0
YouTube Marches Closer To Inevitable Death
Posted by Austin
on
9:33 AM
A report from Reuters dated yesterday indicates that YouTube may be looking to monetize even further:
Most egregious is YouTube's ultra-adherence to anything even resembling copyright. Look, I'm not saying the world wouldn't be a better place if all the awful anime/nu-rock AMVs disappeared. The problem becomes, videos with brief samples of songs disappear due to copyright claims. Have ten seconds of a song playing in the background of your video? Ouch, sorry, copyright claim deleted the entire thing. Nobody's getting rich off snippets, but YouTube enforces them with the same fury they do full song postings. I agree that users shouldn't upload entire songs just for your listening pleasure; if the songs are sampled, and used with other works... well, who cares.
The other factor is YouTube's unreliability. Want to upload a video? OK, here we go! Uploading... uploading... ooh, ouch, your upload stalled. Sorry! Try again? OK, here we go... and... oh, yeah, I uploaded it, but there's a weird artifacting error. Try again? Here we go, and... wait, your video is ten minutes and one second long? Sorry, we only allow ten minutes!
For a site that somehow wants to thrive on creative content, their system is unreliable a good portion of the time and their limits (videos less than ten minutes) is ridiculous.
And now YouTube is looking at monetizing further than the ads already on the site. They claim that this system would work almost like a Netflix instant view, where users would be able to pay and watch movies/television on demand. At the risk of invoking the slippery slope fallacy -- is this just the beginning? Given the site's trajectory over the last five years, it's not difficult to see a future where it costs $15 a month to upload videos to the site, or $5 to be able to watch them. This would cause users to flee to other sites, effectively killing YouTube, but really, it's not even a stretch at this point.
I personally have been disappointed with YouTube. They've pulled several copyright claims on songs that are public domain, or are played in passing. I lost a video journal, for instance, that had about three seconds of a song played on a radio in the background as I walked through a room.
Truth be told, I'm itching to find a replacement. Don't give me extra motivation to do so, YouTube.
|
YouTube is considering offering users the option to pay for subscriptions in a bid to encourage more media companies to license premium TV shows and movies to the popular online video site, a senior executive said.Let me get something out of the way. First, YouTube has been marching to it's death for over a year now. The reason is simple: YouTube is all about limiting content now.
Most egregious is YouTube's ultra-adherence to anything even resembling copyright. Look, I'm not saying the world wouldn't be a better place if all the awful anime/nu-rock AMVs disappeared. The problem becomes, videos with brief samples of songs disappear due to copyright claims. Have ten seconds of a song playing in the background of your video? Ouch, sorry, copyright claim deleted the entire thing. Nobody's getting rich off snippets, but YouTube enforces them with the same fury they do full song postings. I agree that users shouldn't upload entire songs just for your listening pleasure; if the songs are sampled, and used with other works... well, who cares.
The other factor is YouTube's unreliability. Want to upload a video? OK, here we go! Uploading... uploading... ooh, ouch, your upload stalled. Sorry! Try again? OK, here we go... and... oh, yeah, I uploaded it, but there's a weird artifacting error. Try again? Here we go, and... wait, your video is ten minutes and one second long? Sorry, we only allow ten minutes!
For a site that somehow wants to thrive on creative content, their system is unreliable a good portion of the time and their limits (videos less than ten minutes) is ridiculous.
And now YouTube is looking at monetizing further than the ads already on the site. They claim that this system would work almost like a Netflix instant view, where users would be able to pay and watch movies/television on demand. At the risk of invoking the slippery slope fallacy -- is this just the beginning? Given the site's trajectory over the last five years, it's not difficult to see a future where it costs $15 a month to upload videos to the site, or $5 to be able to watch them. This would cause users to flee to other sites, effectively killing YouTube, but really, it's not even a stretch at this point.
I personally have been disappointed with YouTube. They've pulled several copyright claims on songs that are public domain, or are played in passing. I lost a video journal, for instance, that had about three seconds of a song played on a radio in the background as I walked through a room.
Truth be told, I'm itching to find a replacement. Don't give me extra motivation to do so, YouTube.
|
