The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
12 Points

VEVO on youtube

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2011 Category: Arts
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,442 times Debate No: 16852
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)




I've seen so many people complaining about VEVO being everywhere after the Google take over of youtube. And I've herd complaints of even more copyright problems. I Have my Views that are Pro VEVO, but what makes them so bad?


Thank you to my opponent for this challenge.

The issue at hand is whether VEVO is positive or negative. I will be arguing that VEVO's influence is predominately negative as it pertains to its involvement on youtube.

I will now present three points:

1.VEVO hinders artistic expression: because the music controlled by VEVO requires special licensing, this music is unable for use of the common person. For example, if someone wants to make a video and use music controlled by VEVO for the background, they are required to acquire a license or else risk copyright infringement. This is unfair because most of the people who want to use this music are simply trying to express an artistic point, and are now being forced to edit their original work by choosing other music that simply is not quite right.

2.VEVO's excessive advertising discourages users: Oftentimes when one tries to watch a 3 minute long music video, they must first sit through a 45-second advertisement just to get there. To have to spend 1/6th of the length of the actual product watching a commercial is too much, and defeats the purpose of using the internet as a viable means of watching music videos. If you have to sit through commercials either way, why not just watch MTV? After all, you can do this from the comfort of your couch on a much larger screen, and with a similar commercial-to-music ratio.

3.The nature of VEVO threatens the integrity of youtube: The point of youtube is that it is a user-generated site. Individuals are supposed to share videos with one another, be it music they like, clips of shows, or their own creative works. They are meant to interact on a personal level, independent of any kind of economic motivation. VEVO, on the other hand, is a corporation; they are there to make money. They do this through their exclusivity in the material they control and through their aforementioned advertising. This is simply unfair to the nature of youtube; it is now driven by capitalism, instead of actual interest in different music or material.

These are the points I present as an argument against VEVO's involvement in youtube. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 1


Welcome to the debate!
Lets back up for a second ad look at YouTube. Youtube is a very fast growing website [1], with over 48.2 million users[2] and no one actually knows the number of videos live on youtube, because it grows so rabidly on an Internationale scale. In a 24 hour period Google spends over $2,000,000 a day just to run youtube[3]. And how many people do you know who actually take their old videos down off youtube?

Lets just say that every user has an average of three Vieos (which is probably way low) but this would come out to 144,600,000 videos, and lets say they average 5 Megabits (also very low) and that is 706054.6875
Gigabytes. that is 70 1 terabyte hard drives. and given this is probably a way low number, imagine what they need to keep all this running!

This is where VEVO comes in. Large Corporations need to make compromises, and VEVO brings in some money through their contract with google and some with advertising, at the same time slowing down the rush of incoming videos just copying the original video. though they exist, The world doesn't need three of the same music video for "Not Afraid" by Eminem And as my opponent brought up, yes they will kick and scream is you use their music in your video, the only thing you need to do to get around this is saying in the description "I do not own the music rights to this video".

My opponent also brought up the point of the Advertisements. He seems to have exaggerated a little bit, I just went through the top five songs on the's Hot 100, and on the vevo channel, not one had an advertisement. the Only advertisement I have seen all day was for Not afraid by Eminem, and that one was 15 seconds for a 4 minuet video, and from what I've seen, anything over 20 seconds has a "skip this add" button.

Next my opponent says that VEVO keeps youtube away from being a User generated site. Again I say, as long as you deny the that you own the music in the video, you can keep it up.

Vevo Brings in some money to balance out the budget keeping Youtube running.

[1 ]


Though I do not dispute that the issue of the cost of running youtube is relevant to VEVO's involvement, I do not think that this is really the point of the debate. Youtube had been running for about 4 years before VEVO ever came into the picture [1], and it was doing fine for itself. The solution to these expenses is not to compromise the integrity of this site altogether.

I absolutely agree that the world does not need three copies of each music video on one site; but I don't think it's a big enough deal if these videos exist in triplicate, to necessitate a corporate giant preventing other users from using the music in different ways. My opponent has stated that all one needs to do to use this music is write that you don't own the rights in the description; allow me to correct this misunderstanding. According to VEVO, to use the material owned by VEVO you must obtain written permission [2]. My opponent, by saying that you simply need to write an extra sentence in the description, is minimizing the difficulties associated with using the music. In reality, you must contact VEVO and get express, written permission any time you wish to simply use a song in the background of your creative work. I hold my position that this will interfere with artistic expression.

I apologize for my inaccuracy in the point I made about advertising; it is true that for many of the longer ads, you have the option to skip the ad after the first twenty seconds or so. And I did not mean to suggest that EVERY video has an ad, because of course that isn't true. Nevertheless, the ads that are present are annoying to users. It's not that the users can't stand to lose twenty seconds before they watch a video; it's just that that's not the point of using the internet, which was supposed to be a way to instantly access content. At the rapid rate advertising in the form of commercials (not just pop ups or side bars) is taking over the internet, it won't be long before ads are forced upon users before they can access anything. This affects not just youtube, but other sites as well.

My opponent has misunderstood my third point, thinking that I was simply restating my first point. This is not the case. The point I was trying to make is that, when content is generated by the users of a site, the site has more integrity than when a corporation is posting content purely for the purpose of making a profit. I'm not saying that somehow VEVO prevents users from posting videos at all (though as I stated in my first point, it does hinder it), I'm saying that a user-generated site should not be overrun by corporate giants using it as a moneymaking scheme. The idea of a site "by you, for you" is the original intent of youtube. VEVO is not a person like you and I, therefore it does not belong on this type of site. It is changing what youtube was supposed to be about.

Though VEVO does generate revenue, it does so at the expense of the principles that youtube was founded on.

Debate Round No. 2


My Opponent has said that Vevo limits the uploading abilities of people, But a New update ( new as in June 2, 2011) YouTube has a Umbrella license of sorts called "Creative Commons Attribution" which you can select upon upload[1]. "YouTube's recent addition of the Creative Commons licensing option just made it a whole lot easier to make mashups without stepping on anyone's stiletto-sporting toes" [2] It is a very interesting developmental that can get around vevo, because you know that someone is going to get permission and post that with the CC-BY, allowing everyone to use that, or eventually vevo itself bay use CC-BY!.

Though youtube for four years "Before being purchased by Google, YouTube declared that its business model was advertisement-based" [3]. Vevos nothing more then just another advertiser, and that is what it still is. After the Google take over, the advertisement have become bigger just remembering in my own youtube using years. Vevo is just a little expansion, which is just a bump. It doesn't relay hurt much, and it works.

And My opponent is still exaggerating, the skip add buttons comes up after 5 seconds. I check just moments ago on "rolling in the deep." the adds are hit and miss also.

My opponent brings up the point that Vevo isn't a User, but a corperation... well neither are these guys you may have heard of:
The British Monarchy:
Barack Obama:

Shout we kick all of them of the youtube too? sure they dont have the advertising that the VEVO does, but I know Obama has streamed several speeches on youtube, and Advertised a bit too. Just because one shouts more then others, It doesn't mean you should shut up the loudest, you need to shut them all up.

Its been a fun debate, Vote Pro. Godspeed.
(now I am going to go play with this new CC-BY)



Despite the Creative Commons Attribution, it still involves having to, in my opponent's own words "get around VEVO". If you have to "get around" something, then it is clear that it is an obstacle, barrier, or difficulty to begin with. And an obstacle, barrier, or difficulty must by definition hinder [1]. If these things are true, than I am forced to conclude that, because VEVO requires the use of strategy and various loopholes to get around, it is in fact an obstacle to artistic expression. Additionally, even with the Creative Commons Attribution, it does still require someone to get written permission, so I assume that my opponent concedes that the use of VEVO material does, no matter what, require written permission.

Youtube has always been advertisement based; I never proposed to prove that it wasn't. My point was simply that VEVO is a significant increase in advertising. I also stated, which my opponent failed to address, that VEVO represents a change in the way that advertising is done on youtube (commercials instead of the less imposing side bar ads). This is annoying to many users [2]. Though that may seem like a stupid or insignificant reason to argue against something, allow me to point out that the entire point of youtube is to please the users—annoying them is the EXACT opposite of the intended result, so VEVO is entirely counterproductive for youtube in this way.

I don't particularly want to accuse my opponent of dishonesty, as he has done now twice to me (though I did acknowledge that I had made a mistake initially), so I will just chalk up his lack of knowledge of different kinds of ads as a misunderstanding, instead of deceit. I'm unable to find a comprehensive guide to lengths of VEVO ads, so I will be speaking from my own experience. There are many different ads on VEVO, which range from lengths of about 15 seconds to 2 minutes. For MOST OF the ads under 45 seconds-1 minute, there is no skip this ad button; for SOME OF them there are. For nearly all of the ads over a minute, you have the option to skip the ad. However, the lengths of ads is not particularly relevant to my argument, so it's really a non-issue. My point was dealing with advertising as a whole; my argument doesn't become invalid dependent on ad length.

My opponent points out that VEVO is one among many corporations that use youtube; this is true. However, there is a very important difference between the users listed by my opponent and VEVO: Sesame Street, JibJab, the British Monarchy, and the White House are producing their own material, as opposed to purchasing rights to material made by others as does VEVO. Though those listed are not a user in the sense that it is not just one person, they are still creating their own material, artistic or informational, instead of profiting off of the products of others. This is why these users do not threaten the integrity of youtube in the same way VEVO does.

Thank you to the Pro for this creative and interesting topic, and have fun with your CC-BY. :)

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by That.Guy 7 years ago
I can't vote yet, but I would vote pro
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RedDawnJensen 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I calls em like I sees em. I cant believe youre on the side of VEVO, given that you think Google is attempting an internet and economic takeover through its corporate dominations. Google could easily afford to pay for Youtube without any ads at all. All it takes even with ads, mis maybe they could have all videos with the ad on the upper right, and the poster of the video wouldnt get any of the ad revenue. This would help pay off some of the costs of the site. Sorry Spartan, I cant lie.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Reasons for voting decision: Fresh debate topic and Pro was able to carry the resolution and deal with Con's objections which at times were not accurate such as the reality of ads ad not being aware of CC on youtube. 4:3 Pro.
Vote Placed by blackhawk1331 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't like VEVO(who I agree with). There were numerous spelling errors in pro's arguments. Pro couldn't sway my opinion, and con had better arguments anyway.