15 ms·

YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

286 points by amlgsmsn 11y ago

techaddict009 11y ago
Can we say this is the side effect of bringing something which people wanted, Ad free & subscription based service?
GauntletWizard 11y ago
We saw precisely this same argument before [1]. This isn't Youtube removing videos. This is labels playing brinksmanship games with Youtube over licensing terms, and Youtube isn't backing down. Is this bullying behavior from Youtube? Maybe, maybe not. I'm disincentivized to believe so, based on the fact that the same argument came up in the same couched language just over a year ago. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7904509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7904509
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  > This is labels playing brinksmanship games with Youtube While labels certainly need taking down a peg, this isn't just about labels; much smaller channels can take part in the YouTube partner program. I've seen channels with just a few thousand subscribers get offered partner status. That said, I don't see any issue with this; YouTube is offering an ad-free option, and that only works if it means no ads, not fewer ads.
milge 11y ago
If there's ever a time to build a youtube competitor or promote your own, now would be it.
- Bedon292 11y ago
  While it can definitely be perceived as bullying, what reason would someone have not to want to support the new mode? They will get revenue from their content, and that revenue doesn't get killed by ad blockers either. Where is the down side?
- anon4 11y ago
  Yeah, unlike youtube who are giving you the option to remove ads, we'll put twice the ads on everything! Please invest in my startup, advee (it's like teevee, but with ads!).
- burkaman 11y ago
  This seems like it would be the worst time to launch a competitor. You'd be saying "check out this new site, it's like YouTube but we brought back the ads". If this new contract is actually an issue, it'll still take a little while for people to understand the downsides, and that's when you want to launch your "creator-friendly YouTube" or whatever.
  - peterwwillis 11y ago
    You could wait for the problems to get worse to launch it, or you could offer a working platform now [if you had it] and switch to a totally-free model. As long as you have capital, burn through it to pay for everything until you have enough users. Then, after a year or two, introduce ads, or a subscription fee, or sell product placement or something. I still don't get why product placement isn't used in place of ads. It could bring in tons of money, possibly more than ads, for the most popular youtube channels.
    - burkaman 11y ago
      There's lots of product placement, but YouTube doesn't get any of that money. Companies go straight to the channels when they want to advertise. I don't think YouTube could get away with a contract that gave themselves a cut of this money.
  - awalton 11y ago
    Or you can do what https://www.vessel.com/ https://www.vessel.com/ is doing and be subscription first and work out deals with producers for short-term exclusivity. Honestly, I can't understand why anyone would take their content to YouTube exclusively right now given how hostile Google has become.
    - mcintyre1994 11y ago
      How does exclusivity there work? Probably most content on YouTube is only uploaded there by the creators but that doesn't stop Facebook being covered in stuff stolen from there - if vessel got popular wouldn't the same happen?
- aikah 11y ago
  there is Dailymotion, and a few others but none of them pay their content creators. There was blip.tv but it has shut down.
bargl 11y ago
I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and you as a paying customer now have access to all videos without ads. Really, for Google it's a loose loose situation, someone is going to be pissed one way or another, or they loose money. What would you do? Eat the loss? Easy to say, but hard to do. So they picked the one that benefits both them and their paying users (if you ignore the fact that a portion of youtube is going to go dark) at the same time. Option 5: move ad based content to a new medium that isn't youtube so that content creators aren't tied to a single service for hosting.... But I only mention that because this is Hacker News and it's what I think we'd all want to be done, but Google isn't going to create that service. Edit:formatting, and if I see another option someone has in a subsequent comment I'll bubble it up. Edit 2: From JoshTriplett https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10428378 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10428378 Option 6: take advantage of whatever "we can change this agreement at any time" term in the partner agreement to just say "this is our new approach to getting revenue, and we'll give you a cut of that just like we give you a cut of ads".
- lmedinas 11y ago
  All of these will probably mean Facebook might have an opportunity in Videos. Recently Youtube screwed up with Gaming which cannot compete even close with Twitch, older attempts to provide a premium service also failed now this is just pissing off everybody.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - eva1984 11y ago
    I think youtube gaming is decent, why do you think it is screwed up?
    - 11y ago
comex 11y ago
It's harder for me to get upset at instances of alleged corporate bullying when the result is clearly pro-user. If YouTube allowed video authors to opt out of Red, their only reasonable option (short of turning into a charity for said authors) would be to show Red subscribers those videos with ads. For a user, a service that's only "mostly" ad-free is only a pale imitation of the real thing - especially if labels decide to opt out en masse as a bargaining chip, and "mostly" starts to look a lot more like "largely" or "partly". Not a good way for Google to keep subscribers (who might turn to ad blockers instead), obnoxious for subscribers, and probably ultimately detrimental to the creators.
- silverbax88 11y ago
  It's "pro user" unless it starts to limit new content, which is possible. Many videos are actually on YouTube without ads because they are stored as tutorials, etc. I get why Google wouldn't want to keep hosting them but it could mean a reduction in content.
  - nemothekid 11y ago
    I'm not sure the new deal affects those uploaders. The deal only affects people who are monetizing today via Ads and don't want to monetize from the Red subscription. If you are just uploading tutorials, you can just opt out of being a "YouTube Partner" altogether.
    - Blaaguuu 11y ago
      This is the part that I don't understand - because I don't know what the language like 'YouTube Partner' means... I know of a lot of YouTube creators who monetize many of their videos with ads, but when they have small 'announcement' videos, and other videos which don't really contribute to the primary drive of their channel, they don't monetize them - does this mean those 'partners' have to go all-or-nothing, and either monetize all of their videos or none? Because that is what it sounds like, and what makes me upset.
      - 11y ago
snorrah 11y ago
Misleading title. YouTube will flag videos as private. They won't remove or delete them.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  There is no functional difference for users, and only a small one for creators.
FussyZeus 11y ago
At this point all the content on youtube is corporate sponsored or belongs to a handful of super-creators that make all the ad revenue. Why they even call it "you" tube at this point is beyond me, should just go full sponsored content and be done with it. It's hilarious, open YouTube in a private window of your browser of choice, and look at what they serve up, try and find something that isn't from a media company, music label, or PewDiePie.
- Klathmon 11y ago
  I just did (incognito window, vpn on) and i see several videos from creators with less than 1000 subscribers[1][2][3]. I'd say they aren't "super-creators"... In fact the 3rd one has only a handful of videos most of them with under 1000 views. [1]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUKscPY5MjY0I8C1WMw-qSQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUKscPY5MjY0I8C1WMw-qSQ [2]https://www.youtube.com/user/Internalsi https://www.youtube.com/user/Internalsi [3]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwJKPRUkv7IezEkaG7ClQ0g https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwJKPRUkv7IezEkaG7ClQ0g
  - FussyZeus 11y ago
    Wow, well done sir. I don't suppose you're at a location where the music mafia (a.k.a Vevo) wouldn't want their content going? I have no idea what those locations would be, just curious if maybe that's a factor.
    - Klathmon 11y ago
      No there were plenty of vivo and the other mega-channels there, but saying that they only promote the big guys is disingenuous.
- gizmo686 11y ago
  Of course, what Youtube shows to an annonymous viewer is the lowest denominator, most popular content; of course those will be from the super creators. The question we should be asking, is how much of Youtube's revenue comes from the longtail of their content (and how much that longtail acts as a funnel into their service).
exelius 11y ago
I guarantee this is going to force some of the top content creators off of YouTube. Many have been close to leaving for a while anyway, since other sites offer better rev share terms. Many of those guys also syndicate out to a larger number of sites already, so losing YT revenue may hurt in the short term, but they'll probably end up taking their audiences with them. But yeah, this is a huge deal and it's going to reshape the business of online video into more of a subscription model. I just don't know if that's a good thing for YouTube.
- sanderjd 11y ago
  Yeah this was my first thought: seems like a major opportunity for one of YouTube's competitors.
- rasz_pl 11y ago
  >other sites offer better rev share term any examples? not to mention all other sites offer almost zero eyeballs, only way to get people to watch your videos there is to redirect people yourself. YT has a huge network effect.
  - exelius 11y ago
    Vessel, DailyMotion, AOL -- among others. Unless you've built a huge audience, video content is actually pretty commoditized at this point. Nearly all of the most popular YouTube channels are owned by a handful of media mega-conglomerates (think ComcastNBC, Liberty Media, TimeWarner, CBS, etc.) These companies are big enough to start their own sites and throw serious marketing dollars behind them -- which they are starting to do in an attempt to get more favorable rev share terms from YouTube. The content companies want a 70/30 split on ad revenue, and YouTube's standard deal is 55/45. I think YouTube underestimates the influence that old media money can have. These guys will throw a million bucks a year (though it usually doesn't even take that much) at a rising YouTube star as long as they keep producing 2-3 videos a week, and through syndication and advertising deals they can turn a nice profit on the content. They've bought up most of the talent on YouTube (because it's really hard to turn down that kind of money when you're a broke 20 year old making YouTube videos in your bedroom), and once they get the syndication pipelines fully worked out, YouTube will be just one of many sites with the same commoditized content. I wish I was able to say more about this, but I'm bound by confidentiality agreements. But it should suffice to say that the old media players are coming back with a vengeance, and it's not going to be pretty for YouTube over the next few years. But it should work out ok for consumers.
praxulus 11y ago
Is there any good reason for content creators to refuse to sign? It sounds like they earn just as much money, so what's the issue? Sure, being forced to sign a contract is lame, but the new contract doesn't seem to harm them in any way.
- rspeer 11y ago
  Zoe Keating, as an independent musician, held out for a while: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keating-youtube-google-music http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keatin... Her biggest objection was that Google was purporting to tell her when she could or couldn't release a new song on various music services. It seems they've backed down on that. Google claims they were never asking for that, while Keating claims they quietly changed the terms. She also objects to Google dictating a very narrow range of options for how she interacts with people who use her music. She doesn't like the "stick ads on all of it" option that Google is steering her toward, because that's not a strong enough enough response to people who are using her music commercially without licensing it, but also she would rather not stick ads on her fans.
- falcolas 11y ago
  > It sounds like they earn just as much money, so what's the issue? If you produce content which is of average or above length. If you produce short but informative videos, you will end up penalized under the revenue sharing model. It's also unclear what happens to your share of revenue if you have sponsored content.
  - jonas21 11y ago
    > If you produce short but informative videos, you will end up penalized under the revenue sharing model. I'm not sure that's true. The revenue split is based on total watch time, so shorter videos will make less per view. However, short informative videos would presumably tend to be more popular than long, uninformative videos, leading to a much larger view count and a greater total watch time.
kej 11y ago
I'm actually kind of surprised that the YouTube terms of service require a new agreement and aren't structured in a way that would allow them to make changes like this unilaterally.
- Bedon292 11y ago
  I think the revenue sharing parts probably don't allow for unilateral changes because it affects actual businesses. Even the top creators are businesses in and of themselves, which don't want to have the way they make a living taken out from under them.
- 1ris 11y ago
  IMHO the concept of unilateral changeable contract does not make any sense. Never. It's a oxymoron.
  - ap3 11y ago
    Terms of service - not a contract TOS can have a line that say terms can change, etc
    - cdcarter 11y ago
      The Youtube Partner relationship is a true contract, not a line in the ToS.
    - cdcarter 11y ago
      The Youtube Partner relationship is a true contract, not a line in the ToS.
- pg_is_a_butt 11y ago
  that is what they are doing, genius... "and if you don't want to play, GTFO, and take your videos with you." -warmest regards, youtube
raykaye47 11y ago
Google seems really desparate to make money lately.
- bsder 11y ago
  Facebook is stomping on GooTube's video dominance by A) not showing ads, B) auto-running Facebook hosted videos while forcing a click for YouTube hosted ones, and C) offering content creators quite a bit better terms, apparently. So, Google has to do something to monetize before somebody coughs to the fact that YouTube's numbers are dropping.
  - dingaling 11y ago
    However Facebook requires potential viewers to log-in to view videos, which completely nullifies their service as a spontaneous click-link-and-watch option. Also prevents embedding. Remember that well under half of the Internet's population have a Facebook account.
    - bsder 11y ago
      > which completely nullifies their service as a spontaneous click-link-and-watch option Agreed. I, personally, can't stand Facebook. However, most of the people I know who create videos now only upload to Facebook so I had to make a Facebook account. The eyeballs follow the content. So, the question is, "Why are the content creators ignoring YouTube?" And, actually, with pre-roll ads, YouTube did a good job of wiping out spontaneous already. It's not unusual for me to to click link, ad starts, close tab. I doubt it's coincidence that .gifv started taking off after pre-roll YouTube ads became ubiquitous (before you'd just link the YouTube video).
krisdol 11y ago
So let me get this straight, if I stay on the "free" youtube with my adblocker, I can continue to see all videos ad-free? Or only the non-red ones?
- Balgair 11y ago
  I am wondering about this as well. What is going to happen to my favorite small channels? There are a lot of them with very few, but dedicated fan bases. Can I still watch those with having to fork over 10$/month?
  - oh_sigh 11y ago
    Yes, of course. It is up to the channel, not the average user, to decide whether to accept red money or not. If that channel decides to not take the red money, then their videos will essentially be hidden - you can still find them, but you have to go directly to their page and not through search or something.
- seanalltogether 11y ago
  I've been wondering when the day would come that youtube simply interleaves ad content into the videos and bypasses adblock. Perhaps they haven't done it in the past to avoid user backlash. Now they can simply say "upgrade to red to get back to an ad free experience".
  - anilgulecha 11y ago
    IMO You underestimate the tiny amount of effort to the large payoff with adblocking.. What will come along is an adblocker which skips around the ad parts of the video automatically.
    - eva1984 11y ago
      Remember Youtube's object is not to get rid of ALL ad-blockers, it is make the use of ad-blockers really uncomfortable for the MAJORITY of the internet users.
Alupis 11y ago
> But the coercion involved It sets an alarming precedent about how This is supposed to be two sentences, or remove the "It" from the middle of the sentence. How is it obvious grammatical and spelling errors make their way into these articles (and seemingly more common now-days)? These are professional writers, with professional editing staff - however it often feels the article is a first-draft written in one go and then published with zero review. It's not just TechCrunch, but a lot of tech press (there's a bias to my observation because I read predominately tech press). It makes it feel as-if the general quality of journalism is declining.
- munificent 11y ago
  > It makes it feel as-if the general quality of journalism is declining. How much did you pay for a newspaper subscription thirty years ago? How much did you pay to read this article? The quality of journalism is declining, because the money is disappearing. News providers are producing more and more content for less and less money. The only way they can do that is by cutting corners.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    That's hardly true. Have you seen how many ads are on most of these sites now? (and no, I don't ad-block). I'd wager my $0.10-$0.25 cent newspaper subscription is easily covered after clicking around a few pages on one of these sites.
1ris 11y ago
Google has a de-facto monopoly position in this market (spotify for user generated videos and user generated videos in general). I think this deal should be subject to a FRAND regulation, like patents.
gukov 11y ago
Now is the time for the Facebook's new video platform to swoop in.
- eveningcoffee 11y ago
  Haha, like you log in with your real name to watch a video? Get real.
- ljk 11y ago
  More like Vimeo
- eva1984 11y ago
  So more ads, you mean?
bisby 11y ago
> Google says the goal is to offer consistency, so people thinking about subscribing to Red don’t have to worry about their favorite content not being available in the ad-free service. Except now your favorite content is still not on the ad-free service. If me subscribing to Red was based on content X being available, removing the content entirely is not going to make me subscribe. that's stupid.
giancarlostoro 11y ago
What I don't understand and I missed it if anyone mentioned but why wouldn't video creators want to participate? Is there less revenue involved then or something?
lisper 11y ago
I don't want to be a spelling and grammar nazi, but this mistake is being made consistently upstream so I thought I'd point it out: "Loose" is the opposite of "tight". The opposite of "win" (which I'm pretty sure is the word you meant to use) is "lose" with one "o".
- intopieces 11y ago
  When a mistake is made consistently in a language, it becomes the rule. If you know what the person meant, the word did its job, whether it was spelled the way you think it should be or not. Besides, the word 'loose' as a verb works perfectly well in that sentence: "They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or [release] revenue sharing status.
  - fitshipit 11y ago
    no, it doesn't. loose isn't a verb. loosen is
    - intopieces 11y ago
      loose lo͞os adjective 1. not firmly or tightly fixed in place; detached or able to be detached. "a loose tooth" synonyms: not fixed in place, not secure, unsecured, unattached; More 2. (of a garment) not fitting tightly or closely. "she slipped into a loose T-shirt and shorts" synonyms: baggy, generously cut, slack, roomy; More verb 1. set free; release. "the hounds have been loosed"
      - mcnamaratw 11y ago
        Haha, but that's just what the dictionary says. I've decided that "to release" means "aardvark" which is a noun. So no verb "loose."
        intopieces 11y ago
        Since language is ultimately a social contract between speakers attempting to convey meaning, you'll need some people to agree with you on that before we can call it a change. But you're welcome to try :)
austenallred 11y ago
Here's a statement I got from a YouTube spokesperson: "Creators have been asking us to launch a subscription service -- so that, combined with user demand, is why we built the service and why the overwhelming majority of our partners, representing over 98% of the content watched on YouTube, have signed up. Videos of partners who don’t update their terms will be made private in the US at launch because we think It isn't fair to ask a fan to pay $9.99 for a service that has less content than a free service."
- anvil_jones 11y ago
  Why exactly would there be less content with YouTube Red if the "partners" didn't switch over? I guess I also don't understand why the TOS of the partner program enable them to unlist the video, but not sign them up for the program.
  - nindalf 11y ago
    As the top comment (and others) point out, Youtube can't show paying customers ad-filled videos, so they would have to avoid showing those videos altogether. At that point they'd be asking users to pay for a service that has fewer videos than the free tier.
Filligree 11y ago
Anyone know what the CPM of Youtube ads is? I'm using an adblocker today. I'd like to support the channels I like, but probably not if the $10/month is more than 10x what they're losing from not-watching-ads today. Ignoring, for a second, that I'm pretty sure none of my favored channels have partner status anyway.
eveningcoffee 11y ago
Youtube has become stupidly aggressive with its video ads in my region. To the point I actually try to avoid using it. I will also consciously avoid all companies who think that it is acceptable to interrupt randomly people with their messages. I am fine with overlay ads and I would have been positively influenced with the same ads in overlay form that now are forced on me as video ads. Sorry, but this is a short term strategy.
- ekimekim 11y ago
  Youtube is one of very, very few sites I run adblock on for this reason. I'm fine with ads, as long as they aren't actively blocking content.
  - eveningcoffee 11y ago
    I would say that they are not blocking content but they are interrupting my flow. People abandoned TV for a reason and Google wants to force this intolerable nuisance back into our lives.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  > Youtube has become stupidly aggressive with its video ads in my region. The video ads are part of the problem, the sidebar ads can be pretty rank, too. Hi, YouTube, have you considered that maybe when I want to watch an opera clip or a "how things work" video with my 8 year old I don't want gorey traffic ads, booze ads, or "buy a Russian bride" sidebars?
- __xtrimsky 11y ago
  Same here, I have kids, and used to show them legal content on Youtube. Now I download everything because YouTube was showing horror movie ads between episodes.
oh_sigh 11y ago
Does anyone know why content creators would not sign up to get ad money from the red subscription? Even if google wasn't threatening anything by not doing it, why wouldn't you take it? Are they afraid that red subscription revenue is going to be less than typical ad revenue?
- Balgair 11y ago
  Well, a lot of the creators are from very small communities. I personally can't afford to pay Youtube 10$ a month just to watch those people (I can't even afford cable). That means I don't get to watch them now, as far as I can figure. Likely, they will now stop those channels. Some of them do get revenue from the ads, at least enough to buy equipment and support the side hobby. Without that, those channels are gone, at least I think that's the down-low on this. I think it'll drop their fan bases by orders of magnitude, and hence, they no longer exist.
  - jdminhbg 11y ago
    If none of your viewers pay for a Red subscription, then there is zero change from the current state of affairs, right? You get whatever the ad revenue share is.
    - Balgair 11y ago
      My question exactly.
  - oh_sigh 11y ago
    You can still watch the videos for free, but just with ads, which is just like it is today
- rtpg 11y ago
  I can imagine bigger viewers do get a lot of ad revenue A big problem could be with the revenue share model. Speculating here, but if it works like spotify (you get a part of the pot relative to number of views), then its susceptible to a lot of distortion. For example, if people watches one video 100k times and people watch your vid 100k times, then you'll get less than if the other video didn't exist. If it works like Google contributor though (sites get money per visit based solely on number of visits to their site), then I don't know how this changes much..
Splendor 11y ago
That's unfortunate because not all partners are able to agree to the new terms. Some of them have passed away. It saddens me to think that their videos will now be hidden because of a change in policy.
- kllrnohj 11y ago
  Either someone else now has authority over the estate such as to continue to be collecting a check from YouTube, or the channel is no longer a partner channel and just is automatically part of the new system. I don't think any channels will just go dark because the original owner passed away.
  - Splendor 11y ago
    So YouTube Red is an opt-out for creators? Not an opt-in?
    - kllrnohj 11y ago
      YouTube Red is not a choice for creators. If you're a partner, you have to agree to the new terms or you're de-listed (videos go private). If you're not a partner, just a regular creator, then you're just part of YouTube Red. You don't get a choice.
      - Splendor 11y ago
        Okay. That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
fisk 11y ago
I'm going to have to see how close I can get to doing without youtube anymore. There's a lot of useless timesink to it, multiplied by so many of us humans who could be doing something more fulfilling, more gratifying, healthier.
forgotpwtomain 11y ago
Can someone tl:dr this? What happens to videos that were uploaded by old no-longer active users? Are they going to disappear as well?
- fixermark 11y ago
  I would assume that "no longer active YouTube partner" is an oxymoron. The Hacker News summary is slightly misleading (as is the TechCrunch headline it's sourced from). YouTube will be marking private the content of YouTube partners who don't sign on to the new YouTube Red TOS. Since being a YouTube Partner is an active interaction with YouTube, I'm pretty sure the set of dead YouTube partners is a set of size 0.
dendory 11y ago
Ironic how Twitter, who turned their backs on developers years ago, are now forced to backpedal now that they are in decline. The same day, YouTube turns their back on content creators. A preview of things to come?
- bad_user 11y ago
  How is YouTube turning their backs on content creators? I find it surprising that HN, a community full of people using ad-blockers to watch YouTube, would be against this. And on every freaking article discussing ad-blockers we decry the impossibility of paying a subscription instead. Well here's the subscription. And in the long run I'm sure it will benefit content authors as well. But then Google is in a position like damned if they do, damned if they don't.
hownottowrite 11y ago
I guess they're just going for the entire Alphabet of antitrust discussions.
- geomark 11y ago
  I see what you did there.
hughes 11y ago
Serious question: What if I'm dead? There are some amazing youtube content creators who cannot sign this new deal due to the fact that they are now deceased. Is their legacy going to be lost forever because they can't sign up posthumously?
- morgante 11y ago
  Presumably their estate can.
- ivank 11y ago
  On this note, does anyone know of specific channels that are likely to disappear because their creators are either dead or unwilling to accept the new terms? I will archive all of them. You can also email me. Edit: found http://youtube.wikia.com/wiki/Deceased_YouTubers http://youtube.wikia.com/wiki/Deceased_YouTubers
itistoday2 11y ago
This is a great win for users, major kudos to Google for re-aligning its income source with users!
InclinedPlane 11y ago
Things I like: moving away from an ad supported model (ads are really horrid for content creators, even though it may seem otherwise). Things I don't like: google treating creators like their personal property rather than putting more power in their hands. Long term I'm not sure this is a good move for youtube, as it's likely to drive away and discourage content creators.
NamTaf 11y ago
Someone help me out here because I'm not getting it. Why does it matter if the creator is part of the subscription deal? If they're not, just don't pay them their cut of the revenue income? 1) Subscribers will view just as many videos; no bandwidth increase for Google there. 2) Subscribers still don't see ads 3) Creators on the subscription deal get traditional ad revenue for non-subscribers and a share of Red fees for subscribers 4) Creators NOT on the subscription deal still get ad revenue for non-subscribers, but completely forfeit any share of the Red fees for subscribers Where is Google or the subscriber losing out in that scenario? It's only the creators who don't want part of that deal, as their ad impressions drop proportionately.
- tonfa 11y ago
  My guess would be that for the affected partners, 4) can't happen (they didnt give youtube the rights to not monetize it).
  - NamTaf 11y ago
    So exercise their 'we can change this at any time' clause.
hrnnnnnn 11y ago
Slight tangent - I almost exclusively use Kodi (formerly XBMC) to watch youtube videos and I never see ads. I guess it's only a matter of time until they patch that hole though...
anonbanker 11y ago
Youtube is ripe for disruption right now. All these attempts to monetize will simply drive their users elsewhere.
- eva1984 11y ago
  If youtube fails to monetize, I think any sane VCs should avoid dumping any money into this area, period.
  - anonbanker 11y ago
    It would make my heart skip a beat if venture capitalists left this market completely to the pirates. they tend to provide a better service (compare Youtube to channelPEAR/Kodi)
badthink 11y ago
YouTube Red, So I am likely not making it into the signature box any time soon with wanting to start a channel that I have been thinking about for the last 5 years and now that I am retired and have the time, this comes along. Like many other people with the same thought all now in going up in smoke, or in the crapper. I have been working on videos for the last five years along the same format as the late Huel Houser with his California Gold Series. Only taking it a few miles down the road capturing all or at least the most of my motorcycle adventures with interviews of people along the way in as far off the path as I can find. Who are they and what do they have to say or do. So all of that said this YouTube Red thing Orwell was being an optimist this is like having big brother looking down your throat to see what you had for lunch. If you piss of the status quo you get the dubious honor of being privatized or canceled all together. Seriously who wants to shell out 1200 bucks a year to watch the little guy. Not me I want premium shit. I quit watching The boob Tube due to commercials and pay view crap. It is costly enough a month for the internet ad the price you pay for watching streaming video? That cost is what 180 220 a month for the a few gigs and exceed you plan and well you know. Add now add another 10 bucks a month. There is my tear in the beer, my bitch and moan, my two cents. I do not expect to lead you on this quest cause there simply is now enough of us hold outs to wage a war, as for the battle we are out gunned out numbered out classed, well shit we are just out. Don't follow me I'm lost ball high weeds. I'm just a funky old bastard bitching about the assertion of power and control over what was "WAS" free media. thats all stick a fork in me I'm done.

286 points by amlgsmsn 11y ago

Can we say this is the side effect of bringing something which people wanted, Ad free & subscription based service?

We saw precisely this same argument before [1]. This isn't Youtube removing videos. This is labels playing brinksmanship games with Youtube over licensing terms, and Youtube isn't backing down. Is this bullying behavior from Youtube? Maybe, maybe not. I'm disincentivized to believe so, based on the fact that the same argument came up in the same couched language just over a year ago. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7904509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7904509

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> This is labels playing brinksmanship games with Youtube While labels certainly need taking down a peg, this isn't just about labels; much smaller channels can take part in the YouTube partner program. I've seen channels with just a few thousand subscribers get offered partner status. That said, I don't see any issue with this; YouTube is offering an ad-free option, and that only works if it means no ads, not fewer ads.

milge 11y ago

If there's ever a time to build a youtube competitor or promote your own, now would be it.

Bedon292 11y ago
While it can definitely be perceived as bullying, what reason would someone have not to want to support the new mode? They will get revenue from their content, and that revenue doesn't get killed by ad blockers either. Where is the down side?
anon4 11y ago
Yeah, unlike youtube who are giving you the option to remove ads, we'll put twice the ads on everything! Please invest in my startup, advee (it's like teevee, but with ads!).
burkaman 11y ago
This seems like it would be the worst time to launch a competitor. You'd be saying "check out this new site, it's like YouTube but we brought back the ads". If this new contract is actually an issue, it'll still take a little while for people to understand the downsides, and that's when you want to launch your "creator-friendly YouTube" or whatever.
- peterwwillis 11y ago
  You could wait for the problems to get worse to launch it, or you could offer a working platform now [if you had it] and switch to a totally-free model. As long as you have capital, burn through it to pay for everything until you have enough users. Then, after a year or two, introduce ads, or a subscription fee, or sell product placement or something. I still don't get why product placement isn't used in place of ads. It could bring in tons of money, possibly more than ads, for the most popular youtube channels.
  - burkaman 11y ago
    There's lots of product placement, but YouTube doesn't get any of that money. Companies go straight to the channels when they want to advertise. I don't think YouTube could get away with a contract that gave themselves a cut of this money.
- awalton 11y ago
  Or you can do what https://www.vessel.com/ https://www.vessel.com/ is doing and be subscription first and work out deals with producers for short-term exclusivity. Honestly, I can't understand why anyone would take their content to YouTube exclusively right now given how hostile Google has become.
  - mcintyre1994 11y ago
    How does exclusivity there work? Probably most content on YouTube is only uploaded there by the creators but that doesn't stop Facebook being covered in stuff stolen from there - if vessel got popular wouldn't the same happen?
aikah 11y ago
there is Dailymotion, and a few others but none of them pay their content creators. There was blip.tv but it has shut down.

bargl 11y ago

I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and you as a paying customer now have access to all videos without ads. Really, for Google it's a loose loose situation, someone is going to be pissed one way or another, or they loose money. What would you do? Eat the loss? Easy to say, but hard to do. So they picked the one that benefits both them and their paying users (if you ignore the fact that a portion of youtube is going to go dark) at the same time. Option 5: move ad based content to a new medium that isn't youtube so that content creators aren't tied to a single service for hosting.... But I only mention that because this is Hacker News and it's what I think we'd all want to be done, but Google isn't going to create that service. Edit:formatting, and if I see another option someone has in a subsequent comment I'll bubble it up. Edit 2: From JoshTriplett https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10428378 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10428378 Option 6: take advantage of whatever "we can change this agreement at any time" term in the partner agreement to just say "this is our new approach to getting revenue, and we'll give you a cut of that just like we give you a cut of ads".

lmedinas 11y ago
All of these will probably mean Facebook might have an opportunity in Videos. Recently Youtube screwed up with Gaming which cannot compete even close with Twitch, older attempts to provide a premium service also failed now this is just pissing off everybody.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- eva1984 11y ago
  I think youtube gaming is decent, why do you think it is screwed up?
  - 11y ago

comex 11y ago

It's harder for me to get upset at instances of alleged corporate bullying when the result is clearly pro-user. If YouTube allowed video authors to opt out of Red, their only reasonable option (short of turning into a charity for said authors) would be to show Red subscribers those videos with ads. For a user, a service that's only "mostly" ad-free is only a pale imitation of the real thing - especially if labels decide to opt out en masse as a bargaining chip, and "mostly" starts to look a lot more like "largely" or "partly". Not a good way for Google to keep subscribers (who might turn to ad blockers instead), obnoxious for subscribers, and probably ultimately detrimental to the creators.

silverbax88 11y ago
It's "pro user" unless it starts to limit new content, which is possible. Many videos are actually on YouTube without ads because they are stored as tutorials, etc. I get why Google wouldn't want to keep hosting them but it could mean a reduction in content.
- nemothekid 11y ago
  I'm not sure the new deal affects those uploaders. The deal only affects people who are monetizing today via Ads and don't want to monetize from the Red subscription. If you are just uploading tutorials, you can just opt out of being a "YouTube Partner" altogether.
  - Blaaguuu 11y ago
    This is the part that I don't understand - because I don't know what the language like 'YouTube Partner' means... I know of a lot of YouTube creators who monetize many of their videos with ads, but when they have small 'announcement' videos, and other videos which don't really contribute to the primary drive of their channel, they don't monetize them - does this mean those 'partners' have to go all-or-nothing, and either monetize all of their videos or none? Because that is what it sounds like, and what makes me upset.
    - 11y ago

snorrah 11y ago

Misleading title. YouTube will flag videos as private. They won't remove or delete them.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago
There is no functional difference for users, and only a small one for creators.

FussyZeus 11y ago

At this point all the content on youtube is corporate sponsored or belongs to a handful of super-creators that make all the ad revenue. Why they even call it "you" tube at this point is beyond me, should just go full sponsored content and be done with it. It's hilarious, open YouTube in a private window of your browser of choice, and look at what they serve up, try and find something that isn't from a media company, music label, or PewDiePie.

Klathmon 11y ago
I just did (incognito window, vpn on) and i see several videos from creators with less than 1000 subscribers[1][2][3]. I'd say they aren't "super-creators"... In fact the 3rd one has only a handful of videos most of them with under 1000 views. [1]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUKscPY5MjY0I8C1WMw-qSQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUKscPY5MjY0I8C1WMw-qSQ [2]https://www.youtube.com/user/Internalsi https://www.youtube.com/user/Internalsi [3]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwJKPRUkv7IezEkaG7ClQ0g https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwJKPRUkv7IezEkaG7ClQ0g
- FussyZeus 11y ago
  Wow, well done sir. I don't suppose you're at a location where the music mafia (a.k.a Vevo) wouldn't want their content going? I have no idea what those locations would be, just curious if maybe that's a factor.
  - Klathmon 11y ago
    No there were plenty of vivo and the other mega-channels there, but saying that they only promote the big guys is disingenuous.
gizmo686 11y ago
Of course, what Youtube shows to an annonymous viewer is the lowest denominator, most popular content; of course those will be from the super creators. The question we should be asking, is how much of Youtube's revenue comes from the longtail of their content (and how much that longtail acts as a funnel into their service).

exelius 11y ago

I guarantee this is going to force some of the top content creators off of YouTube. Many have been close to leaving for a while anyway, since other sites offer better rev share terms. Many of those guys also syndicate out to a larger number of sites already, so losing YT revenue may hurt in the short term, but they'll probably end up taking their audiences with them. But yeah, this is a huge deal and it's going to reshape the business of online video into more of a subscription model. I just don't know if that's a good thing for YouTube.

sanderjd 11y ago
Yeah this was my first thought: seems like a major opportunity for one of YouTube's competitors.
rasz_pl 11y ago
>other sites offer better rev share term any examples? not to mention all other sites offer almost zero eyeballs, only way to get people to watch your videos there is to redirect people yourself. YT has a huge network effect.
- exelius 11y ago
  Vessel, DailyMotion, AOL -- among others. Unless you've built a huge audience, video content is actually pretty commoditized at this point. Nearly all of the most popular YouTube channels are owned by a handful of media mega-conglomerates (think ComcastNBC, Liberty Media, TimeWarner, CBS, etc.) These companies are big enough to start their own sites and throw serious marketing dollars behind them -- which they are starting to do in an attempt to get more favorable rev share terms from YouTube. The content companies want a 70/30 split on ad revenue, and YouTube's standard deal is 55/45. I think YouTube underestimates the influence that old media money can have. These guys will throw a million bucks a year (though it usually doesn't even take that much) at a rising YouTube star as long as they keep producing 2-3 videos a week, and through syndication and advertising deals they can turn a nice profit on the content. They've bought up most of the talent on YouTube (because it's really hard to turn down that kind of money when you're a broke 20 year old making YouTube videos in your bedroom), and once they get the syndication pipelines fully worked out, YouTube will be just one of many sites with the same commoditized content. I wish I was able to say more about this, but I'm bound by confidentiality agreements. But it should suffice to say that the old media players are coming back with a vengeance, and it's not going to be pretty for YouTube over the next few years. But it should work out ok for consumers.

praxulus 11y ago

Is there any good reason for content creators to refuse to sign? It sounds like they earn just as much money, so what's the issue? Sure, being forced to sign a contract is lame, but the new contract doesn't seem to harm them in any way.

rspeer 11y ago
Zoe Keating, as an independent musician, held out for a while: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keating-youtube-google-music http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/27/zoe-keatin... Her biggest objection was that Google was purporting to tell her when she could or couldn't release a new song on various music services. It seems they've backed down on that. Google claims they were never asking for that, while Keating claims they quietly changed the terms. She also objects to Google dictating a very narrow range of options for how she interacts with people who use her music. She doesn't like the "stick ads on all of it" option that Google is steering her toward, because that's not a strong enough enough response to people who are using her music commercially without licensing it, but also she would rather not stick ads on her fans.
falcolas 11y ago
> It sounds like they earn just as much money, so what's the issue? If you produce content which is of average or above length. If you produce short but informative videos, you will end up penalized under the revenue sharing model. It's also unclear what happens to your share of revenue if you have sponsored content.
- jonas21 11y ago
  > If you produce short but informative videos, you will end up penalized under the revenue sharing model. I'm not sure that's true. The revenue split is based on total watch time, so shorter videos will make less per view. However, short informative videos would presumably tend to be more popular than long, uninformative videos, leading to a much larger view count and a greater total watch time.

kej 11y ago

I'm actually kind of surprised that the YouTube terms of service require a new agreement and aren't structured in a way that would allow them to make changes like this unilaterally.

Bedon292 11y ago
I think the revenue sharing parts probably don't allow for unilateral changes because it affects actual businesses. Even the top creators are businesses in and of themselves, which don't want to have the way they make a living taken out from under them.
1ris 11y ago
IMHO the concept of unilateral changeable contract does not make any sense. Never. It's a oxymoron.
- ap3 11y ago
  Terms of service - not a contract TOS can have a line that say terms can change, etc
  - cdcarter 11y ago
    The Youtube Partner relationship is a true contract, not a line in the ToS.
  - cdcarter 11y ago
    The Youtube Partner relationship is a true contract, not a line in the ToS.
pg_is_a_butt 11y ago
that is what they are doing, genius... "and if you don't want to play, GTFO, and take your videos with you." -warmest regards, youtube

raykaye47 11y ago

Google seems really desparate to make money lately.

bsder 11y ago
Facebook is stomping on GooTube's video dominance by A) not showing ads, B) auto-running Facebook hosted videos while forcing a click for YouTube hosted ones, and C) offering content creators quite a bit better terms, apparently. So, Google has to do something to monetize before somebody coughs to the fact that YouTube's numbers are dropping.
- dingaling 11y ago
  However Facebook requires potential viewers to log-in to view videos, which completely nullifies their service as a spontaneous click-link-and-watch option. Also prevents embedding. Remember that well under half of the Internet's population have a Facebook account.
  - bsder 11y ago
    > which completely nullifies their service as a spontaneous click-link-and-watch option Agreed. I, personally, can't stand Facebook. However, most of the people I know who create videos now only upload to Facebook so I had to make a Facebook account. The eyeballs follow the content. So, the question is, "Why are the content creators ignoring YouTube?" And, actually, with pre-roll ads, YouTube did a good job of wiping out spontaneous already. It's not unusual for me to to click link, ad starts, close tab. I doubt it's coincidence that .gifv started taking off after pre-roll YouTube ads became ubiquitous (before you'd just link the YouTube video).

krisdol 11y ago

So let me get this straight, if I stay on the "free" youtube with my adblocker, I can continue to see all videos ad-free? Or only the non-red ones?

Balgair 11y ago
I am wondering about this as well. What is going to happen to my favorite small channels? There are a lot of them with very few, but dedicated fan bases. Can I still watch those with having to fork over 10$/month?
- oh_sigh 11y ago
  Yes, of course. It is up to the channel, not the average user, to decide whether to accept red money or not. If that channel decides to not take the red money, then their videos will essentially be hidden - you can still find them, but you have to go directly to their page and not through search or something.
seanalltogether 11y ago
I've been wondering when the day would come that youtube simply interleaves ad content into the videos and bypasses adblock. Perhaps they haven't done it in the past to avoid user backlash. Now they can simply say "upgrade to red to get back to an ad free experience".
- anilgulecha 11y ago
  IMO You underestimate the tiny amount of effort to the large payoff with adblocking.. What will come along is an adblocker which skips around the ad parts of the video automatically.
  - eva1984 11y ago
    Remember Youtube's object is not to get rid of ALL ad-blockers, it is make the use of ad-blockers really uncomfortable for the MAJORITY of the internet users.

Alupis 11y ago

> But the coercion involved It sets an alarming precedent about how This is supposed to be two sentences, or remove the "It" from the middle of the sentence. How is it obvious grammatical and spelling errors make their way into these articles (and seemingly more common now-days)? These are professional writers, with professional editing staff - however it often feels the article is a first-draft written in one go and then published with zero review. It's not just TechCrunch, but a lot of tech press (there's a bias to my observation because I read predominately tech press). It makes it feel as-if the general quality of journalism is declining.

munificent 11y ago
> It makes it feel as-if the general quality of journalism is declining. How much did you pay for a newspaper subscription thirty years ago? How much did you pay to read this article? The quality of journalism is declining, because the money is disappearing. News providers are producing more and more content for less and less money. The only way they can do that is by cutting corners.
- Alupis 11y ago
  That's hardly true. Have you seen how many ads are on most of these sites now? (and no, I don't ad-block). I'd wager my $0.10-$0.25 cent newspaper subscription is easily covered after clicking around a few pages on one of these sites.

1ris 11y ago

Google has a de-facto monopoly position in this market (spotify for user generated videos and user generated videos in general). I think this deal should be subject to a FRAND regulation, like patents.

gukov 11y ago

Now is the time for the Facebook's new video platform to swoop in.

eveningcoffee 11y ago
Haha, like you log in with your real name to watch a video? Get real.
ljk 11y ago
More like Vimeo
eva1984 11y ago
So more ads, you mean?

bisby 11y ago

> Google says the goal is to offer consistency, so people thinking about subscribing to Red don’t have to worry about their favorite content not being available in the ad-free service. Except now your favorite content is still not on the ad-free service. If me subscribing to Red was based on content X being available, removing the content entirely is not going to make me subscribe. that's stupid.

giancarlostoro 11y ago

What I don't understand and I missed it if anyone mentioned but why wouldn't video creators want to participate? Is there less revenue involved then or something?

lisper 11y ago

I don't want to be a spelling and grammar nazi, but this mistake is being made consistently upstream so I thought I'd point it out: "Loose" is the opposite of "tight". The opposite of "win" (which I'm pretty sure is the word you meant to use) is "lose" with one "o".

intopieces 11y ago
When a mistake is made consistently in a language, it becomes the rule. If you know what the person meant, the word did its job, whether it was spelled the way you think it should be or not. Besides, the word 'loose' as a verb works perfectly well in that sentence: "They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or [release] revenue sharing status.
- fitshipit 11y ago
  no, it doesn't. loose isn't a verb. loosen is
  - intopieces 11y ago
    loose lo͞os adjective 1. not firmly or tightly fixed in place; detached or able to be detached. "a loose tooth" synonyms: not fixed in place, not secure, unsecured, unattached; More 2. (of a garment) not fitting tightly or closely. "she slipped into a loose T-shirt and shorts" synonyms: baggy, generously cut, slack, roomy; More verb 1. set free; release. "the hounds have been loosed"
    - mcnamaratw 11y ago
      Haha, but that's just what the dictionary says. I've decided that "to release" means "aardvark" which is a noun. So no verb "loose."
      - intopieces 11y ago
        Since language is ultimately a social contract between speakers attempting to convey meaning, you'll need some people to agree with you on that before we can call it a change. But you're welcome to try :)

austenallred 11y ago

Here's a statement I got from a YouTube spokesperson: "Creators have been asking us to launch a subscription service -- so that, combined with user demand, is why we built the service and why the overwhelming majority of our partners, representing over 98% of the content watched on YouTube, have signed up. Videos of partners who don’t update their terms will be made private in the US at launch because we think It isn't fair to ask a fan to pay $9.99 for a service that has less content than a free service."

anvil_jones 11y ago
Why exactly would there be less content with YouTube Red if the "partners" didn't switch over? I guess I also don't understand why the TOS of the partner program enable them to unlist the video, but not sign them up for the program.
- nindalf 11y ago
  As the top comment (and others) point out, Youtube can't show paying customers ad-filled videos, so they would have to avoid showing those videos altogether. At that point they'd be asking users to pay for a service that has fewer videos than the free tier.

Filligree 11y ago

Anyone know what the CPM of Youtube ads is? I'm using an adblocker today. I'd like to support the channels I like, but probably not if the $10/month is more than 10x what they're losing from not-watching-ads today. Ignoring, for a second, that I'm pretty sure none of my favored channels have partner status anyway.

eveningcoffee 11y ago

Youtube has become stupidly aggressive with its video ads in my region. To the point I actually try to avoid using it. I will also consciously avoid all companies who think that it is acceptable to interrupt randomly people with their messages. I am fine with overlay ads and I would have been positively influenced with the same ads in overlay form that now are forced on me as video ads. Sorry, but this is a short term strategy.

ekimekim 11y ago
Youtube is one of very, very few sites I run adblock on for this reason. I'm fine with ads, as long as they aren't actively blocking content.
- eveningcoffee 11y ago
  I would say that they are not blocking content but they are interrupting my flow. People abandoned TV for a reason and Google wants to force this intolerable nuisance back into our lives.
rodgerd 11y ago
> Youtube has become stupidly aggressive with its video ads in my region. The video ads are part of the problem, the sidebar ads can be pretty rank, too. Hi, YouTube, have you considered that maybe when I want to watch an opera clip or a "how things work" video with my 8 year old I don't want gorey traffic ads, booze ads, or "buy a Russian bride" sidebars?
__xtrimsky 11y ago
Same here, I have kids, and used to show them legal content on Youtube. Now I download everything because YouTube was showing horror movie ads between episodes.

oh_sigh 11y ago

Does anyone know why content creators would not sign up to get ad money from the red subscription? Even if google wasn't threatening anything by not doing it, why wouldn't you take it? Are they afraid that red subscription revenue is going to be less than typical ad revenue?

Balgair 11y ago
Well, a lot of the creators are from very small communities. I personally can't afford to pay Youtube 10$ a month just to watch those people (I can't even afford cable). That means I don't get to watch them now, as far as I can figure. Likely, they will now stop those channels. Some of them do get revenue from the ads, at least enough to buy equipment and support the side hobby. Without that, those channels are gone, at least I think that's the down-low on this. I think it'll drop their fan bases by orders of magnitude, and hence, they no longer exist.
- jdminhbg 11y ago
  If none of your viewers pay for a Red subscription, then there is zero change from the current state of affairs, right? You get whatever the ad revenue share is.
  - Balgair 11y ago
    My question exactly.
- oh_sigh 11y ago
  You can still watch the videos for free, but just with ads, which is just like it is today
rtpg 11y ago
I can imagine bigger viewers do get a lot of ad revenue A big problem could be with the revenue share model. Speculating here, but if it works like spotify (you get a part of the pot relative to number of views), then its susceptible to a lot of distortion. For example, if people watches one video 100k times and people watch your vid 100k times, then you'll get less than if the other video didn't exist. If it works like Google contributor though (sites get money per visit based solely on number of visits to their site), then I don't know how this changes much..

Splendor 11y ago

That's unfortunate because not all partners are able to agree to the new terms. Some of them have passed away. It saddens me to think that their videos will now be hidden because of a change in policy.

kllrnohj 11y ago
Either someone else now has authority over the estate such as to continue to be collecting a check from YouTube, or the channel is no longer a partner channel and just is automatically part of the new system. I don't think any channels will just go dark because the original owner passed away.
- Splendor 11y ago
  So YouTube Red is an opt-out for creators? Not an opt-in?
  - kllrnohj 11y ago
    YouTube Red is not a choice for creators. If you're a partner, you have to agree to the new terms or you're de-listed (videos go private). If you're not a partner, just a regular creator, then you're just part of YouTube Red. You don't get a choice.
    - Splendor 11y ago
      Okay. That makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

fisk 11y ago

I'm going to have to see how close I can get to doing without youtube anymore. There's a lot of useless timesink to it, multiplied by so many of us humans who could be doing something more fulfilling, more gratifying, healthier.

forgotpwtomain 11y ago

Can someone tl:dr this? What happens to videos that were uploaded by old no-longer active users? Are they going to disappear as well?

fixermark 11y ago
I would assume that "no longer active YouTube partner" is an oxymoron. The Hacker News summary is slightly misleading (as is the TechCrunch headline it's sourced from). YouTube will be marking private the content of YouTube partners who don't sign on to the new YouTube Red TOS. Since being a YouTube Partner is an active interaction with YouTube, I'm pretty sure the set of dead YouTube partners is a set of size 0.

dendory 11y ago

Ironic how Twitter, who turned their backs on developers years ago, are now forced to backpedal now that they are in decline. The same day, YouTube turns their back on content creators. A preview of things to come?

bad_user 11y ago
How is YouTube turning their backs on content creators? I find it surprising that HN, a community full of people using ad-blockers to watch YouTube, would be against this. And on every freaking article discussing ad-blockers we decry the impossibility of paying a subscription instead. Well here's the subscription. And in the long run I'm sure it will benefit content authors as well. But then Google is in a position like damned if they do, damned if they don't.

hownottowrite 11y ago

I guess they're just going for the entire Alphabet of antitrust discussions.

geomark 11y ago
I see what you did there.

hughes 11y ago

Serious question: What if I'm dead? There are some amazing youtube content creators who cannot sign this new deal due to the fact that they are now deceased. Is their legacy going to be lost forever because they can't sign up posthumously?

morgante 11y ago
Presumably their estate can.
ivank 11y ago
On this note, does anyone know of specific channels that are likely to disappear because their creators are either dead or unwilling to accept the new terms? I will archive all of them. You can also email me. Edit: found http://youtube.wikia.com/wiki/Deceased_YouTubers http://youtube.wikia.com/wiki/Deceased_YouTubers

itistoday2 11y ago

This is a great win for users, major kudos to Google for re-aligning its income source with users!

InclinedPlane 11y ago

Things I like: moving away from an ad supported model (ads are really horrid for content creators, even though it may seem otherwise). Things I don't like: google treating creators like their personal property rather than putting more power in their hands. Long term I'm not sure this is a good move for youtube, as it's likely to drive away and discourage content creators.

NamTaf 11y ago

Someone help me out here because I'm not getting it. Why does it matter if the creator is part of the subscription deal? If they're not, just don't pay them their cut of the revenue income? 1) Subscribers will view just as many videos; no bandwidth increase for Google there. 2) Subscribers still don't see ads 3) Creators on the subscription deal get traditional ad revenue for non-subscribers and a share of Red fees for subscribers 4) Creators NOT on the subscription deal still get ad revenue for non-subscribers, but completely forfeit any share of the Red fees for subscribers Where is Google or the subscriber losing out in that scenario? It's only the creators who don't want part of that deal, as their ad impressions drop proportionately.

tonfa 11y ago
My guess would be that for the affected partners, 4) can't happen (they didnt give youtube the rights to not monetize it).
- NamTaf 11y ago
  So exercise their 'we can change this at any time' clause.

hrnnnnnn 11y ago

Slight tangent - I almost exclusively use Kodi (formerly XBMC) to watch youtube videos and I never see ads. I guess it's only a matter of time until they patch that hole though...

anonbanker 11y ago

Youtube is ripe for disruption right now. All these attempts to monetize will simply drive their users elsewhere.

eva1984 11y ago
If youtube fails to monetize, I think any sane VCs should avoid dumping any money into this area, period.
- anonbanker 11y ago
  It would make my heart skip a beat if venture capitalists left this market completely to the pirates. they tend to provide a better service (compare Youtube to channelPEAR/Kodi)

badthink 11y ago

YouTube Red, So I am likely not making it into the signature box any time soon with wanting to start a channel that I have been thinking about for the last 5 years and now that I am retired and have the time, this comes along. Like many other people with the same thought all now in going up in smoke, or in the crapper. I have been working on videos for the last five years along the same format as the late Huel Houser with his California Gold Series. Only taking it a few miles down the road capturing all or at least the most of my motorcycle adventures with interviews of people along the way in as far off the path as I can find. Who are they and what do they have to say or do. So all of that said this YouTube Red thing Orwell was being an optimist this is like having big brother looking down your throat to see what you had for lunch. If you piss of the status quo you get the dubious honor of being privatized or canceled all together. Seriously who wants to shell out 1200 bucks a year to watch the little guy. Not me I want premium shit. I quit watching The boob Tube due to commercials and pay view crap. It is costly enough a month for the internet ad the price you pay for watching streaming video? That cost is what 180 220 a month for the a few gigs and exceed you plan and well you know. Add now add another 10 bucks a month. There is my tear in the beer, my bitch and moan, my two cents. I do not expect to lead you on this quest cause there simply is now enough of us hold outs to wage a war, as for the battle we are out gunned out numbered out classed, well shit we are just out. Don't follow me I'm lost ball high weeds. I'm just a funky old bastard bitching about the assertion of power and control over what was "WAS" free media. thats all stick a fork in me I'm done.