5 ms·

It is copyright infringement (via the argument that ytdl facilitates and encourages others to commit the infringement), which happens to bypass ads. The rights

by ldarby 6y ago

It is copyright infringement (via the argument that ytdl facilitates and encourages others to commit the infringement), which happens to bypass ads. The rights holders have effectively said "you can watch this for free as long as we get the ad revenue". Theoretically, if there was some way of preserving that ad revenue while committing that infringement, I would assume they wouldn't care about the infringement. They're just using the infringement as a tool to preserve the ad revenue. What you're worried about is the converse, if there is a way to avoid infringing on copywrite while bypassing ads (which there is, ad-blocking), then there's no infringement to use as a tool, then they're going to want to make ad-blocking illegal. It's not hard to predict that's coming, especially in Europe given Article 13 last year.

feanaro 6y ago
I'm actually arguing that it is wrong to claim that a copy is even being made by the mere act of streaming (i.e. transferring the bytes of) a media file and hence you cannot violate copyright by merely downloading something. You only infringe once you distribute the content further. In fact, as far as I'm aware of, this is also how the situation plays out de facto in most (all?) European countries. > The rights holders have effectively said "you can watch this for free as long as we get the ad revenue". The key lies in the word "effectively" here. They may have said and even meant that, but I am unaware of a legal mechanism that would actually allow them to do this (in Europe). The only way I can think of accomplishing this would be to make the content available under a dedicated, bespoke licence, akin to how GPL works, and even then I'm unsure whether it would be enforceable. TOSes, generally, are not. > It's not hard to predict that's coming, especially in Europe given Article 13 last year. This is wrong. Article 13 regulates content hosts (in this case, Youtube), not end users. Hence, Article 13 has no bearing on ad-blocking software.
- ldarby 6y ago
  > cannot violate copyright by merely downloading something. You only infringe once you distribute the content further. Wrong. Copying something, without distribution, is still violating copyright. It's just taken less seriously than distribution. It's the same difference between drug dealers and drug users. >> It's not hard to predict that's coming, especially in Europe given Article 13 last year. > This is wrong. Article 13 regulates content hosts (in this case, Youtube), not end users. Hence, Article 13 has no bearing on ad-blocking software. No, I did not say anything at all about Article 13. Please re-read what I said.
  - Reelin 6y ago
    > No, I did not say anything at all about Article 13. Please re-read what I said. What? You very clearly stated that the content of Article 13 makes it easy to predict that the EU will attempt to make ad blocking illegal in the foreseeable future. (Granted, the response to that didn't make much sense - the current law doesn't have to directly affect end users for us to make a reasonable prediction based on it that laws proposed in the future would attempt to do just that.) > Wrong. Copying something, without distribution, is still violating copyright. That really depends on the jurisdiction and context. For example, in the US, making backup copies of materials licensed in perpetuity (ex a movie on VHS) is (always, AFAIK) permitted. Another example is recording broadcast TV for the purpose of time shifting it (ie watching it later), which has been explicitly permitted by the courts here. Yet another example is ripping CDs for personal use, which falls under fair use in the US and is therefore not a violation.
    - ldarby 6y ago
      > That really depends on the jurisdiction and context. No it doesn't. If you haven't legitimately obtained Taylor Swift's Shake it Off, you can't argue the copy you made with youtube-dl is a permitted personal copy, in the US or anywhere with copyright laws. If you did pay for it, then yes you can argue it's a permitted copy (just not in the UK, which has stricter copyright laws). (this is mostly a copy paste of this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24882280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24882280).
      - Reelin 6y ago
        >> That really depends on the jurisdiction and context. > If you haven't legitimately obtained ... I'm well aware and never claimed otherwise. I very clearly stated that it depends on the context. (It's right there in the text you quoted!) I was responding specifically to your previous claim that "Copying something, without distribution, is still violating copyright." which was overly broad for the reasons I specified.
        6y ago

by ldarby 6y ago

feanaro 6y ago

I'm actually arguing that it is wrong to claim that a copy is even being made by the mere act of streaming (i.e. transferring the bytes of) a media file and hence you cannot violate copyright by merely downloading something. You only infringe once you distribute the content further. In fact, as far as I'm aware of, this is also how the situation plays out de facto in most (all?) European countries. > The rights holders have effectively said "you can watch this for free as long as we get the ad revenue". The key lies in the word "effectively" here. They may have said and even meant that, but I am unaware of a legal mechanism that would actually allow them to do this (in Europe). The only way I can think of accomplishing this would be to make the content available under a dedicated, bespoke licence, akin to how GPL works, and even then I'm unsure whether it would be enforceable. TOSes, generally, are not. > It's not hard to predict that's coming, especially in Europe given Article 13 last year. This is wrong. Article 13 regulates content hosts (in this case, Youtube), not end users. Hence, Article 13 has no bearing on ad-blocking software.

ldarby 6y ago
> cannot violate copyright by merely downloading something. You only infringe once you distribute the content further. Wrong. Copying something, without distribution, is still violating copyright. It's just taken less seriously than distribution. It's the same difference between drug dealers and drug users. >> It's not hard to predict that's coming, especially in Europe given Article 13 last year. > This is wrong. Article 13 regulates content hosts (in this case, Youtube), not end users. Hence, Article 13 has no bearing on ad-blocking software. No, I did not say anything at all about Article 13. Please re-read what I said.
- Reelin 6y ago
  > No, I did not say anything at all about Article 13. Please re-read what I said. What? You very clearly stated that the content of Article 13 makes it easy to predict that the EU will attempt to make ad blocking illegal in the foreseeable future. (Granted, the response to that didn't make much sense - the current law doesn't have to directly affect end users for us to make a reasonable prediction based on it that laws proposed in the future would attempt to do just that.) > Wrong. Copying something, without distribution, is still violating copyright. That really depends on the jurisdiction and context. For example, in the US, making backup copies of materials licensed in perpetuity (ex a movie on VHS) is (always, AFAIK) permitted. Another example is recording broadcast TV for the purpose of time shifting it (ie watching it later), which has been explicitly permitted by the courts here. Yet another example is ripping CDs for personal use, which falls under fair use in the US and is therefore not a violation.
  - ldarby 6y ago
    > That really depends on the jurisdiction and context. No it doesn't. If you haven't legitimately obtained Taylor Swift's Shake it Off, you can't argue the copy you made with youtube-dl is a permitted personal copy, in the US or anywhere with copyright laws. If you did pay for it, then yes you can argue it's a permitted copy (just not in the UK, which has stricter copyright laws). (this is mostly a copy paste of this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24882280 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24882280).
    - Reelin 6y ago
      >> That really depends on the jurisdiction and context. > If you haven't legitimately obtained ... I'm well aware and never claimed otherwise. I very clearly stated that it depends on the context. (It's right there in the text you quoted!) I was responding specifically to your previous claim that "Copying something, without distribution, is still violating copyright." which was overly broad for the reasons I specified.
      - 6y ago