5 ms·

I feel like this criticism of YouTube is about 5 years out of date. At this point most of their traffic is original content by content creators. It's not the Na

I feel like this criticism of YouTube is about 5 years out of date. At this point most of their traffic is original content by content creators. It's not the Napster model so much as hoodwinking young creatives into shouldering all the risks of producing a service for YouTube's users and using their monopoly power to freeze them out of being able to make anything resembling a decent cut of the revenues for their efforts. Call it the "Uber" model.

will_brown 8y ago
>At this point most of their traffic is original content by content creators. That’s not my experience. Name me a non-obscure movie, show, or song and I’ll bet I find it on YouTube. Except of course YouTube’s paid content...good luck finding a pirate version of say YouTube original series Kobra Kai, They seemed to have figured out a way to police their own content without issue.
- naravara 8y ago
  >Name me a non-obscure movie, show, or song and I’ll bet I find it on YouTube. With songs, at least, most of the time it's posted there by Vevo, so the recording industry put it there themselves. It's unlikely to be a big driver of their traffic or revenue. The incentives aren't even there, they're so quick to demonetize or send DMCA takedowns that anything people are likely to search for are at high risk of being taken down. You really only see the flowering of pirated content in the early days after live events, like when a new movie trailer drops.
- wvenable 8y ago
  > Name me a non-obscure movie, show, or song and I’ll bet I find it on YouTube. Heavily distorted to the point that you wouldn't really want to watch it in that format if you had any alternative.
- why_only_15 8y ago
  I can't find most Beatles songs nowadays. A few years ago I was able to, but now it seems to be close to impossible.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Name me a non-obscure movie, show, or song and I’ll bet I find it on YouTube. Sure: Kill Bill (vol 1).
  - lovich 8y ago
    https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9D10D8B604D6B7EC https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9D10D8B604D6B7EC Not quite the full movie, but a substantial portion and its certainly not being used under fair use doctrine like using these clips as examples to discuss film techniques or a parody. This took all of 5 seconds to find copyrighted content on youtube
    - realusername 8y ago
      It's just extracts of 3min, you cannot compare that to a full movie.
      - lovich 8y ago
        I'm not comparing it to a full movie. I am demonstrating that it is trivially easy to find copyrighted content on YouTube's platform. A list of clips like this is something that other industries/companies get sued over. If I steal your money 2% at a time, I don't get to claim that it doesn't count because each chunk wasn't the whole thing. Personally I wouldn't actually care about stuff like this, and accept the DMCA safe harbor as a valid argument to protect YouTube and similar sites. However, all of them have started to, or already been deep into, do content curation. Once you take an active role in the content available on your service I dont think you should be able to argue that you can't help what users upload. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too
        realusername 8y ago
        > I'm not comparing it to a full movie. I am demonstrating that it is trivially easy to find copyrighted content on YouTube's platform. A list of clips like this is something that other industries/companies get sued over. If I steal your money 2% at a time, I don't get to claim that it doesn't count because each chunk wasn't the whole thing. And how do you know exactly these short clips aren't just allowed and monetized by the copyright owners? > Personally I wouldn't actually care about stuff like this, and accept the DMCA safe harbor as a valid argument to protect YouTube and similar sites. However, all of them have started to, or already been deep into, do content curation. Once you take an active role in the content available on your service I dont think you should be able to argue that you can't help what users upload. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too It's exactly what they are doing now, it's called ContentID and it sucks (as expected).
- MrEldritch 8y ago
  >Name me a non-obscure movie, show, or song and I’ll bet I find it on YouTube. I agree that this criticism is about five years out of date. When I was younger, I used to happily go to Youtube to watch free versions of TV shows and cartoons. However, they've gradually become good enough at enforcing copyright that while you can absolutely still find anything you like on there, the degree to which it must be munged to escape the copyright filters means it's utterly unwatchable. It's actually really annoying, because you can no longer even find short clips of particular moments reliably, as they've often been taken down.
- happycube 8y ago
  Actually I find it's the obscure movies that stay up. ;)
darawk 8y ago
You think Uber is not giving the drivers a decent cut of the revenue?
esturk 8y ago
If you search sports highlight such as NBA or NFL, you'll find plenty of copyrighted videos.

will_brown 8y ago

>At this point most of their traffic is original content by content creators. That’s not my experience. Name me a non-obscure movie, show, or song and I’ll bet I find it on YouTube. Except of course YouTube’s paid content...good luck finding a pirate version of say YouTube original series Kobra Kai, They seemed to have figured out a way to police their own content without issue.

naravara 8y ago
>Name me a non-obscure movie, show, or song and I’ll bet I find it on YouTube. With songs, at least, most of the time it's posted there by Vevo, so the recording industry put it there themselves. It's unlikely to be a big driver of their traffic or revenue. The incentives aren't even there, they're so quick to demonetize or send DMCA takedowns that anything people are likely to search for are at high risk of being taken down. You really only see the flowering of pirated content in the early days after live events, like when a new movie trailer drops.
wvenable 8y ago
> Name me a non-obscure movie, show, or song and I’ll bet I find it on YouTube. Heavily distorted to the point that you wouldn't really want to watch it in that format if you had any alternative.
why_only_15 8y ago
I can't find most Beatles songs nowadays. A few years ago I was able to, but now it seems to be close to impossible.
icebraining 8y ago
Name me a non-obscure movie, show, or song and I’ll bet I find it on YouTube. Sure: Kill Bill (vol 1).
- lovich 8y ago
  https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9D10D8B604D6B7EC https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9D10D8B604D6B7EC Not quite the full movie, but a substantial portion and its certainly not being used under fair use doctrine like using these clips as examples to discuss film techniques or a parody. This took all of 5 seconds to find copyrighted content on youtube
  - realusername 8y ago
    It's just extracts of 3min, you cannot compare that to a full movie.
    - lovich 8y ago
      I'm not comparing it to a full movie. I am demonstrating that it is trivially easy to find copyrighted content on YouTube's platform. A list of clips like this is something that other industries/companies get sued over. If I steal your money 2% at a time, I don't get to claim that it doesn't count because each chunk wasn't the whole thing. Personally I wouldn't actually care about stuff like this, and accept the DMCA safe harbor as a valid argument to protect YouTube and similar sites. However, all of them have started to, or already been deep into, do content curation. Once you take an active role in the content available on your service I dont think you should be able to argue that you can't help what users upload. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too
      - realusername 8y ago
        > I'm not comparing it to a full movie. I am demonstrating that it is trivially easy to find copyrighted content on YouTube's platform. A list of clips like this is something that other industries/companies get sued over. If I steal your money 2% at a time, I don't get to claim that it doesn't count because each chunk wasn't the whole thing. And how do you know exactly these short clips aren't just allowed and monetized by the copyright owners? > Personally I wouldn't actually care about stuff like this, and accept the DMCA safe harbor as a valid argument to protect YouTube and similar sites. However, all of them have started to, or already been deep into, do content curation. Once you take an active role in the content available on your service I dont think you should be able to argue that you can't help what users upload. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too It's exactly what they are doing now, it's called ContentID and it sucks (as expected).
MrEldritch 8y ago
>Name me a non-obscure movie, show, or song and I’ll bet I find it on YouTube. I agree that this criticism is about five years out of date. When I was younger, I used to happily go to Youtube to watch free versions of TV shows and cartoons. However, they've gradually become good enough at enforcing copyright that while you can absolutely still find anything you like on there, the degree to which it must be munged to escape the copyright filters means it's utterly unwatchable. It's actually really annoying, because you can no longer even find short clips of particular moments reliably, as they've often been taken down.
happycube 8y ago
Actually I find it's the obscure movies that stay up. ;)

darawk 8y ago

You think Uber is not giving the drivers a decent cut of the revenue?

esturk 8y ago

If you search sports highlight such as NBA or NFL, you'll find plenty of copyrighted videos.