Live data from Hacker News

Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

jeffgeerling.com

51–60 of 803 posts

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

#51

> 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…

Most people don't even give a fuck. And most of those who do aren't ready to do anything about it. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

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

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 app…

The DMCA is a morally bankrupt law whose only purpose is to engage in economic protectionism. You know it, the media industry knows it, Congress knows it, and so does everyone else. Citing it as an example of why the content is "dangerous" or "harmful" is a very poor argument indeed.

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

#53

I like the way Jeff signed off the article, pointing out that whilst the video has been pulled for (allegedly) promoting copyright infringement, Youtube, via Gemini, is (allegedly) slurping the content of Jeff's videos for the purposes of training their AI models. Seems ironic that their AI models are getting their detection of "Dangerous or Harmful Content" wrong. Maybe they just need to infringe more copyright in o…

> Youtube, via Gemini, is (allegedly) slurping the content of Jeff's videos for the purposes of training their AI models

If by "allegedly" you mean that google admitted it

> Google models may be trained on some YouTube content, but always in accordance with our agreement with YouTube creators (https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/14/google-veo-a-serious-swing...)

Where "agreement" likely means "you accepted some tos 15 years ago so shut up".

> the video has been pulled for (allegedly) promoting copyright infringement

the irony...

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

#54
post #46

There was a recent drama in the drum'n'bass community because someone kept claiming they owned the rights to music that wasn't actually theres, resulting in some classic dnb music from the 90s by Peshay repeatedly being taken down from YouTube. It's utterly ridiculous how trivially bad actors can wreak havoc like this.

The problem is that for some strange reason there is no punishment for malicious/false copyright claims.

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

#56
This title is false and clickbait.

From the article the explaination for what part of the dangerous or harmful content rule being broken is about instructing people how to pirate content.

>Dangerous or Harmful Content >Content that describes how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content, software, subscription services, or games that usually require payment isn't allowed on YouTube.

In the article and video he aludes to dumping DVDs and Blurays.

>I've purchased physical media (CDs, DVDs, and more recently, Blu-Rays)

It is illegal to break the encryption of DVDs and BluRays. Playing copies of DVDs and Blurays via Kodi will always be illegal to do since there is no way to get a unencrypted version. This whole video is about how you can play illegal acquired content, but technically it doesn't tell you how to illegally acquire it.

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

#57
post #42

> 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…

> Is it even possible at this point given that YouTube garners so many eyeballs and is just so easy? The big problem is that someone will download your video and upload it to YouTube if you do not. Often while monetizing it until you stomp on them. The only things that will break YouTube hegemony (spelled that hegemoney originally ... talk about a typo) are either an anti-trust action or a successful copyright infrin…

> The big problem is that someone will download your video and upload it to YouTube if you do not. Often while monetizing it until you stomp on them.

Let's automate the stomping then. If people are bothered by this and it keeps happening, then that should create demand for someone who is able to scour YouTube and sue the appropriate parties/do the appropriate reporting.

At some point, it will become enough of a problem for YouTube that they will change/have to hurt their business model that currently benefits from it.

> The only things that will break YouTube hegemony (spelled that hegemoney originally ... talk about a typo) are either an anti-trust action or a successful copyright infringement lawsuit from someone other than a BigCorp.

Really disappointed in lawyers of this age. I'm a layperson but it looks like they should have been eating out in the age of AI and with all the copyright infringement that goes on (whether you agree with copyright infringement or not). Why are there not 100 suits against these AI companies right now? Probably because it's too expensive and courts are already packed, but why let reality get in the way of a possibly really profitable venture?

I'm certainly not a great proponent of IP/copyright and all the associated moral stances, but IMO the tech is useful without that gray area -- having that stuff get properly legislated is only going to prompt retraining on safe/permissioned content, and maybe that's what SHOULD happen.

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

#58
> The video doesn't promote or highlight any tools used to circumvent copyright, get around paid subscriptions, or reproduce any content illegally

Here's my theory: they aren't concerned with the movies and TV shows shown in the video (which are presumably obtained legally as Jeff mentioned), but rather the brief use of what looks like [plugin.video.youtube] (https://github.com/anxdpanic/plugin.video.youtube) at about 12:10 in the video.

The plugin is an alternate frontend to YouTube, and as such, allows bypassing ads. He never mentions the plugin explicitly in the video, but I'm pretty sure that's what it is; he mentions YouTube and is clearly watching one of his own YT videos in Kodi. Just today, I noticed YouTube getting more aggressive in its anti-ad-blocking measures. They got really strict a year or two ago, backed off a bit, and seem to have ramped up again. My guess is that someone in management needs to show better numbers and is looking for ways to punish anyone even hinting at accessing YouTube without the obligatory dose of advertising.

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

#59
This is the problem I had with all the content removal around Covid. It never ends with that one topic we may not be unhappy to see removed.

From another comment: "Looks like some L-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."

This is exactly what YT did with Covid related content.

Here in the UK, Ofcom held their second day-long livestreamed seminar on their implementation of the Online Safety Act on Wednesday this week. This time it was about keeping children "safe", including with "effective age assurance".

Ofcom refused to give any specific guidance on how platforms should implement the regime they want to see. They said this is on the basis that if they give specific advice, it may restrict their ability to take enforcement action later.

So it's up to the platforms to interpret the extremely complex and vaguely defined requirements and impose a regime which Ofcom will find acceptable. It was clear from the Q&A that some pretty big platforms are really struggling with it.

The inevitable outcome is that platforms will err on the side of caution, bearing in mind the potential penalties.

Many will say, this is good, children should be protected. The second part of that is true. But the way this is being done won't protect children in my opinion. It will result in many more topic areas falling below the censorship threshold.

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

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

> 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. > it's like Pixelfed but more ergonomic for video. This is a huge problem IMO. Just like Mastodon/Bluesky (which seems to be working recently) and all these other things, the tech and experience need to be SUPER easy. I mean as-easy-or-easier than YouTube, etc for…

this isn't to argue! just some clarification because i really don't copyedit/proofread well enough on HN.

> I mean as-easy-or-easier than YouTube, etc for people to switch en masse.

note: i said peertube but i meant youphptube and the fork, avideo: https://www.turnkeylinux.org/avideo

Peertube is this, if you want anonymous viewing of videos. I'm not sure about ease of setting up, i don't remember having any issues, which means i can package it for others, but IIRC turnkey linux has peertube as a container, which means any hosting provider that offers TKL it's essentially 4 clicks to launch a peertube server. Fediverse is a little rougher, but i imagine a content creator would be the one that would self-host (or have their own homeserver, but host it with a hosting provider for $50 a month or whatever), and everyone else can go to https://fediverse.party/ or whatever and find a homeserver. You don't need to run your own to participate. I was careful to suggest that more people should run their own instances, because i worry that the larger instances will get tired of adding 16TB drive sleds every year. I can't imagine what mastodon.social costs to run! this also ties in with your final point; the acquaintance is part of the value4value^ movement, so they may get donations to offset costs, but i think they have a server room on their property with a couple of racks. maybe they have solar and a sweetheart deal with their ISP - i did at one point, so i also had a server shed. still do, but i used to, too.

> Filecoin

oh that technology that made buying a used HDD/SSD risky business for a few years? Now, afaik filecoin didn't serve any useful purpose, it was just another "proof of X" where X was "i'm wasting a ton of storage space for this". ipfs et al are the ones that do distributed storage.

One thing i would add - unless you absolutely need to, and i mean really need to, never upload high-def to these sort of services. Upload your FHD/QHD/8K videos to the large hosts "for backup", mark them as unlisted, and then link to them for people to archive if they wish.

^https://value4value.info/

Post reply on HN