Hacker News Reader

I think there’s a subset of YouTube who would much prefer the website without content from media conglomerates. Not sure if it could be profitable on its own though.

View on HN

Given that many video streaming websites have come and gone, it is pretty safe to assume it is not profitable.

The only one that might work is if they charged a reasonable fee and only allowed people that had uploaded government issued IDs and accepted liability for their accounts. That might help sufficiently deter bad actors and reduce labor costs to sift through all the garbage.

> Given that many video streaming websites have come and gone, it is pretty safe to assume it is not profitable.

That is completely ignoring the network effects of everyone being on YouTube. The profitability of an alternate website while YouTube still exists has nothing to do with the profitability of a YouTube without music.

Wouldn't that require enforcing media conglomerates rights and restrictions over content, and leave you exactly in the same place?

I think the difference would be that DMCA could be the only mechanism for content takedown, which would hopefully deter spurious claims, as compared to content ID, which doesn't appear to incur any liability for false claims on the part of the claimant.

This has not been the experience on other platforms, such as Twitch or Twitter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com