Youtube Paid Subscription?

[RandomName101]

http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/8/8371131/youtube-paid-subscription-offline-video

Check out this link to what is going to be an abomination to the youtube community. Paid subscriptions? paywalls? this is youtube not the Itunes store. AAARGH !!! I hope markiplier and jacksepticeye don't play into any of this bull. I know I won't. I might start running adsense but I'll never do any of of this. My videos are made for your enjoyment.

[Columbia]

That is.. infuriating. Is Youtube getting worse and worse?

Youtube is meant for entertainment, not a source to generate revenue.

[Brethern]

Hmm, I wonder if the videos behind paywalls can still be hit with copyright claims?

[T-Bouw]

Rather strange to hear this considering Google took over.

Google makes money from datamining and personalized ads so shouldn't that cover the costs more than enough?

Besides, most of the video's uploaded are from individual people not asking anything for their video's (most want to though).

[Elthy]

There are ads on youtube? Oh right, i use adblock...

And downloading youtube videos is also easy and free, i dont see a reason to pay for that.

[JumpsterG]

This is the first I've heard of this, but it makes sense that a monetization method is finally being introduced. I don't have any proof, but I've heard it said many times that Google has been operating Youtube at a loss since it started operating it.

The proposed system looks pretty tame, honestly. Nothing changes except for a pay-in for new features (ad-free service and podcast style downloads) and a way for uploaders to separate content between subscription and non-subscription videos.

I feel that uploaders would be shooting themselves in the foot to lock up their content behind a pay wall they don't control, so I don't anticipate any big fallout from these changes.

Edit: Just caught that bit about uploaders being required to participate or else video uploads are private only. That could be bad...

Edited April 10, 2015 by JumpsterG
spelling

[Cydonian Monk]

Edit: Just caught that bit about uploaders being required to participate or else video uploads are private only. That could be bad...

Yep, and that's the killer for me if it's true (and it seems to be). Secondary income is expressly prohibited by my current employment agreement, so if I'm given a choice between being forced to monetize my uploads or making them all private-only? They're gone. Not that I upload much of anything (and nothing KSP related), but that'll change from "a little" to "nothing ever again" starting with this program.

I'm still waiting for the official email from YouTube before I grab my pitchfork though.

[Deutherius]

Yep, and that's the killer for me if it's true (and it seems to be). Secondary income is expressly prohibited by my current employment agreement, so if I'm given a choice between being forced to monetize my uploads or making them all private-only? They're gone. Not that I upload much of anything (and nothing KSP related), but that'll change from "a little" to "nothing ever again" starting with this program.

I'm still waiting for the official email from YouTube before I grab my pitchfork though.

I don't think it's going to affect people who don't want to monetize their videos - it seems to me that this is mostly aimed at the "big guys" who generate sufficient revenue - at least it was pointed out multiple times by the article.

The company told creators of popular channels today that the offering, which does not yet have a name, is coming soon.

Unless your channel has thousands of subscribers (or more), you will probably be considered "not that popular". Forcing monetization on "the common folk" wouldn't really make any sense if you ask me.

EDIT: Seems to me that this is just a "heya partner, we're gonna make even moar money together than we already do" kinda deal. The only bad outcome, at least for me, is that some uploaders will ultimately put a few videos behind a paywall (whether the contract forces them to or not), which will make me slightly irritated - about as much as some uploaders banning their videos in certain countries (which can be proxied, but it's still annoying).

Edited April 10, 2015 by Deutherius

[Cydonian Monk]

That's what I think it actually is - meant more for large partners than everyday Joes. Really need to see more details from Google regarding the uploader side of things before I light fires and turnover dumpsters.

As for the subscriber side? I think YouTube (as it currently is) is long overdue for exactly that feature. Even with the 55% "processing fee" taken by El Goog, I'm more comfortable with them handling subscription money than I am with direct donations to random foreign nationals and folks unknown. (Such as the age-old PayPal donations some channels used to accept.... I don't really have an opinion on Patreon being used by YouTubers.)

Unless your channel has thousands of subscribers (or more), you will probably be considered "not that popular". Forcing monetization on "the common folk" wouldn't really make any sense if you ask me.

Depending on how you stack the numbers, channel subs or account follows, I either have 20-some-odd subscribers (19 of which I think are bots) or 7700+ followers (probably a third of which are Russians or bots or maybe even Russian bots). My channel is unimportant, but my Google+ account might be over whatever "common folk" threshold they have. Still in the "not that popular" camp, especially since I've been actively avoiding G+ for a couple years now, but algorithms don't always care. If I share something on G+ it can reach a not insignificant number of folks, several of which are in the "big guys" ballpark. Exactly the sort of thing their billing robots might look for.

What I'm more curious about is whether this move (in which actual money from subscribers is changing hands) will criminalize the use of Ad blockers. I _think_ you could already argue that some of the things Ad blockers do are theft under current laws (though insignificant enough to not pursue), but establishing two classes of YouTube users - those with ads and those without - might mean using an Ad blocker is considered escalating access to a remote computer system that is engaged in interstate commerce - ie: a CFAA violation. If so, I'd probably just end up blacklisting YouTube on my PCs (which I try to keep clean) and only watch it through tablet, smartphone, set-top box or TV-dongle apps.

[Yeah, I'm a little paranoid. Comes with the territory.]

[BagelRabbit]

Hi! I feel like I should weigh in on this debate.

I have over 2,100 subscribers, which is pretty nice (though not into "Big Channel" territory perhaps). I have done YouTube just for fun since the very beginning, and I've never tried to monetize my channel or make revenue from it in any way... and I most certainly won't start now. Count me out!

I'm not going to start throwing things and screaming, but this is really wrong. And if, as the article says:

...creators are required to participate in the subscription offering, or every video on their channels will be set to private, sources said....

then I'm not sure what to do with my channel. Maybe it'll just have to be taken down...

-Upsilon

[Superfluous J]

As a YouTube video creator who has ads in his videos, I don't see what the problem is. If I did not have ads, I still don't think I'd have a problem with it.

YouTube is offering viewers a legit way to see YouTube videos without ads, for about what Netflix costs. I watch YouTube more than Netflix, so this is intriguing to me as a viewer.

They are requiring creators to allow these viewers to see their videos with this new service, possibly giving the creators money for it (the article didn't say). If you don't want people who are paying for YouTube to see your stuff (why wouldn't you?) then they're going to make your stuff private.

Unless I misread and somewhere it's saying that YouTube is going to force creators to force their viewers to watch their stuff with ads or a paywall, I just don't see the problem.

[Deutherius]

...Even with the 55% "processing fee" taken by El Goog...

I think youtube and google take 45 % of both the ad revenue and the new system, the 55 % mentioned in the article were said to be left to the "partners" (the uploader).

...Depending on how you stack the numbers, channel subs or account follows, I either have 20-some-odd subscribers (19 of which I think are bots) or 7700+ followers (probably a third of which are Russians or bots or maybe even Russian bots)...

I have actually managed to completely forget about the existence of Google+ and the merging with youtube. You might be right on that one. Damn.

...What I'm more curious about is whether this move (in which actual money from subscribers is changing hands) will criminalize the use of Ad blockers...

Interesting question. Not sure how the public would embrace a "stop using adblock here or we will pursue you on legal grounds" policy from google. Probably not well. I'd sign a petition against it even if I wasn't using adblock.

...They are requiring creators to allow these viewers to see their videos with this new service, possibly giving the creators money for it (the article didn't say). If you don't want people who are paying for YouTube to see your stuff (why wouldn't you?) then they're going to make your stuff private.

Unless I misread and somewhere it's saying that YouTube is going to force creators to force their viewers to watch their stuff with ads or a paywall, I just don't see the problem.

The way I understand it, if you are partnered with youtube and producing ad revenue, you *will* be forced to use the new feature. And you will get 55 % of the money pooled from it.

I would even bet that you'll have to sign a contract that will force you to put a paywall on a percentage of your videos, lest there will be consequences.

*puts on a tinfoil hat*

Edited April 11, 2015 by Deutherius
typo

[Superfluous J]

The way I understand it, if you are partnered with youtube and producing ad revenue, you *will* be forced to use the new feature. And you will get 55 % of the money pooled from it.

That seems completely reasonable to me. I want my viewers to have as many choices as they can, especially if it doesn't mean I have to do anything extra for it.

I would even bet that you'll have to sign a contract that will force you to put a paywall on a percentage of your videos, lest there will be consequences.

*puts on a tinfoil hat*

I'll worry about that when it happens. Well, actually I won't unless that percent is 100, as the vast majority of my videos have ads. I only disable advertising for the really short ones, of which I make scant few.

[Bill Phil]

That is.. infuriating. Is Youtube getting worse and worse?

Youtube is meant for entertainment, not a source to generate revenue.

It was always meant for money. But not as much as after Google bought it...

[Deutherius]

That seems completely reasonable to me. I want my viewers to have as many choices as they can, especially if it doesn't mean I have to do anything extra for it.

While technically an extra choice, I wouldn't consider "pay the subscription fee or don't have access to this video" a good choice, especially since the current model makes the videos accessible to everyone. Well, unless you ban your videos in some countries, which I never understood.

I'll worry about that when it happens. Well, actually I won't unless that percent is 100, as the vast majority of my videos have ads. I only disable advertising for the really short ones, of which I make scant few.

Ads are fine. Voluntarily paying money to remove the ads is also fine. Getting some extras for paying that fee is also fine. (Am I basically describing the twitch.tv model? I think I am. It's a good model.)

Putting entire pieces of video content behind a "PAY OR GTFO" wall is not fine. (And by that I mean sure, nobody can stop you, but it's most likely going to alienate a lot of people)

</opinion>

EDIT: Who could forget the great poopstorm that happened after the too soon announced KSP forum april fools joke this year? There was (among other things) a mention of subscription fees and some content being visible only to the subscribers (I think - I'd like to verify this claim, but I can't seem to find it). People were not pleased from what I've gathered. (Yes, it's a different situation, but the point is similar - taking a system people are used to and which works and ****ing it up in some aspect/s)

Edited April 11, 2015 by Deutherius

[pincushionman]

I don't understand what the "all creators must participate" means - paying to have ad-free is a choice the customer must make, not the creator. I have two videos on my channel, and I certainly don't monetize it. I don't even know how, at this point. Am I a "creator" in this sense? Are they demanding to pay me tenths of a cent, or my two videos are blocked? I don't have enough detail to really understand this right now.

[Superfluous J]

"pay the subscription fee or don't have access to this video"

I do not see anywhere where it says this will be a thing. I see "Allow your video to be seen by paying customers or nobody can see it" which is - as I said - heavy handed but it in no way says or even implies that there will ever be a situation where a viewer cannot watch a video for free without ads if both the viewer and creator agree that that is what they want.

[Deutherius]

I do not see anywhere where it says this will be a thing. I see "Allow your video to be seen by paying customers or nobody can see it" which is - as I said - heavy handed but it in no way says or even implies that there will ever be a situation where a viewer cannot watch a video for free without ads if both the viewer and creator agree that that is what they want.

In the first paragraph:

It will also let creators put their videos behind a paywall so that only subscribers to the premium version can view them, sources said.

Sure, if the creator decides that s/he wants the videos to be accessible by anyone, great. But, and now I'm looping back to the start of our discussion, I would imagine some kind of a limit to be enforced so you cannot just ignore this new "feature".

[Yukon0009]

Bull crap. I hope Scott dosen't get involved.

[Thomas988]

Wow. Google...what happened? YouTube used to be amazing, then they realized people were actually making a living off of their website, so they tap in on them and prepare to charge money for their content.

YouTube's days are numbered, it seems. What next? Maybe the internet will team together to create a new video hosting site. But what if that doesn't happen? Well, the world will get much, much more sad.

[Superfluous J]

Sure, if the creator decides that s/he wants the videos to be accessible by anyone, great. But, and now I'm looping back to the start of our discussion, I would imagine some kind of a limit to be enforced so you cannot just ignore this new "feature".

Ah. So you want to force creators to give their stuff up for free when they don't otherwise want to. Then we ARE arguing different points. Yes. I agree that that is perfectly possible. I disagree that it's a problem.

I would also suggest to anybody whose favorite YouTuber puts all their stuff behind a paywall to look for someone who is not doing that.

Like, for instance, me!

[Flymetothemun]

I see this as being great. It will allow me to see which Youtubers care more about the money (and to an extent, fame) and which ones care more about their fans and the process of creation. I HATE the former but I adore the latter.

However, if all Youtubers will be forced to participate, then I despise the new rule and want it gone. It looks like it will be somewhat of a "hosting tax" on videos.

[Special Agent Sigvan]

I think we need specification before we can form opinions.

Of course, the best case scenario is that the "use it or all videos are private" rule only means you have to provide the option of paying to remove ads

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Bull crap. I hope Scott dosen't get involved.

He has to, or else all of his videos are automatically privated

[Overfloater]

There's still Dailymotion ;-]