>From now on I will stay 100% with Vimeo but, as we know, they have a fraction of the viewership of You Tube – primarily because so few people know they even exist.
Websurfer awareness is not the primary reason Vimeo has less viewership.
The cause & effect before the buildup of awareness is the incentives that prevent content creators to upload videos to Vimeo in the first place:
- platform membership fees: Youtube is $0 to upload and host, Vimeo used to be $240 and now has some new pricing plans[1] with a low-use free tier (too limited for high-res 4k uploads)
- no advertising partners : Youtube enables monetization without content creators asking audiences to pay for subscriptions. This financial model covers a wide variety of videos especially for unknown creators.
The financial model of Vimeo is fine but its inherent costs will keep it smaller than Youtube because both the uploaders and the viewers don't want to pay.
If you're an actual filmmaker making films (and not just a content creator) you're more likely to favor Vimeo over YouTube, but you probably care more about iTunes/Google Play/Amazon/Netflix/etc.
Doesn't Vimeo also license their platform out for other private streaming services? I thought I read that the Criterion Channel, for example, was hosted on Vimeo. I don't really think that YouTube is designed for that.
Yeah they do. I’m a fan of the comedian Tim Heidecker and and he recently launched a small subscription-based streaming site (https://www.heinetwork.tv/) for some of his projects that’s built on Vimeo
Off topic but I love his work so much. The universe that On Cinema has spawned is so much fun, not to mention all the previous stuff with Eric. I could watch this clip a thousand times, not yet taken down from YouTube:
Like, are you saying that you'd rather use Google to search for content (including videos) and then find the videos on whichever web site hosts that individual video?
I do enjoy listening to music on YouTube and I actually like that it'll auto-enqueue music to play next that's similar to what I'm listening to now.
You idea (I think) is really interesting - it's been a while since the web has worked that way and it's interesting to think about how combined hosting+discovery has changed it from the 'early days'
See for example DDG video search (which I believe proxies for Bing video search).
If I bang-search "!video <search expression>" on DDG, I'll be returned hits for the search across a range of video hosting sites. Principally YouTube and Vimeo, though also others. I don't believe Peertube sites presently appear, which is a shame.
> I do enjoy listening to music on YouTube and I actually like that it'll auto-enqueue music to play next that's similar to what I'm listening to now.
I'm like the post your responsed to, I really hate that (and all sorts of automated recommandation systems, I just can't stand Spotify for instance). Computers are here for me to tell them what to do, not to take non-repeatable decisions (and this makes it more and more painful to use the web over the years frankly, everything is becoming an inconsistent mess)
I could imagine an extension that scrapes video metadata (if not actual video frames) and runs some FLoC-like P2P discovery mechanism for similar video content.
The main problem with this would be spam; Google has a lock on web search entirely because building a search index that is not immediately besieged by adversarial content is very difficult.
Alternatively we could bring back RSS readers and aggregation. We'd need some way to scrape/feed YouTube metadata into it. Feeds could advertise related creators that way (with the caveat that this would almost certainly become a sponsorship/advertising mechanism, something something RAID Shadow Legends).
I don't need an algorithm, just have channels and a client-side subscription list. But on Vimeo everything is basically link-only and their front page wants you to sign up as a creator.
It's just not a competition to YouTube, it's a video hoster.
There was a time when youtube wasn't around to shove "related" content in your face and videos still got shared, talked about and discovered. This would be by word-of-mouth (either real life or fora) and (as an another poster commented) searching.
The problem with that for creators is the information on who is watching what gets much poorer when that happens so the algorithm has much less to go off of so no one has really done it. Also how do you monetize that? The host will be the one inserting ads.
Yeah people shit on recommended videos a lot but I’ve found a couple real interesting gems in there. The most recent one is finding the video channel for the Battleship New Jersey museum ship. Their curator climbs all over the ship making videos about the engineering, construction and history of the ship. Admittedly I t’s often a lot of videos I’ve rewatched multiple times but I do enjoy them so it’s not wrong that I might like to watch them again.
A trick I’ve found is being careful about not ‘poisoning’ your recommended videos. There are some topics that are really bad about taking over your recommendations (though liberal use of the “show me less like this” and “don’t recommend channel” options have pruned some of that out) so sometimes watching a video in incognito helps.
This. Vimeo feels like these noname pic sharing services. You may land on it from somewhere, but if you try to explore, it’s just a “see plans” homepage and the search knows almost none of my interests.
That github page links to the dodgy extension "Stylish".
The better one is called Stylus. The main difference being "Any and all analytics, telemetry, and data-collection have been removed completely. We'd rather not know what you're up to."
I don't know if they still do, but Vimeo actively rejected lots of content that they felt didn't fit the goal of their platform. IMO If it wasn't basically art, they didn't want it. Most of the stuff I watch on Youtube wouldn't be allowed there.
Under that direction, of course they'd have fewer content creators and viewers, and they obviously wanted it that way.
We used to pay for Vimeo and were happy about it, but then the service got slower and the UI more cluttered and we were constantly nagged to move to a higher plan. Also, even with the paid plan there was a quite low weekly upload quota (5 GB IIRC). It made no sense.
Is there any competing service that has a model similar to YouTube? I know there's Facebook video, but AFAIK you need a Facebook account to view the videos, which stops a lot of traffic and makes the platform not searchable from Google.
Facebook also publishes famously misleading engagement metrics to producers. It's lead to a lot of business issues where content creators have gone too heavy into the platform and ended up running out of revenue.
Rumble is making some big waves right now, actually paying uploaders for ads run on their videos and such. It’s still a small fraction of YouTube in terms of viewership though.
That's the tactic, if you ban a group of people from your platform. They search for a competitor, then they can say oh that competitor is full of XYZ undesirable people, you don't want to use them.
YouTube itself use to be the fringe.
https://odysee.com/ is a site I have seen a lot of mainstream people promote.
The problem is actually discovery, it doesn't really matter who sends you bytes it's about users discovering your content, which YouTube has the monopoly.
The grandparent mentioned that Rumble was "a den of right-wing disinformation and propaganda. Not something the average content creator wants to be associated with."
The parent then replied, seemingly to disagree, but then listed several examples of right-wing disinformationists and propagandists, not something the average content creator wants to be associated with, who inhabit Rumble
I can say plenty of negative things about all of those people, including the disingenuous ways all of them argue their points. But all mainstream means is that they have a large audience. Which all of them do.
I don't know this Crowder person, but Shapiro and Trump are absolutely mainstream. Enough that I, a guy who's not from the US and has no interest in its domestic politics, can get Shapiro memes.
Any source to back that up? A quick Google only got me their revenue, which is a cool 20 billion. Though their costs are undoubtedly high, I'd guess they're making a nice profit.
Also, there's already more on youtube than anyone could ever watch, and many people struggle with youtube addiction. Adding further platforms doesn't make things better, it makes things worse.
YouTube seems to have three main priorities with their copyright system:
1) Eliminate legal liability and risk of lawsuits. Technically all they need to do is comply with DMCA requests, but YouTube would rather not be sued by a major record company or film studio, even if they could win the case.
2) Become friendly with major content creators (record and film labels, television studios). YouTube wants a good working relationship with these companies, to ensure that these companies post their content on YouTube. YouTube really wants the views they get by hosting SNL clips and Beyonce music videos.
3) Actually help the independent content creators deal with copyright claims. This is a very, very distant third.
Because of these priorities, YouTube has decided their best course of action is to offload all of the work on copyright claims onto the independent content creators, in order to keep the big media giants happy. After all, NBC doesn't need YouTube, but a solo channel with 50k subscribers absolutely does.
I think point 2 is actually quite important. YouTube used to be a source of genuinely innovative content. It is now far more corporate and anodyne, and the most popular videos are largely big production companies, and part of that is copy-striking.
Ofc, the intention of copy-striking was not to decrease competition. But that ended up happening because of the way that the system is implemented (it isn't just copy-striking, I think reporting violations/automated violation systems have the same consequence).
Nonsense. Most of the videos on YouTube are still made by individual people. Just because there is now also corporate stuff on there doesn't mean you have to watch it. What do you want to do? Ban corporations from using YouTube?
I don't think I'm subscribed to a single corporate channel out of about 100 subscriptions.
* 3b1b
* Matthias Wandel
* Applied Science
* Colin Furze
* Scott Manley
* Practical Engineering
* Tom Scott
* Tantacrul
* CGP Grey
* Forgotten Weapons
* StuffMadeHere
* John Heisz
* Clickspring
* Internet Historian
...
YouTube is bursting at the seams with quality content made by individuals or tiny teams.
Individuals incorporating themselves, then adding in their friends who also appear in their videos and maybe some assistants is a bit different than billion dollars companies posting their videos.
Ha yeah the part where under-13s weren't allowed to opt in to the telemetry was really misunderstood. Lots of people leaping to crazy conclusions like that children couldn't use it at all, or they were sharing all the telemetry with the KGB or whatever.
I don't think I really said this wasn't the case. What I said is that corporations comprise the most popular/most watched videos (which is true, if you look at the video rankings).
That can happen simultaneous with good, independent videos being produced. But I think those non-corporate videos would do better if YouTube wasn't so hostile (again, content strikes, getting reported for violations...have you genuinely never heard any complaints about YouTube from people who create videos on the platform?).
It's quite simple. YouTube wants to be a dominant source for streaming music, to compete with Spotify. In order to do so they must keep the music labels happy. They don't really care about content creators anymore.
That sounds wrong. YouTube is by an order of magnitude the first video streaming platform on the way. I doubt that, were way to rake all Spotify's audience they would make even a significant portion of their video ad revenue.
One minor new annoyance is that they check the option to allow remixing a video in Shorts by default, and hide it behind a "show additional options" link on the video settings.
As a music producer myself who makes music for film, I haven't had too many problems with use of my music in the work I do despite being distributed on all the usual major platforms. This is usually because content ID on YouTube gives credits and royalties to the original music creators, and most of my (remixed) uploads are not monetized once I publish them on YT. My distributer handles royalties for my all original music and pays me based on streams. I also make more money off spotify than YouTube even though I've been on YouTube for a lot longer than on Spotify... Overall though, the best comes from licensing my music in films outside of Internet platforms.
I gave up caring long ago about gaining money from views, my most profitable upload was in 2015 when I filmed my parrot falling off my kitchen counter... That video likely succeeded because it wasn't something that would provide me residual success that overshadowed YouTube's normal (controlled) revenue pipelines.
I do however mysteriously get my own music blocked frequently on uploads to TikTok, and there is only complete and demoralizing frustration in trying to report the issue, because they don't care about small creators like me because we don't make them enough money probably.... TikTok and many social platforms keep support only as an afterthought, and finding the right place to get problems solved on most platforms is damn near impossible.
The social media creator economy is dismal and highly competitive for musicians and film makers right now. One of the biggest copyright issues is people who completely hijack and fake "original content" as their own in order to get views in order to profit or sell popular accounts to influencers later.
I'd recommend primarily pursuing contracts with Amazon Prime or Netflix for independent films, rather than trying to battle YouTube because there is simply too much content ID activity on YouTube that is out of control, whereas on the alternate streaming services, they're geared more towards movies than to managing creator communities.
If you are a film maker who needs music for a film project, contact music makers directly (producers that don't use samples in the work you need) in order to generate new, original, and exclusive music that they won't license or release anywhere else perhaps, make them sign a contract too... That might help in the future...?
I don't want to turn this into a self-promo fest, but if you look up "parrot falls off counter", that may, or perhaps may not be the video I cited at the top. lol.
Can I ask how you got into being paid for producing music? I produce music, and what I have released is on Spotify, but it makes me a tiny fraction of what I spend in time and actual money to produce it. I don’t think it’s a problem of the music being good, at least I have plenty of people tell me they like it (even before knowing it’s a song I wrote), and I do think some of the music would be appropriate for films or games, but I don’t even know where to start if I wanted to make more than a pittance.
I started editing and producing video content of my own first... It's very cool being able to make a tune from scratch and then put visuals I made/picked on top of them.
I regularly share my edit work on film communities and on social media sites like Stage32 and among my network of industry friends in the film industry. When they come across things that strike a pulse in their current projects they usually get in touch and ask me to send them a free copy...
If they ask for custom/specialized music for their projects then that usually cost a little bit. Most of my work is towards building a future of work in the industry, and towards building a diverse catalogue of music, while still staying true to what I like most. :)
I recommend avoiding the online licensing sites, they really don't do anything but de-value the potential for proper payment on your work, and most of the time they file you in a back room.
Ultimately directors and producers pick music they like, and whatever fits the mood in their opinion, releasing music effectively and properly and building a following outside of looking for work helps to increase new licensing potential in film work.
>I'd recommend primarily pursuing contracts with Amazon Prime or Netflix for independent films, rather than trying to battle YouTube
I understand you're trying to give advice but for this particular thread's article, his videos are not the type of content for Amazon Prime nor Netflix.
That content is very well done, visually stimulating, and possibly could be edited into a documentary-style full-length video, or the content could be leveraged into something entirely different...
Wow, really great shots in there and on the web site. I recommend updating the youtube channel description with more info about the company.
Possibilities are limitless with OC these days, the main question is whether or not how it's leveraged will be interesting enough to others and/or successful within each possible format.
Think about how Anthony Bourdain turned the normally "boring" world of being a chef into a captivating documentary series that created "foodie" culture and ultimately CNN picked up... for starters... ;)
"Guilty until proven innocent" is exactly how "DMCA safe harbor" is designed.
Basically, YouTube as a content host, would actively, promptly and sometimes aggressively, respond to the "potential" copyright owner's requests, in exchange of keeping themselves away from lawsuit.
This way, they don't need to pre-screen the content upon the uploading, because it's up to the copyright owner to find the illegal content and report (YouTube still do that in some degree with content-ID, though).
There will be false-positives, there will be false claims, but they choose to play it safe.
Just to make it clear: this whole system is fucked up, and how "aggressive" the host needs to be is a nuance that all parties involved will have dramatically different views. I just feel like lots of people don't understand the principle of DMCA safe harbor concept. It is the consequence of current copyright law; without it, user-generated content hosts can't survive the legal trouble (or they can, but would need significant more legal resources).
> "Guilty until proven innocent" is exactly how "DMCA safe harbor" is designed.
No, it's not. Google has gone so far above and beyond the DMCA's requirements here that it's hard to even see the DMCA at play at all.
If they were only following the DMCA rules, the video uploader would have the opportunity to send a counter-claim to Google, saying that they don't believe the content is infringing. Google then would put the video back up, without taking on any liability. If the original DMCA claimant still believes there's infringement going on, then their only recourse is to file a lawsuit against the uploader (not against Google, as Google has done their duty under the safe harbor provisions).
But instead, Google has decided to bend over backwards and create this Draconian mess that prioritizes the will of the big copyright holding cartels.
>, then their only recourse is to file a lawsuit against the uploader (not against Google, as Google has done their duty under the safe harbor provisions).
Your assessment is incorrect for the legal options a DMCA claimant will use and doesn't match how previous legal proceedings actually played out.
E.g. Viacom still filed a lawsuit against Google because they disputed that 'safe harbor' applied Youtube.[1]
Google did settle with Viacom (helped by offering ContentID as a tool) but they didn't win any definitive court ruling on "safe harbor" that makes Google lawsuit-proof in the future.
> Viacom said it was not seeking damages for any actions since Google put in its filtering system, known as content ID, in early 2008.
Obviously other media giants weren't going to let Viacom be the only one with access to this profit machine, so now pretty much all global media giants have access to Content ID.
The US took down kickasstorrents and arrested its founder in Poland despite them following the DMCA. You have to suck up the media companies to be allowed to host a service these days.
The DMCA is complicated, but you may not qualify as a safe harbor if you have actual knowledge of infringing content or if you're aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent. Running a website called "Kickasstorrents" may not qualify.
But in the realpolitik sense, I agree. Foreign company, angry US business interests, etc. I doubt this was argued out reasonably in a court beforehand.
>Torrents aren't necessarily illegal so I'm not sure why running a website called "kickasstorrents" is relevant.
Because we all know that website and what torrents it had. That "torrents aren't necessarily illegal" are neither here, nor there. Their torrents were illegal.
(Not that I'm against it, but well, it's not like they're fooling anyone with the "torrents aren't necessarily illegal" defense for their particular case. That wasn't some FOSS/PD software torrent site, and that wasn't why people visited it, or why it was run...).
That's more like a drug dealer caught with 200 plastic bags of cocaine saying plastic bags are not illegal, they contain no drug substances at all. Sure, but most of the torrents they had there pointed to copyrighted data, and facilitated their download, which is illegal.
Interestingly, copyright for video is very complicated, and the remastering process necessary to convert from film stock to digital generally has enough creative input legally to be considered valid for copyright protection. I don't think it's currently possible for a digital film to be aged out of copyright.
> No, it's not. Google has gone so far above and beyond the DMCA's requirements here
Media companies insist that Google do more and more and they are willing to drag google into court and will lobby congress to force google and (everyone else) to bow to their whims.
Extorting 14 year old kids and broke college students for settlement money is nice and everything, but Google has very deep pockets and the the media cartels would love to get their hands on Google's money just like they want to take billions from ISPs
I do blame google for going along with it when they have the clout and resources to fight them, but the real issue is our horribly broken copyright system
Google decided to cozy up to the music and film industries to support Google Play Services. They are forced to bend to their will for their contract.
If YouTube was divorced from Google, YouTube would be friendlier to creators.
Counter argument: some of the top performing content on YouTube is made by the establishment. But then again, Google created this status quo by using their algorithm to promote content that satisfies their partners.
You are forgetting that YouTube was nearly got sued out of existence, until it bent over backwards to please the publishers.
Your theory that it went beyond the requirements of the settlement with Viacom is interesting, but unless you have insider information as to the terms of it, it is at best, speculative.
Would you stake billions of dollars on the legal theory that if YouTube followed the DMCA to the letter of the law, publishers would not be able to successfully sue them?
> Counter argument: some of the top performing content on YouTube is made by the establishment. But then again, Google created this status quo by using their algorithm to promote content that satisfies their partners.
Counter-anecdote: None of my recommended content on YouTube is from established media companies. YouTube's profiling of my account definitely puts me squarely in the "Tom Scott and Technology Connections" demographic - but even so on the times when I've let YouTube's auto-play do its thing I've never been steered towards mainstream media from Viacom and the like (unless you count the occasional clip from a decades-old Discovery Channel docu or unauthorized BBC Top Gear upload)
-----------
What weirds me out about "normal-persons' YouTube" that I see when borrowing non-tech-sector friends' devices is there's a lot of top 40 that's right there - I wonder if that's what you're seeing?
I was in Google and helped YT with their search ads (not the pre-roll and "inside the video" and all that stuff everyone hates). Anyhow, I did try looking into their actual "egress" costs and I pity the fool who has to deconstruct that for a court case.
It's immensely complicated, because videos are cached all around the world. Someone in Bangladesh watching YT videos is not always fetching them from the US, you can be sure of that.
So "profit" is definitely an opinion, not a fact. If YT was divorced from Google, it would become a fact.
> If YouTube was divorced from Google, YouTube would be friendlier to creators.
YouTube's primary means of profit is as a music platform playing RIAA protected copyrighted music mostly owned by Sony, Universal and other media conglomerates.
YouTube's profits are fully dependant on whether these conglomerates allow their popular artists to host music on the platform so your idea is very very misguided.
>"Guilty until proven innocent" is exactly how "DMCA safe harbor" is designed.
Google doesn't do DMCA: Under DMCA the alleged copyright owner whose alleged rights were allegedly violated has to file a notice and then the alleged infringer gets to file a counter notice. Then the alleged owner can either sue the alleged infringer or fuck off. The hoster - google here - would avoid liability from either direction as long as they followed the procedure, and processed valid notices and counter-notices in a timely fashion.
DMCA notices and the takedown process are NOT "guilty until proven innocent", they are "guilty until the claim of innocence", which is a big distinction.
Google is actually in violation of the DMCA when they let alleged copyright owners decide on appeals and issue "copyright strikes" as the DMCA mandates they have to stay neutral and follow the notice/counter-notice procedure. What they do here is editorial oversight on behalf of the alleged copyright owner and against the alleged infringer, which goes against the DMCA and probably Section 230.
Google doesn't care that they are in violation, because they are TooBigToGetSued by the content creators they host (well, most of them), but they are in danger of getting sued by the RIAA/MPAA and big media, and know chances are good big media would find a jury that makes the wrong decision in a lawsuit.
They also want big media to put their stuff (from music videos to movie trailers) on their platform, so they play extra nice with them, even gave them their quasi-universal internet-age DRM (widevine) they craved so much, along with ContentId.
That might be how the system worked if YouTube actually followed the law to the letter - instead YouTube actually preempts most of the DMCA claims by aggressively using Content ID to pre-flag content as soon as you attempt to upload it to their system. This approach might be better for users as a lot of content owners just assume that Content ID will catch everything they care about and thus file less post-release claims letting content creators mostly pre-vet whether a video will cause a flag on their channel buuut - it doesn't actually stop anyone from filing DMCA claims anyways.
I think it's important to distinguish what the law says and what is actually going on in the world though - since the actual DMCA system is only very occasionally relevant to creators (and usually tied to soft claims - like reading out copyrighted material or static content - like images).
"The law to the letter" is a legal fiction. There's your interpretation of what the law is, the content creators' interpretation of what the law is, and you can spend millions of dollars in legal fees and risk billions in damages to find out what the law actually says for your particular case.
That is - essentially - what I said right above. What the law actually states does still apply in the extreme case - and it applies more truly on a lot of other platforms... but YouTube has essentially preempted most DMCA claims by offering a service that proactively checks for violations - a service in no way required by the DMCA.
It is not required by the DMCA, sure, but it (or the like) is required by the various content owners who have the power to sue (or not sue) YouTube. Following the DMCA's requirements only helps after spending millions of dollars on legal fees and if you manage to persuade the courts. In lieu of that, YouTube has decided to just give IP owners what they want.
DMCA lets you file a counter-notification if you're sure that you're right (I don't know why nobody ever does this) but YouTube Content ID is much worse.
Because filing that counter-notice requires you to provide personal information, in case the person who filed the original DMCA wants to serve you with a legal notice.
> [...] To be effective, a counter-notice must contain substantially the following information:
> (iv) the user’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber’s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
It'd be interesting if someone set up a series LLC that would stand in for the original user by assignment, fund legal defense as much as the original user is willing to, and would just declare insolvency in the event of a bad judgement.
Sure, but the LLC wouldn't need to know the meatspace identity of the user. And for the LLC management it would be a bona fide arms length business. So the troll would be stuck doing discovery on the online account, which if things were setup correctly (likely for the situations where having to dox yourself is problematic), it wouldn't lead back to the user either.
1. multiple creators assign their works to one LLC. This would probably avoid the piercing the corporate veil problem, but it would be a pretty juicy target for litigators. If they successfully win the lawsuit, they can potentially seize all works that were assigned to it, and take them down or resell them. If this happens to a video you spent weeks working on, I think I'll be pretty pissed.
2. each video/creator assign their works to one LLC. This would avoid the "juicy target" issue described above, but you'll have to be super careful to avoid piercing the corporate veil .
I'm arguing that (2) should be fine. Piercing the veil is only a concern if the managers/owners of the overarching LLC could be found liable. But this would be a bona fide business for them, so why should they? Piercing the veil of an individual series to go after the original uploader would be a definite possibility, but the whole point of this setup is for the original uploader to not have have to dox themselves to file a counterclaim.
Pooling like (1) might be an interesting approach to strengthen things further. You don't need to own a copyright to defend against a copyright claim, so the work merely needs to be licensed to the LLC series. A nontransferrable license to upload a work to a web host has little commercial value. In the worst case, a successful claimant would get the ability to contact webhosts to seize control of other accounts it then owns, and the ability to disrupt defense of other claims by seizing incoming funding. But given how useless such results would be, would it even be worth it for a troll to press that far?
You could add additional interested parties into the mix by playing the public good angle. Donate to this foundation to protect user generated content against SLAPPs, etc.
Even if your use is obviously and unambiguously fair use, the legal fees to defend yourself will range at least in the $10,000-100,000 range. (And many fair use cases aren't actually all that obvious, sadly).
We need something like anti-SLAPP for fair use, where someone with an obvious fair use defense gets to have the malicious accuser pay their legal fees for them.
Realistically most of these trolls will not sue you. And in the rare case that they do sue you, they'll drop the lawsuit if they see you have a real lawyer. It's all scare tactics.
Exactly. This goes also for legitimate copyright owners if there's a good case for fair-use. Content-ID claims (or DMCA notices) are free, so they just send them out with little review. But they are sure to take a second look before committing to a $10k-100k court battle. They have much more resources than you, but their resources are still limited and better spent on cases that are clear cut, or on sending more DMCA notices.
Sorry, but it's not as if a Content ID claim is the end of the road.
You can appeal a Content ID claim. If your appeal is rejected, you can even appeal that — which forces the claimant to either issue a DMCA takedown or concede. During the pendency of the dispute process all ad revenue is held in escrow for whomever 'wins' in the end.
It's a great system, and I say that a full-time producer of content for YouTube.
ContentID does the same thing and then falls back to the DMCA process if you and the copyright owner can't agree. It's more steps I guess but not all that different.
> There will be false-positives, there will be false claims, but they choose to play it safe.
Google choose to serve their corporate partners. They don't have to scan anything. They can have zero-friction counter notices that reactivate disputed content immediately. They can choose to only accept real DMCA notices under penalty of perjury.
The people calling the shots don't want to deal with what the law requires so Google bent over backwards to build an extra-legal system that gives all the power to one side.
Based on recent experience, Amazon KDP is similar. However, you can talk to somebody on Amazon KDP. It may take a while but after a few bussiness day someone will reply your emails.
Youtube does not use the DMCA nor does it comply with the DMCA.
The DMCA requires the service provider reinstate the content 14 days after the dmca is contested unless the claimant follows through on the claim by filing a lawsuit in court. Youtube does not do this.
The DMCA also explicitly states that it's protection against liability doesn't apply to service providers that do not properly implement the counter-claim reinstatement process, and as such, youtube is not covered by the dmca's shield.
> The DMCA also explicitly states that it's protection against liability doesn't apply to service providers that do not properly implement the counter-claim reinstatement process
No, it doesn't.
It says that the liability shield against the user whose material was taken down only applies when material is restored according to the counternotice process, and the liability shield against copyright claimants does not apply if material is restored other than according to the counternotice process.
But since providers tend to be able to structure their relationship with users so that they have no liability for taking material down for any reason, they rarely need that side of the safe harbor. DMCA safe harbor has an illusion of symmetry, but since the underlying liability tends not to be symmetrical, neither is the safe harbor in practice.
> The music was originally purchased under the title of Irish Reel from SmartSound. The identical track for which copyright is being claimed has been re-named Kilfenora Reels.
Another huge issue that plagues ContentID is sample-based music. There is a huge number of pseudo-artists who license widely used sample packs, mash together songs with practically zero creative effort and then submit those songs to companies that register their clients' music to ContentID databases. When someone else uploads a song with the same (legally licensed!) samples in their composition to Youtube, it gets monetized with royalties going to the wrong person.
The problem with all of this is that there is no standard method to describe, assert, and validate digital rights as a technical grammar that is 1) computer parsable and 2) human interpretable.
A long while ago, while back at Cisco, I suggested just such a grammar, called the Digital Rights Framework. It would be an inventory list embedded as data within a file, or an associated metadata file, that would clearly say "This is a unique name for a digital property with associated rights. This is my relationship towards the creator. These are the rights the creator gave me, or where I got a right from some authorized reseller of this digital property."
Basically, we needed an industry standard for this kind of thing in the 1990s. Sadly, me and 10,000 of my closest friends got laid off back then. So all the work we were doing was scrapped (aside from getting a few patents around it). But the need for this sort of rights management and negotiation system has never lessened.
Plus, it can't just be something that is done for one tech giant, and each tech giant does it differently. This needs to be a grammar as open as IETF standards, or W3C standards. Something that is extensible and customizable.
Because then you'd be able to shove a list of your digital rights statements right in the face of someone who said you were violating copyright and tell them to shove it.
Now, how you store and forward these rights is also up for debate. Do these need to be portable? Is this stored in a "wallet?" Or do these need to be accessible, and thus stored in a highly available or strongly consistent database?
This is basically the nightmare I and others saw back in the 1990s that we simply never, as a collective tech industry, ever really addressed.
It is literally a billion-dollar business for a trillion dollars of annual revenue if someone can figure out how to standardize this and make it simple and readily implementable.
I like this solution, but it really only solves the problem for licensed use. I don’t think all uses need to be licensed or even should need to be licensed. The trouble with copyright is that there are no automatically protected rights for the non-rights holders. It’s all legal defense, which is unapproachable for the average individual.
Licensing was going to be only one part of it. You could also assign rights — work for hire. You could also negotiate per-use rights — like single-view rights. In other words, the grammar should be continually be extensible to new types of rights negotiation.
Yes and yes. It would cause a net increase because there'd be a larger pie. But there would be fairer competition to the small players who literally have zero leverage now.
But, if I now had such a certificated piece of media, what would stop me from stripping that information, attaching my own and uploading the resulting re-certificated work that matches my cert store?
Assertion of rights was going to be separated from enforcement. Imagine, for example, that you "file" your rights with a central authority. Then if someone else comes to try to to jack you, there'd be a mechanism to find infringement and negotiate either a) a successful negotiation of lawful rights, or b) revoke the unauthorized use, or c) send it to some formalized method of arbitration.
I hate being "that guy", but isn't nearly every private corporation's policy "guilty until maybe proven innocent"? If Chuck E Cheese's get a report that I an punching children to death, they might preemptively disallow me in even if there's no evidence supporting that claim. If one of Best Buy's employees accused me of stealing Blu-Rays, they might not allow me into the store, even without any evidence. If I were a director and there was a rumor that my goal was to get Universal sued, they might not bring me on as a director.
I'm not saying that this is should be how it is, and you could make a strong argument that it shouldn't be this way, but I think it predates YouTube.
Chuck E. is not the dominant platform for sharing video online. As the internet has replaced the town square people have come to expect a higher duty from the dominant internet companies than profit motive. The law hasn't kept pace with our expectations of these new quasi-public spaces.
But how exactly do we draw the line of what's acceptable with YouTube? Should YouTube be forced to host hardcore porn [1]? If not, why not? You could say "well anything that the FCC allows", but then that means we'd have to disallow most videos that have curse words in them (not to mention it would greatly reduce the appeal of YouTube for me, since part of why I like it is because it allows stuff that wouldn't be allowed on TV), but if you're saying that YouTube should be a free-speech zone, then how exactly is porn not protected speech?
I'm not claiming I have the answer, but I feel that the vague "omg youtube is a platform so it should allow all my videos!!!!" argument is extremely reductive, and tends to imply that it should just be this total anarchy of a platform. If YouTube doesn't regulate their content, it's going to be hard to find advertisers, and if they can't find advertisers it will be hard to monetize the platform.
[1] Obviously legal stuff, porn that's outright illegal should of course not be allowed.
An actual town square is a scarce resource (due to being a physical piece of real estate) that's usually managed by a municipality in a way that ensures fair access.
Online video sites are in no way, shape, or form, a town square. They are privately-managed, there is no practical scarcity on how many video sites can exist, and if you don't like YouTube's policies, you and your viewers can easily go elsewhere. Indeed, platforms like BitChute exist in large part to host channels that YouTube has banned.
By moving away from YouTube, you'd obviously lose YouTube's viewers and advertisers, and that may make your video channel infeasible if you're running it for-profit. But them's the breaks -- you're not entitled to another company's audience.
There should be a certificate system for copyrighted stuff. Buying rights to music? You'll get a certificate along with the piece from the licensor. Upload the license(s) along with the video and the Content ID system could automatically do the check.
Youtube would need to trust Roots/Intermediates from license holders. Smaller license holders could get an Intermediate from a larger one, that is registered with YT.
Massively inefficient compared to something like the certificate authority system, and you could have a "certificate transparency log" like system if needed.
You don't need a blockchain to do signatures or other cryptographic operations, and in fact the blockchain is the worst way to do it if you do not have adversaries trying to make double-spends.
It's much harder to write correct code if you have to give equal power to all peers, while also trusting no-one.
It's much easier to do what most systems do, which is trust every peer more or less (aka the SMTP style usual federation), or trust a small number of well-known supernodes (aka the CA system, the DNS system, the BGP system, etc).
All of those systems for distributing information of various kinds are vastly easier to reason about, operate, etc, than blockchains.
I do wonder if there's room for going after the people submitting false claims based on their libelous written claim to Google/YouTube that you're using unlicensed music. There's clearly a money trail to follow for identification.
A lot of the time musicians sign themselves up to licensing services that create sub-agreements and some that don't even let the creators know that they have been licensed out to others. Then these artists stumble across their work in a project they didn't know about and report it out of confusion.
There are also some gutless people out there who file the copyright claims for other negative purposes.
Copyright has always been a huge mess though, and YouTube's method of making everyone compete for visibility certainly doesn't help it all.
I only sign licensing agreements directly with the film makers I work with, and refuse to use 3rd party sites to handle my licensing in order to properly protect my work use rights though. The Internet can be a scary place to share personal work at times.
In a situation like that a strike should be retracted after more detail is provided - and if it's not, then you have a conflict between someone who's properly licensed music and someone claiming they haven't. Being able to determine whether it's licensed seems like a problem for the musician.
Put differently, if the only practical difference between properly licensing and failing to properly license is that you pay extra for doing it right but get no benefit from doing so, then why bother licensing? If the punishment happens either way, might as well save the money and hassle up front.
Regardless of that, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of predatory claimants out there who've found a low barrier to entry, enough payout to make the effort worthwhile, and little to no repercussions for fraudulent claims. THAT's the problem that really needs to be addressed.
I am guessing that YouTube isn't the real problem here. If everyone self-hosted their videos, the first thing a media company would do is hire a bunch of programmers to crawl the internet, download the videos (probably in a buggy way costing you megabucks in transfer fees), scan the audio against my music library, and auto-send DMCA takedowns to the ISP that owns the IP address. If it was successful, I'd probably spin it off into its own company, and charge others to use it. Congratulations, you have Content ID! And Google already did this.
I think that moving off YouTube would be the same story as other filesharing systems. Napster worked for a few years until the lawyers found out about it. Then (and my memory is foggy here) Limewire/Kazaa/etc. worked for a few years until the lawyers found out about it. Then public Bittorrent trackers worked for a few years until the lawyers found out about it. Then private Bittorrent trackers worked for a few years until someone accidentally invited the lawyers. That's exactly what would happen if everyone started hosting video files on their personal domains. It would work for a few years until the lawyers found out about it. (Meanwhile... the lawyers still haven't found out about Usenet, which indeed still exists and is a veritable haven of piracy.)
Anyway, the problem is copyright law. Society would probably not implode if you said "movies and music are no longer copyrightable", and these probably would all go away overnight. What you'd see instead would be really competitive streaming services, and probably a lot of product placement in music and movies. (Except, you already see these things. This comment was sponsored by SquarespaceVPN! Sign up now with this offer code that I'm going to say is limited to the first 100 users but is actually unlimited because who is going to deny a customer? Also, did you know that Hacker News knows your username when you log in? Install our snakeoil VPN widget thing for only $34.99 per month and ... some security shit will happen to prevent that! Hackers! News! Scary!)
ISPs are only required to forward the DMCA notice to you (unless they suck and just want to drop you). The only reason the DMCA notices took down Napster et al. is because the requests are valid.
You could build Content ID for the real internet but it would only as much as you can intimidate each individual creator/site operator. They are free to at least decide to defend themselves if they wanted to. Under the Youtube ContentID that really isn't an option. Plus non-US creators could care a lot less since enforcing DMCA/copyright internationally is going to be even more costly.
It depends on what the ISP wants to do, right? They could forward the request along, or they could say "whoaaaa we don't want this customer" and turn you off with no appeal process. They have an obligation to forward the notice to the end user, but the end user doesn't have the right to have Internet access while the dispute process proceeds. That is a legal program, and it is certainly worth considering whether or not business Internet should be a "right" or not.
(And I guess that as the Internet market heats up and competitors become available, a ToS like "we won't turn you off just because you get a DMCA notice" could be quite appealing.)
Absent a VPN, ISPs have teamed up (as in, are often ran by the same media giants sending the request) to give customers a 3/6-strike policy for DMCA takedowns. So people self-hosting could eventually mean no internet for them (at least, for as long as the internet isn't considered a utility).
In fact, Twitch have very sensible approach here: it will mute any infringing material in replay.
By taking this hard stance not providing the copyright owners with any way to monetize the material, Twitch discourages trolls from participating. Only a real content holder who is genuinely afraid of losses due to piracy, and is ready to spend resources on it despite no returns, will.
The solution is simple: YouTube will become a media licensing marketplace! That way it knows for certain if you've broken the rules.
Plus, it's a nice little side biz, to have de facto monopoly marketplace, enforced by the fear of BS infringement claims like these. It's a monopoly that's very hard to attack in court, because hey you're free to license content anyway you like! Litigation will take decades, and the customers can't afford litigation anyway, so let's do it!
I had this exact thought. It's obviously impossible for youtube to verify music was licensed since that licensing happens off platform. Clearly the next step is for them to vertically integrate and handle the licensing themselves.
As an indie film/animation/game/music studio the only reason we see for still using youtube is for their free 4k video hosting/streaming. If you look around at the alternatives(Vimeo etc) it gets really expensive to host 4k video given the massive bandwidth.
Youtube's overzealous content ID system should push studios etc to create their own original music. We have several original feature films on youtube with all original soundtracks and have no issues with flagging etc as none of our music has been sold to music licensors etc.
Youtube's content ID system even goes after sound effect libraries- we had an issue in 2012 where our original animated feature film was flagged because of a wind sound effect that was 5 seconds long. It was an original sound that somehow matched a licensed wind sound. We disputed the wind ^_^ and the flagging/flogging was dropped.
It might a drag to hear for studios not wanting to do the extra work but I think creating/hiring people to create all original material is the way to avoid such things on youtube. We think its better for culture as well.
Which one would you recommend to host 2 hour long 4k videos? The videos themselves average around 40gb. I guess the Vimeo plan we would need is not so expensive $50/month. Do you know of a site that compares cdn hosting fees per gb etc?
Ah... bullshit. Copyright is civil law. There's no assumption of innocence in civil law. Fundamentally, because there's also no guilt, in the moral sense, only responsibilities and obligations. Practically, it's often a matter of chance which party is slightly faster and therefore plaintiff. If the other filing gets there first, you're the defendant. That's also why the standard of truth is just 50%+x, i. e. "preponderance of the evidence": it's the only standard that works in a symmetric situation.
And, at the moment that YouTube takes down your video, the preponderance of the evidence is (sometimes just momentarily) against you, both statistically (most copyright complaints they process are legit) as well as philosophically, since there is only someone's affidavit that they own the copyright in the content, and no reply to it (yet).
So, at that moment, YouTube doesn't start investigating because that would be a gigantic waste of resources, considering the uploader is in a far better position to disprove the claim. Forwarding the claim isn't YouTube siding with the accusation. It's them following the process the law set out (and, maybe, being slightly cheap). False takedown request are annoying, yes. They are also a few orders of magnitude rarer than copyright infringements, which I imagine would also tend to annoy some creators. And, crucially, they are the fault of the complainant. Doing anything creates the risk of idiots suing you without cause, and there's just no argument why YouTube should (or could) absorb that risk.
The problem here is copyright duration being insanely long. Works from 1926 should not still be under copyright but they are. YouTube is just doing the best they can do within the confines of our ridiculous system.
If copyright were only 20 years with an application to extend in special circumstances (equivalent to patent law), we wouldn't waste so much of our economic power devising and enforcing systems to uphold our archaic copyright laws.
> Why do business at all with robots? If you can't get someone on the phone, don't do business with that company.
I was doing business with a company and signed a 20-year contract.
At first, it was all humans. Then eventually there were fewer humans... then no longer anyone near me and I could only get business done over the phone. Then the phone people were replaced with an automated system for "nearly everything". I always wanted to speak to a representative though. Eventually even the way to speak to a representative was taken over and now they "schedule a call back".
I don't receive phone calls.
Too bad, I thought Aflac was an alright company.
Unfortunately there are a lot of businesses that are leaning towards "schedule a callback". What comes after that is "chat online with a real person on our app". What comes after that? Maybe just "schedule a later chat with a real person" because their chat people are too busy and wait times are measured in hours. Then what?
"Don't do business with robots" is well but it doesn't go far enough.
Does YouTube have any system to manage positive rights clearing? YouTube has Hollywood movies available to buy or rent with copyrighted music, those movies have people on the production staff with the role to clear the rights to all the music. Surely those movies don't get takedown notices?
What would be the safest place to publish own music, or videos with own music, licensed as CC, that is, where copying is allowed from start, so that those trolls cannot claim any copyright violations?
I may be interested in making some tech videos in the future, and I'd use exclusively my music, but have no intention of seeing it taken down or claimed as someone else's work.
No problems if using a non mainstream platform would mean 100 viewers instead of 100.000; I don't plan to make a living with that and don't want to feed the Google trolls and their lawyers.
Never do a filter sweep on a synthesizer. For some reason, Youtube will slap you with a takedown as it thinks you're steeling off The Chemical Brothers.
The norm on these platforms seems to be this ancienty way of doing justice. Lest they take a risk to protect those who actually form the actual content, in fear of prosecution.
My parents are operating an airbnb in their downstairs suite. A few months ago one of their visitors started complaining that they found hair under a heater behind a door, and dust behind the nightstand, and that this was making them uncomfortable and they would leave. To give some context, tens of rentals rentals in, they had an average cleanliness rating of 5/5. The guests stayed two nights, but then left and asked to be fully refunded (turns out there was a storm alert on Sunday that probably was the real cause for the premature departure). My parents refunded the cleaning as a gesture but declined to refund the rest given that it was obviously more of a personal choice than really an issue with cleanliness. The day after, airbnb locked their account and cancelled their reservations for the coming 2 months. An "anonymous guest" had made a safety complaint, that my parents had entered the suite or something like that. Airbnb never disclosed the details, but all the questions were around entering while the guests were in, which my parents were outraged they could be accused of. They had to plead their case that this wasn't right. Fortunately for them airbnb reinstated their account in a few days, but with those 2 months of bookings gone ; plus apparently a strike on their file and some employee telling them "never to do that again", despite not even knowing what the charge was. I scouted the net to advise them, and you can find countless stories of people getting their accounts closed by random guests making false accusations in an attempt to to get reimbursed for random stuff. My only advice was to diversify the platforms, but when the market is so dominated by a single actor, they can apply the ancient type of justice where you aren't allowed to face your accusers, or even know what you are accused of. The only thing you can do is pray that whomever "judges" your case didn't get blueballed the night before.
I hope there will be a correction one day, but given the trend I am not hopeful. The future looks like for all sorts of things in our lives will be ruled and arbitrated by mini dictators ruling over their unregulated fiefdoms.
I'm even posting this from a disposable account and altered the story in fear that somehow they might get identified and be targets of retribution.
Or what Google could do is auto-identify music in videos (they do this), and then set up automated monthly payments to the appropriate ASCAP or similar licensing body for statutory payments.
We already have statutory public performance prices. And we started to adhere to them, the creators could get their money, and the creators could further create content. (You know, like a content Ponzi scheme.)
Or Google could go to some effort to identify the individuals who are making a large number of false takedown claims, and block them from making claims?
Right? You upload and it says "this will cost $n per month to host it and you'll be charged starting next month via one of a few licensees you can select OR you can put in an existing license claim." Maybe each license can come with a UniqueId that you can fill in and it checks with an authority automatically.
Having done ASCAP fee schedules, the fees would be based on the amount of plays you've done. And you can pay per month, quarter, or estimated listeners in your area (for things like radio and broadcast).
This is *simple*, and stays completely above ground with respect to copyright and mechanical reproductions. And it also allows the creators remixing content to ALSO make money.
The hardest part is the ContentID that google already has. So it'd be keeping track of copyright owners, and paying.
Sure, non-monetized videos would have to pay to keep them up. That could be a bummer... But it could be a definite choice to do. Monetized videos could just be paid directly out of the monetization bucket.
And get this, you can host our ads in your product and select where they’ll be played. Any revenue generated from our ads will be passed on to you, less our commission!
It’s really scary what we’ve built on the Internet, and it’s even scarier that these corporations are able to go unchecked. Parts of life are already becoming miserable (e.g., automated “customer support”), and it’s just going to keep getting worse, all at the alter of growth and capitalism.
I absolutely hate the argument used that scale prevents them to do anything about it, as if crimes en masse are suddenly okay. It’s their problem, not ours, that they’ve built systems that are, for all intents and purposes, uncontrollable. These corporations act like they are the victim in these cases of abuse of their platform.
I said this a many years ago and was downvoted heavily for it. If you think about what the Internet is - it's a technology that enables things to be done at hyper-scale. And this applies to all the good things in the world but also the bad including crime, terrorism, money laundering, propaganda, corporate abuse, etc.
I would venture that what we call capitalism these days isn't truly the capitalism of old. Rather, we're in some dystopian Corporatism future (corporatism vs capitalism) that aims to reduce choice, lock users in, and then treat those users as captive customers. It's no longer about providing a better or competitive product / service, but rather finding more ways to lock in users and eliminate choice. An acquisition by a FAANG is often a means to reduce choice instead of increase quality of a product or service.
For over a hundred years people have described the tendency of a capitalist enterprise to concentrate wealth and power. There is no fine distinction between small diverse competitive capitalism and oligopoly, they are different stages of the life cycle.
This is because small diverse enterprises proliferate at first in the growth stage and then winners start to emerge. When a crisis hits, the larger players snap up the bankrupt smaller players at bargain prices and get their best employees too. Over a series of crises, the market consolidates into oligopoly. Once the national market is nearly consumed, the remaining players look abroad to expand markets. There is nothing controversial about this, it is taught in business school.
This of course assumes a life cycle that starts domestically. Many ventures instead start abroad witnessing an opportunity to exploit cheap labor, lax regulations, or a unique natural resource. The western governments then assist the western companies in securing the opportunity, usually through gangster tactics. The resources are then extracted from the country, processed by the company into higher value goods, and resold to the originating country.
To add to this, the accumulation of wealth and power is literally written into the very concept of capitalism. That's the capital the name refers to. Even Adam Smith wrote about ways to mitigate it, so it's always been there.
I agree about today's corporatism environment, with the elaboration of the idea that we've basically gotten into a privatized or corporate based socialist/communist regime vs a government controlled one. The U.S. has questionably railed against socialism and communism for over a century and still does, and yet, it's allowed it to take over from the corporation and private sector, which is arguably much, much worse. Governments, for the most part, at least have some incentives to keep people's interests in mind.
However, I think this sort of corporatism is a natural evolution of capitalism, because capitalism has no other incentives outside of profit and growth.
> The U.S. has questionably railed against socialism and communism for over a century and still does, and yet, it's allowed it to take over from the corporation and private sector
Absolutely zero corporations have done anything like letting their workers own the means of production or implementing workplace democracy.
Um, the structure for an employee owned company is a called ... a corporation. Workplace democracy typically happens at shareholder meetings, where senior management is either retained or fired by the employee/owners. The largest example of this is Publix supermarkets. They have 200,000 employee owners.
Those aren't claims, it's automatic Content ID. In this case YouTube has every right to prevent music from being uploaded and can prevent you from removing the Content ID claim, even when you have a license/it's in the public domain, because YT isn't abiding by or invoking the DMCA at all. It's like saying "guitar tryouts just don't play stairway to heaven" - you can forbid it even in the absence of AT&T sending a legal cease & desist your way.
Not surprised that few commenters here have read the linked article, or the comments at the end of it.
This is essentially an attack on Smartsound, Shockwave-Sound, etc. It sounds like those companies want to after whoever is claiming copyright over their music.
The smartest technologists and developers of our generation go to work for companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, and others, and what we see are these results. Why can't we do better for everyone?
Unfortunately this isn't really a technical problem. Content ID exists to appease large organizations that sued YouTube into the ground for not doing enough to counter copyright infringement.
This claim process takes place before the legal copyright claim process. The legal process would require YouTube to take the video down immediately, and it would be required to stay down for at least two weeks even if the claim is bogus. (Or YouTube could decide not to follow the process and be held liable in case of actual infringement.)
There is no presumed innocence. The DMCA is constantly being abused, and the only possible punishment for malicious claims is an expensive lawsuit. It wouldn't surprise me at all if half of all DMCA takedown requests would be considered fair use in court, but the vast majority never get there.
I feel like this comment was intended to spell out how poorly the world is doing, but those companies have moved technology forward leaps and bounds. I won't pretend to know enough to suggest they're net good for the world or to know everything they've done, but I'm also very aware of the progress we've seen because of those companies.
Just think about how much money people have saved from DIY projects on YouTube, for example or how skills have been learned.
Because the corporate interests of Google, Facebook and the reat dont align with the interests of small indepedent people but large companies like themselves.
There are HUGE financial incentives to ensuring that creators get paid for their work, and that consumers/users get the content they pay for, and that a channel can help negotiate content rights as intermediaries between creators and consumers. The problem is that we have taken stabs at this in the past, and they were too narrow-minded or draconian to take on. And some of the execs at these huge companies don't see the upside of facilitating this new marketplace of creation. It is literally a trillion dollar industry. But we are throwing really primitive "solutions" at the problem. See my post elsewhere in the thread as to what we need in 2021 and going forward.
I don't disagree there are technically huge incentives to ensure everyone is paid what they're rightfully owed.
But currently the problem is that in aggregate, it brings more money to rely on an overreaching algorithm (which is already built and paid-for) that favours big established labels as opposed to small-scale creators; the money they would spend on ensuring everyone gets paid fairly by building a better system wouldn't be recouped by the (relatively small) revenue they'd get from small-scale creators being able to participate.
When I mentioned financial incentives, I didn't really mean incentives in terms of making more money - as per the above I don't think there is enough money to justify improving the current system. What I meant is that there should be more enforcement; what the current system does is actually committing copyright infringement by misattributing the revenue to the wrong creators, and if this was punished appropriately it would provide a financial incentive to resolve this problem.
Life is long, even when these fraudulent copyright owners are 90 years old, their grandchildren will still be footing these extremelly large, non-bancruptable fradulent copyright claim fines.
Websurfer awareness is not the primary reason Vimeo has less viewership.
The cause & effect before the buildup of awareness is the incentives that prevent content creators to upload videos to Vimeo in the first place:
- platform membership fees: Youtube is $0 to upload and host, Vimeo used to be $240 and now has some new pricing plans[1] with a low-use free tier (too limited for high-res 4k uploads)
- no advertising partners : Youtube enables monetization without content creators asking audiences to pay for subscriptions. This financial model covers a wide variety of videos especially for unknown creators.
The financial model of Vimeo is fine but its inherent costs will keep it smaller than Youtube because both the uploaders and the viewers don't want to pay.
[1] https://vimeo.com/upgrade