6 ms·

Does anyone technically have the right to download from youtube in this way? Even if so, it's clearly in the category of software predominantly used for piracy,

by mckeed 6y ago

Does anyone technically have the right to download from youtube in this way? Even if so, it's clearly in the category of software predominantly used for piracy, all of which can also have legitimate uses.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Can you explain what makes you think that even makes sense? Most of the relevant YouTube videos are already available for free to the public, so there is no real incentive to download them from YouTube and upload them to The Pirate Bay. Downloading a copy for personal use would often fall under fair use. Uses with third party video players like mpv aren't even making a permanent copy. Many of the videos are in the public domain (e.g. from NASA) or are permissively licensed (e.g. many university course lecture videos or conference talks). Who is even using this for some kind of meaningful copyright infringement?
- roblabla 6y ago
  > Downloading a copy for personal use would often fall under fair use. Downloading a copy for personal use isn't even copyright infringement - for copyright infringement to happen, you'd have to then share that copy you made. For instance, you are allowed to do VHS copies of TV shows, and that was confirmed by Supreme Court[0]. This whole thing doesn't make sense to me either. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....
  - sjy 6y ago
    The Betamax case predates the DMCA, which created the “anti-circumvention” laws the RIAA is relying on here. It was also a 5:4 decision that depended on “a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcasts time-shifted,” and the copyright holders’ failure “to demonstrate that time-shifting would cause any likelihood of non-minimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, their copyrighted works.” The opinion explicitly did not cover pay TV, and the court also noted that the cost of Betamax tapes made it difficult to build your own library of tapes for repeated viewing, in concluding that there was no likelihood of harm. I think it’s an interesting and open question whether the typical use of youtube-dl falls under fair use.
stefan_ 6y ago
What a bizarre revisionist point of view. Radio players quite naturally learned to record to cassettes once the technology was available and no one ever came to raid player manufacturers, nor did anyone brand the kid sitting at home recording the radio some piracy overlord. Stop repeating this RIAA nonsense.
- crtasm 6y ago
  Unsure if this is sarcasm, if not it sounds like you missed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    Just because I make propaganda doesn't meant the message is real.
  - crtasm 6y ago
    also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
xorcist 6y ago
If you publish a youtube video publicly, there is an expectation that the public is allowed to view it. Is the idea that the author didn't have the rights to publish the video in the first place, due to things like unlicensed background music? Thus far, Youtube is under the safe harbor principle of the DMCA, and as long as they honor those takedown notices, the end user is not likely to be held accountable. The software they use is even less likely to be.

by mckeed 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

Can you explain what makes you think that even makes sense? Most of the relevant YouTube videos are already available for free to the public, so there is no real incentive to download them from YouTube and upload them to The Pirate Bay. Downloading a copy for personal use would often fall under fair use. Uses with third party video players like mpv aren't even making a permanent copy. Many of the videos are in the public domain (e.g. from NASA) or are permissively licensed (e.g. many university course lecture videos or conference talks). Who is even using this for some kind of meaningful copyright infringement?

roblabla 6y ago
> Downloading a copy for personal use would often fall under fair use. Downloading a copy for personal use isn't even copyright infringement - for copyright infringement to happen, you'd have to then share that copy you made. For instance, you are allowed to do VHS copies of TV shows, and that was confirmed by Supreme Court[0]. This whole thing doesn't make sense to me either. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....
- sjy 6y ago
  The Betamax case predates the DMCA, which created the “anti-circumvention” laws the RIAA is relying on here. It was also a 5:4 decision that depended on “a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcasts time-shifted,” and the copyright holders’ failure “to demonstrate that time-shifting would cause any likelihood of non-minimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, their copyrighted works.” The opinion explicitly did not cover pay TV, and the court also noted that the cost of Betamax tapes made it difficult to build your own library of tapes for repeated viewing, in concluding that there was no likelihood of harm. I think it’s an interesting and open question whether the typical use of youtube-dl falls under fair use.

stefan_ 6y ago

What a bizarre revisionist point of view. Radio players quite naturally learned to record to cassettes once the technology was available and no one ever came to raid player manufacturers, nor did anyone brand the kid sitting at home recording the radio some piracy overlord. Stop repeating this RIAA nonsense.

crtasm 6y ago
Unsure if this is sarcasm, if not it sounds like you missed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  Just because I make propaganda doesn't meant the message is real.
- crtasm 6y ago
  also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

xorcist 6y ago

If you publish a youtube video publicly, there is an expectation that the public is allowed to view it. Is the idea that the author didn't have the rights to publish the video in the first place, due to things like unlicensed background music? Thus far, Youtube is under the safe harbor principle of the DMCA, and as long as they honor those takedown notices, the end user is not likely to be held accountable. The software they use is even less likely to be.