5 ms·

Being expected to get paid for employment and contractual work is fine. Expecting money to come in just because you spent time working on something, and put it

Being expected to get paid for employment and contractual work is fine. Expecting money to come in just because you spent time working on something, and put it out for the public to see, really isn't. Even if it happened to have made money in prior circumstances. There's tons of work that people do, either out of interest, pleasure, or duty, that has no expectation of monetization attached. Who's going to pay for the work of some hobbyist building a ship in a bottle? Or getting paid for the hard work of redoing your own front yard? Or working on learning how to yodel? Or doing good deeds for others? Work is just effort spent; it's not a guaranteed exchange for money, unless some specific agreement is made.

pdpi 9y ago
> Expecting money to come in just because you spent time working on something, and put it out for the public to see, really isn't. Expecting to be paid for work you did that other people are making money out of is perfectly legitimate, though. And that’s what this discussion is about: under the current model, their videos are popular enough that they get plenty of views on Facebook, Facebook gets to monetise them, but they see none of that money.
- white-flame 9y ago
  Worded slightly differently, Funny or Die is incapable of monetizing that product in the current environment, but Facebook is capable of monetizing it. For that specific part of the issue, tough cookies Mr. Funny Man. Somebody got your product for peanuts and is doing way better with it. Now, the other part of the issue would be if something like copyright infringement is happening around how it's being monetized. If so, then it's a real issue. If not, well, we're probably back to tough cookies. They don't own the distribution model, they agreed to it, they have no say otherwise besides to pull their content off and monetize it themselves; or skip the TOS and negotiate a different & specific contract with Facebook directly about how their content is handled (fat chance).
  - Joeboy 9y ago
    > Funny or Die is incapable of monetizing that product in the current environment, but Facebook is capable of monetizing it. For that specific part of the issue, tough cookies Mr. Funny Man. Somebody got your product for peanuts and is doing way better with it. Is it not, in some sense, bad that Facebook is capable of monetizing the product and the people who made it aren't? It seems like you're just arguing that might is right.
    - white-flame 9y ago
      Facebook is certainly overpowered and evil with large negative fallout from their behavior. But "They have more resources and cheap licensing of our content, therefore can sell better than us!" isn't an actionable stance of any worth to combat a particular instance. Tons of productive people can't sell well, and are outpaced by inferior products sold by more effective salespeople/marketers/publishers/etc. People are leaving YouTube because it's harder to make money now than it used to be. People will be leaving Facebook as well, the next thing will come along, and the cycle repeats.
    - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
      It's bad from FB's side (this is debatable), but that doesn't mean Funny or Die has a viable product. FB makes money off of tons and tons of otherwise non-viable products that are willing to pay FB in the hope that they are viable. If it was viable, it wouldn't need FB. Before the internet, how would they have made money with Funny or Die? They wouldn't. If they would have, they could easily pursue avenues outside of FB, because they still have the internet, and they can still approach publishers and producers - just like before the internet.
      - zaphar 9y ago
        There part you are glossing over is that before FB it was viable. After FB it was no longer viable. Before the internet they would have made money at Mad magazine or similar publications. This isn't an argument about economics though. This is an argument about the kind of society we want to build and live in. The author doesn't want to build a society where Facebook determines what is a viable business model or not. And for the most part Facebook is in fact who determines what is a viable business model. You might want to live in that world but don't mis-characterize the author's position as something it isn't.
- jasode 9y ago
  >, Facebook gets to monetise them, but they see none of that money. But "Facebook gets to monetise them" because that's what FunnyOrDie signed up for. Let's emphasize that again: FunnyOrDie already knew that was the bargain when they submitted their content to Facebook. They knew that Facebook does not have direct web links back to their own url: www.funnyordie.com. Apparently, they were ok with those disadvantages because they hoped to build enough "brand awareness" or "content loyalty" from viewers that FunnyOrDie could transcend the Facebook platform and attract viewers on their own. But that didn't happen. If the CEO knew the new rules of Facebook's walled garden around publishers and wasn't tricked at the time he put his content on Facebook, it seems intellectually dishonest to complain when the exposure on Facebook "also known as marketing" didn't lead to the results he wanted. If indeed Facebook did trick the CEO, then he should write about that as a public service warning to all of us. That's newsworthy. On the other hand, if he tried to use Facebook as a strategic marketing tool and it didn't lead to increased views+revenue on his own website, that's really on him and not Facebook. I'd guess most of HN readers without having an MBA degree already know that submitting original content to Facebook is a lopsided business bargain with very little chance of upside.
  - Joeboy 9y ago
    > that's what FunnyOrDie signed up for The choice they had was "monetize your content on Facebook or watch other people monetize your content on Facebook".
    - lmm 9y ago
      They could've got their content taken off Facebook. If Facebook was systematically allowing other people to post their content, they could've pursued that legally - there's a reason Youtube ended up with its ContentID stuff.
      - Joeboy 9y ago
        Yes, with sufficient investment they could eventually have got their content taken off Facebook, after most of the revenue had been given to other people.

pdpi 9y ago

> Expecting money to come in just because you spent time working on something, and put it out for the public to see, really isn't. Expecting to be paid for work you did that other people are making money out of is perfectly legitimate, though. And that’s what this discussion is about: under the current model, their videos are popular enough that they get plenty of views on Facebook, Facebook gets to monetise them, but they see none of that money.

white-flame 9y ago
Worded slightly differently, Funny or Die is incapable of monetizing that product in the current environment, but Facebook is capable of monetizing it. For that specific part of the issue, tough cookies Mr. Funny Man. Somebody got your product for peanuts and is doing way better with it. Now, the other part of the issue would be if something like copyright infringement is happening around how it's being monetized. If so, then it's a real issue. If not, well, we're probably back to tough cookies. They don't own the distribution model, they agreed to it, they have no say otherwise besides to pull their content off and monetize it themselves; or skip the TOS and negotiate a different & specific contract with Facebook directly about how their content is handled (fat chance).
- Joeboy 9y ago
  > Funny or Die is incapable of monetizing that product in the current environment, but Facebook is capable of monetizing it. For that specific part of the issue, tough cookies Mr. Funny Man. Somebody got your product for peanuts and is doing way better with it. Is it not, in some sense, bad that Facebook is capable of monetizing the product and the people who made it aren't? It seems like you're just arguing that might is right.
  - white-flame 9y ago
    Facebook is certainly overpowered and evil with large negative fallout from their behavior. But "They have more resources and cheap licensing of our content, therefore can sell better than us!" isn't an actionable stance of any worth to combat a particular instance. Tons of productive people can't sell well, and are outpaced by inferior products sold by more effective salespeople/marketers/publishers/etc. People are leaving YouTube because it's harder to make money now than it used to be. People will be leaving Facebook as well, the next thing will come along, and the cycle repeats.
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    It's bad from FB's side (this is debatable), but that doesn't mean Funny or Die has a viable product. FB makes money off of tons and tons of otherwise non-viable products that are willing to pay FB in the hope that they are viable. If it was viable, it wouldn't need FB. Before the internet, how would they have made money with Funny or Die? They wouldn't. If they would have, they could easily pursue avenues outside of FB, because they still have the internet, and they can still approach publishers and producers - just like before the internet.
    - zaphar 9y ago
      There part you are glossing over is that before FB it was viable. After FB it was no longer viable. Before the internet they would have made money at Mad magazine or similar publications. This isn't an argument about economics though. This is an argument about the kind of society we want to build and live in. The author doesn't want to build a society where Facebook determines what is a viable business model or not. And for the most part Facebook is in fact who determines what is a viable business model. You might want to live in that world but don't mis-characterize the author's position as something it isn't.
jasode 9y ago
>, Facebook gets to monetise them, but they see none of that money. But "Facebook gets to monetise them" because that's what FunnyOrDie signed up for. Let's emphasize that again: FunnyOrDie already knew that was the bargain when they submitted their content to Facebook. They knew that Facebook does not have direct web links back to their own url: www.funnyordie.com. Apparently, they were ok with those disadvantages because they hoped to build enough "brand awareness" or "content loyalty" from viewers that FunnyOrDie could transcend the Facebook platform and attract viewers on their own. But that didn't happen. If the CEO knew the new rules of Facebook's walled garden around publishers and wasn't tricked at the time he put his content on Facebook, it seems intellectually dishonest to complain when the exposure on Facebook "also known as marketing" didn't lead to the results he wanted. If indeed Facebook did trick the CEO, then he should write about that as a public service warning to all of us. That's newsworthy. On the other hand, if he tried to use Facebook as a strategic marketing tool and it didn't lead to increased views+revenue on his own website, that's really on him and not Facebook. I'd guess most of HN readers without having an MBA degree already know that submitting original content to Facebook is a lopsided business bargain with very little chance of upside.
- Joeboy 9y ago
  > that's what FunnyOrDie signed up for The choice they had was "monetize your content on Facebook or watch other people monetize your content on Facebook".
  - lmm 9y ago
    They could've got their content taken off Facebook. If Facebook was systematically allowing other people to post their content, they could've pursued that legally - there's a reason Youtube ended up with its ContentID stuff.
    - Joeboy 9y ago
      Yes, with sufficient investment they could eventually have got their content taken off Facebook, after most of the revenue had been given to other people.