Hacker News Reader

Comment by aikah | Hacker News Reader

Sorry but that's the price to pay today when one puts content on third parties.

There are enough open source projects outthere to allow anyone a bit tech saavy to host his own stuff.

Dont use soundcloud,youtube,or whatever and you wont have to deal with all these automatic take downs. For the record i've been victim of abusive DMCA td requests on music i've produced MYSELF since then I host my own stuff,period.

View on HN

Self hosting music is one thing, but it's hard to imagine self hosting video being a reasonable alternative to youtube any time soon. The bandwidth involved in delivering video should it become popular is far too expensive to justify the benefits over a hosted solution for the majority of purposes. A 10MB video (small) with 100,000 views (a modest number for a somewhat popular video) is a full terabyte of bandwidth. By AWS s3 pricing, that's 120 USD. It's possible that if you invest quite a bit of time into getting ads set up, their revenue could cover that cost, but on youtube, a video with 100,000 views and a fairly average level of advertising nets about 180 USD to the uploader, and they don't have to pay a cent for hosting it (except of course for a cut of their revenue).

Why is this being down voted? How SC conducts their business online is entirely up to SC. My server, my rules. Differences in policies are the sort of thing that determines who wins and loses out there.

If anything, this should signal a market opportunity to the OP. Wouldn't it be great if there was something like SC, but without the lame copyright take down policies? Wow, yeah! We should start up a business or something...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com