4 ms·

The difference is that YouTube profits from the videos, EC2 rents generic capacity to someone who could choose to profit from them.

by jchrisa 17y ago

pyre 17y ago
> The difference is that YouTube profits from the videos, EC2 rents generic capacity to someone who could choose to profit from them. So profit = bad? Do you think that Amazon runs EC2 as a pro-bono effort? Amazon YouTube ------ ------- Rents Generic Space Rents specific space (videos-only) Charges Rental Fees Free rent Provides a minimal API Provides a nice web front-end tailor to specific space Profits from rental fees Profits from adverts in/around the videos Please explain the huge difference here and how the law should differentiate between one service and another. Is the major difference here that YouTube uses advertising to turn a profit rather than rental fees? Is that really what makes them deserving of losing safe-harbor? Do the GeoCities-type hosting services also fall into this niche because they monetize through advertising rather than fee-collection? [Note: I've never used EC2 so I don't know what they provide other than a low-level (and maybe a high-level) API into their space] {edit} Some more points: * If you don't like that fact that YouTube does not rent generic space and rents space specifically for videos, then how do you rectify more to-the-metal type services that rent space specifically for video, or music distribution, but still profit from rental fees (instead of ads)? Do they qualify the same as YouTube because they are not providing 'generic space?' * Do you not like that Google possibly profits more from popular videos than from unpopular videos (i.e. you don't like that they profit more or less based on the content of the video)? If this is the case, how is it any different than Amazon EC2 profiting more from someone that serves large files that such up copious amounts of bandwidth if they get to be popular/highly downloaded? {/edit}
cemerick 17y ago
I don't understand this at all. YouTube profits off of the video service they provide for free to their users, so they're bad? I need an emoticon indicating total bafflement.
- jchrisa 17y ago
  It's about the technology being more generic. If you control the service (obviously you don't with YouTube) the host should have safe harbor. If a host controls the service, they are responsible for it's content.

The difference is that YouTube profits from the videos, EC2 rents generic capacity to someone who could choose to profit from them.

by jchrisa 17y ago

The difference is that YouTube profits from the videos, EC2 rents generic capacity to someone who could choose to profit from them.

pyre 17y ago

> The difference is that YouTube profits from the videos, EC2 rents generic capacity to someone who could choose to profit from them. So profit = bad? Do you think that Amazon runs EC2 as a pro-bono effort? Amazon YouTube ------ ------- Rents Generic Space Rents specific space (videos-only) Charges Rental Fees Free rent Provides a minimal API Provides a nice web front-end tailor to specific space Profits from rental fees Profits from adverts in/around the videos Please explain the huge difference here and how the law should differentiate between one service and another. Is the major difference here that YouTube uses advertising to turn a profit rather than rental fees? Is that really what makes them deserving of losing safe-harbor? Do the GeoCities-type hosting services also fall into this niche because they monetize through advertising rather than fee-collection? [Note: I've never used EC2 so I don't know what they provide other than a low-level (and maybe a high-level) API into their space] {edit} Some more points: * If you don't like that fact that YouTube does not rent generic space and rents space specifically for videos, then how do you rectify more to-the-metal type services that rent space specifically for video, or music distribution, but still profit from rental fees (instead of ads)? Do they qualify the same as YouTube because they are not providing 'generic space?' * Do you not like that Google possibly profits more from popular videos than from unpopular videos (i.e. you don't like that they profit more or less based on the content of the video)? If this is the case, how is it any different than Amazon EC2 profiting more from someone that serves large files that such up copious amounts of bandwidth if they get to be popular/highly downloaded? {/edit}

cemerick 17y ago

I don't understand this at all. YouTube profits off of the video service they provide for free to their users, so they're bad? I need an emoticon indicating total bafflement.

jchrisa 17y ago
It's about the technology being more generic. If you control the service (obviously you don't with YouTube) the host should have safe harbor. If a host controls the service, they are responsible for it's content.