) to remove a creators income they would essentially remove any reason for people to monetise or even bother using their site as a business platform. You do still get paid but from what I recall it was based on the watch time of the video. I'm not sure if it has to be the whole video or a portion though.
that is a really good point. Wonder how this copyright can be avoided. Maybe since they aren't paying to watch just paying to change the way the main site works, it doesn't affect the video directly.The biggest misconception I'm seeing is that "we won't get paid anymore" which is false. YouTube are dumb yes but not that stupid, if they allowed YouTube Red (seriously... that name reminds me of another service I've heard of before... Red Tune or something?
MY biggest issue I see with it is more about licensing because it's a subscription it can be considered a paywall and thus many people using copyrighted content by 3rd parties who provide licenses based on an including condition that you don't charge people for watching the content; may get into some serious trouble, monetising was different because the user did not have to pay anything to watch the video. It seems ESPN have had similar issues. This is where YouTube's dumbness comes into play. lol
Yeah well see the other problem is, these developers/publishers do say yes to the partner program but that was BEFORE the partner program included subscriptions, because now YouTube is charging the viewer, while it's optional to the viewer, it is not optional to the creator. Although I'm reading from some that it only applies to monetised content and if so that's okay for me in a way as I don't monetise at this stage but then for people that do what's going to happen? I'm hoping the publisher's/developer's stance on the partner program remains the same but there is a potential contradiction for those that are adamant on creators ensuring viewers don't have to pay to watch the content. As usual the whole situation is ambiguous & vague for "reasons" lol I hope to see some more clarity on it from YouTube or better yet an option to opt out without videos having to go private. I really think YouTube massively overlooked this 1 too. Now ESPN is stuffed for the time being until they can get things fixed and I doubt they're the only 1s effected. This could also effect music from sites that use creative commons, but then I don't know for sure on that 1.
Is it 100% verified how the 55% is going to be split? There's a hundred ways to do it, which benefit different types of content to different degrees.
