←back to thread

The best YouTube downloaders, and how Google silenced the press

(windowsread.me)
501 points Leftium | 1 comments | 19 Sep 25 12:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
Shellban ◴[20 Sep 25 03:35 UTC] No.45310088[source]▶
The author makes the case that EULAs are "toothless." However, what about federal law? In the U.S., at least, it is illegal to make copies of other people's work. This is not an offense against YouTube (who does not inherently own the media they present), but the publishers, the creators, etc. Somehow, I doubt that Alan Becker would approve people downloading and sharing his videos willy-nilly.
replies(1): >>45312306 #
littlecranky67 ◴[20 Sep 25 11:15 UTC] No.45312306[source]▶
I don't know about US law, but I would assume the "copying" in a legal sense involves distributing to a third party.

Maybe I am too old, but I remember a time where the broad population recorded radio shows on Tape and video shows on VHS, and no one was asking any copyright questions. And yes, recording a TV show in your home VHS recorder and selling/giving it to third parties, was illegal in most jurisdictions and the same laws apply probably still today.

But recording something for your own archive and watch it home (possibly with family members) is probably also still perfectly legal (as long as no DRM bypass was used).

replies(1): >>45314038 #
1. Shellban ◴[20 Sep 25 15:13 UTC] No.45314038[source]▶
VHS recordings of live TV are a bit different. According to Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., this practice is known as Time Shifting, which is simply making the recording available for later use. The ad money has already exchanged hands, and the work was already available for public use. The court rules 5-4 that this time shifting fell under fair use.

YouTube ad money works a bit differently, and downloading the video tends to bypass that process. Also, Streaming is by its nature on-demand, so there are a lot fewer benefits for downloading the video. Furthermore, U.S. copyright law has changed since the previously cited case, so there are some extra restrictions to contend with that the Sony case did not.