5 ms·

> yup, there are a lot of re-uploaded videos and also command-line tools for downloading youtube videos The former _may_ classify as copyright infringement. Th

by gioele 10y ago

> yup, there are a lot of re-uploaded videos and also command-line tools for downloading youtube videos The former _may_ classify as copyright infringement. The latter definitely does not.

Houshalter 10y ago
It violates YouTube's terms of service and hurts the artists.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  > It violates YouTube's terms of service Yes > and hurts the artists. Evidence required.
  - spiderfarmer 10y ago
    They get reuploaded to Facebook, where they go viral without crediting the author. If you're a content creator trying to build an audience, it definetly hurts when people already saw your content elsewhere.
    - pluma 10y ago
      > reuploaded To quote your ggp: > [re-uploading videos] _may_ classify as copyright infringement. [downloading YouTube videos] definitely does not. And your gp: > [Downloading YouTube videos] violates YouTube's terms of service and hurts the artists. And your parent: > Evidence required. So... why are we talking about re-uploading again as if downloading was the same thing?
      - spiderfarmer 10y ago
        I never said all downloads are hurting content creators. I am saying if it was not possible to download them, the creators would be better off.
        pluma 10y ago
        Sure, and if companies wouldn't have to pay taxes, they would make more money. If perfectly legal, permissible, expected and ethically justifiable behaviour hurts your bottom line, your business model is broken, not your customers.
        tekromancr 10y ago
        No, because if it were not possible to download them, it wouldn't be possible to watch them in the first place.
  - davidiach 10y ago
    @spiderfarmer, the author can credit himself, all he has to do is put a "follow me on twitter @author" or something like that.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      Videos are edited to remove that information. "Freebooting" is the term that's used. A Facebook group will find a popular video on Youtube, then either edit out all identifying information or just remake the video, then post it to their group to get the views and ad revenue.
      - eveningcoffee 10y ago
        What you describe here sounds like a real copyright piracy.
        DanBC 10y ago
        Most copyright laws make a distinction between copyright infringement done as part of trade and copyright infringement done for personal use. EDIT: For fuck's sake, this is true, and follows from WIPO Copyright Treaty into the Copyright Directive for the EU and whatever the US equivalent is. Breaching copyright as part of trade turns it into a criminal offence, merely breaching copyright for personal use is a civil tort. That's why in the various bit-torrent legal cases people who torrent are sued for loss by companies in courts, while people who run businesses running torrent sites are prosecuted by law enforcement.
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    Why does HN find it so difficult to understand such a simple concept? Obviously people will download it for free that otherwise would have paid for it.
    - creshal 10y ago
      Free streaming does not cut into artists' sales, but downloads will, because…?
- creshal 10y ago
  > hurts the artists , because?
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    Because people will download it for free, who otherwise would have paid for it. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?
- pluma 10y ago
  > hurts the artists ... only if you use the version of youtubedl that comes with the knife-wielding robot.
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    Why wouldn't you? It's free.
  - Asooka 10y ago
    Oh, didn't you hear? Researchers found that via quantum tunnelling entanglement, each time you download a video from youtube, a number of random artists (not necessarily involved with the media in question) feel an unexplained momentary sharp pain in their back. A similar effect happens when you drunkenly sing the latest pop song - an egregious copyright violation by any measure - in which case several successful artists feel a passing, but deep, existential dread about the quality of their work. Further research into the effect has been postponed due to ethical concerns. The researchers note, however, that shortening copyright terms would drastically reduce its impact.
kalleboo 10y ago
> The latter definitely does not Depending on what country you live in.
DanBC 10y ago
Uploading a video to Youtube if you don't have permission of the rights holders is a very clear breach of copyright. Downloading that video (whether by watching it on Youtube or by using a tool to download the video to watch offline) is, if you don't have the permission of the rights holder another very clear copyright breach. There's some narrow exceptions for free use, or public domain content. I'm surprised you think it isn't. In what country would that be true?
- dozzie 10y ago
  E.g. in Poland. Don't be surprised, because it's not an absolute truth that you breach copyright watching something published.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    Polish law is harmonised with the Copyright directive, which implements the WIPO treaty. Watching a video on Youtube is only lawful if the rights holder has given their permission. Here, the rights holder hasnt given their permission and isn't getting compensation, thus it's not lawful in Polish law. It might be useful if you provided a cite the the Polish law that gives this exemption. The person uploading the video is clearly breaching copyright, and if they monetise the video that becomes criminal in most of EU. But the person downloading the video is also breaching copyright, albeit not criminally.
    - zielmicha 10y ago
      Watching already published videos is fair use in Poland. Art 23 Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych > 1. Bez zezwolenia twórcy wolno nieodpłatnie korzystać z już rozpowszechnionego utworu w zakresie własnego użytku osobistego. (...) > 2. Zakres własnego użytku osobistego obejmuje korzystanie z pojedynczych egzemplarzy utworów przez krąg osób pozostających w związku osobistym, w szczególności pokrewieństwa, powinowactwa lub stosunku towarzyskiego. translated: > 1. Free usage of the already published work for personal use is allowed without a permit of authors . (...) > 2. The scope of personal use includes the use of single copies of work by a group of individuals in personal relationships, in particular blood relation, kinship or a social relationship.

by gioele 10y ago

> yup, there are a lot of re-uploaded videos and also command-line tools for downloading youtube videos The former _may_ classify as copyright infringement. The latter definitely does not.

Houshalter 10y ago

It violates YouTube's terms of service and hurts the artists.

ekianjo 10y ago
> It violates YouTube's terms of service Yes > and hurts the artists. Evidence required.
- spiderfarmer 10y ago
  They get reuploaded to Facebook, where they go viral without crediting the author. If you're a content creator trying to build an audience, it definetly hurts when people already saw your content elsewhere.
  - pluma 10y ago
    > reuploaded To quote your ggp: > [re-uploading videos] _may_ classify as copyright infringement. [downloading YouTube videos] definitely does not. And your gp: > [Downloading YouTube videos] violates YouTube's terms of service and hurts the artists. And your parent: > Evidence required. So... why are we talking about re-uploading again as if downloading was the same thing?
    - spiderfarmer 10y ago
      I never said all downloads are hurting content creators. I am saying if it was not possible to download them, the creators would be better off.
      - pluma 10y ago
        Sure, and if companies wouldn't have to pay taxes, they would make more money. If perfectly legal, permissible, expected and ethically justifiable behaviour hurts your bottom line, your business model is broken, not your customers.
      - tekromancr 10y ago
        No, because if it were not possible to download them, it wouldn't be possible to watch them in the first place.
- davidiach 10y ago
  @spiderfarmer, the author can credit himself, all he has to do is put a "follow me on twitter @author" or something like that.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    Videos are edited to remove that information. "Freebooting" is the term that's used. A Facebook group will find a popular video on Youtube, then either edit out all identifying information or just remake the video, then post it to their group to get the views and ad revenue.
    - eveningcoffee 10y ago
      What you describe here sounds like a real copyright piracy.
      - DanBC 10y ago
        Most copyright laws make a distinction between copyright infringement done as part of trade and copyright infringement done for personal use. EDIT: For fuck's sake, this is true, and follows from WIPO Copyright Treaty into the Copyright Directive for the EU and whatever the US equivalent is. Breaching copyright as part of trade turns it into a criminal offence, merely breaching copyright for personal use is a civil tort. That's why in the various bit-torrent legal cases people who torrent are sued for loss by companies in courts, while people who run businesses running torrent sites are prosecuted by law enforcement.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  Why does HN find it so difficult to understand such a simple concept? Obviously people will download it for free that otherwise would have paid for it.
  - creshal 10y ago
    Free streaming does not cut into artists' sales, but downloads will, because…?
creshal 10y ago
> hurts the artists , because?
- Houshalter 10y ago
  Because people will download it for free, who otherwise would have paid for it. Why is this such a hard concept to understand?
pluma 10y ago
> hurts the artists ... only if you use the version of youtubedl that comes with the knife-wielding robot.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Why wouldn't you? It's free.
- Asooka 10y ago
  Oh, didn't you hear? Researchers found that via quantum tunnelling entanglement, each time you download a video from youtube, a number of random artists (not necessarily involved with the media in question) feel an unexplained momentary sharp pain in their back. A similar effect happens when you drunkenly sing the latest pop song - an egregious copyright violation by any measure - in which case several successful artists feel a passing, but deep, existential dread about the quality of their work. Further research into the effect has been postponed due to ethical concerns. The researchers note, however, that shortening copyright terms would drastically reduce its impact.

kalleboo 10y ago

> The latter definitely does not Depending on what country you live in.

DanBC 10y ago

Uploading a video to Youtube if you don't have permission of the rights holders is a very clear breach of copyright. Downloading that video (whether by watching it on Youtube or by using a tool to download the video to watch offline) is, if you don't have the permission of the rights holder another very clear copyright breach. There's some narrow exceptions for free use, or public domain content. I'm surprised you think it isn't. In what country would that be true?

dozzie 10y ago
E.g. in Poland. Don't be surprised, because it's not an absolute truth that you breach copyright watching something published.
- DanBC 10y ago
  Polish law is harmonised with the Copyright directive, which implements the WIPO treaty. Watching a video on Youtube is only lawful if the rights holder has given their permission. Here, the rights holder hasnt given their permission and isn't getting compensation, thus it's not lawful in Polish law. It might be useful if you provided a cite the the Polish law that gives this exemption. The person uploading the video is clearly breaching copyright, and if they monetise the video that becomes criminal in most of EU. But the person downloading the video is also breaching copyright, albeit not criminally.
  - zielmicha 10y ago
    Watching already published videos is fair use in Poland. Art 23 Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych > 1. Bez zezwolenia twórcy wolno nieodpłatnie korzystać z już rozpowszechnionego utworu w zakresie własnego użytku osobistego. (...) > 2. Zakres własnego użytku osobistego obejmuje korzystanie z pojedynczych egzemplarzy utworów przez krąg osób pozostających w związku osobistym, w szczególności pokrewieństwa, powinowactwa lub stosunku towarzyskiego. translated: > 1. Free usage of the already published work for personal use is allowed without a permit of authors . (...) > 2. The scope of personal use includes the use of single copies of work by a group of individuals in personal relationships, in particular blood relation, kinship or a social relationship.