If they had put it there themselves, I'd agree with you. They haven't. They have an automated system that accepts content from users.
Vimeo from conception made an ethical stand to get rid of all content that wasn't directly uploaded by the creator.
YouTube from conception decided to not only allow but to itself seed the network with content that its submitters didn't create.
YouTube ended up having more content than Vimeo and thus more users even though Vimeo was first to market and had a much better product and user experience.
YouTube won because it decided to ignore the ethics of distributing content that it had no rights to.
They were from the very beginning and still remain an unethical company when it comes to profiting from other people's copyrights.
Bear in mind that there is not and is unlikely to ever be any kind of system that can determine what color your bits are with any kind of reliability.
There are many forms of smart contracts and decentralized digital asset management systems that could be utilized to create an open platform for publishing and claiming ownership over digital goods. All it takes is software willing to opt-in to these contracts and people who would rather use an honest system over a dishonest system.
Systems that subsidize the storing and distribution of digital media with advertisements never allow for the creators to have any power in the conversation about their digital rights. They just get blanket contracts written by the largest rights-holders.
YouTube is designed for consumers and not producers. It is in the DNA of the product. It can't be removed. It will be its undoing.
Vimeo from conception made an ethical stand to get rid of all content that wasn't directly uploaded by the creator.
YouTube from conception decided to not only allow but to itself seed the network with content that its submitters didn't create.
YouTube ended up having more content than Vimeo and thus more users even though Vimeo was first to market and had a much better product and user experience.
YouTube won because it decided to ignore the ethics of distributing content that it had no rights to.
They were from the very beginning and still remain an unethical company when it comes to profiting from other people's copyrights.
Bear in mind that there is not and is unlikely to ever be any kind of system that can determine what color your bits are with any kind of reliability.
There are many forms of smart contracts and decentralized digital asset management systems that could be utilized to create an open platform for publishing and claiming ownership over digital goods. All it takes is software willing to opt-in to these contracts and people who would rather use an honest system over a dishonest system.
Systems that subsidize the storing and distribution of digital media with advertisements never allow for the creators to have any power in the conversation about their digital rights. They just get blanket contracts written by the largest rights-holders.
YouTube is designed for consumers and not producers. It is in the DNA of the product. It can't be removed. It will be its undoing.