5 ms·

Technically, even streaming is making a copy.

icebraining 6y ago
Legally, even running a program is making a copy (from disk to RAM): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp.... I think the question is whether the license YouTube implicitly provides to copy so one can stream also extends to downloading to a file. Probably not. Why that should be youtube-dl's fault is yet another question, of course.
- vageli 6y ago
  > Legally, even running a program is making a copy (from disk to RAM): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp.... > I think the question is whether the license YouTube implicitly provides to copy so one can stream also extends to downloading to a file. Probably not. > Why that should be youtube-dl's fault is yet another question, of course. TV broadcasters do not give you a license to copy their content but it's legal to record TV. Why is youtube any different?
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    It was legal to record TV, using VCRs and DVRs, for time-shifted viewing, due to the alternative being that the content could not be consumed at all (at the time of the Betamax case, episodes were broadcast once, and generally not re-broadcast unless they were extremely popular, and were not available for purchase individually or even as part of a collection). Today, there are a multitude of options for consuming TV content, and due to the (recent) creation of time-shifted licenses, the fair use justification for standalone-DVRs has mostly gone out the window (which is why they're not for sale anymore; for example, Tivo no longer offers standalone DVRs; Hulu, cable companies pay for time-shifted viewing). As Youtube was always on-demand to begin with, the time-shifting justification for recording TV in the Betamax case never applied.
    - vageli 6y ago
      Are you saying that I can't still legally record TV on my VCR or DVR?
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Legally, even running a program is making a copy (from disk to RAM): Yes, that is why 17 USC § 117 provides that making a transitory copy necessary to run the program (such as a RAM copy), or an archival copy of the data needed to run the program, are both explicitly not violations of copyright. I think the question is whether the license YouTube implicitly provides to copy so one can stream also extends to downloading to a file. Probably not. It does not. Youtube does not explicitly, or implicitly, provide the user a license of any type. Youtube has licensed the right to provide a temporary copy of a video to a user. Why that should be youtube-dl's fault is yet another question, of course. It normally wouldn't be...except that some idiot decided to include unit tests to make sure that youtube-dl could be used to download music videos covered by RIAA licenses. That basically makes the RIAA's case, especially since youtube-dl must be regularly updated to handle Google's countermeasures.
  - icebraining 6y ago
    Right, but 17 USC§117 only applies to programs, not video. Who provides me the license to copy the video from the buffer of the network card to main RAM, and then to GPU ram, and then to my screen?
yebyen 6y ago
I haven't seen anyone else making this argument yet, but yes! Chunk by chunk, streamers copy bits into their buffers and discard them as they are done watching. Is that discarding required, when the same companies can charge extra for additional bandwidth usage (not for making additional copies, but for clogging up their pipes) I'm not sure if this is going to be considered similar to taking a full copy but I'm also not sure what substantial purpose there would be for taking that full copy except for the (probably valid fair use) purpose of shifting access to manage time, location, or network conditions. Given that you pay separately for your bandwidth, and there is an incentive to conserve it, I don't see any way this isn't considered fair use without a sharing component. Taking a copy is incidental to lawfully consuming the content that was provided in an authorized setting, whether that copy is stable or not. Nobody is hosting copies of YouTube content, paying the bandwidth and hosting bills so anonymous co-parties to the infringement can enjoy the content separately from the authorized channel, (it is not even suggested that anyone would want to do this.)
gamblor956 6y ago
Technically, even streaming is making a copy. Yes, that is why streamed content is now generally covered by streaming-specific licenses, as noted above.

Legally, even running a program is making a copy (from disk to RAM): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Computer,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp.... I think the question is whether the license YouTube implicitly provides to copy so one can stream also extends to downloading to a file. Probably not. Why that should be youtube-dl's fault is yet another question, of course.

vageli 6y ago
> Legally, even running a program is making a copy (from disk to RAM): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAI_Systems_Corp._v._Peak_Comp.... > I think the question is whether the license YouTube implicitly provides to copy so one can stream also extends to downloading to a file. Probably not. > Why that should be youtube-dl's fault is yet another question, of course. TV broadcasters do not give you a license to copy their content but it's legal to record TV. Why is youtube any different?
- gamblor956 6y ago
  It was legal to record TV, using VCRs and DVRs, for time-shifted viewing, due to the alternative being that the content could not be consumed at all (at the time of the Betamax case, episodes were broadcast once, and generally not re-broadcast unless they were extremely popular, and were not available for purchase individually or even as part of a collection). Today, there are a multitude of options for consuming TV content, and due to the (recent) creation of time-shifted licenses, the fair use justification for standalone-DVRs has mostly gone out the window (which is why they're not for sale anymore; for example, Tivo no longer offers standalone DVRs; Hulu, cable companies pay for time-shifted viewing). As Youtube was always on-demand to begin with, the time-shifting justification for recording TV in the Betamax case never applied.
  - vageli 6y ago
    Are you saying that I can't still legally record TV on my VCR or DVR?
gamblor956 6y ago
Legally, even running a program is making a copy (from disk to RAM): Yes, that is why 17 USC § 117 provides that making a transitory copy necessary to run the program (such as a RAM copy), or an archival copy of the data needed to run the program, are both explicitly not violations of copyright. I think the question is whether the license YouTube implicitly provides to copy so one can stream also extends to downloading to a file. Probably not. It does not. Youtube does not explicitly, or implicitly, provide the user a license of any type. Youtube has licensed the right to provide a temporary copy of a video to a user. Why that should be youtube-dl's fault is yet another question, of course. It normally wouldn't be...except that some idiot decided to include unit tests to make sure that youtube-dl could be used to download music videos covered by RIAA licenses. That basically makes the RIAA's case, especially since youtube-dl must be regularly updated to handle Google's countermeasures.
- icebraining 6y ago
  Right, but 17 USC§117 only applies to programs, not video. Who provides me the license to copy the video from the buffer of the network card to main RAM, and then to GPU ram, and then to my screen?

yebyen 6y ago

I haven't seen anyone else making this argument yet, but yes! Chunk by chunk, streamers copy bits into their buffers and discard them as they are done watching. Is that discarding required, when the same companies can charge extra for additional bandwidth usage (not for making additional copies, but for clogging up their pipes) I'm not sure if this is going to be considered similar to taking a full copy but I'm also not sure what substantial purpose there would be for taking that full copy except for the (probably valid fair use) purpose of shifting access to manage time, location, or network conditions. Given that you pay separately for your bandwidth, and there is an incentive to conserve it, I don't see any way this isn't considered fair use without a sharing component. Taking a copy is incidental to lawfully consuming the content that was provided in an authorized setting, whether that copy is stable or not. Nobody is hosting copies of YouTube content, paying the bandwidth and hosting bills so anonymous co-parties to the infringement can enjoy the content separately from the authorized channel, (it is not even suggested that anyone would want to do this.)

gamblor956 6y ago

Technically, even streaming is making a copy. Yes, that is why streamed content is now generally covered by streaming-specific licenses, as noted above.