>By the same logic, some people would say even if you haven't directly paid for an artwork, so long as you've acquired it legally you gain the same rights. For example, if you record a broadcast TV show onto VHS, fast-forwarding over the adverts is fine. And if a web page is delivered with adverts, not displaying them is fine.
>Likewise, if you can legally view a music video on youtube, a version that strips out the video and adverts to leave only the audio track is just a transformation - and therefore fine.
That doesn't make sense. The license terms between purchasing a CD and watching a YouTube video are completely different. Just because you watch a Taylor Swift video on YouTube, due to what is laid out in the license terms, you do not get a perpetual license to view that content forever. This is different from a CD. Now how they enforce it is a different manner (aka DRM), but the license terms are explicitly different from a CD.
I don't see this a matter of "agreeing", but something fundamental for licenses to work. By your same logic, I could also argue that I can download the source code to GNU GCC, strip out all the GPL "nonsense", because since I acquired it for free I "gain" the same right to do whatever I want.
You might argue that "well you can strip the GPL if you don't redistribute it", however that is not what is happening in Streamus' case. Streamus is technically redistributing music that was originally licensed to play on YouTube with a given set of conditions under a new set of conditions. And if you are going to subvert a license that makes you no different than what Apple tried to do with Taylor Swift.
The license terms between purchasing a CD and watching
a YouTube video are completely different.
Yes, that's why I included the proviso "moral justification rather than the legal justification"
You might argue that "well you can strip the GPL if
you don't redistribute it",
Yes, in case I wasn't clear in my post I was thinking of someone ripping a CD and keeping the MP3s for personal use. Distributing the artwork to other people would be a different matter altogether :)
however that is not what is happening in Streamus'
case. Streamus is technically redistributing music
A streamus supporter would probably say streamus is analogous to a VCR manufacturer, or a website that provides links to pirated content without hosting the content themselves. That because the big file comes from a youtube server, youtube is doing the distributing.
Personally I've always found such arguments a bit disingenuous, but there's merit to them in some cases.
>Likewise, if you can legally view a music video on youtube, a version that strips out the video and adverts to leave only the audio track is just a transformation - and therefore fine.
That doesn't make sense. The license terms between purchasing a CD and watching a YouTube video are completely different. Just because you watch a Taylor Swift video on YouTube, due to what is laid out in the license terms, you do not get a perpetual license to view that content forever. This is different from a CD. Now how they enforce it is a different manner (aka DRM), but the license terms are explicitly different from a CD.
I don't see this a matter of "agreeing", but something fundamental for licenses to work. By your same logic, I could also argue that I can download the source code to GNU GCC, strip out all the GPL "nonsense", because since I acquired it for free I "gain" the same right to do whatever I want.
You might argue that "well you can strip the GPL if you don't redistribute it", however that is not what is happening in Streamus' case. Streamus is technically redistributing music that was originally licensed to play on YouTube with a given set of conditions under a new set of conditions. And if you are going to subvert a license that makes you no different than what Apple tried to do with Taylor Swift.