YouTube tries to take-down FOSS Invidious

[kilésengati]

For those that don't know, Invidious is an alternative, free and open-source API for viewing YouTube videos without ads and what not. YouTube has been on a war-path with ad-blockers recently. I think Louis Rossmann does pretty well at giving his two cents to the situation:

https://youtu.be/PTmZv7-eMrE

Maybe SomeOrdinaryGamers, Mental Outlaw or others will release videos about this too, who knows.

Here is something interesting. The music industry tried something similar to the program youtube-dl a while back, but ultimately lost in court, and now go after the project's website's hoster. I'm no legal expert, but the way I understand the ruling in favour of youtube-dl was made since creating private security copies without re-distributing them is legal in Germany as long as no DRM is circumvented and YouTube as of now doesn't employ any DRM.

Now, I'm no legal expert, so I don't know the intricates, but going after a FOSS project is futile in principle. For every take-down there are a dozen forks - in particular with such prominent projects. This is not a threat or endorsement, just my observation and the way I see these corpos not living at the pulse of time.

What's evermore concerning is, that should YouTube and the other media corpos finally understand what FOSS is, could they end up going after their users?
Could there be a new Abmahnwelle looming?


What do you think of alternative YouTube players and APIs? Do you use them?

[Boblin the Goblin]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Out Of Bubblegum:

Diposting pertama kali oleh SlowMango:

Blocking invasive ads isn't 'stealing content' considering the content on YouTube is 90% from individuals and not YouTube.

It is still theft. The ads are the admission price to the content. Same thing as if you sneak into a second movie at a multiplex theater. But you will never admit that.

Because isn't remotely the same.

Sneaking into a theater is unlawfully entering a private business.

[tyl0413]

I'll quit watching when they go full facebook, but not without downloading everything I can before and reuploading it on Odysee/Rumble/IA/etc.
♥♥♥♥ google, they won't win.

[BlackBloodGhost]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Out Of Bubblegum:

Diposting pertama kali oleh SlowMango:

Blocking invasive ads isn't 'stealing content' considering the content on YouTube is 90% from individuals and not YouTube.

It is still theft. The ads are the admission price to the content. Same thing as if you sneak into a second movie at a multiplex theater. But you will never admit that.

Oh jeez. These people are not pirates, they just don't want intrusive ads.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Diposting pertama kali oleh BlackBloodRum:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Out Of Bubblegum:

It is still theft. The ads are the admission price to the content. Same thing as if you sneak into a second movie at a multiplex theater. But you will never admit that.

Oh jeez. These people are not pirates, ...

No. They are the same as pirates. The justification don't matter.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Out Of Bubblegum:

Diposting pertama kali oleh BlackBloodRum:

Oh jeez. These people are not pirates, ...

No. They are the same as pirates. The justification don't matter.

Ah yes, the piracy of checks notes using a free service without ads.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Diposting pertama kali oleh SlowMango:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Out Of Bubblegum:

No. They are the same as pirates. The justification don't matter.

Ah yes, the piracy of checks notes using a free service without ads.

IT IS NOT A FREE SERVICE!!!!!!! The ads are the admission price. The ads pay for the service to be available. Period.

[sleeps]

not surprising tbh

[Boblin the Goblin]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Out Of Bubblegum:

Diposting pertama kali oleh SlowMango:

Ah yes, the piracy of checks notes using a free service without ads.

IT IS NOT A FREE SERVICE!!!!!!! The ads are the admission price. The ads pay for the service to be available. Period.
:angry_yeti:

It's completely free. It doesn't charge anything to view.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Diposting pertama kali oleh SlowMango:

Diposting pertama kali oleh Out Of Bubblegum:

IT IS NOT A FREE SERVICE!!!!!!! The ads are the admission price. The ads pay for the service to be available. Period.

It doesn't charge anything to view.

Yes it does. It charges with ads. That is the point. The money to run it has to come from somewhere. Nothing in the world is free.

[Triple G]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Kamiyama:

Where is the line in the sand that causes the next exodus?

When there´s a more popular alternative, which is hard to do, when "meta" has like 50+% market share, and around 3.74 billion users.

Else something really bad would need to happen, and many people would need to agree to go to the same other platform. It´s just easier to use those platforms, which have the most users, most content, most anything - instead of doing research and use another alternative, which may be better for the personal interests, but perhaps also can´t have as much potential (if it´s about creating content).

And usually most things on social media aren´t that important anyway, and people just use it to do time, while existing social networks keep the people there where they are.

Diposting pertama kali oleh Out Of Bubblegum:

IT IS NOT A FREE SERVICE!!!!!!! The ads are the admission price. The ads pay for the service to be available. Period.
:angry_yeti:

While one has to say that the ads are not the only source of income for them. They have also subscriptions, and i guess they also make money with selling data.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Triple G:

They have also subscriptions,

The subscription exists to disable the ads. You pay one way or the other. Pay by allowing the ads to play or pay directly. "Disabling" the ads without paying the subscription is stealing.

[BlackBloodGhost]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Out Of Bubblegum:

Diposting pertama kali oleh SlowMango:

It doesn't charge anything to view.

Yes it does. It charges with ads. That is the point. The money to run it has to come from somewhere. Nothing in the world is free.

Wow, Google really does own you huh?

[HypersleepyNaputunia]

of course them stealing the telemetry and private data they harvest pays for it too
all those lovely server farms somewhere full of data they dont share the profit with the people they gank it from

[Triple G]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Out Of Bubblegum:

The subscription exists to disable the ads. You pay one way or the other. Pay by allowing the ads to play or pay directly. "Disabling" the ads without paying the subscription is stealing.

I just said that they don´t necessarily need the ads to afford the service, which is what You said before. Also i don´t see disabling the ads as stealing, as anyone at Youtube would also say, that if some things are possible by law, that they do it - no matter if it´s morally okay or not - or in the interests of society or the law. So if anyone prevents showing the ads, and Youtube tries to prevent that - it´s a bit hypocritical of Youtube imho.

And the ads don´t earn money - only if the people buy these advertised products. But most would skip them. It´s like You say anybody who clicks "skip" would steal money, while the ads somehow steal time, if You´re not interested in the products, or watching the same ad 15 times in an hour.

[Out Of Bubblegum]

Diposting pertama kali oleh Triple G:

And the ads don´t earn money

Yes they do. For YT. That is their purpose. Always has been. YouTube gets money from the advertisers every time an ad plays. This is how USA broadcast TV and radio was always funded. We are not talking about if the ads increase sales for the advertiser.

Fun fact. YT gets more money if you click cancel while the ad is playing. That proves you saw the beginning of it and were paying attention. Otherwise you might have been in another room when the ad played. And never saw it.