• @Fisch@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    141 year ago

    The thing is, YouTube has no value to me. The only reason I use it is because of the creators on there. They make the content and they deserve my money but if I could, I would use a different platform. YouTube has created a Monopoly, which makes it impossible to watch the videos anywhere but on their platform tho.

    The reason I don’t like YouTube is because they remove features everyone wanted to keep, then add stuff nobody ever wanted. They demonetize creators for no reason all the time and a lot of the rules they have for staying monetized are stupid and actively make the content worse, like not being allowed to swear. The DMCA takedown system is also extremely flawed, you can literally file a takedown for any video and they’ll instantly remove it and give the creators channel a strike without checking anything about the takedown request. This has led to channels being removed (3 strikes and your channel gets removed), eventhough they didn’t even do anything wrong. And even if the DMCA takedown is actually justified, you get a strike even when the video is years old, which is stupid because you can’t remember every single video, so you shouldn’t get a strike if it’s that old already. Communication with YouTube, when they’ve once again made a mistake, is also very difficult because the only way to reach them is though Twitter and also only if your tweet gets popular enough that they actually see it or care about it.

    AdBlockers are the only way to vote with your wallet. A service with this many huge flaws is nothing I want to support or even use.

    • @Spotlight7573@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Strictly speaking, isn’t that exactly how the DMCA is designed to work? Aren’t they technically violating it anytime they actually review something manually and decide to ignore a DMCA notice? I don’t think how Google responds to DMCA notices has really been tested with respect to keeping their safe harbor protections.

      • @Fisch@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        Removing content that didn’t violate the DMCA is not how it should work and older content should obviously still be removed but you don’t have to get a strike for that

        • @Spotlight7573@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          The problem is there’s the statutory notice and takedown then counter-notice then lawsuit process that must be followed. There is also a requirement to have a policy to deal with repeat infringers and that doesn’t really have an ‘only for new content’ exception as it’s generally all still under copyright. If Google doesn’t follow those requirements, they can be found liable for the copyright violations instead of being covered under the safe harbor. No business is going to want to open themselves up to that kind of potential liability for all the thousands of hours of videos they get a day.

          That said, the whole ContentID and non-DMCA copyright process they have is on them, as that part is voluntary (to some extent, they got pressured by the music industry and friends).

          • @Fisch@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            But you’re not really a repeat offender if the video is years old since you haven’t been doing it since then. I guess that goes too much into legal stuff tho and I’m not an expert there at all. Nonetheless, it just feels unfair.

            • @Spotlight7573@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              By the repeat infringer policy, I was generally talking about multiple infringing uploads, not just a single video over time. Apologies for the confusion.

              One of the nice things about the DMCA for the average user is that it’s generally on the copyright holder to notice infringing content is out there and demand that it be taken down, instead of forcing some kind of pre-upload approval system that would never scale to the amount of content that is being uploaded daily.

              I totally think it’s unfair too though, just trying to point out how the law currently works. I feel it’s ridiculous that something could have been created before you were born, you live to a very full life expectancy, and by the time you die the work still hasn’t entered into the public domain. That does not feel like copyright is for a “limited time”.

    • @Stumblinbear@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      which makes it impossible to watch the videos anywhere but on their platform tho

      The creators are free to upload content anywhere they want without restrictions. It’s not YouTube’s fault that they don’t.

      • @Fisch@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        Uploading content to other websites is just not worth it. You won’t get views anywhere else.

    • @rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -11 year ago

      When you say YouTube crested a monopoly, what do you mean? There are tons of video hosting and streaming websites. Basically all social media platforms have video now, as well.

      • @Fisch@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        I mean that I can’t really use other video platforms because the content I want is on YouTube. If you upload videos you also kind of have to use YouTube because otherwise almost no one is going to see your videos and you also can’t really make money with it.

        • @rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          I watch plenty of YouTube, so I get the attraction. But at the same time that’s basically like saying your favorite ketchup brand has a monopoly on ketchup just because it’s your favorite. You have the power to switch ketchup brands, very easily actually, and you also have the power to watch other content on other platforms. I think talking about YouTube like it’s a monopoly is actually empowering to Google. They want you to think it’s a monopoly.

          • @Fisch@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            I’d compare it a little differently. It’s more like YouTube is the only one selling ketchup and other companies only have sauces I don’t like. I could use them but I want ketchup. Whether it’s on purpose or not, YouTube is the only way to watch the videos I want to watch.