6 ms·

A copyright is for a creative work, not for a set of bits. It's unlikely transcoding a video added anything creative to the process.

mulmen 6y ago
Yes I am aware that the bits are not what is copywritten and I am not suggesting Youtube has any right to the content itself. But using youtube-dl to download content from a competitors site is taking advantage of the functionality on that competitors site to add value to your own product. It could still be in Youtube's interest to prevent this from happening. I'm asking why you would expect a competitor to make your own product more compelling for your customers. This is a further example that Youtube-dl is there to circumvent the intended functionality of Youtube.
- patmorgan23 6y ago
  But YouTube is not the one taking legal action here, The RIAA is.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    I understand that as well. I am saying it is possible to imagine a scenario in which someone looks at Youtube-dl as something other than a totally harmless aid to users. Youtube has legitimate reasons to try and prevent people from downloading content from their site. Youtube-dl is clearly there to enable people to do that. Rightsholders can use this as another argument that Youtube-dl violates (or is designed to violate) the DMCA. I'm not defending the RIAA or DMCA here but I can understand their argument and why they are making it.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Talanes 6y ago
      I'm not sure what the line of thought is supposed to be here. Youtube also has legitimate reasons to make sure people watch their videos rather than their competitors, but that doesn't mean they can sue me for watching Vimeo.
      - mulmen 6y ago
        Of course not. But what if Vimeo is using YouTube to host the videos? The point I am making has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with leveraging a third party tool to make a competitors product an advantage for yourself.
        Talanes 6y ago
        And in your example they should be suing Vimeo. If we were competing hot dog stands and I use a hammer to break into your cart and steal your family mustard recipe, you don't deliver a notice to Home Depot.
        mulmen 6y ago
        Your analogy makes no sense. RIAA is arguing YouTube-dl is a tool designed to download copywritten material from YouTube because YouTube-dl included test cases in their own code for downloading copywritten material from YouTube. The existence of other streaming sites or other functionality of youtube-dl is completely irrelevant. YouTube does not need to be a party to this, the RIAA is just connecting the dots to make their own case. Their claim is that YouTube-dl is a tool for downloading copywritten material from YouTube because the creators of YouTube-dl literally tested for that in the codebase. It’s a pretty easy case to make. Any other use of the tool is again, completely and totally irrelevant. To be even more clear I’m sure YouTube-dl is a useful tool and I think such things should exist. However, this is an important lesson when making and owning these tools. Don’t do the RIAAs work for them.
        Talanes 6y ago
        That's all well and good, but I don't see where your earlier points about business competition fit into all that.
- chmod775 6y ago
  > It could still be in Youtube's interest to prevent this from happening. And in fact it is illegal for YouTube to lock your data within their service in that manner in the EU. You have a right to export your data and they have the responsibility to make it make possible to move that data to a competitor where technically feasible. And it clearly is technically feasible.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    Do they have an obligation to export your data in a format you choose with a method of your choice or can they make that determination for themselves? Does the EU mandate the ability for YouTube-dl to exist? There’s a lot of talking past each other going on in this thread. Nobody is defending the RIAA or DMCA. But they exist and this outcome seems painfully obvious. RIAA being mean, DMCA being bad and copyright being outdated doesn’t matter here. What matters in that the law exists and YouTube-dl made it really easy for the RIAA to make a compelling case against them.
    - murgindrag 6y ago
      I think the law made it really easy for Google to make that case. I don't think the RIAA has legal standing here under DMCA. Google isn't making that case because Youtube is YOUtube. The whole point is that it's a platform for family videos, amateurs, and all sorts of other things. If the RIAA didn't want their content Youtube-dl'able, they should have used one of their locked-down platforms. They went to Youtube because the locked-down corporate platforms don't have the eyeballs. Now, they're trying to convert Youtube into one of those platforms. My expectation is the RIAA will prevail, but because of deeper pockets and the potential for a multi-million dollar legal battle, not because they're on solid legal ground.
gamblor956 6y ago
Transcoding a video is making a copy of a creative work. Ergo, by definition, copyright applies. In fact, if transcoding a video added anything creative to the process, you would have two copyrights: one for the original creative work, and a second for the derivative (transcoded) work.
- murgindrag 6y ago
  You missed it. OP has rights to the work. The question was whether downloading from Youtube breaks any laws. Youtube's add is transcoding, which is not a creative transformation. Ergo, OP probably has a legal right to download from Youtube, at least as far as copyright law is concerned.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    No, I saw that. I was responding to the immediate parent, not the OP. The comment I was responding to was whether transcoding is an act covered by copyright, and it is. The OP's comment was different. He was using youtube-dl to download videos uploaded by his own clients, which was fine because they're the copyright owners. Transcoding doesn't generally create a separate copyrighted work because at least for these types of media, the underlying representation of the bits doesn't matter. Note: this isn't fair use. Fair use is a defense to violating copyright, and a copyright owner can't violate their own copyright ...but if they licensed one or more copyrights to a third party, they could violate the third party's copyrights depending on the terms of that license.

mulmen 6y ago

Yes I am aware that the bits are not what is copywritten and I am not suggesting Youtube has any right to the content itself. But using youtube-dl to download content from a competitors site is taking advantage of the functionality on that competitors site to add value to your own product. It could still be in Youtube's interest to prevent this from happening. I'm asking why you would expect a competitor to make your own product more compelling for your customers. This is a further example that Youtube-dl is there to circumvent the intended functionality of Youtube.

patmorgan23 6y ago
But YouTube is not the one taking legal action here, The RIAA is.
- mulmen 6y ago
  I understand that as well. I am saying it is possible to imagine a scenario in which someone looks at Youtube-dl as something other than a totally harmless aid to users. Youtube has legitimate reasons to try and prevent people from downloading content from their site. Youtube-dl is clearly there to enable people to do that. Rightsholders can use this as another argument that Youtube-dl violates (or is designed to violate) the DMCA. I'm not defending the RIAA or DMCA here but I can understand their argument and why they are making it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Talanes 6y ago
    I'm not sure what the line of thought is supposed to be here. Youtube also has legitimate reasons to make sure people watch their videos rather than their competitors, but that doesn't mean they can sue me for watching Vimeo.
    - mulmen 6y ago
      Of course not. But what if Vimeo is using YouTube to host the videos? The point I am making has nothing to do with copyright. It has to do with leveraging a third party tool to make a competitors product an advantage for yourself.
      - Talanes 6y ago
        And in your example they should be suing Vimeo. If we were competing hot dog stands and I use a hammer to break into your cart and steal your family mustard recipe, you don't deliver a notice to Home Depot.
        mulmen 6y ago
        Your analogy makes no sense. RIAA is arguing YouTube-dl is a tool designed to download copywritten material from YouTube because YouTube-dl included test cases in their own code for downloading copywritten material from YouTube. The existence of other streaming sites or other functionality of youtube-dl is completely irrelevant. YouTube does not need to be a party to this, the RIAA is just connecting the dots to make their own case. Their claim is that YouTube-dl is a tool for downloading copywritten material from YouTube because the creators of YouTube-dl literally tested for that in the codebase. It’s a pretty easy case to make. Any other use of the tool is again, completely and totally irrelevant. To be even more clear I’m sure YouTube-dl is a useful tool and I think such things should exist. However, this is an important lesson when making and owning these tools. Don’t do the RIAAs work for them.
        Talanes 6y ago
        That's all well and good, but I don't see where your earlier points about business competition fit into all that.
chmod775 6y ago
> It could still be in Youtube's interest to prevent this from happening. And in fact it is illegal for YouTube to lock your data within their service in that manner in the EU. You have a right to export your data and they have the responsibility to make it make possible to move that data to a competitor where technically feasible. And it clearly is technically feasible.
- mulmen 6y ago
  Do they have an obligation to export your data in a format you choose with a method of your choice or can they make that determination for themselves? Does the EU mandate the ability for YouTube-dl to exist? There’s a lot of talking past each other going on in this thread. Nobody is defending the RIAA or DMCA. But they exist and this outcome seems painfully obvious. RIAA being mean, DMCA being bad and copyright being outdated doesn’t matter here. What matters in that the law exists and YouTube-dl made it really easy for the RIAA to make a compelling case against them.
  - murgindrag 6y ago
    I think the law made it really easy for Google to make that case. I don't think the RIAA has legal standing here under DMCA. Google isn't making that case because Youtube is YOUtube. The whole point is that it's a platform for family videos, amateurs, and all sorts of other things. If the RIAA didn't want their content Youtube-dl'able, they should have used one of their locked-down platforms. They went to Youtube because the locked-down corporate platforms don't have the eyeballs. Now, they're trying to convert Youtube into one of those platforms. My expectation is the RIAA will prevail, but because of deeper pockets and the potential for a multi-million dollar legal battle, not because they're on solid legal ground.

gamblor956 6y ago

Transcoding a video is making a copy of a creative work. Ergo, by definition, copyright applies. In fact, if transcoding a video added anything creative to the process, you would have two copyrights: one for the original creative work, and a second for the derivative (transcoded) work.

murgindrag 6y ago
You missed it. OP has rights to the work. The question was whether downloading from Youtube breaks any laws. Youtube's add is transcoding, which is not a creative transformation. Ergo, OP probably has a legal right to download from Youtube, at least as far as copyright law is concerned.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  No, I saw that. I was responding to the immediate parent, not the OP. The comment I was responding to was whether transcoding is an act covered by copyright, and it is. The OP's comment was different. He was using youtube-dl to download videos uploaded by his own clients, which was fine because they're the copyright owners. Transcoding doesn't generally create a separate copyrighted work because at least for these types of media, the underlying representation of the bits doesn't matter. Note: this isn't fair use. Fair use is a defense to violating copyright, and a copyright owner can't violate their own copyright ...but if they licensed one or more copyrights to a third party, they could violate the third party's copyrights depending on the terms of that license.