Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomashubelbauer | Hacker News Reader

This video blew up a few days ago on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz14Ul-r63w The author shows how to sort of turn the tables on the copyright abusers by producing an original song (if you could call it that), distributing it through a distributor (1) and then using it in your own video to be able to claim your own video for a 50/50 revenue split with the abuser. Seems slightly related to this one as well. In the end stuff like this goes to show that Youtube's systems are a complete and utter joke, but since Youtube has zero competition, it won't change.

1: The creator used CD Baby, if you're going to do this, I recommend DistroKid, it is about a zillion times better than CD Baby. Even the CD Baby creator endorses DistroKid.

View on HN

Could you make 99 original songs, and make 99 Content ID claims, and share 99/1 with the abuser?

Interesting math problem would be to make a 30 second audio sequence that could match against the greatest number of ContentId copyright works. Could a deliberate mix be crafted where 100+ different unique songs (not good, presumably purpose built for this 30 second clip) all contain ~20 seconds of the 30 second audio clip and would allow 100 unique claims on the content.

There is a part 2 video where he addresses this: theoretically, yes, practically, you would have to compose 99 original (original/unique enough for ContentID to match them) tracks and include a 20 seconds snippet of each for it to work. He stuck with a single one, because he started using it for his outro. Theoretically he could compose another for the intro and make it 66:33, but after that, I have a feeling the viewers would start dropping off rather quickly.

Or have a really long version of the outro where you get 33 mins to pick which other video to watch

Interesting info but what an annoying video. A good intro, and then an over-the-top montage. Skip to 2:00, ah wait at 2:29 he thanks about his sponsor. At 3:08 the content starts. Of course he rambles too much because I guess he needs to fill 10 minutes for more $$$?

.. or to conform to Wadsworth Law:

> For EVERY youtube video, I always open the video and then immediately punch the slider bar to about 30 percent.

> For example, in this video [referenced video of length 1:42], it should have just started at :40. Everything before :40 was a waste. This holds true for nearly every video in the universe.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/kxfxy/and_so_ends_20_...

Tip: use the keyboard shortcut '3' to jump to 30%

Yes, that's the reason - exactly 10 minutes is a sort of magic number for YouTube, because that's the threshold at which you can place more than one ad on a video and control their placement. Notice how the runtime is 10:02? That's a sure sign that the creator had to stretch their video out.

It is the case that the algorithm seems to favor long videos, so it's kind of unavoidable.

I know it's only a small part of the video, but I think the best part was the fact that he recreated the South Korean bootleg version of his own video just to get that source of profit back.

This is a neat trick. I had already heard about the article's technique, but I like this one better because it at least lets you monetize.

I’m currently working on a new platform in the long form video space, it offers a new take on video other than just what YouTube and Vimeo do. My question is, how willing are people to try something new in this space? Are you?

I’m planning on launching next month and I’m just trying to gauge the market

Vimeo is targeting a specific market, they're not looking for the next Unboxing Therapy or LTT or whoever. Others, like say, BitChute, become filled with all the nutters who've already been deplatformed by YouTube. Dailymotion is covered in adds, and I don't think they really want to cater to people posting anything longer than a few minutes. As someone without cable, I'm happy to try anything, but it might help to get some big names on board. I know @eevblog Dave Jones will happily post anywhere he can.

There is a huge huge hunger for a new platform without all of YouTube's issues. Even today floatplane was launched as a subscription service for each creator which has zero recommending algorithm. I think a lot of the failures of others to get a platform is their lack of commitment to making it a social platform. YouTube in the early days has all sorts of social aspects like a messaging system, create playlists from other people's videos, and rather than just a 'trending' or 'popular' and 'news' tab it had like 20 or more categories of popular where if that category had only small amount of views creators would try to make a video in that category . I'm pretty sure the videos were manually flagged but they worked. Now they still do it but their algorithm flags everything and it just sucks. I'm missing tons and tons of features that no longer exist but it feels like the social part is what made YouTube.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com