The videos are the intellectual property of the creator, and YouTube has the rights to distribute and make money off of it for hosting it for you to billions of users. What's the problem? The creator can take their content somewhere else or host it themselves on their website
If the building I live in implements policies that are hostile to their tenants, that's their right and I can choose to move, but it's still hostile.
For sake of argument, let's say that this feature causes a 20% reduction in video views.
This feature is part of YouTube Premium, meaning that YouTube is making money on it, but in its current form the creator is not. So in essence, YouTube has chosen to take the creator's content, create derivative content based on it, and make money off of that derivative content while removing some portion of the creator's revenue. In most contexts, this would be described as theft, and I think that's a fair word to use here even if I'm sure the T&C covers it somewhere.
> What's the problem? The creator can take their content somewhere else or host it themselves on their website
You don't see a problem with a move like this? Obviously creators can move elsewhere, but it's a hostile move on YouTube's part nonetheless.
If you are scraping forbidden data in my robots.txt, I don't give a damn. I am gonna mess with your bots however I like, and I'm willing to go as far as it takes to teach you a lesson about respecting my robots.txt.
not sure if the same jurisdictions that are under the Computer Fraud Act have determined there is such a thing as "illegal scraping".
Does the Computer Fraud Act cover segfaulting an .exe file? I don't know, I don't live in the country that has it.
If The Computer Fraud act says it is ok to segfault an .exe which I highly doubt, is the organization doing this segfaulting as part of their protection against this supposed "illegal scraping" actually checking that the machines that they are segfaulting are all in jurisdictions that are under the Computer Fraud Act?
What happens if they segfault outside those jurisdictions and there are other laws that pertain there? I'm guessing it might happen they screwed then. Should have thought about that, being so clever.
Hey I get it, I am totally the kind of guy who might decide to segfault someone costing me a lot of money by crawling my site and ignoring my robots.txt. I'm vengeful like that. But I would accept hey what I am doing is probably illegal somewhere, too bad, I definitely wouldn't be going around arguing it was totally legal, and I would also be open to the possibility hey, this fight I'm jumping into might have some collateral damages - sucks to be them.
Everybody else here seems to be all righteous about how they can destroy people's shit in retaliation, and the people whose computers they are destroying might not even know they got a beef with you.
on edit: obviously once it got to courts or the media I would argue it was totally legal, ethical and the right thing to do to prevent these people from being able to attack other sites with their "illegal scraping" behavior. Because I don't win the fight if I get punished for winning. I'm just talking about keeping a clear view of what one is actually doing in the process of winning the fight.
If that's the case what do we do about websites and apps which do things like disable your back button (mobile phone's direct one) or your right click capabilities (desktop browser) while such functionality disabling is not present in the ToS or even presented to you upon visiting the site or using the app?
There’s always some background enthropy on a forum, just nevermind and fix it if you feel like. People fat finger “flag” all the time as well. https://news.ycombinator.com/flagged
