2 ms·
YouTube compensation is based on watchtimes, which is why I didn’t simply go 2.5m vs 300+ million wow it’s not even within 2 orders of magnitude. > that doesn'
by Retric 3y ago
YouTube compensation is based on watchtimes, which is why I didn’t simply go 2.5m vs 300+ million wow it’s not even within 2 orders of magnitude.
> that doesn't mean aggregate spending is increased
But the actual spending does. An Olympic Games costs as much as total aggregate compensation from YouTube for an entire year. They have multiple revenue streams but it just shows the scale we are talking about.
Netflix spends roughly as much on content as YouTube pays content creators. Add global OTA TV, cable, Movies, pay per view, and the other streaming services like D+ and you’ll get some idea of just how much is being supported by copyright. Hell, even some of YouTube’s compensation goes to old movies because of copyright.
- johngladtj 3y agoWhy are you ONLY considering the cash YouTube pays? Seems like that's an incomplete sample. I'm sure I can get lower revenue numbers for movies by ignoring major revenue sources.
- Retric 3y agoWithout copyright YouTube could pay nothing for old movies because copyright doesn’t exist and they or someone else would upload any ‘exclusive’ content. Now YouTube itself might volunteer to pay something to actually get new content because that’s in its own self interest. But that’s going to be at roughly current levels rather than an extra “blockbuster” rate because again any website could trivially have the top 10,000 videos on YouTube so they can’t gatekeep the content behind a paywall etc.