Study: $37B Annually To Pre-Screen YouTube Videos

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
This is one of those studies where you naturally assume that someone just pulled this number out of their ass...until you see the math. ;)

This brings the final cost of screening all video uploaded to YouTube at its current rate to $36,829,468,840 per year. Yes, that’s nearly $37 billion per year. That is a massive additional cost to expect from Google to cover a thorough analysis of all video being uploaded. And this excludes the immense backlog of video YouTube already hosts. This would require 199,584 judges to be hired as screeners.
Click to expand...
 
I skimmed through the article and I was confused why he thought they actually screen all 72 hours per minute, but then I realize he's just doing the math as a thought experiment.

YT doesn't screen the uploaded videos unless it's flagged or someone brings it to it's attention. The Copyright ID system they use automatically scans the videos against their database and auto claims videos on behalf of the copyright holder. If there is an issue or the uploader finds that it is incorrectly claimed, an employee of YT will then investigate.

Something like 80% of the content uploaded to YT isn't seen more than a few times in its life, and as such YT would be silly to hire a bunch of people to just watch content. Employees will in their own time come across things to check out, but I don't believe they hire employees who simply trawl the site.

Though I think it's really quite neat to see in human terms how many people and dollars it would take to actually proof-view all the content that is croud-source-uploaded over the world.
 
They've just made the formulae unnecessarily fancy... what are partial differentials doing in there anyway? It's not a PDE :rolleyes:
 
That assumes 10 minutes of "judging" time per actual minute worth of video, which I think is a bit excessive. But the cost is absurd either way. It also assumes everything is judged by, well, a judge, earning $177k a year. What's more likely is work experience kids from high schools do it at a fraction the cost and refer actual problems to the judge, opposed to the judge themselves screening the whole damned thing.

The overly complicated math is nice and all but you could have seen how absurd it was gonna be as soon as you heard YouTube has 72 hours uploaded every minute. A single person working 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year could only screen 2080 hours worth, or around 29 minutes worth of uploads in a whole year, without including any time to actually judge the videos.
 
slh28 said:
They've just made the formulae unnecessarily fancy... what are partial differentials doing in there anyway? It's not a PDE :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

SHHH!!! We're supposed to be impressed by the size of the equation and the final dollar estimate!
 
Crest said:
I skimmed through the article and I was confused why he thought they actually screen all 72 hours per minute, but then I realize he's just doing the math as a thought experiment.

YT doesn't screen the uploaded videos unless it's flagged or someone brings it to it's attention. The Copyright ID system they use automatically scans the videos against their database and auto claims videos on behalf of the copyright holder. If there is an issue or the uploader finds that it is incorrectly claimed, an employee of YT will then investigate.

Something like 80% of the content uploaded to YT isn't seen more than a few times in its life, and as such YT would be silly to hire a bunch of people to just watch content. Employees will in their own time come across things to check out, but I don't believe they hire employees who simply trawl the site.

Though I think it's really quite neat to see in human terms how many people and dollars it would take to actually proof-view all the content that is croud-source-uploaded over the world.
Click to expand...

This summation was exactly what I needed, it was just a thought experiment, and should be viewed as such, rather than being presented in a manner prone for misinterpretation. (I was under the impression from the HardOCP summary that the original article was claiming required maintenance costs while I thought "They screen all their videos?")
 
Crest said:
I skimmed through the article and I was confused why he thought they actually screen all 72 hours per minute, but then I realize he's just doing the math as a thought experiment.
Click to expand...

Actually that is what Viacom/MPAA (and maybe RIAA too) wants from Youtube.
 
Hey look on the bright side people... It would create 200,000 jobs. ;)
 
I liked that he backed up his numbers with math. The MPAA/RIAA just pull numbers outta their asses and call them facts.
 
lordshado said:
let prescreen all face book too while were at it. :D and lets do all email too.
Click to expand...

Not even sure why you brought up email at all. The two aren't comparable. Facebook and Youtube are open to the public. Email is intended to be private (but is easily scanned by the gov't on a regular basis). I still don't understand why people want to post their daily lives, and intimate details, on FB, but whatever. I don't care, and from the numbers, most people don't care either. However, I still laugh when someone gets suspended or fired because of stuff they posted there, that I'd be embarrassed to tell anyone, ever. People have no shame.

While Youtube probably should be prescreened, they've made it so it's difficult. Changing it now would slow down the process of posting. Things would inevitably be censored that shouldn't have been, and that will also increase the cost, to insert a review of the review process or an appeals process. Or they could simply say 'no appeals' and be done with it. At which point the person will repost repeatedly until one of the censors lets it through. People will wind up making multiple accounts to get this done, too. At which point, the whole system will become so bogged down with repeat posts, they'll need another 200k people to scan the additional posts. Either that, or everyone will leave due to frustration. I think that's the RIAA hope anyway. Isn't that who's driving all this?
 
Yea if the cost was even half that (or say 1/4th that) I would wonder how Youtube could be profitable at that point.
 
faugusztin said:
Actually that is what Viacom/MPAA (and maybe RIAA too) wants from Youtube.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they do. Thankfully it won't happen.

As a YT Partner, I would hate for YT to spend so much money on time for something that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

I wish Youtube setup a report copyright infringment tool to help their efforts. Let the population do the work passively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top