3 ms·

> So all they need is a slightly sexier or faster app, and they're done. YouTube is not just an app, it's a network that can distribute content along the lines

> So all they need is a slightly sexier or faster app, and they're done. YouTube is not just an app, it's a network that can distribute content along the lines of "200 million videos watched, 65k new videos uploaded per day", it's also the people who moderate it, it's also the people who market it, uptime and reliability, etc. And you'd have to beat YouTube on every single one of these to get at even a substantial fragment of those precious ad dollars. Notice that your hypothetical "NotYouTube" does not have _any_ advantage over actual-YouTube in a world without IP. It's in the business of connecting advertisers to potential customers, just like YouTube, and to be able to do that, they need content that people watch. And hence, it has an incentive to support the creation of such content. Especially so if it becomes the market leader (by having a slightly sexier app, or larger reach, or less obtrusive ads, or better recommendations, or a nicer privacy policy, some other appeal^1): with that advantage, more people will watch the new content on their website than elsewhere, so it will be able to get more ad revenue from hosting it than its competitors. There might be > You really need to think through the entire chain of events that'll unfold if we had no IP rights. Agreed. We should be especially careful not to: 1. assume that Econ 101 would also cease to apply, and that anyone would be able to make money by spinning up YouTube clones. If your dystopian vision was correct, Wikipedia would have been outcompeted by one of its ad-supported mirrors long ago. ^1 Note: All of these are QoL improvements for the users of the services. As long as there are many more content consumers than content creators (and there is overlap between the two categories), this may constitute a further argument against IP rights.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
slver 6y ago
You keep saying they need original content people can watch. I don't know how many times I can explain the notion of "original content" loses meaning without IP rights. Original content is an incentive because only the producer can host it. That's enforced by RIGHTS. Without rights, if YouTube produces it, it ends up on NotYouTube. If NotYouTube produces, it ends up on YouTube. No rights, no original content. There's no incentive. You keep saying the incentive is so people go to the site to watch a particular video. But nothing keeps that video on that one site. IP rights do that currently. If what you say is right, how far has ThePirateBay gone to produce original content? Oh that's right, they just take Hollywood content and ads flow just fine. That's the future you're fighting for.
- saithound 6y ago
  > You keep saying the incentive is so people go to the site to watch a particular video. But nothing keeps that video on that one site. No, that's not what I'm saying, and I don't know what gave you that idea. The phrase "original content" never even appeared in my comments! People visit to online video platforms to watch videos. If there are no interesting videos, people don't visit online video platforms: they go and do something else with their time. And if people don't visit your online video platform, operators of online video platforms lose money, and go out of business. Consequently, operators of online video platforms have an incentive to ensure that interesting videos get made. This is true even when all videos are available on all the platforms. Same principle: one of my siblings operates a rural hotel, and regularly contributes to a fund promoting tourism in the region. Doing this is a net positive for her revenue, even though some (most!) of the tourists will not stay in that specific hotel when they visit the region, and some might stay in hotels that did not contribute to any such fund. > If what you say is right, how far has ThePirateBay gone to produce original content? TPB has to operate illegally, has an order of magnitude fewer visitors, and two orders of magnitude smaller revenue. They are not in the position to fund substantial original content, and those who accepted their money would risk prosecution. Despite all of that, TPB did fund a limited number of art projects in the past [1]. > Oh that's right, they just take Hollywood content and ads flow just fine. That's the future you're fighting for. Heartbreaking injustice. No comment. [1] https://wikileaks.org/gottfrid-docs/ https://wikileaks.org/gottfrid-docs/

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

slver 6y ago

You keep saying they need original content people can watch. I don't know how many times I can explain the notion of "original content" loses meaning without IP rights. Original content is an incentive because only the producer can host it. That's enforced by RIGHTS. Without rights, if YouTube produces it, it ends up on NotYouTube. If NotYouTube produces, it ends up on YouTube. No rights, no original content. There's no incentive. You keep saying the incentive is so people go to the site to watch a particular video. But nothing keeps that video on that one site. IP rights do that currently. If what you say is right, how far has ThePirateBay gone to produce original content? Oh that's right, they just take Hollywood content and ads flow just fine. That's the future you're fighting for.

saithound 6y ago
> You keep saying the incentive is so people go to the site to watch a particular video. But nothing keeps that video on that one site. No, that's not what I'm saying, and I don't know what gave you that idea. The phrase "original content" never even appeared in my comments! People visit to online video platforms to watch videos. If there are no interesting videos, people don't visit online video platforms: they go and do something else with their time. And if people don't visit your online video platform, operators of online video platforms lose money, and go out of business. Consequently, operators of online video platforms have an incentive to ensure that interesting videos get made. This is true even when all videos are available on all the platforms. Same principle: one of my siblings operates a rural hotel, and regularly contributes to a fund promoting tourism in the region. Doing this is a net positive for her revenue, even though some (most!) of the tourists will not stay in that specific hotel when they visit the region, and some might stay in hotels that did not contribute to any such fund. > If what you say is right, how far has ThePirateBay gone to produce original content? TPB has to operate illegally, has an order of magnitude fewer visitors, and two orders of magnitude smaller revenue. They are not in the position to fund substantial original content, and those who accepted their money would risk prosecution. Despite all of that, TPB did fund a limited number of art projects in the past [1]. > Oh that's right, they just take Hollywood content and ads flow just fine. That's the future you're fighting for. Heartbreaking injustice. No comment. [1] https://wikileaks.org/gottfrid-docs/ https://wikileaks.org/gottfrid-docs/