[NMDaniel]

That's not piracy. Youtube is sending you packets, out of their own choice. It's my own right to save those packets(without re-distributing) them and watch them in any form I like.

Playing in the background is not a "feature", it's a basic device capability, the fact that YouTube went out of their way to prevent it does not make it right, imagine if the browser client had stopped playing when you went out of focus - that'd be completely unacceptable. The fact that somehow this is accepted on smartphones probably says more about consumers lack of technological competence and awareness (and maybe historical reasons, as earlier versions of Android/iOS didn't have proper multi-tasking)

[izacus]

In most cases (my experience comes from working in broadcast industry but not specifically YouTube), those restrictions are there due to creators wanting to be paid for background playback (this is in 99% cases for music, where not adding this restriction would essentially make creators and the might copyright holders unpaid).

So bypassing the wishes of copyright holder / creator and getting the content for free is pretty much textbook definition of piracy.

Now, we can debate whether piracy is ethical in some cases (and I think it is in many cases, especially due to how cancerous the copyright lobby is these days). But let's not pretend that having a service provider say "hey, pay us 10$ a month for this feature" and then making an app that gives that paid feature for free is some kind of right.

[noisem4ker]

With Android, I believe you could always run anything you wanted in the background, provided you had enough memory. Starting with versions 5-6, restrictions have been put in to prevent abuses and battery draining with the user unaware of it. The two OSs converged towards a mean point from opposite directions in this case.

[kevin_thibedeau]

They're inconsistent. On Firefox Android you can't play in the background using the mobile site but if you switch to the desktop site all of a sudden background play starts working.

[noisem4ker]

That's because Google deliberately prevents background playback on mobile devices, bringing mobile browsers down to the same level of the YouTube app using shady JavaScript APIs. This add-on should fix it: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/video-backgro...

[VikingCoder]

No, that's not how any of this works.

Google has terms of use on their service.

You are violating those terms of service.

This is completely cut and dry.

[frenchy]

> Google has terms of use on their service.

> You are violating those terms of service.

That's not what piracy means, and that's not how the law works. If I state that the terms of service of reading this comment are that you must hop on one leg for the rest of your life, and you continue to walk on two, you won't be violating any laws.

[VikingCoder]

I didn't say you're violating laws (but you may well be violating DMCA sections), I said you're violating terms of service. The expectation could be that they halt your use of the service, block access to their other service, and may disable your account.

OP claimed, "It's my own right to save those packets(without re-distributing) them and watch them in any form I like." That is not accurate. He doesn't magically GAIN COPYRIGHT over content, just because he downloaded it. His use MAY be covered by Fair Use Laws, but it may also still be a violation of YouTube's Terms of Service.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Google is willfully sending the data. If they want stricter access controls it's their job to implement them. TOS isn't a binding contract since one side never gets a chance to negotiate terms.

[VikingCoder]

Yes, and if they start identifying Google accounts that share the IP of a device violating YouTube TOS and disabling those accounts, some people will be very sad.

They should at least consider the possibility. Go in with open eyes, so to say.

This story comes to mind:

https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/239728-google-suspends-ac...

[heavyset_go]

> Yes, and if they start identifying Google accounts that share the IP of a device violating YouTube TOS and disabling those accounts, some people will be very sad.

If this happens, even more people will take their eggs out of Google's basket. I've already migrated my email to another provider and use Searx[1] for search.

[1] https://github.com/asciimoo/searx

[NMDaniel]

Nowhere did I imply that I'd gain copyright over the content.

What's the difference between downloading and streaming a video? It's OK for the bytes to stay in main memory/network cache, but not in HDD? Would taking a memory dump of the RAM break their TOS?

[VikingCoder]

Yes, you did imply that you'd be able to copy the content how you like, when you said,

"It's my own right to save those packets(without re-distributing) them and watch them in any form I like."

YouTube lets you rent movies for 48 hours.

You download a movie. You then claimed you can watch the movie in any form you like. Such as, later than the 48 hours.

[NMDaniel]

Sorry, I wasn't aware that YouTube lets you rent movies, I was mostly speaking about normal clips that anyone can watch for free.

[NMDaniel]

Assuming this is true(that there's a clause against viewing YouTube with a third party client), then they're free to ban users like me from their service(and suffer the PR backlash), that doesn't mean that breaking that clause is unethical or illegal(I'm not from the US, we don't have draconian internet laws here)

[VikingCoder]

You're correct that it doesn't prove that it's unethical.

It just also is unethical. Cheers.

[toohotatopic]

Which part of the terms does it violate?

[VikingCoder]

https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms#ad6952fd3c

Under the heading, "Permissions and Restrictions":

> The following restrictions apply to your use of the Service. You are not allowed to:

> 1. access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service; or (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and, if applicable, the respective rights holders;

> 2. circumvent, disable, fraudulently engage with, or otherwise interfere with any part of the Service (or attempt to do any of these things), including security-related features or features that (a) prevent or restrict the copying or other use of Content or (b) limit the use of the Service or Content;

> 3. access the Service using any automated means (such as robots, botnets or scrapers) except (a) in the case of public search engines, in accordance with YouTube’s robots.txt file; or (b) with YouTube’s prior written permission;

[ativzzz]

The users using 3rd party apps don't violate any of these terms (I'm sure you could argue it both ways depending on the specific legal terms depending on the context; IANAL). The app itself is probably violating some of these terms, but for the end users, they are not doing any of the things described, they are just using the app.

I think this is just one of those cases where copyright/IP law moves too slowly compared to the technology it tries to cover.

[VikingCoder]

I'm sorry, but a plain English reading of those Terms and Conditions shows that any users using 3rd party apps violates the terms.

They are "accessing ... part of the Service or Content [without being] expressly authorized."

To make it concrete, as an example, a user using youtube-dl is violating the terms. Not the makers of youtube-dl.

[ativzzz]

> They are "accessing ... part of the Service or Content [without being] expressly authorized."

Are they though? AFAIK, law is very pedantic, and technically speaking, a human is physically incapable of accessing Youtube; we use tools to do so. We use some kind of software to access youtube.com, in this case, we are using an app that accesses youtube.com and relays the content on that page back to us. Similar to say, using Chrome or Firefox to access youtube.com and relay the contents on the page back to us.

Note, the APP accesses youtube.com, not the user. The app is (potentially) in violation, the user using the app is not. In fact, the user may not even know that the app is actually accessing youtube. Again, IANAL and I'm sure this is argued both ways, but I'm just saying this is an interpretation of the terms.