This is not a big deal. YouTube is a market, it has always been a market. Revenue shares to peers are inevitable, as they are at all markets (most networks, but very few communities).
This is more a case of semantic confusion that anything else: calling everything "social media" isn't just lazy - it actively obscures the fact that markets, networks, and communities are structurally (and so economically) distinct.
Will revenue shares trickle down to "everyone" - well, almost everyone - it will trickle down to where it's rational; to the point where the transaction costs of the micropayment itself reach the size of the average micropayment.
For all the noise and heat this has generated, it's really a non-event - even from a business model point of view.
Will it drive quality? Sure - but in perverse ways...think of the "quality" Digg promotes. but more on that later.
I agree -- not a big deal at all. The users don't care about revenue sharing (YouTube already beat Revver, et al. which was explained on bubblegen). This is not about "rewarding creativity" in the community, but rather exploiting it. I believe this will decrease quality -- the pt is that YouTube can now get away with it.
Glad to see you finally agree that users should be paid for their time, attention and content. Not all users but the one's that make you profitable. I only mention this because I recall saying this at a Beers & Innovation meeting where you were on the panel and you told the room I was wrong and reiterated that people should never pay for user generated content.
My argument was any business that relied on user generated content, CrwodStorm Toti, Reevoo etc could not sustain that business of the long term if there was no shared value back to the users. When Microsoft, Yahoo and Google bring out their points micropayments later this year I think we will see even more UGC payment.