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

Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 234 posts

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#21

Post by Deimorz »

gamblor956 wrote: post #18
Deimorz wrote: post #11

I don't understand why people are acting like this is ridiculous and will obviously fail. 30% is the same cut that Apple and Google take for everything that goes through their app stores, including all in-app purchases. It's the same cut that Steam takes. It's the same cut that YouTube takes for channel membership. Twitch takes an even larger cut: 50% from subscriptions. It's extremely well-established that people ar…

The problem isn't the %. It's the perpetual IP license, which grants Facebook complete non exclusive rights to the Creator's IP, including licensing it to third parties without further pay to the Creator.

Patreon requires you to grant them an extremely similar license:

> You keep full ownership of all content that you post on Patreon, but to operate we need licenses from you.

> By posting content to Patreon you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to use, reproduce, distribute, perform, publicly display or prepare derivative works of your content. The purpose of this license is to allow us to operate Patreon, promote Patreon and promote your content on Patreon. We are not trying to steal your content or use it in an exploitative way.

(from https://www.patreon.com/legal)

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#22

Post by networkimprov »

luckylion wrote: post #19
networkimprov wrote: post #16

This could be a huge boost for Patreon. A significant fraction of creators will seek alternatives when they hear about the FB product, or after being burned by it.

The problem isn't in on the creator side, it's getting users to go, sign up and pledge. FB already has the users, it just needs to give them an option to sign up. Twitch streamers also use Patreon, but subscriptions and cheers on Twitch are more successful from what I can tell - it's closer to the content. If somebody is using FB as the primary way to release content, it's only natural to also do the donations/subscr…

I'd expect high-end buyers (who typically account for a large majority of the total market) would follow the creators to Patreon if it's creator community expands rapidly.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#23

Post by RileyJames »

> But whatever cut it takes will be after processing fees and the 15 to 30 percent tax Apple and Google levy on iOS and Android in-app purchases. We’ll see if Facebook tries a workaround that pushes users to their mobile browser where it can take their subscription money tax-free.

That makes it kinda ridiculous.

$5 subscription.

30% to Apple: $1.5

30% to Facebook: $1.05 (of the remaining $3.50)

Leaving the creator with: $2.45

I assume it will be out of control of the content creator regarding how the subscriber chooses to pay/subscribe, so the margins could be all over the place.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#24

Post by autokad »

Deimorz wrote: post #11

I don't understand why people are acting like this is ridiculous and will obviously fail. 30% is the same cut that Apple and Google take for everything that goes through their app stores, including all in-app purchases. It's the same cut that Steam takes. It's the same cut that YouTube takes for channel membership. Twitch takes an even larger cut: 50% from subscriptions. It's extremely well-established that people ar…

I truly believe its these excessively large cuts that make it impossible for these platforms to really grow, grow to something actually substantial.

I know what some are thinking, these platforms are extremely successful. this is partially true, but they haven't thrived anywhere near I think they are capable of.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#25

Post by xpaulbettsx »

gamblor956 wrote: post #18
Deimorz wrote: post #11

I don't understand why people are acting like this is ridiculous and will obviously fail. 30% is the same cut that Apple and Google take for everything that goes through their app stores, including all in-app purchases. It's the same cut that Steam takes. It's the same cut that YouTube takes for channel membership. Twitch takes an even larger cut: 50% from subscriptions. It's extremely well-established that people ar…

The problem isn't the %. It's the perpetual IP license, which grants Facebook complete non exclusive rights to the Creator's IP, including licensing it to third parties without further pay to the Creator.

This boilerplate exists in literally every site that hosts user-created content in some form and displays it to other people. If it didn't exist, the site would immediately be violating your copyright if they showed your content to anyone other than you

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#26

Post by riffraff »

kalleboo wrote: post #15
Deimorz wrote: post #11

I don't understand why people are acting like this is ridiculous and will obviously fail. 30% is the same cut that Apple and Google take for everything that goes through their app stores, including all in-app purchases. It's the same cut that Steam takes. It's the same cut that YouTube takes for channel membership. Twitch takes an even larger cut: 50% from subscriptions. It's extremely well-established that people ar…

One thing that helps justify it to creators for all these services (including Facebook) over Patreon is that they at least provide hosting, usually of bandwidth-heavy video files or live streaming. Patreon just hosts the equivalent of a Twitter feed linking to YouTube videos.

I don't use patreon but isn't there often 'patron-exclusive" content? I thought that content was hosted on patreon itself.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#27

Post by girzel »

Deimorz wrote: post #21
gamblor956 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't the %. It's the perpetual IP license, which grants Facebook complete non exclusive rights to the Creator's IP, including licensing it to third parties without further pay to the Creator.

Patreon requires you to grant them an extremely similar license: > You keep full ownership of all content that you post on Patreon, but to operate we need licenses from you. > By posting content to Patreon you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to use, reproduce, distribute, perform, publicly display or prepare derivative works of your content. The purpose…

but... sublicensable?

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#28

Post by gnicholas »

xpaulbettsx wrote: post #25
gamblor956 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem isn't the %. It's the perpetual IP license, which grants Facebook complete non exclusive rights to the Creator's IP, including licensing it to third parties without further pay to the Creator.

This boilerplate exists in literally every site that hosts user-created content in some form and displays it to other people. If it didn't exist, the site would immediately be violating your copyright if they showed your content to anyone other than you

That doesn’t explain why it needs to stay in effect after you terminate your relationship with them.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#29

Post by oliveshell »

riffraff wrote: post #26
kalleboo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that helps justify it to creators for all these services (including Facebook) over Patreon is that they at least provide hosting, usually of bandwidth-heavy video files or live streaming. Patreon just hosts the equivalent of a Twitter feed linking to YouTube videos.

I don't use patreon but isn't there often 'patron-exclusive" content? I thought that content was hosted on patreon itself.

I’m not actually sure if Patreon hosts video, but the one creator I subscribe to, AvE, posts videos a early for patrons as unlisted YouTube videos. After a week or so, they go public.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#30

Post by Deimorz »

girzel wrote: post #27
Deimorz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patreon requires you to grant them an extremely similar license: > You keep full ownership of all content that you post on Patreon, but to operate we need licenses from you. > By posting content to Patreon you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to use, reproduce, distribute, perform, publicly display or prepare derivative works of your content. The purpose…

but... sublicensable?

I don't know what you're asking. It says "sublicensable" in there, yes.
Post reply on HN