3 ms·
While I'm on the YouTube side of this one, the web does place content creators in something of a dilemma. If content producers can't make revenue from the web,
by far33d 20y ago
While I'm on the YouTube side of this one, the web does place content creators in something of a dilemma. If content producers can't make revenue from the web, how are they going to afford to make quality content in the first place? While a lot of tech has brought the cost of media creation down, the only profitable web-exclusive stuff right now is content that can be created for free. Some of the zero-cost content is good, but most if it is just kids hurting themselves for a laugh.
What good is it to make money as a content aggregator if no one can afford to create content in the first place? There's a market here, I'm just not sure what it is.
- e1ven 20y agoIt's not nearly that simple though- Google position isn't "copyright doesn't matter", it's that "Look, we'll take it down if you ask. The law says that's OK! Why are we still arguing"? Take a look up a few posts for my perspective ;)
- far33d 20y agoI'm not saying it is that simple. Google is in the right here. They obey the law, they give customers exactly what they want. The issue is on the supply side: How can content producers adapt to this altered economy? Right now, their answer has been to sue and hold tightly to the old business models. My argument is more nuanced than just protecting copyright -- I believe there is a way to make money producing quality content, but maybe not for the big, hollywood sized producers. I'm more interested in how to empower the people in-between viacom and the lone camcorder.