Would this thread be against the rules?

[Simple Linctus]

Would an IMHO or maybe CS or MPSIMS thread titled "what are the most recent 25 movies you downloaded", with the thread content being what you would expect given that title, be against the rules?

[Senegoid]

Not necessarily, I would assume. Movie downloads are not necessarily illegal, are they? I mean, you can buy movies on-line to download them, n'est-ce pas? As long as people aren't posting compendiums of their illegal downloads (and, particularly, the methods and web sites involved), right? If the thread starts going that way, of course, it will get ixnayed with alacrity.

Your question actually seems to be: Does that proposed thread title imply a discussion of illegal downloads, and if so, how strongly, and is that forbidden. Mods?

[Czarcasm]

You should send a PM to the mods.

[Simple Linctus]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

You should send a PM to the mods.

I would have (and in fact have done before on other ideas) but I'm kind of looking to make "case law" if you get my meaning as I think this is fairly similar to other threads others may want to create and having the answer out in the open will help others SDMB posters in the future.

[PlainJain]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

You should send a PM to the mods.

It's a valid question in the right forum. The answer can be useful to others, not just the OP. It also doesn't hurt to gauge the feelings of other posters on this issue.

[aldiboronti]

Just change the title of the thread to "What are the most recent 25 movies you legally downloaded."

[twickster]

As a couple of people have pointed out, our issue is with copyright-breaking and other illegal activity, not with downloading per se.

Feel free to start a thread in CS, specifying in the OP that you are, of course, talking only about legal downloads.

[nonmod]Also, think about making it the last 10 or even the last 5, rather than the last 25, because long lists are boring and not particularly edifying, IMHO.[/nonmod]

twickster, Cafe Society moderator

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by twickster

Feel free to start a thread in CS, specifying in the OP that you are, of course, talking only about legal downloads.

And we have a wide selection of pipes, bubblers, hookahs, dugouts, vaporizers and other accessories for the discerning tobacco smoker!

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Simple Linctus

I would have (and in fact have done before on other ideas) but I'm kind of looking to make "case law" if you get my meaning as I think this is fairly similar to other threads others may want to create and having the answer out in the open will help others SDMB posters in the future.

I'd be surprised if the moderators considered their replies in threads like these to constitute precedent like case law.

Originally Posted by twickster

specifying in the OP that you are, of course, talking only about legal downloads.

I'm curious as to whether the OP would consider that such a stipulation would defeat the purpose of the OP's proposed thread.

[twickster]

We don't make any effort to police people's activities in any area of their life except what they post on this message board, where we do not allow them to explain how to break the law, or, for the most part, to advocate that others break the law.

The OP asked how s/he could start a thread that complies with our rules. I explained what thread would do so.

twickster, for the SDMB

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I'm curious as to whether the OP would consider that such a stipulation would defeat the purpose of the OP's proposed thread.

If the OP is talking about illegal downloads, we would no more permit that than a thread asking "What are the last 25 items you shoplifted?"

[Little Nemo]

I'll admit I'm not sure about the legality of some of the things I download. It's presumably legal for me to watch a movie if it's up on YouTube. But is it legal for me to download that movie from YouTube?

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I'll admit I'm not sure about the legality of some of the things I download. It's presumably legal for me to watch a movie if it's up on YouTube. But is it legal for me to download that movie from YouTube?

It's not presumably legal for you to watch that movie in that by watching it you might be making unauthorized copies that are not subject to any exception. But downloading it definitely is not legal, assuming that the copyright owner has not authorized the posting of the video on YouTube.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I'll admit I'm not sure about the legality of some of the things I download. It's presumably legal for me to watch a movie if it's up on YouTube. But is it legal for me to download that movie from YouTube?

Can you think of a good reason why a movie studio would decide to distribute a movie by dividing it into 30 sections and putting it on YouTube for free download?

[Drunky Smurf]

Of course. They want as many people to see it as possible.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf

Of course. They want as many people to see it as possible.

Silly me-all this time I thought they were in it for the money.

[Michael63129]

Originally Posted by Colibri

If the OP is talking about illegal downloads, we would no more permit that than a thread asking "What are the last 25 items you shoplifted?"

There was a recent thread about illegally (outright saying "illegal" in the subject/title) downloading stuff that wasn't shut down or deleted; a mod even posted in it about something he did. I bring this up because of a current thread in IMHO about obtaining old copies of discontinued software and the legality of downloading them (IMHO if it doesn't hurt anybody, it shouldn't be illegal; downloading currently sold music and movies is another matter though). That said, downloading something doesn't mean it was illegally downloaded, nor does it have to be mentioned whether it was legal or not.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Can you think of a good reason why a movie studio would decide to distribute a movie by dividing it into 30 sections and putting it on YouTube for free download?

That doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal to watch it, however. I know of a place in town with a superheroes mural that I'm sure isn't licensed. If I walk by and look at it, I haven't broken the law. What if I go there on purpose, just to look at it--have I broken the law then? If I buy things from that store specifically so that I can spend awhile inside looking at the mural, am I breaking the law then?

You may well be right, that viewing copyrighted content on Youtube is illegal, but just because it's legal to post it doesn't necessarily follow that it's illegal to view it.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

That doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal to watch it, however. I know of a place in town with a superheroes mural that I'm sure isn't licensed. If I walk by and look at it, I haven't broken the law. What if I go there on purpose, just to look at it--have I broken the law then? If I buy things from that store specifically so that I can spend awhile inside looking at the mural, am I breaking the law then?

You may well be right, that viewing copyrighted content on Youtube is illegal, but just because it's legal to post it doesn't necessarily follow that it's illegal to view it.

I was responding to someone who specifically asked about downloading such a video from YouTube.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

I was responding to someone who specifically asked about downloading such a video from YouTube.

You're right--I didn't read carefully. (So does anyone know whether there's any legal problem with watching, but not technically downloading, a copyrighted video illegally posted on Youtube?)

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

You're right--I didn't read carefully. (So does anyone know whether there's any legal problem with watching, but not technically downloading, a copyrighted video illegally posted on Youtube?)

Good question. Is it legal to view, but not download, child porn?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Surely you're not suggesting that the situations are relevantly similar, are you?

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Surely you're not suggesting that the situations are relevantly similar, are you?

I am suggesting that both have been uploaded illegally. Have there ever been any successful convictions for the viewing alone of something that was posted illegally on the net?

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

I was responding to someone who specifically asked about downloading such a video from YouTube.

But your post didn't really answer my question.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Can you think of a good reason why a movie studio would decide to distribute a movie by dividing it into 30 sections and putting it on YouTube for free download?

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Good question. Is it legal to view, but not download, child porn?

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

I am suggesting that both have been uploaded illegally. Have there ever been any successful convictions for the viewing alone of something that was posted illegally on the net?

We're looking for answers not more questions.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

But your post didn't really answer my question.

I speculate that it is just as illegal to download an illegally uploaded movie as it is to download an illegally uploaded song.

[Senegoid]

Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf

Of course. They want as many people to see it as possible.

Of course of course. And by breaking their epic movie into 30 pieces on U-toob, each viewer has to watch 30 little movies instead -- thereby the studio can claim that the movie has been watched 30 times more! It's all in the marketing. And the OP can post his 25 last-downloaded flicks and still not even cover one entire movie.

[Drunky Smurf]

And just think of the reviews.

"Just wait until you get to part 23. You will laugh and cry and poop your pants. I never pooped 'em harder." - Jim Doorknob from the Gobblers Knob Gazette

[Digital is the new Analog]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

You're right--I didn't read carefully. (So does anyone know whether there's any legal problem with watching, but not technically downloading, a copyrighted video illegally posted on Youtube?)

How do you watch it without technically downloading it?
Perhaps you aren't going to move the contents from your temp files into a different location. Perhaps you'll use a file format that is streamed in real time so no temp file exists. But you've still downloaded it.

(I don't know the answer to the question I think you're trying to ask..)

-D/a

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

I speculate that it is just as illegal to download an illegally uploaded movie as it is to download an illegally uploaded song.

Okay, so you're saying that most of the movies posted on YouTube are posted illegally? I find that questionable. If people are going to post illegal movies, why do we so rarely see current popular movies being posted on YouTube? Nobody's posting Spider-Man or Men in Black or Kung Fu Panda. The movies you see on YouTube are older and more obscure movies.

YouTube has a policy of removing anything that receives copyright violation claims. This obviously works in regards to current movies like the ones I just listed. Why wouldn't it also work in regards to older movies?

So when I see a movie available for viewing on YouTube, my assumption is that it was posted there legally. I don't know why somebody chose to post it, but that's true for most of the videos on YouTube.

Which brings us back to my question. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it's legal for me to watch a video on YouTube, is it also legal for me to download that video? I know the equivalent is legal in regards to television - I can legally record a show when it's being broadcast to watch at a later time. Does this same principle apply to online broadcasts?

[Kyrie Eleison]

Like Digital is the new Analog said, you can't see it unless you download it. Render unto Cesario, and all that.

I'm not aware of any law that makes it illegal to download protected content. The problem is that the most common means of doing so, bittorrent, also requires you to upload at the same time.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Digital is the new Analog

Perhaps you aren't going to move the contents from your temp files into a different location. Perhaps you'll use a file format that is streamed in real time so no temp file exists. But you've still downloaded it.

Interesting--I was thinking that if you streamed a movie, it was something distinct from downloading it. But then, it's not like an ISP has a download, an upload, and a streaming speed, so I guess that was kind of stupid of me .

Still, though, I wonder if download has multiple meanings, one of which distinguishes between saving a file locally, and streaming a file?

[AaronX]

It's illegal to download videos from YouTube, ANY videos, unless it's explicitly stated. YouTube's TOS 5B:

Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.

I know because video download apps in iOS app store won't download videos from YouTube.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by AaronX

Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content.

Yeah, see, that! That's the use of "download" I'm talking about, and if it's good enough for Youtube, it's good enough for me!

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Yeah, see, that! That's the use of "download" I'm talking about, and if it's good enough for Youtube, it's good enough for me!

But that's not going to protect you from any legal ramifications. They are detailing their terms of use, not the legality of pirated movies.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Telemark

But that's not going to protect you from any legal ramifications. They are detailing their terms of use, not the legality of pirated movies.

I'm only yammering on about the pedants who say I use the word "download" incorrectly.

[Acsenray]

The actual point is that infringement is not defined by whether you have downloaded something but by whether you have engaged in unauthorized copying, distribution, performance, etc., of a work.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by AaronX

It's illegal to download videos from YouTube, ANY videos, unless it's explicitly stated.

It's a violation of YouTube's terms of service agreement but does that make it actually illegal?

[Simple Linctus]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

It's a violation of YouTube's terms of service agreement but does that make it actually illegal?

Just what I was going to say, I don't think it is illegal, it's a breach of the TOS.

Some videos on youtube are licensed creative commons so it certainly wouldn't be copyright law you were breaking with them.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

The actual point is that infringement is not defined by whether you have downloaded something but by whether you have engaged in unauthorized copying, distribution, performance, etc., of a work.

Again, are you sure of that? Youtube makes a clear distinction between watching something streaming and downloading it. Are you certain that there's no similar distinction in copyright law?

Streaming a video seems more akin to me to eating at a restaurant with a copyright-violating mural: you enjoy someone else's copyright violation, but you don't take it home. Downloading it seems more akin to taking photographs of that mural to take home. The former act probably violates no law, whereas the latter might*. And given the fact that when you stream video, the default is that you don't keep a copy of what you stream, this seems to me to be an important technical distinction as well.

* Edit: is it ridiculous to suggest that photographing a copyright-violating mural would be illegal? I agree. But I think the analogy holds.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Again, are you sure of that? Youtube makes a clear distinction between watching something streaming and downloading it. Are you certain that there's no similar distinction in copyright law?

The definition of infringement makes no distinction. Among the rights included in copyright law are public performance and duplication. It can be argued that streaming is a public performance and downloading is duplication. It's not entirely settled yet, because there are some who argue that one or the other is both or that either one could also constitute distribution, which is another exclusive right under copyright law.

However, whether it's one or the other, it is undisputed that public performance and duplication and distribution are all exclusive rights of the copyright holder and that unless Youtube is the copyright holder in this case, then Youtube can't grant its user any of those rights.

Streaming a video seems more akin to me to eating at a restaurant with a copyright-violating mural: you enjoy someone else's copyright violation, but you don't take it home.

I don't think any court is going to accept this analogy, because the user has to be a lot more active -- searching for a video, selecting it, hitting play, and sitting and watching it rather than moving on to something else.

And given the fact that when you stream video, the default is that you don't keep a copy of what you stream, this seems to me to be an important technical distinction as well.

It's not necessarily a terrible argument, but as I mentioned above, since the user plays a much more active role when it comes to Youtube, it's not a settled issue.

* Edit: is it ridiculous to suggest that photographing a copyright-violating mural would be illegal? I agree. But I think the analogy holds.

It's not ridiculous and it can arguably be infringing. You're making an unauthorized copy or a derivative work of a creative work. That's an exclusive right of the copyright holder.

[Irishman]

Technically, downloading is any form of receiving the data to your system. However, many people seem to differentiate streaming from saving a copy. To them, they use downloading for saving a copy, and think of streaming as if it were viewing on the host system.

I don't know how any of that relates to copyright law.