Is it legal to convert YouTube videos?

Almost every discussion of this question collapses two separate legal issues into one. Keeping them apart is what makes the answer tractable.

The first issue is copyright: do you have the right to make a copy of this work? That is where fair use, fair dealing, licences and permission live. The second is circumvention: did you defeat a technical measure in order to get the file? In the United States that is governed by section 1201 of the DMCA, and — this is the part that surprises people — it operates independently of copyright. You can in principle breach the anti-circumvention rule while making a copy that copyright itself would have permitted.

The United States

On 5 February 2026, in Cordova v. Huneault, US Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi of the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss anti-circumvention claims, holding that YouTube’s “rolling cipher” qualifies as a technological measure controlling access to a work under §1201(a) — even though the videos in question remain publicly viewable. The court drew an explicit line between the right to watch a video and the right to download it.

Two caveats matter. This is a procedural ruling on a motion to dismiss, not a final judgment on the merits, and a magistrate judge’s decision in one district does not bind other courts. But the practical effect is real: a stream-ripping defendant in the US can no longer expect early dismissal, and must instead litigate.

It also does not stand alone. In Yout LLC v. RIAA, the operator of a stream-ripping service sought a declaration that its tool was lawful and did not obtain one. The direction of travel in US law has been consistent.

Ireland and the European Union

The EU addresses the same question through Article 6 of the InfoSoc Directive (2001/29/EC), which requires member states to provide legal protection against circumventing effective technological measures. Ireland implements this in the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000.

One point is worth flagging because it is widely misunderstood: Ireland has no broad private-copying exception. In several other EU states, a levy-funded private copying exception permits copies for personal use. Irish law contains no general equivalent, so “it was only for myself” is a substantially weaker argument in Ireland than the continental discussion often implies.

The United Kingdom

The UK protects technological measures under sections 296ZA to 296ZF of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The UK briefly had a private copying exception introduced in 2014; it was quashed by the High Court in 2015 and was never reinstated. As in Ireland, personal use is not a general defence.

YouTube’s own terms

Separately from any statute, YouTube’s Terms of Service prohibit accessing content by any means other than those the service provides. Breaching terms of service is a contractual matter rather than a criminal one, but it is the basis on which accounts are terminated and on which platforms pursue tool operators.

What is clearly fine

• Your own uploads. YouTube Studio has a download button for videos you posted. This is the supported route and raises no circumvention question. See our guide to downloading your own videos.
• YouTube’s offline feature. Downloading through the app, with or without Premium where offered, is downloading with permission.
• Converting files you already hold. Recordings you made, exports from an editor, files you purchased or were given — converting these is ordinary use of your own property.
• Public domain and freely licensed works obtained from their source. Where the rights holder distributes the file directly, there is no measure to circumvent.

Where this site stands

This converter does not fetch anything from YouTube. It processes files that are already on your device, inside your browser. That is a deliberate design decision rather than a limitation we worked around: it keeps the tool clear of the circumvention question entirely, and it means your files are never uploaded to anyone.