Not necessarily - depends on the way of obtaining the file. Downloading a copyrighted video is not illegal (it’s fair use), sharing it with others is illegal. If they downloaded it directly without sharing, that’s perfectly legal.
google has “fuck you” amounts of money, the minority of users using firefox mean nothing to them.
If google was having problems funding youtube, believe me, they’d stop paying creators before that would happen, and then the creators would tell us about it.
Do you really think they would stop paying creators before stopping people from bypassing the way both them and creators make money? It doesn’t take a business major to see that running a free service without ads is only going to cost them money.
I think (unsure) you misunderstand. Google, and any other company’s, main goal is to make money. To achieve this goal, i’m saying that if google were to lose profits from people using ad blockers, they are more likely to extract profits from their creators than sacrifice their bottom line.
If google can’t adequately monetize their services (by losing the ad-blocking war), they can’t monetize the creators. Google is evil, but so is the economic system that causes inconvenience to be the most effective way to monetize content.
This is why i wholeheartedly support things like Patreon, Ko-Fi, etc. because that directly supports creators and means that they don’t have to completely rely on a company that no longer says “don’t be evil”.
To achieve this goal, i’m saying that if google were to lose profits from people using ad blockers, they are more likely to extract profits from their creators than sacrifice their bottom line.
The creators are their product, the adblock users cost everyone money and provide no benefit, why would they punish their product over the users costing them money? The adblock users aren’t the bottom line, they are no benefit, and cost both YouTube and the creators in lost revenue.
This is why i wholeheartedly support things like Patreon, Ko-Fi, etc. because that directly supports creators and means that they don’t have to completely rely on a company that no longer says “don’t be evil”.
That’s great and all, but YouTube still has bills to pay, they can’t just let you use the service free without ads, let you just give money to creators through those other services, and expect to even break even.
“…why would they punish their product over the users costing them money?”
That’s if Google loses the ad-blocking war, hence the second paragraph, unless they manage to stuff web environment integrity/similar into their website, or if front ends like Invidious become more popular.
“…YouTube still has bills to pay…”
That’s true, but I think Google makes enough money from other things (tracking, other website’s ads) that it wouldn’t hurt them too bad. I think the recent crackdown on ad blocking is less from a large profit drop and rather to send a message to avoid the former from happening. Again though, I could be wrong about that one.
In the end though, I just want to watch and directly support my creators without being forced to waste 15 seconds of my life that I will never get back on a product I never have and never will use.
By making Youtube Premium worth it, both for users and creators. Make it transparent what % of the YP fee is actually going to creators, make that % actually fair, give extra features to YP users, incentivize creators to ask their viewers to collaborate with it if they actually can afford to. Youtube has reached a point where it has become a public utility, to the point that tens of millions of people use it to supplement their education or stay updated on the news. A website increasingly necessary shouldn’t force someone without a penny to choose between paying what they can’t afford or have their head fried up by ads.
Of course, this idea rooted in civil values is incompatible with an economic actor that sees both creators and consumers as cattle that must be milked as efficiently as possible.
A website increasingly necessary shouldn’t force someone without a penny to choose between paying what they can’t afford or have their head fried up by ads.
If not ads then what is the free option supposed to look like. I hate ads also, but it’s not like it’s sustainable to run free without ads.
Wikipedia has no ads yet it has a pretty large amount of spare money, and there are plenty of other free to use platforms and projects. Youtube is not Wikipedia, sure, but Wikipedia has no reason to offer Youtube Premium.
Are creators making enough money to get by on PeerTube? The idea is interesting, but I don’t see people making enough to do it full time, and I don’t see how the streaming quality can be anything as good or reliable compared to something like YouTube by relying on P2P.
Also, hasn’t youtube been wildly profitable for years? Profit, by definition is excess. It’s what’s left over after all business expense have been paid.
If youtube is profitable, why do they need more profit? Oh yeah, they don’t.
Why do you think you can’t upload more than a few megabytes of content to Lemmy? Serving video is expensive as hell, especially if you’re transcoding it into other resolutions.
As far as I know YouTube is not that profitable, but it’s hard to tell as they don’t release all the numbers.
Do you make any excess money? Do you have any money left over after rent, food, etc? If you do, do you need that money? If you don’t would you like to make more? Nobody wants to live with no excess money, so why should a business?
Woah dude, you’re getting right into my point of projection.
Just because you want to use your excess to get even more excess, you’re assuming that everyone else will. Why eschew luxurious so those who have less can have more? You’d never project that lol, cause that’s not how you feel.
Have a good day, man. Hope I enlightened you a bit.
Gonna block you now cause I feel you have nothing to offer me. See ya.
So you want to live just making ends meet? Don’t care about having a savings account? You would be happy with just enough to get by without any excess? I don’t know anybody who would be happy with that.
If you want to run away from the conversation then go ahead. If you do happen to have some money you don’t want though, since who needs to make more than what they need just to break even even, right? I’ll happily take it off your hands.
Thing is, even with all their efforts they still can’t make it profitable. Not sure if they release the data (doubt). But, YouTube has always been barely profitable or operating on loss. Google bought yt over 15 years ago and haven’t figured out how to make money off it and arguably made it worse with their policies and algos.
Part of the problem might be all those people blocking the ads, which I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a pretty big chunk of their viewers. No ads means no ad revenue, which means losing money.
As if video streaming will die with one site. One for-profit site, that’s not remotely turning a profit. A vestigial organ of an advertising giant, burning money to build dependency and exploit it for control.
BitTorrent used to share more video than Netflix - despite a lack of money, despite a lack of ads, and despite being illegal. Content creators will be fine without this corporate facade.
I don’t know what YouTube’s market share is, but for videos that are not short TikTok style it’s probably like 95%? And they are also in the TikTok short and twitch streaming areas now, so I think it would be a massive blow to video streaming if they went away.
BitTorrent just moves all the costs to the users, and users are typically not wanting to run their own video servers. They might work for tech people who don’t mind running servers or already have a server they are running, but you have to think about the regular user that is probably 80% or more of the market. You can’t expect to get big off relying on users to be the servers.
BitTorrent may have been big as in number of files, but as far as users and having content on demand it never got there. I remember waiting for days to get a single movie, not because my Internet was slow, but because the peers were slow.
When it comes to a YouTube replacement I don’t think you are going to get big relying on users to be the servers. Nevermind the fact that the nature of how BitTorrent works means no company will allow their content on it legally.
And nothing’s changed in all those years. Yeah? P2P technology couldn’t get any better than 2004. The fact it was slow sometimes means we’re boned forever.
Corporations already have streaming. I don’t care if they come along. Their content might be there whether they like it or not.
Consider where we’re having this conversation: is big even desirable? Has the dominance of one video platform been good for the internet? I’d say plainly fucking not, if killing ad blockers is even a feasible outcome. When YouTube was its own company there were a dozen competitors of similar size and quality. Google pouring money into one, so it could swallow everything and censor everyone and shove people toward right-wing propaganda, is not exactly ideal.
Has P2P changed much? I don’t think it has really. I use private sites for that stuff now and it’s great there, but the public stuff still seems pretty bad IMO.
Well if they don’t want their content there, then you have the whole problem if it being illegal. Now you have to convince people to break the law, and go as far as to install a VPN or whatever so your ISP doesn’t send you warnings. This isn’t a great start for something to replace YouTube.
I think Big is required for a P2P YouTube style thing to work. You need lots of peers to stream content in decent quality. You need people to knowingly break laws and use VPNs. You need people to run their own media servers, you are asking a lot from people, all YouTube is asking you to do is watch some ads or buy premium.
Oh no! Is the company that makes 70b per quarter and is buying back 70b of shares to keep making more in trouble of only making 80b per quarter next year and not 100b? Poor babies.
Maybe instead of looking at revenue you should look at profit. Revenue means nothing if your running costs eat it all up.
Also, maybe try to look at YouTube Numbers instead of the whole parent company? The patient company being profitable isn’t an excuse for the child company to lose money.
I don’t pirate games but after reading this, I DEFINITELY will not pirate games. If these clowns are the ones cracking/repacking the games then I do NOT trust the games to not contain malware/bullshit/whatever. Maybe I’m being paranoid but I wouldn’t go anywhere near software put out by these people. They sound like the types to include malware just to frame the other group or whatever. Idk. These people are morons.
Seems like gaming piracy is really dying this time for sure. Most sites are compromised and untrustworthy, big teams are retiring, the one remaining denuvo cracker that i heard of is apparently psychotic... It doesn't seem like it bodes well
Looking at the world rn, I dont think things have a tendency to get better on their own. In a decade or two people won't even believe we lived in the wild west era of internet where you could just get stuff for free without a subscription, online connection or drm.
When people run out of money to pay for a billion subscriptions, companies will have to think hard about their business model. I don’t think the current trend can last forever.
Look at the fragmentation of streaming services. Piracy is on the rise again because of it.
That's why I said gaming piracy before, I don't think denuvo can protect media files (yet) and those are less likely to be malware or cryptominers anyway. So I think that aspect is safe for now at least, but rip gaming.
Looking at the world rn, I dont think things have a tendency to get better on their own
This is called a recency bias (I think lol) - you’re looking at the world rn and assuming its trends must continue. When you look at history you see that there are ebbs and flows, and that stasis is rare. If you focus on certain things, you may certainly decide we’re in a downtrend. There will always be an uptrend afterward. And vice versa
That's way too big of a generalization. The fact is that technology advances and makes other technology obsolete, and the pirates are dwindling while DRM companies are getting more and more money to fix the issue. It is not going to just magically reverse at one point. If anything the people are just going to get more accustomed to it like they have already with copyright laws, subscription services and simply not owning anything digital anymore.
The second thing you're not addressing is how long the "ebb and flow" takes anyway, if gaming piracy has a resurgence in 50 years then I don't think I'm gonna care much about it by then lol. Blizzard games aren't getting cracked anymore and by the time they do, if ever, I'm not going to care about them.
The fact is that technology advances and makes other technology obsolete,
Yeah, it happens on both sides, it’s an arms race. It will swing the other way eventually - it always has and always will
The second thing you’re not addressing is how long the “ebb and flow” takes anyway
That was intentional. There’s no estimating a timeline, but with the development of technology it’s not unreasonable to expect a reversal even in a decade. Anyway, if you’re trying to ward off doomerism you’re not going to do it by only looking at what you stand to gain
Precisely the reason they'd be worth cracking I'd say. Anyway that was just an example, same goes for many EA / Ubi games for which it's just a matter of time before are perma-online or under denuvo.
Isn’t just piracy that’s dying, in my opinion, it’s gaming itself, or, at least, gaming as it used to be.
Besides Denuvo being a technology so bad that actually makes the original game worst than a copy without it, everyday comes with tons and tons of games with a pay-to-win approach or some kind of PBE. The only new, original and fun games nowadays are the indies, and it will be that way for a long time, as the industry seems to focus more and more in the mobile market since it’s already bigger than the PC and console together.
Gaming is definitely not dying it is a huge market. I don’t agree with the direction it’s heading though. But there are enough games released to keep my interest.
I expect all games to be bad by default now and don’t let myself get hyped up at all anymore. I waited on the edge of my seat since before the first teasers for CP2077 and still haven’t bothered to play it. I backed Star Citizen in 2013 lol… Was disappointed by Fallout 4 and 76 too, as a huge Fallout fan. I don’t remember the last game that legitimately lived up to my hopes and expectations. Fallout New Vegas I guess.
Yeah, I played it on release. Been trying it again lately with mods and it seems much more polished. The writing quality is still a pretty big disappointment, and the yes/yes/yes/no chat system.
For sure, indies are where it’s at. Most of my time gaming has been on indies for many years now. They are actually willing to do interesting things instead of chasing trends and money.
Occasionally you get large studios doing things like Baldur’s Gate 3, but it’s rare. Larian and FromSoft are about the only studios I trust to make good experiences that aren’t designed by the business team to make as much money as possible.
Using Koalageddon or CreamAPI should work fine as long as you don’t have to download extra content manually. I’ve used it for years in multiplayer games and never had any issues.
piracy
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.