Jeff Geerling: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful (updated). Youtube removed his content, saying that self hosting content is "dangerous or harmful content"
-
Synology is already enshittifying itself
I would go so far as to say they are already in a shit state, but they're just not stopping the process yet.
-
Yeah. That's illegal in lots of countries.
A lot of people don't realise that the application of the VCR was technically copyright infringement, especially so when you lent tapes to your friends.
-
Yeah. That's illegal in lots of countries.
But it is legal in the country he lives in as well as the country YouTube is headquartered in.
-
Yeah I remember once when my friends Synology started acting harmful when he run jellyfin on it. it started off gasing mustard gas. It poisoned the well and made his son addicted to zyns. All of the cars in his neighborhood needed new batteries. The country's GTP dropped a lot that month and the ozone layer is gone. Thank God YouTube stopped platforming such harmful content. Too bad so luch damage has already been done.
Yes, exactly. The server I run jellyfin on kept promising me cake, though I am fairly certain the cake is a lie.
-
But it is legal in the country he lives in as well as the country YouTube is headquartered in.
Is it? I'm not totally sure, as I'm not from the US but I think the DMCA is the nasty player in this game.
-
Is it? I'm not totally sure, as I'm not from the US but I think the DMCA is the nasty player in this game.
-
Is it? I'm not totally sure, as I'm not from the US but I think the DMCA is the nasty player in this game.
Technically I'm half right and half wrong (I think). It's not illegal to backup media that one owns, but it is illegal to break DRM/copy protection which is required to rip most physical media these days.
Suffice to say the legality of it is a cluster fuck, but the morality, in my opinion, is pretty clear. Fuck the corpos.
-
I seem to remember Jeff explaining his choice, and a big factor was that Nebula doesn't have comments under videos, nor any other similar forums for video posters and watchers to chat. I think he said he wouldn't be happy without that direct interaction.
I admit I don't watch every video, I'm subscribed but I just kind of let videos come to my home feed and watch that way. I mainly use YT as background noise while doing something else.
His reasoning makes sense, so I guess I'll just continue to watch on YT since I have no desire to join FP. Thanks for the info!
-
Technically I'm half right and half wrong (I think). It's not illegal to backup media that one owns, but it is illegal to break DRM/copy protection which is required to rip most physical media these days.
Suffice to say the legality of it is a cluster fuck, but the morality, in my opinion, is pretty clear. Fuck the corpos.
Yeah fuck them.
Nearly all digital media is locked so in order to back up something you own you'll have to break the lock. Fuck. Them.
(And the people who voted for these laws) -
Yeah fuck them.
Nearly all digital media is locked so in order to back up something you own you'll have to break the lock. Fuck. Them.
(And the people who voted for these laws)You are allowed to record content like a broadcast though, which makes me wonder if that means that ripping is illegal, but piping it through a capture card isn't?
-
I think if the ripping includes de-DRM-ing it's is illegal in a lot of countries. I am not saying it's right, we should own our own content, I am just saying it as a fact.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yeah isn't that crazy?
Copyright by itself only protects distribution but then laws like DMCA (US) and EUCA (EU) make drm removal illegal. Its hard to believe that these laws exist and should be opposed at every possible opportunity.
Can you imagine buying an ebook and being told you can't remove malware from some strings of text or you'll go to prison? Also you have no consumer protections like refunds or ability to pass down the license so you're literally have worse consumer rights than a physical product and digital data costs nothing!
The current copyright framework is so broken and so toxic it needs to be completely destroyed.
-
Yeah isn't that crazy?
Copyright by itself only protects distribution but then laws like DMCA (US) and EUCA (EU) make drm removal illegal. Its hard to believe that these laws exist and should be opposed at every possible opportunity.
Can you imagine buying an ebook and being told you can't remove malware from some strings of text or you'll go to prison? Also you have no consumer protections like refunds or ability to pass down the license so you're literally have worse consumer rights than a physical product and digital data costs nothing!
The current copyright framework is so broken and so toxic it needs to be completely destroyed.
Yeah, totally agree. You know, I would perhaps be even ok keeping the drm, I have been thinking about it the other day. I would have to have a guarantee that I can use it even 50 years from now and it would have to be public, open-source solution, not owned but shaity companies like Adobe, Apple and Amazon (there is really no choice nowadays), who will use this to also track us.
Plus, as you say, I want to have a right to pass it onto someone (but more like lend it to a friend, because I can't imagine somebody caring about inheriting my 50 year old books, really.
About the refunds, I think some online stores offer (limited time) refunds and if you buy e.g. physical book, especially in the physical store, you are also very limited when it comes to returns. -
Yeah, totally agree. You know, I would perhaps be even ok keeping the drm, I have been thinking about it the other day. I would have to have a guarantee that I can use it even 50 years from now and it would have to be public, open-source solution, not owned but shaity companies like Adobe, Apple and Amazon (there is really no choice nowadays), who will use this to also track us.
Plus, as you say, I want to have a right to pass it onto someone (but more like lend it to a friend, because I can't imagine somebody caring about inheriting my 50 year old books, really.
About the refunds, I think some online stores offer (limited time) refunds and if you buy e.g. physical book, especially in the physical store, you are also very limited when it comes to returns.What really triggers me is that digital products that are significantly cheaper, easier and safer (environment etc) than physical counterparts have significantly worse rights and protections.
Even if I agreed with the idea of copyright the economical implementation is so absurd.
-
Saw the video… It mentions ”ripping” and even shows clips of some blockbuster movies. No wonder any copyright-sensitive automation gets triggered pretty fast. This will only get worse.
wrote last edited by [email protected]None of that is illegal. He states he purchased the media. And it's certainly not harmful content.
-
None of that is illegal. He states he purchased the media. And it's certainly not harmful content.
You recon the copyright mafia cares much about what’s illegal or not? Google has played ball with them for years and slowly sided with them more and more. It’s all about the ad money and google wanting to keep the big players happy. All things related to ”owning content” in this era of just renting is going to get flagged. Ripping, selfhosting, torrenting, data hoarding…whatever undermines the content monopoly.
