Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.
Thread: Site Policy?
03-04-2013, 03:37 PM #21
03-04-2013, 04:10 PM #22
And even if its true the users still own the copyright and have to give permission to download or redistribute
Last edited by djaquapimp; 03-04-2013 at 04:14 PM.mod/edit links removed.
03-04-2013, 04:39 PM #23
My popcorn is getting as stale as this conversation.
The Following User Says Thank You to catstide For This Useful Post:
Kyle Matthews (03-04-2013)
03-04-2013, 05:22 PM #24
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.
03-05-2013, 12:15 PM #25
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.
Last edited by djaquapimp; 03-05-2013 at 12:30 PM.mod/edit links removed.
03-06-2013, 08:15 AM #26
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.
03-06-2013, 09:12 AM #27
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...
Last edited by djaquapimp; 03-06-2013 at 09:33 AM.mod/edit links removed.
03-06-2013, 10:17 AM #28
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.
Last edited by Kyle Matthews; 03-06-2013 at 10:21 AM.
03-06-2013, 10:31 AM #29
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...mod/edit links removed.
03-06-2013, 10:39 AM #30
Very well, I will pursue that further by consulting some outside parties.
04-30-2013, 03:58 AM #31
05-05-2013, 03:35 AM #32
05-05-2013, 07:13 AM #33
05-08-2013, 01:59 PM #34
The Following User Says Thank You to Kyle Matthews For This Useful Post: