3 ms·

I think he's saying that you have to offer them under the same terms, so that would include the new site having to provide monetization options for your content

I think he's saying that you have to offer them under the same terms, so that would include the new site having to provide monetization options for your content that are similar to your existing arrangement.

icebraining 9y ago
Right, but for example YT won't allow you to monetize videos until you reach 10k viewers on your channel. Which means a bunch of shitty video sites can use your videos without paying you until you reach 10k viewers on that site - which may mean "never". Also, even if they do pay you, it's not like ads have guaranteed rates, it's all dynamic based on bids, which are likely much smaller in another site.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  The sites would have to pay youtube for the content (ideally they'd pay something similar to how much youtube pays the creator - which would actually incentivize youtube to pay creators). If youtube doesn't pay you, that's between you and youtube. Maybe there should be a mechanism for creators to optout of the mutual licencing agreements but I'd make it opt-in by default. I'd bet that the vast majority of people uploading things to youtube do so just to share their content, google shouldn't be enriched by walling off content that creators want to share with the most people. I make a few youtube videos of my hobbies (e.g how to change the fork seals on old Honda motorcycles or pull door panels off Toyotas), I don't care if I make a dime but I'd be over the moon with joy if I got a message telling me that I inspired someone to get a bike running. Google's monopolist bologna shouldn't thwart people from getting their content out there.