Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheOtherHobbes | Hacker News Reader

YT is running the risk of its content creators organising themselves into an industry association with legal and financial teeth, and suing its profits into oblivion.

View on HN

It was my understanding that YouTube isn't profitable; has there been any new data on this that I've missed? Lack of similar-sized competitors in the space would certainly indicate that the margins don't really stack up and you could make an argument that the aggressive foisting of their premium offering underscores that notion, but I don't know for sure. It'd be interesting to know more about operating a site of that nature at that scale but I don't suppose that sort of data will make it out any time soon!

If they aren't profitable now they can always become an increasingly large money sink.

There has been the ghost of this argument floating around for more than a decade at this point, based on the idea that Google pays for youtube bandwidth (due to peering, they don't).

If Google was losing money on youtube they wouldn't pay out billions a year to video creators in the face of zero competition.

On what grounds? I disagree with Youtube’s actions here, but no one is forcing them to publish on YT.

The competition to youtube is virtually nonexistent. If you're a medium or small content creator (which most youtube creators are), then instead of deciding to go to vimeo you might as well just file for unemployment benefits.

And the network effects of youtube will ensure that this continues to be the case. Content creators aren't organised, so a mass exodus won't happen.

So maybe the concept of a medium or small content creator isn't profitable in our current pop-capitalistic system; I guess you are suggesting changing this system, because at the moment this process repeats, what has happened to 1000s of businesses (most recently small farms) in the real world too. Still people elect the ones being paid for by the profiteers very reliably year after year

Youtube has a monopoly on the online video market. There are other ways to publish but not other ways to get viewers.

What will they sue YT for? The creators aren't employed by YT and therefore YT doesn't owe them a cent. Copyright law doesn't forbid over-blocking or demonetization and the new EU Copyright directive explicitly forbids under-blocking. The only thing those creators can do is leave YT and let it die from a lack of content. They don't have any legal or financial teeth at all.

How big a risk is that really? Exploiting the other side's inability to coordinate seems like a standard business trick these days. All they need to do is to pay attention and do some token changes to the product or ToS every now and then, disrupting any attempt of creators at organizing themselves. They can keep at it forever.

I have never found data on whether or not the YouTube legal entity is an independent thing while the add supplier is a separate entity they can happily say they make no money to take for their other legal exposures that YouTube generates. There's also the fun outcome that tomorrow YouTube is sunset the moment the creators start being properly organized because like you mention the jig would be up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com