4 ms·

I hit F12 and see my browser downloading things in the developer's network panel. My browser's disk cache and temporary directories save the files by placing t

I hit F12 and see my browser downloading things in the developer's network panel. My browser's disk cache and temporary directories save the files by placing them physically on my hard disk. Are only gui based webbrowsers with large market share the only legal way to access multimedia content? Lynx is a browser for the terminal, am I not allowed to open up multimedia links present either with an external program that displays it in a console framebuffer or converts it to ascii art? What about mpv which uses youtube-dl in the background to play a video? What about a container/plugin that uses mpv to play a video in a webbrowser?

ajconway 6y ago
These are all technical workarounds to a non-technical problem. Ultimately, you can capture media directly from the media output. If you build software or hardware that make the process easy for a significant number of people, the lawyers will come after you.
sjy 6y ago
> Are only gui based webbrowsers with large market share the only legal way to access multimedia content? I believe they are the only supported way to access content on YouTube. As for whether the unofficial ways to access YouTube are legal, that depends on whether they circumvent a “technological measure that effectively controls access” [1] to copyrighted works. That’s not so clear, but YouTube does obfuscate its code to make the task of tools like youtube-dl harder. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
- jk700 6y ago
  > That’s not so clear, but YouTube does obfuscate its code to make the task of tools like youtube-dl harder. Not for tools like youtube-dl, but for tools that let user manually extract links, such as viewing the source code of the document. Because YouTube also provides an algorithm to deobfuscate it, which humans can't run in their heads, but tools, browsers can.
JdeBP 6y ago
In several European countries until 2003 or so, this was indeed the case. For example: Making a local temporary copy in a cache or on a hard disc counted (obviously) as making a copy under the U.K.'s 1988 Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act, which had no exception for computer caches and temporary copies, and which pre-dated the invention of the WWW (albeit not of UUCP). Doing so thus infringed upon copyright. * https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents/enacted https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents/enacted The European Union recognized this defect in the law and came up with Directive 2001/29/EC, which explicitly carved out in article 5 an exception to copyright for "temporary acts of reproduction". * https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32001L0029&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... The U.K. implemented this Directive (Directives having to be implemented by legislation in member states of the E.U.) via a statutory instrument, the 2003 Copyright and Related Rights Regulations, which amended the 1988 Act to carve out this exception in U.K. law. * https://legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2498/note https://legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2498/note * https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/28A https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/28A Browsing the WWW with caching proxies and caching WWW browsers was technically a violation of copyright in U.K. law for about 11 years. And the U.K. wasn't alone in this. Several other E.U. member states also had to tweak their copyright legislation because it didn't carve out this exception for cached WWW browsing. But the RIAA's objection to youtube-dl is not the making of temporary copies for legitimate browsing and viewing purposes. It is the circumvention of YouTube's mechanisms in order to make permanent copies that aren't being used as an integral part of WWW browsing. The RIAA is not challenging the making of temporary copies. It is challenging the circumvention of access control mechanisms. It is asserting that youtube-dl circumvents the "YouTube rolling cipher" mechanism, whatever that is (the referenced explanation being in German and apparently gibberish), and so is a tool for circumventing technological access control measures. So whether you can legally use WWW browsers is not the point at issue. It is whether youtube-dl is a tool that enables access to YouTube contents by circumventing a "cipher". * https://openjur.de/u/2194436.html https://openjur.de/u/2194436.html Ironically, this same consideration applies to tools like * Real Player Downloader (https://www.real.com/uk/realplayer https://www.real.com/uk/realplayer ); * Media Human's YouTubeDownloader (https://mediahuman.com/howto/download-vevo-video.html https://mediahuman.com/howto/download-vevo-video.html ); * Ace Thinker's Video Keeper Lite (https://acethinker.com/video-keeper-lite https://acethinker.com/video-keeper-lite ); and many others. Interestingly, furthermore, the RIAA appears to assert that the "rolling cipher" applies to all YouTube content, however copyright licensed.

ajconway 6y ago

These are all technical workarounds to a non-technical problem. Ultimately, you can capture media directly from the media output. If you build software or hardware that make the process easy for a significant number of people, the lawyers will come after you.

sjy 6y ago

> Are only gui based webbrowsers with large market share the only legal way to access multimedia content? I believe they are the only supported way to access content on YouTube. As for whether the unofficial ways to access YouTube are legal, that depends on whether they circumvent a “technological measure that effectively controls access” [1] to copyrighted works. That’s not so clear, but YouTube does obfuscate its code to make the task of tools like youtube-dl harder. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

jk700 6y ago
> That’s not so clear, but YouTube does obfuscate its code to make the task of tools like youtube-dl harder. Not for tools like youtube-dl, but for tools that let user manually extract links, such as viewing the source code of the document. Because YouTube also provides an algorithm to deobfuscate it, which humans can't run in their heads, but tools, browsers can.

JdeBP 6y ago

In several European countries until 2003 or so, this was indeed the case. For example: Making a local temporary copy in a cache or on a hard disc counted (obviously) as making a copy under the U.K.'s 1988 Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act, which had no exception for computer caches and temporary copies, and which pre-dated the invention of the WWW (albeit not of UUCP). Doing so thus infringed upon copyright. * https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents/enacted https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents/enacted The European Union recognized this defect in the law and came up with Directive 2001/29/EC, which explicitly carved out in article 5 an exception to copyright for "temporary acts of reproduction". * https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32001L0029&from=EN https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... The U.K. implemented this Directive (Directives having to be implemented by legislation in member states of the E.U.) via a statutory instrument, the 2003 Copyright and Related Rights Regulations, which amended the 1988 Act to carve out this exception in U.K. law. * https://legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2498/note https://legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2498/note * https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/28A https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/28A Browsing the WWW with caching proxies and caching WWW browsers was technically a violation of copyright in U.K. law for about 11 years. And the U.K. wasn't alone in this. Several other E.U. member states also had to tweak their copyright legislation because it didn't carve out this exception for cached WWW browsing. But the RIAA's objection to youtube-dl is not the making of temporary copies for legitimate browsing and viewing purposes. It is the circumvention of YouTube's mechanisms in order to make permanent copies that aren't being used as an integral part of WWW browsing. The RIAA is not challenging the making of temporary copies. It is challenging the circumvention of access control mechanisms. It is asserting that youtube-dl circumvents the "YouTube rolling cipher" mechanism, whatever that is (the referenced explanation being in German and apparently gibberish), and so is a tool for circumventing technological access control measures. So whether you can legally use WWW browsers is not the point at issue. It is whether youtube-dl is a tool that enables access to YouTube contents by circumventing a "cipher". * https://openjur.de/u/2194436.html https://openjur.de/u/2194436.html Ironically, this same consideration applies to tools like * Real Player Downloader (https://www.real.com/uk/realplayer https://www.real.com/uk/realplayer ); * Media Human's YouTubeDownloader (https://mediahuman.com/howto/download-vevo-video.html https://mediahuman.com/howto/download-vevo-video.html ); * Ace Thinker's Video Keeper Lite (https://acethinker.com/video-keeper-lite https://acethinker.com/video-keeper-lite ); and many others. Interestingly, furthermore, the RIAA appears to assert that the "rolling cipher" applies to all YouTube content, however copyright licensed.