4 ms·

> Your expectations from free service should be zero. So it's ok if someone takes your car the next time you park on a free parking lot? It doesn't work that

> Your expectations from free service should be zero. So it's ok if someone takes your car the next time you park on a free parking lot? It doesn't work that way in the physical world. I don't see why it should work that way in the digital world. Offering to hold your property for free isn't a license to steal or destroy it.

Ekaros 5y ago
Cities already move your vehicle away if you leave it in free parking spot for years, even faster if it is unregistered for example. I don't see how that is any different from this case for example. There are similar analogies.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  I think the difference is that the extent to which a city can do things with your property is governed by law. And it is not in any way similar analogy; this wasn't cleaning up an abandoned account taking up public space, this was a sudden takedown of an active account that did not violate any rules or laws.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    And why shouldn't they have right to remove such content? Clearly it wasn't following intent of the site. And the user didn't really lose anything, as they still have the originals. Which in no way have been affected.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
      My understanding is in this case the user doesn’t have the originals; they’ve truly lost 7 years of labor.
      - baash05 5y ago
        That's on them though. I mean a DVD burner and a shoe box would remove all backup issues here.
    - metabagel 5y ago
      You haven’t bothered to carefully read the post.
      - Ekaros 5y ago
        I did read it. And I consider value of data lost to be exactly zero as originals were not deemed worth saving. So I see no issues with Youtube's actions here. The user did not value their data so neither should Youtube.
    - foxfluff 5y ago
      > And why shouldn't they have right to remove such content? They should, but they should also clearly communicate what content they consider acceptable and I think they should also notify the user and give them time to move their things out if G decides the content is deemed unacceptable. Especially if the content is not obviously and egregiously violating the terms of service and hasn't been considered a problem for the past seven years. Pulling the rug like that all of a sudden isn't cool. If I offer to hold your grocery bag while you go to the restroom, do you think it's OK for me to throw it all away because after digging aronud a bit, I notice you have bought apples I don't like? What if I've been repeatedly extending the same courtesy for the past ten years and never had a problem with these apples until today? What if I advertise myself as a free bag holding service by the entrance to the restroom? I think people should have the expectation that if a company (or individual) offers a service and holds on to your property (be it digital or physical), they should treat it responsibly and not just trash it all out of the blue. > Clearly it wasn't following intent of the site. That does not seem clear at all based on a reading of youtube's policies. > And the user didn't really lose anything, as they still have the originals. That's not something Google can decide or verify. Instead, they could help the user move their stuff out and that would ensure they still have everything. But I like this line of arguing; I think copyright infringement is ok because the copyright holder still has their original copy which has in no way been affected.
softwarebeware 5y ago
> So it's ok if someone takes your car the next time you park on a free parking lot? Not the best analogy since the parking lot is just an empty physical space. Taking it away wouldn’t also “delete” your car. The car is actually a separate physical object. But in a cloud drive, the file and the space are the same. Taking away the space is obviously going to take away the file. On top of all that, the file still exists elsewhere for most people.
yobbo 5y ago
> next time you park on a free parking lot? The closest analogy is; if you park without paying, your car might get impounded.
- iforgotpassword 5y ago
  So you are saying uploading to YouTube without paying is illegal? Nowhere on YouTube does it say that I have to pay anything.
- Linosaurus 5y ago
  > impounded Not a bad analogy. Getting an impounded car back is often described as being abusively expensive beyond real costs. That would be a improvement for the OP. Though I don't think any of the giants have an incentive to offer this since might draw more attention than just telling them to fuck off.
tkiolp4 5y ago
> Offering to hold your property for free isn't a license to steal or destroy it. Unless explicitly stated. And we all know that: 1) most of the internet users don’t read the Terms of Service, and 2) YouTube probably states in their Terms of Service doc that they can do whatever they want with your data (I don’t know this for sure because of point 1)

Ekaros 5y ago

Cities already move your vehicle away if you leave it in free parking spot for years, even faster if it is unregistered for example. I don't see how that is any different from this case for example. There are similar analogies.

foxfluff 5y ago
I think the difference is that the extent to which a city can do things with your property is governed by law. And it is not in any way similar analogy; this wasn't cleaning up an abandoned account taking up public space, this was a sudden takedown of an active account that did not violate any rules or laws.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  And why shouldn't they have right to remove such content? Clearly it wasn't following intent of the site. And the user didn't really lose anything, as they still have the originals. Which in no way have been affected.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    My understanding is in this case the user doesn’t have the originals; they’ve truly lost 7 years of labor.
    - baash05 5y ago
      That's on them though. I mean a DVD burner and a shoe box would remove all backup issues here.
  - metabagel 5y ago
    You haven’t bothered to carefully read the post.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      I did read it. And I consider value of data lost to be exactly zero as originals were not deemed worth saving. So I see no issues with Youtube's actions here. The user did not value their data so neither should Youtube.
  - foxfluff 5y ago
    > And why shouldn't they have right to remove such content? They should, but they should also clearly communicate what content they consider acceptable and I think they should also notify the user and give them time to move their things out if G decides the content is deemed unacceptable. Especially if the content is not obviously and egregiously violating the terms of service and hasn't been considered a problem for the past seven years. Pulling the rug like that all of a sudden isn't cool. If I offer to hold your grocery bag while you go to the restroom, do you think it's OK for me to throw it all away because after digging aronud a bit, I notice you have bought apples I don't like? What if I've been repeatedly extending the same courtesy for the past ten years and never had a problem with these apples until today? What if I advertise myself as a free bag holding service by the entrance to the restroom? I think people should have the expectation that if a company (or individual) offers a service and holds on to your property (be it digital or physical), they should treat it responsibly and not just trash it all out of the blue. > Clearly it wasn't following intent of the site. That does not seem clear at all based on a reading of youtube's policies. > And the user didn't really lose anything, as they still have the originals. That's not something Google can decide or verify. Instead, they could help the user move their stuff out and that would ensure they still have everything. But I like this line of arguing; I think copyright infringement is ok because the copyright holder still has their original copy which has in no way been affected.

softwarebeware 5y ago

> So it's ok if someone takes your car the next time you park on a free parking lot? Not the best analogy since the parking lot is just an empty physical space. Taking it away wouldn’t also “delete” your car. The car is actually a separate physical object. But in a cloud drive, the file and the space are the same. Taking away the space is obviously going to take away the file. On top of all that, the file still exists elsewhere for most people.

yobbo 5y ago

> next time you park on a free parking lot? The closest analogy is; if you park without paying, your car might get impounded.

iforgotpassword 5y ago
So you are saying uploading to YouTube without paying is illegal? Nowhere on YouTube does it say that I have to pay anything.
Linosaurus 5y ago
> impounded Not a bad analogy. Getting an impounded car back is often described as being abusively expensive beyond real costs. That would be a improvement for the OP. Though I don't think any of the giants have an incentive to offer this since might draw more attention than just telling them to fuck off.

tkiolp4 5y ago

> Offering to hold your property for free isn't a license to steal or destroy it. Unless explicitly stated. And we all know that: 1) most of the internet users don’t read the Terms of Service, and 2) YouTube probably states in their Terms of Service doc that they can do whatever they want with your data (I don’t know this for sure because of point 1)