Why I'm Suing YouTube(youtube.com)
youtube.com
Why I'm Suing YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IaOeVgZ-wc
16 comments
If you want some real meat and potatoes about why they think YouTube's lawyers lied about the facts of the lawsuit, start at the 44 minute mark and watch for 5 minutes or so.
Direct link to that timestamp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IaOeVgZ-wc&t=44m
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IaOeVgZ-wc&t=44m
Every time I search for a youtube channel verbatim, the channel appear at the top and the latest videos follow.
Searching now I can only see a channel with similar name and 50 subscribers and BS videos aren't even the first ones. You can be more subtle youtube
I've noticed myself, I recall this happening fairly recently. Curious when this was switched.
This video is really good. The first 10 minutes are really dry, but then it gets fantastic. I recommend giving it a watch.
I've always wondered how those old images were "made 3d", I figured there was some software involved, but no... just old fashioned grunt work and artistry.
It's horribly ironic that this video is only on YouTube because they wouldn't get the same exposure had they self-hosted. I hate YouTube, and recognize that a decentralized alternative has to replace it eventually, but a call-to-action that exists solely on the platform you're trying to boycott is bound to fail.
i think intention is not to boycott but force changes in standard practice of youtube.
I think the next few minutes from this time stamp are damning for YT. Basically, YT allows COVID misinformation to spread like fire on Russian YT channels and allows American corporations to advertise on them without any restrictions: https://youtu.be/4IaOeVgZ-wc?t=4375
Yeah, it's only okay to spread ideas that contradict the big central health authorities on the big central platform if it's part of a profitable arrangement. Its volatility and controversy, plus some peoples' need to hear and believe a certain flavour of narrative make it inevitable anyways. Think of it as a fire where the attention can be fueled, harnessed, and used to drive an otherwise inactive engine. The same goes for race politics, religious intolerance, drama, etc. Shouldn't matter to a competent attention economist which sides are wrong or right and why, only that they are susceptible to attending to this particular configuration.
I wonder if Google will get dinged for a few ESG points. Isn't promoting misinformation of the most eggregious kind from a foreign adversary with questionable track record of human rights count against the quintessential pillars and the central thesis of ESG?
https://www.esgthereport.com/who-sets-an-esg-score/#Who-dete...
According to this article, it looks like they'd have to elect to "self-ding" on their own report card. They're not going to self-ding for something they demonstrably would like to hide. For a highly central entity with as much influence over the flow of attention and other resources as google, it may be possible to mitigate or even falsify your own ESG score and get away with it, especially if other central entities decide it suits their best interests to agree.
Whose self-reported ESG scores are legit, which ones will we question? Who gets to decide? Just like with skimping out on support and copyright management in ways that hurt small users to extract value from them, these megacorps can and will extract value from the collective trust people had in the idea of ESG scores. People who call out the bogus score can be shadowbanned, throttled, or have a story spun up about how morally nasty or mentally deranged they, or the people they're connected to, are. This should keep "malinformation" (true information, that is agreed upon by the central figures as harmful to society) like this video quiet or confused enough to keep getting away with it.
According to this article, it looks like they'd have to elect to "self-ding" on their own report card. They're not going to self-ding for something they demonstrably would like to hide. For a highly central entity with as much influence over the flow of attention and other resources as google, it may be possible to mitigate or even falsify your own ESG score and get away with it, especially if other central entities decide it suits their best interests to agree.
Whose self-reported ESG scores are legit, which ones will we question? Who gets to decide? Just like with skimping out on support and copyright management in ways that hurt small users to extract value from them, these megacorps can and will extract value from the collective trust people had in the idea of ESG scores. People who call out the bogus score can be shadowbanned, throttled, or have a story spun up about how morally nasty or mentally deranged they, or the people they're connected to, are. This should keep "malinformation" (true information, that is agreed upon by the central figures as harmful to society) like this video quiet or confused enough to keep getting away with it.
Try finding that video via YouTube's search function.
I couldn't.
I couldn't.
First result for me (using search "why i'm suing youtube"): https://imgur.com/a/mGVwuXW
It comes up if you include the channel name, but I couldn't find it otherwise.
YouTube likely won't change, the profit is too big even if the model is failing.... They exist to make big brand partnerships that make them tons of money, they generate tons of money from embedded ads on content they don't have to pay for, and they collect lots of independent revenue from any account that wants to be viewed by charging for paid promotion fr visibility.... Pure profit.
YouTube also has volumes of content, most of which barely gets seen, while they have a massive user base that is regularly unsatisfied with recommendations they get, and a creator base that makes no money despite grinding immeasurably on original content. Content thiefs regularly get rewarded big on the platform.
The content ID system is abused by black hat hackers regularly to make money and YouTube does relatively little to stop it because it doesn't cut into their overall platform revenue. The content ID system also serves big business in supporting a gate for what is sampled and remixed, and it frequently is only applied to medium and small creators, which often blacklists those creators from the site altogether.
The content ID system has also helped me in small ways to protect my own IP, as I've found that a few people have directly copied my own content and re-upload it as their own, so it's not all bad, but if they slow my video down by a tiny bit, or change the audio in one of many other ways content ID is totally useless...
There are thousands of accounts that transform audio (slowing it down slightly and doing other things like adding reverb to audio) on video clips, which literally steals money from creators and musicians on the platform. Audio is one of the primary facets of content ID on Youtube.
YouTube's technical support is extremely weak, because they really don't care about anything other than pleasing shareholders now because of the long line of people who upload endless streams of video content in hopes of being discovered, but the market is totally saturated with creators, and small creators only make pennies because they're always pitted against hackers and large corporations with lots of money for attention.
YouTube is still useful if you know how to dig deep and find content where people aren't stretching out presentations just to improve their "watch time" metrics or following the scripts of creating bright thumbnail images, using clickbait-ey titles, and saying "like, follow, and subscribe" over and over again in every video.
YouTube won't change until people stop following the fake sense of conformity it encourages. The majority of platform creators are spending tons of money and time creating content that only works on YouTube ritually for no pay, and subjecting themselves to rules based on whims of YouTube executives, that work to please shareholders and major accounts, not to find new talent and to drive innovation for the platform that benefits creators.
YouTube also has volumes of content, most of which barely gets seen, while they have a massive user base that is regularly unsatisfied with recommendations they get, and a creator base that makes no money despite grinding immeasurably on original content. Content thiefs regularly get rewarded big on the platform.
The content ID system is abused by black hat hackers regularly to make money and YouTube does relatively little to stop it because it doesn't cut into their overall platform revenue. The content ID system also serves big business in supporting a gate for what is sampled and remixed, and it frequently is only applied to medium and small creators, which often blacklists those creators from the site altogether.
The content ID system has also helped me in small ways to protect my own IP, as I've found that a few people have directly copied my own content and re-upload it as their own, so it's not all bad, but if they slow my video down by a tiny bit, or change the audio in one of many other ways content ID is totally useless...
There are thousands of accounts that transform audio (slowing it down slightly and doing other things like adding reverb to audio) on video clips, which literally steals money from creators and musicians on the platform. Audio is one of the primary facets of content ID on Youtube.
YouTube's technical support is extremely weak, because they really don't care about anything other than pleasing shareholders now because of the long line of people who upload endless streams of video content in hopes of being discovered, but the market is totally saturated with creators, and small creators only make pennies because they're always pitted against hackers and large corporations with lots of money for attention.
YouTube is still useful if you know how to dig deep and find content where people aren't stretching out presentations just to improve their "watch time" metrics or following the scripts of creating bright thumbnail images, using clickbait-ey titles, and saying "like, follow, and subscribe" over and over again in every video.
YouTube won't change until people stop following the fake sense of conformity it encourages. The majority of platform creators are spending tons of money and time creating content that only works on YouTube ritually for no pay, and subjecting themselves to rules based on whims of YouTube executives, that work to please shareholders and major accounts, not to find new talent and to drive innovation for the platform that benefits creators.
>YouTube also has volumes of content, most of which barely gets seen, while they have a massive user base that is regularly unsatisfied with recommendations they get...
>YouTube is still useful if you know how to dig deep and find content...
I'm working on alternative YouTube recommendations to solve these exact issues. Search a channel you watch to get a list of other channels making similar and related content:
https://channelgalaxy.com/
The lists are inter-linked so you can click the icons and "surf" from channel to channel to discover more creators. The algorithm prioritizes smaller channels to help users explore deeper into subject areas.
We've also mapped YouTube by plotting a few thousand YouTube channels in a 2-d mapping with a drag and zoom Google Maps-type interface, placing similar channels closer together. You can get a sense of the entirety of YouTube and how broad subject-areas are inter-related.
https://channelgalaxy.com/blog/article0/
(We're getting weird "Please try again in 30 seconds" errors from Google App Engine, but an immediate reload will usually work. Any advice on this would be appreciated.)
>YouTube is still useful if you know how to dig deep and find content...
I'm working on alternative YouTube recommendations to solve these exact issues. Search a channel you watch to get a list of other channels making similar and related content:
https://channelgalaxy.com/
The lists are inter-linked so you can click the icons and "surf" from channel to channel to discover more creators. The algorithm prioritizes smaller channels to help users explore deeper into subject areas.
We've also mapped YouTube by plotting a few thousand YouTube channels in a 2-d mapping with a drag and zoom Google Maps-type interface, placing similar channels closer together. You can get a sense of the entirety of YouTube and how broad subject-areas are inter-related.
https://channelgalaxy.com/blog/article0/
(We're getting weird "Please try again in 30 seconds" errors from Google App Engine, but an immediate reload will usually work. Any advice on this would be appreciated.)
Just an opinion, but I think YouTube doesn't leverage their CDN for content that gets low views, and they also move that content to less responsive (less expensive) storage space... It makes accessing content with low views buffer a lot more than popular content, and increases the effect of lower viewership. If you look regularly at videos under 100 views, it becomes really apparent. This is why they also only feature low videos manually, and in small batches so they can move them to "higher priority" hosting. That may well explain your issues... I am not exactly sure where the high value host threshold for views is likely set though.
They are really not concerned with discovery of new (non sponsored) creators and talent on the platform, some of the best content I've found is really underviewed. I post my rare finds too - http://www.ruffandtuffrecordings.com/SELECTIONS
It hinders others when they embed YT video links into their own apps as well by making them slow to load. That way there's also little motivation for viewers to want to watch YT anywhere else but on the main platform.
They are really not concerned with discovery of new (non sponsored) creators and talent on the platform, some of the best content I've found is really underviewed. I post my rare finds too - http://www.ruffandtuffrecordings.com/SELECTIONS
It hinders others when they embed YT video links into their own apps as well by making them slow to load. That way there's also little motivation for viewers to want to watch YT anywhere else but on the main platform.
We were just looking for a simple hackneyed phrase or two to use at the start of our video, but the monstrous cliche we uncovered was bigger and cheesier than we could ever have imagined!
Everyone working at google still should be ashamed of themselves. The company like most other tech companies has become a grift.
This would have been more interesting if not for the constant mention of Russia/Kremlin/Putin every 30 seconds. Makes it unwatchable for me.
TL;DR?
RT Arabic used Business Casual(BC)'s video multiple times without permission, with watermarks edited out and had the video filtered to intentionally dodge copyright detection.
BC files three strikes over the course of 90 days for similar copyright infringement to RT channels, which in accordance to Youtube TOS, should result in termination of all RT channels (over 80 of them).
However, the rule that ought to apply to all channels did not apply to RT. In fact, Youtube seems oddly invested in RT's continued existence.
BC filed two lawsuits: one to RT, one to Youtube. The lawsuit to Youtube was recently dismissed however, it seems that BC is intent on trying again and most of the video goes into detail about what Youtube knew and seemingly contradicts what the lawyers argued in front of the judges.
Coincidentally, I cannot find this video via Youtube search.
BC files three strikes over the course of 90 days for similar copyright infringement to RT channels, which in accordance to Youtube TOS, should result in termination of all RT channels (over 80 of them).
However, the rule that ought to apply to all channels did not apply to RT. In fact, Youtube seems oddly invested in RT's continued existence.
BC filed two lawsuits: one to RT, one to Youtube. The lawsuit to Youtube was recently dismissed however, it seems that BC is intent on trying again and most of the video goes into detail about what Youtube knew and seemingly contradicts what the lawyers argued in front of the judges.
Coincidentally, I cannot find this video via Youtube search.
Senator Youtube: Imagine a world Raiden, where we didn't have to hide our stealing. We could take 8 billion a year in pirated revenue and make whatever laws we wanted to protect Google from morality.
Raiden American: I'm going to sue you for funding Russia Today with stolen content.
Raiden American: I'm going to sue you for funding Russia Today with stolen content.
TL;DW?
Google is trying to cancel copyright by funding multiple non-profits and scientific studies (paid with awards upto 400k). Trying to influence the law by paying for academic studies to support google. They use the non-profits and studies and join lawsuits to abuse copyrights.
Russia is treated as a partner and has special access to yt, allowing russia to skirt copyright strikes.
Google is also claiming they can resell your content, which they are doing in other countries, and you get no cut. You agree to this in their TOS.
Business casual says Google makes 8 billion a year on pirated content.