Youtube Community Strike

[elliottveares]

Can I point out to YouTube who are obviously dumb, that your web browser is temporarily downloading the video when you watch it.

To many ways you can download a video, least not by spoofing the user agent as a iPhone and then you can right click a video and click "Save as" where you can then save directly the .mp4 file! 

[EEVblog]

It can't possibly be illegal or against YouTube guidelines to record/save a video or even less explain how you do it.

It is not illegal, but it i against their T&C

[timelessbeing]

This is silly. They are well alware that they cannot stop people from downloading their content.
I could just use screen capture software. Or even just hold a camera up to the monitor. And I don't need Dave to show me how to do it ... a bogan can figure that out. Would that get a strike too? LOL. I don't need Dave to "encourage" me either. The incentive is already there (fair use, debunking etc.) as Dave already explained.

[Lockon Stratos]

@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  .

[IanMacdonald]

That's nothing. Some time back our entire webhosting was taken down. The chain of events was that a cowboy outfit of some kind had contracted with Google to virus-scan all websites which were hosting Google ads. They had claimed that their scanning software was 100% reliable. (Yeah, suuuure) It found a false detection on one of our pages, and they told Google, who then contacted our hosting company, who took our account down.

The worst of it was, you couldn't talk sense to the people at Google.  They were 'sold on' being told that this scanning service was 100% reliable, and wouldn't listen to an IT guy telling them that NO AV software is ever 100% reliable. At least our hosting company is a bit more clued-up than that, and reinstated us rightaway.

We now use a download-server script that decrypts the files as they are asked for. That way, a spider cannot get at the executables to give a false detection. Has the secondary advantage that if the account were compromised it would be harder to maliciously alter the downloads. Had the inevitable complaints that other sites can't link directly to the files, but it's the lesser of two evils.

Oh, and we ditched Google ads. Wasn't earning us much anyway.

Although, if Dave Jones is a pirate, I guess we need to make him walk the plank. In which case he ends-up in his own locker, I guess. 

[EEVblog]

@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.

[Mr. Scram]

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?

[LapTop006]

@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 guess that's a fairly recent change, a few channels I follow did that until recently (few months?)

[FrankBuss]

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.

This won't work. I'm sure they have a contract clause if one clause is invalid, that this doesn't affect the other clauses.

[drussell]

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.

The most pertinent point is that the world needs a bigger variety of large, viable streaming services.

[FrankBuss]

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.

For normal customers, they can't declare everything in the rules, at least not in Germany. If something is "surprising", it might be not legal. And some rules might be illegal, because of other law, like antitrust, if they have a monopoly. If you are a business, it is more complicated, you are supposed to read the rules, no "surprises" for you, but they can be still against the law. But good luck suing Google for it, you get bankrupt first before you win the case, no matter what.

[MrMobodies]

So if it is not announced on Youtube but on the website that livestreaming is going on elsewhere is that okay?

[Mr. Scram]

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.

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.

[aqarwaen]

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.

[bob225]

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.

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

[drussell]

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 precise definitions 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

[Mr. Scram]

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.

[drussell]

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.

Touché... 

I would still only call one of them "illegal," though...

[station240]

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

My understanding is to get Twitch partnership (ad revenue sharing), you have to agree the content you put on twitch is exclusive.
It's not some huge restriction, and not everyone has to agree to it.

You're not restricted from mentioning that you have a Youtube channel, or putting different content/extracts from livestreams on YT.
If you don't have/want Twitch partnership, you can do whatever you wish.

Youtube on the other hand, put all sorts of restrictions for things you have to "earn first".
Put links in descriptions...
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/eVROjkqHs-8
Put links in annotations/end screens
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6388789
Livestreaming (not enabled by default, allow 24 hours to enable, kiss youtube's butt... um TOS)
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2474026?hl=en

[timelessbeing]

Something scarier comes to mind ...

What if Dave digs up a clip of an old video from his HD, and uses it?  Youtube were extremely vague in the letter (they could have mentioned the exact rules that were being violated). But "illegal activities" sounds like it refers to circumventing DMCA, which implies that Dave's content is copyrighted (owned) ... by Youtube. If I write a script and sell it to a Hollywood producer, it becomes theirs, and I can no longer use it, right?

Dave you are appealing the decision right? Have you heard back?

[helius]

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.

[FrankBuss]

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.

But at least in Germany there is a difference if you sign it as a business or as a private person. The law expects that a business reads and understands all the surprises. So is EEVblog a business for Youtube? But I guess multinational law gets really complicated.

Interesting article about suing Google: https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-sue-Google At the end of the first answer:

...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.

This is what I expected. I'm sure it is the same for other big companies with a lot of lobbying, like Microsoft or Apple.

[Lockon Stratos]

@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.

Then have David2 make a account on twitch, put the link on the site. Then when the time comes only announce when you starting to move on youtube.... They can put their T&C into their sitting furniture's hole if its on your site and do not mention the stream in the vid .

[johnlsenchak]

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   

[EEVblog]

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   

I think that you should get something for earning the position of being a big Youtuber (e.g. 100k silver award etc).
You hear it all the time about big channels being shut down automatically due to community strikes, that shouldn't happen.