The fact that Google/Youtube has zero support infrastructure should be evidence that they are a monopoly and engaging in monopolistic activity.
If Google/Youtube were NOT a monopoly, they would have invested significant amount of money in customer support. However, there is zero. The only reason they get away with this is because they have a monopoly. They are saving hundreds of millions in support costs by not delivering any support. Unlike more overt monopolistic actions like raising prices, etc, what they do instead of increase their profits by taking away functionality that their customers should be receiving.
The fact you can get all your work taken away because of fraud, and have no recourse is unacceptable. Yet there really is no viable alternative. I hope content creators band together and form a class action lawsuit against Google and break up their monopoly. It's disgusting.
I think so too. If they were not a monopoly they'd have content creators fleeing the platform for how they handle these type of situations but for many youtube provides a decent source of income. Content creators respected their part of the bargain and worked hard to build their channels and Google benefitted quite well. But they're not only not equal, one zero power and the other one has all of it.
There have been attempts to fight the Youtube/Google platform, Patreon in a way is fighting against the Youtube ad revenue as a channels main source of income, so channels can survive on their own. Linus tech tips is creating their own video platform called Float-plane aiming to also do the same.
A music educator/vloger Adam Neely has been promoting two more platforms: Skillshare (https://www.skillshare.com/) and Nebula (https://watchnebula.com/), they seem like a good idea for educational and creative content but nowhere near YT omnipresence. A bunch of popular youtubers are present there though.
I've seen another channel do this too, Corridor Digital. They're creating their own video platform, though it seems to be more so to get away from the traditional Hollywood model, but I guess that also has the benefit of not being beholden to the whims of YouTube.
I wonder what the internet would look like if everyone did something like this rather than having all their content hosted on a central platform. What would the internet look like if video hosting platforms were as popular and as easy to set up / maintain as a blog platform like WordPress?
Won't this approach eventually lead to what happened with blogging?
10-15 years ago we all had our own wordpress/static/ghost blogs hosted on our own domains, and then Blogger, Medium and Substack entered the space with the added benefits of discoverability and a very significant chunk of the self-hosted blogs moved to those platforms.
I feel that with YouTube we just skipped that initial self-hosted step and immediately went to the centralized platforms (Google Video, Vimeo and eventually YouTube)
There used to be self-hosted video content on the web as well. It’s just that it isn’t very memorable due to the technical limitations of the time before YouTube and other platforms took it over.
Even today, self-hosting video is very far from trivial, and requires a lot of bandwidth and traffic if you aren't just sharing your videos with a couple of friends, that's not something I'd want to do on a small VPS.
This idea is intriguing: what if it's the other way around?
I mean, before the Internet, how many people used to read vs watch TV? Video was meant to win. If video demands centralization for technical reasons, centralization wins too.
In the same way, blogs can't compete with video for ads.
i have a problem with floatplane. its in canada and therefore isnt as strong with free speech protections. My bet is they would buckle more quicker than youtube would. Also, its not peer to peer.
Flee to other platforms and get their videos taken down too. It’s so ridiculous to see the majority of the comments here not to understand the simple reality that other platforms also have to adhere to these copyright laws.
As shown in the video, YouTube is either lying (something a competitor could provide better service on) or is not actually complying with the DMCA which requires a specific description of the content that is being claimed under copyright.
They do have support infrastructure for their customers. Youtube content creators are not customers, they’re more akin to contractors (when paid) and volunteers (when not). In fact, google is the customer in this relationship, and they are within their rights to stop buying the product without having to explain why.
It is on content creators to diversify their business. If a contractor has only a single customer because that customer is the most profitable, would you pity them when they are fired by that customer? Or would you call them bad at business for failing to diversify?
> I can just picture a gaggle of google employees jumping out of their seats: "They used the wrong word for it! Their argument is invalid!".
Would the "average" Google employees really care about this? I would rather imagine that only executive level employees of Google could be happy about this. And these people play much deeper political games than caring about a wrong word.
The definition of monopoly isn't the absence of alternatives, it's the absence of significant alternatives, and the fact that monopoly distorts the surrounding ecosystem.
Killing small businesses definitely counts as a market distortion. Good luck arguing it doesn't.
And there is no competitive service, because YT is an audience provider, and not specifically a video hosting provider.
In fact these problems would go away if YT offered a paid tier - with proper support - for content providers.
But YT and Google are averse to treating anyone else as an equal partner, so that's never going to happen.
Great point. Because people get something out of engaging in business with Google/YouTube/Facebook/etc. they think that they are the customer and that they should be entitled to certain things. They forget that they are the product, and the company is the customer. By using these platforms you are providing them with a source of revenue for free. These companies make money off content that you freely give them.
Ad-revenue you receive doesn't even make you a contractor. It's basically like working for free and then being tossed something at the end for your efforts. There is no legal agreement or obligation to continue paying you.
It is amazing what the Internet has turned out to be. A place where big tech companies can profit off the work of others, while convincing them that they are the beneficiaries.
> It is amazing what the Internet has turned out to be. A place where big tech companies can profit off the work of others, while convincing them that they are the beneficiaries.
I disagree. I think that people have convinced themselves that they are customers of YouTube.
There is a lot of projection on things like YouTube and Facebook, then people get mad because it actually isn't that after all.
I agree with regards to projection, but I also believe that the companies are helping quite a bit. It feels more like love scammers. Yes, there's the victim telling themselves the scammer loves them and just has some financial troubles they need help with, but there's also the scammer doing everything in their power to make their victim believe that.
> they are within their rights to stop buying the product without having to explain why.
This might be right if they were a mom and pop store with 5 others within a couple of blocks. There is no viable alternative to Youtube so they don't get to make these calls.
The are betting on that "eventually" being many many miles down the road. They will fix some of the issues/cases (ad hoc) for the vocal minority, they will pretend they didn't see for the silent majority that suffers from the same side effects.
As a parent stated, the content creators are NOT the clients. Client is the one who pays you money. So advertisers need to be kept happy. If this guy goes down, the guitar makers will advertise on the next guy/lady in line. And the (true) client (advertiser) will be happy.
One of the reason that Google is making crazy money is that they cut plenty of corners in support. And it serves THEM (YT) right to do so.
This video has less than 100k views. "Charlie bit my finger" has 876 Million views.
In work I use the phrase "it is not a Problem until it becomes one".
One content creator (or a thousand) complaining is NOT a problem for YT. A Problem is if YT drops from 100M views per day (or whatever that number is) to 20M views per day.
If you ask me, YouTube is having it good. And if this content creator goes down, his followers will jump on the next guitar player teacher person.
Apologies if my comment seems to cold. I believe it reflects the mentality of YT.
Your comment is cold but it's also bang on point. Ethically how they act is inexcusable however. I hope many years is actually a few months in reality.
> They do have support infrastructure for their customers. Youtube content creators are not customers, they’re more akin to contractors (when paid) and volunteers (when not).
I beg to differ: content creators use the service provided by youtube to offer their content for consumption and receive payment via a ad service.
Youtube does not order contractors but offers a service for production and consumption of content- so they have customers creating content and others just consuming- both being customers of their service.
If they weren't a monopoly then they wouldn't be able to get away with fraudulent activity like deleting someone's Google account or accepting false DMCA claims with no recourse or not paying out Ad Sense revenue because they flagged your account (without explaining why).
The accepting false DMCA claims is something that the DMCA system sort of requires them to do. However they have in the past sued people who have issued false DMCA claims.
> The accepting false DMCA claims is something that the DMCA system sort of requires them to do.
No, the DMCA allows for counter claiming and it not being an issue. Google's policies go beyond what's required for the DMCA, and stem from the early several billion dollar copyright lawsuit they settled out of court with the major labels fairly early on. It's an extralegal system negotiated between Google and the labels.
> However they have in the past sued people who have issued false DMCA claims.
Can you give an example of someone they've sued for making false claims?
>No, the DMCA allows for counter claiming and it not being an issue. Google's policies go beyond what's required for the DMCA, and stem from the early several billion dollar copyright lawsuit they settled out of court with the major labels fairly early on. It's an extralegal system negotiated between Google and the labels.
You're conflating two different things, perhaps intentionally.
Content ID, which is the additional system you're referring to, does not and cannot cause an account to be closed[1]. If content in your video is flagged by Content ID, all that happens is that the advertising revenue from your video is directed to the purported copyright holder, or the video is removed from YouTube. You do not receive any strikes and your channel is not limited in any way.
Copyright strikes[2] are a completely different kettle of fish, and Google is bound by the DMCA to immediately and without question remove the allegedly infringing content. In fact, they are expressly forbidden by law to perform any sort of investigation before making the content unavailable or they risk losing immunity under the safe harbour provisions.
And far from accepting DMCA claims "with no recourse" as you suggest, they openly publish a variety of training materials to teach users exactly how to file a counter-claim[3], and they routinely accept those counter-claims and restore the content.
This guy this whole thread is about is getting his channel shutdown "with no recourse." You still get copyright strikes after they restore your content.
The whole copyright strike system is in addition to the DMCA, and is part of what was negotiated with the labels (in addition to ContentID).
Also, what are you quoting "with no recourse" from?
>The whole copyright strike system is in addition to the DMCA, and is part of what was negotiated with the labels (in addition to ContentID).
That's completely false, and all you need do is click the links I provided to see that it is. Copyright strikes are only issued in conjunction with DMCA takedown requests, Content ID does not and cannot cause you to receive strikes, and does not and cannot shut your channel down.
>Also, what are you quoting "with no recourse" from?
From a parent comment at the start of this thread, which I've only now realised wasn't made by you, so please ignore the phrase "as you suggest" and focus on the substantive portions of my comment that address the inaccuracies in your claim.
> That's completely false, and all you need do is click the links I provided to see that it is. Copyright strikes are only issued in conjunction with DMCA takedown requests, Content ID does not and cannot cause you to receive strikes, and does not and cannot shut your channel down.
I never disputed any of that. I'm saying that the copyright strike system used by youtube on takedown requests:
* goes above and beyond what's required by the DMCA.
* is part of what was negotiated by Google and the labels (in addition to ContentID). The labels were concerned about people spamming their content and just uploading faster than they can takedown. This gives them a mechanism to shut down accounts for 'bad actors' who just keep uploading faster than the labels can issue takedowns.
* doesn't always remove strikes even when a counter-claim is filed because of above.
I never brought up ContentID, and my arguments are orthogonal to it's implementation and history.
It's not the copyright claims that they had a problem with (or else they'd go after any of the other false copyright claims), it's using their platform for extortion. The "I'm going to file false copyright claims unless you pay me" thing.
Google has a support infra structure, but it's only for big and/or paying customers.
If you don't pay Google anything, you are not a customer. You are either a supplier, delivering content, or a user, consuming (free) content.
They have customer support. Their customer is an advertising company or brand. Hosting video from anyone in the world at up to 8k resolution is expensive. The product is your eyeballs. They revenue share with content creators who bring you eyeballs. They have lots of content creators. They use automation to manage the content at scale so they can be profitable.
There has got to be a better word than Monopoly for companies like Google or YouTube. The barrier to enter the market is relatively low and there is almost no inherent lock-in to the platform. Everyone could stop using Google and YouTube today and switch to another platform. However, creators won’t because of the viewers and viewers won’t because of the creators.
People could stop using Google today but most don’t, because Google is just so much better than everyone else as searching.
Should Google/YouTube be regulated because people dislike what the company is doing, but just not enough to actually stop using their products.
Why get so far with the proof? Looking at market share is far easier.
Great point, though. They are saving millions - in order to provide actual customer support they would have to hire a lot of people from all around the world.
I wonder - but I'm sceptical - if a competitor internet giant will come to the fore that offers similar services that google and youtube does, but whose USP would be better support, less aggressive copyright enforcement (it HAS to have copyright enforcement else they'll be torn apart in court).
Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services, and portions of YouTube that do collect subscription fees do have a full support structure.
Your assertion that Google has a monopoly in this market is wrong for several reasons. The first is that there is no market for Googke/YouTube to control. Ad revenue which covers less than their overhead makes them a non-profit and YouTube in particular is closer to meeting the requirements for being classified as a government protected service than an anti-trust concern.
Second,nobody makes money in the free media hosting and distribution product domain. This is well known and is a large part of why they have virtually no competition.
Third, YouTube wouldn't even have a system that automatically takes down channels except that laws were written that required them to do so.
Google doesn't make money from YouTube, and they only acquired it for the good will providing a free service generates for them. Recently the head of YouTube has been making weird even retarded decisions, but it's still a free service that operates in an application domain that basically can't make money by definition.
>Anti-trust laws (and the concepts that are based upon) do not apply to free services
Do you have a source for this? I feel like Microsoft would have liked to have known that, back when they lost an antitrust case around a freely provided web browser.
>Ad revenue which covers less than their overhead makes them a non-profit
That's not what "non-profit" means.
>nobody makes money in the free media hosting and distribution product domain.
Nobody has been profitable, but that doesn't mean nobody is trying or nobody could if the market weren't anti-competitive. There is also plenty of case-law in the US establishing that just because an anti-competitive scheme wasn't profitable doesn't make it legal. Hell, a lot of anti-competitive activity works specifically because it's not profitable in the short term.
>YouTube wouldn't even have a system that automatically takes down channels except that laws were written that required them to do so.
But not in the manner that they do. The point being made wasn't that their management of takedown notices is itself anti-competitive behavior, it's that the fact they don't have to change it to something more reasonable is evidence that they don't have any competition, which is indicative of a monopoly in the space.
>they only acquired it for the good will providing a free service generates for them
Again, source. I know YT is unlikely to be profitable right now, but I seriously doubt the purchase was a good-will gesture rather than a strategic long-term investment. I don't think there were a lot of people whose opinion of Google went up as a result of the purchase.
sad to see this get downvoted because it does not go along with the youtube bashing sentiment, the amount of people who think other video platforms will not have copyright claim problems is ridiculously high.
As I point out in my other comment, that comment doesn't seem especially well reasoned or sourced, but I for one wouldn't have downvoted if not for the language. I could have agreed 100% with what they were saying and I would still have downvoted, because there's no reason to let disparaging and ableist language stay visible, regardless of the point being made. Make your own version if you feel strongly about it.
In any case, I don't think anyone is saying other video platforms wouldn't have copyright claims, they're saying that in a more competitive space, the mechanisms for handling those claims would be better. E.g., they might actually tell the creator in the linked video what the violation actually is.
If Google/Youtube were NOT a monopoly, they would have invested significant amount of money in customer support. However, there is zero. The only reason they get away with this is because they have a monopoly. They are saving hundreds of millions in support costs by not delivering any support. Unlike more overt monopolistic actions like raising prices, etc, what they do instead of increase their profits by taking away functionality that their customers should be receiving.
The fact you can get all your work taken away because of fraud, and have no recourse is unacceptable. Yet there really is no viable alternative. I hope content creators band together and form a class action lawsuit against Google and break up their monopoly. It's disgusting.