They provide a disclaimer at the top of the article:

DISCLAIMER: As some of you have pointed out in the comments, downloading personal copies of YouTube videos is not supported by the YouTube Terms of Service, which states:

“You may access User Submissions for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the YouTube Website. You shall not copy or download any User Submission unless you see a “download” or similar link displayed by YouTube on the YouTube Website for that User Submission.”

We want to stress that most of these tools do violate the ToS and that if you use them, you do so at your own risk. Also , if you’ve been tempted to download for a better browsing experience on the big screen, don’t forget YouTube has already got you covered on that with YouTube XL.

…

It’s interesting that there are so many applications available to help you download from YouTube, when there are very, very limited situations where you are allowed to do this according to the terms of service.

http://www.collidemagazine.com/

Here is their latest video of the week

http://www.collidemagazine.com/blog/index.php/1163/videos-of-the-week—8709

Ken, some good questions there. I personally think the using the creative commons licence is a good step for churches who wish to pass on their content for kingdom purposes.

I would highly recommend the resources Steve highlighted above. They are relatively cheap – even if sometimes they have an american slant.

Bottom line really is to educate each other and provide a clear path forward so everyone can know what the legal boundaries are. We also as Ken indicated need to honour the artist who created the work and we can do that by acknoledging their work or paying what they are entitled to for the work.

Keep up the chat. this is good!

A. I agree with you.

B. I think YouTube (or similar services) can enforce this. It’s their site, their rules. They are providing the infrastructure (at considerable cost) and they can determine how people use it. If the producer of the content doesn’t agree with the terms of service, they should find other avenues to distribute the content.

However, the last point you make is a good one. I would contend that if we don’t agree with the contract, we shouldn’t sign up for the service – what do you think?

I’m of mixed thoughts about legally unenforceable terms of use. There are a lot of issues that come into play here. Some are black and white, others are somewhat gray. On the black and white side we have:

1. Creators and owners of creative work, have the right to enjoy the fruits of their labour.

2. Creators and owners of creative work, should have some say over how their work is used.

On the grey side of things we have issues like:

A. Copyright should not be used as a weapon to deter review or criticism of the work. If someone for example, created a documentary with vexatious claims about the Christian faith, you would expect that churches should have the right to display the film and criticise the ideas shown in it.

B. Can a third party enforce copyright that was willingly surrendered by the original copyright owner? For example, Mars Hill Church voluntarily surrenders some of their rights by allowing all users of their material to copy, distribute and transmit their work (With some small constraints). By uploading the their videos to Youtube does this mean that Mars Hill must now enforce, or assign to Youtube the right to enforce legal rights that they want to surrender? By the same token, can civil contract revoke a right enshrined in statute law?

I’ve read newspaper articles several times where contracts have tried impose conditions on one party which are explicitly precluded by law. Often these contracts are things such as taking away award working conditions, or things like waivers of liability that include clauses like “even where injury is caused by negligence or malice”… These clauses are described by judges as unconscionable. If the law says that something is not a copyright breach, is it unconscionable for someone to attempt to place it as a condition on a contract?

The harder question is that if we believe it is so, do we simply not agree to the contract, and not use the service, or do we accept the contract excepting the unconscionable and unenforceable terms?

I think since Google Video is a search service that they probably leave the copyright issues to the site owners, but when it says “download” it gives me an indication that it is okay to use it, but I’d feel unsure somehow.

You may access User Submissions solely:

* for your information and personal use;
* as intended through the normal functionality of the YouTube Service; and
* for Streaming.

I’m not a lawyer, but it seems from that reading, that playing YouTube videos in a gathering that isn’t ‘personal’ (i.e. a church service) isn’t permitted.

Can someone else shed more light on this?

Playing YouTube clips (i.e. streaming from the site) is a different question – I’ll need to do some more research to find out the answer to that one…