5 ms·

It is a bit of a tough question. How would I feel about someone borrowing a book from a library and then photocopying it to keep a local copy? If the intent was

It is a bit of a tough question. How would I feel about someone borrowing a book from a library and then photocopying it to keep a local copy? If the intent was to re-distribute then I would not feel comfortable allowing it. However, if the proposed remedy was to ban personal ownership of photocopiers I would not even consider that a valid approach. But would I expect I could keep my own photocopied version instead of paying retail price for the book? And what if a purpose built photocopier was designed and marketed for the express purpose of photocopying books from the library? My personal feeling, and obviously not a legal opinion or even morally infallible in any sense, is that storing a local copy of digital content that has been consumed should be allowed. Where it becomes grey (or my feeling tends towards disallowing) is if I share or re-broadcast that content in any form. That is, I feel the DMCA is in the wrong here. Unless they can prove intent to re-distribute it feels wrong that they can ban my ability to maintain a copy for myself. I believe it ought to be a right to store such content locally.

vaccinator 6y ago
Mix tapes of copyright content are legal... not sure why youtube-dl you be illegal even if only used to copy copyright content
tlburke 6y ago
I don't think anybody really disagrees that redistribution is a copyright violation and the youtube-dl software doesn't provide any facilities for uploading or re-broadcasting content. This takedown is completely frivilous.
m4rtink 6y ago
Aren't books kinda a special case ? Given all the past (and even current!) cases of censorship and book burning, shouldn't we strive to never allow that ever again and to protects books for future generations ? Finally we have a way to preserve books in perfect form forever digitally yet people somehow try to shackle this new technology with paper book technology limitations. The same limitations that coat us so much ideas, knowledge and stories as books would burn, rot or turn to dust. Frankly any form of technology trying to prevent digital book distribution and archiving really is a digital equivalent of the inquisition book burning (or helping make that happen again).
- Denvercoder9 6y ago
  > Aren't books kinda a special case ? What is the fundamental difference between a book and a video that would make books a special case? Yes, they were around earlier, and yes, that history has shown what can happen if we start censoring expression. But that's not unique to books, and the exact same reasoning applies to video in the current world.
  - m4rtink 6y ago
    Then maybe we should strive to protect all of our culture for future generations ? Instead of trying to artificially limit it's spread for a quick buck and risking loosing it all in the process. How many old movies have been lost, old TV shows that were live only, old software with source code lost for ever and even many games that no one can play anymore due to game servers and DRM servoces shut down. Instead of breaking out of this vicious cycle when we finally have the technology to do that, there are people actively working against that, including sabotage of those who want to do the right thing...
Thorentis 6y ago
While photocopying books for distribution is against the law, I disagree that it should be against the law. If 3 people all borrow the same book sequentially then it's fine. If one person borrow it, photocopies it twice to share with two others, then they've broken the law. And yet nobody in either case has made more or less money. I am in favor of copyright law that prevents profiting from another person's work, but not against copying. Once your idea is public knowledge, there is no reason for it not to spread freely given how easy it is to transmit information now.
- YetAnotherNick 6y ago
  I mean it's not the best setup, but what else do you suggest? This was meant for protecting income of authors while not being too inconvenient for most users. Netflix primary model is this and it is working great for them and users. Many people do share the account but it does add some inconvenience that only some maximum number of people can watch at the same time, making people get subscription.
- jdashg 6y ago
  Your example is a case where piracy had no profit impact, but it's not the general case. The books are priced in part based on assumptions about how many people can read them over time. A book at a library can probably only be read by ~20 people a year. If 200 people a year want to read it, the library needs ten books. But, if we were free to post the scans online, the price per book would need to be astronomically higher. While the usual naive extrapolations of MSRP-times-pirated-copies is also wrong, allowing people to freely and at-will render others' work unprofitable is a subversion of the purpose of copyright: To ensure that the creation of works is be profitable enough to pursue. If someone wanted their work to be in the public domain, they could so choose.
  - Thorentis 6y ago
    > render others' work unprofitable Can you support the claim that creative work becomes unprofitable when copies are made freely available, but the option to support the creator still exists?
caconym_ 6y ago
I agree with your moral analysis here, and that the prohibited thing should be the distribution of protected IP, not simply retaining a copy of something you already had rights to view (which I think there is substantial precedent for). This is the big problem with the DMCA. It shortcuts the messy dirty work of dealing with IP violations, to the benefit of large corporations and the detriment of individuals. The former engage in rampant abuse of their powers under the DMCA, apparently without any fear of significant consequences. It's just another example of the degree to which large corporations own America.
AmIDev 6y ago
Tangential note: In India, it's legal to copy books for personal purpose, but not to copy it for profit.
wallacoloo 6y ago
Am I the only one who uses youtube-dl for downloading silly mp4s from Twitter and Reddit, and all the other aggregators? I mean, sure: some Youtube videos are copyrighted, and youtube-dl was originally made to download Youtube videos. But despite the project name, it's evolved beyond just that. Don't kill the whole damn project when the legal issues are limited only to certain backends to begin with.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
> It is a bit of a tough question. How would I feel about someone borrowing a book from a library and then photocopying it to keep a local copy? If you're photocopying a library book in order to avoid buying your own copy, I don't feel great about that—we need to support authors. Yes, everyone's financial situation is different, and not every under-the-table photocopy is a lost sale, but there has to be some incentive to actually go to the bookstore. But here’s the thing—for 99% of Youtube videos, there is no bookstore. There is no other way for me to acquire an unencumbered video file, regardless of how much I'm willing to pay. And to stretch the photocopy analogy a bit, there are a lot of other reasons someone may want to photocopy a book: • If the book has small print, you may want to enlarge the text. • If you prefer listening over reading, you may want to OCR the pages and use text-to-speech. • If you're doing research, you may want to OCR the pages so the text can be digitally indexed and searched. • If you have an eReader, you may want to digitize the book so you don't have to carry around a paper copy. And, sure, in some cases it may be possible to buy an official audiobook, or an eBook, or a large print edition. But in other cases, that might not be an option. Downloading a Youtube video affords similar freedoms, allowing you to experience the content in the way that makes sense for you.

vaccinator 6y ago

Mix tapes of copyright content are legal... not sure why youtube-dl you be illegal even if only used to copy copyright content

tlburke 6y ago

I don't think anybody really disagrees that redistribution is a copyright violation and the youtube-dl software doesn't provide any facilities for uploading or re-broadcasting content. This takedown is completely frivilous.

m4rtink 6y ago

Aren't books kinda a special case ? Given all the past (and even current!) cases of censorship and book burning, shouldn't we strive to never allow that ever again and to protects books for future generations ? Finally we have a way to preserve books in perfect form forever digitally yet people somehow try to shackle this new technology with paper book technology limitations. The same limitations that coat us so much ideas, knowledge and stories as books would burn, rot or turn to dust. Frankly any form of technology trying to prevent digital book distribution and archiving really is a digital equivalent of the inquisition book burning (or helping make that happen again).

Denvercoder9 6y ago
> Aren't books kinda a special case ? What is the fundamental difference between a book and a video that would make books a special case? Yes, they were around earlier, and yes, that history has shown what can happen if we start censoring expression. But that's not unique to books, and the exact same reasoning applies to video in the current world.
- m4rtink 6y ago
  Then maybe we should strive to protect all of our culture for future generations ? Instead of trying to artificially limit it's spread for a quick buck and risking loosing it all in the process. How many old movies have been lost, old TV shows that were live only, old software with source code lost for ever and even many games that no one can play anymore due to game servers and DRM servoces shut down. Instead of breaking out of this vicious cycle when we finally have the technology to do that, there are people actively working against that, including sabotage of those who want to do the right thing...

Thorentis 6y ago

While photocopying books for distribution is against the law, I disagree that it should be against the law. If 3 people all borrow the same book sequentially then it's fine. If one person borrow it, photocopies it twice to share with two others, then they've broken the law. And yet nobody in either case has made more or less money. I am in favor of copyright law that prevents profiting from another person's work, but not against copying. Once your idea is public knowledge, there is no reason for it not to spread freely given how easy it is to transmit information now.

YetAnotherNick 6y ago
I mean it's not the best setup, but what else do you suggest? This was meant for protecting income of authors while not being too inconvenient for most users. Netflix primary model is this and it is working great for them and users. Many people do share the account but it does add some inconvenience that only some maximum number of people can watch at the same time, making people get subscription.
jdashg 6y ago
Your example is a case where piracy had no profit impact, but it's not the general case. The books are priced in part based on assumptions about how many people can read them over time. A book at a library can probably only be read by ~20 people a year. If 200 people a year want to read it, the library needs ten books. But, if we were free to post the scans online, the price per book would need to be astronomically higher. While the usual naive extrapolations of MSRP-times-pirated-copies is also wrong, allowing people to freely and at-will render others' work unprofitable is a subversion of the purpose of copyright: To ensure that the creation of works is be profitable enough to pursue. If someone wanted their work to be in the public domain, they could so choose.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  > render others' work unprofitable Can you support the claim that creative work becomes unprofitable when copies are made freely available, but the option to support the creator still exists?

caconym_ 6y ago

I agree with your moral analysis here, and that the prohibited thing should be the distribution of protected IP, not simply retaining a copy of something you already had rights to view (which I think there is substantial precedent for). This is the big problem with the DMCA. It shortcuts the messy dirty work of dealing with IP violations, to the benefit of large corporations and the detriment of individuals. The former engage in rampant abuse of their powers under the DMCA, apparently without any fear of significant consequences. It's just another example of the degree to which large corporations own America.

AmIDev 6y ago

Tangential note: In India, it's legal to copy books for personal purpose, but not to copy it for profit.

wallacoloo 6y ago

Am I the only one who uses youtube-dl for downloading silly mp4s from Twitter and Reddit, and all the other aggregators? I mean, sure: some Youtube videos are copyrighted, and youtube-dl was originally made to download Youtube videos. But despite the project name, it's evolved beyond just that. Don't kill the whole damn project when the legal issues are limited only to certain backends to begin with.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

> It is a bit of a tough question. How would I feel about someone borrowing a book from a library and then photocopying it to keep a local copy? If you're photocopying a library book in order to avoid buying your own copy, I don't feel great about that—we need to support authors. Yes, everyone's financial situation is different, and not every under-the-table photocopy is a lost sale, but there has to be some incentive to actually go to the bookstore. But here’s the thing—for 99% of Youtube videos, there is no bookstore. There is no other way for me to acquire an unencumbered video file, regardless of how much I'm willing to pay. And to stretch the photocopy analogy a bit, there are a lot of other reasons someone may want to photocopy a book: • If the book has small print, you may want to enlarge the text. • If you prefer listening over reading, you may want to OCR the pages and use text-to-speech. • If you're doing research, you may want to OCR the pages so the text can be digitally indexed and searched. • If you have an eReader, you may want to digitize the book so you don't have to carry around a paper copy. And, sure, in some cases it may be possible to buy an official audiobook, or an eBook, or a large print edition. But in other cases, that might not be an option. Downloading a Youtube video affords similar freedoms, allowing you to experience the content in the way that makes sense for you.