4 ms·

Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services, and portions of YouTube that do collect subscription fees do have a full s

Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services, and portions of YouTube that do collect subscription fees do have a full support structure. Your assertion that Google has a monopoly in this market is wrong for several reasons. The first is that there is no market for Googke/YouTube to control. Ad revenue which covers less than their overhead makes them a non-profit and YouTube in particular is closer to meeting the requirements for being classified as a government protected service than an anti-trust concern. Second,nobody makes money in the free media hosting and distribution product domain. This is well known and is a large part of why they have virtually no competition. Third, YouTube wouldn't even have a system that automatically takes down channels except that laws were written that required them to do so. Google doesn't make money from YouTube, and they only acquired it for the good will providing a free service generates for them. Recently the head of YouTube has been making weird even retarded decisions, but it's still a free service that operates in an application domain that basically can't make money by definition.

tga_d 6y ago
>Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services Do you have a source for this? I feel like Microsoft would have liked to have known that, back when they lost an antitrust case around a freely provided web browser. >Ad revenue which covers less than their overhead makes them a non-profit That's not what "non-profit" means. >nobody makes money in the free media hosting and distribution product domain. Nobody has been profitable, but that doesn't mean nobody is trying or nobody could if the market weren't anti-competitive. There is also plenty of case-law in the US establishing that just because an anti-competitive scheme wasn't profitable doesn't make it legal. Hell, a lot of anti-competitive activity works specifically because it's not profitable in the short term. >YouTube wouldn't even have a system that automatically takes down channels except that laws were written that required them to do so. But not in the manner that they do. The point being made wasn't that their management of takedown notices is itself anti-competitive behavior, it's that the fact they don't have to change it to something more reasonable is evidence that they don't have any competition, which is indicative of a monopoly in the space. >they only acquired it for the good will providing a free service generates for them Again, source. I know YT is unlikely to be profitable right now, but I seriously doubt the purchase was a good-will gesture rather than a strategic long-term investment. I don't think there were a lot of people whose opinion of Google went up as a result of the purchase. >r......d Really? Was that necessary to make your point?
rnet85 6y ago
sad to see this get downvoted because it does not go along with the youtube bashing sentiment, the amount of people who think other video platforms will not have copyright claim problems is ridiculously high.
- tga_d 6y ago
  As I point out in my other comment, that comment doesn't seem especially well reasoned or sourced, but I for one wouldn't have downvoted if not for the language. I could have agreed 100% with what they were saying and I would still have downvoted, because there's no reason to let disparaging and ableist language stay visible, regardless of the point being made. Make your own version if you feel strongly about it. In any case, I don't think anyone is saying other video platforms wouldn't have copyright claims, they're saying that in a more competitive space, the mechanisms for handling those claims would be better. E.g., they might actually tell the creator in the linked video what the violation actually is.

tga_d 6y ago

>Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services Do you have a source for this? I feel like Microsoft would have liked to have known that, back when they lost an antitrust case around a freely provided web browser. >Ad revenue which covers less than their overhead makes them a non-profit That's not what "non-profit" means. >nobody makes money in the free media hosting and distribution product domain. Nobody has been profitable, but that doesn't mean nobody is trying or nobody could if the market weren't anti-competitive. There is also plenty of case-law in the US establishing that just because an anti-competitive scheme wasn't profitable doesn't make it legal. Hell, a lot of anti-competitive activity works specifically because it's not profitable in the short term. >YouTube wouldn't even have a system that automatically takes down channels except that laws were written that required them to do so. But not in the manner that they do. The point being made wasn't that their management of takedown notices is itself anti-competitive behavior, it's that the fact they don't have to change it to something more reasonable is evidence that they don't have any competition, which is indicative of a monopoly in the space. >they only acquired it for the good will providing a free service generates for them Again, source. I know YT is unlikely to be profitable right now, but I seriously doubt the purchase was a good-will gesture rather than a strategic long-term investment. I don't think there were a lot of people whose opinion of Google went up as a result of the purchase. >r......d Really? Was that necessary to make your point?

rnet85 6y ago

sad to see this get downvoted because it does not go along with the youtube bashing sentiment, the amount of people who think other video platforms will not have copyright claim problems is ridiculously high.

tga_d 6y ago
As I point out in my other comment, that comment doesn't seem especially well reasoned or sourced, but I for one wouldn't have downvoted if not for the language. I could have agreed 100% with what they were saying and I would still have downvoted, because there's no reason to let disparaging and ableist language stay visible, regardless of the point being made. Make your own version if you feel strongly about it. In any case, I don't think anyone is saying other video platforms wouldn't have copyright claims, they're saying that in a more competitive space, the mechanisms for handling those claims would be better. E.g., they might actually tell the creator in the linked video what the violation actually is.