2 ms·

> 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.
    • jasode 9y ago
      >, with sufficient investment But FunnyOrDie isn't a helpless college kid trying to monetize his home recordings of "iPhone unboxing" videos. They're a content business that got at least $18 million of VC money and bringing ~$40 million in revenue.[1] Therefore, the executives should have financial sophistication of how Facebook deals will or won't work in their favor. >, after most of the revenue had been given to other people. But why would other freebooters get the ad revenue and not FunnyOrDie? FOD is already paying money to Facebook for $0 ad revenue share just to send videos to users who follow them. If pirates pay nothing to upload and monetize FOD videos, why can't FOD just "pirate" <wink><wink> their own videos and get the same ad revenue? In 2014, they had 20 million users per month on their own funnyordie.com website and ~5 million "likes" on Facebook. Yet somehow Facebook is the reason they had to lay off people? Something doesn't add up. [1] https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/15/how-does-funny-or-die-make-money.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/15/how-does-f...
      • x0x0 9y ago
        Look how far Viacom got suing youtube for copyright violations. I wouldn't be surprised if Viacom put on the order of $50 million dollars or more into that series of lawsuits. But sure, FunnyOrDie could definitely compel Facebook to take down their videos...