Google's Content ID software is an Orwellian censor that actually works.
I just saw a video on YouTube where the radio playing in the background was completely removed, yet the relevant sounds were preserved. I didn't even hear a radio the first time I viewed the video. I just heard the relevant sounds that were applicable to the video, and went back to the discussion. In the discussion I found that, erm, the sounds were removed, and went back to the video again to check. Lo and behold, the sound of the radio had been removed and you could hear it play for a split second when the other sounds happened. My brain never noticed.
Google censored a radio out of a video and my consciousness was unable to pick up it!
Extraordinarily creepy. It is used to stop copyright claims from being uploaded, this usually works with things like music, and I knew the system was in place, but generally a whole video would get rejected, and not the sounds actually being modified automatically.
This plays into some concepts I've been thinking about lately and how corporations can use this sort of thing to further entrench themselves via copyright and such. The pirates, the sharers, they must be stopped at all costs. And they found a way to do it "friendly" so that you don't even know it's happening.
Would you casually uploading a video that had a radio playing in the background notice the removal of that radio (assuming it's not the focus of the video of course)? I don't think you would. The big, giant, corporation, though, it has to make sure your behavior is correct.
The Ministry of Truth, realized.
= new reply since forum marked as read
You still advocate employing them at $10 per hour. 
You are still making simplistic calculations.
If we use the Seattle minimum wage of $15 per hour and account for non-sweatshop burdened costs, the actual minimum cost would be $30 per hour.
If we allow the company half the profit, so they can attract some capital to innovate and compete worldwide and continue to exist to employ some people and so that pension funds that are invested can continue to pay some teachers pensions, that's $1.5 billion.
A work year has 2000 hours, if you allow the employee only two weeks vacation and not statutory holidays. The actual work year is less, 1790 in the USA. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS
The employee is not going to watch videos all the time. They have to attend ongoing training and there is overhead for things like performance reviews. But the biggest factor is that everytime they might find a violation, they have to stop watching to write it up. So 1667 hours a year watching videos would still be very optimistic but a more reasonable figure to use for calculations.
1667 x 30 = 50000 dollars per year, of which the employee only sees about half.
1.5 G$ / 50 K$ = 30,000 employees.
Youtube gets 100 hours of video uploaded every minute. That is 6000 minutes of video per minute, 24 hours per day. There are 60 x 24 x 365 minutes in a year = 525,600 minutes. Multiply by 100 That is 52,560,000 hours of video a year.
52.5 million hours of video / 1667 hours per year to monitor => 31,529 employees. Google has 41,000 employees already worldwide.
Even using generous assumptions about productivity (1667 hours per year), it would still require more employees than are reasonably available.
Even so, the business model is unsustainable.
