A while ago, Matthew Stibbe talked about the real power thinking and acting collaboratively.

Matthew explained the concept of crowdsourcing — which is basically just user-driven and user-created content (although some people would argue that ‘crowdsourcing’ is more a cost-cutting measure than anything).

Yet when it comes to user-created content, the subject of compensation always seems to crop up somehow. Having just purchased YouTube, Google has been accused of contributing to copyright infringement.

Everybody wants a piece of the action.

But as a content creator, should you be compensated for the content you create? Or is your content like a letter to the editor (which the publication can print, reprint or not print as they see fit)?

YouTube (since being purchased by Google) seems to think paying content creators is the right way to go. It would seem that Google has decided to ‘do the right thing’ and pay content creators.

But wait a second.

Just like copyright and patents, content creation is about incentives — and creating a mutually beneficial situation for sharing those creators’ content.

Just like Google’s advertising model, Google’s strength is in the network it has access to. By providing further incentives to video creators (beyond the obvious, existing incentive to show off your video), Google is ensuring the dominance of its network over other networks.

Much like it has already done with AdSense, Google is consolidating its position in a particular niche of the advertising world through redistributing a portion of its revenue back to the people who created the content, in exchange for taking a cut to allow you to use their network to distribute your content.

While this may seem unfair to some, perhaps it may offer bloggers and web content creators who live in more economically disadvantaged countries to make the same money as their counterparts in first world countries.