That makes no sense. YouTube has no policy against "junk" videos, there is no reason why individual users would change their upload habits except for a tiny minority that knowingly upload violating videos.
"human moderation of any significant amount of it is even possible anymore."
Then maybe free video hosting is not a viable business, why should youtube destroy all competition and then complain that checking their uploads is not possoble?
"However, YouTube expects that by removing the option to monetize these sorts of videos themselves, some copyright holders will instead just leave them alone."
In their case, as in certain other online video providers, the reason not to use YouTube is they're likely to remove the videos for some kind of policy violation.
I upload unlisted videos to share with family. I batch and upload them on a monthly basis. Never had an issue with Youtube and my family videos. Last month one video was my daughter fully clothed in the bathroom dumping a cup of water on my son in the bathtub and both laughing. You could only see his head and chest. It was 10 seconds long and funny play between young siblings.
It was instantly and automatically flagged, removed and a strike placed against me for going against community guidelines. I had 40 characters to appeal, but it is automated since the response was instantaneous. There are other videos of kids dumping water on each other ... even when both are in the tub. An email asking what guideline I violated to youtube support has gone unanswered.
To me, if Youtube is automatically, instantly flagging my video, there is no reason they cannot automatically flag and remove the videos in Matt Watson's video, especially if they are public and are attracting a wide range of comments.
Don't get me wrong, it's Youtube's pool, so their rules. They can choose the content they want.
Youtube could make the penalty much higher. They don't want to because they know that working with content creation corporations is good for business, and over deletion doesn't hurt their bottom line at all.
I would hope most content creators aren't using Youtube as a primary storage medium. It's not as if the site forces them to delete their original copy after uploading, after all.
exactly! I see no excuse for YouTube not to allow this, as long as videos haven't been flagged for e.g. sexual abuse (where YouTube itself would be liable for continuing to store it.) I think the only reason they don't do it is because they don't have to and they don't care.
instituting a 30-day retention period to exporting content would be really good for users. shame we can't pass tech laws in the US.
reply