Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Threatens Legal Action Against Video Downloader (torrentfreak.com)
Embracing over a billion users, YouTube has become the go-to source of many for music and movies. But the scale of YouTube has also given rise to piracy and copyright infringement. To fix this, the Google-owned video portal has started to contact third-party services that allow users to make a copy of a YouTube video and is urging them to shut down their functionality. TorrentFreak is reporting about a similar instance, in which YouTube's legal team contacted a popular service called TubeNinja. From the report: "It appears from your website and other marketing materials that TubeNinja is designed to allow users to download content from YouTube," the email from YouTube's legal team reads. According to YouTube the video downloader violates the terms of service (ToS) of both the site and the API. Among other things, YouTube's ToS prohibits the downloading of any video that doesn't have a download link listed on the site. Later, Google's video service adds that if the site owner continues to operate the service this "may result in legal consequences." Despite the threatening language, TubeNinja owner Nathan doesn't plan to take the functionality offline. He informed YouTube that his service doesn't use YouTube's API and says that it's the responsibility of his users to ensure that they don't violate the ToS of YouTube and TubeNinja. "Our own ToS clearly states that the user is responsible for the legitimacy of the content they use our service for," Nathan tells us.
The Ultimate Showdown
People will simply switch to youtube-dl or another local utility.
I'm curious, if I download a copyrighted image and convert it to say a base64 string, is it still copyrighted? Who can prove that my string is not just my creation and that by chance (the probability is very slim but still) it converts to an image that is very similar (or exact) to the copyrighted image? What if the same thing is done to a video?
Tired of my customary (Score:1)
I mean, the video is already on your computer. If they shut down internet service, it'll move client-side. Hell, if I wanted I could output the video/audio of my screen and record them.
It's futile. They know it and we know it. But I guess the shareholders or the lawyer are just not happy if Google doesn't do anything about it. So they do this.
Elok
I am using Youtube Downloader HD. Hilarious that the first thing they're going after isn't the program literally named Youtube Downloader. Not only do I like to save YT videos, but it's also the only way to watch long ones without interruption, especially recently. YT has been hanging and even crashing my browser a lot lately. The only way to get through a long video is to download it first. I don't see ads anyway, because I am blocking them.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I see this act no different than recording a radio broadcast onto a cassette tape or recording a TV broadcast on VHS or DVR’s. Now we record a video or audio stream from an online source onto your hard drive. The same principle applies to these activities, different source on different media. So I say Youtube has no legal basis to threaten the developers of these apps. This is how I get my music today. http://www.freemake.com/free_y...
Unlike tools such as youtube-dl, web browsers do not write a copy of all segments of an MPEG-DASH stream to a file intended to persist longer than an hour.
And how do Google think people can create their own copy/edit montages of other peoples' videos.
That's another can of worms. Too many people are creating videos using other people's copyrighted work, get called on it, and scream "fair use" for what they're doing. Several lawsuits are underway regarding that issue. It's better to create your own unique content that doesn't use other people's copyrighted content.
There is a difference. Downloading refers to saving a full copy on your local device for later use. Streaming copies the data to you system memory where it is accessible as long as you keep the streaming app open. Once closed, it is removed from memory.
It's easier to download and watch, then it is to stream.
Funny if you go beyond the junk they have on the surface, you can find tons of good good stuff.
I picked up C++14 ( having known known C++98 ) from CppCon and from BoostCon.
you an pick up information about languages and tools: Go,Groovy, Haskell, Clojure, Scala, emacs/vi/Eclipse/IntelliJ configurations and plugins, bigger libraries.
Plus old shows nobody cares about. THe short lived series Probe ( the one that Asimov worked on ), The Early Kurt Russel Secret of Boyne Castle etc.
Oh one that realy caught my eye Scott Adams on Bill Maher talking about Trump.
Sony v. Universal (the Betamax case) established that time-shifting can be fair use and that producing a tool with a substantial non-infringing use does not incur secondary liability. The difference here is that unlike viewers of a TV broadcast, viewers of YouTube are subject to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that gives teeth to website TOS. So a tool can incur secondary liability for TOS violation even if it does not incur secondary liability for copyright infringement.
Even if the advertisement is prepended to the downloaded stream, how can a video download tool preserve the unskippability and "Visit Advertiser's Site" link?
Who can prove that my string is not just my creation
The "striking similarity" doctrine in copyright case law creates a presumption of copying, shifting the burden of proof of provenance to the alleged infringer.
It's actually quite simple, Google is concerned about lost AD revenue.
If users can download videos and play them locally then they lose out on the AD revenue from the ADs that are injected into the video sequence. If Google can figure out a way to make this more difficult or time consuming to do, then it's less likely that everyday users will download content vs streaming it.
How can I ensure success in doing this?
No one will care about your song or video unless you're making some serious money on YouTube. Attorneys go where the money is. If you don't have it, they're not suing you. Until then, you're more at risk for a DMCA takedown notice and being banned from YouTube.
"YouTube's ToS prohibits the downloading of any video that doesn't have a download link listed on the site."
Then your own ToS stops you from operating legally, because in order to stream or watch, ONE MUST DOWNLOAD THE FUCKING DATA.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
How should a singer-songwriter confirm that his song is original before posting it to YouTube, SoundCloud, or another site intended for publishing original video or music in order to avoid losing his account on said site?
If you want legal advice, go see an attorney.
I can understand why YouTube feels it needs to take these legal actions ... but in the end, it's just symbolic gesturing.
In the "real world", the very fact you've allowed a video clip to be transmitted from YouTube's server to a client on the other end in a viewable format means the receiver has the technical ability to save a copy of it.
The "low hanging fruit" for their legal team to go after are the web based services offering to make this process easy, since they're effectively advertising to the whole world that they're enabling an illegal activity. Sitting on branches just a little further up are the folks writing plug-ins or extensions for browsers advertising the same functionality. (In those cases, I think we'll wind up with a legal battle, as soon as one of those developers wants to fight rather than give in. If nothing else, I think that's because there's a subtle difference between distributing code that *allows* someone to download/save the video content, and hosting a server that's actually DOING it for users.)
Personally, I think that YouTube will have to move to some sort of encrypted video transmission method if they want to get serious about preventing people from saving videos to redistribute. (EG. You have to install a YouTube app in order to look at videos on the site.) Even with THAT, it only gives the level of copy protection used by services such as AT&T U-Verse with its Cisco set-top boxes. (You won't be able to dump the data saved in its DVR's hard drive to any other device and watch it. But it can't stop something like a VCR or DVD recorder from copying the video and audio coming out of the box, headed for your television.)
Anyone can write software that acts as a "middle man" (similar to the VCR concept) that grabs each frame of video from the video card as it's displaying it on your screen and saved it to a new video file, while doing the same with the audio headed to the sound card output.
They do download it but do not necessary store the entire thing at any time. A stream buffer size may be fixed in length, and no more than that amount of data is ever seen on disk at a given time. As content is played from the buffer, more content can be downloaded by the receiver, using a ring buffer strategy. This is generally accepted as the difference between streaming and downloading even though there is no difference in the bits that are bring sent, and no way for the sender to necessarily tell the difference unless the recipient somehow communicates that information to the sender.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I make a point to locally edit the "I agree" text to "I disagree" before checking these ... Right click, inspect element, double click to edit, Modify the terms of the agreement to my liking, take screen shot / save, submit