Hacker News Reader

Comment by jtbayly | Hacker News Reader

Is there something wrong with downloading videos to my computer?

Apple might think so! I had a popular YouTube downloader app for Mac OS and I spent a lot of time on a port for iOS, but it was rejected from the app store back in 2010. The app reviewer did call me on the phone to tell me -- in fact, she called twice, once to tell me that my app was going into an extended review, and then a few weeks later she called to tell me that my app had been rejected. When I asked what the reason was, she told me to check the review guidelines ("check them again now" she said) and lo and behold, they had added a new guideline about downloading media without explicit IP rights. Moving the goalposts, one app at a time!

Well if they called in 2010 they lost definitely can't do it now with the volume of apps.

No, it's more that it's easy to guess the likely cause here:

* a lawyer sends a DMCA request to Youtube

* a Youtube bot looks at the offending request and finds a user agent

* Kicks off automated warning to Apple bot

* Apple bot shuts down developer account

All that's really needed here is a bot to post these things to Twitter and HackerNews and then an API for the service bots to read the complaints and undo the action with a phony apology post

The requests the app makes would not be coming from "Apple". The rest of the scenario is plausible, but it wouldn't be bots it would be humans connecting the dots and sending a manual claim to Apple.

Personally I would say no but it does kind of depend. Tools like this do allow you to save copies of videos that weren't meant to be savable.

The dev's website includes a screenshot of it downloading a bunch of Disney material. That is not a wasp nest I want to shake.

Broadcast and cable TV wasn't meant to be savable, and then VCRs came out and courts decided that saving (time shifting) is absolutely fine. It doesn't in and of itself facilitate sharing.

If it breaks actual encryption (a la DeCSS) then yes, it oversteps.

But TV content stakeholders don't have much pull with convincing VCR manufacturers/distributors to stop supplying VCRs. Apple does clearly have the ability to affect the signing of software.

> If it breaks actual encryption (a la DeCSS) then yes, it oversteps.

I'd counter that if the audio and video get to your eyes and ears, then the content provider has already provided you a decrypted copy of the media and/or the instructions for how to decrypt.

If you had an arms' length valid agreement with the company where you agree not to retain the media, then that's different issue.

> If it breaks actual encryption (a la DeCSS) then yes, it oversteps.

Don't some jurisdictions have provisions that allow for technical workarounds in order to make backups?

Backups of your own physical media. Downloading videos on YouTube doesn't qualify.

> Tools like this do allow you to save copies of videos that weren't meant to be savable

It's actually computers that allow you to do this. I think this is why there's a war (of sorts) against general purpose computers: they enable you, the user, to do all sorts of things publishers didn't envision or want.

> Is there something wrong with downloading videos to my computer?

Nope. Creating a tool perceived by those with enough lawyers to be a “copy protection circumvention device” however does run afoul of the DMCA.

And platforms doing standing back flips to appease stupid legislation.

Reminds me of YouTube blocking Blender videos... had other reasons though, don't remember exactly, but it had to do with them not monetizing their videos and really, really bad support.

https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17347560

Basically they needed to enable monetization since [I assume] Google was taking a non-negligible loss by hosting all of their content for free.

If you think the legislation is stupid, blame the legislators. Companies have to abide by laws, even stupid ones.

They have to abide by them, not enforce them (unless a court order makes them). There's no law against distributing operating systems that allow running of programs that break the law.

Why does Apple care? It's none of their business.

Because Apple is the one that will be party to a lawsuit if it ever came to pass. One of the negatives of being gatekeeper is you're no longer protected by "safe harbor" provisions. And I have to imagine Apple has enough money to be worth suing, even if it's frivolous nonsense.

iTunes and Apple TV+?

So a re-hash of the old "audio tapes will kill the music industry" or "video tapes will kill cinema"?

Nobody here thinks that the law is a good idea or will do anything to protect any content industries. The fact is that despite being enormously stupid, it is still the law.

Yes, I know I'm preaching the choir here. My point is that with each advance in technology, established industry "actors" panic because they foresee their business will go bankrupt. Sometimes this panic is justified, but often it's not, or it's blown out of proportion.

It's not necessarily the law, either. Panicky industry heavyweights may lobby to make it a law, or try to confuse a given tech with copyright infringement, but "downloading videos" is not against the law.

Yep, the whole time they were focused on cassette tapes and Napster, the music industry completely missed the iPod/iTunes threat.

It's against the YouTube terms of service. One characterization of this software is that it is designed to violate the YouTube terms of service.

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

    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;"

- https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms

This doesn't really explain anything. Why is Apple enforcing YouTube's terms of service on a third-party application? Especially via a mechanism ostensibly designed to stop malware.

Is the Transmission torrent client next because it could be used to download copyrighted content?

It's right here in the App Store guidelines:

5.2.3 Audio/Video Downloading: Apps should not facilitate illegal file sharing or include the ability to save, convert, or download media from third-party sources (e.g. Apple Music, YouTube, SoundCloud, Vimeo, etc.) without explicit authorization from those sources. Streaming of audio/video content may also violate Terms of Use, so be sure to check before your app accesses those services. Documentation must be provided upon request.

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#int...

As to the why, because Apple could be sued by third parties for allowing this behavior for apps that Apple has vetted.

The app in question, Downie, isn't in the App Store. Why would it be subject to the App Store ToS?

Unfortunately

Reply on news.ycombinator.com