Hacker News Reader

Comment by ucaetano | Hacker News Reader

> now is abusing that position

Offering to host your videos for free and display ads along them hardly seems like "abusing that position"...

Blocking your videos and holding them hostage until you agree to a new contract would be abuse, yes.

Wait, are you suggesting that it should be forced to continue to distribute your videos for free (to you) even if you don't agree to their terms of service?

I would say that if you want to run a platform for communication and expression, you shouldn't run rampant across it like a bully. There's a limit to what any company should be able to get away with in their terms of service. Push far enough, and the customers will leave with a bad taste in their mouth.

You can start running a platform for free expression, then start bullying people into adherence to a monetization policy. You're within your rights. However, that's a stupid level of bait and switch, like billing yourself as a vegan restaurant, but telling everyone they can only eat burgers.

No, I'm suggesting that you can't change a contract (ToS) after it's been accepted without consideration.

Blender already had an account and videos hosted on Youtube. Blender did not change their videos. YouTube changed their rules - and is holding Blender's videos hostage until they accept NEW terms.

These aren't terms already part of Blender's contract - which is why Youtube is literally trying to force Blender to sign a new contract and refuses to execute their original ToS.

> No, I'm suggesting that you can't change a contract (ToS) after it's been accepted without consideration.

Of course you can, as long as that is specified in the contract.

> These aren't terms already part of Blender's contract - which is why Youtube is literally trying to force Blender to sign a new contract and refuses to execute their original ToS.

And that is allowed per the contract.

A contract in the US can't override tort law. Material change without consideration is de facto no go.

This is pretty standard torts 101. You can say whatever you want in a contract but that doesn't mean the clause is valid. Furthermore ToS fall under sticker contracts which have a different level of scrutiny especially in regards to material changes post facto.

YouTube knows this. This is why they are trying to get Blender to sign a new contract. If your claim above was correct, YouTube would of simply already monetized the channel and unblocked the videos.

There was no material consideration to begin with. If I agree to paint your house for free, and put it in writing, and then later decide not to (or decide not to unless you agree to some post-hoc rule), you have no tort against me -- there was no consideration to begin with.

But you can't agree to paint my house for free, decide you would rather be paid halfway through and then prevent me from entering my house until I pay you.

That's a bit of a clumsy analogy, but the issue here is the immediate blocking of content and then demanding of pay. If Youtube instead said "Hey, you have 90 days to remove your content or let us monetize it" that would be a bit different.

Your youtube channel is Google's property. Your content is yours. You can remove them anytime. But your YouTube channel is not your house!

As much as I’d like to buy into this interpretation, isn’t the fact that youtube is an ongoing developed and supported service that consideration?

As in, their consideration here is “we continue to, without any pricetag, host your videos for free on a website receiving ongoing updates and development, AND FURTHER allow you to continue to upload and store new content, despite either and both being complete deadweight cost for us?”

The consideration being the right to indefinitely add more to the platform and benefit from those updates

> If your claim above was correct, YouTube would of simply already monetized the channel and unblocked the videos.

No, they can't do that, but they can end the service until a new contract is signed. Which is exactly what happened.

The YT ToS does not create an obligation on YT's part to serve your videos.

> The YT ToS does not create an obligation on YT's part to serve your videos.

Correct. The issue here is that they blocked the videos (not plain removal) with no warning or stated limit, and then demanded monetization to unblock the videos, thus creating a duress situation.

If YouTube had a stated policy saying "Videos getting over 250k views must be monetized" or sent a 90 day warning the situation would be different.

Instead YouTube blocked the videos without warning and then demanded a new monetization contract to restore service. That reeks of a duress case.

It's a bit of a stretch to call it a contract I think. Terms of service may in fact be a contact, but IANAL, but calling it a contract might imply that there are things to be gained on both sides. If a contract is no longer providing value for one of the contractees then it is fair, and should be provisions for such, to renegotiate or terminate the contract.

I do agree that they are abusing their position, but I don't agree that they shouldn't be allowed to act the way they are acting. Are they being unreasonable? Maybe, but it's not my, or your, place to decide that.

> "Are they being unreasonable? Maybe, but it's not my, or your, place to decide that."

What a ridiculous statement. It's everybody's right and place to decide for themselves whether or not they think youtube is being reasonable.

Well, it's not my place because I don't put videos on Youtube and rarely if ever watch them. Sorry, I may have assumed too much. We also don't know all the details as to why they are doing this. We can only assume it is unreasonable. We shouldn't assume anything.

> Are they being unreasonable? Maybe, but it's not my, or your, place to decide that.

Whose is it then? This is playing out in public; the public is free to opine.

Some things that are free of legal consequences come with consequences in other realms, and that's perfectly okay.

For free?

YouTube gives Google _unparalleled_ access to what we like, how we think, what we want, ... It's the best profiling tool there is.

Let's not say "for free" when we are paying a price for it already.

Yes, for free. You can create an account and upload as many videos as you want without paying absolutely anything. Even more, without handing over any personal information.

But hey, feel free to upload your videos elsewhere.

You're giving them content they can monetize, so it's no wonder they will let you give it to them for free.

> You're giving them content they can monetize

Well, exactly, content they can monetize.

By uploading videos you normally provide personal information: info about the video, context and, most of the time, the video itself.

By accessing videos you normally provide personal information: ip address, playlists, access history, browser fingerprint, device id,...

I don't think Blender is providing any personal information in the video.

Not to mention that you can upload it from a burner account and device in a cafe.

Oh, and you always have to option, well, not to upload it.

> Offering to host your videos for free

For free? No. For your valuable data. You think youtube is worth over $100 billion because it's hosting your videos for free?

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/youtube-might-be-worth-o...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com