6 ms·

I left a comment about my own non-infringing use cases of the tool earlier — and I think it’s important that the non-infringing use cases get mentioned. Having

I left a comment about my own non-infringing use cases of the tool earlier — and I think it’s important that the non-infringing use cases get mentioned. Having said that, can we please stop pretending like any of us weren’t using this to infringe copyright? Most of us weren’t distributing anything, but I think most of us were aware this was at the very least a grey area, if not outright infringement. I’m a huge fan and user of youtube-dl and think this action from the RIAA is ridiculous (though not surprising — I’m a little surprised it took this long) and that the law over this stuff is absolutely bonkers — but the commentary and false pretenses about not just how we use the tool but the purpose for why the tool was built is incredibly disingenuous. It was built and designed to download content that the creators or sites that host the content either didn’t want people to download or outright didn’t allow. The program has support for username/passwords for TV Everywhere SSO’s for premium services. There are ways to tunnel in via a proxy to avoid region block downloads. Again, I’m a huge fan, and I’m someone who absolutely used these features, but let’s not pretend the purpose wasn’t exactly what it is. That doesn’t make the RIAA’s actions any better or anything — but I really dislike pretending like we weren’t all using the program for the exact purposes the complaint laid out, or that they use case wasn’t the primary reason this tool existed.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
wizzwizz4 6y ago
I wasn't, and it's not. I genuinely think you're in the minority here (which is unusual, on the 'net, where piracy's concerned).
reggieband 6y ago
To add to this (which I 100% agree with) is the chorus of voices suggesting that their usage was OK because they weren't downloading RIAA content. Just because someone isn't an RIAA member doesn't mean they don't have copyright over the content they upload to YouTube. There are some YouTube creators that would be totally fine with you downloading their content but you can't assume every creator is the same. Just because a user filmed, edited and uploaded some video from their own house doesn't mean they have any less rights than music or video from major labels or Hollywood studios.
- labawi 6y ago
  Yes but a tool is not illegal just because it can sometimes be used illegally. If some are OK with it and some are not, then it suggests it has legitimate purpose (though you need to go a lot deeper). Note, I'm not arguing copying small-label stuff is OK, I'm rather more OK with copying RIAA stuff. AFAICT, if a DRM prohibits fair use, breaking it is legal. In some jurisdictions. Or at least it should be. That should be enough of a reason for youtube-dl to exist.
  - filmgirlcw 6y ago
    To be clear, I'm not arguing that it is illegal or that it should be -- clearly that it shouldn't! I'm simply saying that the program was designed to download content that the site and/or creators didn't want to be downloaded and that the vast, vast, vast majority of people using said program were using it to circumvent those restrictions. Again, if anyone is guilty of anything, it's the users (like me) who use the program, not the program for merely existing. And frankly, since I don't distribute the content I download or profit from it in any way, I welcome the RIAA coming after me, just as I did 20 years ago when I was a high school student using Napster on her dial-up connection.
    - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
      There are creators, who are ok with downloads.
megous 6y ago
In my country it's not illegal to download copyrighted movies/music. It's just illegal to share them. So how was I infringing copyright by downloading something from a public website where copyright holder left the content publicly accessible to anyone? I'll give you that it may or may not be against ToS of the distribution service, but that's all. But it's not a distribution service causing the ruckus around youtube-dl, but the copyright holder, so that's kinda beside the point.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  What even is the relevance of this? So host a youtube-dl repo and reject DMCA requests then. Github, as it so happens, is American so it has to listen to America.
  - megous 6y ago
    Relevance is "Having said that, can we please stop pretending like any of us weren’t using this to infringe copyright?" I'm not pretending if I'm not violating, even if I'm downloading the copyrighted videos.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Well obviously it doesn’t apply to you then. I feel like this is really easy to understand.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        The word "any" has a specific meaning. Most people in the world aren't American and most countries at least from my experience allow private copying.
        renewiltord 6y ago
        I genuinely can’t believe you’ve decided to do this. I’m ashamed to have even participated in this. I’m outtie.
labawi 6y ago
AFAICT I have not used youtube-dl to view videos that I couldn't watch on the site (except perhaps incidentally) - but I don't like executing random code on my computer and youtube web is in my view actively user-hostile and last I tried it had serious performance problems. I had a feeling I was using youtube-dl to avoid ads (not blocks), but after some retrospective, I don't think I would have seen ads on most videos I watched from youtube and I think most were freely available videos, often embedded on author's pages - except people have an understandable habit of hosting them on youtube. To conclude, I would disagree that we are all using youtube-dl as complained.
blazespin 6y ago
I don't think this necessarily infringing copyright. There were court cases around timeshifting / tivo that OKd this. https://www.playon.tv/blog/playon-legal https://www.playon.tv/blog/playon-legal As long as you don't rebroadcast copyrighted material, you should be fine.
donmcronald 6y ago
The only thing I use it for is via Tartube to download videos from my young nephew's channel. He's enthusiastic about making YouTube videos, but doesn't understand the nuance of copyright law or the ToS. For example, the first thing he did after I helped him set up OBS was to fire up a game + Spotify to make a live stream. I had to explain to him why he's not allowed to stream music like that. He doesn't do it now, but there's still a decent chance his channel that gets 5 views per video will get struck or banned for a similar misunderstanding in the future. He doesn't know much (under 10) beyond using the Windows Game Bar or OBS to upload something and doesn't have a bunch of spare storage, so he doesn't keep copies of videos anyway. I download them so if he gets banned I have an archive and can help him set up a new channel on another platform. I know it'll be easy for someone to say "do X, Y, and Z" then, but the reality is that it doesn't take much for it to become "not fun" for younger kids and the opportunity to encourage them to learn valuable skills like video editing, etc. are lost when they lose interest.
kortilla 6y ago
> but I really dislike pretending like we weren’t all using the program for the exact purposes the complaint laid out Speak for yourself. I used it to pull down youtube videos to watch on a 14 hour plane ride over the pacific.
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
Proxy support is a standard feature of all browsers. It's a necessity because in some network configurations you don't have direct access to internet, but only through a proxy.
Talanes 6y ago
If I'm seeking out to infringe upon a copyrighted video, Youtube-DL isn't even in the top 5 of things I would think to try.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

wizzwizz4 6y ago

I wasn't, and it's not. I genuinely think you're in the minority here (which is unusual, on the 'net, where piracy's concerned).

reggieband 6y ago

To add to this (which I 100% agree with) is the chorus of voices suggesting that their usage was OK because they weren't downloading RIAA content. Just because someone isn't an RIAA member doesn't mean they don't have copyright over the content they upload to YouTube. There are some YouTube creators that would be totally fine with you downloading their content but you can't assume every creator is the same. Just because a user filmed, edited and uploaded some video from their own house doesn't mean they have any less rights than music or video from major labels or Hollywood studios.

labawi 6y ago
Yes but a tool is not illegal just because it can sometimes be used illegally. If some are OK with it and some are not, then it suggests it has legitimate purpose (though you need to go a lot deeper). Note, I'm not arguing copying small-label stuff is OK, I'm rather more OK with copying RIAA stuff. AFAICT, if a DRM prohibits fair use, breaking it is legal. In some jurisdictions. Or at least it should be. That should be enough of a reason for youtube-dl to exist.
- filmgirlcw 6y ago
  To be clear, I'm not arguing that it is illegal or that it should be -- clearly that it shouldn't! I'm simply saying that the program was designed to download content that the site and/or creators didn't want to be downloaded and that the vast, vast, vast majority of people using said program were using it to circumvent those restrictions. Again, if anyone is guilty of anything, it's the users (like me) who use the program, not the program for merely existing. And frankly, since I don't distribute the content I download or profit from it in any way, I welcome the RIAA coming after me, just as I did 20 years ago when I was a high school student using Napster on her dial-up connection.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    There are creators, who are ok with downloads.

megous 6y ago

In my country it's not illegal to download copyrighted movies/music. It's just illegal to share them. So how was I infringing copyright by downloading something from a public website where copyright holder left the content publicly accessible to anyone? I'll give you that it may or may not be against ToS of the distribution service, but that's all. But it's not a distribution service causing the ruckus around youtube-dl, but the copyright holder, so that's kinda beside the point.

renewiltord 6y ago
What even is the relevance of this? So host a youtube-dl repo and reject DMCA requests then. Github, as it so happens, is American so it has to listen to America.
- megous 6y ago
  Relevance is "Having said that, can we please stop pretending like any of us weren’t using this to infringe copyright?" I'm not pretending if I'm not violating, even if I'm downloading the copyrighted videos.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Well obviously it doesn’t apply to you then. I feel like this is really easy to understand.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      The word "any" has a specific meaning. Most people in the world aren't American and most countries at least from my experience allow private copying.
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        I genuinely can’t believe you’ve decided to do this. I’m ashamed to have even participated in this. I’m outtie.

labawi 6y ago

AFAICT I have not used youtube-dl to view videos that I couldn't watch on the site (except perhaps incidentally) - but I don't like executing random code on my computer and youtube web is in my view actively user-hostile and last I tried it had serious performance problems. I had a feeling I was using youtube-dl to avoid ads (not blocks), but after some retrospective, I don't think I would have seen ads on most videos I watched from youtube and I think most were freely available videos, often embedded on author's pages - except people have an understandable habit of hosting them on youtube. To conclude, I would disagree that we are all using youtube-dl as complained.

blazespin 6y ago

I don't think this necessarily infringing copyright. There were court cases around timeshifting / tivo that OKd this. https://www.playon.tv/blog/playon-legal https://www.playon.tv/blog/playon-legal As long as you don't rebroadcast copyrighted material, you should be fine.

donmcronald 6y ago

The only thing I use it for is via Tartube to download videos from my young nephew's channel. He's enthusiastic about making YouTube videos, but doesn't understand the nuance of copyright law or the ToS. For example, the first thing he did after I helped him set up OBS was to fire up a game + Spotify to make a live stream. I had to explain to him why he's not allowed to stream music like that. He doesn't do it now, but there's still a decent chance his channel that gets 5 views per video will get struck or banned for a similar misunderstanding in the future. He doesn't know much (under 10) beyond using the Windows Game Bar or OBS to upload something and doesn't have a bunch of spare storage, so he doesn't keep copies of videos anyway. I download them so if he gets banned I have an archive and can help him set up a new channel on another platform. I know it'll be easy for someone to say "do X, Y, and Z" then, but the reality is that it doesn't take much for it to become "not fun" for younger kids and the opportunity to encourage them to learn valuable skills like video editing, etc. are lost when they lose interest.

kortilla 6y ago

> but I really dislike pretending like we weren’t all using the program for the exact purposes the complaint laid out Speak for yourself. I used it to pull down youtube videos to watch on a 14 hour plane ride over the pacific.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago

Proxy support is a standard feature of all browsers. It's a necessity because in some network configurations you don't have direct access to internet, but only through a proxy.

Talanes 6y ago

If I'm seeking out to infringe upon a copyrighted video, Youtube-DL isn't even in the top 5 of things I would think to try.