perks in return.
Re: (Score:2)
It's time all YouTubers flock to a new place with fewer or no ads. This new place will of course also get infested with ads. And so we hop from one site to the next, following our video-making heroes.
If YouTube creators want to get paid, the ads are an evil necessity they need to deal with.
Besides, it seems that a growing number of people don't really mind the ads if ad-supported video viewership is on the rise [emarketer.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If YouTube creators want to get paid, the ads are an evil necessity they need to deal with.
yet here we are, in a story, about how there will be ads, but the creators wont get paid.
Nah. (Score:2)
There is Nebula - which was started by YTers who want a bigger slice and pays them based on view time of their videos. But, it's a subscription, and there is very little there.
They espouse that they are not competing with YT, but they are, and every other streaming service. There are no good alternatives and Google does things like make their own cards for transcoding for speed, etc. Good luck competing with that.
The Plan (Score:5, Insightful)
So creating makes YouTube money and they won’t share it unless you cross some arbitrary threshold they decide.
umm no
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're stealing your income from your labor, in whatever amount they can make you bear.
Youtubers are functionally "gig workers" like Uber drivers, with the same issues. They don't get to set their rates, and YouTube can "demonetize" them, which doesn't mean they don't take in money, just that YouTube gets it all instead of the creator.
Corrupt af.
Re: (Score:3)
They're stealing your income from your labor, in whatever amount they can make you bear.
Youtubers are functionally "gig workers" like Uber drivers, with the same issues. They don't get to set their rates, and YouTube can "demonetize" them, which doesn't mean they don't take in money, just that YouTube gets it all instead of the creator.
Corrupt af.
I beg too differ. YouTube is providing the technology to host the video at no charge; if they want to run their own ads and get paid they need to find another way to do that or get big enough for YouTube to pay them. Amazon is a harsh mistress. They are learning TANSTAAFL.
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube is providing the technology to host the video at no charge; if they want to run their own ads and get paid they need to find another way to do that or get big enough for YouTube to pay them.
YouTube is *nothing* without content, no matter how good their platform is. They can let that wonderful technology sit idle until they come up with their own content then.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube is providing the technology to host the video at no charge; if they want to run their own ads and get paid they need to find another way to do that or get big enough for YouTube to pay them.
YouTube is *nothing* without content, no matter how good their platform is. They can let that wonderful technology sit idle until they come up with their own content then.
But inversely, most content is nothing without a YouTube. It’s a valuable discovery service for content I generally wouldn’t care to look for elsewhere and love watching but also easily live without. I know there’s Vimeo and other platforms. Never bother. YouTube has value to those posting videos.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that they are changing the rules. They told me they wouldn't monetize my videos when I uploaded them. I created the content. If they monetize them now, they should pay me for the time and effort of creating and uploading said content, because they are only at their market dominating spot now *exactly* because I gave them my content for free in exchange for the hosting.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that they are changing the rules. They told me they wouldn't monetize my videos when I uploaded them. I created the content. If they monetize them now, they should pay me for the time and effort of creating and uploading said content, because they are only at their market dominating spot now *exactly* because I gave them my content for free in exchange for the hosting.
I agree, but your only option is to delete them. You could also put adds in the stream with url affiliate links, but that is not. a good solution.
Re: (Score:2)
So stop using them and delete yo shit. The solution's simple. The only possible problem with what they are doing is if they refused to let you remove your content. Is it supremely shitty, sure. But prior to Youtube you would have at most had a blog(which you mostly had to pay for or whichever video site hosted your videos and/or allowed them to run ads) or Myspace(which had a shitload of ads if you care to recall). Now that they effectively have/are in the process of destroying all possible competitors the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're stealing your income from your labor, in whatever amount they can make you bear.
So is Slashdot. You put all that effort into writing your post (then proceeded to post anonymously so I guess you don't believe in your own bullshit enough to put your name to it), and then Slashdot got some ad revenue due to me reading your post.
Corrupt af. amirite?
Re: (Score:1)
That's been the deal from the start with most free hosting going back to the Geocities days. My first website was free of advertising only because it was the mid 90s and the host was giving space so they could test their systems. The reality is that somebody has to pay for the hosting. Short of a massive and decentralised video network, there's always going to be somebody looking to pay a large bill. The days of investors pouring money down the hole, hoping to keep a 'business' alive long enough to be bough
Re: (Score:2)
Their platform, their rules. If you want way less people to see your video, post it somewhere else.
At least they're not [yet?] prohibiting posting your video other places as well, or advertising that you post it other places
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised they didn't do that, at least for 'alt-tech' sites. Maybe they're worried about possible anti-trust issues given they hold a large majority of the market. Given that YouTube operates membership features, blocking linking to sites like Ko-fi, SubscribeStar, and Patreon would seem to be leveraging their dominance of video hosting to push their subscriptions business.
Play Raid: Shadow Legends over a VPN.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can always delete your content if you don't agree with the changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
umm no
Interesting. Which platform are you using to share your videos to the world's largest audience instead?
Just removed my videos (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably vimeo or dailymotion. Is metacafe still alive?
I was wondering the same thing (Score:1)
I was thinking Vimeo was the next best thing to posting content on YouTube, but that's just because it's been around for a while... would also like to know what other alternatives exist - especially what platform is decent about sharing revenue with ads and videos you produce.
Maybe even TikTok could be an alternative?
Pay YouTube to host videos ad-free? (Score:2)
My videos are to promote a product, and I do not want YouTube putting crap all over them. I wonder if YouTube will give me the option to pay them to host my content?
Maybe YouTube will offer a program in which I can pay them to host my videos ad-free.
I also just put mine on my website Just simple links to the mp4 files. Works fine. No ads. But I also use YouTube. Why? Because many people search YouTube and I want them to find me. So I actually put links to YouTube so that it gets hits and increases th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing no one ever looked at your videos and you had no followers if you just decided to up and delete them so easily.
Hey I got a secret for you. Slashdot displays ads. Think about that before writing content... I mean a reply.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is not a professional channel, it is for me and my family and friends. You might not have but most of us do. And none of us want to see ads before looking at each other videos.
Moron.
BitChute looks like a bad neighborhood (Score:1)
Last I checked, the majority of videos in the "Popular" pane of the front page of BitChute were COVID-19 misinformation, Illuminati conspiracy crap, and racial bigotry.
Re: (Score:2)
Bitchute is so riddled with rejects of Youtube that as an Indian it is difficult for me to ignore it. I had some channels I like on Bitchute but the amount of garbage racist anti-vax republican party propaganda stuff there is just off-putting.
It is the same reason I avoid reddit, for its pure propaganda delivery platform for democrats.
Odysee looks good to me. Much more interseting than Dailymotion.
'year on year growth of 49 per cent' (Score:2)
This will end well (Score:3)
So youtube now has a choice. It can either "monetize" the channel and give them a portion of channel's ad revenue, or "demonetize"/keep it "demonetized" and take all of the ad revenue for itself.
So, what's the motivation for not just slowly removing monetization from everyone youtube identifies as "they won't leave our platform even if we demonetize them because there's nowhere else they can go that has our platform's reach"?
Re: (Score:2)
What'll be more interesting is to see if they end up rolling adverts on the kinds of content for which they denied demonetisation for political reasons?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if YT do not start demonetizing its "partners" so as to avoid sharing ad revenues, it's almost certainly going to keep the high CPM ads for itself and only bother sharing the lowest-paying placements. In a recent video on my own YT channel I predicted that this will happen and, as a result, most YT partners will start seeing a significant fall in revenues as a result.
I'm already making plans to move (or at least mirror) my YT uploads elsewhere.
Although (as a full-time content creator) I once lived en
third model: creator pays (Score:2)
"Today there are two models in place - either the subscriber pays or the advertiser pays. It is inevitable that all platforms will follow one or the other and viewers and content creators have to accept that," said a media and entertainment industry analyst requesting anonymity.
No, there is also a third model: the creator pays. As the costs of creation and distribution decline, more creators will pay to have their works distributed. For some, the fact that everyone gets to consume their content is motivation enough. For others, they hope to get "discovered" by some rich guy who will fund their more ambitious ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Or run their own servers. At the very beginning of digital audio i suggested to make an application where the artist presents and sells his media on his own website .
Nowadays im sure there's ways of distributing in such a fashion, At the time i suggested a credit card reader built in the keyboard. You buy , download and that's it. Cut the middle man out.
Re: (Score:2)
Or run their own servers. At the very beginning of digital audio i suggested to make an application where the artist presents and sells his media on his own website . Nowadays im sure there's ways of distributing in such a fashion, At the time i suggested a credit card reader built in the keyboard. You buy , download and that's it. Cut the middle man out.
Running your own server is simple and cheap if you have an internet connection (that you also use to browse the internet) and Apache httpd. However, accepting credit cards means letting the credit card company take a cut. If you do something unpopular they can be pressured into cutting you off, so they are a third party. Much simpler to not charge at all.
Yay, looks like an MBA joined Google (Score:1)
Oh what fun.
Hopefully this and the apple shambles will wake people up enough to start regulation of all those companies, starting with a law requiring an actual person that can do something being on the end of a telephone for support calls.
Bait and switch (Score:5, Informative)
This was clearly bait and switch. I had a YouTube channel I uploaded something like maybe 20 videos. I was allowed to monetize them.
After making something like 5 or $10, they had the requirement that I make $100 before I could withdraw anything.
So I uploaded more videos and monetized them. Before my account ever reached $100, they changed the terms and demonetized everything I had because I was a small channel.
I never made a penny but originally I was uploading videos because I thought I was making money with the idea that in the future I could continue uploading videos to eventually cross the $100 threshold. Except new barriers replaced in front of me every time before I ever was able to withdraw money up into the point of actually stopping me from earning any more money from videos until somehow I'm super large?
Bait and switch all the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Bait and switch all the way.
Actually more like your "business" grew much slower than the industry changed. There are literally people making their entire income on Youtube, so they weren't baiting and switching. But hey not everyone has what it takes to be a youtube sensation.
Sheisters (Score:2)
This is disgusting. Period.
All for them and none for the content creator. Ill never post anything i produce there for that reason.
Blood sucking thieves that's what they are.
Fee for access? (Score:2)
While I don't see ads due to AdBlock+, I did see one part of the agreement that had me concerned:
such monetisation may include displaying ads on or within content or charging users a fee for access
This would appear to indicate that I could click on a video and be presented with a paywall before I could see it. Yet then I read that this has already been in place in the US since November, and I don't ever recall seeing this happen. Anyone else encounter this?
Re: (Score:2)
to be more specific, youtubes attempts to charge for video watching, such as youtube red, has so far been an adoption failure except maybe the sanctioned mpaa movie peddling they are doing.
but its something they HAVE been doing
Re: (Score:2)
This is the youtube premium (which I'm a subscriber), the member community (where you subscribe to a specific channel), and probably includes the superchat as well (where you can donate money to a channel).
But it would be entirely possible for them to allow some channels to create a new member exclusive channel that can only be access by channel's members or a more pay-per-view model for individual videos, I just don't think this onlyfans-like model would work well with youtube.
So like the late 90's (Score:2)
when everyone hooped onto the new on the block banner free hosting until some months later when banners started to pop up rinse and repeat.
Re: (Score:2)
not safe for advertisers (Score:1)
I predict a boom of youtube content not suitable for advertisers.
Re: not safe for advertisers (Score:4, Insightful)
Followed by a prohibition against content not approved by advertisers.
At that point YouTube will have succeeded in their ambition to emulate network TV on the Internet.
People still use YouTube? That's still around? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
alternatives (Score:2)
Time to delete all my content from YouTube and move it somewhere else.
What's the best alternatives out there at this time? Or are there easy-to-install packages to host them yourself? I have a server, I just couldn't be arsed to set up a video streaming interface. Maybe there is one that works out-of-the-box?
Re: (Score:2)
Odysee (based on Lbry) seems to be the most popular at the moment but there's no practical way for creators to monetize their work (outside of sponsorships and the crypto-currency that this system trades in.
Self-serve seems to be an option for small channels and that's where I'm headed, at least initially. I've got an uncapped gigabit fibre connection so I'll throw my regular devices on a firewalled subnet and then put a Raspberry Pi 4 running Apache or something on the WAN side. Obviously there are perfo
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking that as well.
I don't care about monetization. In fact, I don't want it. People who want to support me can do it directly, I don't need advertisements to do it. In fact, I abhor ads.
I have a server with unlimited traffic. The problem is that I'd like a real streaming solution, so people can jump to any point, fast-forward, that kind of stuff. I'm sure that there are libs or even ready solutions out there that handle all the necessary front- and backend processing, but I haven't found them.
If som
How to tell who makes money (Score:3)
If half the video is about asking you to subscribe, the "content" creator is tossed a few coins by Google. If the video is 100% about something or other and doesn't ask you to subscribe repeatedly, Google keeps all the money for itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Subscribers are a threshold used for montising a channel. The thing you're demonstrating is who *doesn't want* to make money from Youtube. Not who is or isn't making some.
Block adds on Youtube and Google (Score:2)
Then use the hell out of them, costing them money.
Not really a change at all then... (Score:3)
YT has been doing this *for years* already with "random" demonetisation of channels, regardless of size. This just formalises the process slightly more to say "WE'LL make money off your work via ads regardless: any payment to you is entirely at our discretion".
I see a lot of people calling this a "bait and switch", but it's really not. YT has ALWAYS been like this, with Google collecting the money no matter what, and a stance that "content creators" should just be grateful that YT pays them at all (if it does).
For tech/game/etc channels at least, I don't think ANY channel I've seen that's more than a year old doesn't have stories to tell of their channels randomly getting demonetised; or removed from YT's "promotion" algorithm; or etc etc, with YT's response always being non-existent because there's basically no process in place to even attempt to provide "fairness": Google's getting their cut so everyone else can suck it, regardless of how many million subs you have.
Advertising, but... (Score:2)
That's always been the deal: advertising pays the bills.
YouTube's current behaviour, however, is just plain obnoxious.
...laura
The thing about youtube commercials... (Score:2)
Which completely derails whatever the person was saying, and you have to back up a few seconds to follow it correctly.
If youtube is going to insert their own commercials into content, then they should refuse to allow any video uploaded by someone to become public until the uploader has specified points in the video where those commercials can be put. Failure to specify such points means that your video is inaccessible to anyo
Remember a few years ago... (Score:2)
They upped the requirements to monetize a channel - because ads where been displayed on terrorist videos etc as a way to protect the advertisers because the large advertisers stopped advertising on Youtube...
The requirements first run was something like 100 followers and a certain amount of watched time a month, since then they have been upped and upped again.
Now they are going to put videos on all the small content again, without the smaller creators getting a cent this time.
What Happened to protecting the
Viewers and content creators have to accept that? (Score:2)
Until the minute somebody starts a competing video sharing site and offers compensation to everyone, regardless of size. The market is ready.
Youtube is criminal (Score:2)
They demonetize videos they disagree with, but only for the creators. The videos stay up and Youtube continues to monetize the videos for themselves. There is a class action lawsuit in this somewhere. Youtube should be forced to remove videos they demonetize, so they have to think carefully about their own financial harm and not just the harm to creators.
So non-americans pay taxes twice? (Score:2)
How I read this is that people in other countries would be taxed twice on their income, once in the USA and once in their country of origin where they ordinarily pay taxes.
Am I wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually they said 'Don't be evil. We're watching you."