6 ms·
It does seem like many of the web scale FAANG's had no scaling solution. Facebook and Google in particular are egregious beyond their marketing. e.g. YouTube,
by ricardo81 2y ago
It does seem like many of the web scale FAANG's had no scaling solution. Facebook and Google in particular are egregious beyond their marketing.
e.g. YouTube, how much copyrighted content does G profit off from. And then the 100 variations that slip the 'copyright algo.'
I see stuff on there that as a UK TV license payer I've already paid for, and then have to suffer ads. They could not give a hoot.
- nadermx 2y agoYouTube is probably a bad example in terms of copyright. They in fact have the most restrictive system of reuse of others work in your work, as a large portion of the videos that are auto struck would probably err more on fair use.
- ricardo81 2y agoI would disagree on the simple fact there's TerraBytes of copyrighted content on there, uploaded by people that don't own the content and subject to a fairly weak black box.
- rout39574 2y agoI'm not in this space, but from the user's perspective I thought that youtube's "Demonitization" doesn't mean the ad doesn't show, just that the channel doesn't get any benefit from the show of the ad. So they're actually incentivized to have many creators struck, because struck media means ad impressions whose revenue they need not share. Am I misunderstanding the landscape?
- gretch 2y ago> So they're actually incentivized to have many creators struck, because struck media means ad impressions whose revenue they need not share. This revenue would go to the copyright claimer. EG if Warner bros struck you for showing their movie, the ad revenue from the video would go to Warner, not simply YouTube
- SoftTalker 2y agoBut YouTube still gets their cut, which is better for them than just deleting the video.
- LeifCarrotson 2y agoI'm not privy to their deal, but while I'm confident that Warner Bros' has negotiated a revenue sharing agreement better than a typical Youtube Partners' 55% rate, I also suspect it's not 100%.
- connicpu 2y agoBut that's the point really isn't it? It's no longer illegal once you have a negotiated contract with the copyright holder.
- frenchy 2y agoYes and no. Youtube's moat is it's content creators. A gready algorithm might make them more money in the short run, but it would destroy their moat, as content creators migrate to other platforms.
- ronsor 2y agoThe last thing I'd complain about is YouTube not doing enough copyright enforcement. If anything, they do far too much, beyond what is reasonable or necessary! And in a lot of cases, the studios don't care, because they slurp up most of the profits, not Google.
- ricardo81 2y agoThey may do a lot of false positives but it doesn't excuse the fact their system can't scale correctly.
- aftbit 2y agoThey basically do copyright enforcement in two cases: 1. Automatically, based almost entirely on sound, using ContentID - this is heavily weaponized, gamed, and generally over the top. 2. "Manually" (but really automatically) in response to requests from "verified" (sure) rights owners - this one is also heavily gamed, but seems to make up a much smaller fraction of takedowns.
- myaccountonhn 2y agoSame with providing support. They can't provide proper support at the scale they operate at, so they just neglect it completely and get away with it. Also Amazon just completely gives up on quality assurance and let people ship whatever.