Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Cost of Pre-Screening All YouTube Content: US$37 Billion

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the assuming-screeners-are-omniscient dept.

Google 345

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."

cancel ×

345 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Or... (5, Funny)

Troyusrex (2446430) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155159)

Just crowdsource the pre-screening and get it done free! Oh... wait....

Well, if you pay people 100k a year to do it... (2)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155161)

Using the fact that the average pay for a judge in Silicon Valley is apparently $177,454, and that based on the volume of uploads and number of hours in a working day, a mere 199,584 judges would be required as screeners, this gives us the final figure for the cost of checking properly those 72 hours per minute:

        $36,829,468,840 per year.

Judges are necessary (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155187)

Copyright infringement is always supposed to be decided by the courts; otherwise, we can have no fair use defense...

Oh, I see what you did there...

Re:Judges are necessary (4, Insightful)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155237)

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.

Re:Judges are necessary (3, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155523)

>>> they can train their employees to delete what they find unacceptable.

Like how they removed a 16-year-old teen's video as "hate speech" because she read her Bible's passages about same-sex marriage being forbidden. (Meanwhile they left-up all the other reply videos that called her a "whore" or "asshole" or even included death threats.) Yep. Youtube certainly can screen content in order to defend their right to use videos to attack a teen girl.

Re:Judges are necessary (-1, Troll)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155647)

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?

Youtube would rather lose one ignorant user than a large group of users.

Re:Judges are necessary (2)

Thruen (753567) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155667)

I think the only really important thing to take from this is that Youtube is not there to enforce your rights. Of course, the same logic would suggest that Youtube is not there to protect content owners either. The truth is if we tell Google to filter all the videos they put on Youtube, then we are forcing them to decide, putting the power in their hands. You're right that they can filter anything, but they haven't chosen to filter anything outside of pornography. If the courts force them to screen infringing content, then yes, they do need judges to decide what's infringing, because it's a legal issue not up to Google's employees. Not to mention the fact that low-wage employees aren't exactly motivated to be thorough or honest in screening beyond just keeping their job, and the lower the wages the more forgiving you have to be for mistakes. The article is surely blowing things up a bit, but you're going the other way.

Re:Judges are necessary (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155457)

>>>Copyright infringement is always supposed to be decided by the courts

That's how it works NOW. If you uploaded an interview with Ke$ha, and she files a DMCA takedown notice, and you respond with "Put it back up; I did not infringe anything", your video will be restored..... Kesha can now choose to sue you in court. Whereupon you get to decide to defend yourself with a fair use argument. (Alterntiavely Kesha could just drop the claim, and your video stays up.)

Re:Judges are necessary (4, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155493)

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.

Re:Judges are necessary (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155681)

I support this

Re:Well, if you pay people 100k a year to do it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155229)

The assumption is that it would take individuals legally qualified to make the call in order to make the call. In real life you do it with slightly trained (paid) interns. So $20,000 per person per year instead of $177,454 per person per year. So only $4.15 Billion per year. Still prohibitively expensive.

Re:Well, if you pay people 100k a year to do it... (4, Informative)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155317)

Why do they have to be paid $20,000? Why do they have to be American? Facebook pays it's Indian screeners $1/hour. [gawker.com]

Re:Well, if you pay people 100k a year to do it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155423)

So Google could double wages and do it for under a half billion? Sold!

Re:Well, if you pay people 100k a year to do it... (1)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155333)

Isn't there an iphone app that tells you the name of a song by putting your phone up to the radio? Just run every video through something like that then send the hits to a human in india or wherever, then pay the judge to listen to short sound clips.

To be clear I am not in favor of any of this, but this guys argument is seriously flawed, he may have something wrong with him.

Re:Well, if you pay people 100k a year to do it... (1)

repapetilto (1219852) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155369)

Well, now that I think about it this is probably a joke... so never mind.

Re:Well, if you pay people 100k a year to do it... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155385)

They already do that.
Those apps are very easy to trick. If someone other than the 1 artist they have on file for that song is singing it will not catch it.

That software is not free either. Well the software is pretty trivial, the huge database of songs to analyze and the results to compare to are not. The results might even be considered to be derivative works. Who knows what that could cost to license.

Re:Well, if you pay people 100k a year to do it... (3, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155697)

Well the software is pretty trivial, the huge database of songs to analyze and the results to compare to are not.

If only Google were good at databases and analytics. Think they could hire a company that is good at such things?

Actually, I don't think it's Google's responsibility at all. If Sony thinks they own a claim to a video posted on YouTube, then it's up to Sony to find it and report it to Google.

This argument goes not support youtube (4, Interesting)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155501)

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.

Re:This argument goes not support youtube (4, Insightful)

Sniper98G (1078397) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155559)

So your argument here, is that poisoning and killing people is the same as copyright infringement?

Re:This argument goes not support youtube (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155627)

So your argument here, is that poisoning and killing people is the same as copyright infringement?

No, I think he is arguing that Boilers dont' kill people, people kill people.

By the way, Sniper, your username is wildly appropriate to a discussion of trivializing moral equivalences.

Re:Well, if you pay people 100k a year to do it... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155547)

Yup, non-story really - Facebook manage to screen all of their photos and images (admittedly its not pre-screening), and they do it on a much lower payscale than this bloke assumes.

Re:Well, if you pay people 100k a year to do it... (1)

Sniper98G (1078397) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155705)

Yup, non-story really - Facebook manage to screen all of their photos and images (admittedly its not pre-screening), and they do it on a much lower payscale than this bloke assumes.

Yes, if only YouTube would get on board with the exploitation of impoverished people (like what Face book does in its screening program). The world would be a better place.

Re:Well, if you pay people 100k a year to do it... (0)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155701)

It's silicon valley. You can't even get a McDonalds employee for under $50k a year. Even if you paid the people minimum wage, the price tag would still be insane to say the least.

ha! (2)

jschmitz (607083) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155163)

nice article - let the studios pony up if they are so worried about it

Re:ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155491)

nice article - let the studios pony up if they are so worried about it

What?!? No, dumbass! If this article gets out, the studios will use that to assert that they're "job-creators", since Google has to keep all those useless jobs around! Don't give them any ideas! What is WRONG with you?!?

So let's just add that to the cost of piracy (4, Funny)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155171)

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?

Re:So let's just add that to the cost of piracy (3, Interesting)

randomaxe (673239) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155255)

More accurately, let's just add that to the cost of keeping the RIAA and MPAA afloat. If we just let them fail, then this money would not "have to" be spent either, and as an added bonus, fewer innocent grannies would be dragged into court.

Crowdsource the effort (-1, Flamebait)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155179)

Pretty weak excuse that is. Practically every forum has some sort of rating or "flag this" system. Plus, a heuristics system can flag content that needs to be screened. No one needs to slog through 8 hours/day of "my baby is so smart" videos.

That theoretical figure might be an excuse not to hire screeners for 100% coverage, but not an excuse to do nothing.

Re:Crowdsource the effort (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155277)

But if you crowdsource it will be postscreening not prescreening.

Re:Crowdsource the effort (1)

localman57 (1340533) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155297)

Who's going to flag copyrighted material? Most people want to watch copyrighted material, not have it removed. Except for the stakeholders. Who have people who watch for the content, then flag it for removal.

What you've just described is, in theory, pretty much how the DCMA works.

Re:Crowdsource the effort (2)

chazchaz101 (871891) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155303)

Um... Youtube has had a flag this option for a long time now.

Re:Crowdsource the effort (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155603)

You can't flag copyright material.
I've tried..... and youtube responds by saying Only certified copyright holders (record and movie companies I guess) can flag videos for copyright infringement.

Re:Crowdsource the effort (0)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155309)

Fuck you, why should I have to spend my time checking to see whether content on Youtube is infringing some foreign company's copyright? Your time may be free, but mine sure as hell isn't.

Re:Crowdsource the effort (5, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155341)

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.

Re:Crowdsource the effort (1)

NerdmastaX (1749114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155455)

That poster on the wall behind the baby is copyrighted, so posting the video is infringement.

With so many infringements of copyright, the violations are obviously willful, and the poster should be sued.

the poster of the video or the poster on the wall?

Re:Crowdsource the effort (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155699)

Someone moderated your comment as "funny", but the record company executives think exactly that way.

Re:Crowdsource the effort (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155439)

Why isn't the content industry responsible for this? If I go to Walmart, then Walmart pays people to watch the cameras so I don't walk out with a big screen tv under my shirt. It is considered part of the cost of doing business. How does the entertainment industry get away with pushing the costs of discovery on the government and other companies? (I do know the answer is paying congress.)

Re:Crowdsource the effort (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155539)

If I go to Walmart, then Walmart pays people to watch the cameras so I don't walk out with a big screen tv under my shirt.

Walmart sets it's prices to ensure it can afford to hire people to watch the cameras. If you buy something from walmart, you ARE paying to have those people watch you.

Re:Crowdsource the effort (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155585)

No, it does not.
Walmart prices are based on what the market will pay. This has little to no relation to costs. This means that if cameras would raise their costs to the point at which TV sales were a money loser they would either ditch the cameras or the TV sales.

hmmmm (3)

INeededALogin (771371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155183)

Why would Google need to screen every bit of content? A trust system with the uploader, user feedback(they already get), random sampling, and some automatic processes should cover this for a lot less than 37 billion.

btw... worst job in the world would be one where you had to watch non-stop youTube. I would hate to be the guy who got stuck looking at bot fly removals all day.

How do they filter porn then? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155185)

[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?

Re:How do they filter porn then? (5, Funny)

SausageOfDoom (930370) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155233)

Presumably they score each video based on what percentage of skin-coloured pink there is per frame, multiplied by whether speech detection gets a hit for "I'm here to fix your fridge".

Re:How do they filter porn then? (0)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155321)

Presumably they score each video based on what percentage of skin-coloured pink there is per frame

That's racist.

Re:How do they filter porn then? (5, Interesting)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155619)

This is horribly pedantic, but if you analyze skin in a color space other than RGB, like HSV, everyone falls into a relatively narrow hue band.

Re:How do they filter porn then? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155379)

If only slashdot had "+1 user name wildly appropriate"....

Re:How do they filter porn then? (1)

MikeMacK (788889) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155245)

Probably because they don't need to watch all 72 hours that is uploaded every minute to have an idea, almost immediately, if the content is appropriate.

Re:How do they filter porn then? (4, Insightful)

Roobles (1880882) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155323)

I think it's because a significant subset of users would automatically flag porn, but not many flag copyrighted material.

Re:How do they filter porn then? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155569)

Working in moderation at another social service, I can tell you this is dead on. Porn and the like gets overflagged, to the point where even moderately suggestive stuff (pics with too low cut of a shirt) gets flagged.

Highly advanced science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155325)

There are three major heuristics involved in creating a porn detecting algorithm:

  • Color histogram. Looking for heavy amounts of peach, pink, occasionally yellow and brown.
  • Motion detection. This can be further broken down into speed, vector, and repetition.
  • Sound fingerprinting. Not perfect, sometimes hits false positives on pop music, tennis, or weightlifting.

Unfortunately, it's more difficult to reduce TV or movies to such a heavily formulaic corpus.

Re:Highly advanced science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155483)

You're just guessing things that would work so-so.

Many people have tried doing what you suggest, with lackluster results.

Re:How do they filter porn then? (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155343)

As best that I can tell for the 'safe search' filters for the images -- they guess based on how much flesh tones are in the images.

So if you paint all of your actors and actresses blue and make avatar porn, it might not get caught automatically. (of course, someone might still report it, and get it taken down)

Re:How do they filter porn then? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155349)

People will willingly flag material as inappropriate (crowdsourcing) but don't give a crap if you can hear 3 notes of someone's song in the background. Only RIAA lawyers can get to aneurysm bursting anger over 3 notes.

Re:How do they filter porn then? (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155445)

The position of "porn filter" is a highly sought after unpaid position at Google.

Re:How do they filter porn then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155537)

People flag it, but there's still a lot of stuff on there that would qualify

Especially fetish stuff.

Re:How do they filter porn then? (1)

Captain Hook (923766) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155555)

There is a difference though, isn't there?

Porn is easy, a single glance, at even a screenshot of a video as opposed to actually watching a video is normally enough to determine if it passes some fairly prudish lines. You simply take a screenshot every 10 minutes and place those shots into a single image to be shown to a human judge, they could determine the nature of the video in a single 10 second glance most of the time.

I remember I used to run a blog on blogger, I had a picture of me in the snow without my shirt on (all you could see was my head and the very top of my chest - didn't even go down as far as my armpits - although you could see the top of a tattoo I have), within a few hours my blog had been recategorized as adult and I told to remove the picture or I wouldn't show up in Google Safe Searches. I assumed it was either flagged by some puritanical yank, or an automated system looking for skin tone colours.

But Copyright enforcement is completely different. The RIAA have requested take down on the basis of copyrighted background music playing at a kid birthday party etc. As a result of that, you would have to analysis every frame for images and all the sounds which can be heard and compare them against a catalog of protected material.

For example:
  • Background music and conversations against every song and recorded show ever copyrighted
  • Copyrighted images (posters/ads in the background, tv shows even if they aren't the actual focus of the video being uploaded etc)
  • Facial recognition for celebrities (both people who might happen to look like a celebrity and people getting themselves videoed in front of actual celebrities)

The amount of stuff that needs to be checked is huge and the catalog of stuff that it needs to be checked against is even bigger. The two areas of enforcement aren't really comparable.

Re:How do they filter porn then? (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155589)

Porn is simple, pretty obvious. And therefore easy to identify. Now copyright infringement is much more difficult, because how do you know where the video infringe copyright? What part of the video? You would have to know all existing commercial videos to be able to tell if a new video is a copy of any of them.

And that does not even consider cases where the label falsely says that the video infringes a copyrigth.

Re:How do they filter porn then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155611)

Point of order: there is plenty of porn on YouTube. It tends to get removed *eventually* but search for porn on Google and you'll get the odd YouTube link which often works.

Re:How do they filter porn then? (1)

undecim (1237470) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155675)

Well porn is pretty easy to identify, and most of it is reported by users, rather than actually being screened. It's completely against the Youtube TOS, so when its found, it's quite clear that it should be removed.

Copyrighted material on the other hand, isn't immediately identifiable. If you do have some perfect algorithm to separate copyrighted work from original work, you still need to make sure the person uploading the copyrighted work doesn't have permission to do so... Then we're not even touching on e.g. using a song as background music for a video, what constitutes "fair use" etc.

Simple (5, Insightful)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155189)

Google only need to send the bill to the RIAA. And only do the job if the RIAA pay.

So it has come to this. (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155191)

One of my jobs is a photographer. I make videos too. I generally see copyright as a good thing. However, I'm also a realist. Piracy is bad, m'kay. However, at this point fighting piracy like this is going to do as much if not more harm to our economy and/or culture.

RIAA (1)

SailorSpork (1080153) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155195)

I'm sure the RIAA would be happy to pay the salaries of all the pre-screeners once they have used this to stop piracy and get all that extra revenue.

Retarded analysis (4, Insightful)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155203)

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

Re:Retarded analysis (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155281)

1) Judges are not required. You can TRAIN people.

By sending them to law school, having them pass the bar exam, getting them appointed as a federal judge and then having them specialize in copyright issues.

You see, the second you say "it's okay for a private person to decide whether or not you're breaking the law" you expose copyright for the sham it truly is.

Re:Retarded analysis (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155383)

Youtube is NOT there to enforce your rights. That's what courts are for. A private business is not there to determine if your video is legal or not.

They are free to decide what they think is acceptable. If Youtube does not want videos that display violence, radical speech, etc, etc -- it is free to do so, even if that video is legal.

Re:Retarded analysis (1)

tycoex (1832784) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155505)

Exactly. Youtube is not there to enforce the law. That's what the courts are for. As you said, they are not there to determine if a video is legal or not, and therefore they are not there to remove videos that may be copyrighted.

They are free to decide what they think is acceptable. If Youtube does not want to remove videos that may be copyrighted -- they are free to not do so.

Re:Retarded analysis (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155579)

Yes, I agree. Youtube does not need to filter videos at all. They can wait for the DMCA take down notice, and comply with that.

I have no idea why they would ever agree to filter videos and pay for it out of their own pocket, and risk being sued if they remove the wrong video for copyright infringement.

Re:Retarded analysis (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155377)

Still, nearly 200,000 people just to pre-screen Youtube videos? That's over 6 times as many employees as Google currently has, even if you're only paying them $10,000/year that's $2bn just to make sure that, on average the videos being uploaded to Youtube don't possibly maybe infringe on some guy's copyright somewhere - and it probably wouldn't even be 100% effective.

Re:Retarded analysis (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155433)

$10,000/year?! That's way over the standard pay. Facebook pays $1/hour [gawker.com]

So that's $2000/year (assuming 40/hour weeks.. even though you could probably have the Indian employees work 12+ hours/day)

Re:Retarded analysis (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155475)

Why should Google pay so little? They are a private business. If they want to pay $200k/year/head to screeners and then bill the RIAA that is their right.

Re:Retarded analysis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155473)

Yeah, using other people's video's and music as bait to data mine my personal information for huge profits is Google's god given right!

They shouldn't have to worry about anyone else other than their shareholders.

Re:Retarded analysis (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155521)

* You signed up knowing they were going to data mine your video and user data.

* They have a legal duty to worry about their shareholders above all other parties

* There's nothing illegal with data mining

So what's the problem?

Re:Retarded analysis (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155529)

The problem is, the courts won't care later if some guy who makes less than minimum wage is 'pretty sure' it's fair use. That and I'm sure poorly paid workers in India are up on all the latest bubblegum pop coming out in the U.S.

But let's go with $17K/year employees instead. Now it 'only' costs 3.4 billion (yes, billion with a B) a year .

That's just for youtube. If you add everyone else's costs to the mix, even at the 17K/year pay scale it exceeds the total value of the thing being protected.

Re:Retarded analysis (1)

rgbrenner (317308) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155631)

No, stick with the $1/hour Indian screeners.

When an Indian screener decides a video MAY need to be removed, the video is sent to a more skilled, normally paid screener working in the US. This US screener decides if the video warrants deletion.

This is Facebook's standard practice.

I'll do it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155239)

For $36 billion/year

Re:I'll do it (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155339)

Hell, just do it for an hour and quit. You'll still walk away a millionaire.

Hmm (0)

AdmV0rl0n (98366) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155251)

Google chose to buy Youtube. They were not forced to do so.

And yes, its a large digital site containing a great deal of theft - whats new?
Unless copyright owners find variable ways of interacting and embracing on a global scale, its going to remain that way.

Re:Hmm (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155329)

And yes, its a large digital site containing a great deal of theft - whats new?

Theft? You mean a great deal of files infringing copyright, didn't you? It's not like YT was a robber's lair or something similar, where they keep the stolen original masters of Hollywood films that the pool studios can't find anymore.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155363)

Yey children lets hear it for piracy. After all why those greedy artists don't need copyright or the money. Just like we should give away all software code.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155557)

containing a great deal of theft

No mod points today, but consider this a -1 for douchebaggery.

Say it - 'copyright infringement'. Say it now, bitch.

Let them clamp down on it all... (4, Interesting)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155267)

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?

Re:Let them clamp down on it all... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155461)

I want to see the MPAA and RIAA clamp down on everything we do online.

That's what ACTA is for.

Let them start taking down mere references to copyrighted works

Didn't someone already get extradited from the UK for exactly that?

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

Them too.

bring an end to the abomination that is the modern state of copyright

Yeah, right. Sorry, but the US has hung its fortunes on IP, and their lobbyists pay the lawmakers far too much for that to happen. They're not going to give up the millions in 'contributions' this nets them.

Cease and desist (1)

Dogbertius (1333565) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155679)

Negative. Stop this "dreaming" immediately or we will be forced to take action.

"Love", "dream", "Mom", and "screen door" are (C) 3003 MomCorp.

Re:Let them clamp down on it all... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155693)

>>>I want to see the MPAA and RIAA clamp down on everything we do online..... until the average person realizes what utter bullshit it is and demands that lawmakers end this bullshit
>>>
That's how I feel about President Obama.
I hope he wins reelection.

God help them with the Christmas Special (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155271)

Oh, poor Google -- Imagine the long-term disability costs of inssane asylums for unfortunate employees when asses start deliberately uploading Jar Jar scenes.

Re:God help them with the Christmas Special (1)

NerdmastaX (1749114) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155519)

youusa no pay me 36 billion?

If the RIAA/MPAA are prepared to pay for this... (1)

Simon Brooke (45012) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155315)

... what's the problem?

NOTE: this post may contain traces of sarcasm.

Re:If the RIAA/MPAA are prepared to pay for this.. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155527)

. what's the problem?

Well, the *AAs won't pay for this ... they'll get a law passed that says all internet connections need to be taxed to pay for this in order to keep the world safe from copyright infringement. Then they'll insist on a treaty to make every other country do the same thing or risk trade sanctions.

Their position is that society should be protecting and guaranteeing their income.

And, yes, obviously I know you were being sarcastic. But these guys really seem to think like this.

Have the US government pay for it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155375)

Google is too big to fail. It is like McDonald's, Olde English 800, and GM. Americans can't live without it.

they don't care (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155391)

the media companies goal is not primarily to protect their ip their goal is to kill a more successful distribution method.

hollywood account is stealing (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155403)

where is the big push to enact laws to stop it? And it is not just stealing from people like directors and writers, it is stealing directly from US Taxpayers.

Piracy creates jobs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155425)

Seems like the American public should really get behind this!

More reasonable figure (1)

Rageaholic (728509) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155435)

Taking someone's more reasonable suggestion of Indian outsourcing, and training people to do the job rather than using judges:
It was difficult to find an average Indian call-center salary, so lets use Rs 300k. This was at the upper end but using the high figure makes some allowance for training and other costs.
This is $5610.
Of course you may want differing levels of staff, and can use some software. I would say using a system of software flagging, geared to hit more false positives than risk missing something followed by a review by a human, with a system for them to refer it to someone more experienced/qualified if its not straightforward could reasonably cut the hours requirement in half. So, 199584/2=99792.
Multiplying this by the much more reasonable salary gives 99792 * $5610 = $559,833,120.
Still a hell of a lot of cash, but probably not unaffordable to Google.

I guess two can play at that game... (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155451)

$37B is also, IIRC, about equal to the annual income of both the recording and movie industries combined in the US...

I suppose this number has value for making a point, but in terms of practicality it is barely more meaningful than the "studies" which assume that 1 download = 1 lost, guaranteed sale. Why? Because if the legal regime were even remotely positioned to impose this sort of cost on free services, they'd fold overnight. Larry Page would be booking 100mph from his office to their nearest data center in his Tesla to personally shut down Youtube post-haste.

I get and sympathize with the propaganda value of this "study," but let's be realistic:

1. Probably only about 25% of all pirates have both the means to buy a good and would buy it if piracy weren't an option (contrary to the views of both sides).
2. In the real world, Google would either fold its operations at YouTube or would simply ratchet up the automated scanning algorithm to "guilty until proven innocent via human review."

(and 2b, Google would buy out half of Congress to make filing a false DMCA complaint be strict liability, that is absolutely no criminal intent required in order to do hard prison time for "getting it wrong.")

Legality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155469)

This just confirms what we've known all along. Youtube business model is unsustainable.

If you have no way of ensuring your site is legal, you shouldn't run the site. Simple as that.

Do it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40155489)

Do it. Charge the RIAA/MPAA/etc for it, plus what, 10-20% fee.

Sounds fair to me.

Easy solution (1)

belthize (990217) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155503)

Provide it as a service and charge the benefiting entities i.e the music and movie industry. Presumably it's a net win for them as they get billed X dollars and see an increase of Y revenue. If it turns out Y is less than X they'll change their mind as to the value of their content and the worth of screening.

they already do this (1)

argStyopa (232550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155533)

Meh, I think the systems they have today are pretty impressively sophisticated.

Uploaded a school video I'd cut together for some local teens, using their video and 3 different (commercial) music clips.

As soon as I'd uploaded, google told me some content would be restricted in some geographical areas due to licensing for songs X and Y in the video, as well as saying that for the other content, I could use it but viewers would see ads.

I'm perfectly cool with that, and thought that was impressive, given that the song excerpts were no more than 1:30-2:00.

They don't prescreen... (1)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155577)

...because it's too expensive. The blogger's "nicely laid out math" is absurd though. Take down notices seem to get the job done (albeit often imperfectly).

More to the point (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155613)

The more interesting comparison is to the annual value of the 'valueable intellectual property' being protected. According to the RIAA, the annual sales is only 13 billion a year.

It makes no sense to spend $1000 to guard a $100 watch.

Well, uh, that's the point. (2)

goffster (1104287) | more than 2 years ago | (#40155707)

RIAA/MPAA already know full well this is prohibitively expensive.
They simply want public digital dissemination to be gone.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?