3 ms·

YouTube is way more successful than Megaupload or Napster. The difference is that YouTube went above and beyond to comply with the law and Megaupload and Napst

YouTube is way more successful than Megaupload or Napster. The difference is that YouTube went above and beyond to comply with the law and Megaupload and Napster didn't.

londons_explore 2y ago
With the right third party search engines, you can find almost any full movie on YouTube. They don't have to stop pirates, just keep them in the shadows.
- Ringz 2y ago
  Which search engines are these? I ask for a friend who is doing research in this area.
  - spookie 2y ago
    Google with search operators wield more results than one expects. Theoritically speaking, of course.
- kube-system 2y ago
  The DMCA doesn't give anyone a score based on how many movies they have, or don't have. What is relevant is that YouTube provides tools that comply with the DMCA.
treflop 2y ago
As someone who used to run an illegal video index, this is not true at all. YouTube had virtually zero enforcement. You could upload whole shows and movies and they were never taken down. Other sites like Google Video or Vimeo did go above and beyond to comply and they lost badly. YouTube started getting heat at some point and that’s only when they started enforcing, but by then, they already won.
- kube-system 2y ago
  They didn't, but then they did, to the satisfaction of the Viacom case. Napster and Megaupload never built the tools to comply to the degree that YouTube did. Maybe if they had, they would still exist.
  - Temporary_31337 2y ago
    Moral of the story- ignore the law for as long as you can and comply hard enough when you have to. It helps to have zirp levels of investment too.
    - kube-system 2y ago
      I think the other issue is that, if Megaupload and Napster actually complied hard, they wouldn't have many content or users left. YouTube may have had pirated content, but it also had enough original content to stand on its own.
pessimizer 2y ago
> YouTube went above and beyond to comply with the law History just gets rewritten daily. They took probably 10 years to attempt compliance at all. What's more, Google Video never had any organic participation (i.e. normal people uploading videos of themselves), and was almost exclusively pirated content. Its main differentiation (long forgotten in the age of youtube-dl) was actually how easy it was to download that content compared to Youtube, who made it annoying. Eventually Google realized that they still weren't going to attract the pirates/copyright violators that section 230 allowed them to use as a proxy (piracy still preferred Youtube because people were on youtube), so they bought it. Youtube was absolutely loaded with copyrighted material, and the source of lots of pirated files still being traded is directly from youtube. Eventually they started aggressively scanning things for copyrighted music (because they wanted to make deals with the music industry), and then started preemptively responding to any DMCA claim by suspending the video so as not to look like hypocrites while they were going after music; section 230 implies a lot of helplessness for platforms in the face of users that removing audio tracks from videos where people were singing copyrighted songs doesn't bear. They started getting rid of pirated (and amateur content in general) once they had the monopoly on video, not before. Now they wanted to push exclusive, expensively-produced content, and since producers didn't have any other online outlet, they were going to monopolize that, too. They didn't need the pirated content anymore.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  > They started getting rid of pirated (and amateur content in general) once they had the monopoly on video, not before That's a rewriting of history. Google/YouTube started cracking down after Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc was reopened after appeals court ruled in Viacom's favor to listen to it's appeal in 2012 [1]. Google did develop ContentID as part of Google's damage control [0] when the case was in district court (2007-09) but half assed enforcement until the ruling in 2012 re-opened litigation, which forced Google's settlement with Viacom in 2014 [2]. People seem to forget that the Viacom litigation was an existential crisis for Google/YouTube, as the appeals court ruling could open the floodgates to litigation, and competitors ranging from Microsoft to CBS to the MPAA all supported Viacom [3] [0] - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118161295626932114 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118161295626932114 [1] - https://archive.nytimes.com/mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/appeals-court-revives-viacom-suit-against-youtube/ https://archive.nytimes.com/mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2... [2] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-viacom-lawsuit-idUSBREA2H11220140318/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-viacom-lawsuit-idU... [3] - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/viacom-friends-appeal-youtube-decision-58856/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/via...
behringer 2y ago
Went above and beyond for Hollywood, not for compliance. The tools are only available to the studios. Everyone else can sod off.
meiraleal 2y ago
Did it? If I go to youtube right now, I will get tons of ads selling illegal stuff which Youtube profit from. This is against the law but it seems that they don't get bothered by the law enforcers.
- kube-system 2y ago
  The context of what I was referring to above was DMCA, not other things. But regardless, that isn't true. Adsense has been a target of legal action for their illegal content: https://money.cnn.com/2011/08/24/technology/google_settlement/index.htm https://money.cnn.com/2011/08/24/technology/google_settlemen... And on top of that, their ads were ruled this month to be an illegal monopoly: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/05/technology/google-antitrust-ruling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/05/technology/google-antitru...

YouTube is way more successful than Megaupload or Napster. The difference is that YouTube went above and beyond to comply with the law and Megaupload and Napster didn't.

londons_explore 2y ago

With the right third party search engines, you can find almost any full movie on YouTube. They don't have to stop pirates, just keep them in the shadows.

Ringz 2y ago
Which search engines are these? I ask for a friend who is doing research in this area.
- spookie 2y ago
  Google with search operators wield more results than one expects. Theoritically speaking, of course.
kube-system 2y ago
The DMCA doesn't give anyone a score based on how many movies they have, or don't have. What is relevant is that YouTube provides tools that comply with the DMCA.

treflop 2y ago

As someone who used to run an illegal video index, this is not true at all. YouTube had virtually zero enforcement. You could upload whole shows and movies and they were never taken down. Other sites like Google Video or Vimeo did go above and beyond to comply and they lost badly. YouTube started getting heat at some point and that’s only when they started enforcing, but by then, they already won.

kube-system 2y ago
They didn't, but then they did, to the satisfaction of the Viacom case. Napster and Megaupload never built the tools to comply to the degree that YouTube did. Maybe if they had, they would still exist.
- Temporary_31337 2y ago
  Moral of the story- ignore the law for as long as you can and comply hard enough when you have to. It helps to have zirp levels of investment too.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    I think the other issue is that, if Megaupload and Napster actually complied hard, they wouldn't have many content or users left. YouTube may have had pirated content, but it also had enough original content to stand on its own.

pessimizer 2y ago

> YouTube went above and beyond to comply with the law History just gets rewritten daily. They took probably 10 years to attempt compliance at all. What's more, Google Video never had any organic participation (i.e. normal people uploading videos of themselves), and was almost exclusively pirated content. Its main differentiation (long forgotten in the age of youtube-dl) was actually how easy it was to download that content compared to Youtube, who made it annoying. Eventually Google realized that they still weren't going to attract the pirates/copyright violators that section 230 allowed them to use as a proxy (piracy still preferred Youtube because people were on youtube), so they bought it. Youtube was absolutely loaded with copyrighted material, and the source of lots of pirated files still being traded is directly from youtube. Eventually they started aggressively scanning things for copyrighted music (because they wanted to make deals with the music industry), and then started preemptively responding to any DMCA claim by suspending the video so as not to look like hypocrites while they were going after music; section 230 implies a lot of helplessness for platforms in the face of users that removing audio tracks from videos where people were singing copyrighted songs doesn't bear. They started getting rid of pirated (and amateur content in general) once they had the monopoly on video, not before. Now they wanted to push exclusive, expensively-produced content, and since producers didn't have any other online outlet, they were going to monopolize that, too. They didn't need the pirated content anymore.

alephnerd 2y ago
> They started getting rid of pirated (and amateur content in general) once they had the monopoly on video, not before That's a rewriting of history. Google/YouTube started cracking down after Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc was reopened after appeals court ruled in Viacom's favor to listen to it's appeal in 2012 [1]. Google did develop ContentID as part of Google's damage control [0] when the case was in district court (2007-09) but half assed enforcement until the ruling in 2012 re-opened litigation, which forced Google's settlement with Viacom in 2014 [2]. People seem to forget that the Viacom litigation was an existential crisis for Google/YouTube, as the appeals court ruling could open the floodgates to litigation, and competitors ranging from Microsoft to CBS to the MPAA all supported Viacom [3] [0] - https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118161295626932114 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118161295626932114 [1] - https://archive.nytimes.com/mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/appeals-court-revives-viacom-suit-against-youtube/ https://archive.nytimes.com/mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2... [2] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-viacom-lawsuit-idUSBREA2H11220140318/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-viacom-lawsuit-idU... [3] - https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/viacom-friends-appeal-youtube-decision-58856/ https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/via...

behringer 2y ago

Went above and beyond for Hollywood, not for compliance. The tools are only available to the studios. Everyone else can sod off.

meiraleal 2y ago

Did it? If I go to youtube right now, I will get tons of ads selling illegal stuff which Youtube profit from. This is against the law but it seems that they don't get bothered by the law enforcers.

kube-system 2y ago
The context of what I was referring to above was DMCA, not other things. But regardless, that isn't true. Adsense has been a target of legal action for their illegal content: https://money.cnn.com/2011/08/24/technology/google_settlement/index.htm https://money.cnn.com/2011/08/24/technology/google_settlemen... And on top of that, their ads were ruled this month to be an illegal monopoly: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/05/technology/google-antitrust-ruling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/05/technology/google-antitru...