Is it a sin to break the YouTube terms and conditions

  • Thread starter Thread starter michael-kaw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

michael-kaw

Guest
Hi a am 14 and I live in London. So I know that we are supposed to follow the governments law but what about smaller things like the YouTube or Instagram terms and conditions, would that also be considered a sin, if so would it be mortal or venial sin. (I think I have put this in the wrong category)
 
Youtube’s terms and conditions are pretty open. How in the world are you violating them?

If you are uploading copyright content you are being foolish beucase it not only has ramifications across youtube but also legal ones.
 
I was saying more like listening to music from YouTube videos while off the app using another app to do so. This is not illegal but breaks the terms and conditions of YouTube
 
michael-kaw said:
I was saying more like listening to music from YouTube videos while off the app using another app to do so. This is not illegal but breaks the terms and conditions of YouTube
Click to expand...
not quite sure I follow what you are doing.

So you’re watching a video in the app and watching the second video in a browser?

Why? Just how much sound do you need in your life?

But I see nothing that is similar to what you’re saying. Terms of Service

In the TOS I see a rule against using someone else’s account. You must use the official website, app or watch from an official embedded video. You can’t use automatic spiders to up your video view counts. Nothing about watching videos at the same time.
 
I’m not sure what you mean, michael-kaw. But as for breaking terms and conditions being sinful, I would say that the most serious terms and conditions I know of have to do with honesty and not stealing, so obviously it would be sinful to violate those: Specifically, lying about your identity and pretending to be another user would fall under the sin of lying. Also, and this one is more personally relevant to me as a YouTube singer myself, if you’re stealing people’s work or passing it off as your own, that would fall under the sin of stealing.

I think I might have an idea of what you’re talking about, now that I think about it, but that section, 4.D. in the link Xanthippe posted, seems to be talking about anything that finds ways to share YouTube links publicly without giving the people who see it access to YouTube, OR about finding ways to make money from YouTube, through ads and stuff, that YouTube itself won’t profit from or gain traffic from. Basically, it’s about finding ways to use YouTube on your own website and for your own money or benefit but that don’t help YouTube get visitors or profit. The example they gave was putting a YouTube video on your channel and somehow disabling the link back to YouTube for people who watch the video, so that you’re basically using YouTube’s service and cheating them out of the chance to get more visitors. Or if you use some program that lets you visit YouTube without it really counting as a visit in the system, since they make their money off visits, so finding a way to trick the system into not realizing you visited is like staying in a hotel and somehow hiding it so that the hotel never gets paid. But even if you’re visiting YouTube through a browser App, or something, that still would register as a visit, as far as I know.

So if I’m understanding you correctly, I think what you’re worried about is a misunderstanding. If you’re not somehow cheating YouTube out of visits and money, then you’re not violating the rule that it seems you think you may be.
 
Sorry if this post sounds a bit rediculous, I think I get a bit scrupolous sometimes, to be honest what I meant was using apps like musi. Thank you all anyway
 
michael-kaw said:
Sorry if this post sounds a bit rediculous, I think I get a bit scrupolous sometimes, to be honest what I meant was using apps like musi. Thank you all anyway
Click to expand...
Youtube doesn’t seem to be particularly against apps like Musi and they are so large that if an app violated their TOS they’d shut it down quicker than you could blink.
 
Short answer: Youtube is owned by google, and Musi is available in the google store. So, it’s fine.

Long answer:
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
Youtube doesn’t seem to be particularly against apps like Musi and they are so large that if an app violated their TOS they’d shut it down quicker than you could blink.
Click to expand...
Yes, but…

Yes, youtube manage their licence well enough for you to trust that if something (eg. Musi) works, then it’s OK with youtube. You don’t have to go into the fine print yourself.

However, there are some exceptions, but with the current state of the web you are unlikely to stumble on them accidentally. Particularly, you can trust anything from the Apple or Google store.

In the past there have been browser add-ons which rip content from youtube for a user to keep off-line. Such are effectively stealing and immoral to use, because they bypass the sites legitimate control over its own content. Youtube could not block these because the add-on was running in the client and was undetectable by youtube. With the current state of web technology and legal enforcement I don’t know whether these add-ons are still available. A google search won’t find them, but they may be passed around on the dark web.

Today, with the dominance of smartphones, when any app is accepted by the Apple or Android store it is reviewed for its legality. The stores do not accept apps which are intended to breach copyright. Moreover, as you indicated, sites such as youtube have such clout that they could block any app they don’t like.
 
Last edited:
Edmundus1581 said:
Short answer: Youtube is owned by google, and Musi is available in the google store. So, it’s fine.

Long answer:
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
Youtube doesn’t seem to be particularly against apps like Musi and they are so large that if an app violated their TOS they’d shut it down quicker than you could blink.
Click to expand...
Yes, but…

Yes, youtube manage their licence well enough for you to trust that if something (eg. Musi) works, then it’s OK with youtube. You don’t have to go into the fine print yourself.

However, there are some exceptions, but with the current state of the web you are unlikely to stumble on them accidentally. Particularly, you can trust anything from the Apple or Google store.

In the past there have been browser add-ons which rip content from youtube for a user to keep off-line. Such are effectively stealing and immoral to use, because they bypass the sites legitimate control over its own content. Youtube could not block these because the add-on was running in the client and was undetectable by youtube. With the current state of web technology and legal enforcement I don’t know whether these add-ons are still available. A google search won’t find them, but they may be passed around on the dark web.

Today, with the dominance of smartphones, when any app is accepted by the Apple or Android store it is reviewed for its legality. The stores do not accept apps which are intended to breach copyright. Moreover, as you indicated, sites such as youtube have such clout that they could block any app they don’t like.
Click to expand...
I was speaking to apps–which like you mention in the Google store and the Apple store have some credentials.

There are sites in which you can download with a more sophisticated method than screen cap, but like you mentioned these tools are not found on the “regular” internet…
 
YouTube doesn’t listen to their own rules most of the time abyway. The entire site is run by bots with little to no human oversight. I don’t really see anything wrong with manipulating their purposely broken system
 
ConsistantlyBaffled said:
YouTube doesn’t listen to their own rules most of the time abyway. The entire site is run by bots with little to no human oversight. I don’t really see anything wrong with manipulating their purposely broken system
Click to expand...
This makes no sense. Youtube owns their site so they can do whatever they want, even “break” their own rules. This does not give a user the right to break their rules.
 
Last edited:
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
There are sites in which you can download with a more sophisticated method than screen cap, but like you mentioned these tools are not found on the “regular” internet…
Click to expand...
Agreed.

“Screen cap”? I had to look it up - “Screen capture”. Thanks! 🙂 Yes, screen capture was one method used to rip video off the web, along with more sophisticated methods. In the early days of the web users could work very close the metal with various open source tools. These days, everything is so complex that most users can only use what’s commercially available, even if it’s “free”, and any business which is big enough to be part of the industry, including the FOSS providers, cooperates with copyright protection.

There are also the web standards and DRM. Remember DRM? 🙂 A bit of searching has indicated to me that while DRM was only accepted in HTML5 in 2017, the main browsers have been supporting it for years - so effectively that it’s now invisible.

Which just re-inforces your original answer to the OP’s question. Any app from a commercial source can be assumed to handle copyright.

Google, Apple, Microsoft, youtube, facebook, etc. aren’t trusting these things to the users and the TOS!
 
Last edited:
Rules are there for a reason. Manipulating the system to get around those rules is wrong. When watching programming or listening to music, make sure it has a phrase like “Standard Youtube License” or EMI Music or the artist’s own name. That way you can be sure that the artist or the company or someone with a youtube license put it there.

My company sends take-down requests to pirate sites all the time. I know companies do pull their content from youtube because it’s their content and unless they put it there or a licensed person put it there, I’m not going to watch or listen to something with no legitimate credit. j_kOO6933 and similar are ignored by me.
 
Just my 2 cents on the matter.

The CCC tells us that contracts are to be honored. Each contract enacts a set of obligations for the parties involved which, in the case of Youtube, is between you and the site.

However, simply breaking the rules of a site doesn’t constitute dishonoring the contract.

Let me explain. Youtube obliges you to follow its rules, under the agreement. When you fail to satisfy this request, incidentally or deliberately, you are either banned from the site, given a warning or blocked from some features, and you have no right to complain because you have agreed to the consequences. And that’s it really. No matter how many rules you break on the site, or on any site with rules, by accepting the consequences, you still honor the agreement.

Failure to fulfill a certain obligation in an agreement/contract (following site posting rules) does not break the agreement. When you agree to terms of service, you agree, not to follow the rules, but to allow things to happen to you when you don’t. In the case of a EULA, a company may hunt you down for damages.

Rules in agreements/contracts do not have the same nature as law. A law is only allowed to be enacted within the limits of the common good. With websites/services, they can enact as many inane rules as they please.

Now, how about dishonoring an agreement/contract? Simple. It’s the opposite of what I stated earlier. Bypassing technical/actual barriers, bribes, deceit (lying about failure to oblige) etc. You fail to honor a site’s terms of service (or, any contract) when you illicitly dodge the obligation to face the consequences.

TL;DR - There is nothing wrong with breaking a website’s rules/rules set forth by a contract so long as you face the consequences (pay damages, account deletion, revoke of services).
 
Last edited:
Also, I forgot to mention, with regards to falsifying information on website registration, I think Edward Feser could help answer that part.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

Is it wrong to lie to HAL?

While it’s still 2010, let’s talk about 2010 . I had occasion to watch it recently, and while it’s not as good as 2001 , it’s still a pretty...
edwardfeser.blogspot.com edwardfeser.blogspot.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top