.tv Most of what domainers consider ".tv development" probably against Youtube TOS

[snoop]

Most of what domainers consider ".tv development" against Youtube TOS

Would recommend all those running sites where the content is youtube videos check out the details from this thread, in particular about Google's TOS. Probably only a matter of time before Google enforces it through Adsense or deindexing sites. Well done to defaultuser for bringing this up,

http://www.namepros.com/dot-tv/691867-my-33-tvs-now-live-epiks.html

Inappropriate Content: Commercial use on YouTubeShare Print
We've updated our Terms of Use to clarify what kinds of uses of the website and the YouTube Embeddable Player are permitted. We don't want to discourage you from putting the occasional YouTube video in your blog to comment on it or show your readers a video that you like, even if you have general-purpose ads somewhere on your blog. We will, however, enforce our Terms of Use against, say, a website that does nothing more than aggregate a bunch of embedded YouTube videos and intentionally tries to generate ad revenue from them.

http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en-IE&answer=71011

 

[Tia Wood]

Interesting. I never realized this and I bet others have not either.

 

[snoop]

Interesting. I never realized this and I bet others have not either.

I guess people in the industry haven't read the TOS before defaultuser did. Seems like it has been a bit over a topic outside the domain industry for least a year or two.

 

[Tia Wood]

And come to think of it, Google's stance on it seems to be the equivalent of "Made for Adsense" sites and we all know what happened to those.... Seems like it's only a matter of time now.

 

[snoop]

And come to think of it, Google's stance on it seems to be the equivalent of "Made for Adsense" sites and we all know what happened to those.... Seems like it's only a matter of time now.

It sounds to me like they are getting serious about it, note the update date of a couple of months ago.

 

[Acroplex]

Exciting stuff. Snoop, you should send this to WikiLeaks, your compatriot Assange is one straight flush.

 

[garptrader]

Theme.tv & EPIK's video portals could potentially be problematic if they contain no text or photos but Adsense blocks. For the rest of us, I suppose when VideosMusicales.tv (PR5) gets deindexed we should be worried. Keep in mind who makes more off of Adsense - Google or the publisher?

 

[snoop]

Theme.tv & EPIK's video portals could potentially be problematic if they contain no text or photos but Adsense blocks.

I think it is pretty clear sites based on the two above would be in breach of the policy. I really doubt adding some photos or text is going to help things, much like adding a photo wouldn't help an MFA site, it is pretty clear how google sees things, it is supposed to be for showing the occasional video as opposed to trying to build a site around it.

"We don't want to discourage you from putting the occasional YouTube video in your blog to comment on it or show your readers a video that you like, even if you have general-purpose ads somewhere on your blog. We will, however, enforce our Terms of Use against, say, a website that does nothing more than aggregate a bunch of embedded YouTube videos and intentionally tries to generate ad revenue from them."

For the rest of us, I suppose when VideosMusicales.tv (PR5) gets deindexed we should be worried.

Just because there are bigger sites that they haven't cracked down on yet doesn't mean people shouldn't be concerned by this. For the people spending hundreds on video sites or trying to work this as a long term model I'd be pretty worried.

Keep in mind who makes more off of Adsense - Google or the publisher?

Think about what is happening here,

Step 1. Domainer populates sites with content from Google

Step 2. Domainer then hopes Google with then send them traffic, even though it is essentially duplicate content from Google's own site.

Step 3. Domainer puts up Adsense ads and expects Google to pay them for that traffic.

It makes no economic sense for Google to do that, they are buying back traffic they already own on the basis of content that again is already from their own site. There is no value add from the middle man domainer that would really warrant Google paying, so think about how this might play out in the next couple of years with Google making it clear these sites are in violation of TOS.

Google might as well have their own page in the serps and keep 100% of the revenue instead of 30-40%, or deindex the site so at least people will see something unique.

 

[DU]

I only posted originally because I believe that Epik may charging $250 for a service that essentially violates T&C of YouTube.

There is a significant risk that the domain will be blacklisted if it is associated with Epik given the size and scope of what they are trying to accomplish. One site on the Internet is not quite as likely to be flagged as one site that's part of a linked network.

I do not like the title of the thread however,

"Most of what domainers consider ".tv development" probably against Youtube TOS"

Perhaps "Video Aggregating Parking Sites likely violate YT TOS" would be better as this certainly is not a .TV issue.

You yourself always argue that videos could very well be hosted on any TLD and why not .com? If you believe your own arguments this would be a general domain discussion issue and not a .TV issue.

 

[snoop]

You yourself always argue that videos could very well be hosted on any TLD and why not .com? If you believe your own arguments this would be a general domain discussion issue and not a .TV issue.

Because when it comes to .tv development by domainers, 99% of it seems to revolve around repackaging youtube videos and adding adsense. I don't think this is really much of an issue for .com domainers.

Do you see people talking about developing .com domains with Epik video sites or parked.tv?

 

[vincenzo]

I don't think this is really much of an issue for .com domainers.

I have more .com domains using YouTube content.

It makes no economic sense for Google to do that, they are buying back traffic they already own ...

Having their ads display on websites specific to a particular topic with either just good text articles and/or video content will always make good economical sense for Google, and they don't "own" that traffic.

There is no value add from the middle man domainer ...

Have you ever done any PPC advertising with Google? Displaying PPC ads on the 'content network' is selected by default, which would imply they do get significant revenue from these sites.

Google might as well have their own page in the serps and keep 100% of the revenue instead of 30-40%, or deindex the site so at least people will see something unique.

I doubt Google want to start building websites or pages optimised for every known topic users are searching for - what ridiculous statement.

They are also quite sh1t at SEO for their own content, so probably wouldn't rank high in user searches anyway.

- Vincent

 

[DU]

Do you see people talking about developing .com domains with Epik video sites ?

Actually, Epik markets them as VIDEO PORTALS.

EPIK targets .TV owners because they recognize that there is an obvious synergy between .TV domains and video... and a lack of obvious parking solutions that meet the "video-centric" criteria that people are looking for.

.TV owners are drawn to the service for the same reasons...

BUT

people also heavily use *tv.com domains.

AND

people also love Youtube clones

AND

EPIK also (at least used to) showcase .com examples on their blogs.

I would agree that as a percentage of sites deployed in each TLD a larger percentage of .TV use Youtube than .com; however, I think the overall number of sites employing these tactics would probably actually favour .com due to the overwhelming .com advantage sites registered - probably a factor of 400 x or more.

I think the fact that you don't want to acknowledge the .com video sites is a positive sign for many .TV holders in a sense because it does show that the extension has definitive meaning even outside of the "niche" TV studios you talk about.

The TOS do relate to a specific cases so it's not fair to say that "most" of what domainers call development fails the quality test.

I believe you're trying to annoy some people just a teensy weensy bit. You can admit that, can't you?

I don't get annoyed because I don't need validation for my decisions from anyone other than my wife

 

[garptrader]

Perhaps Google should just de-index any site with a Youtube video and see what happens to their search engine results. Bing's market share would go vertical. Besides, does Google create these videos? On my PembrokePines.tv site I use a Vimeo video of local parks. I'd bet that video produced by the city gets as much exposure on the landing page of my site as it does independently at Vimeo (but a great promo for the city). Lately the local auto dealerships are loading massive numbers of videos to Youtube so it takes human editing to filter for videos relevant to city events or features.

 

[DU]

Perhaps Google should just de-index any site with a Youtube video and see what happens to their search engine results. Bing's market share would go vertical. Besides, does Google create these videos? On my PembrokePines.tv site I use a Vimeo video of local parks. I'd bet that video produced by the city gets as much exposure on the landing page of my site as it does independently at Vimeo (but a great promo for the city). Lately the local auto dealerships are loading massive numbers of videos to Youtube so it takes human editing to filter for videos relevant to city events or features.

That would be acceptable use when it comes to Youtube as you have information pertinent to the subject above and beyond the use of aggregating videos for advertising only...this is according to my understanding of the T&C.

I believe this will all become much clearer soon because Google is (allegedly) working on a platform that includes monetization and commercialization and will no doubt be tracked and monitored much better.

That said, I'm not going to second guess what Google will and won't do.. only what they CAN do based on their terms. For a small personal site I wouldn't think it matters that much - however, I would seek for more assurances if my domain were being exposed by third party for a price. Hence my posting when it came to Epik.

Vimeo has it's own Terms - I have never used Vimeo so I'm not that familiar. I believe that they actually have a very distinct line drawn for personal vs non-commercial use when uploading (one is free and one is fee based). I'm not sure about embedding on other sites.

But using copyright material is using copyright material. It is up to the owner of the copyright to decide whether their exposure on your site is worth more than the non-exposure.

I don't know the release of the videos you present (Creative Commons, Free Distribution etc etc) But ff you were confident that they would feel positive towards it being on your site and creating exposure then obviously have no problem requesting their permission if that were actually required? With government videos I'm not sure how they determine licencing because it's likely tax payer financed.

The exposure you are giving is actually potentially competing with the the official site. Lookup MyFlorida WIPOs to see HOW AGGRESSIVE the state is in protecting that Trademark. I wouldn't make any assumptions about use.

The reality is that the Internet is the Wild Wild West and just about everything is stolen and I'm not judging anyway... I'm just expressing that people should understand what they are doing AND be prepared for the ramification. That's all. Nothing more.

 

[snoop]

Having their ads display on websites specific to a particular topic with either just good text articles and/or video content will always make good economical sense for Google, and they don't "own" that traffic.

When someone sets up a site and hopes to get traffic from google and does so, that is Google's traffic, they can choose to send it where they like, that is "ownership".

Have you ever done any PPC advertising with Google? Displaying PPC ads on the 'content network' is selected by default, which would imply they do get significant revenue from these sites.

Of course it is significant revenue, but when those visitors originate from Google.com anyway they are getting 40 cents in the the dollar, that doesn't make sense if the content is from Google's site anyway. Long term Google is only going to pay out to sites that offer a real value add, not a rehashed version of Google's own products.

I doubt Google want to start building websites or pages optimised for every known topic users are searching for - what ridiculous statement.

For a video site about say "japanese food" for example, they wouldn't need to build anything, it is already built,

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=japanese+food&aq=f

Note I'm not saying they will do this, but logically there is no point paying webmasters for displaying Google's own content. They might as well display their own or de-index those sites and display original content instead.

They are also quite sh1t at SEO for their own content, so probably wouldn't rank high in user searches anyway.

- Vincent

Is this a joke? Google controls this, they decide what ranks well.

---------- Post added at 03:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 PM ----------

The TOS do relate to a specific cases so it's not fair to say that "most" of what domainers call development fails the quality test.

Go through some of the sigs i this forum and see what people are doing with their .tv domains, in my view 99% of the "development" efforts revolve around rehashed youtube content + adsense.

I believe you're trying to annoy some people just a teensy weensy bit. You can admit that, can't you?

I don't get annoyed because I don't need validation for my decisions from anyone other than my wife

My purpose here is to highlight the problems with this extension, the reason why for domainers the extension never really goes anywhere despite Verisign lowering the pricing bar every few years to make it seem like everything has changed. The extension has much the same problems that it had 10 years ago, there is just no clear and simple business model for the vast majority of domains.

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:21 PM ----------

Perhaps Google should just de-index any site with a Youtube video and see what happens to their search engine results. Bing's market share would go vertical. Besides, does Google create these videos? On my PembrokePines.tv site I use a Vimeo video of local parks. I'd bet that video produced by the city gets as much exposure on the landing page of my site as it does independently at Vimeo (but a great promo for the city). Lately the local auto dealerships are loading massive numbers of videos to Youtube so it takes human editing to filter for videos relevant to city events or features.

The issue isn't sites using youtube content, the issue is sites trying to build a business around youtube content and adsense. If you got rid of those sites I would say it would be good for the quality of the google index.

 

[mwzd]

MFA is mfa, whether you use video or recycled content, why is it surprising that this stuff is an issue w/ adsense and now youtube's tos?

And how is this a .tv issue? More like a development issue irrespective of extension.

I've seen all the 'solutions' being offered by various 'development companies' who want you to 'focus on the entrepreneur' not on the solution coz sooner or later goog is going to bitch slap any automated site w/o original content and then you can feel good that you contributed to that entrepreneur's 'success' (in ripping you off).

But there is a space for curated content and collections, even youtube allows you to create 'channels' with ugc within their site, though to justify it being off youtube you'd probably have to offer a more wholesome solution and not an auto blog w/ auto posted videos.

Plus, youtube isn't the only video site is there? Last I checked there were around 20 mega sites you could use for embedding videos.

Google Adsense is also ripe to face a rival, it just doesn't make sense that goog makes $3-5 billion a year when publishers get less all the time, people are already moving away and this will turn into a deluge, it's just waiting for the right disruptive technology and services allowing micropayments for video and content might just provide that.

 

[Vito]

I've seen all the 'solutions' being offered by various 'development companies' who want you to 'focus on the entrepreneur' not on the solution coz sooner or later goog is going to bitch slap any automated site w/o original content and then you can feel good that you contributed to that entrepreneur's 'success' (in ripping you off).

I agree 200%

 

[DU]

And how is this a .tv issue? More like a development issue irrespective of extension.

Ding.

I've seen all the 'solutions' being offered by various 'development companies' who want you to 'focus on the entrepreneur' not on the solution coz sooner or later goog is going to bitch slap any automated site w/o original content and then you can feel good that you contributed to that entrepreneur's 'success' (in ripping you off).

Ding.Ding.

But there is a space for curated content and collections, even youtube allows you to create 'channels' with ugc within their site, though to justify it being off youtube you'd probably have to offer a more wholesome solution and not an auto blog w/ auto posted videos.

Ding.Ding.Ding.
Can the man get some Rep?! Oh yeah.. he can.

it just doesn't make sense that goog makes $3-5 billion a year when publishers get less all the time

Real publishers or traffic jockeys?

Real content providers don't need to rely on adsense and the like. Google adsense doesn't rip of "producers" it rips off their "clients" which is much worse.

The disruptive technology is HERE. It's just getting advertisers to understand it that's the issue Unfortunately the major money will still mostly go to the major corps who've been making massive scale IT purchases the last few years that have remained largely unnoticed.

Great post :hearts:

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:17 PM ----------



For those that added the tags. Here's a challenge: contribute something useful? This is actually a relevant subject.

 

[snoop]

I've seen all the 'solutions' being offered by various 'development companies' who want you to 'focus on the entrepreneur' not on the solution coz sooner or later goog is going to bitch slap any automated site w/o original content and then you can feel good that you contributed to that entrepreneur's 'success' (in ripping you off).

Agree, I think though they've got a pretty captive market, people who are looking for an alternative to parking because revenue has sunk, people who have minimal development skills but a whole lot of names that would be extremely difficult to develop (a lot of the .tv space). So in my view you will keep seeing this kid of thing, because there is people desperate to hand over some money hoping this is the "solution". Most of the the time though when people are desperate they just end up in a worse position than when they started.

Plus, youtube isn't the only video site is there? Last I checked there were around 20 mega sites you could use for embedding videos.

Do they have different TOS?
Do they really have any scale?
Is there much money for domainers in repackaging videos regardless even if the above two conditions were met?

Google Adsense is also ripe to face a rival, it just doesn't make sense that goog makes $3-5 billion a year when publishers get less all the time, people are already moving away and this will turn into a deluge, it's just waiting for the right disruptive technology and services allowing micropayments for video and content might just provide that.

They've got plenty of rivals, but Adsense is by far the best. It is a bit like the youtube alternatives you suggested before, are they really viable alternatives or are they poor second cousins?

 

[eyedomainous]

This thread reminded me of "The Sad Tale Of Totlol And How YouTube's Changing TOS Made It Hard To Make A Buck", from TechCrunch.

This guy, Ron, builds TotLOL.com, "a site filled with children’s’ videos from YouTube curated by parents". Its successful, he's making a living.

"When the YouTube API team saw Totlol they liked it. At about the same time someone else at Google saw it, realized the potential it, and/or similar implementations may have, and initiated a ToS modification."​

"Ron is now looking for a regular 9-to-5 job to support his family."

Today, one year later, www.TotLOL.com simply reads: "Service Discontinued"

I saw the site when it was up and running. It was a great site that showed the value, and potential, of crowd-sourced curated content, by Parents no less. It would have made a great channel for Google TV, which is suffering a serious content boycott by virtually all the major networks and studios.

The bottom line reality is... even if you obey the rules, he who makes the rules can change the rules. That, after all, is the Golden Rule.

As a start-up, content curator domainer, I must take my chances. I improve my odds by paying content syndication fees to platforms that license the use of YouTube videos.

But I know they are just the other nut that can and will get squeezed when the Big G goes gangsta... for a bigger cut, or to cut da players out.

The plan is to add (curated) value... with quality programming of quality content, and present it in a dignified (not overly commercial) manner.

After all, with 36 hours of content uploaded every minute of the day Google, the company that seeks to organize and present the world's data, knows the value of content curation.

As far as the (snoopy) notion that "rehashed" video content has little value; First off, in the TV world "rehashed" programs are called "Reruns", or "Replays", and anybody who thinks TV Reruns have no value doesn't have a clue about the TV world.

Putting the rerun broadcast TV billions aside, Hulu made virtually all of their $200 million this year, from "rehashed" content, same goes for YouTube... the more a viral video replays, the more money it makes.

The fact is Repackaging TV is profitable, thats why the ToS says what it does and is enforced when it is.

Finally, snoop, to argue that rehashed YouTube content has little value and is not a good business model while at the same time stating that Google will enforce its ToS because it makes no sense for them to let TV domainers profit from the business model of using their (rehashed) YouTube videos is classic snoopism.​