
Google closes bug as WONTFIX over Creative Commons license violations - DiabloD3
https://code.google.com/p/gdata-issues/issues/detail?id=2945
======
schoen
Is it clear that CC licenses require sites to make it clear how to save a copy
of a work? While there is certainly anti-DRM language in the CC licenses, is
there something specific in Google's implementation of YouTube that directly
conflicts with the provisions of the licenses?

(I support making it easier to save copies of things, but I'm not sure about
the license compliance theory.)

~~~
shawnz
By uploading a video to YouTube you are giving them a special license to
distribute the video. The license you choose in the video description doesn't
apply to them. The title is incorrect in saying there is any kind of violation
here.

~~~
schoen
Well, this is a reason why YouTube itself may not be liable (if its practices
were actually inconsistent with the CC license requirements), but a CC
licensor could still file takedown requests to YouTube or lawsuits against
another person who reposted a CC-licensed video on YouTube. If the CC license
didn't permit YouTube's practices, someone who's not the copyright holder
wouldn't have been entitled under the CC license to grant YouTube the license
they purported to.

------
dublinben
1\. If you want to download a CC licensed (or any) video from YouTube, use
youtube-dl.

2\. As commenter #8 points out, if you care about this sort of thing, use a
different platform. For example, Vimeo makes it incredibly easy to download
videos.

~~~
mthoms
1\. Downloading violates Youtube's TOS. So there's that.

2\. The argument is that Youtube shouldn't be using the CC name and licenses
at all if they are not going to adhere to the spirit of said licenses.

~~~
theli0nheart
> Downloading violates Youtube's TOS. So there's that.

If downloading videos violates YouTube's TOS, but YouTube is violating the
Creative Commons license by enforcing this aspect of their TOS, is this
restriction enforceable?

~~~
ProxCoques
Contract trumps copyright. That's how the publishing industry works.

------
andybak
Whilst I don't disagree with the sentiment, the post title is rather overblown
and inflammatory.

In case it gets modded it was "Google closes bug as WONTFIX over Creative
Commons license violations"

~~~
viraptor
Not changed yet. Sending out the dang signal!

------
jszymborski
That was rather dissmissive... not even a canned "for whatever reason, this
request is out of scope" message for the WONTFIX status.

------
cperciva
This is a non-story. CC licensing says that _the copyright owner permits you
to_ make copies of the content; it places no obligation on Google to help you
do this, or even to allow you to use their service to do this.

~~~
schoen
CC licenses are not neutral about downstream technical and policy
restrictions; see section (2)(a)(5)(B) of

[https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode)

It's not clear to me whether YouTube's policy definitely conflicts with that
section, but it seems plausible!

I think this is analogous to the way that distributing third-party GPL-
licensed software in the iTunes App Store may violate the GPL, which I think
is because of the provision that "[y]ou may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein", which
the App Store's policies do.

~~~
cperciva
_It 's not clear to me whether YouTube's policy definitely conflicts with that
section, but it seems plausible!_

It doesn't matter. If you upload a video to youtube, you're doing it under
_youtube 's_ terms of service, not under whatever license you may use for
distributing the video to other people. If I release a video publicly under a
license which says "if you distribute this video, you must pay me a million
dollars" and then upload it to youtube, it just means that there are now two
licenses -- not that youtube owes me a million dollars.

~~~
schoen
Sure, but plenty of people are also uploading _other people 's_ CC-licensed
works to YouTube, in which case a genuine legal conflict has been created.

Edit: (which doesn't mean YouTube is bound by the provisions of the CC
license, but does mean it doesn't have valid permission from the uploader or
copyright holder to display the works)

~~~
cperciva
Right. But that's no different from any other work being uploaded in violation
of copyright law; the process for that is "report the violation and Youtube
will take it down", not "Youtube should add a download link".

------
spullara
YouTube's license of the content (that you grant when you upload and host your
content there) is broader than the CC license extended to YouTube viewers. The
license Google has doesn't require them to allow downloads.

~~~
jonathankoren
The YouTube license doesn't trump the CC, it's in addition to it. Either way,
the CC doesn't say you have to allow downloads, just that if someone does get
the file they can "remix" it and you can't sue.

~~~
ProxCoques
That's false, I'm afraid. Enforced contract trumps copyright, and CC is no
exception. If it were the other way around, there wouldn't be a music,
recording or publishing industry.

~~~
jonathankoren
With respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about. If I have have
a copyright, then I can issue a license, without transferring copyright, and
more than one license can be applied in parallel.

------
random28345
I love how the comments reference the "users", when what's really important is
Google's customers.

If allowing use of CC licensed content helped _advertisers_ , it would
implemented post-haste.

------
Buge
Violations? I don't see any violations anywhere.

~~~
chc
The Creative Commons license specifies:

> _You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally
> restrict others from doing anything the license permits._

To my understanding, this is felt to be in conflict with the restriction on
downloading in YouTube's Terms of Service. I'm not an expert on open-source
licenses, but I think that's where the violation is believed to lie.

~~~
Buge
Interesting I see your point.

But the linked thread never says anything about the terms of service. It seems
odd to add a new point to an argument solely in the title of a HN post, when
the thing it links to never makes that point.

~~~
chc
The second comment in the linked thread mentions the TOS.

------
empressplay
I guess the point here is that if Google can't comply with the CC license
provisions (in letter _and_ spirit) they should change the YouTube uploader
option for CC to something more along the lines of "allow users to remix your
content through one of our applications", which is more in-line with the
truth.

------
fhood
Umm, Is the reason they closed the bug in the title? Wut? Super confused over
title.

~~~
uremog
The reason was not given in the WONTFIX flag. But really, youtube spends
considerable effort to make its videos hard to save.

