Tbh, its probably related to the legal crap YouTube has had to deal with such as: http://recode.net/2014/03/18/its-over-viacom-and-google-settle-youtube-lawsui

Tbh, its probably related to the legal crap YouTube has had to deal with such as: http://recode.net/2014/03/18/its-over-viacom-and-google-settle-youtube-lawsuit/ http://recode.net/2014/03/18/its-over-viacom-and-google-sett... http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/24/technology/24google.html?_... "To a large extent, the case addressed past conduct, as Viacom said it was not seeking damages for any actions since Google put in its filtering system, known as content ID, in early 2008. But Michael S. Kwun, a lawyer at Keker & Van Nest who previously worked at Google, said the decision would ensure that Internet companies were not legally required to develop such a system and could expect legal protection as long as they took down content when copyright holders complained. “I have no idea how much money YouTube spent on developing its content ID system, but if that was required for any new start-up, you wouldn’t see any,” Mr. Kwun said." Basically, Google did this to stop getting sued repeatedly as part of its settlements. Unfortunately, it gives large corporations with lots of lawyers an unfair advantage in the public space.