# Would this thread be against the rules?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-thread-be-against-the-rules/635631>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [September 23, 2012, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-thread-be-against-the-rules/635631 "2012-09-23T22:49:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-thread-be-against-the-rules/635631/41 "2012-09-25T17:17:42Z")

</div>

> [@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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2012, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-thread-be-against-the-rules/635631/42 "2012-09-25T19:42:38Z")

</div>

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.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-this-thread-be-against-the-rules/635631.md?page=2)