A Note To Everyone Who Says YouTubers Should 'Get A Real Job'

A Note To Everyone Who Says YouTubers Should 'Get A Real Job'

Some people on the internet haven't been too sympathetic to the YouTubers whose livelihoods have been affected by YouTube's recent Content ID sweeps. Boohoo, they say. Get a real job.

There are a lot of things I have to say to people who claim that producing videos on YouTube isn't a "real job". A lot of things that Boogie2988, who is also known by his online persona of angry video game nerd Francis, rightfully states in his latest video, posted up above (skip to 3 minutes in for when he really gets into it).

Being a personality or critic or whatever on a video hosting site may seem like an odd career. It is. It's fairly new and it's understandable that a lot of people don't get what goes into a job like that. But we're living in a world with an increasing amount and variety of non-traditional jobs. Think about how new and unusual a social media manager's job may have seemed when that was just starting out. Or community management. But that's not to say that those people's day-to-day is any easier, or any less legitimate than a more traditional 9-5.

Not everyone can make a living off of producing videos and hosting them on YouTube. It's not as simple as pointing a camera at your face or turning a capture box on and throwing it up all willy nilly online. It requires dedication, time, and an effort to build your community and your brand. You need the equipment -- which can be very expensive -- and the editing chops. These people pour hours of their time and skills into entertaining you. It certainly wasn't the easy way out.

And maybe all of those efforts don't apply to all successful YouTubers we know of. That very well may be. But I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any YouTuber making an actual living off of their work who doesn't work their fingers to a bone trying to make good videos.


Comments

    It def doesn't apply to all youtubers. But some literially, just spam copyrighted material for a living with lets play videos - which doesnt fall under fair use, in Australian or American law. I don't agree that those people are working, really hard, by doing a voice over ontop of someone elses work.

    If an owner or creator of the video games doesn't want annoying prats voice overing their work and making money off it, I totally understand and am totally cool with that.

    Last edited 14/12/13 11:04 am

      That's a bit harsh on the "Let's Play" community. As someone who does live Let's Play videos (Streaming only, non-monitized) I can tell you that as much as I would love to just "add voice over to someone elses work" I spend the time playing the game, explaining history if need be to people who have ever played the series and also review the game as I go. A lot of the time, personally, I have permission from the companies to stream their content to people who either are fans, or are deciding what to buy. Some people in the LP community like PewDiePie are satirical during their playthroughs of the game and add an element of humour to things.

      The ones that I'll amend what you are stating about are the "walkthroughers" and the "movies", the people who just put the whole game up as is; no commentary, no review work, just the game visuals and sound. Those people are the ones who should be harshly dealt with.

      As for the content of Boogie's video, once again that guy is probably one of the calmest and well informed people in this whole debate. Good on him for standing up for the creators of these videos and their rights under fair use laws.

        The arguement could be made that they are piggy-backing of video games in order to make their own profit. Majority of the content that is being shown isn't theirs to own beyond a voice track.

          That's the most common argument I seem to see around but personally I think it's crap. Pewdiepiw (though I personally can't stand him) could (and does) play the most random and shitty game ever yet millions of people would still watch it.
          TotalBiscuit stated the other day his viewcount is about the same for all his videos, regardless of it being a AAA title like Assassin's Creed IV or a random indie game that noone's ever heard of.

          The game is simply the stage, content, dialogue, whatever you want to call it. 90% of people watch for the personality.

            Wanting to downvote JUST for mentioning Pewdipie (dude is SO annoying)... but you make a great point.... so upvoting... *feels so conflicted!!!!*

            Last edited 14/12/13 2:18 pm

              hahaha, I couldn't agree more. I heard once it's all just an act, he's really just a nice guy. So I tried watching a video of him being 'normal' with other Polaris (youtube group) people and I still really didn't like him :P

                My son watches Tobuscus, who I honestly don't mind him watching. Then one day his friend and him started watching Pewdipie on Youtube. Within 2 minutes Pewdipie was screaming about cars raping cars, wiping his genitals on them and all this other crap. I walked over, kicked them off the pc and told them never to watch that garbage in my house again.

                I'm no cranky old man and we watch Family Guy, South Park and all that, but Pewdipie, just strikes me as dumb for dumbs sake with absolutely no point.

                Tobuscus though, I like, I don't mind him, because he's into it, he's playing the game, yeah he swears a tiny bit, not much but who cares. He's trying to put together actual entertainment not mindnumbing shit. Oh and my son also loves Yogscast, have to admit, I've seen some absolute *gold* come out of those guys videos...

                  A lot of them strike me as dumb for dumbs sake. That's not to say some are not genuinely funny, but some are less funny than the class clown you had in highschool.

                  Last edited 14/12/13 3:24 pm

                  @riavan yep I absolutely agree. It's why I don't mind Tobuscus so much when Liam watches it. He plays Happywheels a lot, he gets a little silly but he also stars on kids shows, like Regular Show etc a lot so he sort of keeps that thing in mind with his audience. I like Francis, especially his real life persona, usually because he actually has a lot of valid points. My alltime personal favorite has to be Jimquisition though, that's brilliant imho.

                  Before my kids I didn't know who Tobuscus or Yogscast were, still don't other than supremely annoying.

                  I could only stomach about 3 minutes of pewdiepie (after this site named his one of the most popular YT accounts)

                  IMO a good lets play video is something like Game Grumps; a bad one is like The Rad Brad who adds nothing of interest.

                  Yogscast are great, I really enjoy their content. They definitely deserve the success they've gotten.

                  @zombiejesus yep they sure are, they actually strive to put comedy in their stuff which pleases me alot. My son sings their song 'Diggy diggy hole' which annoys the crap out of me but at least its catchy lol. The latest story they had, the 'phantom plumber' was a crackup though.

              I feel your pain....

              I saw a few minutes of Pewdiepie's vids..... a million brain cells died in agony in those few minutes xD

            If that's the case, they should be fine without copyrighted gameplay footage being shown.

          In that case, you could also argue that the video game developers are piggy-backing off Microsoft, Apple etc for use of hardware and OS to be able to run the game, for a profit. Make no mistake, they absolutely are, but that doesn't make their work any less legitimate.

        I'm sorry, I don't feel a lot of review work goes into playing the game and commenting on what your doing and mentioning that this is the third game 3, number 1 and 2 also exist.

        Also, even with satire/review, you only get the right to cover a small portion of the original work under fair use and it has to be the primary purpose (so adding a few funny comments to a lets play, is not going to be enough for it to be deemed a satire and fall under fair use). So if a creator/owner wishes to stop you, they are well within their rights. I don't feel your "work" should somehow override theirs. If they choose to let you continue doing it, thats great for you, I just don't like this view that they are somehow evil for chosing to protect their work.

          That's the thing -- the only company who don't allow Let's Plays are Nintendo, and even they've somewhat changed their stance recently. Most other companies actively support Let's Plays because they're seen as free advertising for their games. Blizzard, Ubisoft, and Capcom have actually criticised YouTube, saying they never asked for videos of their game to be taken down, and have offered support to Let's Players who've been affected by YouTube's Content ID system.

          Besides, you're not giving nearly enough credit to the people who make these videos. People don't watch these videos for the games, they watch them for the personalities. There's a lot more to making an entertaining Let's Play than "adding a few funny comments".

          Last edited 14/12/13 1:51 pm

            Indeed, but other people than just the publisher may have rights in the material, especially in certain countries. It's not a simple factor of whoever made it has copyright over it.

            I personally think you're giving wayyy too much creative credit to these "personalities" you speak of. But hey, that's just my view, obviously not yours. I do however, have huge doubts that any court would agree that these "creative personalities" should somehow counteract the infringment. If they are so hilarious, why do they need the game footage?

            Last edited 14/12/13 2:10 pm

              Because I'm not as funny when I'm not shooting stuff.

              A lot of the time, they don't need the game footage. There are many Let's Play channels with non-gaming videos and many comedy channels with Let's Play videos. But most people are subscribed to them for gameplay videos, so that's what the chunk of their content is -- it's simply giving their audience what they want.

            There's a lot more to making an entertaining Let's Play than "adding a few funny comments".

            Personally I don't get into Let's Play videos but to take one of the most boring things on Earth, watching someone else play a video game, and make it entertaining enough to bring in an actual crowd must require something more than just uploading a capture of a ROM playthrough with heavy breathing over top of it.

              I'm the same way. I couldn't think of anything I'd rather do less than watch someone else play a video game. If rather spend my time playing a video game.

              But there's obviously a really large audience for it I suppose. I don't get into watching streams either. It doesn't make any sense to me

        LP'ers HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER FAIR USE. None. Nada. Zilch. Reviewers, however, do.

          Indeed, even with reviews there is a portion limit under Australian law. I cant quite remember if there is such a limit under American law (our fair use clause is more strict than America's).

          Whether you would fall under American or Australian law on youtube is debatable, It's likely you personally would be under Australian law, however, youtube itself would be under American.

          Last edited 15/12/13 9:22 am

            Actually things like fair use (as far as I understand it) are determined by the courts. There's no HARD LAW that decides what fair use is. So in the case of LP it's up to the courts to decide if that's fair use or not. As far as I'm aware this hasn't been tested in court.

            PS I'm not a lawyer so check these facts for yourself and take them with a grain of salt.

              There is no such thing as hard law as your calling it, it is always up to the courts to interpret the legislation, how they interpret it in the higher courts also becomes precedent for the lower ones, however, what I have talked about above is when considering the legislation as well as the few cases in Australia there has been regarding fair use.

              Australian copyright legislation does infact actually mention percentages in the fair use exemptions. I personally feel our fair use exemptions should be a bit broader than they currently are - not that the entire copyright act is really doing much at the moment anyway.

              Last edited 16/12/13 4:50 pm

      How about something like Spoony's Lets Plays? His FFVIII one is one of the best videos online.

      Although I don't like the majority of LPs. The voices are super irritating generally.

      It effects reviewers that use footage, it effects social commentators like Liberal Viewer.

      That brings up an interesting debate: Are LPs actually illegal distribution of a work? After all, games are by definition interactive; If you simply watch someone else playing, are you really getting a game for free?

      Last edited 14/12/13 11:37 pm

        You get copyright in all artistic parts of an artistic work, not just whatever is deemed it's primary purpose.

        I'd think it depends on how story driven the game is. If it is a game like The Stanley Parable then doing a walkthrough is basically playing the game. On the other hand if it is a game like Minecraft you are only really displaying a small part of the entire experience.

    I can't sympathize with many of them, and I know that's awful. But they need to adapt to what they're doing and what service they work for. But there are some people I CAN feel bad for obviously, since they work hard on their original content. But on the other hand a lot of people feel like they can just make a living off LPs a lot and I just don't see myself thinking that's a good thing.

    In his video "Do you think any of the personalities would exist" if money wasn't involved with youtube? Hell yes they still would exist. I don't listen to this Francis guy often since I don't enjoy his videos, but that's how I feel on this. Maybe evil, sure. But If they can't adjust to how their center of work is changing then tough cookies! Other people have to put up with it all the time in the work force as well and this affects them big time. But people on youtube deserve more sympathy or whatever because we see their personal lives or something more. I dunno, it just doesn't seem like something I can sympathize with. (I totally feel bad for my opinion but I can't lie about it, so don't get mad at me. >_<;)

    Last edited 14/12/13 11:25 am

      I think if people wanna make money of YouTube they need to first, be respectful of other people's content (people these days seem to think everything belongs to them or is at least available for them to use). And secondly, be original, it's in most people's nature to imitate but true success comes from innovating. People see commentaries and think "I could do that" but then the environment is clogged with the similar and they get lost. If you truly wanna make it, think up something new, turn heads, don't be another drop of water in what is already an ocean.

      n his video "Do you think any of the personalities would exist" if money wasn't involved with youtube? Hell yes they still would exist.
      How exactly? It takes time and money to make even semi-decent content and time itsself is money.
      If these people can't make money from youtube anymore they will need to stop and try find another job - for some this will be very difficult as losing/not finding a job was the reason they started on youtube. Assuming they do get a job, they won't have the time (possibly not the money as it may be a crap job) to continue making youtube videos, especially as it would only be an expenditure now.

      Of course if they couldn't get a job then they'de be screwed completely. Either way I don't see how you expect these people to continue without money.

        It's called being amateur. Plenty of people produce music and art and movies in their spare time because they are passionate about it. Some people do stand up comedy in their spare time cause they enjoy it, others participate in amateur theatre being part of grand productions that are put on entirely by volunteers. Amateur athletes are another example, pouring hundreds of hours into something they wont get paid for. It's a hobby, a passion, an interest.

        Obviously this is not ideal for some people, some want to be professionals and earn a living. But I don't buy into the concept that you can't produce quality content or entertainment unless there's a wage involved. The world is full of examples that suggest otherwise. There's not just professional or nothing, there's always a middle ground.

        Last edited 14/12/13 3:23 pm

        Passion for what you do does exist without monetary gain. Also hobbies. Look at Cr1TiKaL for example. He makes it for fun but does accept money and gives it to charity since he doesn't want it.

      I just don't see it as having any room to adapt. YouTube created a system where these people could quit their day jobs and do their videos full time, and it worked pretty well, but now they're pulling the rug out from under them when they really don't have to. For a lot of people this change essentially means they can't make money from their job anymore. They don't have to work harder or come at it from a different angle, they simply can't continue.
      Fair or not I feel bad for those people. Imagine if the corner stone of your business was simply removed.

      Personally I think YouTube is dead. It's just waiting on the Facebook to their MySpace to come along. They've clogged it all up by covering their bases with overly cautious blanket rulings to the point where you can only get totally original content from it, 99% of which is absolute garbage, and now they're breaking that too. Eventually the people buying ad space are going to realise that the occasional meme, viral video and trailer isn't worth the cost and the money is going to dry up.

      I think ultimately YouTube filled a void 10 years ago when people couldn't host their own videos. Now we're at a point where any two bit blog can have it's own embedded video stream. Eventually people are going to stop looking for things on YouTube and that's when suddenly a blog host or network of blog hosts that does more than just video will take YouTube's place. The problem is in the process it's going to obliterate that 1% of worthwhile user generated content.

    Everyone can see the world is changing, if people can make a living on Youtube then good for them because that's the digital world we are living in now. That makes them happier then working a Woolworths or a pub or whatever (and no disrespect to anyone working there, I work at a club) and telling someone to get a real job just shows a lack of understanding for the world and not caring at all for people unless they fall into pre existing categories, it's as nonsensical as telling someone to "get a life" when they're interested in something you don't like. What exactly constitutes a real job?

    How cute. Welcome to the world of creative arts.

    It requires dedication, time, and an effort to build your community and your brand. You need the equipment — which can be very expensive — and the editing chops. These people pour hours of their time and skills into entertaining you. It certainly wasn’t the easy way out.

    Try music. I guarantee the amount of money you need to spend on equipment, sound gear, fuel, travel expenses far exceeds what it costs to make a YouTube video. Working 25 hours in 48? Haha, try spending 11 months away from your family and missing every anniversary, birthday and special event. Try getting off a plane and crawling into bed the day you child is due to be born. Try THEN getting told to get a real job.

    Like I said, welcome to the world of art.

    I did music for about 15 years and I was lucky to have had it payoff and earn a healthy living but not without an entire decade of literal blood sweat and tears. I know hundreds, literally hundreds of deserving, talented artists who deserve a living but didn't get any, people who spent 10, 15, 20 years trying to catch a break before giving up. The streets of Nashville were lined with obscenely talented and very poor musicians handing out demos.

    In art, the reality is there's a finite amount of money and income available and only about 1% to 2% of artists will enjoy earning a proper living for their trade. The other 98% can spend decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own funds, operating at a financial loss and never make it. That's what like it the field of painting and practical arts, it's full to the brim of starving geniuses. It's a heartbreaking reality.

    Anyone wanting to make it in the creative world, be it acting, music, art, or become famous and all of that, this is a reality they need to face.

    YouTubers, welcome to the fold, your plight isn't new.

      But these are the people that ARE putting that effort in, and ARE catching that break. They have been making a living off their hard work, but then the bots swoop in and say hey wait a second, this tiny fragment of what you're showing has some background sound that this guy over here had something to do with. We're going to go and give ALL of your earnings to him instead and there's nothing you can do about it, ok?

      I can't imagine that as a musician, if one of your songs happened to at one particular point contain, say, the same three-chord progression as another song that all of a sudden every cent you earnt off it would be sent to that other artist instead. I mean otherwise Midnight Oil would probably be in the shit for Beds Are Burning, and Deep Purple would have been raking in their cash instead.

        I used to live of royalties, so every time music that I wrote was used by someone else, I got paid. And that's fair. Because I put in the effort and years and energy to make a song a reality, and someone else doesn't deserve to make money of it just because they purchased it (or most often pirated it). Radio stations played our music, sold advertising and paid fees to APRA who in turn paid us for every play. It's utterly fair. Try spending years building a band and sacrificing so much, working your fingers to the bone to make something happen and see how you feel when some person just takes it like it belongs to them and starts turning a profit from it.

        Also, you can't copyright chords or scales or progressions because there is only 12 notes in the western musical system and they're bound to be used again. What you're suggesting is like the first artist to use blue paint owns the rights to it.

          Also, you can't copyright chords or scales or progressions because there is only 12 notes in the western musical system and they're bound to be used again. What you're suggesting is like the first artist to use blue paint owns the rights to it.

          It's call a hypothetical situation. Imagine if you could copyright chords in the future and the company that represents you and pays you those royalties turned around to you and said "because you use these chords for 10 seconds in your song, we're now giving 100% of the royalties to the owner of those chords". You'd be pretty pissed off that because a small section of the song you spent hours writing, preforming, recording, etc contains copyrighted chords that now 100% of your revenue is going to someone else. That is what is happening to these content creators.

          Angry Joe had a suggestion in a follow up video yesterday that suggested that if YT wants to pay part of the ad revenue to the company based on the percentage of time the music/footage appeared, then he's fine with that. But some of his videos have been flagged due to 10 seconds on audio in the background and now all the revenue is going to someone else for all the time and effort he put into his video, including the time he is on screen without any copyrighted video/music happening.

          --------------------------------------------------

          Let's put this another way.

          With it's next round of policy updates, Facebook creates a similar content ID system that scans your photos for any copyrighted logos and private locations. You upload a picture of your family at Disney World and you are wearing your new Mickey Mouse shirt in the photo. Facebook ID's the Mickey Mouse image and the Magic Castle in the background of the shot. Facebook flags the photo stating that due to there being copyrighted images in the photo, you cannot publicly display this photo, but they hand the rights over to Disney to use your photo in their advertising. Ignoring the fact that it's your trip, your family and the camera you purchased to create that image.

          Doesn't sound fair does it? This is what is happening to these content creators.

          Last edited 14/12/13 12:49 pm

          This is ridiculous, You bought an Adidas shirt, you wear it in your vblog, do you think Adidas has the right to claim the video just because it has Adidas logo on it?

          I thought the whole "I come from the land down-under" vs "Kookaburra" song kerfluffle a while back pretty much shows that you can actually start suing for the presence of a chord =/

          More so the pity a court actually let that through actually....

          Last edited 14/12/13 3:39 pm

        Actually, that did happen a few years ago. Men At Work got in trouble for their song Land Down Under, because it allegedly copied the part of the riff from Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree.

      i think the problem is simply: Making money on Youtube was 'too easy' when compared to other industries due to the nature of the content - IE piggy-packing off of the success of video games/music/tv shows and making a buck off of someone else's work

        But the people this affects most are the people who put real work into their videos.

        You might have a 5 minute game review where most of the content is carefully selected clips and which people are watching for the review material. The included clips aren't incidental, but they're not trying to take advantage of the game authors, and are within US "fair use" guidelines.

        The entire review might take ten or more hours to put together, with negligible contributions from the game distributors, and that entire contribution is being written off. The people who do a "Let's Play" with a shoddy unplanned commentary also lose their revenue, but since they've put stuffall effort into putting it together, they're not losing out by very much.

        It's as if you put together a home movie only to find that you can't use it because somebody is playing a radio in the background of one scene. Of if you wrote a term paper only to find you got zero marks because you unconsciously repeated a turn of phrase from one of your reference books.

        I'm surprised it's taken this long to clamp down on using other people's content. I'd often cone across let's play videos and marvel that they hadn't been taken down. This kinda stuff doesn't happen in music or movies, you can't broadcast an entire play, movie, album and talk over it, people would laugh at you if you tried to defend the practice.

        Look, I don't doubt for a second that some of the professionals work really hard, I don't doubt they're highly professional and expend loads of time and money and energy into their craft. But working hard doesn't make something legal, working hard doesn't override someone else's right to have their work protected. They had to realise this was coming. Fair use is one thing, but broadcasting entire games or huge chunks of gameplay ... I have always been amazed people have gotten away with it.

    I can defs see how YT would be hard work- having to build up confidence with the camera, being hugely persistent, constantly redefining your approach and the way you present yourself, opening yourself up to your whole audience, being thick-skinned against trolls, constant video editing and babysitting uploads.. Not to mention coping with constant changes that progressively reduces your channel's exposure.

    It's not nearly as physically demanding as a labourer's or trademan's job but it's still demanding in terms of man-hours spent recording the content, doing multiple takes and editing it (look at Angry Joe's reviews- they take a TON of work). Then there's the mental side of it all- you're opening yourself up to literally everyone on YT as well as Facebook and Twitter in most cases, and that attracts trolls and haters (Boogie 2988 constantly gets trolls on his videos and DarkSydePhil has a whole movement of haters against him). Dealing with that 24/7 would be a right pain in the ass.

    I'd kill to be able to make a living off of YouTube but unfortunately that's impossible with 0.3mbps upload speeds and it really seems 2008-2009 was the time to get in before Google ran it into the ground.

      There are people who have worked on marketing their brand, spending hours and hours playing games, editing and uploading footage who are having their livelihoods ruined because YouTube's sweeping infringements and bans, but because they work on YouTube, people have no empathy.

      I'm desperately trying to become a reviewer because I want to turn my hobby into a job. I can work anywhere from 25-40 hours a week currently writing reviews, recording footage and audio and editing it together. I'll be up till the early hours of the morning, editing footage together. Just remember that the people that you're telling "get a real job", they're having their real jobs destroyed by YouTube.

    Get a real job.

    Genuinely surprised by the sheer arrogance, ignorance and irrationality of Kotaku on this. Just... wow... Lifehacker narcissism making its way over to Kotaku these days.

    They had a good run, nothing lasts forever.

    This is like a response to the comments in the other article, which makes you think make the yanks were having the same spate of comments over there.

    Can people please differentiate between 'Let's Plays' and reviews. Let's Plays are glorified recorded streams - they don't deserve to be monetised, they also don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to fair use. Reviews, on the other hand, deserve protection.

    Also, and this is the big thing - MOST VIDEOS AREN't BEING TAKEN DOWN. They are simple having their monetisation via Google's own ad system revoked.

    People forget that in order to have a copyright, you have to 'protect it'. This Content ID isn't a new system, its just that a lot of LPers / reviewers fell under larger MCNs, which covered their copyright claims.

    Also, I find it highly ironic that people are telling Youtube what they can and can't do with their platform, considering it's both their platform, and their monetisation that enables these guys to get paid. Hilarious.

    Incoming downvote from people who think their favourite LPer is the exception.

    Last edited 14/12/13 5:39 pm

      Let's forget about LPers for a moment, and look at a REVIEWER like Angry Joe or TotalBiscuit. Admittedly TB hasn't had any of his videos revoked, because he's a high-level partner to a channel. But Angry Joe certainly has, and almost ALL his videos are reviews, flagged because he showed parts of games to illustrate points. Imagine, if you will, if print journalists were forced by publishers to pay them to use screenshots of games, or worse, get permission? We'd end up having ALL of our reviews like that awful Kane and Lynch debacle on gamespot a few years back.

      And then, of course, there's the messy situation involving developers and publishers flagging videos for copyright if they a) Have enough attention, and b) Aren't overwhelmingly positive.

        I'm not sure why you downvoted me, that's what I said. Reviewers should be protected.

      I use my Let's Plays AS reviews. Viewers can experience my opinion on a game first hand without me having to figure out a polite way to write about it.

        Experience !== Review

          You're confusing the two uses of the term. What I'm talking about is viewer getting to know what I think immediately and not having to censor myself like I would in a written review. Either way, there are many people who do what I do who consider them to be reviews and so do our viewers and the grey area, until a precedent is set

          Double post, because lol phone.

          Last edited 24/12/13 6:12 pm

    I watch nerd cubed daily.. this sucks.

    Game studios make money off me because I have bought games just because nerd cubed played them

    The Last of Us
    A handful of silly simulators
    Antichamber

    to name just a few

    I really don't care. If you have the time, motivation, initiative and can be bothered with the effort needed to create, edit and upload daily videos, lets plays, reviews, or whatever and make money from it all the power to you!

    I know I'd rather be doing it than going to the office every day 9 - 5 like I do, but then I'm too cautious to be on the frontier of ways to make money. With jobs, I'm honestly super concerned with "Is having this job and having it on my resume going to help with getting a new or better one?", and I see being a you tuber as kind of a weird dead-end no resume-value in the real world kind've deal.

      they way I see it its an offshoot of the entertainment industry...though to be honest I'm not sure it would get you much credibility in the "actual" entertainment industry...but then the "actual" entertainment industry is changing anyway

    Yup. I think this youtube policy has started. Been uploading for 24 hours and it wont get passed 92%. Then it somehow un uploads it self. Hmmmm hope this all blows over. As a lets player, I understand all this copyright jargon, but at least let us upload vids so we can get copyright strikes.

    I am still in a fix that how they get a real jobs? May be they have keen tie ups with the leading job hiring segments like http://www.jobsmelbournevic.com.au/casual ..They have enormous and outstanding capability to raise and create golden job opportunities...

Join the discussion!