[naravara]

>Video hosting sites lose money, so it's not like a contender will ever appear,

Only if you assume YouTube's business model is the only feasible one. You could have a video hosting service that operates like a traditional web-host, letting you pay a standard rate or fee to host and list your content rather than relying on ad revenue and algorithmic curation.

Twitch has an ad driven model where the content creators get paid based on subscription counts rather than data harvesting. (Though I wouldn't be surprised if there was a big data harvesting component as well).

[nathanyz]

Exactly, video hosting can be a viable business. Full disclosure, I am co-founder of Swarmify where this is our business. We provide paid video hosting at affordable prices very similarly to paid web hosting.

[martin-adams]

I really like what you have to offer. I'm impressed that you offer unlimited video/bandwidth for a reasonable price.

Just a note though, the video example on the homepage comparing YouTube with SmartVideo (SpaceX launch). I can see compression artifacts on the Smart Video. If I'm honest, that really put me off which obviously isn't your intention.

[nathanyz]

Fair point on that video. We recently changed some internal settings and it looks like that is a good example where we may need to better tune. I appreciate the feedback as it helps us see things we would have missed

[Zyst]

In fairness, streamers in Twitch hear music on stream, which is frequently unlicensed.

So wouldn't Twitch be liable for that content under this proposed copyright thing?

[inetknght]

I think many cases of what you hear on Twitch falls squarely under fair use.

[sobani]

Fair Use is an American concept. Even so, YouTube already routinely mutes videos that contain background music.

With the proposed law, the right holders can sue Twitch for hosting that video, unless Twitch ensured they have permission from said right holders to host that video.