4 ms·

I think there are essentially two problems here that decrease the signal-to-noise ratio in these kinds of discussions. One is that people often mix political a

I think there are essentially two problems here that decrease the signal-to-noise ratio in these kinds of discussions. One is that people often mix political and legal matters in colloquial discussions of such topics. I frequently catch myself doing it too. It is clearly not in the interest of most people for functionality that youtube-dl offers to be illegal. In fact, most of the time it isn't really illegal, in a de facto sense, since it is never acted upon and prosecuted. However, sometimes a shady organization such as the RIAA acts upon this legal grey area and tries to push the needle in its own direction. When people then say "There is actually nothing wrong with this, this is definitely not illegal.", they are actually making a political statement without realizing. They are really saying: this shouldn't be illegal because it makes no sense that it is so. Since people actually hold all the power, this act makes this the reality in a way, but in order for this to completely materialize, the will of the people must first be focused so that it is reified into law. The other problem is that the world is not the US and there are many jurisdictions where circumventing copyright protections and/or downloading a media file for personal use are not problematic at all. This fact also often seeps into the discussion, but sometimes only implicitly, so people often talk past each other.

cookiengineer 6y ago
Overall, in this case you cannot assume to be right by relying on fair use, because fair use as a legal concept implies that there has to be a court decision in order to exist. And all of the required measurements in order to apply fair use are almost impossible to prove, therefore it is an unlikely case to win in court. I agree with the political sentiment in this discussion, and I have a biased opinion, too - but when talking about pushing the needle in a specific direction the maintainers of youtubedl did a bad job at doing so. I mean, they have one of the most powerful industries siding against them, with nearly unlimited funding, so it is obvious that this was bound to happen and they should have been more careful. Especially when they, as a project, cannot afford lawyers to fight potential battles in court. That's why I described it as an unnecessary attack surface, because that's what it is. Don't give them reasons to push the needle.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  >one of the most powerful industries That's just a reason to not pay them anything ever even you find it desirable, they are obviously incapable to handle the money, powerful and incompetent is just too malicious.
- tveita 6y ago
  > they have one of the most powerful industries siding against them, with nearly unlimited funding The music industry through RIAA are aggressive and may be punching above their weight class in litigation and lobbying, but remember that they are not really that large in the grand scheme of things. Certainly not in the class of juggernauts like oil, medicine etc. https://www.riaa.com/reportcat/sales-revenue/ https://www.riaa.com/reportcat/sales-revenue/ says the US music industry had $11.1 billion in revenue for 2019, a fraction of many large tech companies.
  - brokenmachine 6y ago
    Although this is fact is probably correct, and is mildly interesting, it has no relevance here because $11.1 billion is certainly a hell of a lot more than youtube-dl has to fight them in court.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  > because fair use as a legal concept implies that there has to be a court decision in order to exist. There are countries where fair use is always permitted unless a court decision prohibits it in that single case.

cookiengineer 6y ago

Overall, in this case you cannot assume to be right by relying on fair use, because fair use as a legal concept implies that there has to be a court decision in order to exist. And all of the required measurements in order to apply fair use are almost impossible to prove, therefore it is an unlikely case to win in court. I agree with the political sentiment in this discussion, and I have a biased opinion, too - but when talking about pushing the needle in a specific direction the maintainers of youtubedl did a bad job at doing so. I mean, they have one of the most powerful industries siding against them, with nearly unlimited funding, so it is obvious that this was bound to happen and they should have been more careful. Especially when they, as a project, cannot afford lawyers to fight potential battles in court. That's why I described it as an unnecessary attack surface, because that's what it is. Don't give them reasons to push the needle.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago
>one of the most powerful industries That's just a reason to not pay them anything ever even you find it desirable, they are obviously incapable to handle the money, powerful and incompetent is just too malicious.
tveita 6y ago
> they have one of the most powerful industries siding against them, with nearly unlimited funding The music industry through RIAA are aggressive and may be punching above their weight class in litigation and lobbying, but remember that they are not really that large in the grand scheme of things. Certainly not in the class of juggernauts like oil, medicine etc. https://www.riaa.com/reportcat/sales-revenue/ https://www.riaa.com/reportcat/sales-revenue/ says the US music industry had $11.1 billion in revenue for 2019, a fraction of many large tech companies.
- brokenmachine 6y ago
  Although this is fact is probably correct, and is mildly interesting, it has no relevance here because $11.1 billion is certainly a hell of a lot more than youtube-dl has to fight them in court.
romanoderoma 6y ago
> because fair use as a legal concept implies that there has to be a court decision in order to exist. There are countries where fair use is always permitted unless a court decision prohibits it in that single case.