Comments on: Going beyond takedown notices

By: Augustine Fou

Augustine Fou — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 01:03:44 +0000

conspiracy theory: does anyone think the viral effect was too strong to be true — i.e. it was not substantiated by the detected social intensity?

here’s the evidence, judge for yourself
http://bit.ly/8K9pW

By: Evo Terra

Evo Terra — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:26:22 +0000

J.C. – I think it has to do with intent. Chris Brown wrote the song for one reason: to make money off of it. The people who made the video didn’t. They wanted people to see it. And people saw it. I don’t see how they have invested intellectual capital to the equation. If anything, they are unwitting partners in an explosion. But I don’t see a threshold where a video goes so viral that there should be direct compensation for the creators. Now, if the people who made the video were really a production company and had digital assets or services available for sale, I see no issue with someone figuring out how to monetize that for them.

By: Grahame A from the UK

Grahame A from the UK — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:04:17 +0000

We saw this video in church yesterday!

Grahame A from the UK

By: Tyler Hurst

Tyler Hurst — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 07:01:32 +0000

Great to see labels FINALLY being smart with free publicity. Forever wouldn’t have seen the top 100 if not for this.

By: J.C. Hutchins

J.C. Hutchins — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:58:30 +0000

Great post, Evo. I also think this is a cool way for Chris Brown to benefit from this distribution of his song.

Interestingly, the second wave of commentary about this YouTube monetization model is that the filmmakers themselves (essentially, the dude holding the vidcam) aren’t being compensated for their contribution — i.e., if it weren’t for the video going wildly viral, Chris Brown would never have had the opportunity to monetarily benefit in the first place.

I’m on the fence about this. I’m all for people being compensated for their creative work, and it’s indisputable that the monetization opp never would’ve existed without their contribution. But perhaps being permitted to keep the video online is all the “payment” the filmmakers deserve.