Talk:YouTube/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Notoriety

I think the suggestion that geriatric1927 acheived "notoriety" (my quotes) should be changed to something like fame or celebrity.

Legal Headache?

If Google just bot the good ol' Tube out, aren't they just gonna end up with a legal mess and headache? If so, will Google sell YouTube. If so, I intend to be first in line.

Fox News Sunday Video Removed at the Request of Fox News

The video of Bill Clinton has been removed from youtube.com by the request of Fox News why? They decided to leave most of the other videos i clicked on .

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?

Youtube will still only remove copyright(ed) work on pain of legal threat.. a DMCA request.. They do not self police, they do not police with common sense, they do not remove videos automatically, they only remove videos on pain of legal threat.. They're an absolute joke and I think the copyright section ought reflect the reality, rather than the self-deluded blurb on their site. --- 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.

Don't quote me on this and unfortunately I can't find the article so please help me someone, but I heard that this one person got a video removed from youtube because they used material from someone else's video--XMajinx 17:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

O a fot it was meant as in idiot aswell haha is it only scots tht use tube as a slagging:O didnae no tht either lol

Tube isnt just american slang for tv, more like outdated slang for those days when tv's had big tubes. Do Americans really pronounce it toob? Never heard that tube means contemptible person so it is even less likely that the US founders had any idea about that one but the tube/tv connection sounds absolutely right regardless of how tube is pronounced, SqueakBox 16:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, YouTube is pronounced "toob", as in "boob" or "spoon" or "food". :-D I'm American BTW, so I know these things. Catch ya later.

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)
Well, iFilm does sometimes place short ads in front of the videos. If they can do it, YouTube can too. They need the money badly... -- M (speak/spoken) 13:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It was announced today that Youtube has been bought out by google203.109.204.166 08:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)leeni247

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)

I disagree. Whilst the transitory nature of celebrity is worth discussion, someone like Brooke Brodack has received millions of views and has appeared on television and radio programmes. She should also be listed under her YouTube name, Brookers, as otherwise there is incongruity with others such as 'Lonelygirl15'. Her individual contribution to what YouTube represents to so many people surely means that if there is a section for classic users, Brookers should definitely be on it. --Iago1980

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)
Put it up for deletion if you want to put it up for deletion... whatever it is you're trying to imply by your tone is not going to keep me up at night, the news is already out there in front of the people whether it gets knocked off this website... //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The article only has one verifiable source but it still lacks major notability. One news article from one major news source does not make this notable and I am not the only editor on Wiki that may stumble accross it...but I am too tired and apathetic at this point to care what happens to the article as long as the implied suggestion that YouTube was some how tied to this is removed and stays off that article --Bschott 04:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Downloading files

I'd like to point out that while people can find ways of downloading the videos from YouTube, it is a copyright violation. Just because a person posts a video to YouTube does not mean they are making it Public Domain. They still retain all rights to the video and using something to download that video is still against YouTube's copyright policy. Because of that, it is not allowed for us to provide people information on how to download those videos. That violates Wiki's policys.

Wiki has stated on their Terms of Use section 5(B) For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions . However, by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website.

Also you will not copy or distribute any part of the Website in any medium without YouTube's prior written authorization

And You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. Clarified though, this only allows people to use the tools YouTube gives them via the YouTube website. It is still (and verified by YouTube) a violation of their policy to download someone's video without their permission. Because of that, Wiki can not, by our own policy, provide information on how to download these videos --Bschott 20:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


It is perfectly legal for a user to save files from YouTube for private use, as it is legal to record TV shows with a VCR. It is certainly NOT a copyright violation and saving FLV files from YouTube is permitted through the functionality of the website. YouTube provides a generic download interface (http://youtube.com/get_video.php?video_id=).
I will not revert your repeated deletion of passages dealing with this subject with regard to your argument, that those paragraphs might be too much of a How-To piece of information. I don't share that point of view, but don't find this matter important enough to get into an edit war about it, either.
Missing out on providing an answer to the often raised question, wether FLV files can be saved from YouTube, may however be rather in your interest as a "director on youtube" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bschott&oldid=68632787) than it is in Wikipedia's.
84.187.157.161 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


Personally, I don't care, however I do know some people do care. In point of fact, two 'directors' have had videos removed and have been banned from YouTube for downloading other peoples videos and using bits of them in their own. The original video makers complained, so YouTube swatted the copyright infringers. Also, where does it state that if clips from 'the daily show' or 'southpark' are put on YouTube that they are now public domain and are legal to download? Email YouTube and you will get an answer that mirrors this...Downloading the files is against their Terms of Use. --Bschott 13:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


If someone downloads someone else's video and republishes the original video or a derived work, that is obviously a copyright infringement, as it would be if someone recorded a TV show with a VCR and afterwords sold the tape (or a collage of the recordings) on a flea market or distributed large quantities of copies for free. However it is not the saving of the file for personal use but the redistribution of the content that makes the described actions illegal.
If clips of "The Daily Show" or "Southpark" are offered on YouTube without the authors' authorization the uploader of the respective files violates the originators' copyrights. So does YouTube if they don't remove the content after noticing or being informed about an obvious offense. Downloading such files is not advisable, as it would not be advisable to buy an obviously bootlegged VHS tape offered for sale illegally. This does however not suggest or proof that downloading videos from YouTube for personal use is unlawful in general.
In the figurative sense, while I am saying it is legal to record TV shows and to interchange related information you start talking about offering or buying bootlegged movies on a flea market and take that as an argument to censor coverage of VCRs.
Saving (for personal use) material which has been lawfully published on YouTube by the copyright holders is legal. There is NO law against it and it is NOT a copyright violation. There is no reason based on copyright concerns to censor information regarding that matter. Nowhere in the deleted passages have people been encouraged to redistribute downloaded material or to download videos which have been uploaded and are being hosted in noticeable violation of copyright rules.
The downloading of videos does not bypass any protection and YouTube itself provides the download interface (as mentioned in my previous posting).
On a sidenote: If downloading a rightfully released video from YouTube for personal use was indeed illegal, we would probably have seen restraining orders against Keepvid and similar services a long time ago. The fact that we don't is a pretty good sign of YouTube being aware of the legitimacy of such services and other techniques to save the videos.
If your concern is YouTube's hosting of material which has been uploaded in violation of copyright rules, please discuss that in the criticism-section but do not try to "solve" YouTube's copyright issues by censoring valid and lawful information about their service and the technology behind it.
84.187.163.95 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


With regard to the "Wikipedia is not a How-To" argument I would like to suggest this wording as a compromise:
== Video Format and Accessibility ==
The file format used by YouTube is Flash Video, or *.flv. YouTube's API provides an interface to download video files from their website, which various third party applications [1][2] and webservices [3] make use of.
== Notes and references ==
[1] addons.mozilla.org (Videodownloader, Firefox Extension)
[2] 1024k.de (Video Download Bookmarklets & Greasemonkey Scripts and Related Information)
[3] Keepvid, Videodownloader, YouTubeX (Video Download Webservices)
84.187.163.95 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


I would like to add:
1) Contrary to your statements in the article's history list my edits have not been vandalism. I have made an honest attempt to improve the article. Please take notice of (Wikipedia:Vandalism) and try to avoid defamatory comments on other people's edits in the future.
2) Contrary to your statements in the article's history list I can find no evidence of a "community decision" being made on the deletion of passages covering the download of videos from YouTube, neither in the article's history nor on the talk page. It rather appears to me that you repeatedly deleted the discussed paragraph solely based on your personal opinion about the legitimacy of the information in question.
3) I am under the impression that you have broken the Three Revert Rule in your ongoing attempt to remove download related information from the article.
-------
The order of events as I can reconstruct:
Download related information has been added to the article on 2006-05-04 [3] by Irishpunktom and has subsequently been refined by various authors.
User nae'blis expressed concerns about the legitimacy of the information on 2006-05-15 [4]. User Irishpunktom immediately responded to these concerns on 2006-05-16 [5] and objected to them. No further discussion was held and the information remained in place.
On 2006-07-03 [6] anonymous user 212.227.103.74 removed the paragraph without any comment or designated reason. This unsubstantiated deletion was reverted by anonymous user 84.187.191.143 on 2006-07-07 [7] ("re-added download information"). Again various users implicitly expressed their general consent with the provided information by refining and contributing to the paragraph in the following.
On 2006-07-26 [8] you deleted the passage mainly based on your personal estimation that it provided illegitimate information ("rmv instructions on how to copy copyrighted videos. Wiki is not an instruction manual."). A comment on the media center software which (for whatever reason) had remained in place was considered to be spam by anonymous user 71.252.34.34 and consecutively removed on 2006-08-02 [9].
User XMajinx uttered disagreement with your edit on 2006-08-03 [10].
On 2006-08-05 [11] user RememberMe? inquired information of the kind you had deleted. User Mattderojas responded [12] with content similar to what had been written in the article before.
You single-handedly removed those talk entries on 2006-08-08 [13] claiming that they were illegal. ("rmv copyright violation information. Please stop referencing illegal information."). No discussion of any kind has taken place.
On 2006-08-08 [14] user Ixfd64 added download information to the article, which you again removed [15] based on your personal belief. User Ixfd64 explicitly disagreed with your opinion on the legitimacy of the information and reverted your deletion [16], an edit which you in turn annulled [17].
On 2006-08-09 [18][19] I restored a former version of the paragraph in question. Once more you deleted the passage in a solo attempt [20] which I reverted [21]. You promoted your point of view by deleting the paragraph again [22] and we entered a discussion about it.
I assume that an edit by user Omicronpersei8 [23] was primarily targeted at removing a reference added by anonymous user 141.154.79.234 [24] and should therefore not be taken into consideration.
-------
Your removal of the paragraph is based on two assumptions:
1) You beliebe that downloading files from YouTube violates copyright rules and YouTube's TOS.
2) You believe the paragraph to be too much of a How-To for an encyclopedia.
I tried to respond to your concerns in arguable briefnes and expressed my founded opinion, that saving the files neither violates YouTube's TOS nor copyright legislation. Other people involved in the editing of this article have implicitly or explicitly expressed the same opinion in the past, clearly outnumbering the people who supported your position.
To give consideration to your "How-To"-argument I have proposed a refined edit of the paragraph (see above).
Based on my impression that the community has indeed not decided to remve the download information I request its restoration in the suggested form.
84.187.188.129 16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


If it's a law, this website will not provide a way for people to break it. Simple as that. Pacific Coast Highway (blah • I'm a hot toe picker) 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


The deleted passages have not covered any information that was unlawful and people have not been encouraged to break the law in any way. Simple as that.
84.187.163.95 16:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


To this user hiding behind an anon IP; I have contacted YouTube and should have a response shortly which I will post here in full. If they say it is a violation of their TOS, then would you agree this discussion is over? --Brian (How am I doing?) 17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


I am not "hiding behind an anon IP" but have simply not seen a reason to register for an account yet. My edits and talk entries can be easily allocated to each other and to make it very clear: I find that comment of yours libellous.
Let me quote from your user page: "I have been involved with Wikipedia since May 2005, but have not registered for an account until June 2006." Please explain your one year of "hiding behind an anon IP" before using such preconceptions to defame editors of different opinion.
You have so far not substantiated your assertion that the removal of the paragraph in question has been based on a community decision. Therefore the deleted information should be restored in the suggested form as soon as possible.
As regards your question: I neither know the nature of the question you adressed to YouTube nor can I predict the plausibility of their response. Naturally I will not make any commitment based on this circumstance. If the "it" in "If they say it is a violation of their TOS" means that you once again asked, wether redistributing files or saving illicitly uploaded videos is covered by YouTube's TOS, then my response to your question would have to be "No", since that is not what the removed paragraph is or was about.
In my opinion it would be best practice to put the paragraph back online and to address YouTube by asking them, wether they request removal of the passage under the assertion that it contains illegal information. If they do, they should be expected to substantiate their estimation and their grounds should be made available on the talk page for future editors.
84.187.203.213 00:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Section with information on how to download videos from YouTube

This dispute is between anon 84.187.203.213 and Bschott about if a section should be included on the YouTube article mentioning how to download video from that site.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

  • It is still (and verified by YouTube) a violation of their policy to download someone's video without their permission. Because of that, Wiki can not, by our own policy, provide information on how to download these videos --Bschott 20:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It is perfectly legal for a user to save files from YouTube for private use, as it is legal to record TV shows with a VCR. It is certainly NOT a copyright violation and saving FLV files from YouTube is permitted through the functionality of the website. YouTube provides a generic download interface (http://youtube.com/get_video.php?video_id=). 84.187.157.161 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If clips of "The Daily Show" or "Southpark" are offered on YouTube without the authors' authorization the uploader of the respective files violates the originators' copyrights. So does YouTube if they don't remove the content after noticing or being informed about an obvious offense. Downloading such files is not advisable, as it would not be advisable to buy an obviously bootlegged VHS tape offered for sale illegally. This does however not suggest or proof that downloading videos from YouTube for personal use is unlawful in general. 84.187.157.161 23:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Downloading the files (videos) is against their (YouTube's) Terms of Use. --Bschott 13:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


  • With regard to the "Wikipedia is not a How-To" argument I would like to suggest this wording as a compromise:
== Video Format and Accessibility ==
The file format used by YouTube is Flash Video, or *.flv. YouTube's API provides an interface to download video files from their website, which various third party applications [1][2] and webservices [3] make use of.
== Notes and references ==
[1] addons.mozilla.org (Videodownloader, Firefox Extension)
[2] 1024k.de (Video Download Bookmarklets & Greasemonkey Scripts and Related Information)
[3] Keepvid, Videodownloader, YouTubeX (Video Download Webservices) --84.187.163.95 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My arguement is 1)if it is a violation of YouTube's TOS, then including such information on WP could constitute a violation of WP's policy on copyrights 2)Wikipedia is not an instruction guide or 'How To' 3)the anon in question is just pushing this to Make a point. --Bschott 02:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with your point 1, Brian. It would be a WP violation because it would encourage breaking the law, not copyright, because YouTube doesn't own the copyright on the videos. Besides, they have scores of copyright violation videos stored on their servers. I just reported one a few days ago. It's like taking water to the sea. Most uploaders don't care about copyright, so you end up with violations galore. Downloading the stuff is the least of their worries. - Mgm|(talk) 08:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with the how-to argument. It may be nice to have a section that states some users download article in violation of the policy, and there have been proven instances of this with users being banned. But to even link to places to get software to do it is a how-to. MECU≈talk 12:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments I have asked for an admin to step in and mediate between the two parties (myself and the anon) and end this debate. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not states cleary that: "Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to's." In my opinion, it's clear that including instructions about how to download videos falls in this category. The place for that information seems to be Wikihow. MJGR 11:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed solution to RFC above

Information such as is in this diff is clearly a how-to guide, and should not go in the article. Stating that there is a way to download files from YouTube is something else, something which I think can be included. I would recommend something like this to be in the article:

==Video Format and Accessibility==
The file format used by YouTube is known as Flash Video, with extension *.flv. Videos can be downloaded off YouTube's website, however this may be a violation of copyright and is strongly discouraged.

What do you think? Also, due to recent anon vandalism, I will be semi-protecting this article. This is not me favoring one user in this debate, just a way to prevent vandalism. —Mets501 (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


I think that is a fair compromise and fully support it. I have no problems with this being added to the article. This adds to the page yet does not violate any of the WP rules. --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I will add this to the article now. If there are more problems, don't just keep reverting, discuss it here first. —Mets501 (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your moderation, Mets501.
Admittedly I liked my suggestion for a revised version of the paragraph (see above) better for two reasons:
1) The mentioning of YouTube's API download interface, which is notable information and a valuable argument regarding the download/legality discussion.
2) "How-To"-matters would have no longer been discussed within the paragraph. People interested in the subject (publishers, critics and downloaders alike) would however have found further information via the references and learned about the existence of a broad variety of download solutions. While the recent discussion has mainly been focused on the chance of people breaking the law with the provided information, I would like to note, that I personally know two people who decided not to publish material through YouTube after learning about Keepvid.com and finding out how easily material can be saved from YouTube. Is the removal of the links in the interest of these people?
I believe adding "Downloading videos off YouTube's website may however be a violation of copyright and is strongly discouraged." to my proposal would have given the better result, but I hereby accept your suggestion and withdraw from this discussion.
Let me just make one final suggestion: you might consider inserting "and viewed offline with various video player applications" after "off YouTube's website". This had been mentioned in the past and is of interest to users who cannot use the Flash plugin.
84.187.132.87 05:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting the proposal. I will add "and viewed offline with various video player applications" to the article. —Mets501 (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Video Format

Why is Video Format listed under "Criticisms and Controversies"? All of the major streaming video providers (Myspace videos, Google video) use it. --Brazucs (TALK | CONTRIBS) 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that. I think it was moved there by accident in all the editing --Bschott 13:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed video format from controversies

I removed the following from the controversies section

Video Format

The file format used by YouTube is Flash Video, or *.flv.

There is no explanation as to why this is controversial. Possibily something to do with it not being an open format? I know that on some platforms the latest version of Flash Player has not been released (Linux, WM). If this is the case, feel free to readd the subsection with more information and sources. --Darksun 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it was there either because it was originally used as part of the 'illegal/downloading' section or it was moved there accidentally. The only thing I could think of is perhaps to re-add it somewhere else in the article, though it really isn't needed since YouTube provides a player to watch the videos with.--Brian (How am I doing?) 15:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to note that you can in fact watch youtube videos using the Linux version of flashplugin. I have done this. (My personal opinion is that this is not good enough, as flashplugin is proprietary. But that probably puts me in an extremist-viewpoint category.) –Andyluciano 18:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

correction, it should be

YouTube is currently one of the fastest-growing websites on the World Wide Web [12], and is ranked as the 15th most popular website on Alexa, far outpacing even Wikipedia growth. [13] --felisberto15:00,14 August2006(UTC)

HACKED????

Hey I am trying to get on the site and NOTHING! I reackon it has been hacked, like the last times where just trys, loads of people were saying it. Also someone has put on the front page JAMES LIKES BIG BLACK COCKS. someone might wanna get that sorted out byeJimmy93211 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • No they are not hacked. They are working out a few bugs as stated on their page. I called their offices to find out what is going on and was quickly brushed off with an explination that they were doing some housecleaning. What that means is anyone's guess. --Brian (How am I doing?) 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Apparently you weren't the only one calling: "UPDATE 3: Please stop calling the office, we're trying to work in here." (from the source). -- Woseph 15:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't help but wonder if "house cleaning" means "removing copyrighted material". –Andyluciano 18:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I have heard ideas from 'cleaning out copyrighted material' to 'removing unused accounts that have sat unused over X many months' to 'reviewing and removing non-sensical videos' to 'updating servers and features'. Someone on a forum even claimed the talked to someone at YouTube and got the story that the servers were hacked and there was a loss of data which youtube is trying to correct. Someone else claimed it was a hardware crash and they were having problems getting the servers to link up with the new hardware. I don't know what the truth is, but hey...as long as the tube comes back, it's ok by me. --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Youtube / Plaxo connection

Please read this boing boing article. [25]. Once a non-blogish type news outlet writes about and verifies this, I think it should be added to the controversies section.--Shinto 20:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure it's a connection as they are not providing email addresses to Plaxo, just using a 'widget' from them...and Plaxo has cleaned up their act in the past few months. Only the extremely paranoid (not calling Shinto paranoid here) have really continuted to beat on Plaxo since their company policy review. --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a total non-story to me. Remy B 11:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

slower uploads lately?

i've noticed lately that it is taking longer than usual for videos to get posted. earlier this summer i'd watch jon stewart and twenty minutes later 10 posts from the same episode would be up there. But now it takes nearly a week. is there new software or what is going on?

I had the same problem. I uploaded something the other day and it didn't show up in the searches until 5 days later. I wasn't sure if it was working and deleted it 3 days later and uploaded it again. Now its been showing the old video with the "User has removed this video" notice on top and now I have to wait another 5 days for the new one to show up again. It never used to be like that. All I can assume is that the high volume of uploads is causing the huge back logs in updates to the search system or something. Could be a problem or the norm now there and maybe should be mentioned on the main article PantheraLeo 05:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, fellow editors, this is not a forum to talk about YouTube but rather the article on YouTube. I would probably direct you to 'YouTubeTalk..com' if you wanted to discuss this backlog/upload time issue. Wikipedia isn't the place for it. --Brian (How am I doing?) 05:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Revenue Model

I think it's time that someone adds info about the big trailer videos shown on the main youtube page. These are without doubt advertisment deals, they started in august. There is also a concept of branded channel (Paris Hilton, for one)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.145.86 (talk • contribs)

This was deleted by User:Remy_B for being too much of a reference to "Revver", without addressing what may or may not be a viable profit center for the site.

A rough estimate of the current revenue may be extrapolated from income generated on Revver by the Diet Coke Mentos eruption video by Fritz Grobe and Stephen Voltz. They estimated 5.5 million views from Revver and US$30,000 in shared revenue starting in June 2006.[1] This video was also widely viewed at YouTube and other sites, generating no revenue for Grobe and Voltz. Unlike Revver, YouTube currently does not insert any other video content in the clips. Revver places clickable ads at the end of videos. Thus the YouTube ad revenue may solely be dependent upon clicks outside the video content. Also, YouTube videos are often shared on other web sites with only a link to the video and no other YouTube ads presented. At 100 million videos watched per day following the Revver model, YouTube could make well over US$1 million in daily revenue, thus turning a profit.

There should be some way of stating that they are either making money or losing money. Revver does place clickable advertising clips in the videos, YouTube does not (yet). The question not answered in the Revenue paragraph is "Are they making money?" Since no one has been forthcoming, you have to make some guesses. Otherwise the "Steal at one billion" purchase price seems like sheer lunacy.

The trick is to see whether or not it is a legitimate estimate (ie. from a reputable source) or just someone making their own sort of research (which is not acceptable in Wikipedia). If there is no publically available reputable sources on the revenue of YouTube then it should be left alone... everything else is speculation and doesnt belong here. Remy B 11:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted content

As such, YouTube maintains the practice of deleting individual videos and entire user accounts without warning or reason, despite content or guideline violation.

That's obviously not true. YouTube only deletes accounts that are violate their EULA. --Brazucs (TALK | CONTRIBS) 20:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It is true. Accounts are deleted without warning or announcement as to why. If there are reasons, they exist only in secrecy without making them publicly known. No attempts are ever made to justify content with the user, for example allowing contributors to provide documentation which proves ownership. I'm not even talking about blocking individual videos, but entire accounts without provocation or communication. I understand if the deleted line from the article was worded poorly, but I would invite someone to word it more suitably to clarify the point. —scarecroe 04:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to add that you are going to need a source that meets the standards of WP:V. Without one it can't be added even if true. --My old username 00:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know ...

Why the information about spin-off sites were deleted from the main article? Ramsquire 21:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably because those spin-off sites arent very notable. The mere fact alone that spin-off sites were created isnt necessarily interesting enough to be mentioned in the article. Remy B 02:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Youtube Personal Censorship: Morbeck's Suspension

appearently youtube suspended the user morbeck because he had a video with a pierced lemon that siloutted at first looked like a pierced nipple. Dunno if this is talk worth and if not then please delete this for me --XMajinx 23:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That weird, some videos get taken down if they are found on other websites, others can get taken down for reasons i do not know about :D Duff12 19:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I was kicked off for posting videos that have to do with the WWE. They weren't overly long clips or anything. Copyrighting is a big thing with them. Vince McMahon and the WWE hates YouTube and Vince McMahon has been wanting to take them down for sometime now. Mr. C.C. 05:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Reacently Featured

How do the Recently Featured videos get onto the main page?? Are they just random videos???? Could Someone please Tell me?? Thanks Duff12 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's something I would like to know as well. :) --Alex (talk here) 19:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I copied this text from the YouTube help pages. Might help you.
How do videos get featured?
YouTube's members rate videos they like. We review highly-rated and recent videos for consideration in 'Today's Featured Videos' CROWDUDE 08:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Youtube references in wikipedia

I feel that youtube content must be included into policy statements for wikipedia so people do not delete youtube links. Debate has been raging on this very subject.The following has just been deleted twice from the youtube main page!?

==Youtube quoted in wikipedia==
Youtube has generated hot debate in other wikipedia pages when youtube referrences have been deleted and rvt. The intensity of passion of keeping wikipedia policies and the power of youtube popularity has manifested itself in the following talk discussion the shows the depth of tension generated. Youtube provides audio visual material and is very different in content from text based websites. However wikipedia is not good at accomodating youtube links. Talk:Bahá'í Faith/archive11. On the other hand youtube has had wikipedia talk pages presented in youtube to show that one medium will carry the material while the other medium will not, or trys to limit it off the main pages.RoddyYoung 11:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

RoddyYoung 12:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all it is poorly written and looks like a personal message, and includes a signature. It doesen't have anything to do with YouTube and only to do with the page on Wikipedia. - Mike Beckham 12:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, it is not encyclopedic at all. --Alex (talk here) 12:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Stop adding it, It has been reverted 3 times now. - Mike Beckham 12:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The irony of the deletes is not lost on me. So wiki the sentence you do not like so that it reads better. Delete is missing the point. If youtube can have a video of the wikipedia discussion page about deleting youtube references off wikipedia pages then wikipedia youtube page can have wikipedia links to wikipedia discussion pages over wikipedia. I am so glad for discussion pages. I feel I have had my edit in wikipedia.
I think you are missing the point of Wikipedia - it is an encyclopedia. It is not a repository for everything and anything about a topic. If what is added is not notable, it should rightfully be deleted. Remy B 03:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted it again. The user has to cite his/her reason for wanting this here. It serves no purpose. The policy on this from what I learned in the Colbert debacle is that Wikipedia cannot reference itself and the only way Wikipedia can be mentioned in an article is if a source mentiones things that happened on Wikipedia. Since the argument about the Bahai faith is neither notable or relevant, it will probably never be sourced so it should never be put here. Gdo01 20:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point125.237.34.229 23:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting Data

In the fact box, it states that YouTube has 60 employees. In the critizisms and controversies, it states that there are only 50 employees. Bobguy89 19:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed both to 60 with a source. —Mets501 (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Updated Site

I just went to YouTube for the 1st time in a week and its new. The videos aren't loading on my computer for some reason. Anyone know why or is this my problem? --66.218.18.237 02:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

have you downloaded this file? Adobe Flash

What does this mean?

YouTube has also placed the fact in front of all the parents out there fretting over the moral's of their children that their sons and daughters really aspire to be porn stars and strippers, a point proven by Tubehos.com. This sentence is doing my head in. What is it trying to say, exactly? --ozzmosis 09:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe he is trying to say that Youtube promotes or enables people who want to be porn stars or strippers online. It doesn't matter since the sentence is commentary and non-encylopedic and has been removed. Gdo01 09:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Influence Section

Considering YouTube is relatively new on the scene (February 2005), it is highly doubtful it can claim any Influence on an idea that was around before it's inception.

I know back in 2004, I was starting up my video site.

So, unless somebody can at least provide a source saying that YouTube has influenced ANYTHING, I suggest that section be deleted completely.

--Jon Ivy 20:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

100 million views a day isnt influential enough? If you want specifics, the lonelygirl15 thing was all over the mainstream news. Remy B 00:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Location in San Mateo?

I took a photo of what I think is the YouTube headquarters today but I'm not 100% sure. Can someone please separately confirm that it's the loft in the brick building that houses an Amici's Pizzeria (69 3rd Ave.) and a Japanese restaurant (73 3rd Ave.)? I plan to upload my latest batch of photos next week when I have the time. This week I have way too many things going on. --Coolcaesar 06:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I confirmed it today with a Google search. USA Today ran an article about how YouTube is in that building. --Coolcaesar 04:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Great, I finally upload the photo and now they moved to San Bruno! The news reports indicate that at 67 employees (and growing every week) the loft above the Amici's pizzeria was getting dangerously crowded.
Their Web site doesn't show the new address yet. When I find out the new address I will try get a photo of the new headquarters if I am in the neighborhood during the next two or three months. --Coolcaesar 03:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Got it. Will be uploading a photo of their San Bruno HQ shortly. Unfortunately they apparently picked a building which is extremely hard to photograph except from above because it is completely surrounded from mature trees. Unless someone owns a small helicopter (and can get permission to fly it around the extremely congested airspace west of SFO) this photo will have to do for now. --Coolcaesar 19:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Replying from my talk page: How do you know they deliberately chose this location because of its inaccessibility? And just because the location is difficult to photograph doesn't mean that an uninformative photograph of a building obscured by trees is of encyclopedic value. While a photo of the mountain that hides NORAD is worthy because it is unique for a mountain to hide a structure, a photo of trees hiding a building adds little information to the article. If you find a citation that claims YouTube picked this location because it is difficult to photograph, then perhaps there's a reason to include such a photo. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)