- cross-posted to:
- selfhost@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- selfhost@lemmy.ml
- technology@lemmy.ml
YouTube pulled a popular tutorial video from tech creator Jeff Geerling this week, claiming his guide to installing LibreELEC on a Raspberry Pi 5 violated policies against “harmful content.” The video, which showed viewers how to set up their own home media servers, had been live for over a year and racked up more than 500,000 views. YouTube’s automated systems flagged the content for allegedly teaching people “how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content.”
Geerling says his tutorial covered only legal self-hosting of media people already own – no piracy tools or copyright workarounds. He said he goes out of his way to avoid mentioning popular piracy software in his videos. It’s the second time YouTube has pulled a self-hosting content video from Geerling. Last October, YouTube removed his Jellyfin tutorial, though that decision was quickly reversed after appeal. This time, his appeal was denied.
You must log in or register to comment.
Notably, Youtube does not consider exploiting children for profit harmful.
JG can also be found on Floatplane.
Maybe stop relying on fucking youtube?
The video is up again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hFas54xFtg
But at some point, he shows he’s moving some files to LibreELEC, and he has a folder called “Chernobyl” - how can that possibly be legal, if the folder actually contains files with the HBO show of the same name? Just asking because I’m curious 😊
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)
It was released on DVD and Blu-ray, if he purchased the disc and ripped it to his media, and hasn’t shared those files with anyone, then it is legal, as an exception to copyright in the US, where Jeff and Google are both based.
Jeff has stated on multiple occasions that he purchases and rips his media, and does not use piracy.
Also like… you can legally just name your file wtf ever you want, I can make a folder full of pics of my dogs and name it “Chernobyl” it’s not illegal to use a word to name a file
You don’t know the exact content of the files. He did not show those vidoeclips. I dont know if you can buy that or not. Sure it can be indication but in general you dont know as it varies between video to video if it is possible to buy.
you say in the video that you use this setup to watch YouTube. I love watching YouTube with Kodi as it shows no ads. I guess they don’t love that.
I’m not saying that justifies the strike, but it might be connected
People are quick to burn Youtube here when its clearly the american copyright reach that causes this.
YouTube took down the video because of its own policies, not because of copyright law. So we should be blaming YouTube.
I think it’s easy to see exactly why if you consider how YouTube treats small content creators. If I post a video and companies claim copyright on it, the video gets demonetized and I might lose my account. I can respond and contest the claim and maybe I can win but I still lost money in the meantime, and perhaps more significantly, the companies that made their copyright claims will never face a consequence for attempting to burn my channel. In other words, if I get things wrong a few times I’ll lose my channel and my income source, but if they get things wrong a million times, they face zero consequence.
And you might be inclined to blame the media companies. But again, this is YouTube doing what YouTube wants to do of its own volition, and not something that’s required by law. If YouTube valued small-scale content creators and end users, it would create different policies.
I think it’s both, a dumb system enforced in a somehow dumber way
Because self hosting is getting cheaper and easier while average internet upload speeds are crazy high for the home user. Of course Google is scared.
Cries in single digit upload speeds
Just use another unit. It’s an easy fix.
Google should have been broken up years ago.
They are so pissed that we dare own anything. Fuck corpos.
“how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content.”
In the future, public domain media will be banned for harming corporate profits.
Yeah, people who thought Google wasn’t openly strangling the free (as in libre) stuff because they weren’t that evil - these people just have bad memory. In year 2012 it clearly felt that corps, Google and Facebook and MS and Apple and everyone, are on the move to capture it all without a way out. They kinda made the illusion of being softer later.
So the question is - how do we even advertise legal but unpleasant for them things, avoiding their censorship.
The devices are sold together with the operating system (often unchangeable) and packaged applications and means of installing software, right from the markets.
I mean, I have a solution. It’s counterintuitive and seems unconnected, and too direct, but I guarantee you it’ll work.
Forbidding companies to do moderation or refuse to accept content without technical problems, or banned content (CP and such), and similar good justifications. As in - if your service is up, and there’s user content served from it, it shouldn’t be removed without legal substantiation. It doesn’t matter it’s free, that doesn’t mean you can do all you like. You are not a media outlet, you are a platform for many media, that’s how you work in fact, so yes, your actions do constitute censorship if you do moderation. If you can’t afford to keep it free with such rules, then start charging money for hosting, as it normally should have been.
And, of course, this should include public offering status, the prices should be the same for all users.
I mean, if we had this from the beginning, we’d probably still have the Web like in year 2003.
The use of “self-hosting” is a little confusing here. To be clear, he wasn’t self-hosting the video. It was on YouTubek, and the guidelines and procedures in question are Google’s.
You’re being downvoted for being factually wrong about the title. It’s not targeted negativity.
To add on, the video is about self hosting, it was not self hosted itself.
Its just confusing to you.
The use of “self-hosting” is a little confusing here.
Not really, no. The video topic was about self-hosting your own media server, so the title is perfectly clear
This kind of crap is driving popular creators, like Geerling, to move to other places. YT / Alphabet has lost the plot.
Yep. Most of my favorite creators are on Nebula now.
The ones that aren’t get watched on SmartTube or in Brave Browser.
Hypocritical Lemmy… Preaching (F) OSS and then using Brave… LoL!
Brave is open source and using MPL license which is the same license Firefox is using. I am not using or recommending Brave to anyone.
I will flat out shut down any Brave user simply because it tried to push crypto.
No thanks :)No one is forcing brave on you lol
Not just crypto, they were diverting ad revenue from websites to themselves, collecting unsolicited donations for content creators without their consent, suggesting affiliate links in the address bar and installing a paid VPN service without the user’s consent. Don’t forget they had a “bug” in Tor which sent all DNS queries to your ISP instead of routing it through tor and also weak fingerprint protection. Not to mention the political affiliation of the CEO. But it IS open source.
Srill fuck them (openly). From the source of my heart :)
I love Nebula. I go there to watch Nebula Exclusives but it’s not great for browsing or discovering new channels…I found everyone I subscribe to on YouTube first
I managed to find Extra History via Nebula, and it’s one of my new favorite channels…but I’ve found a lot more favorites from YouTube, definitely.
One thing I do love is finding a new channel I like that has years of backlog.
Was it YouTube or someone else that reported him? I think YouTube is fully automated so it blocked him and is ignoring appeal because of the previous complaint.
Perhaps this can a driver of sorts for Peertube.
It’s a good thing that I can’t stand video tutorials or reviews (with the exception of video games).
I think so. A relatively small subset of the video upload firehose at YouTube who produce rewatchable content is going to require a lot less resources to provide than doing a free-for-all upload-anything video. This might actually be feasible.
I think ripping DVDs is still technically illegal, even though CSS has long since been broken. It is still illegal to circumvent encryption in a copy protection scheme, even if it’s for your own personal use and the encryption scheme has been pwned.
I bet if he didn’t mention that his videos were ripped from DVD, they might have left it up.
And beyond the law it depends also on enforcement
The US doesn’t give a right to break Bluray copy protection and make a personal backup or access it on a device that otherwise couldn’t play it. But the only enforcement is on people sharing copies, no one is prosecuted for format shifting their collection to play over their LAN
Iirc, you are entitled to have/create a backup of your physical media, as long as it is for your personal use.
But if I remember from back in the day, the DMCA doesn’t have any exception for that. This is why CD ripping was legal, while DVD ripping was not. It had nothing to do with fair use or backups, but rather that DVDs have encryption, and CDs do not. Circumventing that encryption for any reason was illegal.
I don’t think it has changed, but it’s been a hot minute since the Cypherpunks all wore DeCSS T-Shirts…
I believe you’re (if you’re American) now allowed to rip DVD but not anything newer. DMCA protection was removed from CSS
