4 ms·
Aside from the fact that Blender is a non-profit backing a free, open-source application -- you're right. YouTube does have that right. And I have the right to
by ng12 8y ago
Aside from the fact that Blender is a non-profit backing a free, open-source application -- you're right. YouTube does have that right. And I have the right to think holding the dissemination of free educational material hostage to make a quick buck is reprehensible.
Also don't forget that YouTube gave them the option to not advertise on those videos. It's so arbitrarily capricious I was convinced it was a technical mishap when the news first broke.
- ajross 8y ago> Aside from the fact that Blender is a non-profit backing a free, open-source application The Blender Foundation isn't "Blender", though. It's a financial entity with income (there's literally a giant "donate" link on their home page) and expenses. They pay for all sorts of stuff that they need (obviously I have no clue what their balance sheet looks like). And no one whines that they don't get free conference admission or airline tickets or printer paper or whatever. Why is their video hosting any different?
- ng12 8y ago> And no one whines that they don't get free conference admission or airline tickets or printer paper or whatever Those are terrible analogies. YouTube offers free hosting with the ability to opt out of monetizing your videos -- features that they will apparently punish you for using. That is absurdly user-hostile.
- ajross 8y agoMeh. And we've come full circle. It seems to my eyes that they only "punish" you for not advertising if you have the means to pay other expenses but want to freeload on youtube specifically. And I don't see why I should care about that. It's very likely that Blender is going to have the same problem with Dailymotion and Vimeo too. No one wants to (or has the means) to be a dumping ground for hosting other people's content. We all have to share in this world. As it happens advertising is the mechanism YouTube offers for sharing revenue.
- ng12 8y agoYou're missing the point. Why offer the option to opt out of ads at all other than to bait-and-switch?
- saint_fiasco 8y agoSame reason a coffee shop might offer to let you charge your phone/laptop batteries for free and then take that away when they see you are running an extension cord to your office.
- ng12 8y agoSo in this analogy opting out of ads is for who, exactly? Videos nobody watches anyways?
- ajross 8y agoIt's for you. And me. And any person or organization that wants to put up a video for the public to see. But it's not for people and organizations who are being funded to put up those videos. If you are deriving revenue from that video stream, whether or not it's a "profit" legally, then it's not unreasonable for you to be expected to pay for it. Advertising with shared revenue is the standard mechanism for paying for youtube videos.
- ng12 8y ago> If you are deriving revenue from that video stream By opting out of ads you're also opting out of your share of the revenue so by definition you're avoiding a potential profit stream. I think you'd have a fair point if it was a publicly-listed company complaining about ads hosted for free on YouTube but come on -- these are free, educational videos hosted for the explicit purpose of democratizing knowledge. Again, you're not wrong. YouTube is within their rights to do this. I just think it's an incredibly disappointing move from Google.
- ubernostrum 8y agoActually, tech conferences are expensive to attend, and there's been a growing movement the past few years for conferences to at least comp the ticket of someone who's scheduled to speak.
- ajross 8y agoFair enough. But I don't see rage posts at the top of HN about how Blender can't get a free ticket at SIGGRAPH.