YouTube Considers Charging Monthly Fee

Dexter, pictured, had better get his credit card ready, because if Google-owned YouTube enacts its diabolical master plan, he’ll have to start paying monthly to get his entertainment fix. The Business Insider reports YouTube is formulating a pricing strategy to comfort greed-mongering studios:

YouTube wants more professional television shows and movies on its site, but major studios don’t want to license content to Google if it’s going to be free and ad supported.

The studios fear losing cable subscribers and DVD sales if shows were available for free on the web.

How much would you pay to watch stuff on YouTube? If it’s anywhere close to the figure I’ve come up with — $0,000,000.00 — perhaps an alternative business plan is in order.

YouTube Looks At Charging A Monthly Fee For Top TV Shows And Movies [The Business Insider]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Schildkrote says:

    If YouTube had any content that was worth paying for I’d consider it, but at the moment it really doesn’t.

    One of the reasons why a lot of the “user-submitted content” sites on the Internet are free is because the vast majority of “user-submitted content” sucks and isn’t worth paying any attention to. YouTube is a prime example of this.

    • pervy_the_clown says:

      Yep. There is no shot I’d pay to watch any of the crap that’s on YouTube. For every hysterical video, you have to sift through a ton of crap. That’s why I don’t actually go on YouTube until one of my friends sends me something, or, you know, I get RickRolled.

      Now as long as YouPorn doesn’t start charging…

    • bonzombiekitty says:

      Yeah. But I’d probably pay a couple bucks to watch “A Very Potter Musical” aka Harry Potter: The Musical.

      • Schildkrote says:

        Whereas personally, I don’t think YouTube could pay me to watch a musical about Harry Potter.

        Regardless, my point that the vast majority of YouTube content is awful stands. A second look at the article suggests that the fee would only be for premium content, however, which the Consumerist article conveniently understates. I think if YouTube improved its terrible playback quality I’d consider paying for TV and such, especially if it came without commercials.

        • Rena says:

          So what does “premium content” cover? Videos created by major studios? Videos rated highly by many users? Videos uploaded by people other than yourself?

          Youtube already has region lockout, removal of perfectly good non-infringing videos for no apparent reason (or on copyright claims that are obviously BS), a horribly broken spam filter, and in-video advertising. Those already have pushed me very close to abandoning it entirely; the only reason I continue to tolerate it is that the first two don’t come up often enough to really bother me, the spam filter is improving, and the ads can be blocked with Greasemonkey.
          If they’re only charging for obvious things like full TV episodes and movies that they otherwise wouldn’t be allowed to host, that’s actually a good thing, even though I probably won’t watch them. When I start getting prompted to enter payment information for something that has no reason not to be free, I’m moving to one of the other video sites out there.

          • flugennock says:

            Wow, I’d love to figure out how to use Greasemonkey. I installed it on Firefox once, but I’m not a scripting expert, so I don’t have the slightest idea how to work it, and I’d dearly love to nuke those goddamn’ popup ads that obscure the lower fifth of the screen.

      • Michael Belisle says:

        I much prefer the Potter Puppet Pals musical, fond memories of which caused me to spontaneously laugh at inappropriate times during the Half Blood Prince.

      • MaytagRepairman says:

        Why yes bartender, I will have a Harvey Porter.

  2. Yume Ryuu says:

    Nooooooooooo!! *melts into the floor*

  3. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:

    Dexter looks Pauly-dactyl, which means he could actually handle a credit card. I’ve had to block my cats from using my cards, because Cynder has a porn habit, and was using my cards to get access to pay sites:
    http://pics.livejournal.com/gitemstevedave/pic/0000ke9y/g1

    • pop top says:

      You have a polydactyl kitty too? We were thinking about naming our kitty Poly when we got her, but her current name (Khitomer) we ended up liking more.

    • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

      he is. he was a feral that my sister rescued from a colony. he has thumbs and a hidden extra claw on his right foot

      • wickedpixel says:

        I had a few polys growing up. They’re pretty common in New England. couldn’t find one once I moved to CA. Had to settle for regular-dactyls.

        • catastrophegirl chooses not to fly says:

          i grew up in florida and they were very common. down there they are called hemingways because the feline population of key west is heavily polydactyl and centers around hemingway’s house. they neuter them now but you used to do the house tour and then be shown a basket of kittens. and then a lot of those kittens got dropped off in motel and gas station parking lots on the way north.
          my sister had an orange tabby hemingway/poly she picked up in a hotel parking lot while down there visiting my parents a few years ago and when he went missing she was looking for him and found dexter at a rescue, all sick baby kitty with a respiratory illness. who could say no?

          also, you can see his thumz here, with his laser eyes
          http://www.flickr.com/photos/catastrophegirl/4175834550/

  4. Underpants Gnome says:

    So if they’re going to start charging, does that mean they’re going to pay out to content creators? Because my cat demands to be paid in catnip for his youtube shenanigans.

    Although, according to TFA, the cat videos would still be free and you’d just have to pay to watch TV shows and movies.

    • GuyGuidoEyesSteveDaveâ„¢ says:
    • veronykah says:

      Exactly, my dog has a video with 250,000+ hits and he owes me quite a bit of money for all that food and rent over the years…WTF youtube pay up!

    • flugennock says:

      Oh, pay to watch TV shows and movies, but not the other stuff?

      Hell, in that case, I’m cool with that. There’s hardly any TV shows worth watching these days, and if I do come across one, guess what? The wife and I have an actual TV set with an actual satellite dish to watch ‘em on.

      Movies? Well, once again, on said TV-with-a-satellite-dish, we get the Turner Classic Channel, which telecasts all the old movies we can handle. Oh, and we have a VHS and a DVD player at our house, too. As far as the first-run stuff — if there’s anything worth a damn, we usually wait until it comes out on DVD. I went to an actual movie theater — a local cinema’n’draft-house — for the first time in at least five years, to see Inglorious Basterds (imho, the feel-good movie of the season. Screw Disney’s Christmas Carol.).

      • jesusofcool says:

        Agreed. If it’s just studio owned TV and movies, I wouldn’t care much. Besides, there are so many illegal streaming sites out there – eventually these execs are going to have to realize a payment model is just going to drive people to some other korean video site or torrent site.

        The only legit thing on youtube I’d be disappointed to lose is music videos and vintage concert performances. There’s some great stuff on there and I find that it often helps me decide to look into a band further or buy a song.

  5. TheDoctor says:

    Other social video sites must be salivating at this news. I can only imagine the fall out of users that would happen if YouTube were to go to a paid scheme. I dont know about anyone else but personally I go there to waste time or see stupid 2 minute long videos. If I had to pay for that I would just go to vimeo, break, funnyordie, etc. etc. Lets face it, video sites a dime a dozen these days and Youtube is the quarter in the pile, sure its bigger than the rest but there are plenty others to choose from.

    • TheDoctor says:

      After reading the article (its early, give me a break) I see that the plan is to keep the stuff everyone loves about youtube free, and make the new stuff that no one wants, cause its free other ways, a paid service.

      I say go for it, worst that happens is they stop trying. Best scenerio, these companies realise there is a way to make money off the internet and they stop their bitching.

  6. your new nemesis says:

    I think they missed the point of YouTube entirely.

    • krownd says:

      agreed. obviously google was able to support youtube withouth any fees for the past few years. studios are retarded if they think that the ads won’t be able to rake in money for them with tons of people going on youtube to watch their shows.

  7. Preyfar says:

    If the basic material was free? Sure. If they offered a Netflix-like package for “premium content” for TV shows and movies? Yeah, I’d pay. But if they started charging me to watch cats spazzing out, crappy dance routines and everything else that make Youtube what it is… nope! Eff that.

    • bonzombiekitty says:

      I have a feeling fees for premium service would end up what’s it’s gonna be. Some stuff will require a paid membership to view – likely stuff created by tv and movie studios, but most of it will still be free.

      • pecan 3.14159265 says:

        This makes more sense. For example, even though I really love watching Maru videos all the time, and I applaud the fat cat’s owner for providing such entertainment, there’s no way I would pay for it. If the owner starts selling t-shirts and mugs and stuff, that’s different, and people would pay for that stuff, but access to the home videos itself…I don’t think anyone would pay.

  8. 339point4 says:

    I don’t see anything wrong with this as long as it doesn’t affect what they’ve got going on now. Personally, I feel there are better (pay) options for watching tv shows and movies online, so I probably wouldn’t take YouTube up on the deal, but that’s just me.

  9. menty666 says:

    Isn’t a show like “30 Rock” ‘free and ad supported’? Granted I get NBC over cable, but if I were using the antenna I wouldn’t be kicking any money up the chain for the show. How’s this really any different?

    Now if Showtime, Discovery Channel, or AMC want to kvetch, that’s a different story.

    • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

      I will watch commercials to watch TV shows, OR I will pay for them. I will not do both.

      And if it’s streaming online, it really needs to be commercials. If I’m going to pay, i want it on a DVD I can watch on the big pretty television in my living room. (And by “big” I mean 32″ but whatever, i still think that’s big.)

      • menty666 says:

        Ugh, I’ve thought for years now that the networks should just release their own torrents with the commercials on board. That would do three things:

        Get the content online
        Get the commercials in
        Reduce the allure of putting up the commercial free files.

        Sure the illicit files might still happen, but I’d rather be able to get it and put up with an extra 10 mb in file size than have to worry about doing it illicitly. Frankly I like to watch them from the bed anyway, so I’m not likely to get up and skip past the commercials.

        The networks made a half hearted attempt, but they ignored portability out of fear that it would hurt their dvd sales.

  10. The_Fuzz_53 says:

    The low, low price of $0.00

    • PencilSharp says:

      Not countin’ the 20-100 bucks a month yer shellin’ out for net access, nu?
      Nor the $40-150/mo for cable/sat…
      Nor the DVD collections…
      Nor the On Demand fees…
      Nor the DVR fees…

  11. Murph1908 says:

    I won’t be paying for it.

    It’s just another example of a company taking something meant for and great at one thing, and turning it into something else to milk it for money.

    Best example is eBay. When it was young and its most popular, it was a place for people to unload their unwanted stuff to people who wanted that stuff. When it turned into a place for businesses to sell their stuff, it jumped the shark.

    YouTube doesn’t want to be YouTube anymore. It wants to be Hulu. Fine. When YouTube changes, it will get replaced by something.

  12. pop top says:

    If they are going to charge just for TV shows and movies, but keep the user-created content free, then I don’t see a problem with this. It would be like having a premium membership that allows you to access 100% of the site.

  13. friday3 says:

    I know this is hard for people to comprehend, but this is not charging for youtube. It is charging for content that is not supposed to be on youtube right now. It is ILLEGAL to have copyrighted material on the site. Google/youtube are forced to take down anything that a copyright holder does not want on the site. This will not change the status of the silly fat kid doing something stupid or the kitten sitting on the pit bulls head.It’s like TV. If you want HBO, you have to pay more, but if you want ABC it is free.

  14. Rectilinear Propagation says:

    No, because Hulu is going to start charging and I’m not paying two different web sites for the same stuff.

    When it comes to copyrighted content the only stuff people want to watch on YouTube is the content they don’t want out there at all (like episodes of Daria).

  15. Wei says:

    So….are they changing the site’s name to “ThemTube”? Just asking.

  16. suburbancowboy says:

    There is a lot of content on YouTube that is copyrighted. However, these greedy media companies are stupid for using the DMCA to take a lot of it down.

    The most significant example of this is when it comes to music videos. When Mtv used to show videos, a record exec would give anything to have his bands video on the channel. Now Mtv doesn’t show videos anymore. Fans are putting videos up on YouTube, and people are watching them. FREE PROMOTION! But what does the greedy label do? They have the video taken down. Idiots. No wonder record labels are failing.

    • pop top says:

      Look at what Monty Python did. Everyone was posting their sketches online, so they decided to make am official Monty Python channel with clips of their famous sketches from the TV show and scenes from their movies and DVD sales for both skyrocketed. How shocking.

    • HalOfBorg says:

      I agree completely. I make Anime Music Videos (AMVs) as a hobby. Non-profit except for bragging rights, and sometimes a trophy or plaque.
      The anime makers get great, FREE advertising. I’ve had a lot of people ask me what show was that, where can I buy it. I link them to amazon.
      But I’ve had several videos pulled and accounts closed because of them.
      PUT ADDS ON MY PAGE PEOPLE. Positive advertising is good. FREE IS BETTER!

      (self-serving link to my account. “The Anime Duet’ is my latest, and most award winning.)

      http://www.youtube.com/user/io9wwww

      • Rectilinear Propagation says:

        I’ve also found music that way (though I’ve fallen out of the habit of watching AMVs).

    • phonebem says:

      I couldn’t agree more. Ever since the recording studios started making YouTube pull any and all original music vids I’ve been wondering exactly who are they making music videos for? I mean you already said MTV hasn’t shown actual videos in any real way this century and MTV2 has shows videos few and far-between. Wasn’t the whole point of paying to make a video promotion?
      As it stands now they are doing everything in their power to stamp-out any and all means of promotion… Is it any wonder the recording industry is suffering?

  17. grizzman says:

    Looks like Youtube wants to go the way of Friendster and Myspace. Maybe they should allow users to upgrade the terrible quality videos of past years before they start charging people to watch them.

    Hello Vimeo, goodbye youtube.

  18. NarcolepticGirl says:

    i wouldn’t pay anything unless they offered more shows than Hulu.
    i think charging a fee might cut down on the spam advertising and the 13 year old comments.

  19. chucklebuck says:

    If it’s premium/TV show/movie type stuff only and not random crap or free web shows, then nothing, because I don’t watch that stuff on YouTube now anyway. If it’s the all of YouTube, then nothing AND I’m pulling my own content off unless they’re paying me a cut too.

  20. Scatter says:

    If they decide to do this there had better be two tiers, one that you pay for where you get the stuff from the movie studios and a second free tier where you get all the regular user submitted stuff. Cause if there isn’t a free tier YouTube will die off and just be replaced by another website that does it for free again.

  21. korybing says:

    I’d be okay with them charging for TV shows and Movies but keeping user-submitted content free. I don’t go to Youtube to watch TV and Movies, I go to it to watch stupid cat videos, student-made films, and just whatever weird-ass stuff the internet has to offer.

    If they start charging for ALL content another YouTube will show up somewhere else to take it’s place.

  22. kateblack says:

    Guess I’ll have to download all those videos of adorable fainting goats now.

  23. tbax929 says:

    I only use YouTube occasionally and wouldn’t pay for any content on it. I do love the Stupid Game Show Answers segment, but I’m pretty sure I can view that somewhere else, and I’ve seen them all anyway.

  24. Tim says:

    The headline and story are misleading. It wouldn’t be a fee for using YouTube, it’d be a fee for watching premium content. People singing bad covers in front of a webcam and cats doing anthropomorphic things would still be free. They’re just considering adding TV shows and movies, and charging for them.

  25. mobilene says:

    As long as the non-premium content remains free, it won’t change my life very much. But I rather like your $0,000,000.00 figure as it matches what I might be willing to pay.

  26. quail says:

    For me, not a big deal. That is as long as their BBC documentaries remain free. The rest is just viral, user generated stuff that I watch.

  27. ZeusThaber says:

    I just imagine my hands shaking while I try to read my credit card number and type it into the computer.

    “M-m-must watch cat fall into box, and tip said box over. Just one more t-t-time.”

    Yes, I consider it premium content, and yes, it is a terrible thing to be addicted to.

  28. Robin says:

    I’d be interested to see if their tune changes when they see the drop the viewership of Hulu as soon as they start charging for content.

    I hope someday these people figure out that watching a few ads is all people are prepared to pay for media content these days.

    On the internet money is limited, but time and attention spans are endless.

  29. lehrdude says:

    If they are doing it in order to post “studio material”, the the charge should be for using “studio material”.

    I shouldn’t have to pay to watch a baby hit his dad in the crotch with his toys, but If I want to see something worth paying for, I should pay a small price for the priviledge…

  30. daddy_froglegs says:

    Pay for YouTube? Ha!
    I’ve watched probably a grand total of 5 YouTube videos since its creation and have only found one to be entertaining, which was a user-created video anyway.

    No. Don’t think I’ll be paying a single cent to see YouTube.

  31. Nogard13 says:

    Newsflash!!!!: their cable TV shows are already available for free, on the web. It’s called Bit Torrent, maybe they’ve heard of it. They might as well license YouTube to show them and get a bit of revenue from it rather than have me download them from some “shady” site and watch it for free, with no ads and no money going to them.

    I’m just saying…

    BTW, I’d NEVER pay for YouTube. I watch one, maybe two videos on there a month. Not worth a penny to me.

  32. charrr says:

    Now, instead of video muting/removal, you’ll have to pay to see it. This can be good or bad depending on your wallet’s size.

    • Rena says:

      If they continue their habit of deleting/muting horrible amounts of videos completely at random, that’ll be just fantastic.

  33. Shadowfax says:

    Why do so many online ventures think they’re drug dealers? This isn’t a “here’s some free crack, and once you’re addicted I’m gonna charge you $10 a hit” deal. If they turn free content into paid content (especially free content of the swill-quality of the average youtube video) then another site will just spring up to offer the content free again.

  34. Goatweed says:

    why would I give money to youtube for something I can download on my own freely? Not to mention I have a DVR which can record said programming as well.

    Youtube should be user-driven content, keep the studios away or people will not even surf the site, let alone pay.

  35. Blue387 says:

    I have an idea: why not charge people to have an ad-free YouTube? Have a monthly or yearly charge and the ads embedded with videos watched on your account disappear.

  36. PsiCop says:

    How much would I pay to watch Youtube? As in, tiny low-quality videos? With most of them just people yammering into their webcams? And most of the rest choppy and jittery footage of … well, whatever someone thinks is great? And only a small number of them actually worth watching at all? Someone’s suggesting I should pay for that? Hah hah hah hah hah … it’ll be a cold day in you-know-where before that happens.

  37. Brazell says:

    For premium content, I’d pay a nominal fee to support TV shows, movies, etc. I’d pay for that on anything, not just YouTube.

  38. HalOfBorg says:

    I agree completely. I make Anime Music Videos (AMVs) as a hobby. Non-profit except for bragging rights, and sometimes a trophy or plaque.
    The anime makers get great, FREE advertising. I’ve had a lot of people ask me what show was that, where can I buy it. I link them to amazon.
    But I’ve had several videos pulled and accounts closed because of them.
    PUT ADDS ON MY PAGE PEOPLE. Positive advertising is good. FREE IS BETTER!

    (self-serving link to my account. “The Anime Duet’ is my latest, and most award winning.)

    http://www.youtube.com/user/io9wwww

  39. eccsame says:

    napster who?

  40. daveSH says:

    The consumer is getting hit from all angles:
    >Providers (like Hulu & YouTube) are switching from a free model to a pay as you view model.
    >Internet service providers (like Time Warner) are positioning to charge consumers extra (consumption based fees) for the bits that receiving video.
    >TV networks and broadcasters want greatly increased fees from cable for carying what is free over the air – thus giving cable a good excuse to increase their rates.
    >The FCC is starting to consider taking spectrum (channels) away from broadcasters so that spectrum can be used by Internet Service Providers that will charge consumers to receive what they now can get for free.

  41. daveinva says:

    You know who is going to win the “Charge $$$ for Internet Media, Phase 2″ challenge?

    The internet company that figures out how to combine the deal with your cable or internet provider.

    Want to read/watch subscriber sites, places that charge you? Just add the subscription fee to your cable bill, get a single password for them all.

    As it stands, no one will visit a site, see that it costs money to sign up, then take out their credit card, set up an account, and sign up each time.

    BUT, if you are presented with a “menu” of choices via one of your standard monthly bills, you’re more likely to sign up for it. “Oh, I may never use it, but I like the New York Times, let me sign up for $1.99 a month to be able to read it online.”

    It’s a modified Xbox Live model– hide the fact that you’re spending money, and keep the individual transactions to a minimum, as people don’t want to be bothered with the latter.

  42. vladthepaler says:

    They certainly shouldn’t charge anything for user-supplied content, which is all I ever watch on youtube anyway. If they want to start adding major network programming, as in full episodes without any ads, that might be worth paying for if the quality is on par with hulu’s.

  43. davere says:

    I’d pay a token amount per year (say up to $20) for some sort of premium YouTube. Remove ads, ability to download clips (I know you can do it via add-ons and other websites but this would be built in), maybe they could set an encoding/availability priority queue for those submitting content, and some other small perks like that

    I realize that YouTube must be prohibitively expensive to run and I doubt the ads even make a dent to help pay the bills. The amount of storage they are using has to be mind boggling.

  44. pot_roast says:

    If there’s a fee for it, the content had better be AD-FREE. And in quality equal to what I can get off my TV antenna. If not, it’s back to torrents of HD rips (with ads removed)

    I’ve always hated the way advertisements were placed in TV shows. it ruins the momentum of the show. I remember Japanese TV when I was a kid and the ads were not stuck in the middle of shows like that.

    And what Schildkrote said. The ‘user-submitted content’ usually sucks. Too many cameras with their auto-upload to youtube feature in the hands of teenagers that think they’re funny.

  45. crichton007 says:

    I think the only way to make this work would be to allow the video provider to opt into a portion of YouTube that would be walled off and require a subscription. If they make the whole thing a paid network they’d become one of the most famous has-beens in the the entire world.

  46. hardtoremember says:

    I will do the same thing I do with any other site that now charges for content. I won’t go to it anymore.

  47. SilverBlade2k says:

    Nope, I won’t be paying anything to use Youtube.

    I guess Youtube wants to go from the top site of the year down to the bottom..

  48. HogwartsProfessor says:

    Don’t charge for user content! It’s YOUtube, not STUDIOtube.

    Go ahead, content providers; charge us out the ass for everything. This is why books will never die. Sooner or later we’ll all disconnect because we don’t have the money to pay for the air we’re breathing while surfing. Then you won’t get a dime.

    /tiny rant over

  49. duncanblackthorne says:

    On the one hand, this would actually be a good thing because it would exclude all the attention-whores who can’t afford to pay, which is likely to be most of them, so YouTube’s overall signal-to-noise ratio would improve by orders of magnitude. On the other hand, who the hell is going to pay to watch crap on YouTube? Not I, and I suspect not most people.

    *FAIL*

  50. Oranges w/ Cheese says:

    Yeah, if youtube starts charging, I think they will lose a lot of their business.

  51. Xerloq says:

    Stupid, stupid, stupid. Studios don’t have a problem “licensing” content to OTA network providers, that are free (to the viewer), ad supported sites. This isn’t any different.

    Well, it is, but in a good way because advertisers can better target viewers, because unlike OTA broadcasts, data is more readily available for online viewers.

    If they make users pay, remove the ads. No double dipping!

  52. misterfweem says:

    Yeah, those greed-mongering studios. I mean, they pay the actors, the directors, distributors, all those best boys and such. They should just give their stuff away . . .

  53. 4phun says:

    I would pay zip for YouTube. I can live without it if it cost money per month.

  54. Keep talking...I'm listening says:

    No way. No freakin way.

  55. stang99 says:

    Once you start charging for sites that were free then all that does is make people look elsewhere for the free sites again, way to be an idiot youtube.

  56. Wolfbird says:

    You know, if YouTube tries to make me pay to look at Dramatic Chipmunk parodies, I think I’ll just go somewhere else where they’d be free. If they just want me to pay to see longer Metalocalypse clips, I’ll just refer back to my box set.

    I don’t know why they think this would be a good idea. Even if they make a sort of “premium” site where you can watch TV shows or movies, there are plenty of places to go where you don’t have to give anyone your money for this (some legal, some not).

  57. YoungDirty says:

    Can’t see this panning out very well. Vimeo will become the new hot spot instantly.

  58. Zclyh3 says:

    If they are able to allow me to watch TV the shows at the same times they are released on the air for a small fee ($1-$2), then yes I would down with this type of service. Beats paying for a cable.

  59. tackett says:

    Why do Consumerist headlines frequently make things sound more dire than they are.

    What’s more honest?

    1. YouTube Considers Charging Monthly Fee
    or
    2. YouTube Considers Charging Monthly Fee for TV shows

    Consumerist, PLEASE. You can do better than this. It seems to have become worse lately.

  60. topherlooks says:

    It’s nice to know that the whole aspect of community, friendship, and even organizing for charity is completely lost on the majority of you people. The purpose of YouTube was for amateurs to produce content for others to watch. It has become a vast network of people doing making good quality content for others and for good causes. It makes me a little sad to see that most of you think of it as nothing more than a site to watch funny cat clips.

    Today for example is The YouTube Project for Awesome. It’s where loads of people promote knowledge and charities.

  61. morlo says:

    I would pay 1 spider drawing per year, but will stop when inflation increases the price to more than 4.

  62. MyTQuinn says:

    You would have to pay me to watch most things on YouTube.

  63. kaceetheconsumer says:

    Not a penny here. I’m willing to pay for good content, but the occasional funny homemade video or brief clip from a once-aired-and-unlikely-to-repeat show like news or a talk show isn’t worth paying for.

    It’ll also kill it as a way for quality video producers to put out teasers and extras for the paid content on their own sites.

  64. flugennock says:

    D’ahh, that kinda’ sucks, but, still… there’s always Vimeo, Viddler, DailyMotion, or LiveLeak.

  65. sew12 says:

    If Youtube starts charging people will just start uploading free-content to one of the other video hosting sites so I’ll pay $0.00 for Youtube and just move on.

  66. JBreezy9 says:

    everyone… come on. google is multi-hundred-billion-dollar company. they are not stupid. they won’t be charging you for viral videos… stop saying you wont pay for it… great no one will, which is why they won’t make you pay for anything but premium content.

  67. Rectilinear Propagation says:

    Providers (like Hulu & YouTube) are switching from a free model to a pay as you view model.

    I’ve yet to read an article where the people running Hulu actually explained what the pricing model is going to be like. The only thing they’ve said is that some of it is staying free.

  68. Wang_Chung_Tonight says:

    sounds like youtube is sticking its neck on the chopping block.

  69. Moosenogger says:

    Youtube better be ready to lose a shit-ton of viewers if they plan on charging anything. Sure, a few of the die-hard, “I can’t live without my Youtube” people will stay, but I’m betting the majority will say “Fuck it” and go to bitTorrent.

    Also, how will Youtube deal with the embedding feature? Will you have to sign into a paid account in order to watch embedded videos? That’s diabolical.

  70. Cant_stop_the_rock says:

    I doubt I’d be willing to pay for anything; I would if I were able to replace cable TV with online content, but so far I don’t think I can do that for sports. I can’t give up my Devils.

    I wish they’d charge for HQ and HD videos, then maybe people would go back to sending me links to the standard version by default. I love watching HDTV, but there is very little content on Youtube that I feel the need to watch in HD. I’m old school, I hate wasting more bandwidth than I need to.

  71. BytheSea says:

    they’d have to s eparate it out from the user-uploaded stuff. That was the whole point of youtube, remember? People still post their cats and babies and school plays. I wouldn’t pay for that shit, and if they separated it out, I wouldn’t have to pay for hte stuidio shit b/c someone in Korea would upload the copyrighted stuff on their own account. You can’t police 4 million Korean teenagers.

  72. Tiandli says:

    This is why I don’t pay much attention to these “free” sites. They use the drug pusher philosophy: offer it for free and charge when the user gets “addicted”.

  73. Garbanzo says:

    I’d pay $10/year for a household if they would guarantee me high-quality video that plays smoothly with no pauses or stutters. The stuttering has gotten to the point where I’m not even sure I want to watch YouTube for free anymore.

  74. JamieSueAustin says:

    No. Never. But, I would pay a set amount per channel to create my own cable line up, either online or traditionally.

  75. mike6545 says:

    So according to this article the studios don’t want to license their shows to google for free viewing even if they’re going to be ad supported. But don’t they already do this??? I mean all i have to do is go to fox.com, nbc.com, etc. and watch the free ad supported shows there.

  76. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    Good luck with that, YouTube. A workable pay-for-content model is the holy-grail of the Internet. There are a few exceptions, but in general, trying to get people to pay for anything on the ‘net has gone over like a lead balloon.

  77. dg says:

    I’m not going to pay a dime. Get your money from advertising via the text ads on the side of the screen. Keep it unobtrusive, and I’ll visit. get in my face and I’m leaving instantly.

    And to the studios: Get a clue. You currently offer your ‘product’ via free advertising supported networks. It’s over the air, or ‘cable’ – whatever. As for the “dvd” sales dropping – make the price reasonable and I’ll buy it just because it’s less trouble to buy the thing than it is to fool around with downloading it and burning it myself.

    I don’t need ‘extras’ or ‘commentary’ – just give me the video thanks.

    • phonebem says:

      Excellent point, the financial breakover point between downloading and buying a DVD for consumers would be around $3-4 for a DVD or $10-12 for a Blu-Ray (assuming about an $0.80/Gig cost for hard drive space). Given the actual cost to produce a DVD or Blu-Ray disk being at most a dollar (I’m being very generous) it still allows for a fair amount of profit when you consider the increased sales because it simply won’t be worth downloading movies anymore for most people. It would be nice if buisiness would remember the old saying “you can shear a sheep many times, but skin it only once…”