4 ms·

Fair use does not override the TOS which YouTube-DP violates

by Google234 6y ago

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
You can’t issue a DMCA takedown for software that violates someone’s TOS. (Never mind that it’s someone else’s TOS.)
- MacsHeadroom 6y ago
  It wasn't a DMCA takedown notice. It was a DMCA section 1201 notice. Section 1201, which criminalizes circumvention of access controls, has nothing to do with copyright. John Deere uses it to go after sellers of unauthorized replacement parts for their tractors. Non-compliance is a felony carrying a 5 year / $500k punishment. Unlike takedown notices, there's no counter-notice opportunity for the receiving party. So if the receiving party believed the notice isn't valid, they'll need to argue that as a criminal defendant in criminal court.
indymike 6y ago
Please quote relevant TOS.
- Google234 6y ago
  B. Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Many TOS are full of legal BS that has not been tested in court. "You shall not download" Or what? Can Youtube actually sue me for damages, they haven't suffered any. Some videos are lisenced as Creative Commons. I seriously doubt this has any legal force.
  - qiqitori 6y ago
    IANAL, but for me the terms used here are kind of problematic on a technical level. - "unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content." -- If there is a download link somewhere in the comments you're allowed to download using youtube-dl? - "provided functionality" -- either functionality is available or it's not. Whether there is a button for it on the UI or not is entirely different. (However, this sort of seems to imply that the HTML specs are legally binding?) - Your internet connection is only capable of sending and receiving packets, and it isn't wrong at all to describe "sending" as "uploading" and "receiving" as "downloading". - It says that you aren't allowed to (among other things) "display" any Content for any other purposes -- other purposes than what? "For your information and personal use"? - It used to be that you could just copy video files from your browser's cache directory, or you could use hard links -- then you wouldn't even have copied them technically. (Not sure if that's still possible on youtube -- but again what if you had a browser that generated PNG files instead or or before "displaying" stuff on the screen?)
  - indymike 6y ago
    Given Google amakes both Chrome and YouTube, the lines are pretty unclear on what provided functionality is.
leothecool 6y ago
Wow, by that logic news reporters aren't even allowed watch videos on the site for news reporting purposes because it would violate the ban on commercial use.
- Google234 6y ago
  I don’t think that follows.
ok123456 6y ago
A TOS is not private law.

Fair use does not override the TOS which YouTube-DP violates

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

You can’t issue a DMCA takedown for software that violates someone’s TOS. (Never mind that it’s someone else’s TOS.)

MacsHeadroom 6y ago
It wasn't a DMCA takedown notice. It was a DMCA section 1201 notice. Section 1201, which criminalizes circumvention of access controls, has nothing to do with copyright. John Deere uses it to go after sellers of unauthorized replacement parts for their tractors. Non-compliance is a felony carrying a 5 year / $500k punishment. Unlike takedown notices, there's no counter-notice opportunity for the receiving party. So if the receiving party believed the notice isn't valid, they'll need to argue that as a criminal defendant in criminal court.

indymike 6y ago

Please quote relevant TOS.

Google234 6y ago
B. Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Many TOS are full of legal BS that has not been tested in court. "You shall not download" Or what? Can Youtube actually sue me for damages, they haven't suffered any. Some videos are lisenced as Creative Commons. I seriously doubt this has any legal force.
- qiqitori 6y ago
  IANAL, but for me the terms used here are kind of problematic on a technical level. - "unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content." -- If there is a download link somewhere in the comments you're allowed to download using youtube-dl? - "provided functionality" -- either functionality is available or it's not. Whether there is a button for it on the UI or not is entirely different. (However, this sort of seems to imply that the HTML specs are legally binding?) - Your internet connection is only capable of sending and receiving packets, and it isn't wrong at all to describe "sending" as "uploading" and "receiving" as "downloading". - It says that you aren't allowed to (among other things) "display" any Content for any other purposes -- other purposes than what? "For your information and personal use"? - It used to be that you could just copy video files from your browser's cache directory, or you could use hard links -- then you wouldn't even have copied them technically. (Not sure if that's still possible on youtube -- but again what if you had a browser that generated PNG files instead or or before "displaying" stuff on the screen?)
- indymike 6y ago
  Given Google amakes both Chrome and YouTube, the lines are pretty unclear on what provided functionality is.

leothecool 6y ago

Wow, by that logic news reporters aren't even allowed watch videos on the site for news reporting purposes because it would violate the ban on commercial use.

Google234 6y ago
I don’t think that follows.

ok123456 6y ago

A TOS is not private law.