Slashdot Mirror
Cost of Pre-Screening All YouTube Content: US$37 Billion
Fluffeh writes "The folks that push 'Anti-Piracy' and 'Copying is Stealing' seem to often request that Google pre-screens content going up on YouTube and of course expect Google to cover the costs. No-one ever really asks the question how much it would cost, but some nicely laid out math by a curious mind points to a pretty hefty figure indeed. Starting with who to employ, their salary expectations and how many people it would take to cover the 72 hours of content uploaded every minute, the numbers start to get pretty large, pretty quickly. US$37 billion a year. Now compare that to Google's revenue for last year."
Just crowdsource the pre-screening and get it done free! Oh... wait....
I guess by the MPAA's logic, that is another $37 billion added to the cost of piracy. After all, if there were no piracy, that money would not "have to" be spent, right?
Palm trees and 8
[Sorry to go against the party line here]
I always find it amusing when Google claims that it's impossible to filter copyrighted content, that the uploaders are the copyright infringers, but at the same time, YouTube is doing a heck of a job to filter out porn -- you never find porn there and I don't think that's because nobody ever tried uploading it.
So what gives?
Google only need to send the bill to the RIAA. And only do the job if the RIAA pay.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
The article says only judges are qualified to screen content, and the average judge in Silicon Valley gets paid $177,454
So let's see:
1) Judges are not required. You can TRAIN people.
2) and those people you train can be ANYWHERE -- including INDIA where Facebook's screeners are
3) and those Indian screeners definitely do NOT expect $177,000/year
4) and you can use software to help screen content, which Youtube already does to block content it has removed from being re-uploaded.
The article did get one thing right: the analysis is absurd
Youtube is not the court system, it is not there to enforce your rights, it is not there to decide what is fair use, and it's judgement does not need to stand up to Supreme Court analysis.
Youtube is for posting videos which Google can use to display ads.
That's it. Nothing else.
If Youtube wants to screen content, then they can train their employees to delete what they find unacceptable.
I want to see the MPAA and RIAA clamp down on everything we do online. Let them start taking down mere references to copyrighted works, little kids posting videos of themselves dancing or singing a popular song, takedowns of birthday party videos where a song happens to be playing on the radio in the background, videos with samples and soundbites, music and video reviews, and book reports. Take it all down!
I mean that's where it's headed already, so I say let them continue until the average person realizes what utter bullshit it is and demands that lawmakers end this bullshit and legislate them back to the stone ages and bring an end to the abomination that is the modern state of copyright.
If there's one thing the US is good at, it's overreacting and over-legislating once we find our boogeymen and the average person starts getting pissed off. Let it work for the good for once.
Ok, this probably will never happen, but a guy can dream, can't he?
Why do they have to be paid $20,000? Why do they have to be American? Facebook pays it's Indian screeners $1/hour.
That poster on the wall behind the baby is copyrighted, so posting the video is infringement. Since the baby is repeating words from a copyrighted TV show, that's another violation. The hardwood floor the baby's sitting on was artistically arranged by the construction crew, and its artistic value must be preserved! While the baby's showing off his brilliance, a delivery man rings the doorbell, which plays a two-note sequence that's also used in a song from 1953, so that's another infringement.
With so many infringements of copyright, the violations are obviously willful, and the poster should be sued.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Or we could just euthanize anyone with a $ in their name and anyone stupid enough to interview them. If this person with a $ in their name exists and they chose that name, it is the trashiest thing I have probably ever heard of.
Just because due diligence would kill the market does not mean it should not be required.
for example, if I am mining potash to make fertilizer and in doing so am spewing gobs of arsenic and uranium over NY city, I can't say, well the cost of not doing that would make my fertalizer cost $500 a pound. Ironically, this is an interesting example: potash fertilizer mining has exceptions for allowed uranium release. But still it's regulated and that regulation causes costs.
At one time steamships were having boiler explosions at an alarming rate. Despite the deaths and cost of repairs it was still economically better to use cheap boilers than pay for better ones. The US instituted standards and inspections, and even forced owners to pay for inspections. This drove up the cost of shipping in the short run.
The same was true of the train industry. Indeed deaths and poor working conditions are what led to the formation of the first US trade unions.
In both cases it was claimed that due diligence would put the industry out of bussiness. it didn't. Costs were higher, yes.
But the problem here is one of externalities. Youtube is infringing on copyrights and making money by not having to pay for that infringement. that's the same as me polluting and not having to pay the consequences.
The starting place for the negotiation needs to be not starting with zero and working up, but starting with the maximum cost and working down. This makes it incumbent on the infringer/polluter to come to the table.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
It isn't hate speech.
It's the girl sharing her OPINION on same-sex marriage, and backing-it-up with a citation from a 4000 year old book (Leviticus if I recall correctly). - Or - have we taken-away that right to share our opinions? Is that now verboten, simply because we don't like the opinion? And how does that justify youtube leaving up the death threat videos targeted at this young woman? Those should be pulled too.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
So because Hate speech is in her holy book youtube should keep it up? What if I make a new holy book filled with hate speech about cpu6502 should youtube keep that video? I fail to see what book it was that contained this vile speech has to do with it.
Can you not see the difference between speech that targets a whole group vs 1 person?
What kind of mental gymnastics must one perform to excuse this kind of blatant hypocrisy?
... how do you then allow emotionally charged insults and death threats without recognizing that these contain hatred? Do you believe death threats are an act of love?
If curtailing "hate speech" is your goal then you don't care what kind of hatred it is. Certainly if your respect for others' creeds and religions is so low that you will brand them "hate speakers" merely for quoting a religion's holy book, that may not have been read with an emotion of hatred
Personally I believe in free speech. That goes also for speech I think is reprehensible. Disallowing threats and slander/libel is a good balance. Everything else should be fine. This girl should be allowed to read from her Bible. The other users should also be allowed to insult her, provided they don't threaten her. Do you see how I am not taking sides here, how I am not being a hypocritical bastard about this? Unlike Google?
Youtube would rather lose one ignorant user than a large group of users.
Yes, indeed. Wherever you find blatant and obvious hypocrisy, you find a selfish motive behind it. In this case, the selfish motive is user retention. You can understand why this is not founded in principle, right? You can see how this is not rooted in equanimity, correct?
So what's your selfish motive for defending obvious hypocrisy? I see no financial tie, so you must have a personal reason. Perhaps you really dislike religious people and are glad to see one suffer, even if you must compromise principles like free speech? Maybe you have bought into this childish hyper-emotional brand of Leftism where the fact that you "offended" me gives me the "right" to harass you? Especially if you are a Christian or a white male, since mindless group identity is everything to these anti-individuals?
Whatever happened to real men who had balls and brains, like Voltaire, who said "I may disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it?" How about the American Founders, who knew damned well that people would use the First Amendment to say lots of things they may not personally like? All I see is a bunch of overgrown children who will use any excuse to make people behave the way they personally think they should.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Both. That piece of wall-mounted paper has been publicly displaying the artwork for years, to every person who's passed by that window in front... According to my trade-secret formula, that is at least 27 billion people who've received an unlicensed viewing of the artwork, and at a reasonable rate of $200,000 per incident, the paper poster alone is responsible for $5.4 quadrillion in lost revenue, which is clearly backed up by the fact that the poster-printing company has not made $5.4 quadrillion in profit since the poster was printed.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Youtube is a private business and can ban any speech they want.
Why yes, you're right. On that note, I'd like to share my opinion on niggers and how that problem should be handled.........
And you should have that right even though this is reprehensible.
The rest of us are also free to decide not to associate with you. That's how it should be handled. I do not want some authority punishing you for it. You simply won't have too many friends and lots of people may decide not to do business with you and that's enough.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
YouTube is not run by the government - they are free to pick and choose what they want to display as they see fit. If you don't like it, feel free to set up same-sex-marriage-bashing-tube.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
I could call your post "hate speech" since it calls the Bible a book of myths. See what I did there? The real hate speech was the vitriolic posts against the girl who posted the Youtube video. It really pisses me off when people are so subjective they are blind to logic. You are among them.