Worth noting is that YouTube was (and is) piracy in many cases
The former _may_ classify as copyright infringement. The latter definitely does not.
Yes
> and hurts the artists.
Evidence required.
If you're a content creator trying to build an audience, it definetly hurts when people already saw your content elsewhere.
To quote your ggp:
> [re-uploading videos] _may_ classify as copyright infringement. [downloading YouTube videos] definitely does not.
And your gp:
> [Downloading YouTube videos] violates YouTube's terms of service and hurts the artists.
And your parent:
> Evidence required.
So... why are we talking about re-uploading again as if downloading was the same thing?
If perfectly legal, permissible, expected and ethically justifiable behaviour hurts your bottom line, your business model is broken, not your customers.
A Facebook group will find a popular video on Youtube, then either edit out all identifying information or just remake the video, then post it to their group to get the views and ad revenue.
EDIT: For fuck's sake, this is true, and follows from WIPO Copyright Treaty into the Copyright Directive for the EU and whatever the US equivalent is. Breaching copyright as part of trade turns it into a criminal offence, merely breaching copyright for personal use is a civil tort.
That's why in the various bit-torrent legal cases people who torrent are sued for loss by companies in courts, while people who run businesses running torrent sites are prosecuted by law enforcement.
, because?
... only if you use the version of youtubedl that comes with the knife-wielding robot.
Depending on what country you live in.
Downloading that video (whether by watching it on Youtube or by using a tool to download the video to watch offline) is, if you don't have the permission of the rights holder another very clear copyright breach.
There's some narrow exceptions for free use, or public domain content.
I'm surprised you think it isn't. In what country would that be true?
Watching a video on Youtube is only lawful if the rights holder has given their permission. Here, the rights holder hasnt given their permission and isn't getting compensation, thus it's not lawful in Polish law.
It might be useful if you provided a cite the the Polish law that gives this exemption.
The person uploading the video is clearly breaching copyright, and if they monetise the video that becomes criminal in most of EU. But the person downloading the video is also breaching copyright, albeit not criminally.
Art 23 Ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych
> 1. Bez zezwolenia twórcy wolno nieodpłatnie korzystać z już rozpowszechnionego utworu w zakresie własnego użytku osobistego. (...)
> 2. Zakres własnego użytku osobistego obejmuje korzystanie z pojedynczych egzemplarzy utworów przez krąg osób pozostających w związku osobistym, w szczególności pokrewieństwa, powinowactwa lub stosunku towarzyskiego.
translated:
> 1. Free usage of the already published work for personal use is allowed without a permit of authors . (...)
> 2. The scope of personal use includes the use of single copies of work by a group of individuals in personal relationships, in particular blood relation, kinship or a social relationship.