4 ms·

There must be many content creators who don't want DRM forced onto their videos, so I don't think it can ever be mandatory.

stego-tech 2y ago
I'm sure YouTube's position is that the videos aren't encrypted with DRM, but YouTube is merely encrypting the video stream from their service, which is therefore fine. It's BS, but I would bet that's their legal position. Best load up while you still can, I guess.
lxgr 2y ago
Just making it the default, or mandatory for monetization, would unfortunately be enough to make it stick.
bjackman 2y ago
There are many creators who don't want advertising but that doesn't stop YouTube.
- bitpush 2y ago
  Then upload it onto their own servers? Nobody is forcing anyone to upload to YouTube?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    Their network effects are at least a bit coercive.
    - gitaarik 2y ago
      Also YouTube offers unlimited upload space. And their streaming is solid. Something not every video platform can offer.
  - bjackman 2y ago
    Yes you can also just put your video on a DVD and bury it in the garden. But usually the reason they want their videos to be free is that they have a message they want to communicate! If you want people to watch your video you don't have a choice but to upload it to YouTube and let Google make money off your work :(
    - j-bos 2y ago
      > don't have a choice but to upload it to YouTube and let Google make money off your work and enjoy the free hosting and streaming architecture youtube provides.
      - alextingle 2y ago
        That's completely irrelevant. YouTube's advantage is its monopoly of user attention. If you want people to receive your message, no amount of money spent on alternative hosting infrastructure will help to get people to actually watch your video.
        jasode 2y ago
        >That's completely irrelevant. YouTube's advantage is its monopoly of user attention. Free hosting is not completely irrelevant because it's a huge factor in the cause-&-effect of attaining the monopoly of user attention. Counterexample is Vimeo which actually started 3 months in 2004 before Youtube existed. Vimeo had more restrictions on uploads and also charged content creators to host their videos. Those financial penalties are hostile to unknown content creators with no money and prevents a monopoly of user attention. Zero-cost hosting is intertwined with accumulating a global monopoly of the audience because it affects the decisions of content creators on _where_ to upload videos. More content creators in the ecosystem --> more videos --> more users ... creates a flywheel and virtuous feedback loop.
      - yencabulator 2y ago
        MP4s with table of contents need nothing except static file serving that can handle range requests, and bandwidth. Sites like Youtube still exist because of their audience.
pessimizer 2y ago
They will be allowed to protest, as they always have been, by taking their videos to some other distributor. That being said, after Youtube puts DRM on every video, everybody else will follow suit. Online video is a broken market that Google had absolutely no luck breaking into, so they just bought the winner. Youtube will be as concerned about people leaving over this as they would be if a segment of creators didn't want them to use vp9 for any transcodes, or for their videos not to be viewable through Chrome. They will apologize to the half-dozen people that close their channels, and suggest that they try Rumble or whatever.
moritonal 2y ago
Those content creators could send the raw files to their fans,along with all the functionality YouTube provides to get those fans in the first place.
ChrisRR 2y ago
As long as they're the minority and barely make a dent in youtube's revenue, youtube won't care

stego-tech 2y ago

I'm sure YouTube's position is that the videos aren't encrypted with DRM, but YouTube is merely encrypting the video stream from their service, which is therefore fine. It's BS, but I would bet that's their legal position. Best load up while you still can, I guess.

lxgr 2y ago

Just making it the default, or mandatory for monetization, would unfortunately be enough to make it stick.

bjackman 2y ago

There are many creators who don't want advertising but that doesn't stop YouTube.

bitpush 2y ago
Then upload it onto their own servers? Nobody is forcing anyone to upload to YouTube?
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  Their network effects are at least a bit coercive.
  - gitaarik 2y ago
    Also YouTube offers unlimited upload space. And their streaming is solid. Something not every video platform can offer.
- bjackman 2y ago
  Yes you can also just put your video on a DVD and bury it in the garden. But usually the reason they want their videos to be free is that they have a message they want to communicate! If you want people to watch your video you don't have a choice but to upload it to YouTube and let Google make money off your work :(
  - j-bos 2y ago
    > don't have a choice but to upload it to YouTube and let Google make money off your work and enjoy the free hosting and streaming architecture youtube provides.
    - alextingle 2y ago
      That's completely irrelevant. YouTube's advantage is its monopoly of user attention. If you want people to receive your message, no amount of money spent on alternative hosting infrastructure will help to get people to actually watch your video.
      - jasode 2y ago
        >That's completely irrelevant. YouTube's advantage is its monopoly of user attention. Free hosting is not completely irrelevant because it's a huge factor in the cause-&-effect of attaining the monopoly of user attention. Counterexample is Vimeo which actually started 3 months in 2004 before Youtube existed. Vimeo had more restrictions on uploads and also charged content creators to host their videos. Those financial penalties are hostile to unknown content creators with no money and prevents a monopoly of user attention. Zero-cost hosting is intertwined with accumulating a global monopoly of the audience because it affects the decisions of content creators on _where_ to upload videos. More content creators in the ecosystem --> more videos --> more users ... creates a flywheel and virtuous feedback loop.
    - yencabulator 2y ago
      MP4s with table of contents need nothing except static file serving that can handle range requests, and bandwidth. Sites like Youtube still exist because of their audience.

pessimizer 2y ago

They will be allowed to protest, as they always have been, by taking their videos to some other distributor. That being said, after Youtube puts DRM on every video, everybody else will follow suit. Online video is a broken market that Google had absolutely no luck breaking into, so they just bought the winner. Youtube will be as concerned about people leaving over this as they would be if a segment of creators didn't want them to use vp9 for any transcodes, or for their videos not to be viewable through Chrome. They will apologize to the half-dozen people that close their channels, and suggest that they try Rumble or whatever.

moritonal 2y ago

Those content creators could send the raw files to their fans,along with all the functionality YouTube provides to get those fans in the first place.

ChrisRR 2y ago

As long as they're the minority and barely make a dent in youtube's revenue, youtube won't care