That’s nearly double the prime-time audience of all three major U.S. television networks combined.

Not surprising since a lot of their material is ripped straight from TV shows.

Well it just shows you that people don't want to watch TV as you have to wait on them coming on, you may miss them etc. The interwebs solves these issues by letting people search find and watch anything whenever they want whereever they want now if broadcasters took to the web sooner and monetised it the way they do with adverts then presto EVERYONE is happy. I do believe the USA has this in some form but the UK is lagging behind.

I don't mind watching an advert before a show & in the middle the way normal TV would and I am pretty sure most people would feel the same or at least just put up with it. Now if they did this in a certain way where everyone was happy I am pretty sure it would also cut down illegal downloading as most people would just watch them on youtube for example or whatever they come up with.

The ever increasing speed of internet connections will also help.

What you think?

RJ

if broadcasters took to the web sooner and monetised it the way they do with adverts then presto EVERYONE is happy.

Most broadcasters have taken to the web...go to abc.com or nbc.com and presto, you can watch their shows. What they aren't happy about are clips of their shows being shown on YouTube where they don't get any money, Google does.

would also cut down illegal downloading as most people would just watch them on youtube

YouTube is the greatest illegal downloading site there is. I get a lot of my music from them, just copy paste a YouTube URL to a "youtube to mp3" site and presto, free .mp3. I don't think any major player in music or TV is happy about YouTube.

YouTube is the greatest illegal downloading site there is. I get a lot of my music from them, just copy paste a YouTube URL to a "youtube to mp3" site and presto, free .mp3.

Wow, you just admitted to being what you complain about. You steal music from Youtube? That isn't cool man.

I don't think any major player in music or TV is happy about YouTube.

You would be wrong. There a tons of extremely popular, well paid and played musicians as well as record companies on Youtube who post their videos and receive revenue from it.

What they aren't happy about are clips of their shows being shown on YouTube where they don't get any money, Google does.

Again wrong, search MTV, Michael Jackson, Kayne west, Susan Boyle, and so on... they all have their own channels, they all receive profit sharing from them. In the case of Susan Boyle you only know who she is because of Youtube.

2 billion views a day is staggering amount of data transferred good for them. I can only dream of such a success.

Congrats to Youtube.

To those of you who use YouTube as a way of pirating film and music... I say shame on you. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

an opinion someone else voiced in the G/wifi thread that you didn't quite agree with in there. Of course, G was on the other side of the argument in that thread, weren't they.

it's all good...

Wow, you just admitted to being what you complain about. You steal music from Youtube? That isn't cool man.

"Just admitted?" I've never hid that fact. As long as YouTube continues to make their content free for everyone to take, then of course I will, and so will many others. According to your past stance, it's the artists fault for not logging into YouTube everyday and checking to see if their music is there, right?

I've never complained about the people who take, I complain about the people who give. Either the uploader of the file or Google should be held responsible for the uploaded content that isn't their own.

In the case of Susan Boyle you only know who she is because of Youtube.

I've never listened to her on YouTube; I know who she is because I don't live under a rock. If I wanted her music though then YouTube would give it to me for free. Thanks YouTube, the greatest free music service there is!

You would be wrong. There a tons of extremely popular, well paid and played musicians as well as record companies on Youtube who post their videos and receive revenue from it.

And there are tons of musicians who don't want their music on YouTube. I feel bad for these musicians, I hope they continue to sue Google. If the others want to give away their music though, thanks!

To those of you who use YouTube as a way of pirating film and music... I say shame on you.

And I say YouTube should fix their current model. They basically say "Here's a file. We don't care what the file is, as long as it makes us money. Do what you want with it. You don't have to download any software or create a profile, just take it."

Just had a great idea. Link me to your site sometime and then I'll have a "user" upload your site's content to mine! Then when you realize it, you can contact me and I'll have your content removed in 24-48 hours. Then, someday another "user" will come along and re-upload it. We can play this game forever! Oh, naturally I'll be keeping the money I made off your content. So glad you're cool with this business model!

And it still has yet to turn a profit!

YouTube After Five Years and Two Billion Views Per Day

And a one-billion-Dollar lawsuit still looming...

Hmmmm, two billion views x 365 = 730 billion views a year.

That comes down to roughly 0.00136986$ per view.

Cheap.

an opinion someone else voiced in the G/wifi thread that you didn't quite agree with in there. Of course, G was on the other side of the argument in that thread, weren't they.

it's all good...

Sure if you want to compare apples to oranges then I guess they are the same thing.

Just because you can do something illegal doesn't mean you should.

Where I live what Google did wasn't illegal or even wrong, not even close to it. If I drove through a neighborhood in Germany I would be guilty of the same thing as my laptop records connections it makes too.

I can see why it would seem hypocritical but there is a huge distinction to me between connecting to open wifi connections broadcasting unencrypted in public and pirating copyrighted material. Maybe you don't see a difference but I sure do.

I feel bad for these musicians, I hope they continue to sue Google.

By this I meant that they should fight Google, I don't believe they are currently.

It looks to me as though those of us who are against oppressively strong copyright laws do not pirate stuff (not much, any way), while those who want those laws do pirate stuff.

2 billion views a day yet the anti Google people still say YouTube is nothing, now that's impressive.

You should really salute the simple ideas that is revolutionising the way we live these days....

How do youtube videos make money for google if no ads appear with them?

I've been through rigmarole of getting advertising - after google/youtube noticed a couple of videos had proved popular, suggested ads. Had to send info inc on being ok re copyright: one was accepted, the other (and far more popular - sob!), was turned down, as I was late confirming no issue with some artwork that appeared.
- so seems to me way stricter, when it comes to advertising, than most websites.