[nadams]

I don't know what country you live in - but in the US it's pretty clear on the court's stance on scraping [1]. I'm not saying I agree with it - but that is the legal precedent.

> Although these are early scraping decisions, and the theories of liability are not uniform, it is difficult to ignore a pattern emerging that the courts are prepared to protect proprietary content on commercial sites from uses which are undesirable to the owners of such sites.

Straight from the youtube TOS [2]:

> Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the Service for that Content. You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.

It's apparent the RIAA that is also against it [3]. If you ask the RIAA - they will most likely say you did not purchase a legal copy of it - so therefore you shouldn't own a digital copy of it. Thus making it piracy.

It appears my original stance got lost - I'm not saying I agree with it - but these are the cold hard facts.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_scraping#Legal_issues

[2] https://www.youtube.com/t/terms

[3] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110208/01511613004/is-do...