So you think they built it for the sake of it? No. They literally built it because of all the legal shit they were dealing with. They were literally getting sued and this was their response. Copyright laws requires you put in reasonable efforts and if you're making billions and have thousands of engineers reasonable is not the same as what is reasonable for a company with 40 engineers.
I always find it gobsmacking that people seem so unaware of why YouTube's copyright system exists in the way it exists. Especially in communities like this where everyone is really full of themselves thinking this is an intellectual space yet here we are. Thinking ContentID wasn't created to sheild YouTube from legal claims.
> I always find it gobsmacking that people seem so unaware of why YouTube's copyright system exists in the way it exists. Especially in communities like this where everyone is really full of themselves thinking this is an intellectual space yet here we are.
Gobsmacked that people don't take Eric Schmidt's justifications as face value? Can I be flabbergasted that you don't even try engage critically with statements from a man who is already known to engage in illegal conspiracy with other companies to make more money?
So Google is spending millions on a program that makes them no money and in fact probably costs them and is hated by users and creators a like because of a former CEO? I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee. A company like Google does things because it either makes them money or it saves them money. It's not rocket science. But sure, the boys club is so strong the folks at Google are willing to take home less money to protect a former CEO. Have a word with yourself.
Are you replying to another comment? I didn't say any of the things you are arguing against. If not, please reread my comment and respond to things I'm actually claiming rather than whatever weird stuff you are projecting.
You didn't claim anything. You implied that the content id system is created to make a former CEO money and in an illegal scheme. Which is complete nonsense and treated as such.
I claimed that the reasons behind the existence and structure of the Content ID system are more complicated than just "avoiding lawsuits". I also pointed out that the primary source for that explanation is a CEO who is already known to have engaged in illegal cartel-like behavior.
Rather than engaging with anything I've said, you just keep attacking things I didn't say. Calling things "nonsense" isn't an argument and is a sign that you don't have anything of substance to contribute.
