6 ms·

The case is more nuanced than it looks from the outset. In this case YTDL is executed on the provider's premise not on the users machines. So you are not distri

The case is more nuanced than it looks from the outset. In this case YTDL is executed on the provider's premise not on the users machines. So you are not distributing a tool, you are providing a service that scrapes videos from YouTube. I still think that a DMCA takedown should not apply (and the regulation is BS) but this looks to be a different case. E.g. I could completely understand why Google would not want such a feature in your product for Business reasons.

boredpudding 4y ago
I agree with this, but I also feel Google should sue them for this feature, instead of removing them from Google Search. I feel like the second is an abuse of their massive power on the internet.
- belter 4y ago
  The EU is rubbing their hands...
danbulant 4y ago
But again, GIPHY has the exact same feature, and I can find Giphy just fine
- namdnay 4y ago
  Maybe GIPHY negotiated something with Google? Or the fact that it's only short extracts means they don't see it as scraping?
masswerk 4y ago
Hum, isn't copyright about publication? The mere act of downloading doesn't necessarily imply this, and there's still legitimate cause for publication as in fair use. Also, wouldn't a DCMA complaint have to concern specific material? (To me, this doesn't make much sense.)
- szundi 4y ago
  Downloading even for caching is prohibited afaik.
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
> I could completely understand why Google would not want such a feature in your product for Business reasons. yeah I can understand this too, but it looks to me like Google is using its monopoly power in industry (search) to protect its monopoly power in another industry (video streaming)
senko 4y ago
> you are providing a service that scrapes videos from YouTube. ... > I could completely understand why Google would not want such a feature in your product So, when Google scraped the internet to provide search engine, that was okay, but when some other site scrapes something, it is not? If they are doing something illegal, by all means sue or report them. But Google acting as police, judge, jury and executioner here shows why it's a problem to have a single unregulated company with so much power.
- blinding-streak 4y ago
  Robots.txt is a thing.
  - senko 4y ago
    If robots.txt were a thing, Google would never have built its search engine. Everyone would just allow Altavista and disallow everyone else, like they do with Googlebot and Bingbot now. Also, the issue here is not that Google banned their tool from accessing YouTube because the tool didn't obey robots.txt. The issue is that Google, the search engine, nuked their site, because they didn't like its content.
- psydvl 4y ago
  While scrapping Google follows robots.txt file rules
  - megous 4y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/robots.txt https://www.youtube.com/robots.txt Looks like scraping is allowed then, if your robot is named "Mediapartners-Google*" And you can name your robot whatever you like (there's no legally enforced nor defacto registry), so my robot: "Mediapartners-Google-im-cleary-not-a-member-of/1.0" Can legally scrape anything on google's youtube. Perfect.
- sshine 4y ago
  > So, when Google scraped the internet to provide search engine, that was okay, but when some other site scrapes something, it is not? No, but when Google scraped the Internet, nobody did anything about it. The value they added by making everything searchable was so great. Giving content creators platform flexibility is clearly a threat to YouTube. Double standards are twice as good.
megous 4y ago
> The case is more nuanced than it looks from the outset. In this case YTDL is executed on the provider's premise not on the users machines. So you are not distributing a tool, you are providing a service that scrapes videos from YouTube. So the rule is that you can't (as a user of Kapwing) use a computer you don't own (and are just renting in some capacity) to download your own videos? Or to download videos for "fair use" use cases? I mean who cares where the software runs?
- DanBC 4y ago
  > So the rule is that you can't use a computer you don't own (and are just renting in some capacity) to download your own videos? Or to download videos for "fair use" use cases? One of the (many) reasons the DMCA is bad is because it makes using your existing rights harder. You've mentioned "fair use" here. But the submitted article is talking about: > (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— > (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; You can't use your right to fair use if the IP holder has implemented an access control, because the DMCA makes circumventing an access control unlawful. The fact that the IP industry was able to implement a law that interferes with free speech shows how out of control they are.
  - megous 4y ago
    Sad. Who decides which law has priority though, when the laws are in conflict? Apparently http clients are not banned by this law even though they are necessarily "part of a product" that is designed to circumvent protection,... And they are the main thing doing the actual copying. This law is still not achieving it's full potential. :D In the same vein, there's conflict between exceptions offered by one law (fair use), and bans by this same law (software to exercise this right). I guess the courts decide, but in practice courts don't run around looking for conflicts in laws to decide on their own, to make laws more followable by normal people, but they just decide cases brought forward by seomeone. And that someone is usually someone who benefits the most out of some particular outcome, and is thus able to pay for the case. The whole system seems a bit prejudiced in how it works.
tremon 4y ago
I could completely understand why Google would not want such a feature in your product for Business reasons. But if Google would actually act on that desire, they're so far into antitrust territory they'll never find their way out on their own. We can only hope that some of those teeth might have grown back.

boredpudding 4y ago

I agree with this, but I also feel Google should sue them for this feature, instead of removing them from Google Search. I feel like the second is an abuse of their massive power on the internet.

belter 4y ago
The EU is rubbing their hands...

danbulant 4y ago

But again, GIPHY has the exact same feature, and I can find Giphy just fine

namdnay 4y ago
Maybe GIPHY negotiated something with Google? Or the fact that it's only short extracts means they don't see it as scraping?

masswerk 4y ago

Hum, isn't copyright about publication? The mere act of downloading doesn't necessarily imply this, and there's still legitimate cause for publication as in fair use. Also, wouldn't a DCMA complaint have to concern specific material? (To me, this doesn't make much sense.)

szundi 4y ago
Downloading even for caching is prohibited afaik.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

> I could completely understand why Google would not want such a feature in your product for Business reasons. yeah I can understand this too, but it looks to me like Google is using its monopoly power in industry (search) to protect its monopoly power in another industry (video streaming)

senko 4y ago

> you are providing a service that scrapes videos from YouTube. ... > I could completely understand why Google would not want such a feature in your product So, when Google scraped the internet to provide search engine, that was okay, but when some other site scrapes something, it is not? If they are doing something illegal, by all means sue or report them. But Google acting as police, judge, jury and executioner here shows why it's a problem to have a single unregulated company with so much power.

blinding-streak 4y ago
Robots.txt is a thing.
- senko 4y ago
  If robots.txt were a thing, Google would never have built its search engine. Everyone would just allow Altavista and disallow everyone else, like they do with Googlebot and Bingbot now. Also, the issue here is not that Google banned their tool from accessing YouTube because the tool didn't obey robots.txt. The issue is that Google, the search engine, nuked their site, because they didn't like its content.
psydvl 4y ago
While scrapping Google follows robots.txt file rules
- megous 4y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/robots.txt https://www.youtube.com/robots.txt Looks like scraping is allowed then, if your robot is named "Mediapartners-Google*" And you can name your robot whatever you like (there's no legally enforced nor defacto registry), so my robot: "Mediapartners-Google-im-cleary-not-a-member-of/1.0" Can legally scrape anything on google's youtube. Perfect.
sshine 4y ago
> So, when Google scraped the internet to provide search engine, that was okay, but when some other site scrapes something, it is not? No, but when Google scraped the Internet, nobody did anything about it. The value they added by making everything searchable was so great. Giving content creators platform flexibility is clearly a threat to YouTube. Double standards are twice as good.

megous 4y ago

> The case is more nuanced than it looks from the outset. In this case YTDL is executed on the provider's premise not on the users machines. So you are not distributing a tool, you are providing a service that scrapes videos from YouTube. So the rule is that you can't (as a user of Kapwing) use a computer you don't own (and are just renting in some capacity) to download your own videos? Or to download videos for "fair use" use cases? I mean who cares where the software runs?

DanBC 4y ago
> So the rule is that you can't use a computer you don't own (and are just renting in some capacity) to download your own videos? Or to download videos for "fair use" use cases? One of the (many) reasons the DMCA is bad is because it makes using your existing rights harder. You've mentioned "fair use" here. But the submitted article is talking about: > (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— > (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; You can't use your right to fair use if the IP holder has implemented an access control, because the DMCA makes circumventing an access control unlawful. The fact that the IP industry was able to implement a law that interferes with free speech shows how out of control they are.
- megous 4y ago
  Sad. Who decides which law has priority though, when the laws are in conflict? Apparently http clients are not banned by this law even though they are necessarily "part of a product" that is designed to circumvent protection,... And they are the main thing doing the actual copying. This law is still not achieving it's full potential. :D In the same vein, there's conflict between exceptions offered by one law (fair use), and bans by this same law (software to exercise this right). I guess the courts decide, but in practice courts don't run around looking for conflicts in laws to decide on their own, to make laws more followable by normal people, but they just decide cases brought forward by seomeone. And that someone is usually someone who benefits the most out of some particular outcome, and is thus able to pay for the case. The whole system seems a bit prejudiced in how it works.

tremon 4y ago

I could completely understand why Google would not want such a feature in your product for Business reasons. But if Google would actually act on that desire, they're so far into antitrust territory they'll never find their way out on their own. We can only hope that some of those teeth might have grown back.