Talk:YouTube

Youtube; copyrighted work, corporate buyout?

Someone erased my earlier 'discussion' comments about Youtube where I pointed out that Youtube got popular by hosting copyrighted videos that they don't own, such as the SNL digital shorts, and that Youtube is trying to use it's popularity to get bought out by a big company, like ifilm did. (imdb.com even reported that NBC was considering buying Youtube after their traffic skyrocketed from hosting "Lazy Sunday.") Here is the link to the NBC/Youtube article (it's at the bottom of the page at: http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-03-09)

It's pretty obvious that Youtube used copyrighted videos to gain popularity, because in it's early days they made virtually no effort to remove or screen content. Youtube only removed copyrighted content if there was a legal threat. They maintain that they just 'host' the videos and they can't regulate users. This is the same defense Napster and Kazaa used. I don't think my comments constitute a 'rant' because Youtube is in a similar situation as ifilm was before: an unregulated site that got increased traffic through hosting content they didn't own (and, in ifilm's case, ended up with a multi-million dollar deal w/ MTV.) Is it so impossible to think that the Youtube staff saw an opportunity to get a corporate sponsor if they drove their traffic up by hosting illegal footage? Is there any other reason that Youtube is popular besides hosting "Lazy Sunday"? Should my comments be removed from the talk page becuase they're POV (no.)?

Youtube recently instated a rule that says you can only upload 10 minute videos now. My guess is that if Youtube actually becomes vigilant about blocking copyrighted material, they will quickly lose their audience and the only content on the site will be college kids playing shitty guitar in their dorm room. If you don't like these comments, leave 'em here anyway.

I completely agree, and a mention of the very widespread copyright violations should be noted in this article. Practically every YouTube link I see is to copyrighted material (used illegally). --63.204.75.25 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a little random sampling of the type of copyrighted content easily accessable Youtube right now, all of it illegal:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search=South+Park&search_type=search_videos&search=Search

http://www.youtube.com/results?search=Jimmy+Kimmel&search_type=search_videos&search=Search

http://www.youtube.com/results?search=Conan+O%27Brien&search_type=search_videos&search=Search

http://www.youtube.com/results?search=MTV+Cribs&search_type=search_videos&search=Search

http://www.youtube.com/results?search=Flavor+Of+Love&search_type=search_videos&search=Search

YouTube is more active at deleting uploaded porno videos, whatzzap with that?142.150.205.25 19:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Slate magazine article that said commented on the porn issue, saying that porn is available everywhere on the internet, but copyrighted stuff is unique to Youtube and makes it popular.

I also found out that VH1 actually uploaded the clips from "Flavor of Love" itself, as a way to generate interest in the show (this was also mentioned in the Slate Magazine article about Youtube). So in that case, VH1 wsa using Youtubes popularity to promote their show.

When Napster first came out, the reaction from the record companies was to squash it with legal threats. Big media companies are so scared of missing the boat this time that they're more likely to buy the company that's pirating them and distributing their content than sue them.

Pronunciation and Meaning

This doesn't affect the article but is it only Americans who pronounce "tube" as "too-b"? I pronounce it almost like "t-you-b". The fact that the name was meant to sound like "You too" didn't initially occur to me. --59.167.110.86 02:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's slang in the UK (especially Scotland) "tube: Noun. A contemptible or idiotic person. [Scottish use]" (from http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/t.htm) Or UrbanDictionary.com: tube Idiot, innocent fool -- particularly a teenager. Scots origin Glasgow urban slag. "See him he's a pure tube man !" translates as "That chap is a proper fool ...

It took me some time to work out that YouTube means YouTV and not YouIdiot. I'd guess that's the case for the whole of Scotland.

Cheese souffle?

"Cheese Souffle" is a specific codeword for uploaders on Youtube.com to use when posting content on the website that is protected by copyright laws and therefore eligible for deletion to safeguard the copyright maintainers. The term has been used primarily on the site thus far by the Internet Wrestling Community to prevent WWE sting operations as seen while searching for it.

Um, what?--Wasabe3543 23:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I failed to grasp what this was all about too, maybe it should be rewritten or removed. Not understanding it I can't say whether or not it should be in the article. --Mark 21:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I don't get it either. Someone needs to clarify. -- Balt

Agreed. Bennity 14:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not very well explained. When a user uploads a video to YouTube they enter in search words which the video can then be located by. So if one uploads an illegal copy of an episode of Fraggle Rock, for example, one would put "Fraggle Rock" in the search terms. However, if Jim Henson's company contacts YouTube and insists that all Fraggle Rock videos be removed, they will do a search for related videos and remove them. As such people use code words which are meant to replace other terms in searching. So one might popularize the use of the term "cheese souffle" as a codeword to substitute for "WWE"; then anyone who wants to find WWE file would instead search the term "cheese souffle". However this only seems to be productive if there are specific code terms for each different TYPE of content, and I'm guessing this "cheese souffle" term ONLY applies to WWE, so I will reword this section. Pacian 04:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the business model?

I fail to understand how companies like this and google video sustain themselves. That much bandwidth and server space can't be cheap...

Here's an article I read that talks about how Youtube is losing money. The article basically says that Youtube is only going to survive if they 1) get bought out by a lrage company (which the author thinks is unlikely, seeing how all the major web companies are already planning their own video services) or 2) go public (which still might not work.)

Here's the full text of the aricle, (the graphs are missing, sorry I couldn't copy them):

Will YouTube last past 2008?

As wildly popular as the video sharing site may be, YouTube's sinking like the Titanic (too soon?) into a big pile of VC debt. TechCrunch blogger Michael Arrington runs a rumor that YouTube took another $25 million, more than tripling its total funding. Some quick Excel-ing yields the following.

YouTube's venture capital (measured here in millions of dollars) is increasing exponentially. Now what can be done? Answers after the jump.

First off, they could just blow all the money at their current rumored burn rate (oh no, that phrase is usable again?) of $1 million a month. Say they have $5 million left from the last two funds, for a total pot of $30 million. That'd bankrupt them by November 2008, just in time to miss homemade bootlegs of the Hillary Clinton concession speech. Just for fun, I graphed that out too.

Oh boy, graphing is fun!

But costs will rise as YouTube becomes more popular, until it completely saturates the lip-synching and performing-on-SNL market. Given these costs, YouTube's VC feeding frenzy will need to grow by magnitude. Will we see an exponential curve that suddenly plateaus? I couldn't make Excel do that, so imagine it. In your brain.

YouTube faces two exit strategies:

Go public. With enough ad revenue, YouTube could eventually turn a profit. The $25 million would buy it time to get in the red and IPO by late 2008. But IPOs are still rare in the new boom, and with total investments of over $35 million, YouTube needs to act fast or hit an impressive market cap from the start. Get sold. Not much of an option. Google has its own video setup. News Corp. has too many movie, music, and TV properties to buy a piracy-ridden site like YouTube. Microsoft just doesn't need the technology. The only hope may be Yahoo, where YouTube could complement Flickr and make Yahoo a stronger portal. And changing the title to "YahooTube" won't even raise anyone's eyebrows.

Next time, you might as well at least link to the article too. [1] - Bennity 23:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colbert clips

The NY Times recently ran a story about Stephen Colbert's speech at the Whitehouse Correspondence dinner. Colbert's sppech was hugely popular on the web, showing up on numerous sites like Youtube (probably most people saw it there, over 20 million views). Recently, C-Span (who covered the event and who owns the Colbert footage) asked Youtube to remove all files of the speech (which some speculated was a move by conservatives to silence a critic). It turned out that C-Span signed a Deal with Google Video to host the clip (on the condition that they also include President Bush's bit with the impersinator, for fairness). C-Span is also selling a DVD of the event.

this is a big developement, because media companies are now realizing the "second life" a piece of video has on the internet, and they are less and less willing to just let Youtube have it for free and get millions of hits to their site for footage they don't own. If more and more companies sign deals with Google, or simply insist that Youtube don't re-broadcast it (like NBC has done), it could very well kill Youtbe. Youtube will only stary successful if they have the bootled videos everyone goes there to see.

Here's the entire NY Times artice:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/08/technology/08colbert.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

A Comedian's Riff on Bush Prompts an E-Spat

By NOAM COHEN Published: May 8, 2006

Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner nine days ago has already created a debate over politics, the press and humor. Now, a commercial rivalry has broken out over its rebroadcast.

On Wednesday, C-Span, the nonprofit network that first showed Mr. Colbert's speech, wrote letters to the video sites YouTube.com and ifilm.com, demanding that the clips of the speech be taken off their Web sites. The action was a first for C-Span, whose prime-time schedule tends to feature events like Congressional hearings on auto fuel-economy standards.

"We have had other hot — I hate to use that word — videos that generated a lot of buzz," said Rob Kennedy, executive vice president of C-Span, which was founded in 1979. "But this is the first time it has occurred since the advent of the video clipping sites."

After the clips of Mr. Colbert's performance were ordered taken down at YouTube — where 41 clips of the speech had been viewed a total of 2.7 million times in less than 48 hours, according to the site — there were rumblings on left-wing sites that someone was trying to silence a man who dared to speak truth to power.

But as became clear later in the week, this was a business decision, not a political one. Not only is the entire event available to be streamed at C-Span's Web site, c-span.org, but the network is selling DVD's of the event for $24.95, including speeches and a comedy routine by President Bush with a President Bush imitator.

And C-Span gave permission to Google Videos to carry the Colbert speech beginning Friday. The arrangement, which came with the stipulation that Google Videos provide the entire event and a clip of Mr. Bush's entire routine as well, is a one-time deal.

Peter Chane, senior product manager of Google Video, said "C-Span has some very, very unique content," adding that "online is really great distribution outlet."

But Julie Supan, senior director for marketing at YouTube, said officials there were stung by C-Span's behavior, because, she said, the site had helped fuel momentum for the Colbert clip.

"This was an exciting moment for them in a viral, random way," she said. "To take it down from one site and uploading on another, it is perplexing."

She also noted that YouTube had tried to make a similar deal for the clip that Google Video eventually made. "Google will stop at nothing to try to win over the community," she said. NOAM COHEN

And now YouTube is "upset" because C-Span gave the footage to Google and forced it off Youtube. Of course they're upset, it;s more illegal files they can't use to drive up traffic!

http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-05-08/ (bottom of the page has YouTube reference)

Video Site YouTube Upset Over C-Span Deal with Google Video

The video site YouTube.com has expressed consternation over C-Span's demand that it remove its video of Stephen Colbert's remarks at the White House Correspondents Dinner last month and the cable channel's subsequent decision to make the same video available to YouTube's rival, Google Videos. In an interview with today's (Monday) New York Times, YouTube marketing director Julie Supan, noting that the Colbert performance had been viewed 2.7 million times in less than 48 hours, commented, "This was an exciting moment for them in a viral, random way. ... To take it down from one site and uploading on another, it is perplexing." The Times observed that C-Span's Google deal requires that not only the Colbert speech be included in the download, but also other speeches, including a routine by President Bush and a Bush impersonator.

Advertisements/revenue

"Advertisements were launched on the site only in March of 2006, indicating that the company did not have a source of revenue since its founding in February of 2005"

Though this may be true, I fail to see how the advertisements indicate precisely this. Reads like a non sequitur to me. FAL 06:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube#Illegal_files

The last paragraph here borders on a how-to script for illegally circumventing YouTube's streaming content... -- nae'blis _(talk) 22:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, not really. Ignoring a practice because it is illegal would mean blanking most of the Rape page. Its nott up to us to decide what is legal or not, but to use Wikipedia to highlight what is notable and verifiably true. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable?

For instance, a phenomenon of male users has surfaced wherein extremely tight underwear is worn and the subject masturbates through the fabric, thus not actually revealing genitals.

I've never heard of this before. Can anyone provide a source for this? JSIN 14:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

famous users

what about write about famous posters of youtube

like nornna , filthy whore , chipmunk girl , that have thousand of viweners everyday

201.79.142.131 10:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really notable since these are private accounts, and none of them are considered a phenomenon. If we listed those people, then we'd have the same right to list people who weren't as popular.

Here are some examples of noteworthy internet celebrities:

Ghyslain Raza aka the Star Wars Kid is considered famous, because there was a big lawsuit over the issue, the video was used in many famous tv shows and video games.

Gary Brolsma is famous, because he is sort of responsible for [Dragostea din Tei] becoming famous in the states, and.

Tila Tequila is famous, because she has been a featured artist on myspace, has licensed merchandise, and has appeared on many tv shows.

When these people become so famous, that the media starts to focus on them, then they might be wikipedia-worthy.

(Human historian 05:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

But they are famous inside Youtube , they get 10.000 views per day on they videos , 1000 comments etc.. i think they should get a little part of the youtube article. Mateus Zica 02:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. They are only famous, inside of youtube. "None of them are considered a phenomenon." There isn't an article for every person on American Idol. They're are for the few that have made it to the finals (and William Hung.) Why is this? Because these are people who have been watched the media, and on several occasions, parodized (cough William Hung.)

These people achieved fame, when the media started writing about them. That's not Wikipedia's goal. The goal here, is to document these stories and archive them, if you will. NOT to make people on youtube/myspace/elftown/friendster/etc. famous.

I understand why you think that it's important to mention these people. But the only people who seem to really care about these youtube users, are other youtube users. "When these people become so famous, that the media starts to focus on them, then they might be wikipedia-worthy."(Human historian 07:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think , you dont understand. im not trying to creat a wiki article for every famous user from youtube , and when i said famous i dindnt mean famous in the "media". i still think is worthy to write aboout them in the youtube article. as a example , for a long time the articles for MySpace, American idol , Orkut etc... have a little piece dedicated to they famous user.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace#MySpace_Celebrities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Idol#The_Idols

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orkut#Instant_celebrity

Mateus Zica 17:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention anything about one page for all. I naturally assumed you meant a page for each person.

If you just have one page that has info about these people, then that's fine. I see no problem with that. Just not an individual page for each person.

(Human historian 17:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It has been hacked, right?

[2]

ALL YOUR VIDEO ARE BELONG TO US.

This is all there is on the page now 203.69.15.23 05:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it. Wtf is with the message on the wiki article?

It's quite simple. Accessing the page's source code reveals the "we're working on the site" message, hidden from observation by just looking at the page itself (as it does not display on the page, but is instead hidden in the code). This is possible with various browsers. Given that it is being reported as occuring at 12 AM, it's quite likely they took the site down for maintenance, which does happen. Tavish 05:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOw do access the source code? And why would they have that retarded message on the front page instead of just a "under construction" page?

If you look at it now it says that it hasnt been hacked and that you need to get a sense of humor =P PrettyMuchBryce 05:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't

Read the site, its a joke. --Dragontamer.