Too little, too late for many of us, I expect. We switched to using MSE some time ago, which provided a way to avoid both the download button and other normal file-saving functionality showing up in the first place.
Ironically, the biggest problem with this wasn't the ability to download itself, because of course that was always available to those who chose to look for it in any major browser. The real problem in our experience was the customer perception that because an obvious download button had appeared, it was now OK to download and save content from video-based sites. Users, understandably enough, made no distinction between a site-provided facility and a browser-provided one when the change appeared, and just assumed the terms now allowed it.
I'm honestly surprised that no-one seems to have tried to sue Google over this one yet. It has upset a lot of people over the past few months, and in some cases it must surely have cost site operators a significant amount of real money.
The early cases were different in nature to what we're talking about here, and they also took place in a time when there was much less awareness of mass infringement and there were fewer legal protections for rightsholders against it. Any analogous case today would be tried in the context of the Internet, DMCA, EUCD, etc.
This is why video content websites suck. Getting in the way will only frustrate users.
In my country there is a legal right to copy audio and video content for your own consumption. We can download your video, play it on the TV in living room, save it to our phones and watch it in the train to work. And if your content is interesting enough, people will do so.
If your site were interesting enough, I'd probably write a quick Chrome extension that adds a big download button to save others the hassle of going through the developer tools.
Given that exists I'm ok hiding the download button so people don't accidentally download previews rather than the high-res version they actually wanted.
Once content has reached my computer, it is mine to do with as I wish and consume as I wish. If you choose to interfere with this, your site is BROKEN, and I and many others would not use it.
When I buy a book, I'm allowed to do a lot of things with it (read it, sell it, burn it) but I'm not allowed to do anything I please. Copyright limitations are a reasonable thing for society to extend to content producers. What protections should exist digitally, and how should they be enforced by software tools, is a reasonable thing to debate.
Hate to even invite the rabbit hole, but even on HN you will find many people who fundamentally disagree with your assumption that copyright itself is reasonable in the first place.
It is akin to the marijuana legalization movement in many ways - pot was always illegal, so it should always be illegal, and to question why it is illegal is to be unreasonable. Debate about sentencing, classification, possible medical use - possibly reasonable, but to question the fundamentals starts drawing on cultural and emotional ire and identity that starts breaking down reasonable debate.
Copyright to many works much the same way - especially when no new works have entered the public domain in the lifetime of the vast majority of the populace - it has always been there, thus even if you debate duration you assume it must remain because to question why it exists in the first place is, again, to be unreasonable.
That may well be true but in that case, the comment probably should have been "I oppose copyright because X and Y". Otherwise, it's hard to tell whether the commenter really was making a statement against copyright or simply being overly reductionist without realizing it.
People are perfectly entitled to disagree with the principle of copyright and to advocate for change. Heck, I'm a content creator in several different contexts and I have aggressively lobbied my representatives for changes towards a more reasonable and balanced copyright regime over many years.
But the fact remains that copyright is the law today, and encouraging users to break that law is apparently a consequence of what Google did. It's not unreasonable to debate the actual legal situation, not the legal situation that people who don't like copyright would prefer to exist.
We see this every day in the modern era where copyright is used to censor critics, prevent research (especially security research), and prevents more content from being created by locking up ideas for over a century
Copyright is a Negative for Society, and for Creators
What if you had to sign up to something, with agreed terms, before you were allowed to download that content? For example, is it OK to agree something is pay-per-view and pay for one viewing, but then exploit whatever technical loopholes are available to save it anyway?
I presume that they meant "do whatever you want with it" as in "consume it however they see fit, as many times and when and wherever they like", not including re-broadcasting publically etc.
And that idea was solidly cemented back in the days when VCRs were common - you had a right to record anything and watch it again whenever, wherever you liked.
Actually in many cases people didn't legally have the rights they thought they did even with VCRs, but it was prohibitively difficult to detect and penalise infringements so in practice that made little difference.
What you never had the right to do, even with a VCR, was something like borrowing a movie from your local video rental store, paying a lower rental price rather than a full purchase price for it, and then copying that movie so you could keep it after you returned the original cassette.
You're describing US law only, right? Because the rent-a-VHS-and-keep-a-copy thing is perfectly legal in many parts of the world. It'd be that way with BluRays too, except that there are laws now that prohibit the breaking of DRM systems.
Because the rent-a-VHS-and-keep-a-copy thing is perfectly legal in many parts of the world.
Where is this legal? I'm quite sure it would have been an explicit breach of the membership conditions for every video rental store I ever belonged to in the UK, for example.
More equivalent might be "an apple appeared in [your] house", but this falls apart since apples are physical, finite, and unique entities, unlike streams of bits.
From what I understand about copyright law, it has to do with use and distribution of content. As long as I'm not redistributing or using your data in my product, I don't think I'm breaking copyright. If I have a book and a copier, its no one's business if I make a copy of a book I own for my own use. No one is losing business. Its only an issue if I start trying to sell those copies, thus stealing business from the writer and publishers.
Respectfully, your understanding of copyright law is wrong almost everywhere, because the kinds of provisions that are relevant here are covered by international agreements to which almost all first world countries are signatories.
There are some jurisdictions that do have special private use provisions in their copyright laws that apply under some circumstances, which is probably the closest you'd find to what you're describing. If you're in one of those places then for you the situation might be different. However, even those often have significant strings attached, not least because they obviously undermine any alternative business models based on offering temporary access in return for a lower price.
As a case in point, the UK tried to add a much more limited set of personal use provisions to its copyright law not so long ago, after many years of reviews and consultations. They lasted just a few months before getting struck down at EU level because of those international agreements, and the government backed down rather than pick a fight.
I can appreciate where you're coming from. It's now in my computer and you don't get to reach in and control things on me.
But I'm not so sure that's actually fair and reasonable. If I rent you a VHS, once it's in your house, is it your right to consume as you wish? Do you get to make a copy to watch at a future date? Maybe I don't want that. Maybe the contract I make with you is that you can purchase a loan of this VHS to watch over the next few days.
Maybe when I host your favourite music videos, I don't want you copying to your disk to watch hundreds of times without seeing any ads.
Using the video analogy, your VHS player still has a record button. Video rentals discourage copying by showing anti-piracy notices. So perhaps websites should show notices like that too "Don't press download. You might break the law".
A lot of sites do have models along those lines. Think pay-per-view sporting events, Netflix-style subscription libraries, and so on.
The biggest problem here was that when Google suddenly moved the goalposts, a lot of users assumed it was now OK to download and save stuff anyway. They don't understand that it's a browser update they didn't know anything about that made the change, not the web site they're visiting.
A lot of people complain about moves to incorporate DRM as an official web standard, but it's the sites that haven't who got screwed on this one. It's rather disappointing to see so many people on HN apparently supporting the "I've got it now, it's mine whatever" attitude you'd expect on Slashdot. It's hardly the way to promote either useful new business models or businesses trusting their customers rather than slapping the strongest DRM they can find on everything.
Content creators (and their publishers) should have the right to specify licenses for their content.
You should have the right to enter into license agreements with them.
Including limiting what you're allowed to do with that content.
Under your regime there would be nothing wrong with me claiming I am Aviral Dasgupta and that everything you've posted at https://github.com/aviraldg and http://www.aviraldg.com/ are actually my work and you are the impostor.
Content creators (and their publishers) should have the right to specify licenses for their content.
That is an entirely different thing from requiring (or even expecting) third parties to reduce the functionality of their product to help enforce that license.
As I said in my very first comment here, the biggest problem in this case wasn't that the facility was available, it was that Google's change in the presentation of it was widely interpreted by users as implying that actually using that facility was authorised, regardless of the actual licence.
Is it though? DVD players conform to region code requirements.
Edit to add: I think people like me, who aren't content creators (not to any degree that anyone should care about), need to be careful about telling people who are content creators what they should and shouldn't be allowed to do to protect their content.
Is it though? DVD players conform to region code requirements.
And at the time DVDs were launched, many in hacker/geek/whatever circles were pretty horrified by this development. To me, it's more than a little alarming how rapidly we've normalised the idea that end users' devices should be obeying the wishes of content publishers rather than their owners.
And at the time DVDs were launched, many in hacker/geek/whatever circles were pretty horrified by this development.
And yet right here in this HN discussion there are numerous people openly defying the current legal and technological position, which is just going to promote more and stronger technical measures to limit how content can be consumed. For example, it's already hard to just buy a permanent copy of a lot of TV shows on disc any more. They're moving to online, streaming-only channels where it's harder to copy, and that's reducing choice even for legitimate paying customers.
To me, it's more than a little alarming how rapidly we've normalised the idea that end users' devices should be obeying the wishes of content publishers rather than their owners.
I agree, but it's also more than a little alarming how rapidly we've normalised knowingly breaking the law and/or explicit agreements with other parties and totally ignoring economics just because something is technically possible.
In what other circumstances would it be OK to make an explicit deal with someone, then totally renege on that deal and just say "Well, I don't think you really deserved what we agreed anyway"?
In what other circumstances would it be OK to knowingly break the law to someone else's cost and in the expectation of suffering no adverse consequences and just say "Well, I don't think this law is a good law so I'm not going to follow it"?
The everything-should-be-free culture of Generation Me isn't sustainable. Maybe the laws and economic models we're using today aren't the best way forward, but that doesn't mean we should support or condone totally ignoring them until we've got a better idea.
libdvdcss is also consider to be illegal for distribution in the US as it is circumvention tool in violation of DMCA
It is a legal gray area if a individual who obtains libdvdcss breaks the law by using it, however no software vendor can include it if they are a US Company
This is why VLC, Handbrake, and many other organizations that distribute it are very very clear they are not US Organizations and exist outside the Jurisdiction of US Courts
They can do anything they like to protect their content, at their own expense.
Again, that's an entirely different thing from trying to force a third party (who is receiving neither money nor the benefit of viewing the content) from going out of their way to enforce those protections (especially if it reduces the usefulness of their own product).
There's a big difference between "we have a good relationship so I'll do X" and forcing third parties to enforce those protections. Those content provides aren't required to distribute their product and once a proper framework is set up for their situation there's no reason other people can't use it.
Content creators should feel free to do as they please with their content. I, however, as a technologist am saying I will not do anything to help them build software that limits others freedoms, will encourage others not to do so as well, and to whatever degree possible, boycott them and those who help them.
I do believe in licensing though, so your comment motivated me to add a (permissive) license to my website. That's the only good use for it.
There was a time I believed something similar too, until I realised I haven't created anything worth protecting, so who am I to have an opinion on protecting content.
You've never owned a big chemical plant, so who are you to have an opinion on protecting chemical plants from environmental regulation?
Unless everyone is living on a different planet, some people will necessarily be affected by the consequences of the chemical plant's operations. Looking out for those people is reasonable.
You've never had an income over 100 million, so who are you to have an opinion on how that income should be taxed?
That's a different and actually quite a good question, from an ethical point of view. Answering it without resorting to arguments based on either greed or envy is surprisingly difficult, and almost certainly requires some exploration of both economics and philosophical views on the nature of modern society.
You've never had slaves, so who are you to have an opinion on protecting the property rights of slave owners?
That's more like the first question. The slaves are necessarily affected by that arrangement, and again looking out for them is reasonable.
Given that in the sort of cases we're talking about probably no-one needs to have access to any given content, the situation we're considering is actually closer to your second example than your first and third. And I'm not sure exploring the economics of content creation more thoroughly rather than making a superficial analysis is going to lead to the conclusions you want it to.
> That's a different and actually quite a good question, from an ethical point of view. Answering it without resorting to arguments based on either greed or envy is surprisingly difficult, and almost certainly requires some exploration of both economics and philosophical views on the nature of modern society.
It's actually not that hard: The concept of property itself is a social construct, so without a social norm that establishes property, you having an income of 200 million doesn't mean anything. If you simply claim ownership of something, but noone agrees with you, then you don't actually own it. If society grants you the advantages of this norm and enforces it for you, it's just as valid to partially revoke it where that is to the advantage of society at large. It would be completely arbitrary to say that everyone is obligated to help enforcing a norm that's to their own disadvantage and they should not have any say in it because the person profiting from it says so.
> Given that in the sort of cases we're talking about probably no-one needs to have access to any given content, the situation we're considering is actually closer to your second example than your first and third.
What does "need" mean? Does a slave need freedom? Or is that just a preference?
Is the ability to save and replay information sources under your own control (and as is explicitly exempted from copyright restrictions in quite a few places) just a luxury in a democracy?
Does a human need participation in culture?
In any case, you presenting those arguments already contradicts the idea that you only should be allowed to have an opinion on a norm if you profit from it.
> And I'm not sure exploring the economics of content creation more thoroughly rather than making a superficial analysis is going to lead to the conclusions you want it to.
The concept of property itself is a social construct, so without a social norm that establishes property, you having an income of 200 million doesn't mean anything.
I see what you're getting at, but I think you're missing something. What we're talking about here is a concept of legal ownership, which essentially means a recognised form of ownership that society will defend on the owner's behalf. The alternative to that, historically, is usually not everything being communal, but rather power resting with those wealthy or otherwise powerful enough to enforce their claims of ownership independently rather than relying on the state.
What does "need" mean? Does a slave need freedom? Or is that just a preference?
This one is easily argued on "veil of ignorance" grounds, I think.
Is the ability to save and replay information sources under your own control (and as is explicitly exempted from copyright restrictions in quite a few places) just a luxury in a democracy?
I don't think we're really talking about just being able to do these things under your own control, though for the record I challenge your claim about exemptions; I know of no jurisdiction where it is legal to copy content even for personal use when you've explicitly agreed not to as part of something like a PPV deal.
What we're really talking about in this sort of discussion is whether it's worthwhile for content creators to create and distribute new content at all. At present, it is, but in many cases that remains so only because of the customer base who do comply with the law and provide a solid economic foundation for doing the necessary work. Freeloaders benefit from the content but contribute nothing to support its creation, and if the legal environment were changed so that everyone could lawfully act as a freeloader, the economics would change radically. This is not to say that some other economic model to support creative work couldn't function as well or better than what we have today, but so far I don't think we've found one that does and I think it's quite clear that relying on voluntary donations alone does not.
In any case, you presenting those arguments already contradicts the idea that you only should be allowed to have an opinion on a norm if you profit from it.
I would think that common sense and common decency made it clear that everyone was entitled to an opinion on whatever subject they want, and however unpleasant anyone else might happen to find that opinion. What we're really talking about is how much weight or influence any given person's opinions should have on anything or anyone else, and I think the view that those doing the work from which many benefit should have more influence than those who are not contributing anything of value is at least a rational position to take.
What conclusion do I want it to lead to?
Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but you seem to be opposing the idea that the views of those who create the content should carry more weight than the views of those who merely benefit from the content's existence without contributing. In that case, economic arguments much like those you have just made yourself in favour of physical property rights would also tend to support strong IP rights that support the content creators in this debate.
> What we're talking about here is a concept of legal ownership,
Nope.
> The alternative to that, historically, is usually not everything being communal, but rather power resting with those wealthy or otherwise powerful enough to enforce their claims of ownership independently rather than relying on the state.
That's kindof a self-referential definition, isn't it? The power to defend property was with those who had the power and the property ... yeah, obviously?
All of that is rooted in social norms. What does it mean to have wealth? What does it mean to have power? Sure, if you have a gun, I guess you could say that that gives you power somewhat independent from social norms. But the moment you try to get someone else to use their gun to defend your property, they could potentially just ignore your request, and that would be the end of your power, and consequently of your property/of your wealth.
Power and property are granted by society, not an intrinsic property of the powerful or wealthy person. And that applies even to "communal property".
> This one is easily argued on "veil of ignorance" grounds, I think.
As can the equal say of everyone in deciding on copyright rules? That was kindof my whole point: The weight of your opinion should not depend on the position that you end up in in society, be it a slave, a slave master, a "content creator", or a "content consumer".
> I don't think we're really talking about just being able to do these things under your own control, though for the record I challenge your claim about exemptions; I know of no jurisdiction where it is legal to copy content even for personal use when you've explicitly agreed not to as part of something like a PPV deal.
Really, I am not sure how things map to modern technology and the business models/contracts it enables, and in any case, it's usually not just a blanket permission to make as many copies as you like, but there are quite a few options of what is in US law usually called "fair use":
Those exceptions usually exist for very good reasons, and are part of the rules that society decided to be a fair deal. Now, if modern devices/software intentionally don't implement the functionality that would enable people to make use of those exceptions (in addition to possibly illegal activity), that de facto takes away people's rights, which is why it's morally questionable: The software does not distinguish between a user exercising their right to, say, pull an excerpt from some video to create a political commentary on it, and another user illegally making a copy of a movie purely for entertainment purposes, it just enforces the wishes of the creator/platform.
> I think it's quite clear that relying on voluntary donations alone does not.
I am actually not that convinced of that, but well, sure, some things might be difficult to finance on that basis.
> What we're really talking about is how much weight or influence any given person's opinions should have on anything or anyone else, and I think the view that those doing the work from which many benefit should have more influence than those who are not contributing anything of value is at least a rational position to take.
I think you might have inadvertently changed the topic: TheSpiceIsLife's comment referred to how much weight their opinion should have in determining the rules of society (in this regard). Your argument doesn't really make much sense in that context, as valuation is subjective and exactly the subject of political discourse, and it doesn't make sense to say that the creator of some thing should be given special privileges because they themselves value their work highly--and if you base the decision instead on how the rest of society values their work, you have just found a confusing way to say that everyone should get equal say in what the rules ought to be.
Your argument makes sense as a principle for how the rules that are to be determined should distribute power, not so much for who gets the power to decide the rules in the first place.
For the record: I definitely strongly agree with everything Silhouette wrote.
And I'd like to say, my opinion hasn't changed. I still think creators should have fairly strong rights over what they create, and that my opinion on the matter carries less weight because I'm not part of the creator cohort.
I don't think conflating slavery and intellectual property in this context is helpful at all.
> And I'd like to say, my opinion hasn't changed. I still think creators should have fairly strong rights over what they create, and that my opinion on the matter carries less weight because I'm not part of the creator cohort.
In other words: You haven't understood a thing I wrote?
> I don't think conflating slavery and intellectual property in this context is helpful at all.
The implementation of region code silliness is enforced by only licensing CSS/DRM-relevant patents to hardware vendors that agree to restrict their customers in that way.
That's one of the reasons the industry insists on DRM technologies, even if broken, and tries to encumber them with as many patents as possible. It allows them to exercise control over the end-user experience.
Which Betamax case involved making permanent copies of material you had explicitly agreed to access on some temporary basis in return for payment? Because that's the situation that a lot of site operators and web developers have been upset about here. Not all video served from web sites is freely available. Some of it you have to pay for, and it's provided on a certain basis in return.
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
Time shifting a video is a protected fair use.
> temporary basis
...which can be time shifted without violating copyright.
> explicitly agreed
As for any contract that may exist, that's separate from copyright. It isn't Google's job to enforce terms to a contract between two other unrelated parties.
(a) Time-shifting doesn't imply a permanent copy that can be rewatched multiple times.
(b) Not everywhere has the same legal framework for copyright as the United States.
As for any contract that may exist, that's separate from copyright.
No, it isn't. The default position in most jurisdictions is that any copy of a protected work is infringing unless an explicit licence has been granted by the rightsholder. Lacking such a licence, there might be an argument about some implicit permission, or there might be some affirmative defence or the equivalent depending on your legal jurisdiction, but typically that only becomes relevant when the act of copying was infringing by default.
Such as a video tape? Perhaps in Sony Betamax format?
That's exactly what "time shifting" means.
> that can be rewatched multiple times
Yes, tools can be used in improper ways.
> Not everywhere has the same legal framework for copyright as the United States.
You can assume my comments are limited to US jurisdiction. I make no claim about other jurisdictions that are outside my knowledge, experience, and legal liability.
Technically, you might be entitled to retain that copy only for long enough to watch the programme at a different time, after which keeping it would be an infringement. I haven't checked whether US law follows that pattern, but it's essentially what a lot of jurisdictions seem to have settled on for that particular case.
Yes, tools can be used in improper ways.
Yes, and doing so may be illegal, and Google's actions here actively invited people to do so. Do you see the problem now?
You can assume my comments are limited to US jurisdiction.
OK, but even in the US it's not clear that Google's actions here were legal.
> Yes, and doing so may be illegal, and Google's actions here actively invited people to do so. Do you see the problem now?
A Betamax machine shows you a record button at all times. This invites people to record. This does not invite people to perform illegal actions. I don't see the problem.
Actually it probably did invite people to perform actions that were illegal in some places, but at that time I doubt the law anywhere was settled in that respect and presumably broadcasters or whoever held the rights didn't feel like bringing a case.
The current situation is different anyway because Google suddenly added this new button where it wasn't there before. In practice, this demonstrably left a lot of users assuming that it was a new feature of the sites they were using and not realising that it was their browser updating that had caused the difference. And that in turn meant users thinking it was now OK to download and keep stuff where previously it hadn't been. I have personally seen messages from users that demonstrate this, and if you look at the numerous comments on the browser issues that were raised, it's clear that many others have observed that result as well.
I don't blame the users for having that reaction. Most of them probably have no idea how to tell the difference between what their browser does and what a site does, and many probably don't even realise that Chrome updates itself without telling them in the first place.
Google, on the other hand, should have known better. The consequences of doing this were predictable, and unlike users it's not as if the Chrome dev team don't know how online video serving works. It's bad enough for web developers that there is little consistency among browsers in how video controls appear and the browsers keep moving them around in updates, but adding something like this was obviously going to lead to confusion and be a concern for a lot of sites serving video content.
First, copyright is a civil issue, not a crime. While recent law may[1] have made specific types of mass infringement a crime, in general copyright infringement isn't "illegal". It only makes you liable for actual and statutory civil damages. I suspect this is even true in most jurisdictions.
> it probably did invite people [...]
This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright aw and how the Betamax case affected it. The case wasn't about "inviting" improper actions. There was no disagreement that people could use Betamax to violate copyright. Just like how you believe Google should be guilty of something[2], the movie industry believed Sony should be guilt of copyright infringement.
The allegation was that they had a right to effective protection of their copyright monopoly which video tape technology could undermine. However the court disagreed after Sony proved there were "significant non-infringing uses" for a Betamax tape recorder. From the majority opinion:
>> "The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses ... one potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard, however it is understood: private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home. It does so both (A) because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing it for their programs, and (B) because the District Court's factual findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use..."
The fact that some people might use technology (Betamax, Google's button) to infringe copyright or break a contract isn't relevant, because that was not the primary, intended purpose of the technology. Because other, legitimate uses exist, the manufacturer of that technology is not liable.
I strongly suggest educating yourself a lot more about copyright and contract law actually work, because your arguments demonstrate a lot of misconceptions about copyright and fundamental errors about law in general.
> Google, on the other hand, should have known better
The only people that "should have known better" are the people that design their businesses to fundamentally rely on products they do no control or even have any contractual influence. Google will always be changing Chrome; expect that or find a way to remove that dependency.
[1] I'm not sure if it has been tested in court.
[2] Also, adding a save button to videos isn't tortious interference of a contract about renting videos either. Adding that button wasn't a tort ("wrongful act"), nor was it intended to affect a video rental business.
I'm well aware of the distinction between civil and criminal law. The word illegal literally just means "prohibited by law" and does not require a criminal act. If it has some more specific technical meaning where you are, that's your concern.
I'm also well aware of the landmark Betamax case. Leaving aside that it is specifically about US law, there were multiple fundamental details in that case that do not apply in this context, such as there being no likelihood of causing nonminimal harm to the potential market or value of the protected works, the time-shifting being described being used to watch a programme that could not be viewed live just once at a later time, and a significant likelihood of a substantial number of copyright holders not objecting to the action. None of these seem to fit my original question from the start of this discussion, which was simply "Which Betamax case involved making permanent copies of material you had explicitly agreed to access on some temporary basis in return for payment?" So the case you keep talking about does not appear to be relevant to the present discussion.
As for businesses knowing better, now a lot of them do, and the result is that they have redesigned their systems to prevent the undesired behaviour. However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect businesses to predict all possible future changes in browsers and to then expend resources dealing with changes that will predictably cause trouble. And again, I would refer you to the issue trackers for the browser, where it's clear that many other people take the same view.
> "Which Betamax case involved making permanent copies of material you had explicitly agreed to access on some temporary basis in return for payment?"
Copies on a hard drive are no more permanent than copies on a Betamax tape.
The browser has no idea if the content was intended to be temporary, or if there was payment. Plus something like cable TV fits that description too, and you're still allowed to record it.
Copies on a hard drive are no more permanent than copies on a Betamax tape.
And both are effectively permanent copies, at least until deleted, and as such both are potentially in violation of copyright law in many jurisdictions.
The browser has no idea if the content was intended to be temporary
Then maybe it shouldn't be actively inviting a user to download a permanent copy?
In many -- perhaps most -- jurisdictions, downloading and saving content off the Web will be an infringement of someone's copyright if not explicitly authorised, so the argument that the browser doesn't know the situation is weak.
And the potential for harm is pretty similar.
Do you really not see any potential for harm in inviting someone who agreed to temporary listening or viewing to save a permanent copy, in a way that is both highly visible and potentially confused with a facility provided by the site operator?
The only solution for site operators if that's the approach you want to take is to lock everything down as tight as possible with TPMs, causing extra work and costs for the site operator, potentially increasing security risks for the viewer, and removing any possibility of trust or turning a blind eye to minor cases that might have been useful for the viewer and tolerable for the site operator. As I've asked elsewhere in this discussion, how is any of that helping anyone?
The level of invitation, the level of harm, it's not that I don't see them, it's that they look exactly the same as you get with a Betamax machine. Insisting that a possibility of harm exists does not affect my point at all. And it's not a big risk, there's really no need to lock things down. Home taping never killed anything. If I had my way DRM on videos would be banned. It's not like it prevents piracy.
When Google introduced that button, I'm aware of some commercial sites that didn't use DRM and saw in the region of a 500% increase in the number of paying users grabbing whatever they could rather than paying for further views, continuing subscriptions, etc. Typically they soon implemented alternative methods of serving their videos, and the problem then disappeared again. It's a myth that such measures don't reduce piracy. They may or may not eliminate it completely, but piracy is not a binary problem and even eliminating a large amount of the casual piracy can be highly beneficial. Equally, even a significant incentive inviting casual piracy that was already possible but was not actually happening can be very damaging.
In England there are strict limitations on time-shifting. You're allowed to timeshift broadcast tv programmes, but only for a limited amount of time. (I think two weeks).
I don't think people time shifting at home was ever enforced in courts.
(I welcome any corrections. English copyright law isn't straight-forward).
if the button appears, the content is already available for download by the user. thus, chrome offering another option for consuming the content can be deemed as good usability.
the issues with your business model are completely separate from this feature. hiding features from users just because they are technically inept is ridiculous and has no place in open source software development and the Web Platform.
thus, chrome offering another option for consuming the content can be deemed as good usability.
It's not good usability to promote a function that was possible before but contrary to the terms of use and not widely used in practice, particularly in a way that misleads a significant number of users into thinking that it is now permitted use.
put up a paywall and switch to DASH.
That's exactly what a lot of sites have been doing for the past few months. Others have been going with full-on DRM. The open approach to the Web that you seem to value is dying in real time.
Unfortunately, that work meant wasting time and money updating infrastructure that could otherwise have been spent on providing more content. It meant dropping support for platforms that don't support the required technologies like MSE or EME, to the detriment of both users on those platforms and the site operators if they also lose some income. It meant removing the possibility of turning a blind eye to occasional downloads in cases like people wanting to watch something offline because they genuinely don't have a good enough Internet connection where they're going to be.
Exactly no-one won from this, and several groups have lost to varying degrees. How is this a good outcome, in any way?
https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/03/chrome-58-...
Too little, too late for many of us, I expect. We switched to using MSE some time ago, which provided a way to avoid both the download button and other normal file-saving functionality showing up in the first place.
Ironically, the biggest problem with this wasn't the ability to download itself, because of course that was always available to those who chose to look for it in any major browser. The real problem in our experience was the customer perception that because an obvious download button had appeared, it was now OK to download and save content from video-based sites. Users, understandably enough, made no distinction between a site-provided facility and a browser-provided one when the change appeared, and just assumed the terms now allowed it.
I'm honestly surprised that no-one seems to have tried to sue Google over this one yet. It has upset a lot of people over the past few months, and in some cases it must surely have cost site operators a significant amount of real money.