[HN Gopher] Downloading a video should be "fair use" as recordin...
___________________________________________________________________
Downloading a video should be "fair use" as recording a song from
the radio
Author : luu
Score : 342 points
Date : 2023-08-13 18:22 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mastodon.social)
(TXT) w3m dump (mastodon.social)
| Cypher wrote:
| I do it, come arrest me. I'd download a petrol car too if I could
| - Come at me tomato soup throwers!
| asddubs wrote:
| i would download an electric car probably unless the tracker
| only had petrol ones
| [deleted]
| GhostWhisperer wrote:
| but would you seed?
| cosmojg wrote:
| Seed or ban.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| Mastodon without Javascript enabled:
|
| https://mastodon.social/@HalvarFlake/110883667162838296/embe...
| 38 wrote:
| ... also without comments. I appreciate the idea, but without
| the discussion its basically Twitter since they also hide
| replies with anonymous requests.
| BentonE wrote:
| In principle, if you want the post and comments without JS
| you can just pull the underlying ActivityPub document
| (application/activity+json). I made a command-line browser
| based on this idea:
| https://github.com/bentonedmondson/servitor
| userbinator wrote:
| That's unfortunate. Sites used to not need JS to show
| static content.
| BentonE wrote:
| Yep, the web used to be for distributing documents, but
| now it is becoming/has become more of an application VM
| [1]. But ActivityPub is a nice format for the document
| distribution use-case; it is a superset (in terms of
| features) of semantic HTML [2] and RSS and has higher
| level semantics (comment sections, profiles, etc) and no
| server-provided scripting nor styling.
|
| [1]: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1peUSMsvFGvqD5yKh
| 3GprskLC... [2]: any plain HTML page can be represented
| as an ActivityPub Article
| Buttons840 wrote:
| I want a machine learning enhanced analog loop. I want to be able
| to point a device at a screen and have the machine learning clean
| everything up and restore high quality sound and video.
|
| Training data would be easy. Take a bunch of videos, play them on
| a screen, record the screen. You now have the input and the
| output, x and y. It's just supervised learning from there.
|
| I know there are better options currently, but in the end we have
| this, unless they take away general purpose computing (but that
| would a huge blow to our economy).
| amelius wrote:
| This only works as long as the silicon used for deep learning
| cooperates.
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| They can just tattoo all celebrities with EURion
| constellations on their faces. Don't worry, it's only a
| short-term measure until the replacement models are fully
| trained.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| This is actually correct, since recording a song from the radio
| by itself generally doesn't fall under fair use. The purpose of
| the copy is what makes it fair use, for example, as a sample
| played in a classroom, or for reference for readers/viewers as
| part of a critical work.
| userbinator wrote:
| There's technically no difference between downloading and
| streaming, and in fact nearly all of the videos I "download" from
| YouTube don't get retained after I watch them --- I'm just doing
| so in order to be able to use alternative software that respects
| my freedom.
|
| Since we're talking about video, I think a better analogy would
| be using a VCR to record broadcasting, and there was certainly a
| legal battle over that too.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| 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[0]. That ban would work regardless of
| fair use.
|
| This is why Section 1201(a)(2) needs to be struct from the law,
| BTW - your access to copying tools should not evaporate because
| of a lack of ability to enforce copyright on you.
|
| [0] How this ban is actually implemented is immaterial, but
| perhaps radios can't have detachable speakers or audio out ports
| to hook a tape deck into, or tape decks have to only have an
| integral speaker and no audio in ports. This wouldn't stop home
| recording of radio but it'd be significantly worse.
| rusk wrote:
| This is a DMCA concept that is presumably recongised by various
| international treaties ... but is it widely implemented and
| enforced?
| kmeisthax wrote:
| WIPO requires signatory countries have some sort of legal
| protections to back copy protection, but it does not mandate
| the exact language of DMCA 1201. The WIPO requirement was
| actually added by the US after the EFF managed to kill a
| precursor bill a few years prior[0].
|
| Implementation among signatory countries is high enough to
| laugh when people say "Well, this doesn't affect me because
| I'm not American." Unless you live in North Korea or Russia,
| DMCA 1201 applies to you.
|
| Copyright law is so foundational to world trade that the only
| way 1201 _would_ get repealed would be if there was some kind
| of mass uprising against copyright overreach in many
| signatory countries. In that case, so many large countries
| would have repealed their DMCA 1201 equivalent legislation
| that nobody would dare actually try to enforce WTO sanctions
| against them. At worst, a few countries would demand some
| horse trades[1].
|
| Practically speaking, however, democracies are bad at
| protecting against small harms exacted against large numbers
| of people[2], so this never happens. Europe has the Pirate
| Party but the most successful national iterations of it have
| had to adopt broader Green[3] and technolibertarian agendas
| in order to have any semblance of electoral viability. In the
| US, first-past-the-post is an insurmountable hurdle despite
| the fragility and incompetence of our two major parties.
| Here, political issues don't so much form new parties as much
| as they infect the shambling corpses of existing ones.
|
| Barring that, if only one country decided to repeal their
| anti-circumvention laws I imagine there'd be a _lot_ of
| grumbling from the US or Japan, potentially new tariffs, but
| no outright sanctions. The weird part about world trade is
| that a lot of these provisions are only enforceable on very
| poor countries. China blatantly violates WIPO all the time
| and we, practically speaking, cannot quit them. There is no
| international leviathan capable of, say, rolling tanks on
| Beijing and demanding market access and copyright
| enforcement.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_laundering
|
| [1] Term of art for "unrelated and usually minuscule things
| used to bargain for a larger purpose"
|
| [2] e.g. how Intuit got the US government to not provide tax
| preparation services or software to the public for a decade
| and a half so they could sell their own offering. It's a
| thing that annoys people but not enough to get voters to flip
| sides.
|
| [3] including German "Green", i.e. "nuclear is bad, so we
| shut down all our nuke plants and started burning lignite[4]
| instead"
|
| [4] What's lignite? Lignite balls.
| rusk wrote:
| Thank you. I've been away from HN for a while, but you
| really could not get this kind of illumination anywhere
| else x
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| There's actually a potential line of attack that rose due
| to two SCOTUS decisions a few years ago. The Eldred and
| Golan cases essentially established that fair use is
| constitutionally necessary in order for copyright to
| coexist with the 1st amendment.
|
| If the DMCA is found to hinder the effective exercise of a
| fair use right, it could be struck down (either facially or
| in an as-applied challenge)
| [deleted]
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| > 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?
| cookiengineer wrote:
| 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 relevant cases. It is gonna take years to
| unfuck this.
|
| * duh, they don't even know differences of encoding vs
| encryption...
| dataflow wrote:
| > 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 lawyers are this stupid.
|
| The law has other things listed beside encryption. Did they
| really call this "encryption" as you're claiming
| (citation?) or did it fall under another bucket?
| kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote:
| They must have the same lawyers and be getting the same
| judges as anti-2A groups. The level of misinformation and
| lack of understanding about the topic in contention feels
| similar.
| schrodinger wrote:
| 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.
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| 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?
| userbinator wrote:
| IMHO it displays intent to require a browser that has JS,
| which yt-dl has sort of implemented.
| Aaargh20318 wrote:
| They base64 encode the video files? Why? That doesn't do
| anything except increase the bandwidth needed.
| cookiengineer wrote:
| It's not the video files but the m3u playlist iirc that
| is base64 encoded and contains the urls+tokens for all
| the chunks of the videostream
| ForHackernews wrote:
| > videos on Youtube aren't DRMed
|
| They are: https://developers.google.com/widevine/drm/overview
| sodality2 wrote:
| Only for paid products (movies, TV shows, etc). Regular
| videos (even music videos) do not use WideVine DRM or else
| no tool would be able to download YouTube videos. (Or at
| least, public tool - private scene groups do of course have
| bypasses for it)
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Where is the button on any official YouTube app or web
| interface that offers to save a local unencrypted file for an
| anonymous user?
| kristopolous wrote:
| Am I the only one that finds it hard to engage with the RIAA as
| good faith actors?
| porkbeer wrote:
| As a musician who has dealt with them, no. They are for the
| big labels and distributors, not the artists.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| No, they're not good faith actors, far from it. However, the
| sorts of bad faith actions they engage in are not violations
| of the law. "Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing"
| is a provision of contract law, not copyright law.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > RIAA is alleging that youtube-dl is a copy protection
| circumvention tool
|
| "(3) As used in this subsection-- (A) to "circumvent a
| technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to
| decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass,
| remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without
| the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological
| measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure,
| in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the
| application of information, or a process or a treatment, with
| the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the
| work"
|
| The argument would seemingly be that youtube is in no way
| "effectively controlling access to a work." And none of the
| peculiar details of it's implementation are designed to operate
| in this capacity. Quite the opposite, it's technology is
| designed to broadcast, for the purposes of inserting ads,
| content to anyone who merely requests it.
|
| Moreover, youtube is in no way connecting the "authority of the
| copyright owner" with the particular videos on it's site and
| has nothing but an ad-hoc system with limited availability that
| takes action only after content is uploaded. As there are many
| videos that are past copyright protection or have been
| explicitly released into the public domain, and they make no
| distinction in the "technical measures" used in those videos,
| that they aren't effectively controlling access, and the tools
| aren't circumventing them for this purpose.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| > Moreover, youtube is in no way connecting the "authority of
| the copyright owner" with the particular videos on it's site
|
| Of course it is. That's the whole point of the three strike
| system.
| backtoyoujim wrote:
| Why is there yet another legal framework with basis for
| legal jurisprudence being a rule from a child's game ?
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| The question is whether youtube connects the authority of
| the copyright owner with particular videos. It obviously
| does. The copyright owner is the entity that receives ad
| revenue, and the entity that can strike videos that
| violates its copyright.
| extraduder_ire wrote:
| 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.
| ComposedPattern wrote:
| I'm currently feeling the need to back up youtube videos
| that are important to me, because I figure it will be much
| harder soon.
| Modified3019 wrote:
| They definitely will be, now that google is looking to
| more proactively enforce ads.
|
| But the biggest danger is that videos and channels can
| get removed by any, all, or no reason.
|
| -Copyright middlemen/parasites
|
| -Trolls
|
| -Shifts in what's politically or advertiser acceptable
| (see: https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/14ddlng/u
| nalived/)
|
| -Massive data loss (see myspace)
|
| -And especially the capricious whims of the channel
| owner.
|
| A few years ago I realized an old playlist of mine was
| basically swiss cheese due to how many videos had been
| removed.
|
| If you value it, save it now, because it will be gone
| sooner than you are prepared for.
|
| There are many ways to handle automated saving of
| channels, including some gui frontends, but offhand the
| one I use and modify is:
| https://github.com/TheFrenchGhosty/TheFrenchGhostys-
| Ultimate...
| boopmaster wrote:
| 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.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| 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 YouTube starts putting DRM on videos then
| every creator that's ever used Kevin Macleod music is now
| violating the Creative Commons anti-DRM clause. YouTube
| actually added a feature to mark your video as CC-BY or CC-
| BY-SA, so they'd be at least marginally aware of this
| clause, so they'd have to at least make DRM opt-in.
|
| [0] To be clear, this is moreso that what YouTubers are
| actually worried about is _reuploading_ content back to
| YouTube and monetizing it. They don 't care so much if you
| have a stream-ripped copy on your computer that you just
| watch on your own. But things like Content ID actually work
| way better for preventing reuploading.
| Delk wrote:
| I don't know or remember the details of the DMCA, but does it
| not require the copy protection to be of some reasonable
| effectiveness (e.g. reasonable cryptography)? Or does it
| consider the "copy protection" scheme protected regardless of
| how weak the scheme or claim is?
|
| I remember that in Finland, it was debated in courts whether
| breaking DVD CSS encryption using readily downloadable software
| was infringement upon an effective copy protection scheme or
| not. An appeals court decided it was (i.e. CSS was deemed
| "effective"), but the requirement that the copy protection
| scheme be "effective" in order for circumvention to be
| considered illegal is still there in copyright law. (The
| legislation is based on whatever the EU-wide regulation is and
| includes provisions somewhat similar to the DMCA such as the
| prohibition of circumvention.)
|
| I doubt that "copy protection" that can be circumvented by
| reading the YouTube web page source code would be deemed
| effective under that law. Does the DMCA not have a similar
| limitation? Or is the RIAA just trying to play the lobbying and
| rhetoric game despite having weak legal grounds? (Wouldn't be
| surprising.)
| kmeisthax wrote:
| This sounds like a transposition[0] and translation error.
| The word "effective" has two meanings:
|
| - Is strong enough to keep you from copying the thing
|
| - Has the effect of keeping you from copying the thing
|
| Congress intended the latter meaning and US courts adopted
| that. The first meaning would be self-defeating: once someone
| figured out how to break a copy protection system, it would
| no longer be effective, so you'd only be able to prosecute
| the first person to break the system.
|
| If effective meant "is strong enough" I don't think DVD CSS
| would count because they specifically used export-grade
| encryption. The rule (part of ITAR, AFAIK) was that 40-bits
| was the max entropy you could have, specifically so the NSA
| could break foreign-operated encryption systems. But this is
| kind of silly - computers are getting faster all the time, so
| it seems odd that a measure considered copy protection
| yesterday would stop being copy protection today just because
| we can crack passwords faster.
|
| [0] Transposition is the concept of copying EU regulations
| into member state law. I'm using the term slightly broader
| than EU law. While WTO rules don't have a direct
| transposition requirement, USTR conditioned lots of trade
| deals on transposing DMCA 1201 into local law.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| I wonder if a cassette deck connected to the computer is _also_
| a copy protection circumvention tool.
|
| I suppose it is?
| kmeisthax wrote:
| 1201(a)(2) prohibits selling tools that are either...
|
| - Only capable of breaking copy protection
|
| - Have minimal commercial utility other than to break copy
| protection
|
| - Are advertised as being able to break copy protection
|
| If you sold someone an aux cord with the marketing slogan
| "Copy music off Spotify and stop paying for your
| subscription", that'd violate 1201(a)(2) because of that
| third prong[0]. There's also plenty of copy protection
| circumvention tools that DON'T trip 1201(a)(2) because they
| aren't marketed as such and have noninfringing uses. For
| example, Google Chrome. You can use it to bypass right-click
| blockers because it lets you open Devtools without right-
| clicking. However, browsers have loads of commercial utility
| outside of this, and they don't specifically advertise their
| ability to get around annoying right-click scripts, so
| they're legal.
|
| We don't normally contemplate this sort of thing because most
| DRM is specifically designed to be both obvious and separable
| from other permissible behavior. You cannot _accidentally_
| write a DVD decryptor that doesn 't trip 1201(a)(2). This has
| led to people mistakenly assuming that the DMCA requires
| encryption to be involved or something for a copy protection
| circumvention tool to be illegal.
|
| [0] I've actually seen this happen. There was someone selling
| VGA cables marketed as a way to copy Netflix.
| jameshart wrote:
| Surprising then that Apple launched iTunes with the 'rip.
| mix. burn.' slogan in 2000 right after the DMCA was
| introduced.
| px43 wrote:
| There was no copy protection being bypassed in that era,
| and ripping CDs was just a normal thing that people did
| to listen to music on their computer without having to
| worry about scratch discs etc.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Apple had copy protection.
| sbuk wrote:
| Not in 2001 when the commercials were airing - the iTunes
| Store was two years away...
| WWLink wrote:
| Apple only had copy protection (m4p files) if you bought
| music from the itunes store during the time period where
| their contract with the music companies demanded they do
| that. When that clause ended, they stopped doing it, and
| IIRC when you redownload music purchased during that era
| from apple, you'll now get unprotected m4a files instead.
|
| The files iTunes produced from ripping CDs were never
| copy protected.
| blangk wrote:
| Or share them on soulseek libraries
| kmeisthax wrote:
| If you think that's crazy, a year prior Steve Jobs went
| up on stage at MacWorld and showed off a PlayStation
| emulator[0]. Today Apple has been extremely adamant in
| trying to kill off companies emulating iOS, specifically
| citing DMCA 1201 as some sort of right to not be
| emulated.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connectix_Virtual_Game_
| Station
| [deleted]
| verisimi wrote:
| > 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 family gathering! (I'm not talking
| about writing a guide or means to help others learn/improve
| themselves by their own choice.)
|
| The very idea of law is a false one, imo. Who has the moral
| high ground, who can relay that in writing to others? Is it not
| actually a subterfuge to allow others to do harm and yet call
| it good?
|
| Basically, one needs to find one's heart, and follow that. The
| law is a merely another control structure.
| indymike wrote:
| > youtube-dl is a copy protection circumvention tool
|
| Wait until they find out that Microsoft has been providing
| tools like COPY and XCOPY with their OS for decades...
| kmeisthax wrote:
| COPY and XCOPY cannot copy a copy protected program.
|
| The Amiga's X-COPY, on the other hand...
| veave wrote:
| COPY and XCOPY are okay as long as they aren't written to
| intentionally bypass DRM (they aren't)
| nadermx wrote:
| Posted this in the other thread, but this thorny topic is up
| for appeal in the US Second Circuit
| https://torrentfreak.com/yout-counters-riaa-in-court-quoting...
| mpalmer wrote:
| No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public,
| provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product,
| service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
| (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
| circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
| access to a work protected under this title; (B)
| has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other
| than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively
| controls access to a work protected under this title; or
| (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert
| with that person with that person's knowledge for use in
| circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls
| access to a work protected under this title.
|
| I'm not a lawyer but how does youtube-dl fit any one of these
| criteria? despite the name, it's not "primarily designed to
| circumvent copyright", nor is copyright circumvention its only
| use (though "commercial significance" seems to be doing a lot
| of work here).
| kmeisthax wrote:
| It's not "circumventing copyright", it's circumventing copy
| protection. The RIAA alleges that YouTube rotating their URLs
| is a copy protection measure. If that's true[0] then youtube-
| dl would fit plainly in category (A), since downloading
| YouTube videos is all it does. Category (B) is there to
| prevent someone from selling, say, a "DVD decrypting can
| opener" and then arguing that the can opener part makes the
| DVD part legal. Category (C) is there to prevent people from
| selling you the analog hole.
|
| My objection to the RIAA's copy protection argument is that
| they did not actually create the copy protection measure.
| They are alleging that some third party's product feature
| happens to look close enough to copy protection that it
| should count as such. Would they be able to sue YouTube if
| they were to stop rotating their URLs? Do social media
| platforms suddenly have an obligation to continue to maintain
| features that accidentally frustrate illegal copying of text?
| Do I have to reimplement spacebar heating?[1]
|
| Another potential objection would be that rotating URLs are
| not copy protection. This _may_ work, but keep in mind: 17
| USC 1201 has no bounds on the scope of copy protection beyond
| "it has to somehow stop you from copying a thing protected by
| copyright". Encryption and scrambling systems are explicitly
| named, but the way the law is currently drafted, _anything_
| can be a copy protection measure. There 's a lot of language
| defining existing copy protection systems they wanted to
| grandfather in (e.g. Macrovision) but nothing limiting the
| scope of _future_ systems.
|
| [0] If accepted, this would be the widest reading of DMCA
| 1201 that I've seen accepted by a court of law (as a non-
| lawyer). Yes I am counting the printer cartridge and garage
| door opener shenanigans of yesterdecade. Those were bog-
| standard "designing the product to commit three felonies a
| day" kinds of copyright abuse and the courts smacked them
| both down.
|
| [1] https://xkcd.com/1172/
| stcg wrote:
| Reading this I wonder if a computer program falls under "any
| technology, product, service, device, component, or part
| thereof". Has it been established that a computer program can
| be a protection circumvention tool?
| yieldcrv wrote:
| time to upload the source and compilation instructions on ipfs
| deltree7 wrote:
| The hypocrisy of download defenders is exposed when re-
| distribution is the concern. Most content producers and
| publishers are fine with downloading as long as you don't re-
| distribute (which is theft), but we have no way of preventing
| that, so they are forced to close the download gate
| kstrauser wrote:
| That's historically wrong. The story of DRM is littered with
| claims that reasonable things like format shifting are immoral
| and theft.
|
| Also, unauthorized distribution is unauthorized distribution,
| not theft. Theft has a special legal meaning, and that isn't
| it.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > so they are forced to close the download gate
|
| They don't get to do that.
|
| Also what's the hypocrisy?
| ShadowBanThis01 wrote:
| You neglected to state what the "hypocrisy" is here. Cite the
| passage that promotes downloading and redistributing.
| giantrobot wrote:
| It's not fucking theft. That is a literally insane and
| irrational position to take.
| stcg wrote:
| That is not theft. It's communication. You can't "steal" ideas,
| information or facts [footnote]. To "steal" means to physically
| take someone's property without their consent.
|
| Instead, you seem to mean a violation of copyright. Copyright
| exists "to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public
| good." "The main purpose of the Copyright Act is the public
| good of use and access to works of art, even if such a public
| good comes at the expense of the author of the work." (https://
| en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twentieth_Century_Music_Corp._...).
|
| And then my opinion: In this age, copyright fails at that. It
| even has the opposite effect of resulting in _less use_ and
| _less access_ to works of art. I think it would benefit the
| public if copyright were abolished (or at least shortened to 20
| years, similar to the amount of years that a person gets from a
| patent to exclusively produce and sell their invention before
| anyone may do that). I do think however that it should be a
| duty to mention the source or original author when sharing a
| work.
|
| [footnote]: but you can neglect to mention the source, or
| uncover and share information someone wants to keep private
| Ekaros wrote:
| My understanding is that people purely downloading are very
| rarely if never prosecuted or even part of civil suite. So it is
| not very big issue and likely is "fair use".
|
| Entirely different question is does offering a tool for this
| process constitute as fair use as well. Specially if there is DRM
| involved. Or does tool need to work in specific way to qualify?
| For example you could record video on your own machine while
| watching it, but could not directly download a copy?
| hrdwdmrbl wrote:
| Singing in the style of another singing should be as legal as
| training an AI to do it.
| jwilk wrote:
| The TorrentFreak article discussed on HN:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37089545 (> 220 comments)
| mkl95 wrote:
| A ton of history and literature has been basically wiped out over
| the centuries. That fact alone should make downloading media and
| storing it privately a natural right, just like monks copied
| writings in the middle ages to preserve them. Distribution is an
| entirely different topic.
| ShadowBanThis01 wrote:
| For anyone with self-respect, it is. Come get me, media-
| conglomerate scumbags.
|
| Remember how they whined against DAT and basically had it killed
| (abetted by Congress), claiming that "perfect digital copies"
| would destroy their business? Meanwhile, everybody on the planet
| knew that essentially all "piracy" took place on double-cassette
| boom boxes in dorm rooms.
|
| And sure enough, even when "piracy" went digital, it was in the
| form of lossy MP3s... far from perfect. So their story was a lie
| from top to bottom... but we've seen our "representatives" abet
| ever-greater crimes against consumers at their behest. The absurd
| tax on blank media, and the DMCA (and even more-egregious
| proposals since) stand as disgraceful examples.
|
| Do you remember when Circuit City or Best Buy offered "every CD
| $10.99 or less?" The idea was to bring people into their stores,
| where they'd buy other stuff. But all of a sudden that deal
| disappeared. It turns out that the record companies threatened
| those retailers with financial sanctions (by withholding
| cooperative advertising funds) if they continued to offer those
| prices.
|
| The record companies were sued for this behavior, which
| prosecutors said ripped off consumers for $400 million. Gee, this
| is the same figure that the record companies whined that Napster
| cost them. Karma is a bitch.
|
| I still have the stub of my $13 settlement check from these
| assholes.
| [deleted]
| archo wrote:
| https://archive.is/BzXVx
| hackernewds wrote:
| Downloading video = Downloading a song Recording a video =
| Recording a song
|
| Either case distribution should be protected.
| doublepg23 wrote:
| It feels very human that we have a nearly post-scarcity delivery
| mechanism that we still optimize for rent seeking.
| lucubratory wrote:
| We'd been around for two million years without anything like
| this. Rent seeking is a very modern invention in the lifetime
| of the human species, let alone establishing it over non-scarce
| ideas. It's very bourgeois, not very human.
| blowski wrote:
| I'm not sure it's so modern. Every tollgate in the ancient
| world was effectively rent-seeking. Even in prehistoric
| societies, it seems there were protection rackets and shamans
| with "monopoly access" to the gods.
| charcircuit wrote:
| Creating the content is much harder than delivering it. The
| rent seeking is to encourage creation.
| MostlyStable wrote:
| Yes. By design. Copyright law, and basically all other IP law,
| is explicitly and purposefully about allowing rent seeking. The
| idea is that in a completely unregulated market, it is
| impossible to make money from ideas after they are made public.
| Since making ideas public is good for society, we want to
| encourage people to continue to do this. Paying people is how
| we encourage people to do things. So we allow rent seeking,
| with limits, as a way to pay people even though they make their
| ideas public. The issue is with how far this rent seeking goes,
| and where the balance between social good and private good
| falls. I'm very firmly in the camp that most IP law has, in the
| modern day, gone too far. But I do think that conceptually it
| is beneficial to have and maintain some level of rent seeking.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| Of course, we now have a torrential supply of available
| media, which markets strongly say is worth little to nothing.
| Apparently, given mass distribution tools and sufficient
| level of education, the public creates things on such a large
| scale that it can hardly be argued protectionist policies are
| necessary for them to exist.
|
| We also see that even with these protectionist policies, only
| a select few are ever even able to be economically viable,
| let alone successful. Art's opportunity cost is so front-
| loaded that it's difficult to produce things while working
| full time, so the majority of potential successes are
| prevented from even starting. And then the artistic process
| is impeded by these laws, as rentiers cry "similarity" over
| the most absurd things, which creates a chilling effect. It's
| particularly bad in music.
|
| The best way to support the arts is UBI and the abolition of
| copyright.
| WWLink wrote:
| lol imagine if someone had copyright over 2-5-1 chord
| progressions lmao.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > So we allow rent seeking, with limits
|
| Funny joke. Everybody laughs.
| colordrops wrote:
| > The idea is that in a completely unregulated market, it is
| impossible to make money from ideas after they are made
| public. Since making ideas public is good for society, we
| want to encourage people to continue to do this.
|
| This reasoning is taken at face value in most discussion but
| should be challenged. A lot of assumptions and potentially
| specious logic is embedded here, and it's not clear and
| obvious that any of the following are true:
|
| * it is impossible to make money from ideas after they are
| made public
|
| * Paying people to encourage making ideas public increases
| the amount of value
|
| * most ideas are worth anything at all
|
| * that the most valuable ideas will be made public even with
| these protection regimes in place
|
| It's arguable that even though there was less information out
| there before copyrights and patents became a thing, that
| people were still driven to create art and science, and the
| quality per unit might have even been higher. And even with
| patent and copyright in place, truly valuable ideas are still
| kept secret.
|
| The core value proposition of copyrights and patents is to
| make middlemen money.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I think IP laws make lot of sense and so does allowing
| protection of such. It is only effective way to stop
| corporations from exploiting creators they do not have direct
| relationship with.
|
| Not that the current term we have isn't extremely too long.
| And whole concept of lifetime being involved isn't just
| weird.
| userbinator wrote:
| Corporate greed knows no bounds. If they could erase your brain
| of "their" IP, they advocates would.
| jrm4 wrote:
| I love the precision with which you've said this - but I also I
| really need to feel like we need a better "general public" way
| to say it? I haven't figured this out yet.
| slowhadoken wrote:
| Does it matter if it's fair use if the copyright law can't be
| enforced on a person by person basis?
| fortran77 wrote:
| I didn't think recording a song from the radio was "fair use"
| either.
| ShadowBanThis01 wrote:
| It doesn't fall under fair use. It's otherwise protected,
| though, most likely by the Audio Home Recording Act:
| https://www.songtrust.com/music-publishing-
| glossary/glossary....
| Ekaros wrote:
| Learn the new "meta". Just collect the songs and then run your
| own commentary on top of them. Thus instantly turning them
| something legal. Even if you just post them to place no one
| listen to.
| eye-robot wrote:
| "should be"....
| throw99ii wrote:
| streamable.com just removed a random video of mine for "community
| guidelines"
|
| I use the site to save random Twitter and Youtube videos. They
| aren't publicly shared. Kind of disheartening to see a random
| video removed without knowing which one. And all for paying
| $108/year for a simple convenience.
|
| Definitely downloading all of them and canceling.
| WirelessGigabit wrote:
| I selfhost https://github.com/alexta69/metube
|
| I have it sitting on a URL and I have an iOS share shortcut to
| throw any URL at it and it downloads the video.
|
| Copy-paste from my ansible setup if you're interested,
| shouldn't be that hard to convert to docker-compose.
| - name: Build metube options separately, avoids inline JSON in
| metube setup ansible.builtin.set_fact:
| metube_ytdl_options: postprocessors:
| - key: FFmpegEmbedSubtitle - key: SponsorBlock
| categories: - sponsor -
| key: ModifyChapters remove_sponsor_segments:
| - sponsor subtitleslangs: - en
| - "-live_chat" verbose: true
| writeautomaticsub: true writesubtitles: true
| - name: Create metube container
| community.general.docker_container:
| container_default_behavior: "no_defaults" name:
| metube image: alexta69/metube:latest
| restart_policy: always env: UID: "{{
| plex_userid }}" GID: "{{ docker_users_groupid }}"
| DELETE_FILE_ON_TRASHCAN: "false"
| DOWNLOAD_DIRS_INDEXABLE: "true" DOWNLOAD_DIR:
| /downloads TEMP_DIR: /metube-tmp
| STATE_DIR: /config TZ: "{{ timezone }}"
| YTDL_OPTIONS: "{{ metube_ytdl_options | to_json }}"
| mounts: - type: bind source:
| /stacks/metube/config target: /config
| read_only: false - type: volume
| source: metube_tmp_location_volume target:
| /metube-tmp - type: volume
| source: plex_metube_volume target: /downloads
| labels: "traefik.enable": "true"
| "traefik.http.routers.metube.middlewares": "authelia@docker"
| "traefik.http.routers.metube.service": "metube"
| "traefik.http.routers.metube-no-auth.rule":
| "Host(`metube.home.domain.com`) && (PathPrefix(`/favicon`) ||
| PathPrefix(`/add`))"
| "traefik.http.routers.metube-no-auth.service": "metube"
| "traefik.http.services.metube.loadbalancer.server.port": "8081"
| ports: [] dns_servers: - "{{
| docker_network_ipv4_bridge_dns }}" # adguard
| networks: - name: bridge_ipv4
| ec109685 wrote:
| With YouTube premium being so convenient, it seems like the
| need to rip YouTube videos would have gone down.
|
| This does look pretty slick though.
| porkbeer wrote:
| How does that protect agains videos being taken down?
| Tao3300 wrote:
| Flashbacks to me waiting for 2Pac - _Changes_ to come on so I
| could hit the record button on the tape deck.
| rzzzt wrote:
| Plot twist, it was "The way it is" by Bruce Hornsby.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| 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
| jeroenhd wrote:
| It certainly solves the ethical debate, but sadly the data
| storage extortion is nothing more than a means to make you pay
| for your content multiple times.
|
| I would support a political party that intends to change this,
| but I don't think any party I vote for actually cares about it.
| hiccuphippo wrote:
| I'll gladly pay a % of what I pay to download yt-dl
| btown wrote:
| Bandwidth isn't free, folks! Imagine all the carrier pigeons
| whose valiant effort we call upon every time we git clone!
| Must they toil in obscurity?
| GhostWhisperer wrote:
| brew install yt-dlp alias vget=yt-dlp
| alias aget='vget --extract-audio --audio-format mp3 --audio-
| quality 4' # https://opencollective.com/homebrew
| # https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-
| dlp/blob/master/Collaborators.md#collaborators
| jamilton wrote:
| They're just making a joke that they don't pay for yt-dlp,
| so of course they'd be willing to pay a tax of some percent
| of 0.
| GhostWhisperer wrote:
| thank you
| lib-dev wrote:
| Thank you for the script. Very helpful.
| mdaniel wrote:
| > --audio-format mp3
|
| Of course, up to you, but most youtube videos are actually
| an AAC (m4a) codec and thus by asking for mp3 you're going
| to get a transcoding ffmpeg subprocess in between the bytes
| and the file in your directory. I would be stunned if
| whatever your ultimate consuming player is doesn't support
| aac/m4a/mp4 playback $ yt-dlp -F
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k... 139 m4a
| audio only 2 | 1.47MiB 49k https | audio only
| mp4a.40.5 49k 22k low, IOS, m4a_dash 140 m4a
| audio only 2 | 3.90MiB 129k https | audio only
| mp4a.40.2 129k 44k medium, IOS, m4a_dash 249 webm
| audio only 2 | 1.54MiB 51k https | audio only
| opus 51k 48k low, ANDR, webm_dash 250 webm
| audio only 2 | 2.02MiB 67k https | audio only
| opus 67k 48k low, ANDR, webm_dash 251 webm
| audio only 2 | 3.95MiB 131k https | audio only
| opus 131k 48k medium, ANDR, webm_dash 599 m4a
| audio only 2 | 950.46KiB 31k https | audio only
| mp4a.40.5 31k 22k ultralow, ANDR, m4a_dash 600
| webm audio only 2 | 1.06MiB 35k https | audio
| only opus 35k 48k ultralow, ANDR, webm_dash
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-13 23:00 UTC)