3 ms·

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

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.

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.