4 ms·

> I'm not sure where the copyright angle is coming from. YT doesn't own the copyright of the videos they host. The best YT could hope for is a ToS violation whi

> I'm not sure where the copyright angle is coming from. YT doesn't own the copyright of the videos they host. The best YT could hope for is a ToS violation which is pretty toothless. The developer is displaying copyrighted content. YouTube doesn't own the copyright but it does hold a sublicensable license, which is how the developer could legitimately develop a YouTube app. By violating the developer agreement from YouTube, the developer is breaching any copyright license he may have had. By selling the app commercially, he's also potentially doing so criminally. There's also the CFAA which I forgot at the time. > So if the app was Free and FOSS would it be okay? Hopefully so since youtube-dl exists. If the app was free and didn't utilize the API, then yes, it'd be in the same space as youtube-dl. > It's really no different but without any possiblity of circumventing it. Nothing really changes. What changes is that as users, we're forced to let invasive technologies into our lives in order to consume content.

Spivak 9y ago
> Sublicenses I'm sure this could be the case but I'm not convinced that their license to the content would be so specific as to require the delivery of the content video/audio together, or must be played in the foreground. Especially since it would require all of the content be relicensed every time they change their policies. And especially since YT themselves can ignore these rules. Also, we all know that the CFAA is both bullshit and makes basically everything illegal. It has no place in any discussion like this. > What changes is that as users, we're forced to let invasive technologies into our lives in order to consume content. Sure, but you've just traded invasive technologies for invasive legal requirements. But your world is basically the case right now and we have DRM and plenty of ad blocking circumvention measures so I'm not convinced it would help.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > I'm sure this could be the case but I'm not convinced that their license to the content would be so specific as to require the delivery of the content video/audio together, or must be played in the foreground. Oh, it is. Licensing is extremely complex, detailing the medium, format, geography, etc. that you can use it on. A license for video doesn't give you any right to stream audio, and vice-versa. Content licensing agreements are insane, with a nearly-infinite number of restrictions.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  > I'm sure this could be the case but I'm not convinced that their license to the content would be so specific as to require the delivery of the content video/audio together, or must be played in the foreground. The license a creator gives to YouTube might not require that YouTube delivers audio and video together (it clearly doesn't for YouTube Red) but the license YouTube gives developers definitely does, as pointed out above. Plus, if the video isn't played in the foreground, people don't see ads and creators don't get paid. If there isn't an explicit agreement preventing it, it'd certainly cause conflict if YouTube were found to be allowing it. > Especially since it would require all of the content be relicensed every time they change their policies. They've done it in the past, when they introduced YouTube Red for example: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2015/01/23/youtube-removing-artist-refuses-license-subscription-service/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2015/01/23/youtube-removing... > Sure, but you've just traded invasive technologies for invasive legal requirements. Legal requirements are soft and barely enforceable on end users. I'll take those over technological solutions.
- Mindwipe 9y ago
  > I'm sure this could be the case but I'm not convinced that their license to the content would be so specific as to require the delivery of the content video/audio together, or must be played in the foreground. Their music licenses absolutely definitely do, unless it's a paid subscription service. The music labels do not want anyone to be able to build something that might be a free competitor to Spotify. So you may only implement listening to anything you want (as opposed to a random playlist such as Pandora or iTunes Radio) if the service is a paid subscription one, probably with a minimum price point similar to Spotify, or if it cannot play audio in the background with the screen off on mobile. Licensing is a patchwork, so there's the odd exception missed, or from a VERY old deal, but that's essentially the market if you want to license music.

Spivak 9y ago

> Sublicenses I'm sure this could be the case but I'm not convinced that their license to the content would be so specific as to require the delivery of the content video/audio together, or must be played in the foreground. Especially since it would require all of the content be relicensed every time they change their policies. And especially since YT themselves can ignore these rules. Also, we all know that the CFAA is both bullshit and makes basically everything illegal. It has no place in any discussion like this. > What changes is that as users, we're forced to let invasive technologies into our lives in order to consume content. Sure, but you've just traded invasive technologies for invasive legal requirements. But your world is basically the case right now and we have DRM and plenty of ad blocking circumvention measures so I'm not convinced it would help.

ucaetano 9y ago
> I'm sure this could be the case but I'm not convinced that their license to the content would be so specific as to require the delivery of the content video/audio together, or must be played in the foreground. Oh, it is. Licensing is extremely complex, detailing the medium, format, geography, etc. that you can use it on. A license for video doesn't give you any right to stream audio, and vice-versa. Content licensing agreements are insane, with a nearly-infinite number of restrictions.
Veratyr 9y ago
> I'm sure this could be the case but I'm not convinced that their license to the content would be so specific as to require the delivery of the content video/audio together, or must be played in the foreground. The license a creator gives to YouTube might not require that YouTube delivers audio and video together (it clearly doesn't for YouTube Red) but the license YouTube gives developers definitely does, as pointed out above. Plus, if the video isn't played in the foreground, people don't see ads and creators don't get paid. If there isn't an explicit agreement preventing it, it'd certainly cause conflict if YouTube were found to be allowing it. > Especially since it would require all of the content be relicensed every time they change their policies. They've done it in the past, when they introduced YouTube Red for example: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2015/01/23/youtube-removing-artist-refuses-license-subscription-service/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2015/01/23/youtube-removing... > Sure, but you've just traded invasive technologies for invasive legal requirements. Legal requirements are soft and barely enforceable on end users. I'll take those over technological solutions.
Mindwipe 9y ago
> I'm sure this could be the case but I'm not convinced that their license to the content would be so specific as to require the delivery of the content video/audio together, or must be played in the foreground. Their music licenses absolutely definitely do, unless it's a paid subscription service. The music labels do not want anyone to be able to build something that might be a free competitor to Spotify. So you may only implement listening to anything you want (as opposed to a random playlist such as Pandora or iTunes Radio) if the service is a paid subscription one, probably with a minimum price point similar to Spotify, or if it cannot play audio in the background with the screen off on mobile. Licensing is a patchwork, so there's the odd exception missed, or from a VERY old deal, but that's essentially the market if you want to license music.