I think it's more instructive to look at it from the other side. What's the reasonable alternative for a video hosting service to doing this kind of policing? Remember it's not really an option to just throw video over the fence, DMCA requirements mean you have to be responsive. And thus there's a built-in incentive to cut a deal with the content owners to preemptively prevent the DMCA claims (which are expensive!) by doing this sort of automated policing.
It's true that not every host does this, but every host that doesn't do this either does it in violation of the law or eats significant overhead that needs to be recouped in some other way (i.e. by paying their content creators less! Check the author's channel, this is someone who's clearly on youtube for revenue. Would even she jump ship given that it would probably cost her money?)
Really, this isn't something Google can fix. It's a problem with the legal regime that imagines that all infringement is a bright line definition and that preemptive takedowns are the best solution.
This current situation on YT is the result of another multi-billion dollar legal fight with the music industry. I don't like how YT handles this either but I put most of the blame on the music industry for it.
(remember its beethovens moonlight sonata, one of the most famous classical pieces period. i dont think you even could copyright a part of it, at least not just the sequence of notes)
Obviously, hiring humans is expensive, and nobody is forcing them to do it, but that doesn't make it an unreasonable alternative. I consider it unreasonable to design an unethical system with the sole excuse that it makes more money that way.
I think that argues strongly that the service you want to see is "unreasonable" given the regulation regime we have. You can't put this on the hosts, you'll just be disappointed. Call your representative.
Sorry, this is not going to make business sense. If you want a free video publishing platform that does user outreach for you, you got to pay a price; the false positives is a part of the price, alas.
People don't get it. Perjury actually means something. When you have the blade of perjury over head, it is absolutely the case that as a human being, if you have doubt, you should be saying it, or you're misrepresenting the truth of the matter.
The level of perjury inherent to generating these claims via automated process is absurd. It is absolutely reasonable that when you have a group going around and using the legal system as a cudgel, the proper response is to return the favor.
This process should not scale at all if people would punch back. Perjury should be trivial to prove when no one even looked at the content in qustion aside from an analysis suite.
Regardless; there is always the self-hosted option.
I'm cynical, so I feel it's much more likely that a competitor will push actual change to come (be it through google self improving, or through future lawsuits challenging the current laws) than for a current monopolistic entity to finding alternatives to problems that don't inconvenience them at large.
>Remember it's not really an option to just throw video over the fence, DMCA requirements mean you have to be responsive
"Responsive" is the key word to be challenged here. I'm unsure if automating a removal at the behest of any barely or unverified account is the bare minimum "reponsiveness" required legally. The big problem that won't be resolved without someone legally challenging it is that there's no negative consequence to filing a DMCA claim. Or at least, there wasn't as recently as 4 years ago.
How are DMCAs expensive?
Insurance? I'm only half kidding. No individual youtuber has the deep pockets to stir the slumbering Googlebeast enough to get it to notice and correct its mistake, but all youtubers certainly do. Conversely, perhaps there's a market for a we-only-get-paid-if-we-win lawyers to spring up here, as they have with workplace injuries and such. Youtube's resolution process may not be friendly to creators, but juries probably will be, if the creator bypasses Google and sues the party making the claim. "Sues for what?" I dunno - emotional damages? Tortious claims? They'll figure something out, I imagine.
Maybe those are silly ideas, but they're certainly less silly than waiting for Google to fix things...
Concretely, what should she have done differently?
If there isn't enough marketing advice out there about finding as many channels and methods as you can, I'll eat this comment with barbecue sauce.
Read up, utilize all the advice on everything except Google-owned properties, accept the lower visibility, and help neuter the algorithm beast.
Or accept that you're riding the tiger and never complain again.
The advice is all there, all right. It's just that most of it is "join a platform that's NOT being used by literally everyone on the planet", which is not very effective when "literally everyone on your planet" is the "raw material" that you fish your viewers out of.
- while building up your following on google, market your brand to your own site(s) as much as possible
- build brand an alternate streaming site(s)
- have a way to reach your followers in the event you get shut down - email list, etc. to inform your followers to switch to the alternate site
This is kind of like saying... Expect failure, build failure into you strategy, and move blindly forward believing there is no other alternative.
Go ahead and build your initial business on quicksand.
Know that you'll get lots of traffic, but it might sink into the ground at any time.
Use the profits to build up a solid future property that isn't built on quicksand.
Problem is few make enough money to get to your last step. And those that do can pay others to deal with the quicksand and are no longer interested in the fight to clean it up for good.
If I was a creator I’d use YouTube, but also have backed up local copies of videos. Preferably hosted elsewhere in case the channel gets in trouble too.
You have to be where the users are and YouTube is by far the best video streaming service (with the largest audience).
I've noticed several tech-related content producers copying their videos over to LBRY/Odysee as a backup in case the YT algorithm decides to cancel them.
Put your videos on Youtube and PeerTube.
I'm not saying PeerTube doesn't look like interesting tech; but this is clearly aimed at a far more tech-savvy crowd and to put it out there in response to asking for a, "reasonable alternative for a content creator who wants to publish their videos and be able to build an audience" is just totally missing the mark of what makes YouTube successful for creators and viewers alike.
PeerTube is not one single website. It is a decentralized platform, where everyone can set up their own server and it will work as a part of the whole system (like emails work). This is why it will never be owned by a single entity like Google.
You probably chose a slow server. It does not mean that the whole PeerTube is slow.
> You probably chose a slow server.
I didn't choose a server. I chose a video. The moment the service asks me to think about what server is hosting it is the moment I don't care enough to jump through those hoops. Never underestimate the value of a consistent experience.
Once again, I don't want to be disparaging to PeerTube--it's a cool concept and I understand the foundations behind it. But, spending 10 minutes with it earlier today made it obvious that it's not going to challenge YouTube as a content discovery platform.
Edit: Corrected the URL from "PeerTube.com" to "JoinPeertube.org" -- I typed "PeerTube.com" in haste and just assuming the URL.
PeerTube.com is not "PeerTube themselves". This is one of the servers, not the best one. This is the official PeerTube website: https://joinpeertube.org. It will show search results on many servers.
> The moment the service asks me to think about what server is hosting it is the moment I don't care enough to jump through those hoops.
You only choose your server once, like you chose Youtube once. You do not need to jump through hoops.
> If their own hosting isn't cutting it
PeerTube (actually FramaSoft) is a non-profit organization. You shouldn't expect huge resources from them. Also peertube.com is not their server AFAIK.
I'm honestly done with this ridiculous strawman about whether the video works. PeerTube is not a viable alternative to YouTube from a content creator's perspective for many reasons which I've already stated; but, I'll summarize:
1. It lacks even a tiny fraction of the distribution and discovery reach offered by YouTube.
2. It lacks the monetization features that allows YouTube to become part of a business.
3. It requires me to provide my own hosting and technical setup which is far more involved than dropping a video into your browser like you get with YouTube.
4. If I, as a consumer with no knowledge or interest in how PeerTube works, "choose the wrong server," I get a crappy experience with videos buffering for ages so I'm disinclined to continue to use the platform leading to reduced audiences on the platform and the feeling of, "doing extra work for nothing."
You can defend it all you want; but, your responses so far have been thinly veiled, "You're too stupid to get it right." I guess maybe I am; but, I'll stand behind that being the single biggest reason that PeerTube simply cannot be a platform to rival YouTube.
happens quite often when trying to switch resolutions. Becuase Google wants to continually tell my 200 Mb/s connection that 480p is the optimal streaming solution, and now that is spreading to mobile as well.
> your responses so far have been thinly veiled, "You're too stupid to get it right."
I didn't get that impression at all, and I think we interpreted this thread very differently. The point wasn't that PeerTube would be the new Youtube, it would be that if you don't have terabytes of local storage to keep your videos, you can upload it to a place where DMCAs won't mean your videos being lost in the void.
No need for caustic language.
This is wrong. You choose someone's server and use it just like you use Youtube.
> "You're too stupid to get it right."
I never said or implied that. Yes, using PeerTube is slightly harder, but the benefit you get is huge. If it is not worth for you, you can give your live to Google...
Before YouTube, people self-hosted. That is still an option. You can drop your work product on a server, configure it to only accept requests from servers or locations you control, then link in your content til the cows come home. You may need a cache to handle higher traffic loads, but once you find a setup that works for you, you're golden.
Use Youtube for discovery all you want, but understand that someone else's computer will never be as immune to external sources of disruption and malicious bureaucracy as something you own and independently operate.
If it's important enough to become a revenue stream, it's important enough to accomodate some cap and op-ex to ensuring you have a fallback option for. The rest of the world can be relied upon, however, to want to get their licks in whenever somebody has nice things. Plan accordingly.
This is why we all can't get along and just have nice things.
Well, I would count the greens first and then for rival, a joke. They can never share the love alphabet can share with the tube. You have to give money to take money.
And you wind up doing the extra work anyway.
Moreover, let's say a new site comes along and dethrones YouTube. Remember that this whole mess started because of lawsuits that were ultimately ruled (or settled) in favor of copyright holders. Any player in this space will need a method for handling vast quantities of copyrighted material scanning and, like Google, will be heavily incentivized by legal precedent to have that system "err on the side of caution."
I'm not a fan of Google; but, the villain of this story is the horribly outdated and corporate-lobbied copyright system that will push any player in the video space to this kind of draconian approach.