5 ms·

Should it stand up to legal scrutiny though? What does it matter if I play the beatles on youtube by watching in a web browser or watching an .mp4 file that I

Should it stand up to legal scrutiny though? What does it matter if I play the beatles on youtube by watching in a web browser or watching an .mp4 file that I just downloaded? It's functionally the same.

marcinzm 6y ago
The former gives money to the original content owner for every listen while the latter does not. Which is why you're able to listen to it on youtube without having to personally pay someone.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  It could but probably doesn't One could argue that YouTube success is mostly about unlimited access to illegal copyrighted material uploaded by some unknown person in some unknown part of the world After all the thing it's already on YouTube and on my HD after I watched it
  - Shared404 6y ago
    > YouTube success is mostly about unlimited access to illegal copyrighted material uploaded by some unknown person in some unknown part of the world Good point. I quite like that argument. Not that my opinion actually matters in this case.
  - ydlr 6y ago
    If the videos mentioned in the notice are hosted on Youtube without authorization, then the takedown notice should be sent to YouTube. If the videos were uploaded to Youtube with authorization, then accessing them through youtube-dl is not an example of the program being used for infringement. Either way, the purpose of the software is to download anything publically available from YouTube. Its purpose is not copyright infringement unless the purpose of YouTube is copyright infringement.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      That's exactly the point. The content is already available The monetisation of the content depends on a lot of different factors, many have monetized unauthorized content over the years, many received money from the same unauthorized content by faking clicks and views and many avoid paying YouTube in the form of ads by using ad blockers I believe youtube-dl users amount to a maximum of a single digit percent of the above (with the digit being between 1 and 2 with 2 excluded)
- lutorm 6y ago
  Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), also known as the “Betamax case”, is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use.[1][2] The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs (referred to as VTRs in the case), cannot be liable for infringement. How is downloading something from youtube for later offline viewing ("time-shifting") in any way different from recording a tv show?
  - larrik 6y ago
    The Betamax case was about stuff broadcast over public airwaves, whereas this is a medium that the RIAA barely tolerates, rather than the (ideal) main distribution channel. Seems like a big enough difference to me.
    - ethanwillis 6y ago
      The ruling there doesn't seem to rule out making copies of shows from a cable network, which are not exactly public airwaves in the same sense I think you mean.
    - throwaway17_17 6y ago
      I don’t see the fact that the RIAA dislikes internet based streaming as relevant to the analysis. Downloading a publicly available video transmitted over a nearly global communications network is directly analogous to recording a show to tape from a TV signal.
      - Reelin 6y ago
        The signal is broadcast (ie not under your control) and so the sole purpose being permitted there is time shifting. YouTube is an on demand stream. It would be comparable to recording a pay per view movie that you purchased. Is that legal? (The question isn't rhetorical, but I seriously doubt it.)
- tartoran 6y ago
  Someone who is capable of downloading youtube videos can easily block ads and many do, not because ads are bad but because they are both excessive in any form possible and a malware spreading channel. I do too but don’t bother to download videos because it is still more convent to watch’em directly on youtube. But it seems those days are coming to an end soon, lets see
  - kzrdude 6y ago
    I watch youtube videos with mpv sometimes. That's not even downloading it. But it's using youtube-dl to stream the video :)
jdbernard 6y ago
But it's not legally the same.
roywiggins 6y ago
The intent matters. Browsers don't make it easy to get ahold of a copy of the file that you can share, youtube-dl does. Add that to a bad README and that's something that a court might treat very differently from a web browser. This is not far off from how it's legal to carry lockpicks but it's often not legal to carry lockpicks around with the intention of using them to commit a crime. Either way you're carrying the same lockpicks, but if the court decides that you were carrying them with bad intentions, you're in trouble.
- tyzoid 6y ago
  But it's perfectly legal to screencapture a video platform in full-screen, and previous courts have ruled that recording a stream you otherwise have access to is allowed (the VCR/TiVo lawsuits). The question here is whether youtube-dl is a tool that allows for the bypassing of DRM, as the RIAA is asserting that youtube has DRM on their videos that prevent automated tools from scraping the website.
- curryst 6y ago
  > The intent matters. Browsers don't make it easy to get ahold of a copy of the file that you can share, youtube-dl does. Add that to a bad README and that's something that a court might treat very differently from a web browser. I can't say for YouTube specifically (I haven't tried, I suspect they have the talent to make it actually difficult), but browsers do make it remarkably easy to extract most forms of media from a website. Even websites that attempt to hide it have to embed it somewhere. Whether you feel like it's easier to install Firefox and figure out how to extract the media, or figure out how to install Python and pip and then run youtube-dl is up to you. There are likely even tutorials up by Mozilla somewhere about how to use the dev tools to pull an image (though I assume they're not stupid enough to do it on material they don't have rights to). There are many reasons one might want to use youtube-dl. Furthermore, there are many creators that either don't care or are happy that you're downloading their stuff. If we want to make analogies, every gun shop in America sells guns and human shaped targets. Do they have the intent to encourage people to murder other people? It is a tool that can be used for illegal purposes. They might even have examples of how you can do such a thing (as do gun manufacturers, lockpick manufacturers, security exploit announcements, etc, etc). Why would that make the tool illegal? The argument might hold if the only possible use of it is illegal; that puts it among the ranks of things we deem illegal to merely possess, like fully automatic weapons. I'm not buying the RIAA's argument that youtube-dl is so dangerous to society that we can't trust anyone to use it legally. > This is not far off from how it's legal to carry lockpicks but it's often not legal to carry lockpicks around with the intention of using them to commit a crime. No one has demonstrated intent. The publishers have demonstrated that it could potentially be used in an illegal manner (depending on your jurisdiction). They aren't going after someone who downloaded youtube-dl and is trying to use it to pirate things. They're going after the lockpick manufacturer because they have a tutorial on using their lockpicks on their site, and people could use that to commit crimes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gamblor956 6y ago
It stands up to legal scrutiny, and Betamax case is not applicable. They have these things called "streaming licenses" these days, that are very different from "download licenses" because streamed data is not the same thing as a downloaded file even if they both use the same codec and are derived from the same source.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  This is a wholly imaginary distinction based on a triviality. Streaming IS downloading. Also how is the betamax case not applicable. The user of a VCR isn't "licensed" to record whats on their tv
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    No, it's a distinction that exists based on the differences in how the video content is consumed. It is irrelevant, legally, that one implementation of a streaming software may choose to download the streamed data to a temporary disc file, or that some content downloaders can structure the assembly of a partially downloaded file so that (some) content can be accessed before the download is fully completed. What matters is that a streamed file is intended to be consumed contemporaneously with the acquisition of the downloaded data however it is stored on the computer, and that caching for efficiency aside, each separate act of consumption involves a separate act of acquiring the content, whereas a downloaded file is intended to be downloaded once and consumed multiple times. Also how is the betamax case not applicable. The user of a VCR isn't "licensed" to record whats on their tv No, they are not licensed to record what's on TV. But the point of the Betamax case was that "time-shifted viewing" by a private viewer was deemed to be fair use because at the time broadcast TV content was transmitted on a fixed schedule and absent the private recording, was not otherwise consumable because many of these shows were not rerun or sold on cassette tape. Thus the court found that the Betamax had substantial non-infringing use (and indeed, that it's primary intended use was thus non-infringing). However, digital content is provided on demand so there is no need for "time-shifted" viewing, and so the reasoning from Betamax no longer applies. Moreover, many content owners now make the content available for "connectivity-shifted" viewing (aka, away from internet connectivity) via a downloaded content license. Thus, downloading that content from a streaming source is generally no longer protected by fair use. Consequently, using youtube-dl to download your favorite streamer to watch on a plane trip would probably be fair use because they probably don't make the content available for access-shifted viewing otherwise. But using it to download a music video would not, because the music and video owners make those available for download with a purchasable license. And the problem with youtube-dl is that they demonstrated that the primary intent of the tool was to download music videos, the evidence being that the README and parts of the code explicitly refer to downloading music videos subject to RIAA licensing. Under the Betamax ruling, this would be fine, because there are substantial legitimate uses...but the DMCA changed that and so it doesn't matter if there are substantial legitimate uses if the primary intended use was to violate copyright.

marcinzm 6y ago

The former gives money to the original content owner for every listen while the latter does not. Which is why you're able to listen to it on youtube without having to personally pay someone.

romanoderoma 6y ago
It could but probably doesn't One could argue that YouTube success is mostly about unlimited access to illegal copyrighted material uploaded by some unknown person in some unknown part of the world After all the thing it's already on YouTube and on my HD after I watched it
- Shared404 6y ago
  > YouTube success is mostly about unlimited access to illegal copyrighted material uploaded by some unknown person in some unknown part of the world Good point. I quite like that argument. Not that my opinion actually matters in this case.
- ydlr 6y ago
  If the videos mentioned in the notice are hosted on Youtube without authorization, then the takedown notice should be sent to YouTube. If the videos were uploaded to Youtube with authorization, then accessing them through youtube-dl is not an example of the program being used for infringement. Either way, the purpose of the software is to download anything publically available from YouTube. Its purpose is not copyright infringement unless the purpose of YouTube is copyright infringement.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    That's exactly the point. The content is already available The monetisation of the content depends on a lot of different factors, many have monetized unauthorized content over the years, many received money from the same unauthorized content by faking clicks and views and many avoid paying YouTube in the form of ads by using ad blockers I believe youtube-dl users amount to a maximum of a single digit percent of the above (with the digit being between 1 and 2 with 2 excluded)
lutorm 6y ago
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), also known as the “Betamax case”, is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use.[1][2] The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs (referred to as VTRs in the case), cannot be liable for infringement. How is downloading something from youtube for later offline viewing ("time-shifting") in any way different from recording a tv show?
- larrik 6y ago
  The Betamax case was about stuff broadcast over public airwaves, whereas this is a medium that the RIAA barely tolerates, rather than the (ideal) main distribution channel. Seems like a big enough difference to me.
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    The ruling there doesn't seem to rule out making copies of shows from a cable network, which are not exactly public airwaves in the same sense I think you mean.
  - throwaway17_17 6y ago
    I don’t see the fact that the RIAA dislikes internet based streaming as relevant to the analysis. Downloading a publicly available video transmitted over a nearly global communications network is directly analogous to recording a show to tape from a TV signal.
    - Reelin 6y ago
      The signal is broadcast (ie not under your control) and so the sole purpose being permitted there is time shifting. YouTube is an on demand stream. It would be comparable to recording a pay per view movie that you purchased. Is that legal? (The question isn't rhetorical, but I seriously doubt it.)
tartoran 6y ago
Someone who is capable of downloading youtube videos can easily block ads and many do, not because ads are bad but because they are both excessive in any form possible and a malware spreading channel. I do too but don’t bother to download videos because it is still more convent to watch’em directly on youtube. But it seems those days are coming to an end soon, lets see
- kzrdude 6y ago
  I watch youtube videos with mpv sometimes. That's not even downloading it. But it's using youtube-dl to stream the video :)

jdbernard 6y ago

But it's not legally the same.

roywiggins 6y ago

The intent matters. Browsers don't make it easy to get ahold of a copy of the file that you can share, youtube-dl does. Add that to a bad README and that's something that a court might treat very differently from a web browser. This is not far off from how it's legal to carry lockpicks but it's often not legal to carry lockpicks around with the intention of using them to commit a crime. Either way you're carrying the same lockpicks, but if the court decides that you were carrying them with bad intentions, you're in trouble.

tyzoid 6y ago
But it's perfectly legal to screencapture a video platform in full-screen, and previous courts have ruled that recording a stream you otherwise have access to is allowed (the VCR/TiVo lawsuits). The question here is whether youtube-dl is a tool that allows for the bypassing of DRM, as the RIAA is asserting that youtube has DRM on their videos that prevent automated tools from scraping the website.
curryst 6y ago
> The intent matters. Browsers don't make it easy to get ahold of a copy of the file that you can share, youtube-dl does. Add that to a bad README and that's something that a court might treat very differently from a web browser. I can't say for YouTube specifically (I haven't tried, I suspect they have the talent to make it actually difficult), but browsers do make it remarkably easy to extract most forms of media from a website. Even websites that attempt to hide it have to embed it somewhere. Whether you feel like it's easier to install Firefox and figure out how to extract the media, or figure out how to install Python and pip and then run youtube-dl is up to you. There are likely even tutorials up by Mozilla somewhere about how to use the dev tools to pull an image (though I assume they're not stupid enough to do it on material they don't have rights to). There are many reasons one might want to use youtube-dl. Furthermore, there are many creators that either don't care or are happy that you're downloading their stuff. If we want to make analogies, every gun shop in America sells guns and human shaped targets. Do they have the intent to encourage people to murder other people? It is a tool that can be used for illegal purposes. They might even have examples of how you can do such a thing (as do gun manufacturers, lockpick manufacturers, security exploit announcements, etc, etc). Why would that make the tool illegal? The argument might hold if the only possible use of it is illegal; that puts it among the ranks of things we deem illegal to merely possess, like fully automatic weapons. I'm not buying the RIAA's argument that youtube-dl is so dangerous to society that we can't trust anyone to use it legally. > This is not far off from how it's legal to carry lockpicks but it's often not legal to carry lockpicks around with the intention of using them to commit a crime. No one has demonstrated intent. The publishers have demonstrated that it could potentially be used in an illegal manner (depending on your jurisdiction). They aren't going after someone who downloaded youtube-dl and is trying to use it to pirate things. They're going after the lockpick manufacturer because they have a tutorial on using their lockpicks on their site, and people could use that to commit crimes.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gamblor956 6y ago

It stands up to legal scrutiny, and Betamax case is not applicable. They have these things called "streaming licenses" these days, that are very different from "download licenses" because streamed data is not the same thing as a downloaded file even if they both use the same codec and are derived from the same source.

michaelmrose 6y ago
This is a wholly imaginary distinction based on a triviality. Streaming IS downloading. Also how is the betamax case not applicable. The user of a VCR isn't "licensed" to record whats on their tv
- gamblor956 6y ago
  No, it's a distinction that exists based on the differences in how the video content is consumed. It is irrelevant, legally, that one implementation of a streaming software may choose to download the streamed data to a temporary disc file, or that some content downloaders can structure the assembly of a partially downloaded file so that (some) content can be accessed before the download is fully completed. What matters is that a streamed file is intended to be consumed contemporaneously with the acquisition of the downloaded data however it is stored on the computer, and that caching for efficiency aside, each separate act of consumption involves a separate act of acquiring the content, whereas a downloaded file is intended to be downloaded once and consumed multiple times. Also how is the betamax case not applicable. The user of a VCR isn't "licensed" to record whats on their tv No, they are not licensed to record what's on TV. But the point of the Betamax case was that "time-shifted viewing" by a private viewer was deemed to be fair use because at the time broadcast TV content was transmitted on a fixed schedule and absent the private recording, was not otherwise consumable because many of these shows were not rerun or sold on cassette tape. Thus the court found that the Betamax had substantial non-infringing use (and indeed, that it's primary intended use was thus non-infringing). However, digital content is provided on demand so there is no need for "time-shifted" viewing, and so the reasoning from Betamax no longer applies. Moreover, many content owners now make the content available for "connectivity-shifted" viewing (aka, away from internet connectivity) via a downloaded content license. Thus, downloading that content from a streaming source is generally no longer protected by fair use. Consequently, using youtube-dl to download your favorite streamer to watch on a plane trip would probably be fair use because they probably don't make the content available for access-shifted viewing otherwise. But using it to download a music video would not, because the music and video owners make those available for download with a purchasable license. And the problem with youtube-dl is that they demonstrated that the primary intent of the tool was to download music videos, the evidence being that the README and parts of the code explicitly refer to downloading music videos subject to RIAA licensing. Under the Betamax ruling, this would be fine, because there are substantial legitimate uses...but the DMCA changed that and so it doesn't matter if there are substantial legitimate uses if the primary intended use was to violate copyright.