Linus Torvalds, the creator and maintainer of the Linux kernel, joined me at the recent Open Source Summit in Vienna for an insightful conversation covering ...
Yes, by allowing you to download the video file to the browser. This snippet of legal terms didn’t really reinforce any of your points.
But it actually is helpful for mine. In legalese, downloading and storing a file actually falls under reproduction, as this essentially creates an unauthorized copy of the data if not expressly allowed. It’s legally separate from downloading, which is just the act of moving data from one computer to another. Downloading also kind of pedantically necessitates reproduction to the temporary memory of the computer (eg RAM), but this temporary reproduction is most cases allowed (except when it comes to copyrighted material from an illegal source, for example).
In legalese here, the “downloading” specifically refers to retrieving server data in an unauthorized manner (eg a bot farm downloading videos, or trying to watch a video that’s not supposed to be out yet). Storing this data to file falls under the legal definition of reproduction instead.
Yes, by allowing you to download the video file to the browser.
That is not what “expressly” means. “Expressly” means they’ve delivered you personal permission to download videos. Add this to the slew of words you don’t understand.
You physically cannot download files to a browser. A browser is a piece of software. Downloads are stored on your local storage device.
This snippet of legal terms didn’t really reinforce any of your points.
Except the part where it said downloading videos is against their terms of service? Which was my only point?
This is such a wild conversation and ridiculous mental gymnastics. I think we’re done here.
Except the part where it said downloading videos is against their terms of service? Which was my only point?
Did you completely fail to read the part “except where authorized”? That bit of legalese is a blanket “you can’t use this software in a way we don’t want to”.
You physically cannot download files to a browser. A browser is a piece of software. It does not allow you to download anything
Ah, you just have zero clue what you’re talking about, but you think you do. I can point out exactly where you are on the Dunning-Kruger curve.
This is such a wild conversation and ridiculous mental gymnastics. I think we’re done here.
Hilarious coming from you, who has ignored every bit of information people have thrown at you to get you to understand. But agreed, this is not going anywhere.
Can you read?
…I can read just fine. I have no idea what your point is. Did YT expressly authorize you to download videos?
Yes, by allowing you to download the video file to the browser. This snippet of legal terms didn’t really reinforce any of your points.
But it actually is helpful for mine. In legalese, downloading and storing a file actually falls under reproduction, as this essentially creates an unauthorized copy of the data if not expressly allowed. It’s legally separate from downloading, which is just the act of moving data from one computer to another. Downloading also kind of pedantically necessitates reproduction to the temporary memory of the computer (eg RAM), but this temporary reproduction is most cases allowed (except when it comes to copyrighted material from an illegal source, for example).
In legalese here, the “downloading” specifically refers to retrieving server data in an unauthorized manner (eg a bot farm downloading videos, or trying to watch a video that’s not supposed to be out yet). Storing this data to file falls under the legal definition of reproduction instead.
That is not what “expressly” means. “Expressly” means they’ve delivered you personal permission to download videos. Add this to the slew of words you don’t understand.
You physically cannot download files to a browser. A browser is a piece of software. Downloads are stored on your local storage device.
Except the part where it said downloading videos is against their terms of service? Which was my only point?
This is such a wild conversation and ridiculous mental gymnastics. I think we’re done here.
Did you completely fail to read the part “except where authorized”? That bit of legalese is a blanket “you can’t use this software in a way we don’t want to”.
Ah, you just have zero clue what you’re talking about, but you think you do. I can point out exactly where you are on the Dunning-Kruger curve.
Hilarious coming from you, who has ignored every bit of information people have thrown at you to get you to understand. But agreed, this is not going anywhere.