3 ms·

> Lucky? It's a toss-up whether policies like this are actually enforceable. Most likely all they'd be able to do is block the devs access. He consented to a c

> Lucky? It's a toss-up whether policies like this are actually enforceable. Most likely all they'd be able to do is block the devs access. He consented to a contract, violated it and caused actual damages (loss of ad revenue, profiting from copyright infringement). Given that he displayed content in violation of the license he was given and made money from it, it could even be a criminal copyright infringement case. > This app operates in the same area as ad blockers. Would you argue that uBlock should be taken down because YT wrote a policy demanding that browser software must not 'enable or encourage' the blocking of ads. The uBlock developer doesn't profit and didn't agree to anything. > I'll take this as my stance on this matter: a user or program should be allowed to do anything they choose with the bits they receive. They can alter, modify, ignore, strip, or save any part of it. A stance like this is how you get DRM and ads baked into the video stream. Would you honestly prefer we get into an arms race with YouTube? With DRM the way it is today, I'm not sure that's a battle we can win. Head down this path and we'll have DRM and eye tracking to make _really_ sure we're watching ads before we play a video.

thinkloop 9y ago
Eye tracking is surely coming regardless
- corobo 9y ago
  Lets put paranoia aside for a moment, how would this even be feasible? Firstly the browser has to ask permission to use the camera Hey maybe you're the one in a million that uploads videos direct through webcam so they have that permission anyway - Would people really be ok with sitting there as their webcam light flickers on and off to make sure they're watching adverts? No, they would not. Literally any rival tube site could milk the heck out of that to start pulling people away from YouTube. I'd put money on seeing people vlogging on an adult tube site before we see eyeball tracking on YouTube. Besides all that you could just unplug your webcam..
  - Nexxxeh 9y ago
    Oh, you say that now... 460p unless you meet the hardware and software requirements. Eye tracking hardware and HDCP 4.0 display, and Windows 10 Securibility Update or MacOS Himalaya. iOS 10 or Android Sherbet. On MacOS and iOS that's Safari with iEye permissions granted for YouTube.com, or Chrome on MacOS with GoggleEye enabled. On Windows, it's Edge with Windows Accessibility and Optics (WAaO), or Chrome with GoggleEye. Android is Chrome with GoggleEye. Or the official iOS, Android or Win 10 apps. Coming 2019. Maybe.
    - corobo 9y ago
      Trips up at the first hurdle - 460p unless you meet the hardware and software requirements That's a sinking ship. That's the sort of thing that allows Facebook into the world despite MySpace already existing. The sort of thing that allows Google to elbow its way into the #1 spot past the Altavistas, Hotbots and the Jeeves. A new site would come out of nowhere that doesn't have that restriction.
      - Veratyr 9y ago
        460p is a low bar but these restrictions already exist on current services. Netflix: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 - 720p on Chrome and Firefox, 1080p on IE and Safari and 4K requires Microsoft Edge, a HDCP2.2 display, a 7th generation Intel Core CPU and Windows updates. Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201422810 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=... - You can do 1080p on pretty much any browser but 4K requires a 2nd generation Amazon Fire TV and a HDCP2.2 display.
        corobo 9y ago
        There is a big difference between restricting to standard definition and high definition though. Many people now have devices that will show the difference between low and high definition, not as many have 4K capabilities. In the future these values will go up of course, but the difference between restricting HD users to SD and 4K users to HD is quite different.
Spivak 9y ago
I'm not sure where the copyright angle is coming from. YT doesn't own the copyright of the videos they host. The best YT could hope for is a ToS violation which is pretty toothless. > The uBlock developer doesn't profit and didn't agree to anything. So if the app was Free and FOSS would it be okay? Hopefully so since youtube-dl exists. > A stance like this is how you get DRM and ads baked into the video stream. Would you honestly prefer we get into an arms race with YouTube? Right, but in your alternate universe you are legally bound to view the ads and still have all the restrictions of DRM. It's really no different but without any possiblity of circumventing it. Nothing really changes.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  > I'm not sure where the copyright angle is coming from. YT doesn't own the copyright of the videos they host. The best YT could hope for is a ToS violation which is pretty toothless. The developer is displaying copyrighted content. YouTube doesn't own the copyright but it does hold a sublicensable license, which is how the developer could legitimately develop a YouTube app. By violating the developer agreement from YouTube, the developer is breaching any copyright license he may have had. By selling the app commercially, he's also potentially doing so criminally. There's also the CFAA which I forgot at the time. > So if the app was Free and FOSS would it be okay? Hopefully so since youtube-dl exists. If the app was free and didn't utilize the API, then yes, it'd be in the same space as youtube-dl. > It's really no different but without any possiblity of circumventing it. Nothing really changes. What changes is that as users, we're forced to let invasive technologies into our lives in order to consume content.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    > Sublicenses I'm sure this could be the case but I'm not convinced that their license to the content would be so specific as to require the delivery of the content video/audio together, or must be played in the foreground. Especially since it would require all of the content be relicensed every time they change their policies. And especially since YT themselves can ignore these rules. Also, we all know that the CFAA is both bullshit and makes basically everything illegal. It has no place in any discussion like this. > What changes is that as users, we're forced to let invasive technologies into our lives in order to consume content. Sure, but you've just traded invasive technologies for invasive legal requirements. But your world is basically the case right now and we have DRM and plenty of ad blocking circumvention measures so I'm not convinced it would help.

thinkloop 9y ago

Eye tracking is surely coming regardless

corobo 9y ago
Lets put paranoia aside for a moment, how would this even be feasible? Firstly the browser has to ask permission to use the camera Hey maybe you're the one in a million that uploads videos direct through webcam so they have that permission anyway - Would people really be ok with sitting there as their webcam light flickers on and off to make sure they're watching adverts? No, they would not. Literally any rival tube site could milk the heck out of that to start pulling people away from YouTube. I'd put money on seeing people vlogging on an adult tube site before we see eyeball tracking on YouTube. Besides all that you could just unplug your webcam..
- Nexxxeh 9y ago
  Oh, you say that now... 460p unless you meet the hardware and software requirements. Eye tracking hardware and HDCP 4.0 display, and Windows 10 Securibility Update or MacOS Himalaya. iOS 10 or Android Sherbet. On MacOS and iOS that's Safari with iEye permissions granted for YouTube.com, or Chrome on MacOS with GoggleEye enabled. On Windows, it's Edge with Windows Accessibility and Optics (WAaO), or Chrome with GoggleEye. Android is Chrome with GoggleEye. Or the official iOS, Android or Win 10 apps. Coming 2019. Maybe.
  - corobo 9y ago
    Trips up at the first hurdle - 460p unless you meet the hardware and software requirements That's a sinking ship. That's the sort of thing that allows Facebook into the world despite MySpace already existing. The sort of thing that allows Google to elbow its way into the #1 spot past the Altavistas, Hotbots and the Jeeves. A new site would come out of nowhere that doesn't have that restriction.
    - Veratyr 9y ago
      460p is a low bar but these restrictions already exist on current services. Netflix: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 https://help.netflix.com/en/node/23742 - 720p on Chrome and Firefox, 1080p on IE and Safari and 4K requires Microsoft Edge, a HDCP2.2 display, a 7th generation Intel Core CPU and Windows updates. Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201422810 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=... - You can do 1080p on pretty much any browser but 4K requires a 2nd generation Amazon Fire TV and a HDCP2.2 display.
      - corobo 9y ago
        There is a big difference between restricting to standard definition and high definition though. Many people now have devices that will show the difference between low and high definition, not as many have 4K capabilities. In the future these values will go up of course, but the difference between restricting HD users to SD and 4K users to HD is quite different.

Spivak 9y ago

I'm not sure where the copyright angle is coming from. YT doesn't own the copyright of the videos they host. The best YT could hope for is a ToS violation which is pretty toothless. > The uBlock developer doesn't profit and didn't agree to anything. So if the app was Free and FOSS would it be okay? Hopefully so since youtube-dl exists. > A stance like this is how you get DRM and ads baked into the video stream. Would you honestly prefer we get into an arms race with YouTube? Right, but in your alternate universe you are legally bound to view the ads and still have all the restrictions of DRM. It's really no different but without any possiblity of circumventing it. Nothing really changes.

Veratyr 9y ago
> I'm not sure where the copyright angle is coming from. YT doesn't own the copyright of the videos they host. The best YT could hope for is a ToS violation which is pretty toothless. The developer is displaying copyrighted content. YouTube doesn't own the copyright but it does hold a sublicensable license, which is how the developer could legitimately develop a YouTube app. By violating the developer agreement from YouTube, the developer is breaching any copyright license he may have had. By selling the app commercially, he's also potentially doing so criminally. There's also the CFAA which I forgot at the time. > So if the app was Free and FOSS would it be okay? Hopefully so since youtube-dl exists. If the app was free and didn't utilize the API, then yes, it'd be in the same space as youtube-dl. > It's really no different but without any possiblity of circumventing it. Nothing really changes. What changes is that as users, we're forced to let invasive technologies into our lives in order to consume content.
- Spivak 9y ago
  > Sublicenses I'm sure this could be the case but I'm not convinced that their license to the content would be so specific as to require the delivery of the content video/audio together, or must be played in the foreground. Especially since it would require all of the content be relicensed every time they change their policies. And especially since YT themselves can ignore these rules. Also, we all know that the CFAA is both bullshit and makes basically everything illegal. It has no place in any discussion like this. > What changes is that as users, we're forced to let invasive technologies into our lives in order to consume content. Sure, but you've just traded invasive technologies for invasive legal requirements. But your world is basically the case right now and we have DRM and plenty of ad blocking circumvention measures so I'm not convinced it would help.