"downloading a video" probably sounds almost as weird to a gen-z as "recording a song from the radio" sounds to a millennial.
pretty wild when you think about it.
Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
151–160 of 253 posts
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say at this point youtube has so much more market capture than any non-chrome browser, they probably could just say "get Chrome or gtfo" and not even notice the audience dip.
It would break every service that uses embedded YouTube videos on custom viewers.
This has happened many times as youtube changed their side of things. Nobody cares.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
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; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a…
It's not "circumventing copyright", it's circumventing copy protection. The RIAA alleges that YouTube rotating their URLs is a copy protection measure. If that's true[0] then youtube-dl would fit plainly in category (A), since downloading YouTube videos is all it does. Category (B) is there to prevent someone from selling, say, a "DVD decrypting can opener" and then arguing that the can opener part makes the DVD part…
I took a minute to read up on this rolling cipher thing and WOW. This is not copy protection, this a complex protocol for content delivery behaving as designed. What exactly is bypassed here?
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have music playlists turned to swiss cheese on paid streaming music services, and it's for that reason that I've turned to doing the unthinkable: buying mp3s like some kind of devolved luddite.
I still buy CDs from time to time. Sturdier than vinyls, no copy protection, harder to accidentally delete than a downloaded MP3 or Vorbis. So I have a few precious albums that (until the plastic degrades or my home burns?) I'll always have.
> CDs ... Sturdier than vinyls
Are they really though? It's my impression that even mass produced pressed CDs have a reputation for rotting on the order of 20-30 years. Vinyl lasts a century or more if you don't physically abuse it. CDs are certainly easier to rip though, so probably still worth it.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that if they implement Widevine they also need to license FairPlay, PlayReady, and Adobe's DRM schemes as well. Otherwise YouTube is effectively Chrome-exclusive. The reason why EME didn't lead to a catastrophic downfall of freedom on the Web is purely a function of DRM being expensive to license. Netflix can afford it but not YouTube, and YouTube creators generally don't want it[0]. Related note: if Y…
I'd say at this point youtube has so much more market capture than any non-chrome browser, they probably could just say "get Chrome or gtfo" and not even notice the audience dip.
This would basically guarantee that regulators would inevitably separate either Youtube or Chrome from Google.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#156The problem is that whether or not downloading a YouTube video can be fair use, the RIAA is alleging that youtube-dl is a copy protection circumvention tool. 17 USC 1201(a)(2) does not care about your fair use, it only cares about keeping copying tools off the market. To bring this back into the home recording of radio, it'd be as if Congress decided to ban the sale of tape decks that could record radio transmissions…
I don't know or remember the details of the DMCA, but does it not require the copy protection to be of some reasonable effectiveness (e.g. reasonable cryptography)? Or does it consider the "copy protection" scheme protected regardless of how weak the scheme or claim is? I remember that in Finland, it was debated in courts whether breaking DVD CSS encryption using readily downloadable software was infringement upon an…
> I don't know or remember the details of the DMCA, but does it not require the copy protection to be of some reasonable effectiveness (e.g. reasonable cryptography)? Or does it consider the "copy protection" scheme protected regardless of how weak the scheme or claim is?
The DMCA has no such provision; if a work is DRM-encumbered, it always enjoys the anti-circumvention protections of the DMCA. It’s one of the main reasons why I think works available only with DRM shouldn’t be eligible for copyright protection: the presence of DRM prohibits the creation of an archive-appropriate copy (in a legal sense, not in the quality sense) that can survive the copyright term of the work. If the owner of a work wants to only release it with DRM, they have to rely on other laws with higher burdens of evidence to provide legal protection.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Moreover, youtube is in no way connecting the "authority of the copyright owner" with the particular videos on it's site Of course it is. That's the whole point of the three strike system.
Why is there yet another legal framework with basis for legal jurisprudence being a rule from a child's game ?
3 violations is enough to establish a trend, while giving people a little bit of leeway for the first and second violations since they may not know / understand the rules. 3 strike rules are formulated because there is a general consensus that such rules are fair and just, not because people like baseball.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#158It feels very human that we have a nearly post-scarcity delivery mechanism that we still optimize for rent seeking.
We'd been around for two million years without anything like this. Rent seeking is a very modern invention in the lifetime of the human species, let alone establishing it over non-scarce ideas. It's very bourgeois, not very human.
We've been around for two million years without anything like this. Electricity bad!
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. By design. Copyright law, and basically all other IP law, is explicitly and purposefully about allowing rent seeking. The idea is that in a completely unregulated market, it is impossible to make money from ideas after they are made public. Since making ideas public is good for society, we want to encourage people to continue to do this. Paying people is how we encourage people to do things. So we allow rent see…
> The idea is that in a completely unregulated market, it is impossible to make money from ideas after they are made public. Since making ideas public is good for society, we want to encourage people to continue to do this. This reasoning is taken at face value in most discussion but should be challenged. A lot of assumptions and potentially specious logic is embedded here, and it's not clear and obvious that any of…
> The core value proposition of copyrights and patents is to make middlemen money.
they also protect smaller and potentially more innovative operations from being out-executed by large capital pools.
i know that often times patents have been used by larger and more entrenched concerns to try and control entire spaces (like edison's mppc) but i often wonder how often the patent system has provided some breathing room and opportunity to build something of value for startups working in areas that large players come to identify as potentially profitable...
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
> RIAA is alleging that youtube-dl is a copy protection circumvention tool How is it circumventing copy protection? IIRC videos on Youtube aren't DRMed. What protection method do they claim is being circumvented exactly?
Youtube is using base64 "encryption" * and the reason the court decided in favor of youtube in the youtube-dl case was exactly this reason. The court thinks that base64 is a legitimate way to establish copyright protection online. Yeah, not kidding you. The lawyers are this stupid. Honestly I think the law is broken, because it is designed by people not capable of doing technological decisions, for technologically re…
> the court decided in favor of youtube
This didn't happen AFAIK; the action against Youtube-dl is being taken by the RIAA, not Youtube/Google.