YouTube pulled a popular tutorial video from tech creator Jeff Geerling this week, claiming his guide to installing LibreELEC on a Raspberry Pi 5 violated policies against “harmful content.” The video, which showed viewers how to set up their own home media servers, had been live for over a year and racked up more than 500,000 views. YouTube’s automated systems flagged the content for allegedly teaching people “how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content.”
Geerling says his tutorial covered only legal self-hosting of media people already own – no piracy tools or copyright workarounds. He said he goes out of his way to avoid mentioning popular piracy software in his videos. It’s the second time YouTube has pulled a self-hosting content video from Geerling. Last October, YouTube removed his Jellyfin tutorial, though that decision was quickly reversed after appeal. This time, his appeal was denied.
Notably, Youtube does not consider exploiting children for profit harmful.
Maybe stop relying on fucking youtube?
JG can also be found on Floatplane.
The video is up again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hFas54xFtg
But at some point, he shows he’s moving some files to LibreELEC, and he has a folder called “Chernobyl” - how can that possibly be legal, if the folder actually contains files with the HBO show of the same name? Just asking because I’m curious 😊
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)
It was released on DVD and Blu-ray, if he purchased the disc and ripped it to his media, and hasn’t shared those files with anyone, then it is legal, as an exception to copyright in the US, where Jeff and Google are both based.
Jeff has stated on multiple occasions that he purchases and rips his media, and does not use piracy.
Ah - didn’t know it had been released on physical media.
You don’t know the exact content of the files. He did not show those vidoeclips. I dont know if you can buy that or not. Sure it can be indication but in general you dont know as it varies between video to video if it is possible to buy.
you say in the video that you use this setup to watch YouTube. I love watching YouTube with Kodi as it shows no ads. I guess they don’t love that.
I’m not saying that justifies the strike, but it might be connected
Didn’t they recently greenlight adblocker advertising?
People are quick to burn Youtube here when its clearly the american copyright reach that causes this.
YouTube took down the video because of its own policies, not because of copyright law. So we should be blaming YouTube.
I think it’s easy to see exactly why if you consider how YouTube treats small content creators. If I post a video and companies claim copyright on it, the video gets demonetized and I might lose my account. I can respond and contest the claim and maybe I can win but I still lost money in the meantime, and perhaps more significantly, the companies that made their copyright claims will never face a consequence for attempting to burn my channel. In other words, if I get things wrong a few times I’ll lose my channel and my income source, but if they get things wrong a million times, they face zero consequence.
And you might be inclined to blame the media companies. But again, this is YouTube doing what YouTube wants to do of its own volition, and not something that’s required by law. If YouTube valued small-scale content creators and end users, it would create different policies.
I think it’s both, a dumb system enforced in a somehow dumber way
They are so pissed that we dare own anything. Fuck corpos.
“how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content.”
In the future, public domain media will be banned for harming corporate profits.
Yeah, people who thought Google wasn’t openly strangling the free (as in libre) stuff because they weren’t that evil - these people just have bad memory. In year 2012 it clearly felt that corps, Google and Facebook and MS and Apple and everyone, are on the move to capture it all without a way out. They kinda made the illusion of being softer later.
So the question is - how do we even advertise legal but unpleasant for them things, avoiding their censorship.
The devices are sold together with the operating system (often unchangeable) and packaged applications and means of installing software, right from the markets.
I mean, I have a solution. It’s counterintuitive and seems unconnected, and too direct, but I guarantee you it’ll work.
Forbidding companies to do moderation or refuse to accept content without technical problems, or banned content (CP and such), and similar good justifications. As in - if your service is up, and there’s user content served from it, it shouldn’t be removed without legal substantiation. It doesn’t matter it’s free, that doesn’t mean you can do all you like. You are not a media outlet, you are a platform for many media, that’s how you work in fact, so yes, your actions do constitute censorship if you do moderation. If you can’t afford to keep it free with such rules, then start charging money for hosting, as it normally should have been.
And, of course, this should include public offering status, the prices should be the same for all users.
I mean, if we had this from the beginning, we’d probably still have the Web like in year 2003.
Google should have been broken up years ago.
Because self hosting is getting cheaper and easier while average internet upload speeds are crazy high for the home user. Of course Google is scared.
Cries in single digit upload speeds
Just use another unit. It’s an easy fix.
This kind of crap is driving popular creators, like Geerling, to move to other places. YT / Alphabet has lost the plot.
Yep. Most of my favorite creators are on Nebula now.
The ones that aren’t get watched on SmartTube or in Brave Browser.
Hypocritical Lemmy… Preaching (F) OSS and then using Brave… LoL!
Brave is open source and using MPL license which is the same license Firefox is using. I am not using or recommending Brave to anyone.
I will flat out shut down any Brave user simply because it tried to push crypto.
No thanks :)Not just crypto, they were diverting ad revenue from websites to themselves, collecting unsolicited donations for content creators without their consent, suggesting affiliate links in the address bar and installing a paid VPN service without the user’s consent. Don’t forget they had a “bug” in Tor which sent all DNS queries to your ISP instead of routing it through tor and also weak fingerprint protection. Not to mention the political affiliation of the CEO. But it IS open source.
Still fuck them (openly). From the source of my heart :)
No one is forcing brave on you lol
I love Nebula. I go there to watch Nebula Exclusives but it’s not great for browsing or discovering new channels…I found everyone I subscribe to on YouTube first
I managed to find Extra History via Nebula, and it’s one of my new favorite channels…but I’ve found a lot more favorites from YouTube, definitely.
One thing I do love is finding a new channel I like that has years of backlog.
Sue YouTube. They won’t change meaningfully until forced to.
Sue for defamation that Youtube are alleging he is promoting criminal activity of piracy.
I mean maybe if YT said that? The only thing they said is that it’s “harmful” somehow. And they won’t elaborate anymore than that.
If harmful isn’t defined in the ToS, then the Merriam Webster definition will likely be construed to mean to be harmful to YouTube’s business or to users. Although YouTube has been selective in this enforcement, ie not banning all videos pertaining to martial arts or fighting clips, drug use, or ad block tutorials.
That just answers a question that no one is asking. This is not an issue of defining words, it’s an issue of what the words are referring to, exactly.
Exactly, I haven’t read the ToS to see if it is defined or references anything in there. I usually default to the standard definition of a word unless explicitly stated otherwise. For example, Sony changed the definition of purchase to remove any notion of ownership when buying content on their streaming platform.
What? LOL no, not “exactly”. Again the definition is not in question. The question is what the word is referring to.
if they haven’t defined it, then legally it is meant in the broadest sense, isn’t it?
Just did a cursory search for harm on the YouTube ToS. There is no definition that I saw, but it does say “may cause harm”. So my suspicion that anything could be construed to be harmful to YouTube’s business is likely correct. Quoted sections of the YouTube ToS containing the word “harm” as of 2025-06-06 17:20 GMT.
Removal of Content By YouTube
If any of your Content (1) is in breach of this Agreement or (2) may cause harm to YouTube, our users, or third parties, we reserve the right to remove or take down some or all of such Content in our discretion. We will notify you with the reason for our action unless we reasonably believe that to do so: (a) would breach the law or the direction of a legal enforcement authority or would otherwise risk legal liability for YouTube or our Affiliates; (b) would compromise an investigation or the integrity or operation of the Service; or © would cause harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates. You can learn more about reporting and enforcement, including how to appeal on the Troubleshooting page of our Help Center.
Terminations and Suspensions by YouTube
YouTube reserves the right to suspend or terminate your Google account or your access to all or part of the Service if (a) you materially or repeatedly breach this Agreement; (b) we are required to do so to comply with a legal requirement or a court order; or © we reasonably believe that there has been conduct that creates (or could create) liability or harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates.
Notice for Termination or Suspension
We will notify you with the reason for termination or suspension by YouTube unless we reasonably believe that to do so: (a) would violate the law or the direction of a legal enforcement authority; (b) would compromise an investigation; © would compromise the integrity, operation or security of the Service; or (d) would cause harm to any user, other third party, YouTube or our Affiliates.
About this Agreement
Changing this Agreement We may change this Agreement, for example, (1) to reflect changes to our Service or how we do business - for example, when we add new products or features or remove old ones, (2) for legal, regulatory, or security reasons, or (3) to prevent abuse or harm.
If we materially change this Agreement, we’ll provide you with reasonable advance notice and the opportunity to review the changes, except (1) when we launch a new product or feature, or (2) in urgent situations, such as preventing ongoing abuse or responding to legal requirements. If you don’t agree to the new terms, you should remove any Content you uploaded and stop using the Service.
YouTube didn’t publicly make that claim though, so they haven’t done any defamation.
I think what you mean to say is that we should be pressuring public officials to try to bust up Google’s monopoly on many things. And we are doing that, and it is showing some progress. But there is much more work to be done.
Like google, I’m sure Jeff has a near unlimited supply of money to pay lawyers.
But being a pushover is not the answer, so…
It absolutely is on an individual level in a system where capital decides who writes the laws and who gets justice. The way you push back is by organizing as a class or at least a group.
Neither is throwing money away on a lawsuit with no chance of success.
Perhaps this can a driver of sorts for Peertube.
It’s a good thing that I can’t stand video tutorials or reviews (with the exception of video games).
I think so. A relatively small subset of the video upload firehose at YouTube who produce rewatchable content is going to require a lot less resources to provide than doing a free-for-all upload-anything video. This might actually be feasible.
Was it YouTube or someone else that reported him? I think YouTube is fully automated so it blocked him and is ignoring appeal because of the previous complaint.
I think ripping DVDs is still technically illegal, even though CSS has long since been broken. It is still illegal to circumvent encryption in a copy protection scheme, even if it’s for your own personal use and the encryption scheme has been pwned.
I bet if he didn’t mention that his videos were ripped from DVD, they might have left it up.
And beyond the law it depends also on enforcement
The US doesn’t give a right to break Bluray copy protection and make a personal backup or access it on a device that otherwise couldn’t play it. But the only enforcement is on people sharing copies, no one is prosecuted for format shifting their collection to play over their LAN
Iirc, you are entitled to have/create a backup of your physical media, as long as it is for your personal use.
But if I remember from back in the day, the DMCA doesn’t have any exception for that. This is why CD ripping was legal, while DVD ripping was not. It had nothing to do with fair use or backups, but rather that DVDs have encryption, and CDs do not. Circumventing that encryption for any reason was illegal.
I don’t think it has changed, but it’s been a hot minute since the Cypherpunks all wore DeCSS T-Shirts…
I believe you’re (of you’re American) now allowed to rip DVD but not anything newer. DMCA protection was removed from CSS
