Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 201 posts

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#111

Post by mcphage »

intopieces wrote: post #81
lisper wrote: post #61

I don't want to be a spelling and grammar nazi, but this mistake is being made consistently upstream so I thought I'd point it out: "Loose" is the opposite of "tight". The opposite of "win" (which I'm pretty sure is the word you meant to use) is "lose" with one "o".

When a mistake is made consistently in a language, it becomes the rule. If you know what the person meant, the word did its job, whether it was spelled the way you think it should be or not. Besides, the word 'loose' as a verb works perfectly well in that sentence: "They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or [release] revenue sharing status.

Look, I'm a hard-core descriptive linguistics kind of guy, but it doesn't preclude language mistakes, even common ones. "Loose" might someday become an accepted alternate spelling for "lose", but it isn't yet.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#112

Post by jameshart »

chongli wrote: post #47
bargl wrote: post #5

I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and yo…

Option 7: Full-time Youtube authors with decent-sized subscriber bases should switch to Patreon for their income. The CPM for Youtube ads is not great and tons of Youtube viewers use ad blockers anyway.

Option 7a, Google launch a patreon-equivalent system for youtube authors to use, and bootstraps a patronage economy.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#113

Post by ars »

lisper wrote: post #61

I don't want to be a spelling and grammar nazi, but this mistake is being made consistently upstream so I thought I'd point it out: "Loose" is the opposite of "tight". The opposite of "win" (which I'm pretty sure is the word you meant to use) is "lose" with one "o".

I know :(

I'm great with then than, it's its, even effect affect. But Loose vs Lose I constantly get wrong. Something about a single/double o changing the s to a z sound just isn't working for me.

They should have spelled it looze instead :(

Edit: Decided to check the etymology to see who came up with that spelling. Apparently lose is related to lost and loss, maybe that will help me remember. I hope so.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#114

Post by intopieces »

mcphage wrote: post #111
intopieces wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a mistake is made consistently in a language, it becomes the rule. If you know what the person meant, the word did its job, whether it was spelled the way you think it should be or not. Besides, the word 'loose' as a verb works perfectly well in that sentence: "They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or [release] revenue sharing status.

Look, I'm a hard-core descriptive linguistics kind of guy, but it doesn't preclude language mistakes, even common ones. "Loose" might someday become an accepted alternate spelling for "lose", but it isn't yet.

>but it isn't yet.

True. But what do we gain in the meantime by quibbling over typographical errors? Did anyone really read this fellow's comment and go, 'wait, what? That doesn't make any sense. I can't make heads or tails of this person's sentence.'I have hard time believing so. And, if the situation is as the parent comment described --- 'this error is made consistently upstream' -- then we're looking at the collapse of loose/lose probably in the same timeframe as 'they're/their/there' and 'to/too/two'.

My main point is that language is not a static set of do's and don't's. It lives. If you need someone to clarify, ask them! But pointing your teacher's baton at them and saying, 'you're using your language wrong' is a waste of life.

But, then again, I'm sure this user will never "misspell" (an hilarious notion, given how recently spelling was standardized to start!) that word again, so perhaps my fervor has backfired.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#115

Post by dtparr »

ergothus wrote: post #91
JshWright wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't say "this service has no ads, then include ads" That's exactly what Hulu did with their new "ad-free" option. There are a handful of shows they couldn't license with no ads, so they have a pre-roll ad, and a disclaimer about why.

...and as someone that is considering paying for said ad-free option, this is the sort of thing that makes me think twice...

Out of curiosity, is there some reason a 15sec preroll on 7 shows is so off putting? Are they some of the main things you'd watch? Is it the principle of ads in an "ad free plan"?

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#117

Post by anvil_jones »

austenallred wrote: post #63

Here's a statement I got from a YouTube spokesperson: "Creators have been asking us to launch a subscription service -- so that, combined with user demand, is why we built the service and why the overwhelming majority of our partners, representing over 98% of the content watched on YouTube, have signed up. Videos of partners who don’t update their terms will be made private ​in the US at launch ​because we think It i…

Why exactly would there be less content with YouTube Red if the "partners" didn't switch over? I guess I also don't understand why the TOS of the partner program enable them to unlist the video, but not sign them up for the program.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#118

Post by deckar01 »

bargl wrote: post #5

I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and yo…

How about show you videos from creators who don't sign the deal, don't show ads, pay the virtual ad revenue, keep the subscription share. I bet the share of subscription revenue is greater than the ad revenue.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#119

Post by askvictor »

bargl wrote: post #5

I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and yo…

How about: Show videos from creators who don't sign, but without any ads for anyone. I presume this would mean those creators wouldn't get any revenue at all.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#120

Post by russelldc »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #77
ars wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yah, Google did the right thing here. You can't say "this service has no ads, then include ads", and you can't say "if you subscribe you see less videos". They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or loose revenue sharing status.

I think it will make YouTube much smaller - if a channel has been abandoned then content is also gone. Too bad, I like to see lectures and documentaries, or some old and forgotten music, so all this will also go ... Maybe they want all the rarely viewed videos gone so that they can cut on storage costs? Also if you ripped and posted some old disk then you are not holding any rights so this content is also gone.

This only applies to YouTube partners, not any creator.
Post reply on HN