[_akhe]

Yes and to be clear the creator gets the revenue, not this website: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/132596?hl=en-do-i-...

> Only YouTube and the video owner will earn revenue from ads on embedded videos. The owner of the site where the video is embedded will not earn a share.

Furthermore, the YouTube creator can choose to not let their video be embedded if they wanted that.

Do you have a problem with every news website that has a video at the top, then an article describing what happens in the video? How would that violate the licensing? It's unrelated to licensing - they're using the official YouTube embed. YouTube manages the copyright of the embedded content and can even control whether or not the video can be viewed in your country, etc. based on such restrictions.

> look at how responsive the original poster of this thread was to most comments but they ignore this request

Irrelevant, but I think because it's obvious you're misunderstanding copyright, or because you wrote such a big paragraph with many separate points being made that it's a lot of work to reply to. The copyright in his footer is for his IP, it of course would not apply to the content inside a YouTube embed. And it's not IP theft to summarize a video in what is essentially a blog post.

[j45]

It's really interesting how some folks don't see this as an additional way to drive traffic to the video, when so many channels have a website of their videos.

This type of tool could help create much more meaningful blog or website type content to build a mailing list around the community.

[shortformblog]

Who owns the mailing list? Who owns the blog? This random guy who built this tool, or the actual creator who made the content?

The problem with this thought process is that the creator has been taken out of the equation without actually talking to them about it, and when that question gets raised, there just seems to be lots of pushback, likely in part because it touches on the primary complication of LLMs (that a whole bunch of copyrighted content is getting siphoned without considering the people who made that information).

In this particular case, this is literally taking the information from that content and presenting it in a format the creator did not agree to, lowering the potential value of the video to end users. It is much closer to violating the creator’s copyright than generative AI often is.

Instead of pushing back, we need to bring the creators into the discussion to ensure this is something they’re OK with.

[_akhe]

The point of a YouTube embed is to share it on other websites, so this is a ridiculous argument. The YouTube creator of course gets the revenue from embed shares, but why do you think they should own every website it's shared on? That makes no sense nor would it ever happen.

The creator isn't taken out of the equation at all - their content is being promoted and they're getting ad revenue for views there (as agreed upon in the YouTube terms).

And for the YouTube creator who decided to give their video to YouTube, but doesn't want it shared on third-party sites, YouTube lets them disable embeds.

Putting a YouTube embed, summarizing a YouTube video - neither are "violating the creator's copyright" which they already gave to YouTube anyway.

[shortformblog]

Stop bringing up YouTube embeds, it is literally 0% of my point. I literally do not care.

The problem is 100% the use of LLMs to pull the content in an unsanctioned manner. Considering that YouTube has sanctioned methods to share this information, in the form of transcripts, this directly competes with something that the creators are already making in a not-as-good form.

Additionally, it makes the video less desirable. The embed does not matter; creators allow them for a reason. It is the conversion from video to text in a way that the creators did not ask for and likely do not want.

[_akhe]

> The problem is 100% the use of LLMs to pull the content in an unsanctioned manner

If the public facing web wasn't crawlable Google and many other things wouldn't be possible. What are you saying that YouTube should not be viewable unless someone is properly authed? Take it up with YouTube - they could require logins to view videos if they wanted but it would be a worse product.

When a user posts something on YouTube and checks "Allow embeds" they have not only given their video to YouTube but are totally cool with people sharing it around. Who are you - their lawyer? Even most YouTube creators do not share your opinion as I can see most are allowing embeds. The point of mentioning embeds is it's both:

1) Credit to the creator, including the revenue share which you were incorrect when you said it lowers their revenues - they still get the ad revenue from an embed

2) An indicator that the creator wants their content to be shared, since they have the option to disable them if they want and choose not to

The adjacent point you seem to be making is that nobody should be allowed to crawl information and present it as their own. But that's what a lot of the internet is. It's what a search engine is, it's the source of most online encyclopedias, news sites, and so-on.

It just doesn't logically follow that if somebody uploads a video to YouTube, that nobody is allowed to summarize it in text form. That's a very normal thing that is done online.

[shortformblog]

This isn’t Google though. This is some guy creating a website that will allow him to trend for your term on Google, without the support of the ads that would be financially supporting your content, or any engagement opportunities.

By using LLM he has created a method to literally outclass every video on YouTube. People will not watch the video, because what’s the point, all the information is already there, taken so fully as to likely not pass fair use claims.

Please stop throwing whataboutisms into this argument. You keep doing it, and they aren’t sticking. This is about this specific site, which takes the full content that people make (not a summary, enough so you can follow along without watching the video, which would go beyond fair use), strips out the ads, and puts them into a format the creator didn’t intend. It is not about embeds, it is not about Google, or aggregators, or scrapers. It is not promotional, and nor does it have any side benefits. It is just taking content that isn’t theirs and packaging it as a modest benefit to the end user.

This site is extremely unethical as is, with limited benefit to the people who actually made the content. No sidestepping or whataboutisms will change that.

[j45]

Unsure if the video is less desirable. Just a different mode to consume it.

Sometimes you want to listen without having to watch.

Other times you want to read a summary to see if it’s worth watching instead of lighting 20 minutes of your life on fire that you’ll never get back.

Time is the ultimate currency and it’s not so bad to consider how to protect it by using it with the length of time you’re choosing to invest.

[j45]

I’m referring to channels which have their own website which lists videos, and maybe summaries like this for the videos.

The email list in that case would belong to whomever owned the site.

Still, a lot of creating is based on other creation.

It’s a reality that this form of a video is akin to taking written notes for it. Maybe what’s upsetting is it’s quite decent at it, perhaps reflecting the work of the developer to get it there. It’s not an easy feat.

Taking notes can’t be illegal and a copyright violation. Neither does expecting people to watch an entire video to recall something make a lot of sense.

If this product provided embeddable summaries for video creators to put into their descriptions it could be pretty useful too to some.

It feels like there is some kind of attachment to video because of how laborious. Making videos easier to create is an area I’m engaged in. It is about to become much easier, and not from the LLM or generative video side.

The process of editing videos is in the stone ages and quite laborious. Lots of opportunity to improve there, and once they become easier those who were able to create before as an advantage will have to make sure their videos are even better.

[nickjj]

Are you replying to the correct comment btw?

In the comment you're replying to (mine), I literally wrote:

> YouTube embeds are a different story, that is an official YouTube feature which allows folks to embed a YouTube video on a 3rd party website. I have no problem with that. YouTube even allows creators to enable or disable that on a per video basis. I keep it enabled because it's useful and promotes sharing of the original content as it was delivered.

In your comment you've written things like "Furthermore, the YouTube creator can choose to not let their video be embedded if they wanted that." which implies you haven't read the comment I wrote because I mentioned that. I'm also not in disagreement that embedding is generally useful and I support it fully.

That makes me think you might have replied to the wrong person?

[_akhe]

> Public doesn't mean it's available for someone else to use however they see fit.

You're implying the embed is being used unethically or in an illegal way that violates copyright - it's not.

> That's why we have licenses and YouTube's default license ensures creators retain ownership of what they upload

Not true: YouTube manages copyright themselves and can even control which countries the video can be viewed in etc. And the rights are given up by the creator when they agree to YouTube's terms which grants YouTube a:

  “worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service”

which of course includes their site embed.

> I have no problem with that. YouTube even allows creators to enable or disable that on a per video basis. I keep it enabled because it's useful and promotes sharing of the original content as it was delivered

If your problem is the fact that the video is summarized in a blog post, tutorial, article, etc. then I still disagree, and maintain that it doesn't violate any copyright - the purpose of the YouTube embed is to display the content on another website.