It can't possibly be illegal or against YouTube guidelines to record/save a video or even less explain how you do it. That is identical to recording a TV show on your VHS recorder and that has been legal "forever".
YouTube hosts videos that are CC, hence by law you are allowed to download them. If YouTube does not provide a link and does not allow you to use third party tools, they are in breach of the law and that would invalidate their terms of services on this point.
What was that sci-fi movie starring Scwarzenegger, where a wall mounted machine would automatically print out a ticket if you used foul language? Looks like we're there already, more or less!
YouTube hosts videos that are CC, hence by law you are allowed to download them. If YouTube does not provide a link and does not allow you to use third party tools, they are in breach of the law and that would invalidate their terms of services on this point.
What was that sci-fi movie starring Scwarzenegger, where a wall mounted machine would automatically print out a ticket if you used foul language? Looks like we're there already, more or less!
Official YouTube policy is "NO DOWNLOADING, EVER!" and there is no law that forces them to add a download button. Downloading can still be a breach of their TOS and they can essentially do whatever they want to try to prevent it.
What was that sci-fi movie starring Scwarzenegger, where a wall mounted machine would automatically print out a ticket if you used foul language? Looks like we're there already, more or less!there was also something in the 5th element from what I remember.
Despite that, I think Twitch also has a clauses where they don't allow you to stream content to other platforms when you're monetized there.
Demolition Man, Sylvester Stallone:
DC1MC
Demolition Man, Sylvester Stallone:
DC1MCDidn't read the thread, did you.
It can't possibly be illegal or against YouTube guidelines to record/save a video or even less explain how you do it.
@EEVBlog
Why dont you just use twitch for this one? Post the link on your website then post a short video announcing the move and updates will be posted on this site. This way youtube cant do anything about it .
That's against Youtube T&C as well (announcing streaming on another platform), big channels like Linus tech Tips have been striked for this.
@EEVBlog
Why dont you just use twitch for this one? Post the link on your website then post a short video announcing the move and updates will be posted on this site. This way youtube cant do anything about it .
That's against Youtube T&C as well (announcing streaming on another platform), big channels like Linus tech Tips have been striked for this.
I noticed an interesting discussing in the YouTube comments for this video, I thought it was worth mentioning here as well:
YouTube hosts videos that are CC, hence by law you are allowed to download them. If YouTube does not provide a link and does not allow you to use third party tools, they are in breach of the law and that would invalidate their terms of services on this point.
Would it be illegal to announce a stream, without specificying the how and why?
Nothing about these things is illegal, but it may be against whatever rules you agree to when you sell yourself to Google/YouTube. They can then use whatever recourse is specified in said rules to punish, suspend or terminate anyone who breaches said rules.
Nothing about these things is illegal, but it may be against whatever rules you agree to when you sell yourself to Google/YouTube. They can then use whatever recourse is specified in said rules to punish, suspend or terminate anyone who breaches said rules.
The most pertinent point is that the world needs a bigger variety of large, viable streaming services.
That's against Youtube T&C as well (announcing streaming on another platform), big channels like Linus tech Tips have been striked for this.Would it be illegal to announce a stream, without specificying the how and why?
Disallowing the mention of competitors comes awfully close to the stuff Microsoft got fined for big time. Where's the EU when you need it?
That's against Youtube T&C as well (announcing streaming on another platform), big channels like Linus tech Tips have been striked for this.Would it be illegal to announce a stream, without specificying the how and why?
Disallowing the mention of competitors comes awfully close to the stuff Microsoft got fined for big time. Where's the EU when you need it?
and yet game companies like runescape,wow,lol are allowed to make streams both at twitch and youtube same time.i dont get how companies are allowed do it and not normal people.
I think it would be good to establish that many people use "illegal" and "not allowed" interchangeably. It seems the official definitions define it as both "prohibited by law" and "against the rules". A hands ball in a game of soccer is called illegal, even though it's not against the law.
That is my point. In this case, the do matter. There is a big difference between violating some kind of arbitrary terms and guidelines in a user agreement and something actually being against the law.
It gets trickier if you sign a legally binding contract with some kind of clause that says you agree to be punishable, for example monetarily, for doing something forbidden by the contract rules. Sometimes there are laws which state you cannot actually waive some right or enforce some rule in a contract. This is where you need a lawyer.
A properly drafted non-compete agreement when you sell a business to someone that stipulates you will not open up a competing business for x years, or whatever, is legally binding. I'm not sure how well crafted the YouTube user agreement is for content creators and how the language specifies just precisely what you're agreeing to as far as exclusivity is concerned. Is there something in there that says you agree to use YouTube and YouTube only for your online presence? IANAL
It's a case of patato versus patato. They're both made up rules. One tends to come with a bigger stick you get beaten with.
If you have the bandwidth you can multi cast, but its not easy to setup, You cannot cross promote 3rd party services, the likes of twitch are YouTubes competition and there only doing what any company would do - try to make money and gain market share while retaining its customers
The main reason for YouTube giving strikes for showing how to use a downloader is simply, It's part of there premium service
Any contract which you are not free to negotiate, and which contains surprising terms, is considered a contract of adhesion. The law looks dimly on such antics.
...in legal circles, there’s something we call “The Google Rule.” The rule is this: Google never loses as a defendant. At least not in the U.S. Mainly because they hired the lawyers who literally wrote most of the laws they get sued under.
@EEVBlog
Why dont you just use twitch for this one? Post the link on your website then post a short video announcing the move and updates will be posted on this site. This way youtube cant do anything about it .
That's against Youtube T&C as well (announcing streaming on another platform), big channels like Linus tech Tips have been striked for this.
I think the content strike is totally ridiculous being that Dave has been on Youtube for how many years now? Shouldn't they take that under consideration
before bringing the hammer down on this nonsense
Dave you are appealing the decision right? Have you heard back?
But "illegal activities" sounds like it refers to circumventing DMCA, which implies that Dave's content is copyrighted (owned) ... by Youtube.
Using 3rd party software to circumvent measures designed to protect IP, however, is considered (in the USA) to be illegal, unless allowed by fair use rights. Dave being Australian ... I don't know what that does.
Youtube have banned Dave for making livestreams, simply because he was demonstrating an alternative to their paid service.
They have also cracked down on anyone making videos promoting/mentioning alternatives to youtube like Twitch.
Upload a video titled "watch my livestream on twitch" and watch it get deleted.
Youtube have lost the plot, and gotten into the murky area of anti competitive behavior and censorship of content for no reason.
This isn't about copyright, it's about Google's money.
Youtube have banned Dave for making livestreams, simply because he was demonstrating an alternative to their paid service.
They have also cracked down on anyone making videos promoting/mentioning alternatives to youtube like Twitch.
Upload a video titled "watch my livestream on twitch" and watch it get deleted.
Youtube have lost the plot, and gotten into the murky area of anti competitive behavior and censorship of content for no reason.
This isn't about copyright, it's about Google's money.
So if Dave live streams separate content outside of Youtube whilst banned on youtube from live streaming there and on other platforms, he leaves no announcement on Youtube that he is live streaming elsewhere and youtube finds out, they can shut the channel down.
It just sounds like blackmail to me.
I don't get it why Google strikes for explaining how to download a Youtube video, when the first Google search link links exactly to a site where you can do this.
Except youtube provide a means to download videos themselves, it's part of Youtube Premium.
It just sounds like blackmail to me.
This isn't about copyright, it's about Google's money.
Dave you are appealing the decision right? Have you heard back?
Appealed straight away, haven't heard back. You only have a few hundred characters to write your reply, so impossible to explain things properly.
It just sounds like blackmail to me.Blackmail means extorting money from someone in exchange for not revealing something compromising about them. I don't see how that applies.
Try "Extortion".
Certainly anti competitive behavior.
Try "Extortion".Except that nobody is holding a gun to Dave's head. If he doesn't like the terms, he can leave Youtube.
I wonder if Dave knows who owns the rights to his content?
Like if he decided to switch platforms one day, would he be able to re-upload his old content there?
The real question here, is did Dave break the rules. I think it should fall under fair use for education.
Sorry a bit ambiguous there, what I mean is what are the chances of them shutting down the EEVBLOGS Youtube channels if Dave is caught elsewhere live streaming unannounced and gets enough strikes.
Breaking Youtube terms does not make something illegal -- against the law.
I don't think they would use the term so loosely. That would be idiotic and just plain wrong.
Using 3rd party software to circumvent measures designed to protect IP, however, is considered (in the USA) to be illegal, unless allowed by fair use rights. Dave being Australian ... I don't know what that does.
It just sounds like blackmail to me.Blackmail means extorting money from someone in exchange for not revealing something compromising about them. I don't see how that applies.
Wrong term. Try "Extortion".
Youtube do not own the content, they only have a license to use it. Therefore they cannot sue you for copyright infringement, that's up to the owner of the content. All they can do it terminate your account based on their ToS.
The real question here, is did Dave break the rules. I think it should fall under fair use for education.
I think I did, and as I said in the video I don't blame then for the strike. But disabling my streaming is stupid.
Please elaborate how you did.
In the letter, they says that "such depictions need to be educational or documentary in nature", and they were (I think). So they do have some allowance for fair use. I think that what they are trying to convey in the letter, is that you didn't make it clear enough. They even tell you that in the letter. "Please include as much information as possible in the video title".
So maybe you just need to re-title the video and you're fine.
5. Your Use of Content
In addition to the general restrictions above, the following restrictions and conditions apply specifically to your use of Content.
A. The Content on the Service, and the trademarks, service marks and logos ("Marks") on the Service, are owned by or licensed to YouTube, subject to copyright and other intellectual property rights under the law.
B. Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.
C. You agree not to circumvent, disable or otherwise interfere with security-related features of the Service or features that prevent or restrict use or copying of any Content or enforce limitations on use of the Service or the Content therein.
The real question here, is did Dave break the rules. I think it should fall under fair use for education.
I think I did, and as I said in the video I don't blame then for the strike. But disabling my streaming is stupid.
Please elaborate how you did.
Ok I thought Dave explained in the video that he needed to download his own content for video editing. Teaching people how to do that is educational. His whole channel is educational. He didn't say, "Here's how you can download Miley Cyrus' new video for free!" Oh well I guess it wasn't clear enough.
Ok I thought Dave explained in the video that he needed to download his own content for video editing. Teaching people how to do that is educational. His whole channel is educational. He didn't say, "Here's how you can download Miley Cyrus' new video for free!" Oh well I guess it wasn't clear enough.
One of the most important exceptions for education permits the use of any type of work for the purpose of teaching (or as the law puts it: ‘for the sole purpose of illustration for instruction’). This means that copyright in the work is not infringed by an individual teacher or a student as long as they are copying the work to give or receive instruction (or when preparing to give or receive instruction), and the copying is used to illustrate a point about the subject being taught.
Ok I thought Dave explained in the video that he needed to download his own content for video editing. Teaching people how to do that is educational. His whole channel is educational. He didn't say, "Here's how you can download Miley Cyrus' new video for free!" Oh well I guess it wasn't clear enough.We still disagree on what is or isn't educational. Since youtube doesn't spell it out, I have to make some assumptions.
Going by that argument, showing any king of activity is educational
There is nothing that says educational intent has to override the other rule about not encouraging to break the T&C.
No point arguing over it.
Dave, *someone* else could stream your move.
I personally would prefer a p2p-like-organization for every webservice but especially for a p2p-tube.
Dave, *someone* else could stream your move.
But why do they think it's appropriate to actually punish people, like they are some sort of moral authority
It's important here to make a distinction. Copyright infringement -- using somebody else's copyrighted work to make money -- is one thing. There might be different laws in play here. The act of circumventing copyright protection measures (eg downloading content) is, in itself illegal, thanks to DMCA.
And if that's not the case, then I would ask them what is "illegal" about the depicted activities. Or are they simply trying silly scare tactics.
Youtube have banned Dave for making livestreams, simply because he was demonstrating an alternative to their paid service.
They have also cracked down on anyone making videos promoting/mentioning alternatives to youtube like Twitch.
Upload a video titled "watch my livestream on twitch" and watch it get deleted.
Youtube have lost the plot, and gotten into the murky area of anti competitive behavior and censorship of content for no reason.
This isn't about copyright, it's about Google's money.
So if Dave live streams separate content outside of Youtube whilst banned on youtube from live streaming there and on other platforms, he leaves no announcement on Youtube that he is live streaming elsewhere and youtube finds out, they can shut the channel down.
It just sounds like blackmail to me.
Most of you overreact a little bit, because you feel like using YouTube is like this basic right and a public space.
YouTube is a business and can decide how to do business, under what terms and with whom, for whatever reason they decide.
They can ban you for not liking you, just like a store can throw you out and give you a ban.
I don't think they can do what they want, because they have a monopoly. A shop owner would get in trouble as well, if he e.g. bans all black people from his shop. You are not completely free as a company to do what you want.
ToS is basically house rules. If you come to my house and I ask people never to speak of flat earth, lets say, and you violate that, I throw you out, its my house.
Its perfectly common for businesses to ask you not to advertise another business on their premises.
You have to differentiate a little what your feelings are from what the legal situation is. You feel like anyone "ought" to be able use YouTube and be able to do whatever you feel is "reasonable". But these websites are businesses. And especially with a monopoly you will get some very unfavorable terms.
Dave's criticism is something that makes sense about the type of response and punishment.
I assume taking away streaming is default for the first strike and wasnt like a Dave specific decision, therefore I think the reason they take away streaming is partly just because they felt like they should take away something even for the first strike. And streaming is probably the least used feature of all of them, so they just picked that one.
Giving a strike at all for this is pretty petty. But its automated :|
Giving a strike at all for this is pretty petty. But its automated :|
I would be glad to collaborate with other folks in producing (our own and emphatically non encumbered) content. I would like to see a return to independent non-corporate controlled web communities that were not funded by tracking users or similar.
Its not rocket science, its fairly simple.
Don't know about you, but I'm also disturbed a bit by the fact that YouTube actually feels entitled to punish the account owners by restricting access to features like live streaming... I mean, sure, if someone is infringing their TOS just delete the video and close the account if the infringements continue.
But why do they think it's appropriate to actually punish people, like they are some sort of moral authority
Andy Rubin is the creator Google's Android software. He reportedly received $90 million in severance pay in 2014 after he was accused of sexual misconduct.
Rubin denies the allegations.
"We're walking out in support of those who've been harassed anywhere in the workplace and to ensure perpetrators are not rewarded or protected," said one Google employee.
The 3 strikes = channel deletion is also insane, what power crazed idiot though that was a good idea ?
All it takes is for some crackpot to false flag a few videos and boom.
Well this sucks.
I hope you get this sorted out really fast.
If not, I think there are enough Streaming-Alternatives.
Does anyone know how "the algorithm" works?
I know I saw a video where they were fixing a TV without sound that had the simpsons playing on it for a minute and the video was removed. Amazing that it could do that as the video was highly distorted out of focus and out of frame.
I think there should be some "reputation" based system for channels offering at least a modicum of protection.
Don't know about you, but I'm also disturbed a bit by the fact that YouTube actually feels entitled to punish the account owners by restricting access to features like live streaming... I mean, sure, if someone is infringing their TOS just delete the video and close the account if the infringements continue.
But why do they think it's appropriate to actually punish people, like they are some sort of moral authority while in fact they're just a shitty company that exists only because of content made by someone else?
Hopefully a better alternative will come around in a couple of years or, even better, hosting companies will start offering streaming services at a large scale and affordable prices.
Most of you overreact a little bit, because you feel like using YouTube is like this basic right and a public space.
YouTube is a business and can decide how to do business, under what terms and with whom, for whatever reason they decide.
They can ban you for not liking you, just like a store can throw you out and give you a ban.
Don't know about you, but I'm also disturbed a bit by the fact that YouTube actually feels entitled to punish the account owners by restricting access to features like live streaming... I mean, sure, if someone is infringing their TOS just delete the video and close the account if the infringements continue.
But why do they think it's appropriate to actually punish people, like they are some sort of moral authority while in fact they're just a shitty company that exists only because of content made by someone else?
Hopefully a better alternative will come around in a couple of years or, even better, hosting companies will start offering streaming services at a large scale and affordable prices.Your house, your rules. It's like how Dave gets to decide what to do with people who are a nuisance.
It's only a problem because we all complain about it, but still flock to Youtube regardless.
The 3 strikes = channel deletion is also insane, what power crazed idiot though that was a good idea ?
You can't stream hundreds of videos for tens of thousands of viewers, which is what Dave uses YouTube for.
You can't stream hundreds of videos for tens of thousands of viewers, which is what Dave uses YouTube for.
You can't stream hundreds of videos for tens of thousands of viewers, which is what Dave uses YouTube for.Bittorrent has proven its scalability for well over 17 years.
You can't stream hundreds of videos for tens of thousands of viewers, which is what Dave uses YouTube for.
Why not?
The argument people often make is based on costs which were much higher in the past combined with file sizes that were also much larger. If you have a modern computer it seems that the file size now for many videos is not so super large. So, maybe if you do it that way you cant get the huge volume and you do have to pay somewhat, but I am also speaking more generally about other kinds of content, even static HTML. I find it totally depressing that people dont make their own web pages+ serve them.
But suppose somebody wants to write their own content, whether its a web page or an audio podcast or a "gopher" server, or whatever. Or video, which tends to use up far more bandwidth than the others. Just do it.
Also, lets not kid ourselves here. Dave's content is popular but its taken him a long time to build up his brand. Thats not going to happen to most content providers and lord knows, its a double edged sword for some of the better known online people. I wouldn't want to be them.
Apart from people who are 'trending' and longtime consistent content producers like Dave, right after they upload a new video, I doubt if that many people are downloading most YouTubers content at the same time. Most people are just trying to contribute something to others and share what they know.
So, suppose you put up your own content on your Raspberry Pi or whatever, your pogo plug or your digitally enabled cheese board, via your home net connection.
(People don't need a VPS.) Or get a VPS. Either way its better than having to worry about arbitrary corporate policies.
Suppose you suddenly become popular and then it buffers a little bit. Or even gets a mention on some huge site and gets slashdotted. Ive had something like that happen to sites Ive been involved with. You'll survive.
Most likely scenario, viewers have to pause it until it catches up, who cares?
The important thing is you maintain your independence.
Most likely scenario, viewers have to pause it until it catches up, who cares?
There is a growing global dialogue about algorithmic discrimination.These community strikes seem to me to be a form of that. The corporations whose staff train these bots are unaccountable to anybody.
In some situations, we're losing a lot as a society because of the lack of transparency, so much that one has to ask the question, is this intentional? Most would say it isn't. If so, then we need to fix it, can't society do something to restore a better balance?
I like the Internet as common carrier model a lot more.
It seems that the cable channel that included portions of Banksy's video - Did they somewhere falsely claim they owned copyright of it? Or did it occur by accident?