Youtube Subscription Channels

[Renegade]

In case you've not seen the new Youtube subscription changes, here's an example:

https://www.youtube.com/user/BusyBeaversTV

[attachthumb=#]

[tomos]

I'm not sure how different this is - above is subscription for one channel, IIUC this below is a general YT subscription.

YouTube's paid subscription offering takes shape — and it's almost here (The Verge)

this caught my eye:

And YouTube's carrot comes with a stick — creators are required to participate in the subscription offering, or every video on their channels will be set to private, sources said. The move will likely upset some creators, who may object to aspects of the program.

[Deozaan]

I'm not sure how different this is - above is subscription for one channel, IIUC this below is a general YT subscription.

YouTube's paid subscription offering takes shape — and it's almost here (The Verge)

this caught my eye:

And YouTube's carrot comes with a stick — creators are required to participate in the subscription offering, or every video on their channels will be set to private, sources said. The move will likely upset some creators, who may object to aspects of the program.

Does this mean I get paid when a subscriber watches my videos even if they don't see any ads?

[tomos]

^I believe so.
It sounds to me like this -
you get paid *if* you make the video subscription
but,
you are then blocking all non-subscription viewers, so you might not be getting a lot of views....

[TaoPhoenix]

This is another thing I'll be watching the overall theme about. To me it screams of "I have altered how you think of Youtube. Pray I don't alter it further!"

[tomos]

YouTube Will Completely Remove Videos Of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal (techcrunch.com)

YouTube made its top video creators an offer they literally couldn’t refuse, or they’d have their content disappear. Today YouTube confirmed that any “partner” creator who earns a cut of ad revenue but doesn’t agree to sign its revenue share deal for its new YouTube Red $9.99 ad-free subscription will have their videos hidden from public view on both the ad-supported and ad-free tiers. That includes videos by popular comedians, musicians, game commentators, and DIY instructors, though not the average person that uploads clips.

It’s a tough pill to swallow that makes YouTube look like a bully. Though turning existing fans into paid subscribers instead of free viewers could earn creators more than the ad revenue, forcing them into the deal seems heavy-handed.

http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/21/an-offer-creators-cant-refuse/

[Stoic Joker]

Welcome to the internet: A place where you pay a bunch of money for a device, that requires you to pay more money for a connection, just so you can pay even more money for access to places that want you to pay money to see a bunch of stuff that you can/must/need to buy!

...And ^they call piracy theft. Ha!

[rgdot]

Much like previous post about rooting devices, people not accepting it will kill it. But will people do that...

[tomos]

[..] popular comedians, musicians, game commentators, and DIY instructors [will be forced to join the new 'Red' subscription], though not the average person that uploads clips.

my emphasis
--
I wonder how they will decide who is an 'average' uploader?
Cause that's what we're going to see as unpaid viewers.
If my video about saving a cat goes viral, will the google come down heavy and demand I join 'Red' ?

[Renegade]

...And ^they call piracy theft. Ha!

Tangentially related:

https://torrentfreak.com/kickasstorrents-blocked-again-over-harmful-programs-151021/

KICKASSTORRENTS BLOCKED AGAIN OVER “HARMFUL PROGRAMS”
BY ERNESTO ON OCTOBER 21, 2015 C: 80
BREAKING
KickassTorrents is continuing to have problems with Google's unwanted software policy. After the site resolved an earlier problem with a bad advertiser, Firefox and Chrome users are again barred from accessing the popular torrent index. Instead, they see an ominous warning screen.

Starting a few hours ago Chrome and Firefox began blocking user access to KickassTorrents (KAT) again.

Google’s safebrowsing algorithm flagged the website under its ‘unwanted software’ program, which is often triggered by malicious third-party advertising.

More at the link.

But I'm totally for sure like absolutely positive that these aren't even remotely related... 

[MilesAhead]

...And ^they call piracy theft. Ha!

My father always said "the best defense is a good offense."  There ain't much more offensive on the net than the DMCA.    I think it inevitable that each internet access, be it only an ack, nack, or ping, will mean KaChing to the providers.  Different interactions will be charged at different rates.  A handshake to connect will be cheaper than an RPC etc..  But once it is all in the cloud you will pay for every packet.  Even worse you won't be able to scream bloody murder if you are behind on your breathable air payments.  Every thought you think every drop you drink they'll be chargin' you!!

[JavaJones]

"Hi guys. You've gotten rich off of our platform with your original content. That's great! But we want more predictable revenue so we're rolling out a subscription model. You've got to participate if you want to keep using our service. If not, no worries, go use some other service. Vimeo? Sure, go for it! Whatever makes you happy."

Is it greedy? Maybe. Are they being a "bully"? Perhaps. Is it *fair*? Yes, absolutely, it sure is. They built the platform and made it available for free in exchange for monetizing people's videos (a practice which, by the way, earns the top YouTubers millions of dollars a year). They are free to choose how they monetize those videos, and have every right to enforce that on the users of their otherwise free service.

P.S. Welcome to television, where you pay a bunch of money for a device (TV) and then a bunch of money for a "connection" (cable), just so you can pay even more money for access to places (premium channels, e.g. HBO) that want you to pay money to see a bunch of stuff that you can/must/need to buy (movies on-demand, etc.)!

So, yeah, it's been like this for a long time and at least when you're paying for A: a computer and B: the Internet (and not necessarily C: YouTube), you have 2 very powerful and useful things, a computing device, and a data pipe to the world's information, most of which still comes for free. Most of all you still have *choice*. Good luck trying to choose with your cable company.

- Oshyan

[Renegade]

Every thought you think every drop you drink they'll be chargin' you!!

Now that was a brilliant allusion!~ 

[mouser]

People who have read my posts over the years know that i have major issues with google and how they bully their way around.  But this is one case where I don't it's a big deal and where there was no viable alternative.  If you are going to offer people the ability to pay to opt-out of ads, you can't very well have individual video channels showing ads anyway.

The one thing google could/should do is guarantee video channel creators that the money they will get from opt-out subscribers will be no less than what they would have received before the new option.  That would seem to be a major win-win for everyone.

As an aside -- $10/month to remove ads? That's a ton of money to expect people to cough up.  Too rich for my blood by far.  I wonder if they are pricing it that high because they really don't want many people to take advantage of it...

[JavaJones]

Don't forget, though, that the $10/mo is *inclusive* not only of ad removal but also a Google Play Music subscription (unlimited streaming music) as well as the forthcoming YouTube music thingy (music video subscription thing?). I already pay $7.99 (normally $9.99, same price as YT) for Google Music and I'll apparently get YT ad free as a result. It's all bundled together, or so I'm lead to understand. In which case awesome!

Edit: Also remember that Hulu's subscription service is $7.99/mo *with* ads, and $11.99/mo without. So there's that...

- Oshyan

[Deozaan]

Welcome to the internet: A place where you pay a bunch of money for a device, that requires you to pay more money for a connection, just so you can pay even more money for access to places that want you to pay money to see a bunch of stuff that you can/must/need to buy!

Sounds like a natural consequence of ISPs double dipping. Charging us for access to the internet, then charging content providers for us to access their content on the internet. If ISPs (such as Comcast) are charging content providers (such as Netflix) ransom money so that consumers can access the content at a decent speed, it's only natural and necessary that the content providers will need to figure out a way to get more money to pay the ransom. And it's not too much of a leap to get the idea that they'd pass that cost onto the consumer.

[MilesAhead]

Google Play Music subscription (unlimited streaming music)

A bit tangential but does this service allow you to download and un-drm the content?  It is not always convenient to be connect to listen to a tune.  One thing that gets old early is paying for the same tunes multiple times just because it is on a different medium(or the same medium but processed with a few more bits that the last time it was processed and rerecorded.)

[JavaJones]

Miles, you *can* download (store on device) your music, at least on mobile. On desktop I don't think there's an option for that (it's browser-based). You don't own the music you store on your device though, unless you actually buy it separately (Google Play *store*). You can then listen to that music offline anytime, anywhere, and it never expires, but that's just the stuff you bought. The unlimited streaming is separate, allows you to "cache" your music (download), but it won't stick around if you cancel the subscription. Does that make sense?

- Oshyan

[MilesAhead]

Does that make sense?

I get it.  Thanks for the details.  I don't have a smart phone so a streaming deal like that does not work as well for me.  I still use my trusty rusty Philips MP3 Player.  I don't like to keep earbuds in for very long.  Perhaps that's why I haven't worn the player out yet. 

[Renegade]

I don't like to keep earbuds in for very long.

That's one of the reasons why I use over-ear headphones. They don't get painful like earbuds. The only issue is that it's a bit harder to find over-ear headphones with fabric instead of plastic for the covers. Plastic (or leather) gets hot and sweaty.

[MilesAhead]

Plastic (or leather) gets hot and sweaty.

I had a nice pair of Sony headphones that spent years in the pouch in the drawer for that reason.  I only broke them out when I wanted to blast my stereo in the early AM.  Even with the A/C on my ears got itchy.

[Renegade]

Plastic (or leather) gets hot and sweaty.

I had a nice pair of Sony headphones that spent years in the pouch in the drawer for that reason.  I only broke them out when I wanted to blast my stereo in the early AM.  Even with the A/C on my ears got itchy.

I find it very odd that fabric over-ear headphones are so hard to find. They are far more comfortable. Like you say -- even with A/C.

[MilesAhead]

I find it very odd that fabric over-ear headphones are so hard to find. They are far more comfortable. Like you say -- even with A/C.

I don't think I've ever seen the fabric kind.  One would think another feature could be a fastener so that you could remove the fabric covers and wash them.  Ears do get nasty pretty quickly.  Especially if the ear wax is from somebody else.  (How do you spell eeeeuuuooooo?)

[JavaJones]

Fabric is more expensive and harder to clean. So it seems logical it's for cost/practical/functional reasons. But now I'm intrigued about fabric earphone covers...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/368310-REG/Garfield_SGARHS1_Headphone_Softie_Earpad.html
Hehe.

- Oshyan

[MilesAhead]

Fabric is more expensive and harder to clean. So it seems logical it's for cost/practical/functional reasons. But now I'm intrigued about fabric earphone covers...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/368310-REG/Garfield_SGARHS1_Headphone_Softie_Earpad.html
Hehe.

- Oshyan

Just what I need.  $18 ear pad covers for my $5 Koss headphones.  heh  The weird thing is the Koss earbuds I got for $4 sound much better.  The Koss headphones have a flat sound that distorts if I enable "full sound" on my MP3 player.  The Koss earbuds handle it with no side effects.

The headphones are good for online streaming.  Like listening to the Patriots football game yesterday.  Full stereo is not important and it is more convenient to pull them off and hang them around the neck than trying to avoid tangling the buds.