Furthermore by catering to advertisers wholesale, they are alienating their primary users and pissing everyone off. Eventually people will get sick of it and start a subscription-based video service where ads and sponsored content are banned.
But that isn't even necessary -- all it really takes is 3-4 of the major content creators to switch to another platform with a less draconian view on copyright and advertising policies and real change could happen.
There also isn't any rule saying you have to do your video conversions server side. Imagine the cost efficiency of client-side video conversion. You could probably do it in js these days or very worst case scenario have a cross platform desktop / phone client.
WASM makes this an even easier task -- with some effort you could probably compile ffmpeg to WASM and run it fully client side in the browser with no performance penalty.
If you take video conversion out of the equation, all that's left is file hosting, which is commoditized as possible these days, and the search/suggestions algorithm, which pisses people off with its accuracy anyway.
Agreed, it's much _easier_ to do these things, but evidently not yet _easy_. Handwaving about who deserves credit is irrelevant compared to an analysis of whether executing on it is easy or not, and my (admittedly low-confidence) model,based on the empirics of the situation, is that its evidently still not that easy to reach the reliability and quality of YouTube as a service.
Burn a lot of money on bandwidth while delivering video with minimal hiccups and impressive reliability?
The barrier to entry is enormous. I run a podcast platform; I can't even host that on S3 without going to the poor house.
Maybe somebody with a really rocking Patreon could go use Wistia or something - but how do they maintain their fanbase and grow it?
So we're looking at using roughly a gigabyte of transfer for three minutes of 4K30 video at acceptable quality or about nine minutes for 1080p60 (video games, etc.). I dunno about you, but most of the creators whose stuff I follow are between 20 and 45 minutes a video. Call it 30 minutes. So if they put out one video every two weeks and I watch it once, I'm pulling ~4GB for 1080p or ~10GB for 4K30.
At S3 prices, that means that of that $5, Amazon eats $1.20 or so. It's worse if they're more prolific. You can say "raise prices", but Patreons, subscriptions, etc., are brutally inelastic. When Patreon wanted to go to a model where they passed transaction fees onto the funder, a ton of people came out to claim that they couldn't afford to keep all their pledges if they had to eat a ten to thirty percent surcharge. And I believe it.
It sucks. I'm trying to come up with a better option just for my own stuff. My solution, which I can do because I'm a software developer, is probably something like OVH, where they hand you effectively-unlimited transfer. But I also don't then need to pay somebody to manage it for me--and to try to turn it into a going concern, you're going back to the "hey, how much a month is this gonna cost me?" problem.
It's not an unfixable problem. But it is a problem where the winners have economies of scale. That means...well...a YouTube.
Please, link to this off-the-shelf open source software that can be used to replicate the YouTube experience, both in terms of hosting and playing videos as well as distribution on various platforms. I'll settle for Android and iOS.
Then you just set your subscription fee to match your average cost per user, add 50% to that, round up to the nearest dollar, and you're good.
Somehow Youtube gets away with that, because they are a major US company. If you'd find the same amount of content on a small foreign company's servers, the FBI would crack down on it in no time using all international law available.
The current extreme bias in the complaint system will not change, because it is Youtube's legal insurance. They need to be able to claim they've done everything they can fighting piracy. In reality, piracy is and always has been one of the major uses of Youtube in addition to the privately produced content.
As a result of this, Youtube is double unfair. It enables massive piracy and at the same time severely punishes original content producers in favor of predatory and sometimes plain fraudulent companies filing bogus copyright complaints. It's a systemic problem that IMHO could only be solved by drastic law reforms.
It's in their interest to make sure the platform is even viable to publish content.
On a related note, Google should clean up their customer support. Everywhere.
Sounds kind of like the outlets at Cabazon, or any of the music and art festivals in the desert. Just need people to group together and do it.
Unlike a real desert, everyone can still reach you in your internet desert, and eventually it can become an internet oasis.
Then again, maybe once that happens YT will actually start to become content-creator friendly again.
Also, if Google can show that the copyright claims are incorrect, then they get to keep the difference.
Now copyright holders are incentivized to make accurate claims and Google is incentivized to find inaccurate claims.
The content owner should be able to negotiate a rate with Google or choose not to, not have to be forcibly entered into it.
But of course that just means that things get taken down - and no revenue goes to the claimant. Great for protecting your copyright, good for trolling, really shitty for extracting money from the works of others.
* creator is in the hospital
* creator is dead, and the heirs know nothing about dealing with copyright claims
* creator is hiking the Appalachian Trail for the next year
* creator is in jail for something unrelated
* creator got deployed on a submarine
* creator now has Alzheimer's disease and can't remember the internet
ContentID becomes a trivial way to steal money, and the DMCA becomes a trivial way to suppress the creator's work.
They would still have the DMCA process, but they lose rights to use the copyright strike process until they prove their competence.
YouTube's policies are as Draconian as they are because that's literally the only way to comply with the law. I can't for the life of me figure out why YT doesn't have some kind of messaging strategy around that.
How do you get an AI to evaluate what is "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" ?
Fair use is hard enough for lawyers and judges.
To clarify, this would work the same way classified information works in the DoD -- many small pieces of information can be one classification level (or even unclassified), but if you aggregate them, they can become a higher classification level in aggregate. Similarly, small fair-use clips on an individual level would retain fair-use status, but if you start aggregating them, via a playlist or some other method, the playlist would not be fair use and would count as infringement.
The ballsier move than simply lobbying forever would be for Google to just go ahead and do this -- go ahead and write a script/AI that rejects infringement reports and/or DMCA requests on excerpts that are less than 5% of the total work on the basis that such a small excerpt necessarily must be fair use no matter the context because of the small size of the clip, and then battle each case out in court on behalf of the infringing user. I think they would win every single case, and once they have won a few in a row, precedent would take care of the rest and predatory media companies would stop trying.
This isn't impossible. Google is in a position to clarify / influence how copyright law is applied, and they should do it.
Since there is absolutely no penalty for filing copyright claims, you just get together with other large youtube channels and begin filing claims against Disney, CBS, NBC, Fox, and so forth, all the large media companies that have youtube over a barrel, as well as their advertisers.
You simply decide not to play nice whatsoever. And you keep on doing it, as a growing group, repeatedly, until youtube is forced to take action. You do it to any large corporation that wants to post on youtube. And if they take the wrong action, which they will, you bring out RICO statutes and begin filing so many subpeona's they can't financially afford to work with it. You don't stop at youtube either, you get in groups and sue them for stuff they put on cable TV as well. Find yourself jr lawyers.
If Google wants binding arbitration contracts in place and then wants to sexually harass their staff, the appropriate turn-about play is for the staff to get together and plan on sexually harassing the executive management. And I'm not talking in ways they would like; I'm talking hundreds of people telling the execs and upper managers they want to do scat-play, or buying and mailing them used japanese underwear and mini goats with plushines, and so forth. And they get as viscious as possible about this, up to the point of following them around with handcuffs and leather straps in groups.
Because if we're going to be lawsless, it's time to act like total animals. And realistically, there's only one way to teach that lesson.