3 ms·
Well of course they aren't. They are his videos. He is the one who should be billing google for serving his videos.
by Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
Well 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.