4 ms·

Looking at the revenue, growth rates, etc, it looks like Youtube sadly does not need to do better. It seems protecting the rights of massive media companies at

by nikanj 8y ago

Looking at the revenue, growth rates, etc, it looks like Youtube sadly does not need to do better. It seems protecting the rights of massive media companies at the expense of tiny players has resulted them in attracting the massive crowds, at the expense of tiny crowds. Keeping Marvel trailers and Madonna music videos up brings in much more money than serving the indie sector. They care very little for the false positives, because only false negatives actually cost them money.

soheil 8y ago
It seems like such a blanket statement to say that false negatives don't cost them money so they just let is happen. First it's very clear that Youtube spend considerable effort creating content ID and not used a dumb filter which would have been so easy to create and might I add cheaper also. They also care about their reputation to the extent that it doesn't impede them in making money in a significant way. Don't get me wrong I completely think Youtube's copyright system is a joke and for instance if Kim .com was operating it, it would have been raided by the FBI out of existence spontaneously.
- ehsankia 8y ago
  Right, they've clearly put a lot of amazing work on the engineering side, but sadly, this is something that really need more humans. Especially in the edge cases. I don't know if anyone remembers how bad Steam customer services used to be. They tried super hard to use engineering to solve it and it was awful. They finally gave up and hired more people and now it's much better. This definitely isn't an easy problem as some make it, but yeah I don't think the answer lies in better algorithms. You just need a lot more partner supports that actually assist creators who run into issues.
koolba 8y ago
Clear your browser history and load a “fresh” YouTube to see how low that denominator is.
- annadane 8y ago
  That's also what pisses me off. They'll claim to the end of the earth they're a neutral platform. Your recommended videos say otherwise.
gizmo686 8y ago
>Looking at the revenue, growth rates, etc, it looks like Youtube sadly does not need to do better. Careful with this line of thinking. Youtube got to having massive players by moving up market from indie videos. The main thing blocking a competetor from following the same path is that Youtube still dominates in the indie sector as well. If they damage themselves in that market enough to give a competetor a foothold, then they lose that moat; and their competetor can follow the same up market path that Youtube took.
- jrobn 8y ago
  I think there is a chance a competitor could pop up and hurt YouTube. They would need to have a ContentID like system, monetization, and a non sucky copyright system that isn’t gamable, and of course infastructure. Very tall orders but could be done with a talented team. YouTube has it exists today are out right abusing their indie people. Shuttering channgles, demonitizing channels with very little feedback. A could case in point would be Max Yurev. He has a great photograpy channel and they demonistized him for months until he recieved some weird fwd email that said re-monitize him its becoming a “PR problem”. They have zero accountability.
ABCLAW 8y ago
The false negatives will only cost them money when they are litigated against consistently on the basis that they systemically aid fraud and/or engage in unlawful interference in economic relations. There might be other nice torts to ding them on, but as always, the channels that are too small to matter for manual review are also too small to support the economics of litigation.

by nikanj 8y ago

soheil 8y ago

It seems like such a blanket statement to say that false negatives don't cost them money so they just let is happen. First it's very clear that Youtube spend considerable effort creating content ID and not used a dumb filter which would have been so easy to create and might I add cheaper also. They also care about their reputation to the extent that it doesn't impede them in making money in a significant way. Don't get me wrong I completely think Youtube's copyright system is a joke and for instance if Kim .com was operating it, it would have been raided by the FBI out of existence spontaneously.

ehsankia 8y ago
Right, they've clearly put a lot of amazing work on the engineering side, but sadly, this is something that really need more humans. Especially in the edge cases. I don't know if anyone remembers how bad Steam customer services used to be. They tried super hard to use engineering to solve it and it was awful. They finally gave up and hired more people and now it's much better. This definitely isn't an easy problem as some make it, but yeah I don't think the answer lies in better algorithms. You just need a lot more partner supports that actually assist creators who run into issues.

koolba 8y ago

Clear your browser history and load a “fresh” YouTube to see how low that denominator is.

annadane 8y ago
That's also what pisses me off. They'll claim to the end of the earth they're a neutral platform. Your recommended videos say otherwise.

gizmo686 8y ago

>Looking at the revenue, growth rates, etc, it looks like Youtube sadly does not need to do better. Careful with this line of thinking. Youtube got to having massive players by moving up market from indie videos. The main thing blocking a competetor from following the same path is that Youtube still dominates in the indie sector as well. If they damage themselves in that market enough to give a competetor a foothold, then they lose that moat; and their competetor can follow the same up market path that Youtube took.

jrobn 8y ago
I think there is a chance a competitor could pop up and hurt YouTube. They would need to have a ContentID like system, monetization, and a non sucky copyright system that isn’t gamable, and of course infastructure. Very tall orders but could be done with a talented team. YouTube has it exists today are out right abusing their indie people. Shuttering channgles, demonitizing channels with very little feedback. A could case in point would be Max Yurev. He has a great photograpy channel and they demonistized him for months until he recieved some weird fwd email that said re-monitize him its becoming a “PR problem”. They have zero accountability.

ABCLAW 8y ago

The false negatives will only cost them money when they are litigated against consistently on the basis that they systemically aid fraud and/or engage in unlawful interference in economic relations. There might be other nice torts to ding them on, but as always, the channels that are too small to matter for manual review are also too small to support the economics of litigation.