Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464
U.S. 417 (1984), also known as the “Betamax case”, is a
decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which
ruled that the making of individual copies of complete
television shows for purposes of time shifting does not
constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use.[1][2]
The Court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video
recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs (referred
to as VTRs in the case), cannot be liable for infringement.
YouTube is an on demand stream. It would be comparable to recording a pay per view movie that you purchased. Is that legal? (The question isn't rhetorical, but I seriously doubt it.)
That's a kind of tech adaption of the streaming/playback mode (and I've done it a ton on previous laptops)
Right, this is the precise problem, and it has to be solved - not by a free-for-all but with proper equitabl copywrite laws.
As matters stand, it's only going to get worse. Say we assume that if somehow both YouTube downloads are made much more difficult to crack AND no downloaders are available, then viewers and downloaders will then use newer tech that's even easier to use to record the videos. With new hi-resonution 4k cameras becoming commonly available, they'll be able to record stuff with still-excellent resolution by just photographing the monitor.
Of course, that still won't deter the RIAA, I can see them trying to ban cardboard covers and jigs that hold cameras and monitors accurately in alignment.
One could argue that YouTube success is mostly about unlimited access to illegal copyrighted material uploaded by some unknown person in some unknown part of the world
After all the thing it's already on YouTube and on my HD after I watched it
If the videos were uploaded to Youtube with authorization, then accessing them through youtube-dl is not an example of the program being used for infringement.
Either way, the purpose of the software is to download anything publically available from YouTube. Its purpose is not copyright infringement unless the purpose of YouTube is copyright infringement.
The content is already available
The monetisation of the content depends on a lot of different factors, many have monetized unauthorized content over the years, many received money from the same unauthorized content by faking clicks and views and many avoid paying YouTube in the form of ads by using ad blockers
I believe youtube-dl users amount to a maximum of a single digit percent of the above (with the digit being between 1 and 2 with 2 excluded)
Good point. I quite like that argument.
Not that my opinion actually matters in this case.