Jeff Geerling: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful (updated). Youtube removed his content, saying that self hosting content is "dangerous or harmful content"
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
You're viewing a single thread.
I think a few folks haven't read the article or know who Jeff Geerling is. The title of this article is confusing.
Jeff posted a video on YT about how to self-host your own media in 2024. He recently got a violation from YT that YT considers his video to be harmful and dangerous. He appealed, got denied, but then the update is that YT removed the violation.
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.
Pretty fast? The video was uploaded in 2024.
What if I decide to digitize my entire movie catalog? I would have to rip those DVDs and blurays...
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.
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.
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?
You're right https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2018/faqs.html
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.
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.
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.
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.
None of that is illegal. He states he purchased the media. And it's certainly not harmful content.