4 ms·

I don't understand what youtube is gaining from this, there are so many stories like that. Is that because they partner with big movie/music industries? Also

by jokoon 3y ago

I don't understand what youtube is gaining from this, there are so many stories like that. Is that because they partner with big movie/music industries? Also I don't understand why competitors are not really picking up.

daveoc64 3y ago
> I don't understand what youtube is gaining from this, there are so many stories like that. As others have noted, the Content ID system is in place to show that YouTube is proactively trying to do something about piracy - this makes the movie studios and record labels less likely to sue Google. > Also I don't understand why competitors are not really picking up. Video hosting and streaming on the scale of YouTube is expensive and probably can't be profitable. YouTube allows anyone to upload an unlimited amount of 4K video, make it available to everyone in the world - all free of charge. Advertising revenue won't cover everything, and of course, quite a few people are blocking ads. Services like Vimeo compete to some extent, but they acknowledge the expenses involved, so only cater for niche market segments. Things like PeerTube offer an alternative model, using peer to peer bandwidth to keep the costs down - but the federated nature of it makes it less likely to catch on in the mainstream like YouTube has.
PurpleRamen 3y ago
Their main reason is to not get sued to hell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y.... > Also I don't understand why competitors are not really picking up. Video is expensive. But competitors do pick up, just in different ways. TikTok and Twitch are strong competition, but they have a focus on different style of experience.
stg22 3y ago
Social media sites have so many users/viewings that fixed costs for serving all their content don't really matter to them, but since ads don't pay much per viewing, they have to cut the marginal costs of hosting and serving content to the bone to stay profitable. For every million pieces of user-generated content hosted, they get a certain number of copyright complaints, so handling those complaints is a marginal cost. Since the kind of uploaded content YouTube target is particularly prone to being a significant violation of copyright (e.g. entire films), handling the complaints cheaply is a particularly big concern for them. Handling them effectively and with common sense would require human processing of each complaint, but the effect of that on marginal costs wouldn't fit with the business model, so they go with a low-marginal cost, error-prone system instead. Since the consequences for the business of wrongly failing to take down copyrighted content can be very bad, but the consequences for the business of wrongly taking down uncopyrighted content are negligible, if the system must be error prone, they want their users to be on the wrong side of any errors, not the complainants. Any American rival to YouTube would have the same problem and would resolve it a similar way.

by jokoon 3y ago

daveoc64 3y ago

> I don't understand what youtube is gaining from this, there are so many stories like that. As others have noted, the Content ID system is in place to show that YouTube is proactively trying to do something about piracy - this makes the movie studios and record labels less likely to sue Google. > Also I don't understand why competitors are not really picking up. Video hosting and streaming on the scale of YouTube is expensive and probably can't be profitable. YouTube allows anyone to upload an unlimited amount of 4K video, make it available to everyone in the world - all free of charge. Advertising revenue won't cover everything, and of course, quite a few people are blocking ads. Services like Vimeo compete to some extent, but they acknowledge the expenses involved, so only cater for niche market segments. Things like PeerTube offer an alternative model, using peer to peer bandwidth to keep the costs down - but the federated nature of it makes it less likely to catch on in the mainstream like YouTube has.

PurpleRamen 3y ago

Their main reason is to not get sued to hell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._Y.... > Also I don't understand why competitors are not really picking up. Video is expensive. But competitors do pick up, just in different ways. TikTok and Twitch are strong competition, but they have a focus on different style of experience.

stg22 3y ago

Social media sites have so many users/viewings that fixed costs for serving all their content don't really matter to them, but since ads don't pay much per viewing, they have to cut the marginal costs of hosting and serving content to the bone to stay profitable. For every million pieces of user-generated content hosted, they get a certain number of copyright complaints, so handling those complaints is a marginal cost. Since the kind of uploaded content YouTube target is particularly prone to being a significant violation of copyright (e.g. entire films), handling the complaints cheaply is a particularly big concern for them. Handling them effectively and with common sense would require human processing of each complaint, but the effect of that on marginal costs wouldn't fit with the business model, so they go with a low-marginal cost, error-prone system instead. Since the consequences for the business of wrongly failing to take down copyrighted content can be very bad, but the consequences for the business of wrongly taking down uncopyrighted content are negligible, if the system must be error prone, they want their users to be on the wrong side of any errors, not the complainants. Any American rival to YouTube would have the same problem and would resolve it a similar way.