3 ms·

I 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

by bo1024 9y ago

I 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 ago
Hm, 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.