4 ms·

We should formulate rules around data ownership - data is scarce resource that is fundamentally owned by the subjects of the data. We should probably create uni

We should formulate rules around data ownership - data is scarce resource that is fundamentally owned by the subjects of the data. We should probably create universal standards for data portability on platforms and mandatory licencing schemes for exclusive data or popular platforms. A youtube competitor should be able to license all the youtube videos - how would a competitor get off the ground without their catalog?

icebraining 9y ago
So a creator of a video should have no right to control in which sites it can be shown? Sounds like a recipe to screw creators even harder than YT already does.
- alexanderstears 9y ago
  If a creator uploads their video to youtube, other video sites should be able to license it from youtube. If youtube doesn't want to share the money, the creators should find another platform.
alphaalpha101 9y ago
YouTube does lots of things poorly that you could compete on. 1. Its videos aren't very high quality. Framerate, colour, resolution and compression are all quite bad on YouTube. 2. It has a restrictive content policy that makes it difficult to make videos about even mildly controversial things without getting them demonetised 3. It hasn't updated its playlist system in years and it's still not possible to do something as simple as playing a playlist in reverse or shuffling a playlist. 4. Its offerings in terms of business models suck. You have the choice of either watching ads, ad-blocking, or paying for Youtube Red. Youtube Red gives you access to listening to music through the Youtube app and watching terrible Disney-quality shows aimed at children. Why isn't there the ability for me to subscribe to particular channel or set of channels for money like on Twitch and Patron, giving me earlier access to videos or exclusive videos? Like, imagine a video sharing website where you could subscribe to particular channels for $5/month to get access to the comments and getting videos earlier (and could otherwise not comment), where the video quality wasn't awful, where the extra features around videos had actually changed somewhat in the last 5 years, where you could make videos with mild nudity or swearing and on controversial topics without losing all your money. Might be a more niche site, but could be really successful.
saas_co_de 9y ago
the cable industry only got off the ground and youtube only got off the ground by willfully ignoring copyright laws and engaging in a get big quick while stalling litigation strategy. if "piracy" is the only way for superior distribution platforms to succeed then there is clearly something wrong with the laws. i think you are probably right that requiring non-discriminatory licensing (i.e. whatever licensing deal you offer to one party you have to offer to anyone on equal terms) would be a fair and reasonable way to foster competition and innovation while reasonably compensating copyright holders.
- icebraining 9y ago
  So if I upload my videos to YouTube (because I expect to make an income from their monetization), I have to offer licenses to my videos to everyone else for free as well?
  - TimJYoung 9y ago
    I think he's saying that you have to offer them under the same terms, so that would include the new site having to provide monetization options for your content that are similar to your existing arrangement.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Right, but for example YT won't allow you to monetize videos until you reach 10k viewers on your channel. Which means a bunch of shitty video sites can use your videos without paying you until you reach 10k viewers on that site - which may mean "never". Also, even if they do pay you, it's not like ads have guaranteed rates, it's all dynamic based on bids, which are likely much smaller in another site.
      - alexanderstears 9y ago
        The sites would have to pay youtube for the content (ideally they'd pay something similar to how much youtube pays the creator - which would actually incentivize youtube to pay creators). If youtube doesn't pay you, that's between you and youtube. Maybe there should be a mechanism for creators to optout of the mutual licencing agreements but I'd make it opt-in by default. I'd bet that the vast majority of people uploading things to youtube do so just to share their content, google shouldn't be enriched by walling off content that creators want to share with the most people. I make a few youtube videos of my hobbies (e.g how to change the fork seals on old Honda motorcycles or pull door panels off Toyotas), I don't care if I make a dime but I'd be over the moon with joy if I got a message telling me that I inspired someone to get a bike running. Google's monopolist bologna shouldn't thwart people from getting their content out there.

icebraining 9y ago

So a creator of a video should have no right to control in which sites it can be shown? Sounds like a recipe to screw creators even harder than YT already does.

alexanderstears 9y ago
If a creator uploads their video to youtube, other video sites should be able to license it from youtube. If youtube doesn't want to share the money, the creators should find another platform.

alphaalpha101 9y ago

YouTube does lots of things poorly that you could compete on. 1. Its videos aren't very high quality. Framerate, colour, resolution and compression are all quite bad on YouTube. 2. It has a restrictive content policy that makes it difficult to make videos about even mildly controversial things without getting them demonetised 3. It hasn't updated its playlist system in years and it's still not possible to do something as simple as playing a playlist in reverse or shuffling a playlist. 4. Its offerings in terms of business models suck. You have the choice of either watching ads, ad-blocking, or paying for Youtube Red. Youtube Red gives you access to listening to music through the Youtube app and watching terrible Disney-quality shows aimed at children. Why isn't there the ability for me to subscribe to particular channel or set of channels for money like on Twitch and Patron, giving me earlier access to videos or exclusive videos? Like, imagine a video sharing website where you could subscribe to particular channels for $5/month to get access to the comments and getting videos earlier (and could otherwise not comment), where the video quality wasn't awful, where the extra features around videos had actually changed somewhat in the last 5 years, where you could make videos with mild nudity or swearing and on controversial topics without losing all your money. Might be a more niche site, but could be really successful.

saas_co_de 9y ago

the cable industry only got off the ground and youtube only got off the ground by willfully ignoring copyright laws and engaging in a get big quick while stalling litigation strategy. if "piracy" is the only way for superior distribution platforms to succeed then there is clearly something wrong with the laws. i think you are probably right that requiring non-discriminatory licensing (i.e. whatever licensing deal you offer to one party you have to offer to anyone on equal terms) would be a fair and reasonable way to foster competition and innovation while reasonably compensating copyright holders.

icebraining 9y ago
So if I upload my videos to YouTube (because I expect to make an income from their monetization), I have to offer licenses to my videos to everyone else for free as well?
- TimJYoung 9y ago
  I think he's saying that you have to offer them under the same terms, so that would include the new site having to provide monetization options for your content that are similar to your existing arrangement.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Right, but for example YT won't allow you to monetize videos until you reach 10k viewers on your channel. Which means a bunch of shitty video sites can use your videos without paying you until you reach 10k viewers on that site - which may mean "never". Also, even if they do pay you, it's not like ads have guaranteed rates, it's all dynamic based on bids, which are likely much smaller in another site.
    - alexanderstears 9y ago
      The sites would have to pay youtube for the content (ideally they'd pay something similar to how much youtube pays the creator - which would actually incentivize youtube to pay creators). If youtube doesn't pay you, that's between you and youtube. Maybe there should be a mechanism for creators to optout of the mutual licencing agreements but I'd make it opt-in by default. I'd bet that the vast majority of people uploading things to youtube do so just to share their content, google shouldn't be enriched by walling off content that creators want to share with the most people. I make a few youtube videos of my hobbies (e.g how to change the fork seals on old Honda motorcycles or pull door panels off Toyotas), I don't care if I make a dime but I'd be over the moon with joy if I got a message telling me that I inspired someone to get a bike running. Google's monopolist bologna shouldn't thwart people from getting their content out there.