4 ms·

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 w

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.

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.