4 ms·

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 hav

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 :)

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 :)