4 ms·

Actually it probably did invite people to perform actions that were illegal in some places, but at that time I doubt the law anywhere was settled in that respec

Actually it probably did invite people to perform actions that were illegal in some places, but at that time I doubt the law anywhere was settled in that respect and presumably broadcasters or whoever held the rights didn't feel like bringing a case. The current situation is different anyway because Google suddenly added this new button where it wasn't there before. In practice, this demonstrably left a lot of users assuming that it was a new feature of the sites they were using and not realising that it was their browser updating that had caused the difference. And that in turn meant users thinking it was now OK to download and keep stuff where previously it hadn't been. I have personally seen messages from users that demonstrate this, and if you look at the numerous comments on the browser issues that were raised, it's clear that many others have observed that result as well. I don't blame the users for having that reaction. Most of them probably have no idea how to tell the difference between what their browser does and what a site does, and many probably don't even realise that Chrome updates itself without telling them in the first place. Google, on the other hand, should have known better. The consequences of doing this were predictable, and unlike users it's not as if the Chrome dev team don't know how online video serving works. It's bad enough for web developers that there is little consistency among browsers in how video controls appear and the browsers keep moving them around in updates, but adding something like this was obviously going to lead to confusion and be a concern for a lot of sites serving video content.

pdkl95 10y ago
> perform actions that were illegal First, copyright is a civil issue, not a crime. While recent law may[1] have made specific types of mass infringement a crime, in general copyright infringement isn't "illegal". It only makes you liable for actual and statutory civil damages. I suspect this is even true in most jurisdictions. > it probably did invite people [...] This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright aw and how the Betamax case affected it. The case wasn't about "inviting" improper actions. There was no disagreement that people could use Betamax to violate copyright. Just like how you believe Google should be guilty of something[2], the movie industry believed Sony should be guilt of copyright infringement. The allegation was that they had a right to effective protection of their copyright monopoly which video tape technology could undermine. However the court disagreed after Sony proved there were "significant non-infringing uses" for a Betamax tape recorder. From the majority opinion: >> "The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses ... one potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard, however it is understood: private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home. It does so both (A) because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing it for their programs, and (B) because the District Court's factual findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use..." The fact that some people might use technology (Betamax, Google's button) to infringe copyright or break a contract isn't relevant, because that was not the primary, intended purpose of the technology. Because other, legitimate uses exist, the manufacturer of that technology is not liable. I strongly suggest educating yourself a lot more about copyright and contract law actually work, because your arguments demonstrate a lot of misconceptions about copyright and fundamental errors about law in general. > Google, on the other hand, should have known better The only people that "should have known better" are the people that design their businesses to fundamentally rely on products they do no control or even have any contractual influence. Google will always be changing Chrome; expect that or find a way to remove that dependency. [1] I'm not sure if it has been tested in court. [2] Also, adding a save button to videos isn't tortious interference of a contract about renting videos either. Adding that button wasn't a tort ("wrongful act"), nor was it intended to affect a video rental business.
- Silhouette 10y ago
  I'm well aware of the distinction between civil and criminal law. The word illegal literally just means "prohibited by law" and does not require a criminal act. If it has some more specific technical meaning where you are, that's your concern. I'm also well aware of the landmark Betamax case. Leaving aside that it is specifically about US law, there were multiple fundamental details in that case that do not apply in this context, such as there being no likelihood of causing nonminimal harm to the potential market or value of the protected works, the time-shifting being described being used to watch a programme that could not be viewed live just once at a later time, and a significant likelihood of a substantial number of copyright holders not objecting to the action. None of these seem to fit my original question from the start of this discussion, which was simply "Which Betamax case involved making permanent copies of material you had explicitly agreed to access on some temporary basis in return for payment?" So the case you keep talking about does not appear to be relevant to the present discussion. As for businesses knowing better, now a lot of them do, and the result is that they have redesigned their systems to prevent the undesired behaviour. However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect businesses to predict all possible future changes in browsers and to then expend resources dealing with changes that will predictably cause trouble. And again, I would refer you to the issue trackers for the browser, where it's clear that many other people take the same view.
  - Dylan16807 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?" Copies on a hard drive are no more permanent than copies on a Betamax tape. The browser has no idea if the content was intended to be temporary, or if there was payment. Plus something like cable TV fits that description too, and you're still allowed to record it. And the potential for harm is pretty similar.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      In England there are strict limitations on time-shifting. You're allowed to timeshift broadcast tv programmes, but only for a limited amount of time. (I think two weeks). I don't think people time shifting at home was ever enforced in courts. (I welcome any corrections. English copyright law isn't straight-forward).

pdkl95 10y ago

> perform actions that were illegal First, copyright is a civil issue, not a crime. While recent law may[1] have made specific types of mass infringement a crime, in general copyright infringement isn't "illegal". It only makes you liable for actual and statutory civil damages. I suspect this is even true in most jurisdictions. > it probably did invite people [...] This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright aw and how the Betamax case affected it. The case wasn't about "inviting" improper actions. There was no disagreement that people could use Betamax to violate copyright. Just like how you believe Google should be guilty of something[2], the movie industry believed Sony should be guilt of copyright infringement. The allegation was that they had a right to effective protection of their copyright monopoly which video tape technology could undermine. However the court disagreed after Sony proved there were "significant non-infringing uses" for a Betamax tape recorder. From the majority opinion: >> "The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses ... one potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard, however it is understood: private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home. It does so both (A) because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing it for their programs, and (B) because the District Court's factual findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use..." The fact that some people might use technology (Betamax, Google's button) to infringe copyright or break a contract isn't relevant, because that was not the primary, intended purpose of the technology. Because other, legitimate uses exist, the manufacturer of that technology is not liable. I strongly suggest educating yourself a lot more about copyright and contract law actually work, because your arguments demonstrate a lot of misconceptions about copyright and fundamental errors about law in general. > Google, on the other hand, should have known better The only people that "should have known better" are the people that design their businesses to fundamentally rely on products they do no control or even have any contractual influence. Google will always be changing Chrome; expect that or find a way to remove that dependency. [1] I'm not sure if it has been tested in court. [2] Also, adding a save button to videos isn't tortious interference of a contract about renting videos either. Adding that button wasn't a tort ("wrongful act"), nor was it intended to affect a video rental business.

Silhouette 10y ago
I'm well aware of the distinction between civil and criminal law. The word illegal literally just means "prohibited by law" and does not require a criminal act. If it has some more specific technical meaning where you are, that's your concern. I'm also well aware of the landmark Betamax case. Leaving aside that it is specifically about US law, there were multiple fundamental details in that case that do not apply in this context, such as there being no likelihood of causing nonminimal harm to the potential market or value of the protected works, the time-shifting being described being used to watch a programme that could not be viewed live just once at a later time, and a significant likelihood of a substantial number of copyright holders not objecting to the action. None of these seem to fit my original question from the start of this discussion, which was simply "Which Betamax case involved making permanent copies of material you had explicitly agreed to access on some temporary basis in return for payment?" So the case you keep talking about does not appear to be relevant to the present discussion. As for businesses knowing better, now a lot of them do, and the result is that they have redesigned their systems to prevent the undesired behaviour. However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect businesses to predict all possible future changes in browsers and to then expend resources dealing with changes that will predictably cause trouble. And again, I would refer you to the issue trackers for the browser, where it's clear that many other people take the same view.
- Dylan16807 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?" Copies on a hard drive are no more permanent than copies on a Betamax tape. The browser has no idea if the content was intended to be temporary, or if there was payment. Plus something like cable TV fits that description too, and you're still allowed to record it. And the potential for harm is pretty similar.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    In England there are strict limitations on time-shifting. You're allowed to timeshift broadcast tv programmes, but only for a limited amount of time. (I think two weeks). I don't think people time shifting at home was ever enforced in courts. (I welcome any corrections. English copyright law isn't straight-forward).