There’s lots of news sites on the web, lots of video sites, many are far superior than any local television station’s site. What can our site do better? LOCAL. Maximize that, and you really win.

(example: Cory’s Citizen Rain effort in Seattle.)

you win because you sell the ad. your client wins because he/she gets the message to a viable target and the internet user wins because they get a message they can use. and it’s all local.

But if I were selling ads, I’d want to win locally, and get local people to our site. I wouldn’t really care about the Fark or the BreitBart or the YouTube traffic. I want people who are going to come and visit my client’s furniture store.

Not to blow sunshine here, but I can’t be completely forthright with tangible numbers (I work for a TV station in competition with the local Belo affiliate). But we are seeing a small amount of traffic from the one site to the other.

Cory - Whether its a headline, a lead paragraph or an entire video clip it’s still profiting in a fashion from someone else’s content. The amount of content is irrelevant as long as you are profiting from someone else’s work.

Brink - The point I was trying to make is that posting content to YouTube gets people exposed to our content in the hopes that they do one of two things. One, they come to our website for more content - we don’t post everything on YouTube - where they see more of our content with our pre-rolls and our advertisements. Two, they see our content on YouTube and maybe they tune in to our TV newscasts to see more.

Either way, the potential migration of community members from YouTube to our website or our newscasts means increasing traffic on our branded products and either way our advertisers win.

To our advertisers, it matters if they’re seeing OUR advertisements. They couldn’t care less if 250,000 people watch our video on YOUR site with YOUR ads.

if memory serves you were the one who kept mentioning how the idea was s-l-o-w-l-y being considered (and rejected)… and how the mentions here of its value were pushing you to make the case.

course, if that was someone else, i apologize.

To me it doesn’t matter from a promotional perspective if they see our content on YouTube, embedded in a blog or on Breitbart. To me it matters that wherever they are seeing our content they are still seeing our content.

One concession I’ll give is that KING doesn’t appear to a YT channel yet there are people out there posting your content (especially news bloopers). In that case, if that were happening to me yeah I’d get ticked off if someone was aggregating my content without my consent.

So what’s different here with Breitbart pulling copyrighted video from public domain websites where the intent was to publish the content so it could be aggregated?

Personally I don’t see a difference. The second you slap Breitbart’s hand we have to take a hard look at what we’re doing ourselves.

The days of the wild west internet, where anything goes, are long past. If you don’t protect your copyright, others make money from your content.

it’s just breitbart.tv

Locally, KCRA puts a selection of their news stories on DaTube. I don’t think they care if someone embeds the video - or even makes a few AdSense bucks on it - KCRA’s logo featured prominently, and the embedded video is usually only 2-3 clicks from KCRA’s site.

They should be thankful that an aggregator like Breitbart is using their material.