However, if you read the comments here, they paint a sinister portrait of YouTube that has nothing to do with Blender's issue. Some examples:
- ads are required for big channels (false)
- demonetization of content creators (unrelated)
- anti-trust based on search or social networking (unrelated)
- SketchUp is blocking YouTube videos (false)
We might as well change Hacker News from an article based format to a topic based format if everyone is just going to bring in their unrelated and false pet peeves to every discussion.
I have myself found it pretty hard to publish videos without ads on YouTube, even though I have a minuscule channel.
Their Content ID system is triggered for almost any background music I throw at it, including Royalty Free or CC-BY music. The insidious part is that the videos are not taken down, they just put ads on top of it while you try to refute the claim, even if you tick the "I do not want ads to appear" box. The problem in this instance is anyone can upload a piece of audio and claim copyright on it, and video are then automatically flagged.
There is an interesting support thread about paid-for, Royalty-free classical music, that shows how outrageous the system is: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/iMlPy...
ads are required for big channels (false) [...] everyone
is just going to bring in their unrelated and false pet
peeves to every discussion.
I’ve received an update from our experts stating that you
need to enable ads for your video. Once you enable, your
video will be available in the USA.
I feel your claim that this is a pet peeve that has nothing to do with Blender's issue is unfair.
Are you looking at a different article to me?
You still seem to be wrong. Or am I missing something else?
This is a more true statement: "ads are required for big channels. We've unfortunately trained our support staff to lie to blender - where we supposedly have an exemption. But you don't qualify, so ads are required for your channel, if big enough."
Whether you want to call that an iron-clad rule or not, the face-value version of the article, and the general gist of the reactions from the comment section seem to be much closer to the truth than your portrayal of it as an "unrelated and false pet peeve."
Those seem to be the Blender team's words, not YouTube's.
This is an actual quotation from Youtube support, unless you're suggesting that the Blender Foundation is lying. If what an employee of Youtube says about Youtube while representing Youtube can't be taken as evidence of Youtube policy, what can?
The cases which may not apply here, like requiring ads, are real issues that don't get the visibility that the victims deserve. So when a high visibility incident like this happens, people highlight the plight of those past (and current) victims even if not wholly applicable to this case.
Maybe you're right that using this platform to highlight the host of well-documented problems with the platform is "off-topic", but it's understandable and logical when you understand the bigger picture and community here.
That and the number of coincidental "mistakes" in this story requires serious suspension of disbelief. One wonders whether any of those mistakes would have been caught had the channel been lower profile.
> People might be upset because it's emotionally painful to watch a property that was once a middle finger to "the man" become wholly co-opted.
Of course this is just more of the same. Calling YouTube -- a service that spends tens of millions of dollars a year spreading information, entertainment, and news around the world for free -- "co-opted" is beyond stupid. But it's just this sort of black-and-white, "good vs evil" thinking which rules.
> That and the number of coincidental "mistakes" in this story requires serious suspension of disbelief. One wonders whether any of those mistakes would have been caught had the channel been lower profile.
And there's the conspiracy. Baseless speculation without evidence, scare quotes, and a total failure to admit error when proven wrong.
I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done. There's a certain logic at work here that poisons thread after thread. I say logic and not ideology because it's really a style of thinking. It's a kind of general extremism-cum-conspiracy that has been well and truly normalized. The people that will rush in to rage about the latest news from Tesla or Google don't even understand how insane they sound.
YouTube can change the rules whenever they want. If you don't like how they change it, support a different service instead. Continuing to patronize it as they implement changes you disagree with, and then kvetching online won't help.
GP's point that discussions frequently get derailed is spot on. Why even read the comments if you're just going to get a bunch of unrelated opinions on the topic.
I don't know, maybe because it leads to destruction of valuable content, regardless of whether it is legally ok.
The notion that just because something is legal, it can't be upsetting is absurd. What about if the government decided to use eminent domain to acquire your land? It would be legal, but probably still upsetting.
Your choice is to try to avoid having anything that will get in their way or set up your life to not rely on their services.
Recently Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and others are showing the dangers of for-profit data monopolies and are pushing many people to open federated alternatives like PeerTube, Mastodon, Riot.im etc. This is a much healthier and censorship resistant direction for the internet to take, IMO.
Keep right on being negligent and profit-seeking YouTube. The internet will be better off in the long term.
I'm not sure Anabaptism is really as clean a solution as you propose.
There are many things in life which are "inevitable", as you say, like war, death, you/friend of yours getting fired, but some of these things will probably make you upset nonetheless.
Some of us may not appreciate this "expectation" of absolute topicality; comments are supposed to be a free-for-all. That's why we call them comments.
"Update 2: Blender’s Ton Roosendaal notes that YouTube wants the organization to sign a monetization agreement."
"Last night the Youtube Support team contacted Francesco Siddi by phone. As we understand it now it’s a mix of coincidences, bad UIs, wrong error messages, ignorant support desk staff and our non-standard decision to not monetize a popular Youtube channel."
To your original comment, Yes, in this case it was a "UX snafu". In the future, how many of those will actually be fixed? Will YouTube look at other instances for smaller ones where there won't be a social media backlash? Or will it be business as usual until YouTube gets enough bas PR again to manually fix it again and still nothing gets fixed?
The reason that the comments in Hacker News are what they are is because of much deeper issues between YouTube and content creators. YouTube and Google have had many customer support issues in the past, it seems that YouTube has burned a lot of good will with a lot of content creators, and the only way to truly get to them is via "social media shaming".
I do wish people thought a bit more criticaly. Removing the ability to host videos ad free would be a gigantic change for YouTube, so people should be more skeptical.
but again i get it, you got some stock and you gotta protect that bottom line.
"We might as well change Hacker News from an article based format to a [corporate sponsor] based format if everyone is just going to . . . [support their company in] every discussion."
The post is about an YouTube UX issue that caused Blender to choose another video platform, that YT didn't disallow the content as some people believe.
Wouldn't it help if Discussion boards had a logician magician who moderates posts? Someone who's sole purpose is to point out logical fallacies- like whether a post adds value to the conversation. Is it objective or opinionated? Is the post related to the discussion? If not, does the post expand upon the discussion in a way that's relevant or did the writer lack critical thinking? How?
My post is slightly off-topic considering the original, however, I'm relating to user @ariwilson about this discussion's lack of critical thinking and deductive reasoning, which is related.
I'm adding to the discussion similar to ariwilson but not adding new examples since ariwilson covered that. I'm not just complaining that people are "Stoopid and shouldn't be allowed to post of they're not helping everyone so we should ban them"! hehe- because that would be my ignorant opinion based on personal belief void of fact checking or research. Plus, banning people, places or things is never a good idea! Banning speech and freedom of thought are definitely terrible ideas! ;)
It's late a here and I'm rambling, sorry. But, you get the idea...a mod mage with a symbol map depicting the fallacys within each post in an easy-to-understand way. Wouldn't it be nice?
I'm not clear if they want that because of bogus copyright claims, EU legislation etc, or just because they favour making money over not making money?
Edit: Either way looking for alternatives seems like a good idea.
I am pretty dismayed to be this right. I didn't think YT would be nearly this aggressive in service of the ideas I outlined.
Basically, they take a cut off that activity. In some cases they could take most of or all the money, which is a clear win for them, but even when they pay out they're earning revenue on the transaction. It's been their core business model, so the problems with advocating an adfree behavior become obvious.
I would add that this becomes more urgent if they're in crisis. Makes me wish I could get the master copies I'd uploaded back, but there's no chance of that.
Bottom line: shots fired. You must work with YouTube the way they want you to work with YouTube, or you'll get punished.
> "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses.
It's pretty clear that Google used their dominant position(s) in web search and web advertising to then dominate the user-generated video space. And now they're engaging in the type of abuse of customers that the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to mitigate.
That's not particularly clear to me. YouTube was already pretty huge when Google bought them in 2006: according to Wikipedia, the fifth most popular website, albeit of a far smaller Web. Google, meanwhile, had their own video-uploading service, Google Video, which launched three months before YouTube but was not nearly as successful. Sure, there's no doubt that YouTube has benefitted massively from Google's resources in the decade since, including their willingness to let it run without a profit. But based on that history, it seems far from inevitable that Google would be the one to dominate video.
It also doesn't seem like YouTube's growth is all that directly linked to Google Search's monopoly status, other than in that the latter powered Google's profits (but there are plenty of sources of money in the world). Google Search's video results have always shown videos from all websites rather than being YouTube-specific; who knows what they might have done if there had been more serious competition, but there wasn't, so they don't have that particular blood on their hands. You could argue that Google used its Search leverage to promote Web videos in general, as opposed to some other form of media, but I don't know what other form would be or why it would be preferable to video. (Perhaps live video? There might be another universe in which justin.tv was successful early on, rather than waiting most of a decade for the unexpected explosion of Twitch. But I think that given the state of Internet connections at the time, it made more sense for YouTube to happen first.)
Companies who have to survive in a competitive marketplace don't typically go around driving away customers en masse. This is like something from 1990's Microsoft.
And yes, companies who have to survive in a competitive marketplace drive away non-paying customers all the time. Because they're not paying, and so the slight chance of turning them into paying customers, or benefiting existing paying customers, is worth the loss.
> a person of a specified kind with whom one has to deal
 Youtube has 3 kinds of customers (or users, if you wish): publishers, viewers and advertisers. It makes sense to separate them like that, but not based on a "pays/ does not pay" criterion. If PewDiePie is a customer, then most definitely Blender Foundation is a customer too.
Anyone having a YT channel will tell that ‘suggested video’ is a dominant traffic source so it’s not an edge case.
In sum, YT was already making money thanks to Blender videos.
Do you believe the US DOJ or more powerful states would go after Alphabet/google? That's the ones that count. I just can't see our current administration going that avenue.
Are (American) liberals automatically progressive even if they collude to lower salaries, pay less taxes, and contribute to housing bubbles? Not to mention selling to the DoD and ICE.
Alphabet/Google/Youtube will just pay the fine, as a cost of doing business.
YouTube preventing Linus Tech Tips from advertising their non-YouTube videos/streams.
In other words, like you said:
> Bottom line: shots fired. You must work with YouTube the way they want you to work with YouTube, or you'll get punished.
For some reason, people are still hanging onto a belief that Google cares about its users in ways other than to profit from them.
Of course, it could well be that people aren't surprised and are just highlighting the Google's behaviour towards certain channels.
Kind of like sometimes a president's behaviour isn't surprising, but still deserves to be highlighted and nobody should accept it.
As an aside, I have to wonder if you've thought through your desire to serve your website over HTTP instead of over HTTPS.
You noted that you use ad blocking software because ad networks are a common route by which malware propagates. HTTP websites comprise another salient target for malware. If I am at a coffee shop with a compromised wifi router and I load your HTTP website, that compromised router can inject malware into your page and my browser will run it, just like it would have run malware served by an ad server. If your website were served over HTTPS, the router wouldn't have been able to do that.
I imagine you knew all of that, and you're right that HTTPS does have some problems, but trying to avoid those problems by opting for HTTP is exchanging those problems for (imho) much bigger problems.
I could well be wrong. I'm hoping for the reasons you mention that some benevolent hacker people work out how to bring this to people for free and make it simple to do.
Discovery and subscriptions will need to be solved, but that’s not insurmountable (ie RSS). CDNs can be plug and play in front of nginx (if P2P torrent isn't your cup of tea), backend storage can be whatever is cheapest.
It's one thing make a service for few 100 users, it's a different beast to serve millions of users. In case of Online Videos, it is not only extremely difficult, it still remains very expensive. There is literally a handful of companies who can financially and technically pull it off at youtube-scale. After more than 10 years, youtube either makes very little profit or still not profitable.
The more popular the content, the cheaper per unit it'll be to serve (based on bandwidth/transit costs and how they scale, and that you most likely can serve it out of RAM with Varnish, a very inexpensive CDN, or peer to peer), but there will still be a cost, and either the producer or the consumers of that content will need to pay for it.
Only a few companies that can do it centrally. Peer to Peer technology was doing it before youtube existed.
I don't understand why you are mentioning peer to peer technology? What does that have to do with anything? Youtube is not a cute side project where your viewing experience depending on how many peers your video has. Peertube depends on webtorrent, you literally have to host and seed every single video on your platform and duplicate it multiple times by others. Good luck doing it over petabyte scale. Google does something similar, but popular videos are hosted at users-end point on GGC nodes, distributed over 10,000s of servers all over the world.
The super-seeding / swarming approach developed for the BitTorrent protocol is quite interesting. One original seeder just needs to upload to a few leechers. Then this leechers become seeders themselfs and start to upload to a next layer of leechers and so on. This approach scales exponentially meaning you can cover the whole internet in just a few steps. Further more you can start uploading yourself even before you have completed receiving the file.
E.g. if every node just has 10 uploading connections then you just need 8 steps to cover 100 million = 10^8 peers. Remember the traffic on the original seeder (and every other node) is just 10 uploading connections.
I can give you a list of torrents that are dead and never coming back. Other than takedowns, there's some very old YouTube videos still around.
1. YouTube Red so I don't have to see ads
2. Queuing and casting from my phone to my TV.
3. Fast loading and buffer-free streaming (as long as your bandwidth is good enough). Note I'm in Australia - Mixer and Twitch often aren't smooth for me even though I'm on 100 megabit fibre. Sydney or Melbourne PoPs will beat Hong Kong and Singapore every time.
I watch Pycon and LCA videos on YouTube because it's easier than going anywhere else.
This is unlike other content creators, who migh not have the technical skills to try a new platform, or might rely on youtube to get views.
It's all meant to be Logan and Jake Paul and PewDiePie and whatever will drive low-quality mass views so long as the viewer quality isn't so low that they're losing advertisers. At a scale like this, it's just pure statistics.
This is not damage. This is benefit, in terms of getting other content creators in line. The message is clear.
Perhaps more importantly, the FOSS and tech communities are not a vacuum. Google and YouTube in particular have been getting increasing amounts of negative press recently, and this strongarming of Blender further drives home how far they have gone from the era of "Don't be evil." Additionally, the precedent of changing platforms rather than giving in to Google's pressure has now been set; While there will be no mass exodus, it is easier for entities to follow in Blender's footsteps than it would have been to set the lead, and we may hope that this move turns out well in order to further encourage others with similar inclinations.
From YouTube's point of view, that's bad, so they need a replacement. It's quantity of views they need, they don't actually have a stake in the success of any one creator.
I remember the headlines, but had to go to wikipedia to see why they abandoned ship.
I doubt most of them care. Even if some engineers care, I really doubt that the product team does in a circumstance like this.
I think a lot of employees are just not taking a step back to look at the sum of the parts they are helping to build, or maybe they have optimism/trust in their leaders to not fuck everyone over, and others might just draw their line further down the sand (e.g. no Pentagon contracts).
I imagine a brave few are also working to change it for the better from within. I'd definitely choose to work at Apple instead though, Google seems fundamentally creepy these days.
Here's an idea: if you want to drive home the point that you don't do it for the ad money, and if you want to force yourself not to depend on that money, you could give it all to FOSS foundations.
You could publish your YouTube check every month, as small as it may be, on your blog or website, alongside an equivalent donation to, say, the FSF, Mozilla, Wikimedia, Archive.org, Blender, EFF, or whatever foundation you like.
If you publicize it on YouTube and here, you may even start a movement of sorts.
But that doesn't seem to make sense. There are lots of popular channels that don't have advertising and Blender's videos are popular but not that popular.
Their blogpost about it is here: https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...
I haven't looked at the contract they posted, but they seem to have the same interpretation as you. Maybe it's just an updated contract that includes new rules if you monetize?
(that aside, the communication chain from google posted there is just atrocious. I wouldn't sign a 6 page contract based on those robo-emails either)
It makes sense if it's staged rollout. I'm assuming all unmonetized good actors (ie not stealing other people's content) will see this ultimatum eventually.
> Google sent a contract to Blender Foundation in which we have to accept monetizing our Youtube channel content.
and link to contract:
The contract looks like a regular monetization contract, so the cause-effect relationship between blocking and monetization is not made clear.
Why would Google single out Blender for this? Unless they had copyright concerns and needed to revshare with copyright holders, or they want to go "freemium" and make all high-view/quality videos monetized.
Get your act together, Google. This is just stupid.
Seems there are some changes going on.
"Don't be evil."
It's crazy and really sad how YouTube bloomed into this awesome, independent alternative to all the crap coming out of hollywood and cable TV, but now they've decided to kneecap the independents, promote the shit out of establishment stuff, and push actual, real-live cable really hard.
It feels like a hostile takeover.
I think if all you were concerned about is advertisers, you'd just let them pick that as a criteria: "Would you like to advertise on channels flagged by our system as potentially offensive?"
Some would, some wouldn't. Problem solved, you don't piss off creators, you make more money.
(Maybe the counter-argument to that is advertisers wouldn't want to appear on any YouTube channel because some other YouTube channel had offensive content, as though all of YouTube were a tainted brand, but that is frankly laughable.)
It's fine if new videos get flagged, you can reupload them, but youtube bots flag old videos and there is no notification whatsoever. Even their own "Video manager board" not showing them as demonitised, because they still get money from youtube red and considered as claimed, you have to enter "edit video" to see the notification. You just have to manually search them... And for gaming channels with 1-2k videos it's a pain.
Not to mention part of the problem was YouTube not enforcing their content guidelines to begin with. Hate speech has always been against their content guidelines, they just never actually enforced it.
They already do this. People need to stop being angry at things they know nothing about.
I've been waiting patiently hoping it comes back, but at this point I feel like I'm going to have to use archive.org or download directly from them.
I was slowly warming up to the idea of paying for Red for commercial-less music and maybe checking out some other paid content, but this has been a bucket of cold water on that notion.
You can not stream videos from the website though as streaming links are from youtube.
20 000 € goal: PeerTube v1, clean and simple
With your help, we can get PeerTube to its first stable release, its v1, planned for October, 2018. You will finance the development of:
○ Interface localization, to support multiple languages;
○ Video subtitles, to facilitate video accessibility for diverse audiences;
○ RSS feeds, to follow instances, users and channels through RSS protocol;
○ Video import from URL (YouTube, Vimeo, Dailymotion, etc.) or torrent file;
○ Improved and advanced search feature;
○ Software stability (bug fixes) and scalability.
There are important features we dream of including into the v1. We hope you will contribute so far as to helping us finance:
○ Video redundancy (to share bandwidth between instances or as fallback if the original instance is down)
○ Subscriptions to users & channels throughout the federation (for users to subscribe to whatever they want regardless of their instance federation settings)
PeerTube isn't a quick and easy fix to data-centralization through video platforms. It's an alternative that will grow and emancipate internet users on the long run. At this point, your contributions will help us:
○ Finance the development of a webapp that will be available on Android and iOS app stores;
○ Contribute to the ActivityPub community. ActivityPub is the groundbreaking federation protocol that runs PeerTube's federation and also Mastodon's (a federated Twitter alternative);
○ Secure PeerTube's lead developer employment after the V1 release (oct. 2018);
○ Pave the road to V2, where our priority will be a plugin system to facilitate the development of personnalized features and displays.
I know ISPs have a bad rep in the states but where I live in europe we still trust some of our ISPs. So I'd like to see a world where ISPs offer mastodon and peertube instances to off load privately hosted instances.
I'd be more likely to trust someone I'm already paying monthly for internet access to keep my social media data safe, than a "free" service.
So I think whoever provides these services (Identity, email, Fediverse node) should be independent from the ISP, and allow you to use your own domain so that you can change provider one day
Micro blogging is something society can easily take over from big corporations because it's basically like e-mail, but even more optimized compared to those old days.
But video uploading and streaming is where bandwidth becomes a major factor, and bandwidth=money.
- Decentralised. Anyone can run their own instance, but instances are federated so everyone on any instance can see your toots (Mastodon's tweets). So if you're paranoid about privacy or hate Nazi bootboys, you can run your own instance with complete control.
- A nice progression of feeds from only people you follow; to all toots of your instance; to toots from all instances.
- Polite discourse, at least on the mastodon.social instance which I belong to. Different instances have different rules, so maybe there is one for Nazi bootboys.
- Open, so if you don't like the interface, you can make your own. The stock web interface is fine for me.
- No ads!
- Trump isn't on it.
If you enjoyed Twitter more in the past when real people tweeted about real things, Mastodon is definitely worth checking out.
Unfortu steely I think there's no way around that at this point, as I suspect any growth curve that actually allows a group to keep a culture will never be growing fast enough for the vastajoriry of people to put up with for long enough for it to grow sizable enough. :/
Everything is polite at first, until it gets big. This has been true of all social media platforms in history.
They recently demonetized all of the Salad Fingers videos, causing David Firth to remove all those videos from YouTube and only allowing them to Patreon subscribers via Vimeo.
I hope this pushes towards more independent, distributed toob sites. YouTube is simply too big a monolith.
In fact there are individual channel feeds (https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=<>) and this is a wrapper around that. That's great!
I currently receive email notifications for subscriptions, but I've noticed I don't always get emails for all the uploads of some of those channels. A direct RSS feed should solve that problem too.
The blog post mentions 1M views .
At €1 per TB , and assuming a video of 100Mb which are roughly 1GB, you end up with 1000TB a €1000.
Even if Google just pays a fraction like $0.1 per TB, they still have to earn $100 somewhere else to break even.
1. The bad press generated is easily worth more than $100.
2. Youtube exercises the option recommend other videos. Blender gave them 1M opportunities to attract attention to other videos that are monetized.
3. Blender's videos were probably much larger than 100MB. I remember watching several that were over 30mins.
What I find surprising is that Google did not see this coming and thus A. never limited ad-free content to small channels in their ToS, and B. does not provide a paid hosting option.
But these guys have priority support, and still go around for months with youtube without getting any answers, only to then have their whole channel killed without comment.
Why do so many tech companies have these Kafkaesque exception paths?
If they want everything to be monetised in order to fund the ongoing existence and development of YouTube that's entirely their choice, but they need to be very explicit about it.
Especially when they're wiping out entire channels with misleading error messages as a consequence of maybe possibly changing something that they haven't told their support people about.
Support doesn't scale. Better that a million users have a terrible experience than one user takes up staff time getting their problem fixed.
If you cannot (or don't want to) scale support, create the policies from beginning in a way that hardly needs any support. Just like you plan your database from beginning how it is supposed to scale.
However, they're a big company, and it makes sense that they have a policy of "if your channel is big enough, you have to put ads on it to support hosting cost". Making policy exceptions in a big company like this is tricky, and it seems Blender just fell through the cracks.
Given some of the very brand unsafe videos that show on YouTube, it is obviously in google’s best interest to not require ads for all videos.
Not surprising but disappointing. Hopefully people leave YouTube in droves and remind them that their position is not static.
First time hearing of PeerTube, but looks good so far.
However, another reason competitors haven't cropped up is because copyright law in the US and elsewhere highly favors publishers over hosters or creators. Publishers will sue the crap out of you the moment you get big enough to make a difference. If Google hadn't dumped money into YouTube, they'd probably have gone under years ago when Viacom and others sued them for copyright infringement.
We need copyright reform.
Offering to host your videos for free and display ads along them hardly seems like "abusing that position"...
You can start running a platform for free expression, then start bullying people into adherence to a monetization policy. You're within your rights. However, that's a stupid level of bait and switch, like billing yourself as a vegan restaurant, but telling everyone they can only eat burgers.
Blender already had an account and videos hosted on Youtube. Blender did not change their videos. YouTube changed their rules - and is holding Blender's videos hostage until they accept NEW terms.
These aren't terms already part of Blender's contract - which is why Youtube is literally trying to force Blender to sign a new contract and refuses to execute their original ToS.
Of course you can, as long as that is specified in the contract.
> These aren't terms already part of Blender's contract - which is why Youtube is literally trying to force Blender to sign a new contract and refuses to execute their original ToS.
And that is allowed per the contract.
This is pretty standard torts 101. You can say whatever you want in a contract but that doesn't mean the clause is valid. Furthermore ToS fall under sticker contracts which have a different level of scrutiny especially in regards to material changes post facto.
YouTube knows this. This is why they are trying to get Blender to sign a new contract. If your claim above was correct, YouTube would of simply already monetized the channel and unblocked the videos.
That's a bit of a clumsy analogy, but the issue here is the immediate blocking of content and then demanding of pay. If Youtube instead said "Hey, you have 90 days to remove your content or let us monetize it" that would be a bit different.
As in, their consideration here is “we continue to, without any pricetag, host your videos for free on a website receiving ongoing updates and development, AND FURTHER allow you to continue to upload and store new content, despite either and both being complete deadweight cost for us?”
The consideration being the right to indefinitely add more to the platform and benefit from those updates
No, they can't do that, but they can end the service until a new contract is signed. Which is exactly what happened.
The YT ToS does not create an obligation on YT's part to serve your videos.
Correct. The issue here is that they blocked the videos (not plain removal) with no warning or stated limit, and then demanded monetization to unblock the videos, thus creating a duress situation.
If YouTube had a stated policy saying "Videos getting over 250k views must be monetized" or sent a 90 day warning the situation would be different.
Instead YouTube blocked the videos without warning and then demanded a new monetization contract to restore service. That reeks of a duress case.
I do agree that they are abusing their position, but I don't agree that they shouldn't be allowed to act the way they are acting. Are they being unreasonable? Maybe, but it's not my, or your, place to decide that.
What a ridiculous statement. It's everybody's right and place to decide for themselves whether or not they think youtube is being reasonable.
Whose is it then? This is playing out in public; the public is free to opine.
Some things that are free of legal consequences come with consequences in other realms, and that's perfectly okay.
YouTube gives Google _unparalleled_ access to what we like, how we think, what we want, ... It's the best profiling tool there is.
Let's not say "for free" when we are paying a price for it already.
But hey, feel free to upload your videos elsewhere.
Well, exactly, content they can monetize.
By accessing videos you normally provide personal information: ip address, playlists, access history, browser fingerprint, device id,...
Not to mention that you can upload it from a burner account and device in a cafe.
Oh, and you always have to option, well, not to upload it.
For free? No. For your valuable data. You think youtube is worth over $100 billion because it's hosting your videos for free?
1 - https://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/peertube-a-free...
It’s Typescript on client and server.
ed: see below comment from OscarCunningham
If they need to charge more, then they should charge more. YT Red is arguably too cheap.
Don't get me wrong i think they should get money for hosting but they want much more than that. That is the reason why they don't have any hosting premium plans (like vimeo does). If they did Im sure Blender foundation would pay for hosting of their videos.
Also lets not forget the overall highly positive impact these Blender videos have for the platform. They bring in people from embedded videos and people continue watching more videos (most likely monetized ones). When youtube hosts videos from blender or MIT they also can claim (as they love to do) how big educational impact they have...
Which is frankly ridiculous anyway, if they want to change the rules for unmonetised videos, they should actually change the rules, have a setting on the button that says "if the video becomes popular enough, YouTube reserves the right to run our own advertising against the video" and just run ads.