Hacker News Reader

Comment by nadermx | Hacker News Reader

YouTube is probably a bad example in terms of copyright. They in fact have the most restrictive system of reuse of others work in your work, as a large portion of the videos that are auto struck would probably err more on fair use.

View on HN

I'm not in this space, but from the user's perspective I thought that youtube's "Demonitization" doesn't mean the ad doesn't show, just that the channel doesn't get any benefit from the show of the ad.

So they're actually incentivized to have many creators struck, because struck media means ad impressions whose revenue they need not share.

Am I misunderstanding the landscape?

> So they're actually incentivized to have many creators struck, because struck media means ad impressions whose revenue they need not share.

This revenue would go to the copyright claimer. EG if Warner bros struck you for showing their movie, the ad revenue from the video would go to Warner, not simply YouTube

But YouTube still gets their cut, which is better for them than just deleting the video.

I'm not privy to their deal, but while I'm confident that Warner Bros' has negotiated a revenue sharing agreement better than a typical Youtube Partners' 55% rate, I also suspect it's not 100%.

But that's the point really isn't it? It's no longer illegal once you have a negotiated contract with the copyright holder.

Yes and no. Youtube's moat is it's content creators. A gready algorithm might make them more money in the short run, but it would destroy their moat, as content creators migrate to other platforms.

I would disagree on the simple fact there's TerraBytes of copyrighted content on there, uploaded by people that don't own the content and subject to a fairly weak black box.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com