Where Youtube is going

[JFSOCC]

So, I was wondering what the public opinion is currently on the changes Youtube has brought about recently.

 

I have never been a fan of how difficult it is to provide real feedback to real persons working for Youtube. The site is designed for maximum insulation of the staff. Understandable for a site which is visited by hundreds of millions of people every day, but also a serious weakness where there is no place for criticism, appeal or feedback.

 

Nor was I particularly pleased to see how Youtube, for years, has handled takedown notices, where the appeal process didn't exist, and the only people managing to successfully appeal where those with vast followings or those who have 3rd party representation thanks to their contracts. (like those who are part of machinima) This has always been an issue (remember guywiththeglasses?) But has become especially poignant recently with even bigger blanket takedowns.

 

Certainly I wasn't too pleased when it became impossible to load an entire video but only see a minute buffered at maximum.

The new player turning out to be directly inferior to the old one.

 

Then they changed the comment system to be more like social networks, because that's completely inspired and original.

 

Then along with the previous, Youtube abandoned all pretence of not being evil by effectively forcing anyone with an account to link their private data to their account by accepting Google+, something the vast majority of Youtube end-users explicitly do not want. I've managed to hold off so far, but that means I cannot save a video to my favourites (pop-up appears to set up my Google+ account) comment or like a comment (ditto)

 

Now Google has introduced takedown bots with increased zeal, which without review or appeal take any content which has even a small part of copyrighted content (even if used under fair use, or with used with explicit permission, even) and either take it down, or force the uploader to pay royalties.

 

 

This amounts to giving the industry the ability to blanket censorship, power which they are already widely abusing.

 

I think this spells the end of Youtube, even giants may fall, and there are still alternatives where users can move to. It didn't happen before because content creators where largely unaffected, with some exceptions. The new system is so broken that I'm confident that content creators themselves will jump ship.

And if the consumer hostile practices of Youtube, the innovation and creativity stifling, job killing legislation of the DMCA aren't changed, I say good riddance.

[Bartimaeus]

I'm a "content creator", (I use quotes because...not really - all I do is post other people's music - close to 700 songs worth of it at the moment - whoops), and I've been trying to think up of a fitting "I quit" message for the past few months...  Haven't quite gotten around to it, though...apathy is a strong (de)motivator.

 

Honestly, the biggest thing that annoys me as a second-rate, small-time uploader...is that I can't even see new comments on my uploads anymore. It used to be a daily ritual for me, checking my inbox and looking at all the new comments people have left on my videos. Alas...YouTube's internal user inbox largely no longer exists.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Bartimaeus

[Humanoid]

Google's motto has always been "Do know evil". It's that old chestnut, Google is an advertising company first and foremost, and so we're not the customers, we're the product. The customers are the advertisers, so it's no surprise who wins out there.

 

 

For what it's worth, I'm trying to convert over to DuckDuckGo for my search needs, but old habits die hard.

[Blarghagh]

I think content creators for YouTube (it's well established that a Let's Player has the most subscribed to channel on Youtube) are going to move on to somewhere else if the ridiculous treatment of intellectual property on Youtube continues. In fact, this is already happening - many small-time Let's Players have moved on to Livestreaming on places like Twitch.

[Guest Slinky]

I think content creators for YouTube (it's well established that a Let's Player has the most subscribed to channel on Youtube) are going to move on to somewhere else if the ridiculous treatment of intellectual property on Youtube continues. In fact, this is already happening - many small-time Let's Players have moved on to Livestreaming on places like Twitch.

 

I've been hoping this to happen for some time now, I haven't even registered to youtube so I could subscribe to the few channels I like in there. When they switch to some other site, it's bye youtube for me.

[Walsingham]

I can see your point but then musicians I know are seeing interesting - if not world shaking - returns on their content. They have to get paid so they have to have real life data associated anyway.

 

As for the other stuff about ordinary users having real identities... someone has to pay for the ****ing service. I really can't stress that enough. And the model they have is that YOU pay by having your personal identity and habits sold out to any sweaty-faced entity that can stump up a couple of quid.

 

YOU (collectively) have been accepting your data is sold to pay for your services for years. Don't act all ****ing surprised.

[Kroney]

I've managed to stay off Google+ so far, mostly by not signing up to any service that uses it. I am on FB though, go figure.

[Enoch]

Youtube won the Viacom suit in part because they could demonstrate that their systems were doing everything they could to police copyright violation.  As more sophisiticated technology becomes available to let them do this, they've got to adopt it, or risk another lawsuit that could cost them millions.  It's not really much more compicated than that. 

 

Uploaders moving to a different venue isn't going to change anything.  Might work for a little while, but absent regular pirate-bay-type host-country migration, the alternative service is going to be subject to all the same legal threats, which will either force them under, or into similar policies as those you're seeing on youtube. 

 

The bottom line is that the law is pretty strongly in favor of the rights holders.  And that isn't especially likely to change much.  Intellectual properties are an area where the U.S. has a huge economic competitive advantage.  Copyrighted products are a big American export, so of course the U.S. government throws its weight around to ensure that these products will continue to enrich their rights-holders.  If Saudi Arabia could stop you from buying an electric car, they'd do it in a heartbeat. 

[JFSOCC]

 

The bottom line is that the law is pretty strongly in favor of the rights holders.  And that isn't especially likely to change much.  Intellectual properties are an area where the U.S. has a huge economic competitive advantage.  Copyrighted products are a big American export, so of course the U.S. government throws its weight around to ensure that these products will continue to enrich their rights-holders.  If Saudi Arabia could stop you from buying an electric car, they'd do it in a heartbeat. 

Yeah I disagree, I think it's likely to change. This obsolete view cannot hold up in front of the burst of information and creativity that is the internet. Innovation and honest competition, plus creative reintepretation of works are all boosts to the economy. They are terrible to the monopolies of Vevo and viacom and the like however. I will not shed one tear when their absolute hold is destroyed.

[Walsingham]

*shrug*

 

No offence meant, JFSOCC but it's got sod all to do with what you want or don't want, creativity or the tooth fairy. Whatever model crops up has to make money to be sustainable.

 

Providing massive servers capable of holding and streaming the feeds costs money. Creating quality content ultimately costs money.

 

All Google and Youtube are doing is selling the viewer. They're just doing it in a much smarter 21st Century way than NBC/the BBC/Fox were doing it last century. Oh, and in a far more intrusive way, because they aren't just selling you when you're viewing. They're selling you when you are not.

[Guest Slinky]

TotalBiscuits take on this

 

It's about 25 minutes long but at least less teary and whiny than angry joes.

[JFSOCC]

*shrug*

 

No offence meant, JFSOCC but it's got sod all to do with what you want or don't want, creativity or the tooth fairy. Whatever model crops up has to make money to be sustainable.

 

Providing massive servers capable of holding and streaming the feeds costs money. Creating quality content ultimately costs money.

 

All Google and Youtube are doing is selling the viewer. They're just doing it in a much smarter 21st Century way than NBC/the BBC/Fox were doing it last century. Oh, and in a far more intrusive way, because they aren't just selling you when you're viewing. They're selling you when you are not.

Sure, I get where it comes from, but on the other hand, their consumer hostile practices are driving their revenue away, so it's not going to be sustainable.

[Walsingham]

 

*shrug*

 

No offence meant, JFSOCC but it's got sod all to do with what you want or don't want, creativity or the tooth fairy. Whatever model crops up has to make money to be sustainable.

 

Providing massive servers capable of holding and streaming the feeds costs money. Creating quality content ultimately costs money.

 

All Google and Youtube are doing is selling the viewer. They're just doing it in a much smarter 21st Century way than NBC/the BBC/Fox were doing it last century. Oh, and in a far more intrusive way, because they aren't just selling you when you're viewing. They're selling you when you are not.

Sure, I get where it comes from, but on the other hand, their consumer hostile practices are driving their revenue away, so it's not going to be sustainable.

 

 

Are they though? I mean if it drives away freeloaders that may not be such a problem?

 

Open question.

[JFSOCC]

we'll see

[Walsingham]

Well, I agree that it forces people to decide whether they want to be sold like mind-coal for the economic furnaces.

[Hurlshort]

 

Sure, I get where it comes from, but on the other hand, their consumer hostile practices are driving their revenue away, so it's not going to be sustainable.

 

 

I haven't heard anything in the business world to back that up.  These companies are hugely successful.

[Enoch]

Youtube would love it if they didn't have to do this.  But they have to take a conservative approach.  Being over-restrictive of what users can upload does produce some lost revenue, but that's nothing compared to the potential litigation losses they would face if they didn't apply their reasonable best-efforts at preventing infringement.

 

Plus, the parties alleging infringement are pretty major "content creators," too.  While arguably-infringing "ordinary joe" uploaded content is going to be hounded by the RIAA/MPAA/etc. wherever it goes, the content actually published by the RIAA/MPAA/etc. could easily be moved to a competing service (or in-house), drawing millions of eyeballs away from the Googles.  Movie trailers, official music videos, promotional interviews, and other stuff like that is going to be heavily watched/shared/etc. across the web regardless of what video service hosts it. 

 

It sucks that they're sticking the uploaders with the burden of establishing Fair Use, but given the volume of video Youtube gets and the risks the company faces of turning a blind eye, I don't see how they have much of a choice. 

[Woldan]

This is such bull****. 

 

I can only make a rough guess about how many music albums I've legally bought AFTER watching them on the Internet and listening to all tracks via Youtube. A couple of hundred at least, I don't think I would have bought most of them without knowing their complete content.

Thats also what Trent Reznor from Nine Inch Nails counts on, in 2007 he created his own label (Nothing records) solely to sell his own music super-cheap (4-9 bucks) and promotes people on stealing his music and uploading them to various video sites.
Fans upload his tracks on YT which is free advertisement, people will steal his music and like it so much that they'll buy the album. Apparently that has worked so well he can continue to be a world-class music artist. 

Thats also how I got into Nine Inch Nails many years ago, now I own pretty much all albums of NIN because I wanted to support this great artist. I know that a lot of people do it that way. 

 

And its pretty much the same with films. 

Edited December 12, 2013 by Woldan

[Orogun01]

This is such bull****. 

 

I can only make a rough guess about how many music albums I've legally bought AFTER watching them on the Internet and listening to all tracks via Youtube. A couple of hundred at least, I don't think I would have bought most of them without knowing their complete content.

 

Thats also what Trent Reznor from Nine Inch Nails counts on, in 2007 he created his own label (Nothing records) solely to sell his own music super-cheap (4-9 bucks) and promotes people on stealing his music and uploading them to various video sites.

Fans upload his tracks on YT which is free advertisement, people will steal his music and like it so much that they'll buy the album. Apparently that has worked so well he can continue to be a world-class music artist. 

Thats also how I got into Nine Inch Nails many years ago, now I own pretty much all albums of NIN because I wanted to support this great artist. I know that a lot of people do it that way. 

 

And its pretty much the same with films. 

Trent Reznor is a Grammy, Oscar winning badass mofo. I remember when he went independent and gave out his album for free, doesn't seem to have hurt him.

But that's the different of the artist and the publisher one wants to make art the other one wants to make money.

[Walsingham]

Like you chaps I listen to things for free and then buy them. I own albums and DVDs and watch them on youtube because it's easier.

 

But i put it to you that we are FREAKS, and totally unrepresentative.

[Orogun01]

Like you chaps I listen to things for free and then buy them. I own albums and DVDs and watch them on youtube because it's easier.

 

But i put it to you that we are FREAKS, and totally unrepresentative.

So if I buy an album I cannot play it for an audience without the explicit consent of the publisher?

[Walsingham]

 

Like you chaps I listen to things for free and then buy them. I own albums and DVDs and watch them on youtube because it's easier.

 

But i put it to you that we are FREAKS, and totally unrepresentative.

So if I buy an album I cannot play it for an audience without the explicit consent of the publisher?

 

 

*shrugs*

 

What you and I do is - I propose - utterly immaterial. If I'm honest I reject the premise that the law should be the same for everyone, due to the unfortunate fact that people aren't all the same.

 

The vast bulk of people are short-sighted imbeciles. They will very cheerfully steal from ordinary artists while spending their money on MacDs. Or refuse to support local businesses then complain when there are no local jobs. For example. It's complete insanity, but they'll do it.

[Hurlshort]

Music is a lot different than movies.  I think most consumers listen to tracks before they buy them, or at least listen to the one track getting market exposure.  There are tons of outlets designed to do that.  There isn't really any way to compare that to movies. 

 

 

Like you chaps I listen to things for free and then buy them. I own albums and DVDs and watch them on youtube because it's easier.

 

But i put it to you that we are FREAKS, and totally unrepresentative.

So if I buy an album I cannot play it for an audience without the explicit consent of the publisher?

 

 

What type of audience are you talking about?  You can't fill a concert hall and then play someone else's music.  

Edited December 12, 2013 by Hurlshot

[Amentep]

Arguably radio created a model for sampling music from an album before buying an album.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Amentep

[Enoch]

Ultimately, this little discussion is beside the point.  There is no "you're managing your property stupidly therefore I get to break the law" exception.  Rights holders get to decide the format, method, price point, etc., by which they want to share, license, sell, broadcast, etc., their IPs.  If they do something dumb and alienate consumers via strict enforcement, well, that's their loss.  Consumers can always buy something else instead. 

 

The pertinent exception is "Fair Use," which I'm no expert on, but which covers stuff like Orogun's point above about playing an album when people who didn't buy it are present.  It almost certainly doesn't cover uploading something wholesale and profiting on the clicks it draws.  The statute is a bit amorphous, and that ambiguity works against Youtube.  They don't have the time to consider each upload on its merits, so they rely on the (often overly broad) assertions of rights holders.