Jump to content

YouTube rant, long


George Ebersole

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Given the recent tragedy at YouTube HQ in San Bruno (the details of which I will not go into), I feel compelled to vent my spleen about Joe Average who thinks he's a great TV producer via that website (YouTube) and finds himself frustrated by a single website's changing of policy.

 

Over the last year or so (maybe two years? not sure) I've seen a lot of people I subscribe to bitch, whine and moan about how they're not getting the money they used to from their YouTube accounts. If you're new to shooting anything with a camera, and want to exhibit it somehow, then you should know the following;

 

A) do not rely on a single private company, like YouTube, to monetize your content

B) there are other websites where you can upload your stuff

C) you can create your own website and exhibit your videos there

D) if all else fails, you can rent, lease, buy or build your own damn server and post your stuff on it.

E) even Amazon buys below B-rated crap via Amazon studios

 

I know I'm preaching to the choir here on this website, but I just can't help but remember way back in the 80s when I was contemplating digital distribution of content how frustrated I was that I would have to go through one of the major distributor shows to get whatever I had worked on exhibited in theatres. But I certainly didn't get angry to the point where I would take it out on my fellow man, and, if all else failed, I would personally drive my film to various art house theatres across the nation or shell out the cash to have it FedExed to the same.

 

I'm burnt out on doing a lot of stuff, and personally find myself in a rut (a happy one, but a rut nonetheless) about getting a lot of projects done. But I certainly don't feel daunted by a single website owned by a private company, much less rely on them for my income.

 

Anyway, I just had to vent. It seems like stupidity these days equates into anger and tragedy, and it's like the people f-ing complaining over a YouTube have no idea what it is to get a feature produced and distributed. And apparently there've been other tragedies related to nut cases posting whatever at YouTube's website of people going off the deep end because their videos were taken down, or they just did some crazy thing.

 

I don't know. I guess I just don't get the idiocy of it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are a filmmaker without connections Youtube is literally the only place you can get discovered and build a following. They can push people around however they want because they know the viewers have something beyond brand loyalty: ignorance to other platforms.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If you are a filmmaker without connections Youtube is literally the only place you can get discovered and build a following. They can push people around however they want because they know the viewers have something beyond brand loyalty: ignorance to other platforms.

 

Well, there are other places to upload your content. I think YouTube is probably the best known, but YouTube isn't the end all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well, I'm not a big expert, but I think websites like Acorn or ... trying to think ... Crackle, and Amazon, even though they offer grade A material from LA and NY, require a subscription from users. I also think so called "adult" websites work the same way (no, I don't frequent them, much less belong to any).

 

And it just strikes me that if you wanted to make money off of the stuff you shot, and didn't like YouTube for whatever reason, that you'd fire up your own site with your own videos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it just strikes me that if you wanted to make money off of the stuff you shot, and didn't like YouTube for whatever reason, that you'd fire up your own site with your own videos.

I am telling you from experience it's been literally impossible to do this since 2010 without starting on a site like Youtube. The internet is so top heavy that users refuse to click anything outside of the 5 websites they know.

 

It's kind of funny because people are complaining about this "net neutrality" thing ending soon, but the reality is; net neutrality ended 10 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I am telling you from experience it's been literally impossible to do this since 2010 without starting on a site like Youtube. The internet is so top heavy that users refuse to click anything outside of the 5 websites they know.

 

It's kind of funny because people are complaining about this "net neutrality" thing ending soon, but the reality is; net neutrality ended 10 years ago.

 

 

Well, okay, I'll accept that, but why 2010?

 

I mean, I do remember around 2010 (2007 to 2012?) coming across sites trying to launch web-series. A few shut down, others I haven't tried finding again since that time. I'm wondering what happened then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen, I get nothing from my archival work, not one penny. I fact, I have to pay to do it.

 

YouTube banned me after 6 uploads. I got 400+ films to archive and put online. I didn't blow up and go shoot people at YT. Just how things are. I try to work around it.

 

It would be nice if Russia or China made a US YouTube where copyright and censorship were not issues. They could call it Watchit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Listen, I get nothing from my archival work, not one penny. I fact, I have to pay to do it.

 

YouTube banned me after 6 uploads. I got 400+ films to archive and put online. I didn't blow up and go shoot people at YT. Just how things are. I try to work around it.

 

It would be nice if Russia or China made a US YouTube where copyright and censorship were not issues. They could call it Watchit.

 

 

Well, I really don't want to discuss the shooting on this thread, but the event does seem to be the apex for a lot of hollow grousing by people who don't have our experience, or much experience doing anything with cameras other than YouTube.

 

Back in the 80s when I was contemplating digital distribution, I figured more advanced hard drives would be able to disseminate media over more advanced phone lines with higher data capacity. But, I figured individual filmmakers, companies or producers would have said HDs in their offices or maybe even based out of their homes.

 

Given that there's a lot of tech savvy in the film industry, to me at least, I'm amazed that that kind of a model isn't the standard. Instead I'm seeing people bitching on YT like it's a public utility, and it isn't. It's a private company, and all I can do is shake my head at all the nuttiness that goes on there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think the biggest issue of having it at home are the private companies providing the pipping to distribute, i don't know anyone who could afford a private data-line with enough throughput to handle running a media server at home. Lord knows I have enough trouble even watching Netflix in 1080p sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D) if all else fails, you can rent, lease, buy or build your own damn server and post your stuff on it.

You can put your work on the Internet Archive. Not as slick as YT, kinda a half-ass approach and little censorship.

If I hit the lotto I'd make a video site for my film archive and anyone else that wants to send in films. But I don't like garbage. Whatever was sent in would have to be somewhat interesting to archive.

Don't know much about computers, so would have to hire someone to do it.I'd make an uncensored archive. You could put anything on it legal. Just no porn after the film era, say 1985. And even if it was not exactly legal, but no one could do anything about it...send it in. As an archivist, I personally have no limits. I'm only bound by the law.

But all this internet stuff is very wishy-washy. It can go poof in the blink of an eye. That is what YT did to me. Upload is there 3 months, everything is fine, then they remove it and ban me.

Here is an interesting one I did on Eastman House...2K scan.



I've used Vimeo a little as well, but scared to put any old porn on it. Have some very rare porns going back to the 1920's.

I like old porns. Relatively cheap, no copyright issues generally speaking and interesting, historical material.

The first film I put on YT was about an opera singer. I paid a bunch of $ to do it. Within a few hours of uploading YT yanked it for copyright and banned me for 2 weeks.

**(obscenity removed)** YT, you can't do any serious archival work on YT.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know anyone who could afford a private data-line


Bloomberg or one of the other rich as hell zillionaires could do it without burping ...if they took an interest in this subject.

Personally, still photography and small gauge films are my life. But it takes $ and having the $ to throw at it is my downfall.

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Mister Teoli, I really don't understand what it is you're coming from in this discussion. There are sites that cater to sexually explicit material, and that is not the topic of this thread.

 

Again, YouTube is not a public utility, but a private company owned by another private company, GOOGLE. As per posting here on this website you either agree to the terms or find another venue. That's the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really doubt Russia or China would ever do something sans-censorship. Your best bet might be New Zealand which is where, I believe, the "Mega" servers had to relocate to in the whole "kim dot come" thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom

Well, it would just be for the US. It would be censored in their country. China and Russia does not care about copyright, sothey would be good to run it. But, maybe the US would shut it down...dunno?

 

I know all you like to make $ from your films. But my interest when it comes to film is in archiving short subject films...copyright or not under fair use.

 

And in the big picture, if something is a good film I buy a DVD to watch it on big screen. I don't want to see the film on a3 x 5 inch screen. Although, nowadays I guess they use the internet to put on big screen. I don't do that as I am on a budget.

 

Copyright is the archivists enemy. Being an underground photographer and underground archivist, copyright means nil to me...as long as the copyrighted material is used for non-commercial educational, historical and editorial purposes. $ is where I draw the line. Are you doing it for history or doing it to make $?

 

Now, my views on this subject are not mainstream archivists views, but I did say I am underground. If I followed directions,normal societal conventions, I'd not have a fraction of the photos I have shot over the last 50 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mister Teoli, I really don't understand what it is you're coming from in this discussion. There are sites that cater to sexually explicit material, and that is not the topic of this thread.

 

Again, YouTube is not a public utility, but a private company owned by another private company, GOOGLE. As per posting here on this website you either agree to the terms or find another venue. That's the issue.

What was the exact problem with my post? The discussion was about YT, I posted my experience and opinion of YT. Is that not allowed?

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, okay, I'll accept that, but why 2010?

2010 was when all the bigger network companies started settling into Youtube. Also around when the algorithm went from related videos being suggested on what you watched before rather than what you're watching right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

2010 was when all the bigger network companies started settling into Youtube. Also around when the algorithm went from related videos being suggested on what you watched before rather than what you're watching right now.

 

 

Interesting, but you lost me, and I've been on computers since the late 70s as a kid.

 

To me it seems like the major networks have bundled their stuff with various ISPs, so that they don't need a service like YouTube. I think some of the local stations store video on YT, but keep their video mostly on their local sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

When I say "network" I mean "youtube partnership program networks". Not real networks.

 

 

Yeah, I understand that, and I guess I wasn't clear. What I meant was that grad-A content from the television networks and / or major studios that offer streaming or direct sales of their product, seem to have bundled their content with ISPs.

 

As for net based networks that create things like websites defaulting to a YouTube window, to me, is perplexing unless YouTube offers data storage at a rate cheaper than if they (TV stations, regular Joe blow websites) did it themselves.

 

In the 90s, when net video was still in its infancy, the image was usually pixelated (high compression) and not very smooth. But those videos (usually gaming) were on the website's server. And personally, I still think that's a viable model, which is why I let off steam with my original post about YouTube and users whining about them.

 

I shrug my shoulders at it now, but it's like the world is not GOOGLE. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but if I really want to find something, I don't restrict myself to Google, and when I use MS's default search (Bling? I think), I get video or search results that Google doesn't even touch on.

 

So, in this regard, I'm not convinced that the world has GOOGLE and YouTube blinders on. They're the most popular, or so it seems, but there's other stuff out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in this regard, I'm not convinced that the world has GOOGLE and YouTube blinders on. They're the most popular, or so it seems, but there's other stuff out there.

You're not thinking with the mind of a child... who run the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

A) do not rely on a single private company, like YouTube, to monetize your content

If you want your content to be seen, no other site has the same search engine optimization that youtube has, NONE. Also, if your content isn't theatrical or television packaged, it has no place anywhere else.

 

B) there are other websites where you can upload your stuff

Sure, there is vimeo... it does work fine, no monetization tho. Outside of Vimeo, I can't think of another professional platform that has any search engine optimization.

 

C) you can create your own website and exhibit your videos there

Unless you're an excellent web developer, no... no way. See the genius of youtube is the "if you like this, you'll like that" ad placement. It's free, doesn't cost anyone a dime, but it drives people to your content instantly. It only takes ONE PERSON with a lot of subscribers to like and share one of your videos and you've just exploded. Plus the benefits of linking channels together is huge!

 

Plus, you aren't hosting those videos on your own site, no way. You need a platform for hosting that works flawlessly and can instantly scale for both computer and mobile device streaming. Youtube and Vimeo's engines are great at doing that, but youtube has the upper hand with optomization.

 

D) if all else fails, you can rent, lease, buy or build your own damn server and post your stuff on it.

Eh, na doesn't work... Been there, done that, got the bills to show how much it doesn't work.

 

E) even Amazon buys below B-rated crap via Amazon studios

Wait, you've paid for E&O insurance? Do you even know what goes into submitting a video to Amazon, Netflix or iTunes? For theatrically or television packaged content, you need closed captioning files, you need subtitles, you need E&O insurance, you need to pay a company to manage your upload for you, it's a LOT of work and its very costly. An average feature costs around $2k or so to deal with just the paperwork and insurance + another $250 - $500 for the ability to upload.

 

Youtube is a great service for people like myself who produce little short videos for fun. That is the vast majority of video content on the internet. It's not theatrical, it's not episodic television, it's not a famous band's music video... it's just people videoing poop they do in their home/garage. If people like it, maybe there will be ads placed on their content and they can build revenue. There are NO OTHER PLATFORMS that give you the kind of ad revenue Youtube DID give. They changed as of January, but even now they're better then nothing.

 

The best way to earn money is through Patreon, a donation service that helps content creators pay for things. It's crowd funding, but with instant access to funds and it never stops. People can donate once or have a repeat donation going on monthly. It's a cool service and it keeps content creators alive. I haven't tried it yet, but maybe one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Based on what I saw when they first opened their doors, I wasn't too impressed. There was some hack video "film" about some Asian girl fighting alien invaders who, wait for it, fight with martial arts. And as a former 30 year vet of Tae Kwon Do and semi-fan of Bruce Lee films, this thing made Kung Fu theatre look like Citizen Kane.

 

Based on your response I'm guessing Amazon has raised the bar some. But again, when I saw what they were streaming when they first started ... I don't know. It feels like there should be competitors to Amazon streaming and whoever else is out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...