4 ms·

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.

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?

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?