7 ms·

This is getting very weird. Using youtube-dl: Probably ilegal, but no one cares because you need basic technical skills and it's very dificult to chase people w

This is getting very weird. Using youtube-dl: Probably ilegal, but no one cares because you need basic technical skills and it's very dificult to chase people who use it. Using an add blocker during streaming: Very likely ok until people also start getting arrested for going to pee during tv comercials. Using youtube or spotify in a public place: This one makes peoples brains hurt, let's not even consider it. In the middle of all this how much are the artists getting for the streamings? how popular must one be for getting more than a cup of coffee worth of royalties each month? If authors are not making that much money do the copyright laws make any objective sense? Since after all they were created first and foremost to protect them. If they are not protected than music be free/libre because of the cultural value it has for humanity.

baldfat 9y ago
youtube-dl = fightclub Rule #1 ---- No one talks about youtube-dl!!!!!!
- baldfat 9y ago
  Okay make youtube-dl more visible I am sure that will be a big benefit for the project.
grapeshot 9y ago
One of the over-the-air TV channels in Los Angeles seems to be run off a YouTube playlist, which I know because it was stuck displaying the video unavailable message for most of last Saturday.
- enzanki_ars 9y ago
  Over-the-air TV channels fascinate me as their operation is very different across the US. Do you remember which one it was? Genuinely curious as I have been working on some programs to showcase the unique over-the-air broadcasts across the US.
  - fapjacks 9y ago
    I'm going to guess it was one of the many foreign language channels. In that area of the country, the vast vast majority of over-the-air broadcasts are not in English (think Korean soap operas). When grapeshot described it, I was thinking one of the Vietnamese or Turkish soap operas being piped from Youtube directly into a transmitter and broadcast across southern California. I'm interested to know which station, too!
    - grapeshot 9y ago
      It was the second channel on a multiplex owned by a church, normally it's showing educational programs for kids.
    - enzanki_ars 9y ago
      That was my guess too, but I have seen some local syndicates for NBC/ABC/CBS/FOX etc. that have some low quality productions. It wouldn't even surprise me if some of those use a similar technique.
tachyonbeam 9y ago
Before we had the technological ability to record music, musicians made their money by performing live. Then, when the radio came around, artists would perform live on the radio. I think that ultimately, this is what we may be going back to, at least in part. The record industry used to say that mp3 and downloading would be the end of music. What I think they don't realize is that music is as old as humanity.
- chii 9y ago
  > music is as old as humanity. but only recently has music been a huge money maker. It changes things when an art becomes a business with profit motives.
  - JohnKacz 9y ago
    Are there any other examples of a medium making this transition?
    - pheldagryph 9y ago
      Storytelling, and narratives. Though, I suppose either music or storytelling may have been relatively more important, and larger percentage of the total activity of pre-historic human groups, than those 'industries' are for us today.
- euyyn 9y ago
  Theatre companies made their money by performing live too, and people would go to the rehearsals, copy the script, and rip them off by premiering the act before them. Hence the introduction of copyright law, which predates automatic recording by a couple centuries.
  - sethrin 9y ago
    Ah, what? I don't know what you've been reading, but the Statute of Anne is commonly held to be the first "copyright" law, and it covers the monopoly rights of printing press operators. Copyright in the US today still does not cover performances, only fixed works.
_pmf_ 9y ago
> Very likely ok until people also start getting arrested for going to pee during tv comercials Ambient light sensors can probably detect a person walking past.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Forget light sensors, think facial recognition on the camera that is in your smart TV for... I don't know, videoconferencing, I guess? ;).
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    Microsoft already has a patent on using in-home censors to set fees based on how many people are watching a TV. I'm excited to see us reinvent TV taxes as a shady, privacy-destroying rent we pay to tech companies... http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220120278904%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20120278904&RS=DN/20120278904 http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...
    - codegladiator 9y ago
      Plus now they get to spy on us using tiny little cameras !
    - _pmf_ 9y ago
      I think they even had this as a production ready feature in the Xbox One at one time (before launch, but at a very late stage), but were surprised that users were a bit miffed about it.
epicide 9y ago
It may be my ignorance, but how would using youtube-dl be illegal? I can definitely see it being against ToS or some EULA, but IIRC those aren't legally enforceable and would be a civil case, anyway (i.e. not an actual crime).
- sp332 9y ago
  I think it's unauthorized copying, which is copyright infringement. Infringement is usually a civil matter, but if it's done for profit or on "commercial scale" it can become criminal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Criminal_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Crimina... So I think individuals using youtube-dl wouldn't have to worry about it as much as the operators of the youtube-mp3 site would, just because of the difference in scale.
  - hungerstrike 9y ago
    I don't know anything about law, but here is my simple thought on the matter: If your server responds to my request and gives a copy to me, how can I be doing anything illegal? There probably isn't a law which says that I have to use Chrome to access YouTube. IMO, youtube-dl is just another browser (albeit a very specialized one). Also, I wonder what would eventually happen if we started making specialized browsers that first send a "EULA"? It would say something like "By responding to this request, you agree that I am authorized to receive a copy of whatever you send to me..." I guess it would work for a while before big sites started blocking your requests, but there's nothing to say that each EULA has to be standardized or easy to recognize (kinda like how big sites bury the EULA/TOS in fine print).
    - Karunamon 9y ago
      The law isn't analogous to code and doesn't work that way. "But your honor, their server sent me the data! Clearly I was authorized!" won't fly in the real world. There's a pretty clear difference in intent from hitting the video page with a browser and hitting with a tool whose only purpose is to make a local copy. There's also the TOS: YouTube hereby grants you permission to access and use the Service as set forth in these Terms of Service, provided that: You agree not to distribute in any medium any part of the Service or the Content without YouTube's prior written authorization, unless YouTube makes available the means for such distribution through functionality offered by the Service (such as the Embeddable Player). You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate.
hnlmorg 9y ago
> Using youtube or spotify in a public place: This one makes peoples brains hurt, let's not even consider it. I thought this one was the easiest to answer but that might just be because it's a problem I've faced. Essentially it's a public performance. Just like bars, restaurants, hotel lobbies, etc that play music from a CD or iTunes; or even businesses with hold music on their phone lines; if you want to play copyrighted music publicly then you need a licence eg PRS (UK). I think there was one argument about whether mobile phone ringtones were legal or not because of this rule. I'm not sure if that was just a thought experiment or if it was a case that one party tried to take to court but I'm sure someone else on here will recall the story.
- iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
  I finding it funny that this is the case for music but not for images. Unless it is?
- tallanvor 9y ago
  ASCAP sued Verizon, claiming that ringtones are equivalent to public performances. They lost. http://ipjournal.law.wfu.edu/2009/12/are-cellphone-ringtones-a-public-performance/ http://ipjournal.law.wfu.edu/2009/12/are-cellphone-ringtones...
spike021 9y ago
I used to make mixtapes by recording music from the radio onto a cassette tape. I guess that would've been illegal, too?
- skizm 9y ago
  There was a specific exception made for this exact scenario (which does not apply to digital signals). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exemption_from_infringement_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exemp...
  - spike021 9y ago
    Is this a case of that act needing to be updated to be more relevant to modern technology?
  - tjoff 9y ago
    In Sweden I'm pretty sure that exception is regardless of the source. Problem became when CDs etc. started shipping with easily cirumventable DRM. Because you are allowed to rip the CD to disk for backup purposes and for playing on your mp3-player and even share with your close family. We even pay a special tax on storage media to compensate artists for the right to do this. But as soon as the media contains DRM it becomes illegal, because circumventing DRM is illegal. Nevermind that the action you are trying to do is legal and with the tax you are even paying for it - but you can't legally do it. Same would apply to youtube. All they would have to do is encrypt the stream with a ROT13 equivalent with a static key, call it DRM and bam - now it is illegal to use youtube-dl.
- ramphastidae 9y ago
  No, because that's for limited personal use. Selling the tape or playing it in public would be illegal, I suppose.
  - spike021 9y ago
    But using youtube-dl or (in this case) youtube-mp3 would be for precisely the same purpose. Unless the assumption with this shut down is that any results of using the service would always be used for selling or playing in public.

baldfat 9y ago

youtube-dl = fightclub Rule #1 ---- No one talks about youtube-dl!!!!!!

baldfat 9y ago
Okay make youtube-dl more visible I am sure that will be a big benefit for the project.

grapeshot 9y ago

One of the over-the-air TV channels in Los Angeles seems to be run off a YouTube playlist, which I know because it was stuck displaying the video unavailable message for most of last Saturday.

enzanki_ars 9y ago
Over-the-air TV channels fascinate me as their operation is very different across the US. Do you remember which one it was? Genuinely curious as I have been working on some programs to showcase the unique over-the-air broadcasts across the US.
- fapjacks 9y ago
  I'm going to guess it was one of the many foreign language channels. In that area of the country, the vast vast majority of over-the-air broadcasts are not in English (think Korean soap operas). When grapeshot described it, I was thinking one of the Vietnamese or Turkish soap operas being piped from Youtube directly into a transmitter and broadcast across southern California. I'm interested to know which station, too!
  - grapeshot 9y ago
    It was the second channel on a multiplex owned by a church, normally it's showing educational programs for kids.
  - enzanki_ars 9y ago
    That was my guess too, but I have seen some local syndicates for NBC/ABC/CBS/FOX etc. that have some low quality productions. It wouldn't even surprise me if some of those use a similar technique.

tachyonbeam 9y ago

Before we had the technological ability to record music, musicians made their money by performing live. Then, when the radio came around, artists would perform live on the radio. I think that ultimately, this is what we may be going back to, at least in part. The record industry used to say that mp3 and downloading would be the end of music. What I think they don't realize is that music is as old as humanity.

chii 9y ago
> music is as old as humanity. but only recently has music been a huge money maker. It changes things when an art becomes a business with profit motives.
- JohnKacz 9y ago
  Are there any other examples of a medium making this transition?
  - pheldagryph 9y ago
    Storytelling, and narratives. Though, I suppose either music or storytelling may have been relatively more important, and larger percentage of the total activity of pre-historic human groups, than those 'industries' are for us today.
euyyn 9y ago
Theatre companies made their money by performing live too, and people would go to the rehearsals, copy the script, and rip them off by premiering the act before them. Hence the introduction of copyright law, which predates automatic recording by a couple centuries.
- sethrin 9y ago
  Ah, what? I don't know what you've been reading, but the Statute of Anne is commonly held to be the first "copyright" law, and it covers the monopoly rights of printing press operators. Copyright in the US today still does not cover performances, only fixed works.

_pmf_ 9y ago

> Very likely ok until people also start getting arrested for going to pee during tv comercials Ambient light sensors can probably detect a person walking past.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Forget light sensors, think facial recognition on the camera that is in your smart TV for... I don't know, videoconferencing, I guess? ;).
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Microsoft already has a patent on using in-home censors to set fees based on how many people are watching a TV. I'm excited to see us reinvent TV taxes as a shady, privacy-destroying rent we pay to tech companies... http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220120278904%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20120278904&RS=DN/20120278904 http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H...
  - codegladiator 9y ago
    Plus now they get to spy on us using tiny little cameras !
  - _pmf_ 9y ago
    I think they even had this as a production ready feature in the Xbox One at one time (before launch, but at a very late stage), but were surprised that users were a bit miffed about it.

epicide 9y ago

It may be my ignorance, but how would using youtube-dl be illegal? I can definitely see it being against ToS or some EULA, but IIRC those aren't legally enforceable and would be a civil case, anyway (i.e. not an actual crime).

sp332 9y ago
I think it's unauthorized copying, which is copyright infringement. Infringement is usually a civil matter, but if it's done for profit or on "commercial scale" it can become criminal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Criminal_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Crimina... So I think individuals using youtube-dl wouldn't have to worry about it as much as the operators of the youtube-mp3 site would, just because of the difference in scale.
- hungerstrike 9y ago
  I don't know anything about law, but here is my simple thought on the matter: If your server responds to my request and gives a copy to me, how can I be doing anything illegal? There probably isn't a law which says that I have to use Chrome to access YouTube. IMO, youtube-dl is just another browser (albeit a very specialized one). Also, I wonder what would eventually happen if we started making specialized browsers that first send a "EULA"? It would say something like "By responding to this request, you agree that I am authorized to receive a copy of whatever you send to me..." I guess it would work for a while before big sites started blocking your requests, but there's nothing to say that each EULA has to be standardized or easy to recognize (kinda like how big sites bury the EULA/TOS in fine print).
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    The law isn't analogous to code and doesn't work that way. "But your honor, their server sent me the data! Clearly I was authorized!" won't fly in the real world. There's a pretty clear difference in intent from hitting the video page with a browser and hitting with a tool whose only purpose is to make a local copy. There's also the TOS: YouTube hereby grants you permission to access and use the Service as set forth in these Terms of Service, provided that: You agree not to distribute in any medium any part of the Service or the Content without YouTube's prior written authorization, unless YouTube makes available the means for such distribution through functionality offered by the Service (such as the Embeddable Player). You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate.

hnlmorg 9y ago

> Using youtube or spotify in a public place: This one makes peoples brains hurt, let's not even consider it. I thought this one was the easiest to answer but that might just be because it's a problem I've faced. Essentially it's a public performance. Just like bars, restaurants, hotel lobbies, etc that play music from a CD or iTunes; or even businesses with hold music on their phone lines; if you want to play copyrighted music publicly then you need a licence eg PRS (UK). I think there was one argument about whether mobile phone ringtones were legal or not because of this rule. I'm not sure if that was just a thought experiment or if it was a case that one party tried to take to court but I'm sure someone else on here will recall the story.

iovrthoughtthis 9y ago
I finding it funny that this is the case for music but not for images. Unless it is?
tallanvor 9y ago
ASCAP sued Verizon, claiming that ringtones are equivalent to public performances. They lost. http://ipjournal.law.wfu.edu/2009/12/are-cellphone-ringtones-a-public-performance/ http://ipjournal.law.wfu.edu/2009/12/are-cellphone-ringtones...

spike021 9y ago

I used to make mixtapes by recording music from the radio onto a cassette tape. I guess that would've been illegal, too?

skizm 9y ago
There was a specific exception made for this exact scenario (which does not apply to digital signals). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exemption_from_infringement_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act#Exemp...
- spike021 9y ago
  Is this a case of that act needing to be updated to be more relevant to modern technology?
- tjoff 9y ago
  In Sweden I'm pretty sure that exception is regardless of the source. Problem became when CDs etc. started shipping with easily cirumventable DRM. Because you are allowed to rip the CD to disk for backup purposes and for playing on your mp3-player and even share with your close family. We even pay a special tax on storage media to compensate artists for the right to do this. But as soon as the media contains DRM it becomes illegal, because circumventing DRM is illegal. Nevermind that the action you are trying to do is legal and with the tax you are even paying for it - but you can't legally do it. Same would apply to youtube. All they would have to do is encrypt the stream with a ROT13 equivalent with a static key, call it DRM and bam - now it is illegal to use youtube-dl.
ramphastidae 9y ago
No, because that's for limited personal use. Selling the tape or playing it in public would be illegal, I suppose.
- spike021 9y ago
  But using youtube-dl or (in this case) youtube-mp3 would be for precisely the same purpose. Unless the assumption with this shut down is that any results of using the service would always be used for selling or playing in public.