I'm surprised to see this on HN. This should be called "Illegally download any song".
I think the project is extremely cool and you have props from me - but I hate it when people try to skate the simple fact that stuff like this is illegal. ROMs and emulators have shown up on imgur many times as "free" - like as if the publishers have released the rights to the game(s).
I don't know what country you live in - but in the US it's pretty clear on the court's stance on scraping [1]. I'm not saying I agree with it - but that is the legal precedent.
> Although these are early scraping decisions, and the theories of liability are not uniform, it is difficult to ignore a pattern emerging that the courts are prepared to protect proprietary content on commercial sites from uses which are undesirable to the owners of such sites.
Straight from the youtube TOS [2]:
> Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.
It's apparent the RIAA that is also against it [3]. If you ask the RIAA - they will most likely say you did not purchase a legal copy of it - so therefore you shouldn't own a digital copy of it. Thus making it piracy.
It appears my original stance got lost - I'm not saying I agree with it - but these are the cold hard facts.
> I think the burden of proof falls under the one saying youtube-dl is illegal, doesn't?
I kind of figured it would be obvious BUT....
> Two days after YouTube-MP3.org, a site that takes music videos and converts their songs into MP3 files, was blocked from accessing YouTube, the RIAA has asked CNET to remove software from Download.com that performs a similar function. CNET, which is owned by CBS, is the publisher of this news site. [1]
Here is information on youtube-mp3.org [2].
Please do see my other post [3].
I want to make it very clear - I do NOT agree with the rulings and RIAA bullying. If you want to be upset at someone - call your representatives and ask them to start passing laws that are in favor of scraping.
As an aside note - to expand on my original post. Emulators are not illegal by definition (unless they circumvent/bypass encryption - but that's a whole other ball of wax), downloading a free or open source community made ROM for the emulator is not illegal. It is, however, illegal to download a ROM for a copyrighted game. Now, Nintendo isn't going to come after you for playing an old NES game in the privacy of your home - it's still illegal but they aren't going to expend the legal resources and the amount of bad PR to make an example out of you. They may and probably will come after you if you sell or distribute said ROMS.
That's not how it works. What your opinion is or even your lawyer's opinion is just an opinion. Ultimately someone can bring a case in a court and it's decided then. You can advance your legal theory as to why it is allowed, and it may be a sufficient defense, or it may not. There is no a priori certainty in these things... the closest you might get is precedent.
The jocular saying is that, in England, "everything which is not forbidden is allowed", while, in Germany, the opposite applies, so "everything which is not allowed is forbidden". This may be extended to France — "everything is allowed even if it is forbidden" — and Russia where "everything is forbidden, even that which is expressly allowed". While in North Korea it is said that "everything that is not forbidden is compulsory"
I mean, not according to the law... my understanding is that in most jurisdictions ignorant != impervious. Perhaps burden of proof for a discussion is on the claimant, but it might behoove a user to check their local laws
When you play in the browser, you are playing on youtube. when you download, you can play wherever you want. This is similar to saying I'll go record a movie from a cinema hall and watch it later at home since I paid for it.
No it's just a simple, direct assessment of a situation. There is no technical difference between "streaming" or "downloading" the bytes. In each case, the exact same thing happens, the numbers are copied to the local machine. The distinctions are a legal fiction that doesn't actually have a reflection in the real reality, and as most imposed fictions end up, there is very little respect for the idea on the ground.
True, but at the end of streaming, the provider/browser clears the cache. The legality of it is debatable, but downloading copyright material is certainly not legal.
If someone visits me at home and uses my coffee-maker the action is same as taking it to his home and using, but only one of them is acceptable.
I did not say breaking in. That would be equivalent to hacking. If i'm home and I let my friend use my coffee-maker, that is analogous to youtube giving you a license to watch a video.
I apologize for the confusion. I read your original comment to be a comparison between letting someone use your coffee maker (lending) and someone stealing your coffee maker which I believe is how you intended it. My comment was intentionally obtuse and was intended to highlight problems with your metaphor. I do not believe that letting a friend use my coffee maker is analogous to youtube granting me a license to watch a video. For instance, I have no desire to recoup my electricity costs by displaying advertising to my friend while she is making her coffee.
I don't think this is the same thing at all. If someone slides an envelope under my door that says "Please do not open" am I obliged to leave it sealed? What if I open it anyway and the contents advise me to destroy the message, am I obliged to do this?
What if you go to a friend's house (youtube) and see a letter that says do not read. But you whip out your camera phone, take a picture, come home and read?
The discussion is not about what is possible or should be done, it is about what is legal/moral.
When you watch a video on Youtube, you are essentially given a license to watch that content on their site. They show some ads and make some money. When you download, you are violating that license.
Depends on the jurisdiction. Some make a explicit difference, e.g. German law speaks of (rough translation of the critical bits by myself) "temporary reproductions that are [...] integral and necessary part of a technical way of a) transmitting through a network [...]" which in practice means that streaming is ok in cases where explicit saving is not. For private use, downloading from not clearly non-legal streaming sources is fine though (again, in Germany)
I believe streaming vs downloading has slight implication differences. E.g if they choose to shut it off you can't stream anymore. Or force ads or view counts. Yet in downloaded form you are bypassing those things that have value
One problem is that you're not only time shifting but space shifting to digital media as well. And the laws as written are very specific as to what is permitted.
Example: In the US, the AHRA that makes personal space shifting digital audio legal (relevant to the submission) is fairly limited in the media that can be used for copying. Though I agree that they're being used for basically the same thing, computer hard drives aren't covered.
A relevant quote from Wikipedia [1] that sums up why I think this act falls short of its purpose: "In each case, the principal distinction between what is and is not covered by the AHRA is determined by whether or not the device is marketed or designed (or in the case of media, commonly used by consumers) to make audio recordings, not the device's capabilities."
Time shifting means copying for the purpose of listening to the recording at a better time, whereas space shifting is relevant here because the intended purpose is to allow the audio to be played in a different environment (i.e. not the YouTube player or app).
The more important thing is that space shifting to different media (digital, personal computer hard drive in this case) is legally treated differently. Though, to be honest, I'm not convinced that any personal recording protections would or should apply to the YouTube situation. It's just one way that the two differ.
I think the project is extremely cool and you have props from me - but I hate it when people try to skate the simple fact that stuff like this is illegal. ROMs and emulators have shown up on imgur many times as "free" - like as if the publishers have released the rights to the game(s).