Hacker News Reader

Comment by ldarby | Hacker News Reader

It is copyright infringement (via the argument that ytdl facilitates and encourages others to commit the infringement), which happens to bypass ads.

The rights holders have effectively said "you can watch this for free as long as we get the ad revenue". Theoretically, if there was some way of preserving that ad revenue while committing that infringement, I would assume they wouldn't care about the infringement. They're just using the infringement as a tool to preserve the ad revenue.

What you're worried about is the converse, if there is a way to avoid infringing on copywrite while bypassing ads (which there is, ad-blocking), then there's no infringement to use as a tool, then they're going to want to make ad-blocking illegal. It's not hard to predict that's coming, especially in Europe given Article 13 last year.

View on HN

I'm actually arguing that it is wrong to claim that a copy is even being made by the mere act of streaming (i.e. transferring the bytes of) a media file and hence you cannot violate copyright by merely downloading something. You only infringe once you distribute the content further.

In fact, as far as I'm aware of, this is also how the situation plays out de facto in most (all?) European countries.

> The rights holders have effectively said "you can watch this for free as long as we get the ad revenue".

The key lies in the word "effectively" here. They may have said and even meant that, but I am unaware of a legal mechanism that would actually allow them to do this (in Europe). The only way I can think of accomplishing this would be to make the content available under a dedicated, bespoke licence, akin to how GPL works, and even then I'm unsure whether it would be enforceable. TOSes, generally, are not.

> It's not hard to predict that's coming, especially in Europe given Article 13 last year.

This is wrong. Article 13 regulates content hosts (in this case, Youtube), not end users. Hence, Article 13 has no bearing on ad-blocking software.

> cannot violate copyright by merely downloading something. You only infringe once you distribute the content further.

Wrong. Copying something, without distribution, is still violating copyright. It's just taken less seriously than distribution. It's the same difference between drug dealers and drug users.

>> It's not hard to predict that's coming, especially in Europe given Article 13 last year.

> This is wrong. Article 13 regulates content hosts (in this case, Youtube), not end users. Hence, Article 13 has no bearing on ad-blocking software.

No, I did not say anything at all about Article 13. Please re-read what I said.

> No, I did not say anything at all about Article 13. Please re-read what I said.

What? You very clearly stated that the content of Article 13 makes it easy to predict that the EU will attempt to make ad blocking illegal in the foreseeable future. (Granted, the response to that didn't make much sense - the current law doesn't have to directly affect end users for us to make a reasonable prediction based on it that laws proposed in the future would attempt to do just that.)

> Wrong. Copying something, without distribution, is still violating copyright.

That really depends on the jurisdiction and context. For example, in the US, making backup copies of materials licensed in perpetuity (ex a movie on VHS) is (always, AFAIK) permitted. Another example is recording broadcast TV for the purpose of time shifting it (ie watching it later), which has been explicitly permitted by the courts here. Yet another example is ripping CDs for personal use, which falls under fair use in the US and is therefore not a violation.

> That really depends on the jurisdiction and context.

No it doesn't. If you haven't legitimately obtained Taylor Swift's Shake it Off, you can't argue the copy you made with youtube-dl is a permitted personal copy, in the US or anywhere with copyright laws.

If you did pay for it, then yes you can argue it's a permitted copy (just not in the UK, which has stricter copyright laws).

(this is mostly a copy paste of this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24882280).

>> That really depends on the jurisdiction and context.

> If you haven't legitimately obtained ...

I'm well aware and never claimed otherwise. I very clearly stated that it depends on the context. (It's right there in the text you quoted!)

I was responding specifically to your previous claim that "Copying something, without distribution, is still violating copyright." which was overly broad for the reasons I specified.

Yeah, sorry I knew it was overly broad and should have been more specific. But it was in response to your completely wrong assertion that violating it requires redistribution. I think we're done here.

> your completely wrong assertion

Oops, apologies Reelin I wasn't paying attention to who said what, that was feanaro who was wrong.

> If you haven't legitimately obtained Taylor Swift's Shake it Off

Obtaining Taylor Swift's Shake it Off from a public YouTube video without watching ads is a legitimate way of obtaining it. That is exactly the point.

You are just wrong. Please go learn about copyright. Then you might understand why this takedown happened.

I like think you are wrong and I have presented my case previously, to which you haven't responded. Nothing in copyright law itself can force you to watch ads while downloading a public video. I am completely sure this is the case in my own jurisdiction. If you want, I would be curious to hear your argument about why you think it does in yours.

This takedown happened because DMCA is a broken, frequently exploited law which allows for illegitimate takedown requests, which you must abide by or risk exposing yourself to legal damage for no reason at all.

> to which you haven't responded.

Where? I responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881656

I can only repeat what's there.

> Granted, the response to that didn't make much sense - the current law doesn't have to directly affect end users for us to make a reasonable prediction based on it that laws proposed in the future would attempt to do just that.

You're right. I assumed the OP was arguing that Article 13 itself somehow regulates ad blocking software, which is the only way I could interpret it so as to not be a non sequitur, but in doing so I made a non sequitur myself.

I never said Article 13 bans ad blocking. What I wrote was too difficult to parse and I should have realised that at the time and made it more clear. E.g.:

"It's not hard to predict they (EU and media corps) will want to make ad blocking illegal in future with a new law following on from Article 13." I could have said something more vague like "not hard to predict it given the direction the world is headed at the moment" to make the same point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com