> 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.
Oops, apologies Reelin I wasn't paying attention to who said what, that was feanaro who was wrong.
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.
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.
Where? I responded here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24881656
I can only repeat what's there.
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).