No, that's not how any of this works.
Google has terms of use on their service.
You are violating those terms of service.
This is completely cut and dry.
Google has terms of use on their service.
You are violating those terms of service.
This is completely cut and dry.
> You are violating those terms of service.
That's not what piracy means, and that's not how the law works. If I state that the terms of service of reading this comment are that you must hop on one leg for the rest of your life, and you continue to walk on two, you won't be violating any laws.
OP claimed, "It's my own right to save those packets(without re-distributing) them and watch them in any form I like." That is not accurate. He doesn't magically GAIN COPYRIGHT over content, just because he downloaded it. His use MAY be covered by Fair Use Laws, but it may also still be a violation of YouTube's Terms of Service.
What's the difference between downloading and streaming a video? It's OK for the bytes to stay in main memory/network cache, but not in HDD? Would taking a memory dump of the RAM break their TOS?
"It's my own right to save those packets(without re-distributing) them and watch them in any form I like."
YouTube lets you rent movies for 48 hours.
You download a movie. You then claimed you can watch the movie in any form you like. Such as, later than the 48 hours.
They should at least consider the possibility. Go in with open eyes, so to say.
This story comes to mind:
https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/239728-google-suspends-ac...
If this happens, even more people will take their eggs out of Google's basket. I've already migrated my email to another provider and use Searx[1] for search.
If you do use it, please don't violate the TOS, because it increases the chances you'll screw it up for everyone else (me). People who violate TOS are why we can't have nice things.
It just also is unethical. Cheers.
Under the heading, "Permissions and Restrictions":
> The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are not allowed to:
> 1. access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service; or (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and, if applicable, the respective rights holders;
> 2. circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;
> 3. access the Service using any automated means (such as robots, botnets or scrapers) except (a) in the case of public search engines, in accordance with YouTube’s robots.txt file; or (b) with YouTube’s prior written permission;
I think this is just one of those cases where copyright/IP law moves too slowly compared to the technology it tries to cover.
They are "accessing ... part of the Service or Content [without being] expressly authorized."
To make it concrete, as an example, a user using youtube-dl is violating the terms. Not the makers of youtube-dl.
Are they though? AFAIK, law is very pedantic, and technically speaking, a human is physically incapable of accessing Youtube; we use tools to do so. We use some kind of software to access youtube.com, in this case, we are using an app that accesses youtube.com and relays the content on that page back to us. Similar to say, using Chrome or Firefox to access youtube.com and relay the contents on the page back to us.
Note, the APP accesses youtube.com, not the user. The app is (potentially) in violation, the user using the app is not. In fact, the user may not even know that the app is actually accessing youtube. Again, IANAL and I'm sure this is argued both ways, but I'm just saying this is an interpretation of the terms.
"Your Honour, technically I did not break the window. I had to use a rock as my agent, therefore the rock is guilty."