4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
  - ldarby 6y ago
    Yeah, sorry I knew it was overly broad and should have been more specific. But it was in response to your completely wrong assertion that violating it requires redistribution. I think we're done here.
    - ldarby 6y ago
      > your completely wrong assertion Oops, apologies Reelin I wasn't paying attention to who said what, that was feanaro who was wrong.
- feanaro 6y ago
  > If you haven't legitimately obtained Taylor Swift's Shake it Off Obtaining Taylor Swift's Shake it Off from a public YouTube video without watching ads is a legitimate way of obtaining it. That is exactly the point.
  - ldarby 6y ago
    You are just wrong. Please go learn about copyright. Then you might understand why this takedown happened.
    - feanaro 6y ago
      I like think you are wrong and I have presented my case previously, to which you haven't responded. Nothing in copyright law itself can force you to watch ads while downloading a public video. I am completely sure this is the case in my own jurisdiction. If you want, I would be curious to hear your argument about why you think it does in yours. This takedown happened because DMCA is a broken, frequently exploited law which allows for illegitimate takedown requests, which you must abide by or risk exposing yourself to legal damage for no reason at all.
      - ldarby 6y ago
        > to which you haven't responded. Where? I responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881656 I can only repeat what's there.
feanaro 6y ago
> 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. You're right. I assumed the OP was arguing that Article 13 itself somehow regulates ad blocking software, which is the only way I could interpret it so as to not be a non sequitur, but in doing so I made a non sequitur myself.
- ldarby 6y ago
  I never said Article 13 bans ad blocking. What I wrote was too difficult to parse and I should have realised that at the time and made it more clear. E.g.: "It's not hard to predict they (EU and media corps) will want to make ad blocking illegal in future with a new law following on from Article 13." I could have said something more vague like "not hard to predict it given the direction the world is headed at the moment" to make the same point.

by Reelin 6y ago

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.
- ldarby 6y ago
  Yeah, sorry I knew it was overly broad and should have been more specific. But it was in response to your completely wrong assertion that violating it requires redistribution. I think we're done here.
  - ldarby 6y ago
    > your completely wrong assertion Oops, apologies Reelin I wasn't paying attention to who said what, that was feanaro who was wrong.
feanaro 6y ago
> If you haven't legitimately obtained Taylor Swift's Shake it Off Obtaining Taylor Swift's Shake it Off from a public YouTube video without watching ads is a legitimate way of obtaining it. That is exactly the point.
- ldarby 6y ago
  You are just wrong. Please go learn about copyright. Then you might understand why this takedown happened.
  - feanaro 6y ago
    I like think you are wrong and I have presented my case previously, to which you haven't responded. Nothing in copyright law itself can force you to watch ads while downloading a public video. I am completely sure this is the case in my own jurisdiction. If you want, I would be curious to hear your argument about why you think it does in yours. This takedown happened because DMCA is a broken, frequently exploited law which allows for illegitimate takedown requests, which you must abide by or risk exposing yourself to legal damage for no reason at all.
    - ldarby 6y ago
      > to which you haven't responded. Where? I responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881656 I can only repeat what's there.

feanaro 6y ago

> 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. You're right. I assumed the OP was arguing that Article 13 itself somehow regulates ad blocking software, which is the only way I could interpret it so as to not be a non sequitur, but in doing so I made a non sequitur myself.

ldarby 6y ago
I never said Article 13 bans ad blocking. What I wrote was too difficult to parse and I should have realised that at the time and made it more clear. E.g.: "It's not hard to predict they (EU and media corps) will want to make ad blocking illegal in future with a new law following on from Article 13." I could have said something more vague like "not hard to predict it given the direction the world is headed at the moment" to make the same point.