Ps.: Did you have any success using the “human” field at comments?

But to emphasize the point about “time-shifting” — sure, television shows are only broadcast at fixed time, so time-shifting compensates for that in a fair-use like way. But the same is true with YouTube — we don’t live in a world where we have persistent broadband connectivity. One might download a YouTube video, e.g., for a presentation (I’ve done that lots), or to show someone else when not online.

The big joke back then is that no one could figure out how to use the timers on those big VCRs, and because of that, I wonder how many people actually used them for time shifting? Even if you could, it still meant that you had to have the cable box on all day while taping that soap opera.

I don’t know anyone who ever did this, and I suspect that most people used VCRs to build up a tape library of their favorite shows.

Regardless, time-shifting was a good ‘icing on the cake’ argument that helped add to the other legitimate non-infringing uses of Sony’s equipment, and thus the court ruled in favor of them. I wonder if they would do so now?

YouTube’s presumptions are confusing, and as noted previously the last few years, dubious. They confute distribution with ownership, and interestingly enough don’t even bother to confer with the property holders about their wishes when it comes to the ability to download.

I worry about a test case here, for in this hypercapitalist age, where property rights are everything, and everything is property rights, it would take a pretty astute court to advance Betamax into the digital age if pressed.

And would they hold YouTube responsible for allowing someone else to copy material from their site, or would they just tell the creative “owner” to make it available on their own, that that ability was sufficient? I’m not hopeful.

It is not time-shifting if you can continue to have access the broadcast (loathed as I am to use that term in respect of the internet).

Anyway – the broader point is one of WHO OWNS THE COPYRIGHT IN THE WORKS – Has anyone actually looked at the YouTube terms of service – does it involve an assignment of copyright? Is that assignment valid? If not then YouTube cant prevent downloading the materials, can it? Is there some other terms of service with each viewer not to download? and how is that enforced? Do they have a right against a third party offering software to infringe copyright in those circumstances?

Looks to me like a storm in a teacup.

Since the doctrine of “fair use” clearly allows someone to utilize copyrighted materials for critical comment or analysis, it doesn’t matter what YouTube claims is their right to withhold or distribute materials in their own way. They can say anything they want to, but if someone wants to download materials to use or share legally under fair use, their exclusive distribution claims– if that’s what they are– are irrelevant. Who cares what YouTube says, and so what if it’s part of an advertising model?

Obviously, YouTube doesn’t believe in fair use in the digital age, so instead of defending, say, a poster’s clearly legal download of the Bill Maher CNN fragment for commentary purposes, they’re going after them.

I’m curious about something. Why are so many people now so incredibly hostile to the concept of fair use? Is it too much Ayn Rand or something?

“By the way, at least on my Linux machine, the process of watching a YouTube video already saves a file onto my computer.”

I think the idea is that you’re meant to ignore the man behind the curtain.