YouTube supremo says vid-streaming-slash-piracy giant can't afford EU's copyright overhaul

Re: So what?

Nah, I think you miss the point. Let's update that analogy for an industry that actually adapted:

Go to Amazon. Click on item to buy. Puchase item with same day delivery. Get item that's all yours and you can do whatever you want with it.

For that matter, buying music tracks. Click, click, download, plays anywhere. Even if it's slightly easier to pirate music, why have the police on your tail (major inconvenience, jail!)? That's where having a product that is easy to buy (and for multimedia, actually own a copy of) helps cut down on piracy significantly.

Just try that with video....and then remember that for many people piracy, for all its downsides (and illegality) is still a more convenient way to view something. Now that's an industry that just won't adapt no matter what happens!

Re: So what?

I wholeheartedly agree! I can't wait for the day where I can just pick up my stuff and leave, or when I can get my groceries delivered so I don't have to even bother with the headache of a store!

Re: So what?

Except brick and mortar is suffering for this very reason. Amazon and other online retailers are decimating the high street exactly because it is more convenient.

"and sit and watch the Anti-piracy warnings"

Ah, those few seconds really kills you... I don't know how I could really stand them, my god. While Google ads and tracking are sooooooo goooooooood I don't know how I could live without. And those antipiracy warnings were added when pirating became a real issue. They are useless, but are a legal protection to avoid those trying to assert "I didn't know it was illegal, your honor!". Just like writing on a cigarette pack that they kill. Do you smoke?

Please, tell the truth. You don't want to pay for anything. You like the free stuff, no matter where it comes from.

Re: So what?

Search, play, enjoy, move on

I'm no fan of MPAA, but that attitude emphasises the problem - you do not value work that has taken a great deal of time and money to create.

Oh, of course, we need to bow thrice at the altar and open vein to sign contract to potentially watch a month or twos worth of streaming content when all is wanted is the one.

A cellphone cat video is equal to a $500m blockbuster movie if you can't guarantee you connection is not going to stutter through four fifths of it or or force you to wait an extra thirty minutes while the little circle in the middle of the viewer spins around a still image.

@ msknight

"Shed loads of content on YouTube is pirated"

I do not disagree. Take it down and be done with it.

But SciShow, PBS Space Time, Brainy Dose and shedloads of others are perfectly legitimate and very interesting.

What is asked is not to close YouTube, it's to clean it up. And as I pay for my films, I see no problem in outing the pirates. On the other hand, I see a very big problem in the rampant abuse of the DMCA that YouTube exerts absolutely no control over. So out with the fucking DCMA and in with proper copyright control.

Re: So what?

"YouTube actually have a very poor control of their platform,"

They don't even have good control of their adverts. Youtube always shows me adverts in Russian, for goods and services available in Russia as far as I can tell. I'm not in Russia, I'm not Russian, I don't speak Russian. All those adverts are entirely wasted on me.

"The YouTube content scanning system, from where I'm sitting, is a blunderbus that isn't even pointed at the barn door."

In my case, for the advert system, the barn door isn't even on the same continent.

Re: So what?

Bless Alex, and his Gay Frogs, may he croke forever!

Re: So what?

@ msknight

"Shed loads of content on YouTube is pirated"

Shed loads of content on the internet is pirated. I wonder how long until the sledgehammer comes down on that

Re: So what?

"YouTube actually have a very poor control of their platform"

Absolutely this. Not because they can't, but because they have no incentive to do so. With multibillion $$ revenues they can afford to hire an army of human analysts who can double-check on videos flagged up be their algorithms. They could easily slap down vexatious claims that against 'fair-use' scenarios. They can quickly identify and ban content illegal that is constantly re-uploaded. Yes, it's a whack-a-mole but if that's the way the platform works, that's what YouTube needs to do to keep it clean.

But they don't, because right now more views = more income and they are screwing both advertisers who have no idea how many real people are viewing their ads, AND the copyright holders who get a blackmailed to accept a pittance for their material (otherwise we won't take down anything breaching your copyright) AND original content creators who can't even monetise any hits on their videos unless they have huge volumes (and even then Google passes on a pittance compared to what it collects from ads). Policing their platform properly would not only cost them money, it would reduce their income so of course they won't do it.... UNLESS they are forced to by making them truly liable for content. So good on the EU for clamping down on them.

Re: So what?

Shed loads of content on YouTube is pirated.

There maybe lots of pirated junk on youtube, but there are some of us folks that do not have the time to seek it out, so we do not see it. All of the youtube videos that I see, all make some sort of comment about copyright and attempt to silence videos or blur background pictures. This means that I do not see the content.

Now back in the day when I would see something of interest, I would attempt first to see out a legitimate channel before finally giving up and going to the reupload. Any more these days youtube has raised the cap on how many viewers needed before you can "monetize" your videos, so it should no longer be worth it unless you can nab enough stuff to get youtube to pay you money for it.

Re: So what?

@AC even a few seconds of music can attract the bot blunderbuss, even if it is incidental as in your case. It makes posting anything involving gaming, out at the fairground or shopping, night out etc almost impossible.

How many public spaces now have background muzak in the background. The blunderbuss does not work, nor is it identifying real pirated content. I've seem TV programmes simply modified with a picture frame to avoid the controls.

To be fair on google they will probably always be behind in the arms race, copyright holders should also not insist on nitpicking a few seconds of background in otherwise entirely non violating content.

I can't see either side reaching a satisfactory conclusion though.

Re: "A badly thought out copyright rule may remove"

Any video that isn't pirated will stay there, and you will be able to keep on watching it. Instructional videos that don't infringe copyright - and remember there are a lot of fair use exceptions - they will stay there, just like any promotional video uploaded there with full rights, so what are your you talking about?

Under the current laws and current system setup, there are instructional videos that fall under fair use that is getting removed. I will name EEVblog as one of them due to some of his video which catch "bad actors" on the fundraiser sites. So are you saying that by adding more laws, we will start having actual fair use treated properly? I think what you would actually see is that more people would abuse your new law to their personal advantage.

Re: So what?

There is, actually a contract section which applies. Unfortunately, there are two terms of service documents for YouTube, and I'm not really sure which of the two versions are actually in force. (EDIT - they might have sorted this out, finally)

https://www.youtube.com/t/terms

https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms

Part of 6.c. of the second link ... " You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service."

The trick is the, "through the functionality of the service".. so if you download the video in order to then use it in one of your videos which you then upload... you're out of 6.c. because you've gone outside the service in order to mash up the video. So none of this is very straightforward.

I recorded a video on the problem here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ABqh04n8lo - but it does appear that they might... finally... have actually synchronised the two terms of service.

ie. even though your uploaded work is copyrighted the instant you upload it... the simple act of uploading it to youtube, automatically grants every other youtube viewer the ability to use and reproduce it.

Re: So what?

"youtube would need to hire 24,000 people (400 hours of video uploaded each minute)"

Not necessarily. They can have some automation to flag potentially copyrighted content plus anyone can flag any content they think is their copyright and this would also go for human review. Also if there is a 2-hour movie, it won't take a human reviewer the entire 2 hours to understand that it's copyrighted. So it would require considerably less than 24,000 people to do the reviewing.

It's not that they can't it's that they choose not to