3 ms·
I and others explained a bit more in other comments in this thread. While writing, I meant making a copy of streamed content. However, I do indeed completely f
by onli 9y ago
I and others explained a bit more in other comments in this thread.
While writing, I meant making a copy of streamed content. However, I do indeed completely fail to see how a website doing what you describe could be illegal.
> "a third-party website, accessing a copyrighted work on e.g. Youtube, making a copy of it, and distributing that copy to a user who requests it?"
That describes exactly what a browser does. Accessing Youtube and downloading the video for private use is legal, so is converting that video to audio only. There is no copyright violated, because users (in Germany) have the right to make copies. Why should it matter with which tool the copy is made?
Now, there was a recent criminalization of pirate video streaming sites. But there the argument of the court was that it is visible to the user that the content is illegal/unlicensed. That's not the case with Youtube.
I don't see any legal argument for the illegality of sites like youtube-mp3.
- bo1024 9y agoI think there's a big distinction because a browser is running on the user's own computer and under control of the user. > Why should it matter with which tool the copy is made? I don't know for sure, but I would think it matters if the tool is a third party's website (again, not on the user's computer). To me, it seems like the difference between setting a TiVo to record a TV show for you (like using your browser or youtube-dl to access Youtube), versus asking a neighbor who has the same cable package to record the show for you and hand you a copy. Now if that neighbor is a for-profit business, that sounds more similar to the YouTube-mp3 site. And that doesn't sound like it would be legal (for the site to operate. Nothing illegal about what the user is doing). Also, to be clear: I'm not happy that the YouTube-mp3 site is shutting down, I don't think there's anything immoral about what it does, and if I were making the rules then it would be perfectly legal. I'm just trying to understand the issues at play.
- onli 9y agoHm, not sure the neighbor is the best example. A neighbor giving a copy to a neighbor would still fall under private use. Being a for-profit business is more likely to change the equation. On the other hand, that's not that much different than selling a VHS recorder. Actually, discussions like this are a good example why we need a copyright reform. But the issue there is that every time that was tried in the last years, it was used to add more uncertainty and less rights (in the proposals). We would need the contrary.