I Can Build the Next YouTube Guaranteed Not to Have Copyright Violating Videos, But who would watch it?

Using tools that are already in my bag of tricks I could pretty easily ensure that copyrighted material would not stay on a video service, and detect copyrighted material before the copyright holder found it and asked me to remove it wo kann ich klingeltöne downloaden.

But if I built it, who would watch?  If you remove all of the content that is uploaded by people who don’t own the copyright you are left with well… Photobucket. 

Videos that are generally personal in nature that are shot on home web cams an uploaded to the Internet.  Not very compelling stuff.  Sure you would still have the Lockergnome and other Guru videos, but what percentage of YouTube videos is that deezer einzelne titel downloaden?

YouTube is going to have to reinvent itself and fast.  Google didn’t buy a technology it bought a 1.6 billion dollar brand, and it is going to have to reshape that brand and fast or it will be the 1.6 billion dollar flub hoe kun je netflix films download op macbook.

Bob Tur may be able to get a court order to shutter YouTube icloud windows alle fotos herunterladen.  And that would be a good thing in my eyes.  When Microsoft shuttered Soapbox to get their house in order there was a lot of talk, but I think it was the right thing to do mahjongg 3d for free.

How would I do it?  I’m not telling, someone may yet read this post and have the answer to who would watch it and they can track me down and we can work something out… I mean I like watching videos of stupid people as much as the next person, and I’m glad to see Chris back doing video, so UGC has a place I just don’t know if it is a 1.6 billion dollar place vivoactive 3 zifferblatt herunterladen.

1 thought on “I Can Build the Next YouTube Guaranteed Not to Have Copyright Violating Videos, But who would watch it?

  1. I guarantee you that Google can do it too. They just don’t want to.

    Google is playing a game of chicken, knowing that any case against them that tests their claim that they can rely on the DMCA take-down provision is going to take at least 1-2 years to make its way to any type of judgement and hoping that in that time YouTube becomes unassailable by other sites that take the same approach. They are essentially building a monopoly by arbirtrage of internet time v. legal decision time. I’m sure Google is hoping that half-hearted efforts to implement fingerprinting technology to allow for removal of content (despite that it foists the responsibility for using that technology on the content owners, who Google is expecting to still provide individual take down notices) will quiet some of the critics and buy them the time they need.

    What I find interesting is that a company that claims to have some of the most intelligent engineers on the planet can’t implement fingerprinting technology that has been in play for nearly a decade. If Google wanted to play nice, be a good corporate citizen and really live up to its motto of “not being evil” what it would do is offer tools (for free) to any content owner that wants them (even the mentos guys) that would allow the content owner to generate a fingerprint for their content. The content owner could upload the fingerprint to a Google database and Google could run a check against that database every time someone tried to upload a file. If the file matched a fingerprint in the database, the upload would fail and there would be no need for a “take-down” notice to Google, a company and business model that was never meant to (and I don’t believe does) fall under the protections of the DMCA, but is hoping that no-one with deep enough pockets calls them on it and sticks through to get an injunction and that as a result they can obtain a defacto monopoly on video viewing on the internet.

Comments are closed.