Live data from Hacker News

Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

jeffgeerling.com

31–40 of 803 posts

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#31

The video they made does not encourage piracy, but even if it did it seems bizarre to flag that as "Dangerous or Harmful Content."

[flagged]

Every piece of content in my media library was paid for/legally acquired.

I go through some stupid lengths (probably a few thousand hours of my life by now, from buying media from eBay, old library collections, closed movie stores, then ripping everything) to make it so.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#33

> In that case, I was happy to see my appeal granted within an hour of the strike being placed on the channel. (Nevermind the fact the video had been live for over two years at that point, with nary a problem!) Looks like some L-(5|6|whateverthefuck) just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software. Quick appeal grant…

Based on my observations over the past decade of similar stories on HN, nothing will change, the squeeze will simply continue.

It's because we only hear of incidents in isolation from each other when the giants that abuse their platforms - most often the stories are from apple, google, amazon - take something down that didn't suit their revenue streams even if it's by vague interpretations AND someone with enough of a social presence has their incident heard.

The rest of us, the unwashed users of the platform, do not hear about it or act upon it en masse. We'll occasionally see a post like this on HN or Reddit, shake our heads and call it a shame, there need to be alternatives and so on, then go right back into those platforms and forget that something happened but a few months later

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#34

The video they made does not encourage piracy, but even if it did it seems bizarre to flag that as "Dangerous or Harmful Content."

[flagged]

Assuming good faith on Jeff's part:

  In fact, in my own house, for multiple decades, I've purchased physical media (CDs, DVDs, and more recently, Blu-Rays), and only have legally-acquired content on my NAS. 
is contrary to your bold assertion:

> there are so many screenshots that indicate he is indulging in his own piracy activities.

It's unclear to me how to differentiate twixt pirated movies and movies ripped from legally purchased BluRays and DVDs .. on the basis of a Kodi screenshot with folder art sourced from theTVDB, IMDB, and theMovieDB (also fanart, etc sites).

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#35
post #12
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good chance to suggest viable alternatives? TIA.

Don't watch youtube? Want educational content? Read a book or a technical blog post or documentation. Want entertainment? Read a book or watch a movie or TV show. I've never found anything that great about YouTube.

I want edutainment. Nowhere has anywhere close to the level of content as YouTube when it comes to that.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Every piece of content in my media library was paid for/legally acquired. I go through some stupid lengths (probably a few thousand hours of my life by now, from buying media from eBay, old library collections, closed movie stores, then ripping everything) to make it so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping#Circumvention_of_DVD_c...

Software tagged as "no longer available" is due to New York federal court by AACS group legal action in later March, 2014.[12] Remaining existing US software have disabled the decrypt / unencrypted / de-lock feature that allows bypass the Blu-ray disc protections. As from October, 2014 ... able to decrypt Blu-ray disc protection as being are freeware applications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_ripper#Disabling_DRM

You can pretend to ignore the DMCA if you want, but I cannot believe that all of your DVDs and Blu-rays were unencrypted and unencumbered by any DRM before your ripping software used leaked/cracked keys to decrypt them and reassemble them without it.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Every piece of content in my media library was paid for/legally acquired. I go through some stupid lengths (probably a few thousand hours of my life by now, from buying media from eBay, old library collections, closed movie stores, then ripping everything) to make it so.

Respect.

I have a music library that I also like to keep 'clean', but it really is a lot of work over and above the, uhhh, alternatives. As such, it's quite the small library, but I look at it as concentrated quality.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#38

> In that case, I was happy to see my appeal granted within an hour of the strike being placed on the channel. (Nevermind the fact the video had been live for over two years at that point, with nary a problem!) Looks like some L-(5|6|whateverthefuck) just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software. Quick appeal grant…

There's peertube and Pixelfed and someone was working on an activitypub version of Instagram, but really it's like Pixelfed but more ergonomic for video.

So the next stage, ideally, would be everyone kinda sharing hosting responsibilities, and if you like a creator, you just follow them. This has the benefit of possibly caching/mirroring all the videos, too. My Fediverse server was chewing through disk, one of the reasons I shut it down - but I was following 1400 news and journalist accounts, plus my ~100 or so gang of idiots. I was nearing 1TB on disk after about 16 months on my essentially single user instance.

I exported my follows and moved to an acquaintance's server and imported, the owner doesn't even blink. Who knows what they've got going for storage.

Anyhow if you don't need to follow 1500 people, this becomes tractable. If it gets popular, someone will post how to cron the multimedia stuff to compress it as it ages, moving it to cold storage, whatever.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#40

> In that case, I was happy to see my appeal granted within an hour of the strike being placed on the channel. (Nevermind the fact the video had been live for over two years at that point, with nary a problem!) Looks like some L-(5|6|whateverthefuck) just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software. Quick appeal grant…

Isn't the competitor TikTok?

Yes, sometimes -- I think TikTok's content/goals are a bit different than YouTube.

TikTok is a direct competitor to YouTube Shorts, but not YouTube as a whole -- YouTube also competes with Netflix and surprisingly paid course sites (did you know YouTube has courses?)

I don't think it's as easy as thinking TikTok will unseat YouTube. Also, I personally think TikTok's... approach is a bit hard to sustain. Just like Facebook's approach of initially showing you a feed of friends activities, but morphed into something else over time (some of that is not FB's fault, humans have certain behaviors that can be toxic all on their own).

Post reply on HN