2 ms·
Probably because they would have to navigate the same lawsuits and agree to the same kind of automated take-down system to the satisfaction of the largest right
by jazzyjackson 4y ago
Probably because they would have to navigate the same lawsuits and agree to the same kind of automated take-down system to the satisfaction of the largest rights-holders (Sony, Warner Bros, Disney etc)
See this comment [0] in this thread, the current incarnation of youtube is the result of millions spent in legal fees. What's the incentive to do it all over again with little hope of success? IIRC YouTube wasn't profitable until very recently.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32160488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32160488
- andrewstuart 4y agoI don't agree that the big companies would be deterred by that. The CEO's of those huge companies aren't likely to be even interested in legal matters unless it's the DOJ calling about anti monopoly practices - that's what they pay their legal counsel for. I don't think they'd give the slightest rats about fighting out the content ownership issues, especially since YouTube has already shown that it can be done. >> What's the incentive to do it all over again with little hope of success? Why "little hope of success"? No-one at that level has even tried. It's completely different from trying to take on facebook, in which you need to build the network before the whole thing works. With user created content they can start at any size.
- GuB-42 4y agoIn fact, pre-Google YouTube has very loose standards with regard to copyright. Most of the content was blatant piracy, a bit like "tube" porn sites today (YouTube also had porn btw). But it was a small company, and rightsholders didn't really care. The minute it was bought by Google and their deep pockets, it was lawsuit after lawsuit.