Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio

mastodon.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 253 posts

Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio

#181

Post by austin-cheney »

kmeisthax wrote: post #8

The 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…

In almost every case stupidity is never a defense for violating the law, but stupidity is a valid legal defense against questions of intent. Breaking copy protection is a question of intent.

Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio

#182

Post by rocqua »

cookiengineer wrote: post #55
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #52

Earlier 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…

It's not just base-64. The 'url' of the next chunk of data is encoded in the data of the previous chunk. (As opposed to just doing a chunked transfer of a bigger file). This feature is only in place for some videos, mostly music videos.

This was deemed a 'rolling cipher'. It obviously isn't. Or at best, its a rolling cipher with the key being completely public at all times.

Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio

#183

Post by rocqua »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #111
schrodinger wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like it doesn’t make a difference how good the “encryption” is, it displays intent that you wouldn’t like your data downloaded. Just like an open door to your house vs a really easy to pick locked door makes a big difference.

But base64 is not an a form of encryption, it’s just a different encoding. It’s not bad encryption, it isn’t encryption at all. How does that show intent?

This feature is only applied to some videos, and it is clearly meant to make it harder to use a browser to download a video.

Obviously not encryption, but arguably an 'anti-copying measure'.

Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio

#186

Post by Canada »

oefnak wrote: post #175
jeffparsons wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to believe this, but said regulators don't seem particularly energetic these days.

In the EU they are. Soon, chat apps are required to be able to connect to each other, thanks to the EU. Telegram Signal WhatsApp Freedom for the people instead of companies! That's why I prefer the EU over the US.

This isn't going to happen. It's not a good idea generally. It doesn't bring "freedom for the people" but instead completely undermines it. Such integration would break the security of Signal, rendering its existence moot.

Take a few minutes to think about how it would have to be implemented on a technical level.

Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio

#187

Post by rocqua »

verisimi wrote: post #177
tenebrisalietum wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you wrote is true, you should have a good answer to this: What special interest is served by laws against murder? One's "heart" is at least as exploitable as a democratic law system.

Great question. In the case where someone kills another (murder is a legal term) and the cases of many other 'crimes' eg stealing, abusing children, etc, these are immoral acts. One's heart knows this. In general, what people refer to as 'common law' is more or less in line with morality - I don't object to that so much. Now, if you wanted to impose a legal system (an external authority of morality) that doesn't cove…

Laws are not cash machines for those that write them. Laws are an attempt at solving coordination problems. They will arise in any 'state of nature' because the downsides of not solving coordination problems are so incredibly obvious. Specifically, people will organize into groups that establish and follow rules. Not (just) through coercion, but because the alternative is untenable.

Obviously at that point you get politics, people vying for power, trying to change the rules to their benefit, etc. But that is not the base nature of laws, it is a highly predictable effect of the lawmaking process.

Laws are (nominally) written for the greater good. Copyright protection, for example, exists so artists get compensated for their work, get to claim credit, and, can control distribution. Now this example has obviously also suffered from politics, to the extreme. But the basic premise still makes sense to me.

Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio

#188

Post by closewith »

mcpackieh wrote: post #157
backtoyoujim wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Interesting to see that take.

As a outsider, three-strike laws have always seemed to be a uniquely American form of injustice, leading to overpunishnent. It's disappointing (and a little chilling, considering the global policies of the tech giants originate in the US) to think some people might consider them fair or just.

Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio

#189

Post by izacus »

hiccuphippo wrote: post #11
_Algernon_ wrote: post #5

Considering that many countries take a copying fee -- which is intended to cover lost revenue from exactly this use case -- for cassettes, harddrives and other storage media, yes yes it should. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

I'll gladly pay a % of what I pay to download yt-dl

I wonder if yt-dl working with YouTube Premium accounts only would fix the issue.

Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio

#190

Post by JacobSeated »

Depends on how said material was purchased. E.g. Most YouTube videos would not be okay to simply download, since you did not technically pay money to obtain a copy.

However, things you buy on YouTube movies really should be downloadable.

Post reply on HN