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.