5 ms·
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 Un
by 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 agoThe 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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.)
- hunter2_ 6y agoWhat if your intent is to shift to a time when Youtube doesn't exist?
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y agoIt when you don't have access to it (plane flight, etc). That sounds like time shifting to me.
- McDyver 6y agoIf, for example, you bought a movie and downloaded it to watch on a plane when you can't have access to streaming, why wouldn't it be legal?
- Reelin 6y agoThat would be an interesting argument. I suspect it would be illegal because a pay per view stream is typically time limited. But if the stream itself were still valid while you were on the plane ... ?
- kzrdude 6y agoWhat about using youtube-dl as the only technical way to play it on a low power device, like with mpv on an Rpi or old laptop. That's a kind of tech adaption of the streaming/playback mode (and I've done it a ton on previous laptops)
- anticensor 6y agoThen RIAA would argue for a DRMd version of downloader that is prevented from doing it in high power deviced.
- hilbert42 6y ago"...this is a medium that the RIAA barely tolerates, rather than the (ideal) main distribution channel." Right, this is the precise problem, and it has to be solved - not by a free-for-all but with proper equitabl copywrite laws. As matters stand, it's only going to get worse. Say we assume that if somehow both YouTube downloads are made much more difficult to crack AND no downloaders are available, then viewers and downloaders will then use newer tech that's even easier to use to record the videos. With new hi-resonution 4k cameras becoming commonly available, they'll be able to record stuff with still-excellent resolution by just photographing the monitor. Of course, that still won't deter the RIAA, I can see them trying to ban cardboard covers and jigs that hold cameras and monitors accurately in alignment.
- xxpor 6y agoThe Betamax case was pre-DMCA. The law has changed. I'm not saying it's invalid, just that there's a different argument to be made.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- scruffyherder 6y agoProbably because YouTube premium let’s you do that.