7 ms·

A couple of interesting bits: - without dedicated processors, VP9's encoding is roughly 4.5x as slow as H.264, while with the VPUs, the two formats perform the

A couple of interesting bits: - without dedicated processors, VP9's encoding is roughly 4.5x as slow as H.264, while with the VPUs, the two formats perform the same; this is a big win for the open format(s) - sad extract: "Google has aggressively fought to keep the site's cost down, often reinventing Internet infrastructure and copyright in order to make it happen" (emphasis mine)

sillysaurusx 6y ago
Why is that sad? No company in Google's position could've done better, probably. Youtube was about to be sued into oblivion till Google purchased it.
- serf 6y ago
  >Why is that sad? because the wholesale destruction and minimization of knowledge, education, and information to appease (often arbitrary) intellectual protectionism laws is sad, regardless of who perpetrates it. non-Google example : What.cd was a site centered around music piracy, but that potentially illegal market created a huge amount of original labels and music that still exists now in the legal sphere. No one would defend the legal right for what.cd to continue operating, it was obviously illegal; but the unique, novel, and creative works that came from the existence of this illegal enterprise would be sad to destroy. Swinging back to the Google example : YouTube systematically destroys creations that they feel (often wrongly) infringe upon IP. This is often not even the case, Google routinely makes wrong decisions erring on the side of the legal team. This destruction of creative work is sad, in my opinion it's more sad than the un-permitted use of work. Of course, Google as a corporation should act that way, but it's sad in certain human aspects.
  - nolok 6y ago
    It's not just google as a corporation, it's google as a legal entity. Have your own site in your own individual name with no corporate entity nor search for profit offering to host people's videos for free, and I guarantee you that within 24h you are dealing with things ranging from pedophilia to copyright violations and the like. And if you don't clear them out, you're the one responsible. Google is acting the way society has decided they should act through the laws it voted. Could they act another, more expensive, way in order to save a bit more of content that get caught by mistake ? Definitely, but why would they as a company when the laws says any mistake or delay is their fault. Source: like many people, I once made a free image hosting thingy. It was overrun by pedos within a week to my absolute horror and shock. Copyright infringement is obviously not the same at all, BUT the way the law act toward the host is not that different "ensure there is none and be proactive in cleaning, or else ...".
    - sfgweilr4f 6y ago
      Your free image hosting thingy is an example of low barrier to entry both in cost and anonymity. If you had made the cost trivial but traceable I wonder what the outcome would have been. I wonder if a site like lobste.rs but for video would work better. A graph of who is posting what and a graph of how they got onto the site in the first place. If you vouch for someone who is dodgy now you are also seen as a little dodgier than you were before. This doesn't necessarily mean you lose your account because you happened to vouch for someone, but it might mean that your vouching means less in future.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    It's not destroyed, it just isn't published. Or is the idea that they should be the canonical archive of all uploads?
  - dev_tty01 6y ago
    They aren't destroying anything. They are just not allowing the material on their site. Are you saying that anyone who creates a video hosting site must allow ANY content on their site? I don't see any practical basis for that contention.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
dmitriid 6y ago
> without dedicated processors, VP9's encoding is roughly 4.5x as slow as H.264 > this is a big win for the open format(s) How is this a big win if you need dedicated processors for it to be as fast?
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  It increases adoption of the open standard on the supply side.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    wat? I honestly can't parse this sentence. "Google creates dedicated custom proprietary processors which can process VP9 at roughly the same speed as a 20-year-old codec". How is this a win for opensource codecs?
    - IshKebab 6y ago
      Because VP9 achieves better compression than H.264.
    - virtue3 6y ago
      because the largest video site in the world will be encoding as VP9.
      - dmitriid 6y ago
        It's a codec developed by Google, for Google, and Google will happily abandon it. From the article: > After pushing out and upgrading to VP8 and VP9, Google is moving on to its next codec, called "AV1," which it hopes will someday see a wide rollout. I still can't see how this is a win.
        virtue3 6y ago
        Aren't Vp8/9/av1 all open codecs tho? I don't really see what the issue is. Vp8 seems to be the most supported on all platforms without melting your intel CPU. At least from when I was deploying a webRTC solution to a larger customer base last year. > In May 2010, after the purchase of On2 Technologies, Google provided an irrevocable patent promise on its patents for implementing the VP8 format This is significantly better than even h264 in terms of patents/royalties. Would you mind elaborating on your hate? There's nothing for google to abandon here? It's already out in the wild.
ksec 6y ago
>- without dedicated processors, VP9's encoding is roughly 4.5x as slow as H.264, while with the VPUs, the two formats perform the same; this is a big win for the open format(s) H.264 is an open format. Just not Royalty Free. The baseline of H264 will soon be "free" once those patents expires in 2023. ( Or basically MPEG-5 EVC ) The hardware encoding for VP9 being the same as H.264 is mostly due to hardware specifically optimise for VP9 and not H.264. The complexity difference is still there.
- threeseed 6y ago
  And VP9 is patent encumbered but they have a license from MPEG-LA. So it's definitely not any more open than H.264.
  - gruez 6y ago
    Source for this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP9 says some companies claimed patents on it, but google basically ignored them.
    - vbezhenar 6y ago
      While Google might ignore them, can small company ignore them? I don't think that Google will fight for some guy using VP9 and getting sued.
      - cbhl 6y ago
        I was under the impression AOM members were paying into a fund for exactly that purpose, but I'm not sure if there is precedence for its use.
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
I don't see any justification in the linked article for the claim that YouTube has in any way reinvented copyright. It seems like a throw-away line that is unsupported by any facts.
- ximeng 6y ago
  https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/n29fxn/piano_teacher_gets_copyright_claim_for_playing/ https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/n29fxn/piano_teache... https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/n4a4l0/huge_history_channel_aquachigger_with_over_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/n4a4l0/huge_history... Even if not supported in the article here are two examples in the last couple of days of how YouTube is de facto defining copyright regulation.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    These are examples of YouTube following copyright laws imperfectly, which is basically guaranteed to happen on a regular basis at their scale. Definitely not what I would consider YouTube redefining copyright.
    - grecy 6y ago
      > These are examples of YouTube following copyright laws imperfectly, which is basically guaranteed to happen on a regular basis at their scale Given their entire copyright takedown system is (in)famously entirely automated, I would have thought it would be trivial for it to always follow copyright laws to the letter.. if they wanted it to.
      - jsight 6y ago
        How would that work? Infringement and even ownership are sometimes subjective or disputed. Automating it doesn't make those issues any easier.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        If channel A uploads a video copied from channel B, then makes a copyright claim against channel B, how does an automated system determine which owns the rights? Certainly it would seem in most cases that we should presume channel B has the copyright, since they uploaded first. But there is a very economically important class of videos where infringers will tend to be the first to upload (movies, TV shows, etc.). I don't really see how an automated system solves this problem without making any mistakes. Especially because the law (DMCA) puts the onus on the service provider to take down or face liability.

sillysaurusx 6y ago

Why is that sad? No company in Google's position could've done better, probably. Youtube was about to be sued into oblivion till Google purchased it.

serf 6y ago
>Why is that sad? because the wholesale destruction and minimization of knowledge, education, and information to appease (often arbitrary) intellectual protectionism laws is sad, regardless of who perpetrates it. non-Google example : What.cd was a site centered around music piracy, but that potentially illegal market created a huge amount of original labels and music that still exists now in the legal sphere. No one would defend the legal right for what.cd to continue operating, it was obviously illegal; but the unique, novel, and creative works that came from the existence of this illegal enterprise would be sad to destroy. Swinging back to the Google example : YouTube systematically destroys creations that they feel (often wrongly) infringe upon IP. This is often not even the case, Google routinely makes wrong decisions erring on the side of the legal team. This destruction of creative work is sad, in my opinion it's more sad than the un-permitted use of work. Of course, Google as a corporation should act that way, but it's sad in certain human aspects.
- nolok 6y ago
  It's not just google as a corporation, it's google as a legal entity. Have your own site in your own individual name with no corporate entity nor search for profit offering to host people's videos for free, and I guarantee you that within 24h you are dealing with things ranging from pedophilia to copyright violations and the like. And if you don't clear them out, you're the one responsible. Google is acting the way society has decided they should act through the laws it voted. Could they act another, more expensive, way in order to save a bit more of content that get caught by mistake ? Definitely, but why would they as a company when the laws says any mistake or delay is their fault. Source: like many people, I once made a free image hosting thingy. It was overrun by pedos within a week to my absolute horror and shock. Copyright infringement is obviously not the same at all, BUT the way the law act toward the host is not that different "ensure there is none and be proactive in cleaning, or else ...".
  - sfgweilr4f 6y ago
    Your free image hosting thingy is an example of low barrier to entry both in cost and anonymity. If you had made the cost trivial but traceable I wonder what the outcome would have been. I wonder if a site like lobste.rs but for video would work better. A graph of who is posting what and a graph of how they got onto the site in the first place. If you vouch for someone who is dodgy now you are also seen as a little dodgier than you were before. This doesn't necessarily mean you lose your account because you happened to vouch for someone, but it might mean that your vouching means less in future.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  It's not destroyed, it just isn't published. Or is the idea that they should be the canonical archive of all uploads?
- dev_tty01 6y ago
  They aren't destroying anything. They are just not allowing the material on their site. Are you saying that anyone who creates a video hosting site must allow ANY content on their site? I don't see any practical basis for that contention.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

dmitriid 6y ago

> without dedicated processors, VP9's encoding is roughly 4.5x as slow as H.264 > this is a big win for the open format(s) How is this a big win if you need dedicated processors for it to be as fast?

selfhoster11 6y ago
It increases adoption of the open standard on the supply side.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  wat? I honestly can't parse this sentence. "Google creates dedicated custom proprietary processors which can process VP9 at roughly the same speed as a 20-year-old codec". How is this a win for opensource codecs?
  - IshKebab 6y ago
    Because VP9 achieves better compression than H.264.
  - virtue3 6y ago
    because the largest video site in the world will be encoding as VP9.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      It's a codec developed by Google, for Google, and Google will happily abandon it. From the article: > After pushing out and upgrading to VP8 and VP9, Google is moving on to its next codec, called "AV1," which it hopes will someday see a wide rollout. I still can't see how this is a win.
      - virtue3 6y ago
        Aren't Vp8/9/av1 all open codecs tho? I don't really see what the issue is. Vp8 seems to be the most supported on all platforms without melting your intel CPU. At least from when I was deploying a webRTC solution to a larger customer base last year. > In May 2010, after the purchase of On2 Technologies, Google provided an irrevocable patent promise on its patents for implementing the VP8 format This is significantly better than even h264 in terms of patents/royalties. Would you mind elaborating on your hate? There's nothing for google to abandon here? It's already out in the wild.

ksec 6y ago

>- without dedicated processors, VP9's encoding is roughly 4.5x as slow as H.264, while with the VPUs, the two formats perform the same; this is a big win for the open format(s) H.264 is an open format. Just not Royalty Free. The baseline of H264 will soon be "free" once those patents expires in 2023. ( Or basically MPEG-5 EVC ) The hardware encoding for VP9 being the same as H.264 is mostly due to hardware specifically optimise for VP9 and not H.264. The complexity difference is still there.

threeseed 6y ago
And VP9 is patent encumbered but they have a license from MPEG-LA. So it's definitely not any more open than H.264.
- gruez 6y ago
  Source for this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP9 says some companies claimed patents on it, but google basically ignored them.
  - vbezhenar 6y ago
    While Google might ignore them, can small company ignore them? I don't think that Google will fight for some guy using VP9 and getting sued.
    - cbhl 6y ago
      I was under the impression AOM members were paying into a fund for exactly that purpose, but I'm not sure if there is precedence for its use.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

I don't see any justification in the linked article for the claim that YouTube has in any way reinvented copyright. It seems like a throw-away line that is unsupported by any facts.

ximeng 6y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/n29fxn/piano_teacher_gets_copyright_claim_for_playing/ https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/n29fxn/piano_teache... https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/n4a4l0/huge_history_channel_aquachigger_with_over_a/ https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/n4a4l0/huge_history... Even if not supported in the article here are two examples in the last couple of days of how YouTube is de facto defining copyright regulation.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  These are examples of YouTube following copyright laws imperfectly, which is basically guaranteed to happen on a regular basis at their scale. Definitely not what I would consider YouTube redefining copyright.
  - grecy 6y ago
    > These are examples of YouTube following copyright laws imperfectly, which is basically guaranteed to happen on a regular basis at their scale Given their entire copyright takedown system is (in)famously entirely automated, I would have thought it would be trivial for it to always follow copyright laws to the letter.. if they wanted it to.
    - jsight 6y ago
      How would that work? Infringement and even ownership are sometimes subjective or disputed. Automating it doesn't make those issues any easier.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      If channel A uploads a video copied from channel B, then makes a copyright claim against channel B, how does an automated system determine which owns the rights? Certainly it would seem in most cases that we should presume channel B has the copyright, since they uploaded first. But there is a very economically important class of videos where infringers will tend to be the first to upload (movies, TV shows, etc.). I don't really see how an automated system solves this problem without making any mistakes. Especially because the law (DMCA) puts the onus on the service provider to take down or face liability.