What do you think of the “Pay As You Go” model then rather than monthly subscriptions? For example, pay $2 for each 100 videos etc. Which way is more acceptable from your point of view?

I don’t think that would work too well because of all the sites that have embedded the videos. It would become really inconvenient to worry about watching a video that has been embedded.

Once everyone is collecting revenue, then those that control the pipes will want a slice of that pie and that starts the cost spiraling. So what if millions won’t pay to see… they would rather service 100k paying $10/each than a million paying a dollar or ten million getting it free.

It’s a slippery slope and one I hope never to see on the internet, but the day is probably coming. I can understand the owners of websites wanting to make money from their hard work. I imagine that the owners of this site probably love what they do and if they can get rich doing it — they would be happy campers. Everyone would love to get paid for doing what they love to do.

But the basic premise behind this beautiful technology is to bring people together to share knowledge. The internet is the biggest library in the history of mankind and I don’t think it’s ever right to have to pay to use the library.

Fortunately, we live in a semi-free society, so those that want to charge admission have to face the forces of the market. You charge, you take your chances! You serve only a select few and you suffer the consequences (more money, but less desirable content and ‘buzz’). A large part of what makes sites like this and Lifehacker popular and useful is the content and thoughts and ideas of their users — you remove them from the equation and they suffer. And what compensation do they deserve for contributing to the content and popularity of a website… should they be compensated also?

Yea.. this is a slippery slope…

ps. I don’t mind the ads as long as they are not intrusive and loud and blinking and popping up all over the place. The problem is too many are like that. Then I block the adserver and don’t see any ads, even the ones that I don’t mind and that doesn’t help the website owners at all.

You’re not going to find many sites that are just there as a public service, w/out ads or fee, because there’s no incentive to run them.

Especially when their parent company company is the king of online advertising.

Long answer: I don’t think youtube should have ads or pay-to-watch content. The content just isn’t good enough, plus people would just find something different to upload their videos on.
Also, the majority of people on youtube are high school and college kids…they don’t exactly have tons of cash…therefore making it pay-to-watch would be the death of youtube.

If you disagree with ads, then you should agree with paying for content. If you disagree with paying then you have to accept ads.

My thoughts exactly!

I know internet ads are regarded as different because the money comes from a click rather than a look (usually), but that’s only the way it is because its a much more certain sign that someone has taken note of the advert – in a store they just put it up and hope.

If you disagree with ads, then you should agree with paying for content. If you disagree with paying then you have to accept ads.