1. Use copyrighted content that is highly sought after.
2. Buy traffic, make it look like ur site is exploding
3. With suspect growth sign partnerships w/copyright
Worked well for youtube though don't think they had to buy traffic 1 and 3 worked really well for them.
Note: not trying to be negative here, just reviewing/studying the rise of various start-ups. How they got to be successful!
Exactly the same way I have felt about both Scribd and Justin.tv.
Here is another "algorithm" to gain traction, last seen at Ning: 1) allow adult content - in their case adult oriented social networks 2) gain traction, 3) jettison the adult content to clean up your image.
At least this second algorithm has no legal issues, but third party copyrighted content, I have serious legal/ethical issues with.
I have never understood why Y Combinator never saw that as a problem.
i wish there was a website i could go to and stream every free cable channel at $1/hour. i don't have a tv, but use justin.tv/ustream to watch some sports events...
I've never understood why broadcasters were against this for live television. The ads are rebroadcast along with the content, after all.
I guess theres the issue that they can't gather statistics on this audience, but still... Shouldn't this type of behavior (rebroadcasting) benefit the advertisers? It's mostly brand-related advertising, after all. And most of these brands exist outside the states...
You are forgetting cable and satellite tv companies. They are going to be mad if you can stream their channels for free without paying the monthly fee.
Also the ads you see in california are different than the ads you see in texas.
I was specific about live television. To be more clear, i meant live events like sports. When watching sports on TV, 95% (okay, completely made up figure) of the advertising is branding-related. Think Toyota, Chevy, McDonalds. Internet rebroadcasting would benefit these brands as long as the video isnt republished alongside objectionable content...
It breaks all their content agreements. Cable companies pay billions of dollars to carry content, why would they sit by while some website streams that content for free?
I agree that it's a problem for the cable companies... But think of the NFL for instance: If NFL was going to look the other way in this matter, what repercussions would there be? Not like the carriers are going to stop carrying NFL content.
I'm sure the deal isn't everlasting... The content producers are the ones with leverage here, not the people who deliver the content (cable, satellite, etc)
Whoever has the cash has the power. Why would the content producers want to miss out on a major source of their revenue so that Justin.tv can stream their stuff for free? The advertisers and end users don't care, but everyone else in the chain has a monetary incentive to shut down illegal streams like JTV.
Why does anyone care where you view the advertisements? The point is that they are being viewed at all. The service providers (Cable, Satellite) have the weakest hand in this chain.
