Identical acts in not-identical circumstances may have not-identical consequences. One example of said not-identical circumstances is the difference between free-to-air broadcast television without a TOS and video on demand with a TOS.
Hmm... What if you then act out scenes of the video that has been stored in your mind, publicly to other viewers while you are on break from your salt-mine-toiling?
For the same reason that most people let the web browser automatically delete cached copies of web pages that they view as part of the browser's cache maintenance.
I saved the file, so I could watch it on an airplane. Or going through a tunnel. Or on the camping trip in the middle of nowhere (besides the why are you going camping then argument)..
Some versions of the YouTube app have an offline feature that loads the entirety of select videos and allows playback within the next 48 hours.
I'll break down the argument into multiple points:
1. Not all transit providers are equal. Some make better deals with peers than others. 2. Some transit providers are less expensive because they lack the ability to make the best deals with peers. 3. To cut costs, Netflix chose a less expensive transit provider.
Then let me slightly weaken my previous statement: 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 the time between security updates to your web browser.
WTF is an "illegal download?" There is no such thing!
A download that the user intentionally stores longer than the user agreed to store it. In the case of a streaming site like YouTube, one might assume this is for longer than the video's duration.
Amazon's disadvantage for physical goods is that it lacks its own showroom. When buying apparel online, you don't get to feel the fabric or try on the fit. When buying a laptop online, you don't get to try the keyboard or screen, and you can't feel its size and weight without constructing your own similarly sized and weighing model out of (say) cardboard. Or what am I missing?
Supposed illegitimate activities on the internet didn't close brick and mortar stores.
Except when Napster killed record stores. A pawn shop employee pinpointed the time when used CD prices plummeted as the fourth quarter of 1999, which happens to be when Napster took off.
Until then, you're more at risk for a DMCA takedown notice and being banned from YouTube.
The question would have the same answer even with a different penalty for failure: 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?
There are laws governing caching. For example, 17 USC 512(b)(2)(B) protects a cache mechanism only if it respects a reasonable expiry policy indicated by the site operator.
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?
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.
It's better to create your own unique content that doesn't use other people's copyrighted content.
How can I ensure success in doing this? For example, if I write a song, record it, and put a music video on YouTube, how do I make sure it isn't substantially similar to any other published musical work in order to avoid losing a million dollar lawsuit like George Harrison (Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs over "My Sweet Lord") and Pharrell Williams (Gaye v. Thicke over "Blurred Lines")?
It's not that you download the portion of the video that you're watching as much as whether your user agent stores a copy of all chunks of the video. What they "outlaw" is storing the downloaded data more than ephemerally.
Slashdot Mirror
Business contracts, such as YouTube's terms of service, are not concerned with the "span of history" as much as the much shorter span of business.
Identical acts in not-identical circumstances may have not-identical consequences. One example of said not-identical circumstances is the difference between free-to-air broadcast television without a TOS and video on demand with a TOS.
Websites' terms of service often bring these "suggestions" under the purview of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and foreign counterparts.
Hmm... What if you then act out scenes of the video that has been stored in your mind, publicly to other viewers while you are on break from your salt-mine-toiling?
Public performance. Infringing.
For the same reason that most people let the web browser automatically delete cached copies of web pages that they view as part of the browser's cache maintenance.
I saved the file, so I could watch it on an airplane. Or going through a tunnel. Or on the camping trip in the middle of nowhere (besides the why are you going camping then argument) ..
Some versions of the YouTube app have an offline feature that loads the entirety of select videos and allows playback within the next 48 hours.
Free-to-air TV isn't subject to an explicit TOS or the CFAA.
longer than the user agreed to store it
How long is too long?
Longer than is necessary to view the video in ways authorized by the letter and/or spirit of the terms to which the user agreed.
The fact that every author needs to first become able to afford a consultation with an attorney before publishing anything is part of the problem.
What's your point?
I'll break down the argument into multiple points:
1. Not all transit providers are equal. Some make better deals with peers than others.
2. Some transit providers are less expensive because they lack the ability to make the best deals with peers.
3. To cut costs, Netflix chose a less expensive transit provider.
I've never quite understood why making a copy of streaming content is not directly analogous to making a copy of "streaming" cable or over-the-air TV
Please see replies to neghvar1, who wondered the same thing.
in order to stream or watch, ONE MUST DOWNLOAD THE FUCKING DATA.
Watching doesn't require storing the data longer than one web browser session, which is what these tools do.
I wonder how the lawsuits against audio cassettes ever turned out?
In some countries, they turned out with cassette manufacturers paying a tax to the major record labels.
What if you view a video of a book and remember enough of the text to write your own copy by hand?
Infringing.
What if you have a eidetic memory and viewing once is enough to replay the videos in your mind while you toil in the salt mines of the bleak future?
Playback in your mind is currently not recognized as "fixed in a tangible medium".
assuming no reboot or browser restart
Then let me slightly weaken my previous statement: 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 the time between security updates to your web browser.
Popular web browsers respect HTTP cache control directives. These downloading tools do not.
WTF is an "illegal download?" There is no such thing!
A download that the user intentionally stores longer than the user agreed to store it. In the case of a streaming site like YouTube, one might assume this is for longer than the video's duration.
Amazon's disadvantage for physical goods is that it lacks its own showroom. When buying apparel online, you don't get to feel the fabric or try on the fit. When buying a laptop online, you don't get to try the keyboard or screen, and you can't feel its size and weight without constructing your own similarly sized and weighing model out of (say) cardboard. Or what am I missing?
Supposed illegitimate activities on the internet didn't close brick and mortar stores.
Except when Napster killed record stores. A pawn shop employee pinpointed the time when used CD prices plummeted as the fourth quarter of 1999, which happens to be when Napster took off.
Attorneys go where the money is. If you don't have it, they're not suing you.
Tell that to Joel Tenenbaum and Jammie Thomas-Rasset. A copyright owner through its attorney can still seek statutory damages.
Until then, you're more at risk for a DMCA takedown notice and being banned from YouTube.
The question would have the same answer even with a different penalty for failure: 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?
There are laws governing caching. For example, 17 USC 512(b)(2)(B) protects a cache mechanism only if it respects a reasonable expiry policy indicated by the site operator.
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.
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?
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.
It's better to create your own unique content that doesn't use other people's copyrighted content.
How can I ensure success in doing this? For example, if I write a song, record it, and put a music video on YouTube, how do I make sure it isn't substantially similar to any other published musical work in order to avoid losing a million dollar lawsuit like George Harrison (Bright Tunes v. Harrisongs over "My Sweet Lord") and Pharrell Williams (Gaye v. Thicke over "Blurred Lines")?
How do I watch a video without downloading it?
It's not that you download the portion of the video that you're watching as much as whether your user agent stores a copy of all chunks of the video. What they "outlaw" is storing the downloaded data more than ephemerally.