7 ms·

And finally a solution in Chrome 58: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/03/chrome-58-media-updates https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/0

And finally a solution in Chrome 58: https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/03/chrome-58-media-updates https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/03/chrome-58-... Too little, too late for many of us, I expect. We switched to using MSE some time ago, which provided a way to avoid both the download button and other normal file-saving functionality showing up in the first place. Ironically, the biggest problem with this wasn't the ability to download itself, because of course that was always available to those who chose to look for it in any major browser. The real problem in our experience was the customer perception that because an obvious download button had appeared, it was now OK to download and save content from video-based sites. Users, understandably enough, made no distinction between a site-provided facility and a browser-provided one when the change appeared, and just assumed the terms now allowed it. I'm honestly surprised that no-one seems to have tried to sue Google over this one yet. It has upset a lot of people over the past few months, and in some cases it must surely have cost site operators a significant amount of real money.

Dylan16807 10y ago
> a way to avoid both the download button and other normal file-saving functionality showing up in the first place Ugh. > the customer perception that because an obvious download button had appeared, it was now OK to download and save content from video-based sites Do you have an argument about how this differs from the Betamax case?
- Silhouette 10y ago
  Which Betamax case involved making permanent copies of material you had explicitly agreed to access on some temporary basis in return for payment? Because that's the situation that a lot of site operators and web developers have been upset about here. Not all video served from web sites is freely available. Some of it you have to pay for, and it's provided on a certain basis in return.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > Which Betamax case Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Time shifting a video is a protected fair use. > temporary basis ...which can be time shifted without violating copyright. > explicitly agreed As for any contract that may exist, that's separate from copyright. It isn't Google's job to enforce terms to a contract between two other unrelated parties.
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      Time shifting a video is a protected fair use. (a) Time-shifting doesn't imply a permanent copy that can be rewatched multiple times. (b) Not everywhere has the same legal framework for copyright as the United States. As for any contract that may exist, that's separate from copyright. No, it isn't. The default position in most jurisdictions is that any copy of a protected work is infringing unless an explicit licence has been granted by the rightsholder. Lacking such a licence, there might be an argument about some implicit permission, or there might be some affirmative defence or the equivalent depending on your legal jurisdiction, but typically that only becomes relevant when the act of copying was infringing by default.
      - pdkl95 10y ago
        > Time-shifting doesn't imply a permanent copy Such as a video tape? Perhaps in Sony Betamax format? That's exactly what "time shifting" means. > that can be rewatched multiple times Yes, tools can be used in improper ways. > Not everywhere has the same legal framework for copyright as the United States. You can assume my comments are limited to US jurisdiction. I make no claim about other jurisdictions that are outside my knowledge, experience, and legal liability.
        Silhouette 10y ago
        That's exactly what "time shifting" means. Technically, you might be entitled to retain that copy only for long enough to watch the programme at a different time, after which keeping it would be an infringement. I haven't checked whether US law follows that pattern, but it's essentially what a lot of jurisdictions seem to have settled on for that particular case. Yes, tools can be used in improper ways. Yes, and doing so may be illegal, and Google's actions here actively invited people to do so. Do you see the problem now? You can assume my comments are limited to US jurisdiction. OK, but even in the US it's not clear that Google's actions here were legal.
aviraldg 10y ago
Once content has reached my computer, it is mine to do with as I wish and consume as I wish. If you choose to interfere with this, your site is BROKEN, and I and many others would not use it.
- bcook 10y ago
  >Once content has reached my computer, it is mine to do with as I wish and consume as I wish. Is it that simple? Morally and ignorantly I agree but I'm not so sure the law and more sophisticated understandings of morality agree. I mean, I'm happy to pay for & watch Netflix but I understand that (edit: for most titles) I never paid for download rights, only streaming rights.
  - Endy 10y ago
    Streaming is downloading. The information is on your PC; you should have the right to do with it as you please forever.
    - masterleep 10y ago
      It is equally logical to say that your name appeared in my computer just now by virtue of your comment; therefore, I can now impersonate you forever.
      - seanp2k2 10y ago
        More equivalent might be "an apple appeared in [your] house", but this falls apart since apples are physical, finite, and unique entities, unlike streams of bits.
    - tibbetts 10y ago
      When I buy a book, I'm allowed to do a lot of things with it (read it, sell it, burn it) but I'm not allowed to do anything I please. Copyright limitations are a reasonable thing for society to extend to content producers. What protections should exist digitally, and how should they be enforced by software tools, is a reasonable thing to debate.
Turing_Machine 10y ago
I'm honestly surprised that no-one seems to have tried to sue Google over this one yet. As I recall, people tried to sue Xerox on similar grounds when they introduced the photocopier. It didn't work.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  The early cases were different in nature to what we're talking about here, and they also took place in a time when there was much less awareness of mass infringement and there were fewer legal protections for rightsholders against it. Any analogous case today would be tried in the context of the Internet, DMCA, EUCD, etc.
jeroenhd 10y ago
This is why video content websites suck. Getting in the way will only frustrate users. In my country there is a legal right to copy audio and video content for your own consumption. We can download your video, play it on the TV in living room, save it to our phones and watch it in the train to work. And if your content is interesting enough, people will do so. If your site were interesting enough, I'd probably write a quick Chrome extension that adds a big download button to save others the hassle of going through the developer tools.
- mst 10y ago
  Right click -> save video as. Given that exists I'm ok hiding the download button so people don't accidentally download previews rather than the high-res version they actually wanted.
sidneys 10y ago
you're horribly wrong. if the button appears, the content is already available for download by the user. thus, chrome offering another option for consuming the content can be deemed as good usability. the issues with your business model are completely separate from this feature. hiding features from users just because they are technically inept is ridiculous and has no place in open source software development and the Web Platform. put up a paywall and switch to DASH.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  thus, chrome offering another option for consuming the content can be deemed as good usability. It's not good usability to promote a function that was possible before but contrary to the terms of use and not widely used in practice, particularly in a way that misleads a significant number of users into thinking that it is now permitted use. put up a paywall and switch to DASH. That's exactly what a lot of sites have been doing for the past few months. Others have been going with full-on DRM. The open approach to the Web that you seem to value is dying in real time. Unfortunately, that work meant wasting time and money updating infrastructure that could otherwise have been spent on providing more content. It meant dropping support for platforms that don't support the required technologies like MSE or EME, to the detriment of both users on those platforms and the site operators if they also lose some income. It meant removing the possibility of turning a blind eye to occasional downloads in cases like people wanting to watch something offline because they genuinely don't have a good enough Internet connection where they're going to be. Exactly no-one won from this, and several groups have lost to varying degrees. How is this a good outcome, in any way?

Dylan16807 10y ago

> a way to avoid both the download button and other normal file-saving functionality showing up in the first place Ugh. > the customer perception that because an obvious download button had appeared, it was now OK to download and save content from video-based sites Do you have an argument about how this differs from the Betamax case?

Silhouette 10y ago
Which Betamax case involved making permanent copies of material you had explicitly agreed to access on some temporary basis in return for payment? Because that's the situation that a lot of site operators and web developers have been upset about here. Not all video served from web sites is freely available. Some of it you have to pay for, and it's provided on a certain basis in return.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > Which Betamax case Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Time shifting a video is a protected fair use. > temporary basis ...which can be time shifted without violating copyright. > explicitly agreed As for any contract that may exist, that's separate from copyright. It isn't Google's job to enforce terms to a contract between two other unrelated parties.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Time shifting a video is a protected fair use. (a) Time-shifting doesn't imply a permanent copy that can be rewatched multiple times. (b) Not everywhere has the same legal framework for copyright as the United States. As for any contract that may exist, that's separate from copyright. No, it isn't. The default position in most jurisdictions is that any copy of a protected work is infringing unless an explicit licence has been granted by the rightsholder. Lacking such a licence, there might be an argument about some implicit permission, or there might be some affirmative defence or the equivalent depending on your legal jurisdiction, but typically that only becomes relevant when the act of copying was infringing by default.
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      > Time-shifting doesn't imply a permanent copy Such as a video tape? Perhaps in Sony Betamax format? That's exactly what "time shifting" means. > that can be rewatched multiple times Yes, tools can be used in improper ways. > Not everywhere has the same legal framework for copyright as the United States. You can assume my comments are limited to US jurisdiction. I make no claim about other jurisdictions that are outside my knowledge, experience, and legal liability.
      - Silhouette 10y ago
        That's exactly what "time shifting" means. Technically, you might be entitled to retain that copy only for long enough to watch the programme at a different time, after which keeping it would be an infringement. I haven't checked whether US law follows that pattern, but it's essentially what a lot of jurisdictions seem to have settled on for that particular case. Yes, tools can be used in improper ways. Yes, and doing so may be illegal, and Google's actions here actively invited people to do so. Do you see the problem now? You can assume my comments are limited to US jurisdiction. OK, but even in the US it's not clear that Google's actions here were legal.

aviraldg 10y ago

Once content has reached my computer, it is mine to do with as I wish and consume as I wish. If you choose to interfere with this, your site is BROKEN, and I and many others would not use it.

bcook 10y ago
>Once content has reached my computer, it is mine to do with as I wish and consume as I wish. Is it that simple? Morally and ignorantly I agree but I'm not so sure the law and more sophisticated understandings of morality agree. I mean, I'm happy to pay for & watch Netflix but I understand that (edit: for most titles) I never paid for download rights, only streaming rights.
- Endy 10y ago
  Streaming is downloading. The information is on your PC; you should have the right to do with it as you please forever.
  - masterleep 10y ago
    It is equally logical to say that your name appeared in my computer just now by virtue of your comment; therefore, I can now impersonate you forever.
    - seanp2k2 10y ago
      More equivalent might be "an apple appeared in [your] house", but this falls apart since apples are physical, finite, and unique entities, unlike streams of bits.
  - tibbetts 10y ago
    When I buy a book, I'm allowed to do a lot of things with it (read it, sell it, burn it) but I'm not allowed to do anything I please. Copyright limitations are a reasonable thing for society to extend to content producers. What protections should exist digitally, and how should they be enforced by software tools, is a reasonable thing to debate.

Turing_Machine 10y ago

I'm honestly surprised that no-one seems to have tried to sue Google over this one yet. As I recall, people tried to sue Xerox on similar grounds when they introduced the photocopier. It didn't work.

Silhouette 10y ago
The early cases were different in nature to what we're talking about here, and they also took place in a time when there was much less awareness of mass infringement and there were fewer legal protections for rightsholders against it. Any analogous case today would be tried in the context of the Internet, DMCA, EUCD, etc.

jeroenhd 10y ago

This is why video content websites suck. Getting in the way will only frustrate users. In my country there is a legal right to copy audio and video content for your own consumption. We can download your video, play it on the TV in living room, save it to our phones and watch it in the train to work. And if your content is interesting enough, people will do so. If your site were interesting enough, I'd probably write a quick Chrome extension that adds a big download button to save others the hassle of going through the developer tools.

mst 10y ago
Right click -> save video as. Given that exists I'm ok hiding the download button so people don't accidentally download previews rather than the high-res version they actually wanted.

sidneys 10y ago

you're horribly wrong. if the button appears, the content is already available for download by the user. thus, chrome offering another option for consuming the content can be deemed as good usability. the issues with your business model are completely separate from this feature. hiding features from users just because they are technically inept is ridiculous and has no place in open source software development and the Web Platform. put up a paywall and switch to DASH.

Silhouette 10y ago
thus, chrome offering another option for consuming the content can be deemed as good usability. It's not good usability to promote a function that was possible before but contrary to the terms of use and not widely used in practice, particularly in a way that misleads a significant number of users into thinking that it is now permitted use. put up a paywall and switch to DASH. That's exactly what a lot of sites have been doing for the past few months. Others have been going with full-on DRM. The open approach to the Web that you seem to value is dying in real time. Unfortunately, that work meant wasting time and money updating infrastructure that could otherwise have been spent on providing more content. It meant dropping support for platforms that don't support the required technologies like MSE or EME, to the detriment of both users on those platforms and the site operators if they also lose some income. It meant removing the possibility of turning a blind eye to occasional downloads in cases like people wanting to watch something offline because they genuinely don't have a good enough Internet connection where they're going to be. Exactly no-one won from this, and several groups have lost to varying degrees. How is this a good outcome, in any way?