Site Policy?

[Kyle Matthews]

With regards to Flickr and downloading someone's photo, Flickr allows you to set the copyright on the material published there. You could very easily be violating some random guys copyright if you pirate one of those images.

For this, I was referring to this button:

But downloading copyrighted photos isn't any more illegal than downloading anything else copyrighted is it not? Which in reality are all legal aren't they? Isn't it when you redistribute the material for personal or business gain when it becomes illegal? If this is the case then I don't see a reason to ban pandora downloader.

Yes, it is quite different. Again, I'm not an expert on copyright law, although we base many of our policies on the experiences we've had and the legal matters we've dealt with in a decade of running forums.

Also I found nothing to support that the majority of the content on youtube Is user created. Even so the creators still hold copyrights. Regardless of who it is

Ha, then you didn't look far.

[djaquapimp]

Yes, it is quite different. Again, I'm not an expert on copyright law, although we base many of our policies on the experiences we've had and the legal matters we've dealt with in a decade of running forums.

We are both kind of wrong on this. The DMCA is very clear that downloading or redistribution of any copyright material is illegal without the right holder's permission. So this goes back to downloading copyrighted photos is illegal, which makes instahancer & protube no different than pandora downloader. If you guys truly care about protecting copyright holders I don't see why you would continue to allow them

Ha, then you didn't look far.

If it's not that far, show me....

And even if its true the users still own the copyright and have to give permission to download or redistribute

[catstide]

My popcorn is getting as stale as this conversation.

[Kyle Matthews]

We are both kind of wrong on this. The DMCA is very clear that downloading or redistribution of any copyright material is illegal without the right holder's permission. So this goes back to downloading copyrighted photos is illegal, which makes instahancer & protube no different than pandora downloader.

Again, I am not a lawyer, nor do I make claims to any expertise on this. However, I would fully disagree with you here. Downloading images from Flickr is, in fact, encouraged on many of their photos. Same with Facebook. Same with Instagram photos on Facebook.

Now, if I was downloading those and then putting them up for sale on my site or something, that's a different thing. However, I don't think that's the case with tools like you mentioned (which are generally for - hey, nice picture, I'd like to save that to my phone).

I'm not sure what your end goal is, but our policy isn't changing in those regards.

[djaquapimp]

Again, I am not a lawyer, nor do I make claims to any expertise on this. However, I would fully disagree with you here. Downloading images from Flickr is, in fact, encouraged on many of their photos. Same with Facebook. Same with Instagram photos on Facebook.

Now, if I was downloading those and then putting them up for sale on my site or something, that's a different thing. However, I don't think that's the case with tools like you mentioned (which are generally for - hey, nice picture, I'd like to save that to my phone).

I'm not sure what your end goal is, but our policy isn't changing in those regards.

The dmca is CLEAR that unauthorized copying or reproduction of copyrighted material is unlawful, whether or not you are selling it, it is against the law. Since Instagram does not natively allow downloading some users are expecting some sort of basic protection from people downloading their photos if they don't want them too. This is called "Unauthorized access" and it's against the law & written in the Legislation. What makes it unauthorized? The fact that Instagram does not provide those tools natively. This same argument applies to protube & Yourtube as well bc even if what you claim is right and YouTube is mostly user created content (still no proof) the users still hold the copyrights and have to be ok with you copying it to your pc otherwise it is "unauthorized access"

The DMCA:

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

Flickr has the option to disable downloading

Facebook's terms of service require that you get consent from any user you collect any information from (applies to photos)

Do you not see where this is bias? You easily blow off the rights of YouTube & Instagram users while going the extra mile to protect software developers? While the only reasoning you've given is YouTube being mostly user created content? Which, again, doesn't matter bc they still own the copyright and have to give you the ok to download it. So are the users rights less important to you? Seems like anyone that's not a dev doesn't get much priority as far as copyright protection from here...

I think based on current policy protube, Yourtube, instahacer & anything similar should all be banned. Otherwise it looks very much like you're only willing to protect devs in the iPhone scene.

[Kyle Matthews]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're frustrated about, and as I said am not a lawyer. We're just going round in circles, and I'm not sure what your end goal even is.

[djaquapimp]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're frustrated about, and as I said am not a lawyer. We're just going round in circles, and I'm not sure what your end goal even is.

If you read it all, and carefully you'll know exactly what my goal is....

I want you to provide the same
Protection for the copyright holders on YouTube & Instagram that you are willing to provide the devs. I've given you plenty of logical reasons to ban these tweaks based on why you've banned other tweaks. Until you do so this seems very much like you are being biased and only willing to protect devs. Is it money?

Just because you are not a lawyer means you can't read legislation written in English?

I don't see how you can sit here and stand up for protube when it's not any better morally or legally than pandora downloader. But I guess you are just gonna plead the 5th huh? Nevermind all the proof I've showed you? Beside YOU know very well protube is on the same page as these other tweaks you've banned, I don't know why you are insisting you don't...

Are you Just not going to address the fact that you don't seem to care much about other people's rights, only devs??! THIS IS A DOUBLE STANDARD! The rules are not applying to protube in the same way they apply to pandora downloader...

[Kyle Matthews]

Of course all our decisions in the repo are based on personal judgment based on our experiences.

Semaphore asked us about hosting Pandora Jelly, his version of a Pandora downloader, which is a great implementation. Currently, we aren't comfortable hosting it as the legality is gray. This is simply a personal decision. For other Pandora downloaders (and when people stream copyrighted TV shows, etc, for that matter), we've made that same decision.

Yes, we feel there's a difference between copyrighted, licensed material and user-generated shared content on the web. And we definitely feel that content is theirs as well (we would never allow paid redistribution of it, etc). If you don't, very well, we respect that opinion. Our current standing is echoed quite a bit on the web, and while it's not a "set in stone" feeling, we feel fine about it. Perhaps that would change at some time, sure.

I suppose I'm not sure what the repeated claims about "only devs" rights matter even means? This is baseless and baiting as far as I'm concerned (and really, I'm not sure why is even necessarily a public discussion - this has grown to more accusatory than public discussion). We reject most packages which stream copyrighted TV shows, we reject the Pandora app you're referring to (with regards to the musical artists who pursue and own copyrights), we disallow piracy on the site (developers - both iOS and PC), we reject copied work (other users on the site), we mitigate arguments on the site (basic users), and for the most part are all about sharing and keeping everyone feeling fair play is involved.

If you have a party who is hurt about something we've done, please forward them to my email (contact link at bottom of page) and I'd be happy to discuss. Right now I just don't see where this conversation is going and the vague comments of us not caring about rights, etc, are simply not true and over-dramatic.

And no, I don't feel personally downloading a photo from Instagram (which Facebook offers as a free option - Screen Shot 2013-03-06 at 12.16.27 PM.png) is violating the user's copyright.

Anyway, I appreciate your opinion, but feel fine about our decisions.

[djaquapimp]

Yes, we feel there's a difference between copyrighted, licensed material and user-generated shared content on the web. And we definitely feel that content is theirs as well (we would never allow paid redistribution of it, etc). If you don't, very well, we respect that opinion. Our current standing is echoed quite a bit on the web, and while it's not a "set in stone" feeling, we feel fine about it. Perhaps that would change at some time, sure.

But that's just the thing, YouTube isn't just for "user-generated shared content" and if they wanted people to have the option to download the videos they would give the users control over it!

Many record studios use youtube as a way to get their music out. Upcoming artist do as well and I don't know of many music videos that AREN'T on YouTube. Your decision blatantly disregards the rights of all those people bc there are some ways to use it legally. If that's the logic then shouldn't appsy** be allowed? It has some ways to use legally...

[Kyle Matthews]

Very well, I will pursue that further by consulting some outside parties.

[Lionkid7]

Dear staff,

your PRIVACY STATEMENT link is dead. Can you update this or post it here as I am interested to see it?

This link redirects me to your forum:

http://modmyi.com/privacy-policy.html

[Lionkid7]

Hello?

[Cowboy]

Sent it up to the admins

[Kyle Matthews]

Sure! It'd been buried on our Wiki (hadn't looked at it since we started in 2007), so I posted a new one here!