Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have heard of anti-trust regulations, yes?
Is there some fine print saying "but Apple can"?
Yes, the part where the legislation looks at the market share and impact of the corporation in question.
Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
241–250 of 253 posts
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 po…
> They will arise in any 'state of nature' because the downsides of not solving coordination problems are so incredibly obvious. Do animals or birds have 'laws'? Ok - not that state of nature... Do you have laws at a family gathering? No. I think you are mistaking natural law (innate morality) for a bunch of words some corporate lobbyist has written down. And that confusion is the point. If a controlling group can co…
> I think you are mistaking natural law (innate morality) for a bunch of words some corporate lobbyist has written down.
Not at all. Innate morality is very different from law. Law, as I explained it, is about coordination problems. Such as solving the tragedy of the commons. In 'the state of nature' (scare quotes because I believe never existed, but I am referencing the philosophical concept). i.e. when society has not yet formed laws or large organization. There are many problems that need a solution that is universally followed. This can be actual tragedy of the commons (i.e. overgrazing the field, chopping down productive forrest, not shitting in wells) or it can be simple coordination problems (i.e. everyone drives on the right side if the track, people climbing have right of way over people descending). These lead to rules that a society agrees on.
People who break those rules get ostracized, those people then complain and argue, which formalizes these rules. At some point, the result of breaking these widely established rules moves beyond ostracizing. Rule breakers have harmed the community, so the community gets to harm back through seizure, imprisonment, pain, or other methods.
At that point you have laws. And they are a good thing. People formed them because it made things better. From here on, laws need changing, probably because of circumstances. They also need expansion, because new problems can also be solved this way. At that point you get a legislative process, with the authority to set and change laws. Hence you get power, politics, other things that are also bad. But that doesn't mean laws are inherently bad. They come from a good place, but they have significant downsides.
Besides all this, laws are required to be a state, and being a state is required to have the military strength to avoid being plundered or subjugated by other groups.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#243Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#244Nearly 40 years after Betamax, they've basically succeeded at banning video recording.
As noted elsewhere, section 1201 should not apply to non-infringing uses.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#245The 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…
> This is why Section 1201(a)(2) needs to be struct from the law Perhaps it is becoming clearer that the law is an ass, written to serve special interests, and nothing to do with some sort of expression of morality or right and wrong. And that is all it has ever been. For myself, I cannot conceive of the hybris required in writing down a set of words that I would then expect others to follow. Imagine doing this at a…
The primary error seems to be in applying the anti-circumvention ban to fair use and non-infringing use, and tools used for same.
Because most video is encrypted, this effectively reverses Betamax and bans home video recording with DVRs without authorization from the copyright holder.
It's particularly disappointing that the copyright office has flatly refused to authorize 1201 exemptions for non-infringing format-shifting or space-shifting.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#246Earlier 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.
iPhone / iOS is Safari-only.
That's a non-negligible market segment. And an affluent one.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#247Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am startled, and also glad, that record labels haven't put the screws to youtube enough to get them to implement widevine for music videos on youtube. Probably unworkable for the time being.
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…
Widevine works in firefox, based on the plugin it asks you to enable.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#249Earlier 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 don't get why everyone jumped onto streaming in the first place - it was always clear to me that not "owning" any of the music/movies I like was a bad idea.
Because it was more convenient, and cheaper if you don't want to buy whole albums.
Re: Downloading a video should be “fair use” as recording a song from the radio
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is why Section 1201(a)(2) needs to be struct from the law Perhaps it is becoming clearer that the law is an ass, written to serve special interests, and nothing to do with some sort of expression of morality or right and wrong. And that is all it has ever been. For myself, I cannot conceive of the hybris required in writing down a set of words that I would then expect others to follow. Imagine doing this at a…
Before we go and enact The Purge IRL, let's step back and think of what actually went wrong. Hollywood wanted a bill that would make it illegal to make certain copying tools. This was hot off the heels of the music industry getting a technology mandate for copy protection on digital audio tape (which would eventually be mooted by MP3 players, see RIAA v. Diamond). The problem is, technology mandates are difficult to…
The only reason why large corporations exist as such in the first place is because the law created the very notion of a legal corporation as an entity in its own right, a "legal person" capable of owning property etc. Without the state to enforce its property (including intellectual property) rights, those entities wouldn't have so much power to abuse in the first place.