Contact Info / Websites

Death Of Youtube Article

2016-09-05 19:22:27 by ti-on-suxandrox

Death Of Youtube

A few months ago I wrote an article about the latest moment when Youtubers who attempt to earn a living through Youtube Ad-Revenue made videos protesting something that Youtube did. Honestly, it’s tiresome at this point. People have been complaining about Youtube Ad-Revenue, Youtube’s Copyright system and various other topics relating to Youtube for years. When I was young and Youtube first appeared online and offered ordinary people the opportunity to become viral Internet sensations and make money doing it, people were complaining about the exact same issues.


One of the many problems is that most of the content released on Youtube doesn’t belong to the people who post it online. Yet, the people who post the content online will demand that they be paid for the content that they posted, based on the number of views that they received for it. This is absolutely ridiculous to me.
The people who generally don’t seem to be affected or care about the Youtube policies are the people who make original content, like animation or live-action skits/movies. The people who constantly complain about Youtube are the critics.


You know the people i’m talking about. The people who film themselves talking over video games and demand to be paid a living wage for doing so. The people who take clips from a video game or a cartoon or a movie and use the footage unedited with commentary underneath it to justify their use of copyrighted content to make money.
A problem is that these people will always appear to be correct, because they are the majority. These people put out content so frequently because they don’t make their own content. Nobody can tell me with a straight face that any Youtuber who can upload at least one video per day is putting in enough effort to creating original content to justify their continued existence and wage.


There are millions of Youtubers out there who seem to be very intelligent people. Every time Youtube threatens to take away their precious money because they are using content that a lot of people spent a lot of time and money creating, thousands, if not millions of Youtubers will start screaming for Youtube to give them their money back.
What will happen next is that, from the outsider’s perspective, Youtube and the evil corporations are stealing the money of these poor Youtubers who need ad revenue to continue to survive and create the content that they have come to enjoy. The Youtubers are the noble Robin Hood’s, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.


Except, it’s not quite like that at all. A corporation is an entity made up of a lot of people with jobs who work to create things for consumers to purchase. The video game that a Youtuber used for his Let’s Play video to make some money was crafted by a number of people working to create a product for consumers to purchase. If a consumer refuses to purchase a game because they could just watch somebody play it for free, or pirate it online, those people who worked on the game might lose their jobs.


We’ve already seen the damage that file-sharing and piracy have done to the music industry over the years. I don’t need to remind people that when Napster first appeared and the infamous Metallica lawsuit happened, people were against Metallica for daring to fight for the right to make a profit off of the music they created. This was also when Metallica released their most disliked albums, and I believe that the public’s opinion of Metallica’s music was at least partially influenced by the attention giving to the lawsuit. It might not be a coincidence that when Death Magnetic was released when a new generation appeared that might not have been aware of the lawsuit, it was better received.


The thing that people don’t seem to understand is that the people who are most affected by online piracy, by Youtubers stealing people’s content, and by the Internet’s attitude towards copyright, are the people we rarely hear about. We rarely hear about the musicians who never made money due to the rise of file-sharing and piracy, nor do we hear about the filmmakers who never had a chance to make a dime from their movies. Instead, we hear about the rich people, or the people who are already established within the industry. Which means that the Youtubers we hear talking about these issues instantly seem more relatable by comparison.


Ignoring all of the meaningless debates, the one thing that most Youtubers don’t quite understand is that the money generated by Youtube doesn’t appear magically out of thin air when someone makes a video. Rather, it comes from advertising from big business. As Youtube gets bigger and bigger it becomes more necessary to get more advertising money just to stay afloat. The more powerful Youtube becomes, the more money it needs and the more Youtubers will be ignored so that more money will be paid to the people who actually give the site money.


If Pewdiepie disappeared from Youtube, it would still make money because Pewdiepie is a parasite feeding off of Youtube and the money given to Youtube by corporations. Pewdiepie, and other Youtubers are not making Youtube money with their content, corporations are deciding to give Youtube money to pay for ads based on the overall popularity of the site. In fact, with Patreon appearing and certain Youtubers electing to please their fans by disabling ads, it makes sense for Youtube to attempt to place more ads on their videos and make more money to continue to allow the site to run.


There’s a parallel that can be drawn between the audience of a Youtuber and the people giving Youtube money for ads that becomes even more clear when Patreon and Kickstarter are added to the equation. Youtube wants to make money, and it needs investors to continue to make enough money to support themselves as their spending increases. The same applies to Youtubers.


This article means nothing. If people read it, they’ll probably spend all of their time searching for flaws in my argument rather than attempting to see my point. I’m just a nobody in a corner of the Internet few people visit. Therefore, I don’t matter in the slightest bit and my opinion is invalid.


Comments

You must be logged in to comment on this post.


SurkolSurkol

2016-09-15 04:58:04

That's a lot of text. I like youtube topics though so I'm gonna share some thoughts.

"my opinion is invalid"
Yeah (◕‿◕)

"One of the many problems is that most of the content released on Youtube doesn’t belong to the people who post it online. "

And the problem that some people are taking youtube videos. Uploads them to facebook and generate millions of views before the video gets removed. I think I saw a video by Veritasium talking about this.

I've seen a couple of videos about the latest youtube ad drama. From what I've heard one good thing is that before when there was questionable content on a video, they just reduced/removed the ad revenue without saying anything to the youtuber. Now they changed it so that they see that they won't get paid for the video. But the reasons they have for flagging videos as not advertiser friendly are just so vague and stupid, it seems almost impossible to follow all the rules.

" If a consumer refuses to purchase a game because they could just watch somebody play it for free, or pirate it online, those people who worked on the game might lose their jobs."

I partially agree with this. Sometimes I watch videos or livestreams just to see if the game is worth purchasing and I also think that a lot of people will buy a game that for example TotalBiscuit plays. There are a lot of instances where youtubers like pewdiepie for instance has been paid just to make a clip of him playing the game (which he got criticized for).

I don't know how relevant this is but I think you might find it interesting; "YouTube still doesn't make Google any money". Try google that. There's a couple of articles from last year saying that they we're pretty much breaking even for a couple of reasons. One that I've heard is the cost of the technology that they've been investing a lot in. I don't know if this is true today though.

"Pewdiepie is a parasite feeding off of Youtube"
What bothers me is how much easier his content is to mass produce. He's abusing the system like the click bait videos did when youtube was new. The let's play genre (and vlogs) boomed when they changed the system to consider playtime. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it. I think he's a talented guy but it's hard not to get annoyed at the fact that he's mass producing videos with clickbait titles when other people spends weeks making one video.

Hmm. Got bored now. Have a nice day! (´• ω •`)ノ

ti-on-suxandrox responds:

"I partially agree with this. Sometimes I watch videos or livestreams just to see if the game is worth purchasing and I also think that a lot of people will buy a game that for example TotalBiscuit plays. There are a lot of instances where youtubers like pewdiepie for instance has been paid just to make a clip of him playing the game (which he got criticized for)."

I'm actually referring to story-based games which seem to lose money when the entire story is available to be viewed online. I know many people who didn't buy 'Until Dawn' for instance because they could simply watch someone play the game for free online. There was actually an article I read about how much having a well-known Let's Player like Pewdiepie affects a game's sales. It appeared as though Triple-A games (which would have likely been played anyways and made money regardless) didn't achieve significantly higher sales as a result. Indie Games didn't achieve a significant boost in sales either as a result. What tends to happen is that word-of-mouth, good press and fan communities that often spring up will strengthen a game's sales, and the Youtuber will profit off of the game's hype by making a video of them playing the game.

"What bothers me is how much easier his content is to mass produce. He's abusing the system like the click bait videos did when youtube was new. The let's play genre (and vlogs) boomed when they changed the system to consider playtime. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve it. I think he's a talented guy but it's hard not to get annoyed at the fact that he's mass producing videos with clickbait titles when other people spends weeks making one video."

That's one of the points that I planned to make in the article. Actually, all of those points that you made were on Game Theory, so i'm gonna assume you're a Matpat fan, which is why you made the "Weeks to make one video comment," which was, again, another point made on the show.

The larger point that I was trying to make is that the critical videos and Let's Plays are a part of what I personally dislike about Youtube, and the videos being made defending the practices are starting to fall into a cycle. Since the videos defending the practice of profiting off of stealing videos from cartoons/video games/movies (with little to no editing being done) then producing an improvised commentary using a cheap video editor, usually feature the Youtuber simply speaking in front of a camera, often lying about the situation don't have any copyrighted material, they can make money off of it easily, gain support from fans and gain new fans as a result.

I get it, but I don't like it. There are ways to market new and interesting ideas, as well as entirely new and interesting content. The problem is that very few people care, so it's easily to take old ideas and find ways to profit off of them, at the expense of the original creators on occasion. This process has existed since the first pornographic images of cartoon characters were sold on the Internet.

The best justification that I can give for Let's Plays is that it's the equivalent of a radio show where an announcer plays music and talks about current events that are related to the music, or simply interesting news stories. The main difference is that radio stations have to pay royalties for the songs they play, Let's Players adamantly refuse to pay similar fees for the games they play (with many pirating the games for free), and Youtube Critics will do the same with cartoons and movies.

"I don't know how relevant this is but I think you might find it interesting; "YouTube still doesn't make Google any money". Try google that. There's a couple of articles from last year saying that they we're pretty much breaking even for a couple of reasons. One that I've heard is the cost of the technology that they've been investing a lot in. I don't know if this is true today though."

I actually do believe that this is partially true. As the site gets bigger it will need more money to sustain itself, which is probably why the site is trying harder to appeal to investors and advertisers at the expense of Youtubers. The reason why I said that Pewdiepie is a parasite was because I was trying to make a point. Pewdiepie, and other content creators, are asking for money from a site while costing the site ad revenue by disabling ads on their videos by seeking money from Patreon and Kickstarter. The site's staff probably has to work extremely hard just to break even, and as it gets bigger it will need to work even harder.

This is something that someone told me about big-budget companies like Disney. They spend large amounts of money to create their products and manage their empire. Since they spend large amount of money, they need to get large amounts of money to stay afloat. The more they spend, the more they need to make. This isn't sustainable, so it either needs to cut costs, subsidize their income in some way, or merge with another company. This is only placing a bandage on the problem, and eventually any company will collapse under the weight. Youtube is no exception, neither is Google.

"And the problem that some people are taking youtube videos. Uploads them to facebook and generate millions of views before the video gets removed. I think I saw a video by Veritasium talking about this."

This is actually a good point. I think that, on Facebook anyways, people are searching for different content, or more accurately, stumble across content that interests them. Youtubers will search and click on what they know and like, as well as subscribe to people they know and like. Facebook people will stumble across a strange thing, or something that relates to them and share it. A 20-minute Let's Play wouldn't be successful on Facebook, but it would be on Youtube. While a three-minute animation would be more likely to be successful on Facebook than Youtube.

It is a bad thing to steal content and profit of of it. This is a debate going back to the first time someone copied a piece of art and sold it for a profit. People have been debating about the ethics of profiting off of someone's art for years. The Internet is still a new and exciting place for content creators to get noticed, but it's also a great place for people to take advantage of content creators. So, the challenge is to make sure that thieves are able to be punished suitably, and content creators are able to be compensated for their work fairly.


SurkolSurkol

2016-09-19 08:26:24

Yeah I've watched some episodes of game theory but I'm not an avid fan so no it wasn't an intentional reference. I just remembered someone talking about the problem with flash movies and that they can't compete on youtube. I'm pretty sure Harry Partridge have talked about this. How much time he spends on a project and that it's not worth the time and so on.

About Patreon. I don't really like when successful content creators pretty much begs for money. Though I think Patreon and merchandise is a good way to support someone like Harry Partridge where it's impossible to compete for views and watch time.

"usually feature the Youtuber simply speaking in front of a camera"
Some reaction channels are just the worst. LeafyIsHere is at least trying but there are some really low channels that GradeAUnderA mentions in a couple of videos.

One big problem with copyright is; If they would ban everything that used others music, games or movie/youtube clips in anyway. People would have a much harder time be expressing themselves and that wouldn't be a fun world.

I can't really say that someone like Pewdiepie doesn't deserve his success and say that it was easy for him. If it's so easy why wouldn't I be able to do what he does?

(Updated ) ti-on-suxandrox responds:

"Yeah I've watched some episodes of game theory but I'm not an avid fan so no it wasn't an intentional reference. I just remembered someone talking about the problem with flash movies and that they can't compete on youtube. I'm pretty sure Harry Partridge have talked about this. How much time he spends on a project and that it's not worth the time and so on."

I remember when Game Theory did a video on why Pewdiepie is as successful as he is, people started quoting it whenever discussions like this popped up. I guess i'm just used to talking with Game Theory fans, or reading direct quotes from the show. Some of what you said seemed like it was taken directly from the show, so I assumed that you were quoting it. I apologize for passing judgement.

"About Patreon. I don't really like when successful content creators pretty much begs for money. Though I think Patreon and merchandise is a good way to support someone like Harry Partridge where it's impossible to compete for views and watch time."

Don't get me wrong, I like Patreon to an extent. What I don't like is people who constantly beg for money. Or people who mishandle the money they receive and lie to their fanbase so that they get more money.

"usually feature the Youtuber simply speaking in front of a camera"
Some reaction channels are just the worst. LeafyIsHere is at least trying but there are some really low channels that GradeAUnderA mentions in a couple of videos.

These are the channels which I tend to dislike, honestly.

"One big problem with copyright is; If they would ban everything that used others music, games or movie/youtube clips in anyway. People would have a much harder time be expressing themselves and that wouldn't be a fun world."

I'm not saying that they should ban everything that used others music, games or movies/Youtube clips. What i'm saying is that they shouldn't simply take the content, make the bare minimum required alterations to the content, and then profit off of it. For instance, Zero Punctuation rarely uses any copyrighted content at all, mostly just royalty free images, and his review series is one of the most entertaining review series there is. His style isn't even that difficult to replicate, just as long as a person has access to an image editing program and a basic video editor. People on Deviantart and Fanfiction who write stories and draw pictures of their favourite characters (or use photoshop to create something cool) don't often have legal action taken against them. Heck, there are a lot of musicians who are perfectly fine with having their music sampled to create something cool, as long as they're asked for their permission beforehand. In fact, I would argue that placing limitations on how people use copyrighted content inspires people to be creative, more than if all content was freely available to use in any way a person sees fit.

The problem with Let's Players and Internet Critics is that they seem to assume that all content is okay for them to use. Yes, content can be used for the purpose of criticism, but there is a legal limit (though it's debatable what the limit is) of the amount of content that is allowed to be used for this purpose. For instance, if the cartoon you are reviewing is 20 minutes long, then you can't used 19 minutes of the cartoon for your review video. Likewise, if a game's story campaign is five hours long (pretty short, but i'm trying to make a point) then you can't make a series of Let's Plays where you play through the entire campaign.

Besides, the 'Fair Use' thing people talk about is a legal defence, not a law. You can say that a video is 'Fair Use' in a court of law, but the jury is allowed to decide if it's excusable or not. You can't dodge a court order or fight a corporation with 'Fair Use' as your only weapon, and I don't like Youtubers who think otherwise.