101–110 of 256 posts
I don't think this is a good ruling.
[flagged]
It's how they built the business.
The RIAA can get fucked
Yep that'll encourage content creation :p Never mind RIAA became a thing because of content creators.
The biggest mistake people make when talking about anything to do with copyright or the creative industry is to assume that, because publishers of creative works represent or hire authors, that we can just collapse authors and publishers down into a single entity and treat any copyright related argument purely as a struggle between artists getting paid and the public wanting free shit.
Of course, publishers do not have interests aligned with those of authors and artists. This is, at minimum[1], a three-sided war between publishers, authors, and customers. Artists want to be paid but need to go through a publisher to sell[2], while customers want to watch/listen/read but need to buy through a publisher. Publishers have massive incentives to screw over artists by reducing or diluting their take in favor of whatever keeps the machine fed.
While both publishers and artists need some kind of limited coercive copyright arrangement in order to have a market for their work, they tend to disagree heavily on who should own those rights and how long they should last. Artists want to sell the thing they made, but publishers want assets: they want a brand that can neatly fit on a marketing schedule or an accounting statement. The former only requires short term copyright owned by individual artists while the latter requires infinity-minus-one-day terms, four companies that own the world's culture, and increasingly expansive interpretations of DMCA 1201 that invent DRM out of things never intended to be DRM.
[0] Let's not call them "content creators"
[1] We can subdivide these groups further still, of course, but three groups is enough to make my point.
[2] As per [1] we are treating distributors and publishers as part of the same group of middlemen. For example, while Amazon Kindle self-publishing does not do some of the same marketing or promotion that a traditional book publisher might, they are still intermediaries between authors and readers.
This is why I'm setting up a reverse proxy on another host in front of my web site, in case I get some fake takedown request from a competitor that causes my host to delete my account. At least if I use a proxy I can spend a small amount of time setting up a new proxy. I used to have a competitor who would email PayPal every couple of weeks to tell them our web site had CP on it just so PayPal would instantly shut of…
> I used to have a competitor who would email PayPal every couple of weeks to tell them our web site had CP on it just so PayPal would instantly shut off our payment gateway while they investigated Isn’t this sort of behaviour criminal? (I mean the competitor submitting a fake child pornography report, not whatever PayPal did to respond to it.) And if not, surely it ought to be.
"it’s good enough to signal to average users that downloading content from YouTube is not permitted." that sure seems like doublespeak. i have to download the video to watch it.
It's amazing what kind of mental gymnastics can allow someone to think you can watch a video without downloading it. Lawyers live in a world very unlike reality.
I can listen to music on the radio, but it's a whole different issue when I pick specific songs to pirate for my own personal listening :p But that's not where the caring comes in; it's the tools I can use to pirate songs; hence youtube-dl going down and not the users who used it. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a TOS clause about videos on YT not being your property and that you can't export them off the platform…
So basically you are not allowed to listen to what your mood wants but rather what their sponsors want, that or pay us! Yeah no thanks.
Btw, you can still record songs from FM/AM radio too, just use any SDR and pass that to your preferred application and record it, I would love to see how they will prevent that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to build it from source to avoid the 60kbps limit. There hasn't been a release since Dec 2021 and there have been some updates since then that implement the 'puzzle' to get the right value of the url parameter. It's worth noting that YouTube is trialling a new player and a lot of applications (invidious, new pipe, etc) are experiencing some issues in the last couple of weeks.
It's funny how a trillion-dollar company is playing cat-and-mouse with a few free software projects, and losing most of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree and I don't. We can rip dvds almost precisely, because spreading stuff beyond the ability for it to be easily controlled under single point of failure.
Almost precisely? The bits are correct or they're not.
Let's say you only have a cellular data plan, but it has a data cap, or your cell coverage is slow. So when a friend sends you a link to a video, you go to a library or coffee shop to download it to watch later. Is that "acting in bad faith?" I guess it gets in the way of Youtube's "right" to shove ads at your face, but avoiding the ads was not the point.
As was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, they failed to outlaw VCRs back in the day, so hopefully this nonsense will also get slapped down.