Get more articles like this and Register for our Forum.

User Generated

With sites like YouTube beginning to pay their most prolific contributors, and others like the Huffington Post still refusing to pay their authors, the question is raised as to fairness of user generated content.

The argument of sites like Digg, YouTube and even blogs like the DailyKos and the Huffington Post is that the provide exposure to authors who might not otherwise be able to generate an audience on their own. In return, they reap the benefits of advertising income that these authors are at least partially responsible for bringing in.

What I want to know (and this week’s poll) is whether this is a fair arrangement. Without users, none of these sites would be able to function. Without these sites, the users would not have a platform to express their opinions. Is trading exposure for advertising revenue really the most equitable arrangement or should all of these sites give their users a cut of the revenue that they help to generate? Or could their be another arrangement that would be more fair?

Leave your opinion here.

[Be sure to subscribe to the RSS Feed before leaving. Photo Credit]

  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Fark
  • Mixx
  • Propeller
  • TwitThis