Which of course depends on the court's reading of "download". Geek logic argues that
temporary browser copies are qualitatively different from intentional copy-to-the-hard-drive
downloading, especially considering the streaming nature of YouTube. The user intends to view
the material, not to make a copy, in the former, and intends to acquire a copy of it in the
latter. Of course, I already know that ephemeral copies have been cited in copyright
decisions, several ways in several jurisdictions. Law logic, to paraphrase PJ, is different
from geek logic.