3 ms·
This is ridiculous. Google makes more money when they pay you more money. The income is tied together. They get a cut. So, it's not that they feel like they
by arn 16y ago
This is ridiculous. Google makes more money when they pay you more money. The income is tied together. They get a cut. So, it's not that they feel like they are paying you too much. Many sites/individuals make a lot more money than this guy did on Adsense. In this case, they felt the guy was sending fraudulent clicks through the program.
- locopati 16y agoDo you think the one-strike and you're out policy, with little chance of direct human-contact in resolving disputes is reasonable? For Google, they get to have their cake and eat it too - to them it probably doesn't matter if they lose a small revenue stream like this (yet they're still putting ads on his YouTube videos and search results), but the little guy gets hammered.
- arn 16y agoNo, it sucks. I was just objecting to your incorrect assessment that it went down like this: "if they deem they're paying you too much money, they kill your account".
- stanleydrew 16y agoWhile this is true of Adsense for domains, it's not true for YouTube apparently. Ads still run beside this guy's videos whether or not Google/YouTube decides to give him a cut of the revenue.
- rbanffy 16y agoIt makes some sense: the videos are hosted on Google servers and served through Google bandwidth.
- Andrew_Quentin 16y agoyes, but they are not google's videos.
- rbanffy 16y agoStill, Google is not billing him for serving his videos.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- Andrew_Quentin 16y agoWell of course they aren't. They are his videos. He is the one who should be billing google for serving his videos.
- rbanffy 16y agoWhy exactly would Google have to pay him? For the privilege of paying for the storage and bandwidth the videos he uploaded consume?
- Andrew_Quentin 16y agoThe situation to me seems comparable to a book writer and a publisher. The writer is the one who is writing the book, he has the copyrights, and earns from selling it. The publisher spends on marketing, printing, etc, and gets a cut, but, the publisher is reliant on the writer. If the publisher want to sell the book without giving any revenue to the writer, then they would have to pay for a license. Otherwise, they are in breach of copyrights law. So, if google wants to host other people's videos, they need to pay for them, unless people give the videos to google for free, as the video's are the creator's and thus copyrighted.
- YuriNiyazov 16y agoBy that logic, if I were to create a video, it is in my interest to spread that video to as many video hosting providers as possible, and charge each of them. Sir, I believe you are on to something absolutely brilliant, and will undoubtedly become wealthy beyond your wildest dreams.