3 ms·
"Napster could have been used for legal means as well, and it got destroyed in court." But Napster was a service run by an organization. youtube-dl is neither
by pmoriarty 6y ago
"Napster could have been used for legal means as well, and it got destroyed in court."
But Napster was a service run by an organization.
youtube-dl is neither a service nor an organization. It's just some source code floating around the internet, to which volunteers contribute to.
A very different situation.
If anything, it's Youtube itself that's like Napster, and it's telling that the RIAA has gone after youtube-dl rather than Google.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- michaelmrose 6y agoIt's not even clear that youtube-dl vs watching in the browser is any different from watching on tv vs using your vcr to record which has long been legal.
- traviscj 6y agoIn this case, it "steals" the ad revenue that the copyright tries to protect, no? Or am I thinking about this incorrectly?
- tyzoid 6y agoThis is an argument copyright owners tried to argue with VCR and later TiVo, as it lets them skip out on the ads.
- michaelmrose 6y agoNobody can steal their own attention
- arvindamirtaa 6y agoRIAA definitely does go after Google. They file countless DMCA takedowns on videos that re-upload content from official accounts. Unlike Napster, Google just complies and hence doesn't have much of a case against it like Napster did.
- mulmen 6y agoRIAA already went after YouTube. That’s why Google added the ability to scan for copywritten material. Google wanted YouTube to be a friendly place for people to view content. That meant playing ball with RIAA.