7 ms·

The kicker is that if their demo examples had been something like that, or e.g. students downloading copies of free lectures, or etc, the RIAA would have much l

The kicker is that if their demo examples had been something like that, or e.g. students downloading copies of free lectures, or etc, the RIAA would have much less of a case. No actual code would have had to change. If you have a tool which skirts (bad, overreaching, probably constitutionally invalid) laws, be smart about how you present them!

yebyen 6y ago
If this content is freely available, why can't we take a fair use copy? That is not a violation of copyright. (Even if it is entertainment / not educational.) Those are the terms of the deal, we made when we enshrined copyright into law. If you can show it to me, then I am allowed to take a copy. (Is it not? I thought that DMCA law itself was written to skirt around this fact of law.)
- gamblor956 6y ago
  If this content is freely available, why can't we take a fair use copy? That is not a violation of copyright. Making a copy on its own is not fair use. What matters is the reason for making the copy. If you are making an connectivity-shifted copy (aka, for viewing away from internet access) there could be a fair use argument to download content from a streaming site that is not otherwise available for offline consumption. But the flipside of that: if there is a way to access the content in a way that fair use is not implicated (i.e., because the copyright owner makes the content available for that use case such as offline viewing, even if payment is required), then generally fair use does not apply. Remember: fair use is a defense to violating copyright, and it must be reasonable under the circumstances. Not wanting to pay for a license for your intended use case is generally never considered reasonable. If you can show it to me, then I am allowed to take a copy. That has never been the law, at any point in the history of copyright, dating back to before copying works was trivial.
  - yebyen 6y ago
    In Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. the majority opinion stated: > [There must be] a balance between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective - not merely symbolic - protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Is there a subsequent opinion that reversed that? (How is youtube-dl substantially different from a VCR recording, if youtube is substantially similar to a broadcast medium?) > [W]hen one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work ... and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact ... that the entire work is reproduced ... does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use.
    - eightails 6y ago
      To play devil's advocate, I wonder if it can really be said that when you watch a youtube video you have been > invited to witness in its entirety free of charge when you consider advertising. It could be argued that when you watch a monetized youtube video you are being invited to view the video in exchange for also viewing advertisements as a form of payment. I hope that you're right though, and that we get a ruling in favour of being able to make copies for fair-use.
      - justinclift 6y ago
        > It could be argued that when you watch a monetized youtube video ... Not sure what one of those looks like. I hear people talk about them, but I've not seem an advert on a YouTube video. That being said, I do use a bunch of anti-ad browser extensions... :)
      - yebyen 6y ago
        For sure, that is the argument they will have to make! As a counter-argument, what if I paid for my youtube premium membership though, to avoid the advertising, and really what I want to do is to location-shift within the bounds of the law, I want to take my laptop into the wilderness and watch the movies I paid for, on an Indian reservation in front of a mountain scene, ... where there is no broadband or cell radio tower service? (Hypothetically of course! Youtube-dl is not only for Youtube.)
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    > But the flipside of that: if there is a way to access the content in a way that fair use is not implicated (i.e., because the copyright owner makes the content available for that use case such as offline viewing, even if payment is required), then generally fair use does not apply. Can you cite a source for this? I do not believe that is generally the case. You are allowed to rip CDs even if the same music is sold digitally and you are allowed to DVR a TV show even if they sell DVDs of the same show.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      By that logic one would only be allowed to record with a vcr shows that weren't available on tape. Furthermore according to parents logic VCRs shouldn't be allowed to exist because they can record from both categories.
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        It depends. If the shows are available with each episode available on a separate tape (and each separate tape could be individually purchased), then yes, the VCR fair use justification evaporates. But generally VHS tapes include multiple episodes and individual episodes can not be individually purchased (other than a limited number of very special episodes), so there is still an argument to be made for fair use on the basis of each individual episode. Furthermore according to parents logic VCRs shouldn't be allowed to exist because they can record from both categories. No, that's not at all what I said. VCRs are just tools. Tools are subject to a different analysis post-DMCA: does the tool have a substantial non-infringing use or is it deliberately designed to violate copyright? In determining whether a tool was deliberately designed to violate copyright, they look beyond just the mere function of the tool and examine why that functionality is present, and how the tool and that potentially-violating functionality is marketed. On that note: DVRs generally no longer exist today as standalone goods (see, for example Tivo, etc). This is because the copyright owners introduced new time-shifting licenses a few years ago, and your cable company, Hulu, etc. pay the copyright owners for the right to let their viewers view content on a time-shifted basis. A standalone DVR would generally have the primary purpose of violating those (relatively new) rights, and thus wouldn't pass muster today. What about VCRs? They're still okay. They make degraded, low-quality copies of broadcast transmissions for archival/time-shifted uses by people who have TVs that still connect to VCRs. As those people generally wouldn't be able to access the equivalent digital content on their TV, it's clear that the primary use of VCRs is for fair uses purposes.
- larrymcp 6y ago
  Why can't we take a fair use copy? That is not a violation of copyright. That's not covered under "Fair Use": see [1] for fair-use criteria. It is definitely a violation of copyright, yea. [1] http://fairusetube.org/guide-to-youtube-removals/3-deciding-if-video-is-fair-use http://fairusetube.org/guide-to-youtube-removals/3-deciding-...
  - yebyen 6y ago
    Taking a copy does not affect the potential market of the copyrighted work in any way. Sharing a copy is another matter. Youtube-dl facilitates taking a copy only, it is not a tool for sharing. This case is substantially different than Napster, I disagree. In some circumstances, you must be able to take a copy in order to exercise your allowed "transformative" fair use rights. You cannot sample a record without a way to take a copy.
  - TheCoelacanth 6y ago
    The article you cited is about fair use when distributing a video. It does not address making a copy for personal use.

yebyen 6y ago

If this content is freely available, why can't we take a fair use copy? That is not a violation of copyright. (Even if it is entertainment / not educational.) Those are the terms of the deal, we made when we enshrined copyright into law. If you can show it to me, then I am allowed to take a copy. (Is it not? I thought that DMCA law itself was written to skirt around this fact of law.)

gamblor956 6y ago
If this content is freely available, why can't we take a fair use copy? That is not a violation of copyright. Making a copy on its own is not fair use. What matters is the reason for making the copy. If you are making an connectivity-shifted copy (aka, for viewing away from internet access) there could be a fair use argument to download content from a streaming site that is not otherwise available for offline consumption. But the flipside of that: if there is a way to access the content in a way that fair use is not implicated (i.e., because the copyright owner makes the content available for that use case such as offline viewing, even if payment is required), then generally fair use does not apply. Remember: fair use is a defense to violating copyright, and it must be reasonable under the circumstances. Not wanting to pay for a license for your intended use case is generally never considered reasonable. If you can show it to me, then I am allowed to take a copy. That has never been the law, at any point in the history of copyright, dating back to before copying works was trivial.
- yebyen 6y ago
  In Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. the majority opinion stated: > [There must be] a balance between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective - not merely symbolic - protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Is there a subsequent opinion that reversed that? (How is youtube-dl substantially different from a VCR recording, if youtube is substantially similar to a broadcast medium?) > [W]hen one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work ... and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact ... that the entire work is reproduced ... does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use.
  - eightails 6y ago
    To play devil's advocate, I wonder if it can really be said that when you watch a youtube video you have been > invited to witness in its entirety free of charge when you consider advertising. It could be argued that when you watch a monetized youtube video you are being invited to view the video in exchange for also viewing advertisements as a form of payment. I hope that you're right though, and that we get a ruling in favour of being able to make copies for fair-use.
    - justinclift 6y ago
      > It could be argued that when you watch a monetized youtube video ... Not sure what one of those looks like. I hear people talk about them, but I've not seem an advert on a YouTube video. That being said, I do use a bunch of anti-ad browser extensions... :)
    - yebyen 6y ago
      For sure, that is the argument they will have to make! As a counter-argument, what if I paid for my youtube premium membership though, to avoid the advertising, and really what I want to do is to location-shift within the bounds of the law, I want to take my laptop into the wilderness and watch the movies I paid for, on an Indian reservation in front of a mountain scene, ... where there is no broadband or cell radio tower service? (Hypothetically of course! Youtube-dl is not only for Youtube.)
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  > But the flipside of that: if there is a way to access the content in a way that fair use is not implicated (i.e., because the copyright owner makes the content available for that use case such as offline viewing, even if payment is required), then generally fair use does not apply. Can you cite a source for this? I do not believe that is generally the case. You are allowed to rip CDs even if the same music is sold digitally and you are allowed to DVR a TV show even if they sell DVDs of the same show.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    By that logic one would only be allowed to record with a vcr shows that weren't available on tape. Furthermore according to parents logic VCRs shouldn't be allowed to exist because they can record from both categories.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      It depends. If the shows are available with each episode available on a separate tape (and each separate tape could be individually purchased), then yes, the VCR fair use justification evaporates. But generally VHS tapes include multiple episodes and individual episodes can not be individually purchased (other than a limited number of very special episodes), so there is still an argument to be made for fair use on the basis of each individual episode. Furthermore according to parents logic VCRs shouldn't be allowed to exist because they can record from both categories. No, that's not at all what I said. VCRs are just tools. Tools are subject to a different analysis post-DMCA: does the tool have a substantial non-infringing use or is it deliberately designed to violate copyright? In determining whether a tool was deliberately designed to violate copyright, they look beyond just the mere function of the tool and examine why that functionality is present, and how the tool and that potentially-violating functionality is marketed. On that note: DVRs generally no longer exist today as standalone goods (see, for example Tivo, etc). This is because the copyright owners introduced new time-shifting licenses a few years ago, and your cable company, Hulu, etc. pay the copyright owners for the right to let their viewers view content on a time-shifted basis. A standalone DVR would generally have the primary purpose of violating those (relatively new) rights, and thus wouldn't pass muster today. What about VCRs? They're still okay. They make degraded, low-quality copies of broadcast transmissions for archival/time-shifted uses by people who have TVs that still connect to VCRs. As those people generally wouldn't be able to access the equivalent digital content on their TV, it's clear that the primary use of VCRs is for fair uses purposes.
larrymcp 6y ago
Why can't we take a fair use copy? That is not a violation of copyright. That's not covered under "Fair Use": see [1] for fair-use criteria. It is definitely a violation of copyright, yea. [1] http://fairusetube.org/guide-to-youtube-removals/3-deciding-if-video-is-fair-use http://fairusetube.org/guide-to-youtube-removals/3-deciding-...
- yebyen 6y ago
  Taking a copy does not affect the potential market of the copyrighted work in any way. Sharing a copy is another matter. Youtube-dl facilitates taking a copy only, it is not a tool for sharing. This case is substantially different than Napster, I disagree. In some circumstances, you must be able to take a copy in order to exercise your allowed "transformative" fair use rights. You cannot sample a record without a way to take a copy.
- TheCoelacanth 6y ago
  The article you cited is about fair use when distributing a video. It does not address making a copy for personal use.