Youtube Community Strike

[timelessbeing]

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.

[thm_w]

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.

Educational in nature would imply to me the video is for some higher eductional purpose, ie a course on video editing and uploading.
If you distill that video down to just one set of instructions, "here is how to violate our guidelines and download a video" then it doesn't really count.

The same applies to nudity, can you have it on youtube if its part of some educational topic and the sole purpose of the video is not to violate the TOS? yes.

Of course there are grey areas, but I think this is hard to argue.


Here is the TOS:

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.

[EEVblog]

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.

Read the T&C
It says you can't download videos and you cannot incite others to break the T&C either.

[timelessbeing]

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.

[pylo]

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.

Going by that argument, showing any king of activity is educational, since it is only teaching stuff.

I guess the problem is, that Dave's channel is primarily is not a channel for other youtubers and vbloggers. Youtube knows that. You cannot expect Youtube (or anybody, for the matter) to easily accept that this information was only meant for video bloggers when they are only maybe 0.001% of all EEVBlog viewers.

[thm_w]

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.
Think about an educational video being something that is appropriate to show in a high-school classroom, as a way of teaching course material.

https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/education/

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.

[EEVblog]

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.

Youtube can interpret the rules any way they like.
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.

[timelessbeing]

Going by that argument, showing any king of activity is educational

No, there needs to be an academic discussion of it. But I don't think educational content necessarily needs to be in a lesson plan format. Just look at all the science learning channels on Youtube.

Then there's the documentary scenario. Which also sort of applies.
For example, I can make a documentary about software piracy and show people downloading software, and talking about it. It's not meant to encourage anybody. It is for analytical purposes.

To be honest, it's been too long since I watched Dave's video in question so I can't remember the "feel" of it. But I do get the impression that Youtube are flexing their power here.

[timelessbeing]

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.

Of course they don't have to do anything. It's their platform and "because we say so" is all they need.
But when did we ever need a point to argue about something. 

I thought we were discussing whether they had legitimate reason for the strike, or if they're just making stuff up, or using a blanket algorithm. Also the claimed "illegal" activity.

Let's look at the T&C...

"You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed ..."

Clearly, as someone pointed out, this is nonsense because your browser needs to download it for you to watch it. It was written by an amateur. So then we're left guessing what they actually mean. You can't store it? Replay it? Well your computer already does that too. Is there a time limit? Or do they mean that you can't use it in another work? Is recording the same thing as downloading?

If I record a 5 minute clip from TV news or what have you, and play it back during a Political Science lecture, do I have to call the station, read their T&C, and ask permission? No. I think a court would say that's a basic given right.

[mrpackethead]

Dave,  *someone* else could stream your move.

[Brumby]

Dave,  *someone* else could stream your move.

I would not suggest trying that on Youtube.  It could easily be claimed as a sock puppet effort ... at which point live stream restrictions will be the least of the problems.

[phunkz]

Don't bet all you money on one horse.

Youtube can and will misuse their abilitys because they can or they will be orderd to. Even if its not the case in this case.

We need at least two if not 4 or 5 nearly equally sized plattforms. I know that changes nothing for know.
Just to think about it.

I personally would prefer a p2p-like-organization for every webservice but especially for a p2p-tube.
Maybe with certificates to indicate self-produced content which that can be distributed without harm to the nodes.
And maybe with some nodes who also act as streaming server for http(s)-clients with their available content.
Or with a browser which supports a protocol for showing p2p-content from different sources and some content browsing capabilities.

Just imho.

PS: same for web searching aka googeling.

[FrankBuss]

I personally would prefer a p2p-like-organization for every webservice but especially for a p2p-tube.

There is already such a service, PeerTube. The Blender foundation moved all their videos to it after Youtube blocked their channel:

https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blender-videos-worldwide/

[timelessbeing]

Good for them. The videos play really smoothly.

[daniel5555]

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.

[timelessbeing]

Dave,  *someone* else could stream your move.

Personally, I do not need to watch somebody move. 

But why do they think it's appropriate to actually punish people, like they are some sort of moral authority

Yeah it's really weird.

[Khaos]

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.

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.

Dont get me wrong, I also feel like its bullshit, but it makes sense from their perspective.
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 :|

[Mr. Scram]

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.

They don't have to use scare tactics, as their word is law as far as content on the platform is concerned.

[cdev]

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.

[cdev]

Well, that certainly makes sense... (not)
maybe their business model is in trouble. the way they seem to act certainly makes me suspect that may be true.

Employees protesting because of lack of needed moral compass.

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.

[FrankBuss]

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.

[Mr. Scram]

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.

They can ban people without shirts, which this is closer to than banning all black people.

[EEVblog]

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.

I'd like to happily point out that the ToS of the EEVblog forum is that you can promote and link to other forums 

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.

The problem is a lot of the older channels feel as though they "built" Youtube into what it is, and they aren't wrong. So it's not unreasonable to expect some form of better treatment. Big channels that are just automatically shut down etc is crazy, it's just a dick punch to all the hard work put in. In essence Youtube doesn't exist without it's content creators, and technically content creators and Youtube are business partners, yet they often treat us as a throw-away commodity.

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 :|

The problem I have is that there is no benefit at all to being a big channel that's been around for a decade, you are treated the same in the T&C as the lowest generic new shit-posting hate channel.
My channel could be shut down entirely within hours by anyone disgruntled enough to false flag videos.
I think there should be some "reputation" based system for channels offering at least a modicum of protection.

I know there are a LOT of big channels (at least 17,000 bigger than mine!), but I don't think it's too much to ask that any big channel (say silver award level) cannot be automatically shut down without someone senior at Youtube looking at the case and pressing the button themselves.

[timelessbeing]

Giving a strike at all for this is pretty petty. But its automated :|

The letter said it was flagged, and then reviewed.

Yeah it a private business, but they do a terrible job explaining their actions. How are you supposed to follow their rules if it's a moving goal post, or secret! The Blender Foundation story is a good example.

A channel like Dave's should get a little more trust from Google. Like they could have given him an opportunity to fix it.

[SparkyFX]

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.

I think it´s a catch-22, as soon as the platform exceeds a certain amount of viewers/readers the costs for servers and access add up and you need a business model that actually works. The word forum comes from the old roman government institution, which was established and protected as such, but don´t ask me what they did with a troll or if they have had anonymity.

First thought for most communities would be to crowd-fund or have member fees, but the dynamics of large groups then can kick in harder. It might (!) divide the community in two classes, leading to two sets of rules for the same problem -> injustice -> protest.

For a general discussion platform which does itself not focus on a certain topic, any action the operator would take could be a reason for users to protest or leave, any troll could try to find an argument to demotivate or incite the community about whatever SJW shit comes to mind - which might mean that sanctions tend to end up a lot more drastic as in this case and does pretty much the opposite of what was intended (i am talking about establishing taboo topics or even words, rashed banning at will, in short: over-moderation, which will even affect or drive away the general user if not explained transparent enough). All others, that do have some focus on a topic, can work around by limiting the platform to on-topic discussions a bit.

Such things can tick you off more than the actual webhosting itself. You could try to delegate such things but you can not buy competent moderation (google learns that the hard way by now). On one hand a moderator should filter out the ugliest stuff one could think about and on the other hand needs to be able to have a philosophy level discussion about a sanction. That does not work concurrently - neither can you really buy both.

In other words: member fees would not only risk the community, but at the same time the income. A not directly community driven income halves either risk.