3 ms·

could 100k a month be better spent on the infrastructure and tech stacking for a videohosting site?

• majormajor 4y ago
  Your new site would get hit with the same sort of claims. You're still gonna need the lawyers.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• nomel 4y ago
  Absolutely not. You should be aware that youtube wasn't profitable for over a decade. Content creators don't use youtube for its video hosting. There are dozens of video hosting sites, many objectively better. Content creators use youtube because that's where the eyeballs and advertisers are, which also means that's where the money is. And, 100k won't be enough to pay for one developer, let alone a herd of reviewers/lawyers to handle all of the DMCA noticed that will flood in, regardless. I don't see how this doesn't get solved without amendments to the DMCA, which is probably where the money should be put.
  • mlyle 4y ago
    > And, 100k won't be enough to pay for one developer, I mostly agree with you. But $100k/month will definitely pay for a developer.
    • nomel 4y ago
      Oh, my bad. I misread that as year. But still, competing with youtube would require much more than $1.2 million/year.
• amalcon 4y ago
  A few versions of that exist; Nebula is probably the biggest. There's a reason you may not have heard of it, though.