this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
356 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

66231 readers
4816 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
356
Copyright madness: YouTube seems to doubt whether Shakespeare is in the public domain. (walledculture.org)
submitted 4 weeks ago by Cat@ponder.cat to c/technology@lemmy.world
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

This extraordinary saga of takedown notices for performances of Shakespeare show that 27 years after it was passed, the DMCA is still not fit for purpose. The companies like Google that are tasked with implementing it often do so in the most desultory way. There is an underlying assumption that claimed infringements are valid, an injustice compound by an arrogant indifference to the rights of ordinary citizens who find themselves caught up in a complex copyright system that is stacked against them.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MudMan@fedia.io 6 points 4 weeks ago

All the examples you provide already have alternate hosting methods they publicise aggressively. LTT has Floatplane, which they own, DF offers Patrons higher bitrate alternative to their videos for download, GN pushes people to their website (although that's different and not really monetized) and a whole bunch of other creators banded together and made Nebula as an alternative to Youtube.

My understanding is that the vast majority of those alternatives from successful, established creators are residual, secondary monetization windows when compared to Youtube advertising and sponsorships driven pretty much entirely by Youtube views.

I do agree that Youtube is a huge aberration. Every other dominant streaming site is built on owned or licensed content, not UGC, and they're largely supported by subscription revenue first, advertising second. Definitely not by third party sponsorships baked right into the UGC. It is what it is, though, and if it got shut down tomorrow I genuinely don't know that independently generated content would survive in any form at all. Maybe someone would ramp up capacity to try to replace them, but most likely you'd see social media posts becoming the real replacement.

Much as my feelings for Youtube are mixed, I don't know if I can think of a realistic alternative that isn't worse.