Could files downloaded from Youtube and Tumblr harm Mac?

[Tamirom]

I'm putting old files to fresh Mac and on one external drive, there is bunch of video files I downloaded from Youtube and Tumblr at one point few months ago.

Would it be safe to put them to fresh Mac or could those files be harmful? There didn't seem to be anything bad with them before, but as this is fresh Mac I'm more careful now.

Should I keep them away from fresh mac just in case?

 

[Phil in ocala]

Are you joking? Are you fearful a trojan virus is lurking in an mp4 video file????

 

[Tamirom]

Are you joking? Are you fearful a trojan virus is lurking in an mp4 video file????

Well obviously I don't know so I'm asking. Could there be something like that in mp4 then?

 

[Michael Scrip]

Just curious... how are you "downloading" videos from YouTube? There is no download button.

So you're using some 3rd-party downloader site, right?

I'm not sure they could inject some malware into the file... but it's something to be aware of.

 

[Tamirom]

Just curious... how are you "downloading" videos from YouTube? There is no download button.

So you're using some 3rd-party downloader site, right?

I'm not sure they could inject some malware into the file... but it's something to be aware of.

I used this.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/download-youtube/
Not any more. Heard downloading is not exactly legal so kicked the add-on out.

 

[casperes1996]

Not any more. Heard downloading is not exactly legal so kicked the add-on out.

The rules on this are blurry and depend on where you are from, what type of content it is, and what you do with the content.
A downloading tool could in theory inject malware into the files, yes. But your files are perfectly safe, I assure you. A 100% money back guarantee.

 

[Tamirom]

The rules on this are blurry and depend on where you are from, what type of content it is, and what you do with the content.
A downloading tool could in theory inject malware into the files, yes. But your files are perfectly safe, I assure you. A 100% money back guarantee.

Live in Europe, use it only for myself - mostly music files (not the big stars)

OK, thanks! I was hoping it had been well known tool and not suspicious garbage. The likelihood of Youtube or Tumblr videos themselves being infected already is kinda zero?

And I can safely put them to fresh drive?

 

[casperes1996]

Live in Europe, use it only for myself - mostly music files (not the big stars)

OK, thanks! I was hoping it had been well known tool and not suspicious garbage. The likelihood of Youtube or Tumblr videos themselves being infected already is kinda zero?

And I can safely put them to fresh drive?

For music it's illegal unless the author permits it. For YouTubers making music, it takes away their revenue stream if they use ads (if they don't you're probably morally in the right), for pros that are uploaded to YouTube by someone else in the first place, I'd say it's more morally correct to download the video than to assist the person who uploaded it to YouTube in the first place, but it's still objectionable since the creators don't get any of the revenue. However, legally speaking, it's ok to download them, since in that case it's the uploader and not the downloader breaching the law. There are YouTubers who make content specifically meant to be downloaded, such as effects on green backgrounds for video editors (have used some myself)

I don't know the tool, but I know two other tools that I use for downloading videos (all legally and for fair use), and they're both trusted. Looking at it, I have no reason to believe your tool isn't either. Since the videos on YouTube and Tumblr reside on Google's and Tumblr's servers, them being infected is a risk I'd call almost less than 0. Think about it, a malicious file being uploaded to Google's servers, spreading and infecting all og Google? I'm sure they'd like to avoid that, and thus make sure no such thing happens. Of course with computers there's always a risk, but this one is minimal at most.

Yep.

 

[Tamirom]

For music it's illegal unless the author permits it. For YouTubers making music, it takes away their revenue stream if they use ads (if they don't you're probably morally in the right), for pros that are uploaded to YouTube by someone else in the first place, I'd say it's more morally correct to download the video than to assist the person who uploaded it to YouTube in the first place, but it's still objectionable since the creators don't get any of the revenue. However, legally speaking, it's ok to download them, since in that case it's the uploader and not the downloader breaching the law. There are YouTubers who make content specifically meant to be downloaded, such as effects on green backgrounds for video editors (have used some myself)

I don't know the tool, but I know two other tools that I use for downloading videos (all legally and for fair use), and they're both trusted. Looking at it, I have no reason to believe your tool isn't either. Since the videos on YouTube and Tumblr reside on Google's and Tumblr's servers, them being infected is a risk I'd call almost less than 0. Think about it, a malicious file being uploaded to Google's servers, spreading and infecting all og Google? I'm sure they'd like to avoid that, and thus make sure no such thing happens. Of course with computers there's always a risk, but this one is minimal at most.

Yep.

Thank you for well worded and thorough reply.

 

[casperes1996]

Thank you for well worded and thorough reply.

Glad to help

 

[KALLT]

However, legally speaking, it's ok to download them, since in that case it's the uploader and not the downloader breaching the law.

This is false. Uploading and downloading are two independent copyright violations and they are permeating. If you upload someone else’s work without permission, anyone who downloads it from you will also infringe the copyright holder’s rights. Downloading is only allowed insofar you have permission to do so. On YouTube, video pages have a section about this and you should always check that licence.

I know two other tools that I use for downloading videos (all legally and for fair use)

Keep in mind that ‘fair use’ is a doctrine in US law only.

 

[Toutou]

Keep in mind that ‘fair use’ is a doctrine in US law only.

Works the same way here. (Czech Republic, central Europe). Downloading is totally legal.

 

[KALLT]

Works the same way here. (Czech Republic, central Europe). Downloading is totally legal.

It cannot be ‘totally legal’, because it is in violation of EU copyright law. This exact question has been settled a couple of years ago by the Court of Justice. Whether or not this is actually enforced in your country is of course a different matter.

 

[casperes1996]

This is false. Uploading and downloading are two independent copyright violations and they are permeating. If you upload someone else’s work without permission, anyone who downloads it from you will also infringe the copyright holder’s rights. Downloading is only allowed insofar you have permission to do so. On YouTube, video pages have a section about this and you should always check that licence.

Hm. Now granted, I haven't studied law, but I know for a fact that it's at the very least legal in Denmark – Morally objectionable as ****, but legal with certain limits.

Keep in mind that ‘fair use’ is a doctrine in US law only.

Pretty sure we have something similar in Denmark. Doesn't work exactly the same way, but fairly similarly.

It cannot be ‘totally legal’, because it is in violation of EU copyright law. This exact question has been settled a couple of years ago by the Court of Justice. Whether or not this is actually enforced in your country is of course a different matter.

Didn't know about that. In relation to my above two statements about Denmark, may be that we're different on this, since we have an opt-out from law and home affairs in the EU. Voted whether to keep it or not a while back, and since we kept it, we're being phased out of EuroPol

 

[KALLT]

Hm. Now granted, I haven't studied law, but I know for a fact that it's at the very least legal in Denmark – Morally objectionable as ****, but legal with certain limits.

Pretty sure we have something similar in Denmark. Doesn't work exactly the same way, but fairly similarly.

There are exceptions to copyright restrictions, such as making a private copy or using parts for criticism and review. Private copying is were the blurriness was, but hence we know that private copying presupposes a lawful source to make a copy from, which means you still have to look at the licence. Fair use in US law has a much wider scope than this.

Didn't know about that. In relation to my above two statements about Denmark, may be that we're different on this, since we have an opt-out from law and home affairs in the EU. Voted whether to keep it or not a while back, and since we kept it, we're being phased out of EuroPol

Denmark has no opt out for this. Denmark is also a signatory to the WIPO Copyright Treaty itself, like any other EU member state. This obligation ultimately originated in that treaty.

 

[casperes1996]

There are exceptions to copyright restrictions, such as making a private copy or using parts for criticism and review. Private copying is were the blurriness was, but hence we know that private copying presupposes a lawful source to make a copy from, which means you still have to look at the licence. Fair use in US law has a much wider scope than this.

I see. This is what I was talking about though . How much wider does Fair Use stretch, cause I thought this was roughly the extend of that too.

Pretty darn sure that there was a ruling here once, where some guy in court argued that he hadn't breached the law downloading some torrented film or whatever, because he had no way of knowing the content wasn't legally distributed by the owner through the torrent, and the uploader got a sentence, whilst the downloader went off scott free. That's what I referred to when I said downloading was legal but uploading wasn't. Because whilst he was still taken to court for it, it's easy to argue "How was I to know?", and apparently that worked, and you could call residence.

Denmark has no opt out for this. Denmark is also a signatory to the WIPO Copyright Treaty itself, like any other EU member state. This obligation ultimately originated in that treaty.

Ah, yes, fair enough. In that case, I have been educated . Thank you.

 

[KALLT]

Pretty darn sure that there was a ruling here once, where some guy in court argued that he hadn't breached the law downloading some torrented film or whatever, because he had no way of knowing the content wasn't legally distributed by the owner through the torrent, and the uploader got a sentence, whilst the downloader went off scott free. That's what I referred to when I said downloading was legal but uploading wasn't. Because whilst he was still taken to court for it, it's easy to argue "How was I to know?", and apparently that worked, and you could call residence.

This is a matter of enforcement and civil procedure, as I mentioned above. It can certainly be true that it is practically impossible to pursue copyright infringement in court due to lack of evidence. But the principle underlying copyright of digital media is at least fairly clear in that respect. I happen to know that the Netherlands, one of the respondents in one of the ECJ cases, has a similar obstacle. There is no practical course of action for pursuers there, because courts will not easily grant injunctions against ISPs to obtain contact details belonging to an IP address. As a result, it is very hard to bring civil proceedings against a torrent downloader.

 

[casperes1996]

This is a matter of enforcement and civil procedure, as I mentioned above. It can certainly be true that it is practically impossible to pursue copyright infringement in court due to lack of evidence. But the principle underlying copyright of digital media is at least fairly clear in that respect. I happen to know that the Netherlands, one of the respondents in one of the ECJ cases, has a similar obstacle. There is no practical course of action for pursuers there, because courts will not easily grant injunctions against ISPs to obtain contact details belonging to an IP address. As a result, it is very hard to bring civil proceedings against a torrent downloader.

Makes sense. Thanks for the info

 

[ApfelKuchen]

While there will never be agreement on what is "legal" or not under copyright, the basic principle is that the government grants property rights to the copyright owner, and its up to the copyright owner to enforce its rights. If the copyright owner takes someone to court, the decision is generally specific to the circumstances of that one case - it generally doesn't set a broad precedent (although there are, of course, certain cases that have set precedents). So, it's unlikely there can ever be a definitive answer to "What's legal?"

Copyrights are generally not sold outright - people get licenses to use the copyrighted material under specific terms and conditions. Those terms and conditions can differ dramatically from one license to the next, so a violation in one case may not be a violation in another. And if the law allows the consumer to make copies for "convenience" or backup, you can bet the copyright owner has factored that into their price.

As a broad principle, I'd have to say that if the copyright owner (or their representative, in the case of YouTube) takes steps to prevent the saving of a file from a web page (or copy protects a DVD), it's a pretty good statement of their intent and desires (and a reading of the terms and conditions will almost undoubtedly back that up), little different than a homeowner placing a lock on a door. Sure, you may be able to remove the lock with little effort, but "He should have done a better job of protecting it" is not a valid legal defense.

The economic model at YouTube is pay-per-view/stream (advertisers pay YouTube, YouTube shares revenue with creator). If views can't be counted (because they're being done offline), then there's no payment for that view. One can pretty well assume that YouTube and the content creator consider offline viewing to be "illegal," since they aren't getting paid.

 

[casperes1996]

The economic model at YouTube is pay-per-view/stream (advertisers pay YouTube, YouTube shares revenue with creator). If views can't be counted (because they're being done offline), then there's no payment for that view. One can pretty well assume that YouTube and the content creator consider offline viewing to be "illegal," since they aren't getting paid.

Right. As someone who produces YouTube content, I'd obviously hate to know that my content was being effectively stolen in that way, but at the same time, there's essentially no difference here between a download and an ad blocker. Both prohibit payments to the content creator. And as far as I know, there's no legal problem using ad-blockers.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Right. As someone who produces YouTube content, I'd obviously hate to know that my content was being effectively stolen in that way, but at the same time, there's essentially no difference here between a download and an ad blocker. Both prohibit payments to the content creator. And as far as I know, there's no legal problem using ad-blockers.

I don't feel like taking out a magnifying glass and go over the YouTube T&C, but you may find ad blockers are addressed in some way. The ads could be considered part of the content stream, and modifying the content stream might violate the T&C... perhaps.

That's the thing about licenses. The copyright owner grants rights, they can define the terms of that grant just about any way they want, so long as the end user agrees.

Let's not confuse the possession of a tool that might be used to commit an illegal act, and the illegal act itself. You can have a key to someone's house; using it to feed the cat while they're on vacation is fine, using it to steal the owner's jewelry is not.

 

[KALLT]

And as far as I know, there's no legal problem using ad-blockers.

Well… that is a grey area. If the site’s terms of use stipulate that ads are an inseparable part of the offer, then you are potentially in breach of contract if you block them, particularly if you visit the website on a regular basis.

 

[casperes1996]

Let's not confuse the possession of a tool that might be used to commit an illegal act, and the illegal act itself. You can have a key to someone's house; using it to feed the cat while they're on vacation is fine, using it to steal the owner's jewelry is not.

Well, yeah, obviously true. But I assume we agree that you can get to the YouTube site, without even seeing that there are terms and conditions, right? And in that case, if you fanny about the site, with your adblockers, without knowing of the terms and even having never seen them or heard of their existence, surely that couldn't be seen as a legal violation, since you hadn't explicitly agreed to anything. YouTube would obviously have the right to kick you off the service, but I don't see how it could lead to legal action.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Well, yeah, obviously true. But I assume we agree that you can get to the YouTube site, without even seeing that there are terms and conditions, right? And in that case, if you fanny about the site, with your adblockers, without knowing of the terms and even having never seen them or heard of their existence, surely that couldn't be seen as a legal violation, since you hadn't explicitly agreed to anything. YouTube would obviously have the right to kick you off the service, but I don't see how it could lead to legal action.

Anything might lead to legal action, but no, it doesn't seem like this would. It would more likely be a justification for them using stronger methods to block the blockers. An ounce of prevention, and all that.