The Demise of Youtube.

[Crashbroke23]

This Thursday, the 16th, Youtube will go under a major redesign, whch will kill it for the average Youtuber like you and I. What will happen is there will be 4 tabs like before, but these will make it harder for your video to be seen by people.

The tabs are: Movies, Music, Shows, and Videos. Videos is where are our hard work will go, almost never to be seen again. Since your not a person with many subscribers, and the fact that most people view-count has gone down since Fred and the Most Popular Videos pages came around. Also, in the new 3 sections, it will feature videos and tv shows. The first of these being Disney. This update will emphasise the Major companies.

What do ya think?

 

[nk4e]

 

[homeforsummer]

I can see how it'll affect quite a few people, but for those of us who almost exclusively use Youtube by searching for things rather than following links via the main page, it won't make a great deal of difference.

 

[Blake]

They lose something like half a billion dollars a year, I can hardly blame them for trying to offset that. If they don’t they’ll eventually kill it.

 

[Duke]

Videos is where are our hard work will go, almost never to be seen again.

What do ya think?

I think clicking on the Videos tab solves that problem fairly simply and painlessly.

 

[FoolKiller]

This Thursday, the 16th, Youtube will go under a major redesign, whch will kill it for the average Youtuber like you and I. What will happen is there will be 4 tabs like before, but these will make it harder for your video to be seen by people.

The tabs are: Movies, Music, Shows, and Videos. Videos is where are our hard work will go, almost never to be seen again. Since your not a person with many subscribers, and the fact that most people view-count has gone down since Fred and the Most Popular Videos pages came around. Also, in the new 3 sections, it will feature videos and tv shows. The first of these being Disney. This update will emphasise the Major companies.

So, let me get this straight. They are creating a way to make it easier for me to find legitimate music videos, TV shows, and movies on You Tube without having to search though a half million vlogs, v-blogs video rants? It's about time!

I don't browse You Tube, I search. When I upload videos I mainly do it to show them to friends, family, or GTP, which means I am linking them.

I mean, I will miss getting rick rolled every time I click a link for a new movie trailer, but I think I can manage. I just hope the dramatic gopher doesn't take this too hard and hit the booze. Next he'll be on crying and screaming, "LEAVE YOU TUBE ALONE!!!"

Seriously, it in no way impacts your ability to upload your videos and share them. It is actually making it easier to find what I want and anyone who actually wants to see your home videos still knows where to go.

The only negative I see about this is that it will likely give the bad commenters a little more focus.

 

[Richardrfo]

I've always only clicked on links people post/send to me, or search for something specific and travel through related clips, I've never used it as a site to actually browse through so it will have no effect on me personally, as is the same with millions of other users I'd imagine.

 

[Jondot]

I think the 'demise of YouTube' occurred when 300,000 13 year olds discovered it, and simultaneously decided to start uploading crap in an attempt to get their 5 minutes of fame. Or maybe it was when the fanboys moved in, and started needless and pointless arguments over every single video.

Personally I think this is all a load of moaning for the sake of moaning. Remember when YouTube (horrifyingly) changed their format to 16:9 video. A fair proportion of its users threw a strop for about 72 hours, and then simply got bored and went back to producing videos of themselves running into walls again (albeit now in widescreen). I can guarantee this will end in the same way - everyone will have a moan, stage a strike, proclaim war against the capitalist pigs, and vow never to return... for about a week. Then it'll be back to business as usual. And over what? A couple of extra tabs. It's a bit pathetic really.

I remember seeing a group on Facebook entitled something like 'Mass Facebook strike', that proclaimed that Facebook 'owe us' for being registered there. Um... no they don't. You're using their servers to host your picture, information, videos etc, and their software for your own personal means. Facebook owe you nothing. The same goes for YouTube - it's a free service that allows you to upload as many videos as you like. It makes about as many promises to turn you into the next Chris Crocker or Numa Numa guy as DiRT does to turn you into Colin McRae.

It all reminds me of this quote from The Simpsons:

Comic Book Guy: Last night's Itchy & Scratchy was, without a doubt, the worst episode ever. Rest assured that I was on internet within minutes registering my disgust throughout the world.
Bart Simpson: Hey, I know it wasn't great, but what right do you have to complain?
Comic Book Guy: As a loyal viewer, I feel they owe me.
Bart Simpson: What? They've given you thousands of hours of entertainment for free. What could they possibly owe you? I mean, if anything, you owe them.
Comic Book Guy: Worst episode ever.

I think that pretty much sums it all up, to be honest...

 

[YSSMAN]

I was almost certain that we were talking about bandwidth caps, not the politics of how they're changing a website, or what the user base looks like. Interesting nevertheless, but with TimeWarner running around scared with their proposed (and tested) 40GB usage rates, that in itself can ultimately undo YouTube (along with Hulu, Netflix, etc) as ISPs scream about how much bandwidth they can carry.

 

[Omnis]

I think clicking on the Videos tab solves that problem fairly simply and painlessly.

Yep, sure does. Youtube can do what they want. But changes like these which "hurt" small channels are what made channels like MWE move their content to their own website, while directing people to it from youtube through teasers. It's not the end of the world.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, I'm certain that if there is a big problem with it, users will find other services to post their content to. UStream, Vimeo (my favorite) and OdTV all come to mind. Wasn't Flickr doing something with video too?

 

[Omnis]

Well, I'm certain that if there is a big problem with it, users will find other services to post their content to. UStream, Vimeo (my favorite) and OdTV all come to mind. Wasn't Flickr doing something with video too?

They were until the community had a stroke over it.

 

[niky]

So, let me get this straight. They are creating a way to make it easier for me to find legitimate music videos, TV shows, and movies on You Tube without having to search though a half million vlogs, v-blogs video rants? It's about time!

I don't browse You Tube, I search. When I upload videos I mainly do it to show them to friends, family, or GTP, which means I am linking them.

I mean, I will miss getting rick rolled every time I click a link for a new movie trailer, but I think I can manage. I just hope the dramatic gopher doesn't take this too hard and hit the booze. Next he'll be on crying and screaming, "LEAVE YOU TUBE ALONE!!!"

Seriously, it in no way impacts your ability to upload your videos and share them. It is actually making it easier to find what I want and anyone who actually wants to see your home videos still knows where to go.

The only negative I see about this is that it will likely give the bad commenters a little more focus.

Darn straight... I think one official link is better than wading through two dozen "fake" fan-made trailers or music videos... and it'll still be... gasp... free? I'm so for it.

 

[Alex.]

This has probably been answered before but I just don't understand the subject of copyright infringement on youtube.

If someone bought a video and wanted to share a small clip on it's own or as part of a video created by the user, it is not allowed. I just cannot see why at the minute, it's not as if they are losing millions of dollars not selling their DVDs in the first place because some guy has a snippet online. As a youtuber who often uploads videos it feels like they are stopping it because they can.

I used a muse song for a GTR2 highlights video the other day, it was instantly disabled upon arrival to youtube because I used that song. Am I costing anybody money?

No matter what happens to youtube there will always be another video site emerge, and then another and another, I don't think there's an effective way to put a stop to it.

Furthermore I'd like to state that I fully understand that illegally downloading films and music is not the way to go.

 

[FoolKiller]

This has probably been answered before but I just don't understand the subject of copyright infringement on youtube.

If someone bought a video and wanted to share a small clip on it's own or as part of a video created by the user, it is not allowed. I just cannot see why at the minute, it's not as if they are losing millions of dollars not selling their DVDs in the first place because some guy has a snippet online. As a youtuber who often uploads videos it feels like they are stopping it because they can.

I used a muse song for a GTR2 highlights video the other day, it was instantly disabled upon arrival to youtube because I used that song. Am I costing anybody money?

In the example of just a scene from a movie being shown, I rarely see those get blocked. But it does step on the toes of advertising. It also risks poorly cut or converted clips to be shown and (even if inadvertently) give a bad representation of a film/tv show/whatever.

You Tube supports the copyright holder wanting these removed because You Tube 1) doesn't want to get sued, and 2) wants these official companies to pay them to host high quality versions of their stuff. If You Tube has a choice between hosting your clip for free, or making money by hosting a much higher quality official clip, they will go with the official clip.


Now, on your song issue: Songs in videos in any form is creating a problem for multiple people. I personally know people who use You Tube like some streaming radio station. Sure, your video had nothing to do with the song, but what stops me from putting your video into a playlist and listening to it? Even if you had other sounds You Tube cannot pick out individual differences like that, particularly if the artist/record company doesn't even agree on that point.

Now, where people lose money is that even if you just listen to the radio, streaming included, instead of You Tube videos with songs in them the artist/record company gets money every time their song is played. Plus, if people are listening to music through You Tube that reduces the audience, thus advertising revenue, for radio stations.

Sure, not every clip on You Tube will cost someone money, and some may even spur sales, but as long as the risk is in place for it to cost someone money it will be looked upon negatively.

 

[buickgnx88]

The thing I hate is if you put up an amusing clip from a TV show and they decide to take it down.

 

[Jondot]

In the example of just a scene from a movie being shown, I rarely see those get blocked. But it does step on the toes of advertising. It also risks poorly cut or converted clips to be shown and (even if inadvertently) give a bad representation of a film/tv show/whatever.

You Tube supports the copyright holder wanting these removed because You Tube 1) doesn't want to get sued, and 2) wants these official companies to pay them to host high quality versions of their stuff. If You Tube has a choice between hosting your clip for free, or making money by hosting a much higher quality official clip, they will go with the official clip.


Now, on your song issue: Songs in videos in any form is creating a problem for multiple people. I personally know people who use You Tube like some streaming radio station. Sure, your video had nothing to do with the song, but what stops me from putting your video into a playlist and listening to it? Even if you had other sounds You Tube cannot pick out individual differences like that, particularly if the artist/record company doesn't even agree on that point.

Now, where people lose money is that even if you just listen to the radio, streaming included, instead of You Tube videos with songs in them the artist/record company gets money every time their song is played. Plus, if people are listening to music through You Tube that reduces the audience, thus advertising revenue, for radio stations.

Sure, not every clip on You Tube will cost someone money, and some may even spur sales, but as long as the risk is in place for it to cost someone money it will be looked upon negatively.

...but then, why do certain YouTube videos with copyrighted music not get removed?

This one, for example:

That's a 3rd party (i.e not a record label) user's video with a copyrighted song in the background, and it hasn't been removed. In fact, the record label has jumped on board and seen a chance to make some money off the back of it!

The problem is, different record labels and bands probably have different attitudes towards YouTube. Polydor might be fine with this sort of thing, and see it as a way of hooking in a few more sales, while SonyBMG might throw a fit and threaten to sue everyone. It's these 'differences in opinion' if you like, that make everything so confusing, I think.

But it's not even as black and white as that. To build on Alex's example, you'd assume that Muse had a pretty solid anti-youtube policy, right? Mmmmno. Search YouTube for 'Muse' and you're bombarded with videos using their music as a soundtrack. And not just stuff they haven't caught yet - the ones I'm talking about have been there for years and have 100s of thousands of views. What the hell?

It'd be nice to see a more clear-cut approach to music in YouTube videos. If that means having a little iTunes advert on every one, so be it, but I thoroughly dislike the double standards-rich, 'remove at record label's discretion' way of thinking. Hopefully that's one of the little changes that this more corporate-friendly update will bring...

 

[FoolKiller]

...but then, why do certain YouTube videos with copyrighted music not get removed?


That's a 3rd party (i.e not a record label) user's video with a copyrighted song in the background, and it hasn't been removed. In fact, the record label has jumped on board and seen a chance to make some money off the back of it!

You just answered your own question.

The problem is, different record labels and bands probably have different attitudes towards YouTube. Polydor might be fine with this sort of thing, and see it as a way of hooking in a few more sales, while SonyBMG might throw a fit and threaten to sue everyone. It's these 'differences in opinion' if you like, that make everything so confusing, I think.

But it's not even as black and white as that. To build on Alex's example, you'd assume that Muse had a pretty solid anti-youtube policy, right? Mmmmno. Search YouTube for 'Muse' and you're bombarded with videos using their music as a soundtrack. And not just stuff they haven't caught yet - the ones I'm talking about have been there for years and have 100s of thousands of views. What the hell?

It'd be nice to see a more clear-cut approach to music in YouTube videos. If that means having a little iTunes advert on every one, so be it, but I thoroughly dislike the double standards-rich, 'remove at record label's discretion' way of thinking. Hopefully that's one of the little changes that this more corporate-friendly update will bring...

The one thing copyrights have is a point regarding use without permission of the copyright holder. You Tube has defined that to mean, they do nothing until the copyright holder asks them to. Non-complaint = permission.

Now, why what gets permission (or lack of non-permission in this case) and what doesn't is likely a lot more complex than could be easily explained. There could be a lot to how it is used or if it is just cut a certain way to not represent a full song, or if it is getting current radio play or... Too many variables likely go into it.

For the Muse song, it could be licensed for another racing game and that could be why it is removed in a GTR video, but it may otherwise be fine to them. I'm just taking a wild guess as an example so don't try arguing this point.

Simply put: it is too complex to explain fully. But the simplest answer is that someone, somewhere thinks it could cost them money in some way, or they are just being a douche.