21–30 of 348 posts
Imo... people should be able to download stuff for free if they’re able to see it for free. The “you can see it but you must watch an ad” model is weird and leads to unenforceable/wacky situations like this (I’m not really a stakeholder tho so who cares what I think)
... funds OTA television. Also funds YT.
With OTA, it is okay to record OTA broadcasts using a VCR, so I'm not sure why youtube-dl would be different.
I for example, use it to download large amounts of material for when I am offline while sailing. Programming tutorials to learn some useful stuff while offline, entire university courses on interesting topics, etc. There aren't many practical ways for me to do it.
There's a fork of youtube-dl seems to be pretty active: https://github.com/blackjack4494/yt-dlc
Imo... people should be able to download stuff for free if they’re able to see it for free. The “you can see it but you must watch an ad” model is weird and leads to unenforceable/wacky situations like this (I’m not really a stakeholder tho so who cares what I think)
> The “you can see it but you must watch and ad” model... ... funds OTA television. Also funds YT. With OTA, it is okay to record OTA broadcasts using a VCR, so I'm not sure why youtube-dl would be different.
But really, if the VCR were invented today, it would be made illegal.
Imo... people should be able to download stuff for free if they’re able to see it for free. The “you can see it but you must watch an ad” model is weird and leads to unenforceable/wacky situations like this (I’m not really a stakeholder tho so who cares what I think)
It's strange to me because I've been using adblokcers for as long as I've been watching things online, as do a large percentage of people, I'm sure. So does it really matter that much to YouTube when I download some video, considering me watching it brings it literally no benefit? What's the gain here?
Intellectual property law is about controlling what you can see, and do, with your own eyes, ears, and hardware.
If you stream a video on YouTube, YouTube can arbitrarily take it away from you whenever they want. If you download a video from YouTube, it's yours to keep. Tools like youtube-dl take away the power YouTube has over you, and that's an unacceptable loss to the ownership class even if they suffer no financial losses.
[Post deleted after 60 minutes. It has had adequate exposure.]
In a normal, procedurally valid, DMCA the only harm to the host for not following the procedure is that they lose the safe harbor.
In this case because it isn't a question of infringement there isn't a safe harbor at all.
In either case a company can choose to take something down because it wants to reduce its exposure to litigation.
I'm disappointed that even after acquisition github has continued with the beyond-industry-standard level of aggressiveness with takedowns. But I don't see how you conclude that the anti-circumvention complaint makes github more in the wrong for complying.
Youtube-dl had some good notes in their README about legitimate uses and an explanation about how they tried to avoid adding sites that specialized in infringing content, but they really did themselves a legal disservice by explicitly using copyrighted music video content as tests. That will not help their argument at all. Youtube-dl absolutely has important and completely legal uses, reporting being among them, but…
Downloading copyrighted videos, just like home taping, is legal. There was a supreme court case deciding that the latter is legal. I have yet to hear any reasoning why "home taping, but on the internet" would not fall under that same precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive... .
oh no the beloved profession journalism, very sad!