Talk:YouTube

10 minutes

Should there be a comment that users circumvent the 10 minute limit by cutting the video they intend to upload (in my experience, only copyrighted works, including The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift) into pieces, or is that too obvious?

Actually, anyone can upload a file longer than 10 minutes still. I did it before I had a director's account. The quality of the video is just decreased a bit as they have to compress it more. I've seen 45 minute videos uploaded on non-director accounts after the April change. The 100MB limit still is hardcoded but the 10 minute deal is more of a 'scare sign'.

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)

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)

There was a Slate magazine article that 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.

The use of Illegal Files as a section title is misleading and is a completely loaded term. Changed section title to Copyright Infrigement since that is what the true issue is.

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)

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.

"Tube" is (American) slang for TV.

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Iirc, this is the sort of thing Napster users did for a while- uploading songs with innocuous names to share with friends, which may have become standard after a while. 70.66.9.162 09:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Um, why not just put tv style video ads in front of the videos, or a single frame for quick loading "This video brought to you by, Burger King" JayKeaton 01:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Colbert clips

The NY Times recently ran a story about Stephen Colbert's speech at the Whitehouse Correspondence dinner. Colbert's speech 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 impersonator, 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 Youtube. Youtube will only stay successful if they have the bootleg videos that 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)

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)

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)

I wish someone would put the paragraph because I really liked downloading those videos and they editing them to look funny

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)

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)

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))

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)

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))

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)

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))

A Notable YouTube Users page has been created to merge all notable YT users together. Also a link to that article has been placed in the 'see also' section. --Bschott 18:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

See the "View" tab on the top of your browser? Click it. Do you see the "page source" or the "source" option? Yes, congradulations, you have found the source code. Observation 06:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question about the "retarded message," but a terrible way to say it. My friend in web-design speculated that it's a way to advertise, and that site hits will increase in the next couple of days. I personally thought the message was kind of offensive to YouTube's viewers. (YouTube clearly doesn't follow Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith rule). Also, I don't think the site maintenance actually happened at midnight, but even earlier at 10:30 pm or 11:00 pm PST. - Zepheus 16:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it hasn't

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

Boy, what a time this was in YouTube history. I hearby dub that time "The YouTube Catastrophe".

I don't like this site very much. The (asian nerd) humor doesn't appeal to me.

You can find a lot more things on youtube if you know how and where to look.

Updating Info

This article has a section on famous YouTube users. I think this section has to be updated, because I'm on YouTube almost every day, and many of the listed "famous users" such as FilthyWhore, Smosh, Emmalina, and tasha aren't really famous anymore, and different people have replaced them. What does everyone else think? Chavila 03:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should perhaps have only classic list of perhaps 2 or 3 "famous" users. It isnt very Encyclopedia-like to keep updating it and this section dosent even fit well for Wikipedia. Perhaps list and explain 2 or 3 classic famous users and leave it as that. - Mike Beckham 04:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the section should exist at all. It's stupid. --65.25.217.132 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This exact subject was brought up in a discussion two spaces above this one and I agree that overall, the notability of users on the site is minimal to nonexistent. If one of them were a celebrity or gained worldwide press coverage, then I could see justifiable cause for listing them but otherwise such a list is far too subjective and only serves as a means of non-notable vanity. 71.156.82.162 07:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

hell, I used to be fairly well known on eBay, how come the ebay article doesn't mention me? I was one of the more famous users of another site, how come the article on that site doesn't mention me? Because the idea of mentioning "famous" users of websites in the wikipedia article about the wensite is stupid, that's why.

I agree. Just because someone is popular on YouTube or any other similar site, doesn't mean that they deserve "recognition" on an encyclopedia, especially when the fads come and go farily quickly. Not to mention, we're talking about YouTube here...

Oh yeah, let's not include Brookers at all. You know she only was hired by MTV from YouTube. Let's just ignore the fact that even Rolling Stone mentioned this... Oh that's right, most of you don't even use YouTube so why would you know?

There's less of a need to be such a sarcastic ass about it. If you can provide verification of their notability, then I could see a valid case for having mentioned them in the article. But if they are people who are soaking up their 15 minutes of fame and are already having that fizzle out on them then there's no justifiable cause for them to even be listed here, other than the fact that it would seem like the Wiki community who happens to edit this article is giving them an ego stroke. 75.2.45.5 08:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to expand upon this a bit as I did some searching, an article exists for Brooke Brodack. It seems redundant to have her listed here unless the article is put into a "See also" section for people looking to explore the YouTube phenomena further. Even with that revelation, I still think the notability is questionable, since she could very well turn up nothing from her contract that she received from that buffoon Carson Daly. 75.2.45.5 08:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 75.2.45.5, and point out that Brooker's page is now under concideration for deletion. weigh in on Brooke Brodack's article deletion discussion --Bschott 19:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

User hierarchy explanation

I was looking around the site itself and this article and noticed that it doesn't mention the purpose of those individuals with the title of "Director". I'm curious as to what that means (i.e. is it a donator status on YouTube? A janitorial title? etc.) and since it seems prominent enough, I could see it warranting some explanation here in the Wiki but I suppose that may be subject to a number of things in regard to usefulness overall. 71.156.82.162 07:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand it costs nothing to get "director" status, you just agree that everything you post will be your own material. So, people who aren't posting copyrighted stuff won't be harmed by the stricter rules for common users. Maybe I'm wrong. They also recently introduced "musician", but they didn't really have anything about it in the FAQ or anywhere. From what I gathered the difference is that you can link to promotional things or CD sales.. Dan Carkner 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

So, in other words, it's a relatively pointless title imposed for show? Interesting. 08:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

More along the lines to give Vloggers a 'cool' name.--Bschott 19:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Violence

I'm not sure this section about a single news report has much value. The news source it has used is an alarmist, sensational and populist TV station in the UK. Are there any good sources to back this up? --Oldak Quill 19:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the second biggest television channel in the UK, but you liberals love to sneer don't you? There aren't going to be any liberal sources because liberal outlets all think it is uncool to be bothered by violence. Choalbaton 18:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why are liberals usually the ones promoting peace? 69.40.252.136 02:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

i saw a video of 2 girls smoking weed on beanbags. it was horrible.

It was horrible! lol JayKeaton 01:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

NORNNA

Just curious why her own article doesn't exist--she's been cited by both the New York Times and the Guardian in England. I tried (unsuccesfully) to find the previous AfD, could someone give me the link? rootology 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps because no one has made her a pageor believes that she is notable? I am a director on YouTube and was mentioned in the regional paper and interviewed on the three local TV channels about YouTube but do not have a page (or want one). Quite honestly the line has to be drawn somewhere or nearly anyone would be listed on Wiki, making it pointless. Wiki shouldn't be about giving pages to every person that has 15 minutes of fame.--Bschott 16:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Worst Rated

What happened to the worst rated section on the site? 69.40.247.149 17:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

They appearently got rid of it, they made some other changes to the site recently so it's not too big of a shock --XMajinx 23:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

DCI Group-YouTube video scandal

I have removed this section as there is no scandal on YouTube's part. Someone posted the video to YT but had YT not been around it would have most likely been posted to Google video. A scandal, by definition, is: Damage to reputation or character caused by public disclosure of immoral or grossly improper behavior; disgrace. Where is YouTube's immoral or grossly improper behavior in this? None that I can see. The system worked as intended where anyone can post a video and it will be hosted on their servers. They didn't post the video to their own servers nor did they 'feature' the clip. Yes it hit the 'most discussed' and 'most viewed' list for one day but how is that YouTube's fault? That is completely the "users of YouTube"'s fault. This is a NPOV addition and Soapboxing. --Bschott 13:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Dude, no one is saying it's YouTube's fault like they were complicit in whatever lawbreaking or slander or whatever has occured, but obviously DCI chose YouTube to be the unwitting pawn of this marketing ploy, and it landed YouTube smack in the middle of the Wall Street Journal story on this whole scandal, so it's a notable moment in YouTube history even though no one is saying YouTube did anything wrong!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is suggestive that they are, and only one article from one newspaper does not make it notable. Lonelygirl15 only has 1 mention from the New York Times, yet her page is going to be removed in an AFD discussion. If that page was put on AFD, it would more than likely be deleted as well. The way the article was worded before I edited it was suggestive that YouTube was involved, and the history of the article can show that. Be happy it wasn't put up for AFD. --Bschott 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)