5 ms·

Corporations like AdRev have as their whole business model trolling small content creators for copyright. Every channel on YouTube beyond the smallest seems t

Corporations like AdRev have as their whole business model trolling small content creators for copyright. Every channel on YouTube beyond the smallest seems to have the same story - corporations claiming that content created by the channel belongs to them. Even the "legitimate" claims assume guilt on the part of the creator and disable monetization immediately until the claim is resolved. Then there are the false claimants, like third world channels copying popular videos from successful channels, then either appending a tiny "comment" section or flipping the video side to side and claiming it as their own. Heaven help the channels who then ask for credit or revenue from their own stolen content.. the thieves use the copyright claim system to abuse and torment the creators they stole from. Until Youtube/Google are forced to disable their cheap AI based content claim system and implement something smarter that does the job right (and which must involve humans), small creators are going to suffer. Youtube holds a de facto monopoly on its niche, it needs to be forced to play fair, and either regulated or broken up.

nine_k 5y ago
Just to make it clear: are small creators going to pay Youtube enough to keep an army of human claims checkers? Youtube, being an effective monopoly due to the network effect, has no incentive to lower its profits by paying the (large) amount of salary to the prospective claims checkers.
- short12 5y ago
  YouTube makes a lot of money. Google can afford an army
  - Nasrudith 5y ago
    You don't have very good household finances, do you? Because that logic sounds conducive to only fiscal ruin. Can and should are very different notions. Just because you can remortgage your home to buy a luxury car doesn't mean you should. The whole Karen notion that "Big Tech should hire armies for my whims" is like saying Amazon should be exact solving Traveling Salesman because it has so much processing power. It fundamentally willfully ignores the scale.
- foerbert 5y ago
  Who says they aren't already? If Youtube had no more small creators from on, I have my suspicions about what their revenue would look like 1, 5, 10.. years out.
- lmm 5y ago
  Shouldn't it be the people making the bogus claims who should pay?
- Accujack 5y ago
  The amount of money that Youtube spends on content and copyright management will probably have to increase, and to be fair the cost might well be shared across the board evenly among all creators as a percentage of income. YouTube will also have to adjust its spending, the creators can't/won't bear all the cost. That may mean that the present business model of YouTube isn't viable. If not enough revenue comes in to pay for managing copyrights, providing hosting, corporate management, marketing, etc then a new business model may be needed. Or whether YouTube exists or not as a business may become a philosophical question - is it better to have a YouTube that is inherently unfair and suppresses small creators or to have no YouTube at all? Personally, I think video hosting is the sort of thing that should be done by an NGO or non profit - one that has defined processes for fairness and transparency and which is required to be equitable to all instead of playing corporate favorites. Kind of like a PBS for the Internet.

nine_k 5y ago

Just to make it clear: are small creators going to pay Youtube enough to keep an army of human claims checkers? Youtube, being an effective monopoly due to the network effect, has no incentive to lower its profits by paying the (large) amount of salary to the prospective claims checkers.

short12 5y ago
YouTube makes a lot of money. Google can afford an army
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  You don't have very good household finances, do you? Because that logic sounds conducive to only fiscal ruin. Can and should are very different notions. Just because you can remortgage your home to buy a luxury car doesn't mean you should. The whole Karen notion that "Big Tech should hire armies for my whims" is like saying Amazon should be exact solving Traveling Salesman because it has so much processing power. It fundamentally willfully ignores the scale.
foerbert 5y ago
Who says they aren't already? If Youtube had no more small creators from on, I have my suspicions about what their revenue would look like 1, 5, 10.. years out.
lmm 5y ago
Shouldn't it be the people making the bogus claims who should pay?
Accujack 5y ago
The amount of money that Youtube spends on content and copyright management will probably have to increase, and to be fair the cost might well be shared across the board evenly among all creators as a percentage of income. YouTube will also have to adjust its spending, the creators can't/won't bear all the cost. That may mean that the present business model of YouTube isn't viable. If not enough revenue comes in to pay for managing copyrights, providing hosting, corporate management, marketing, etc then a new business model may be needed. Or whether YouTube exists or not as a business may become a philosophical question - is it better to have a YouTube that is inherently unfair and suppresses small creators or to have no YouTube at all? Personally, I think video hosting is the sort of thing that should be done by an NGO or non profit - one that has defined processes for fairness and transparency and which is required to be equitable to all instead of playing corporate favorites. Kind of like a PBS for the Internet.