56 ms·

Note that RIAA is making this takedown because the software CAN be used to download copyrighted music and videos, and it uses examples in the README(unit te

by jchw 6y ago

Note that RIAA is making this takedown because the software CAN be used to download copyrighted music and videos, and it uses examples in the ~~README~~(unit tests, see correction[1]) as an example of that: > We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos, as noted in Exhibit A hereto. For example, as shown on Exhibit A, the source code expressly suggests its use to copy and/or distribute the following copyrighted works owned by our member companies: They could, of course, have asked for the code to have been changed. Instead, they attacked the project itself. IANAL, but this seems outrageous the same way DMCA'ing a Bittorrent client would be. This doesn't circumvent DRM like Widevine. I don't understand what leg they have to stand on here. This feels like DeCSS all over again. P.S.: They also took down youtube-dlc, even though it's not listed. [1]: It turns out I am wrong. It wasn't in the readme, but in the test cases. See extractor/youtube.py. To me this seems even more tenuous, but IANAL.

alexfromapex 6y ago
It’s probably a case of fair use but it’ll have to go to court to decide that
- jchw 6y ago
  IANAL but I don't even think DMCA applies. It's not like YouTube-dl is breaking copy protection schemes, at most it is handling anti-abuse schemes. After all, it's not like you can go and bypass Widevine with youtube-dl.
  - rmrfstar 6y ago
    Unfortunately, it is making a copy. These guys also fucked up by "marketing" it for use in circumventing such controls. They should have showed how to pull OCW lectures. (a)(2)(C) is the part. IANAL but that's my take. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
    - jchw 6y ago
      I can understand why it would seem like circumvention, but one usage of YouTube-dl even with the README invocations is so that you can listen to or watch the media in a personal capacity. Not technically any different from how you might using the actual YouTube client, albeit probably in violation of YouTube's ToS. "Copying" in a legal sense might need a little more rigor. (IANAL either, though, so hell if I know.)
    - zucker42 6y ago
      What if I use youtube-dl like mpv <(youtube-dl youtube.com/video-url) or similar. Then no permanent copy is made. I agree that they could have been cleverer in their marketing.
      - account42 6y ago
        aka mpv https://youtube.com/video-url
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
molmalo 6y ago
I was thinking the same thing: The next step following this line of thinking would be trying to ban all torrent clients, because they CAN be used to download copyrighted material. This is crazy.
- ht85 6y ago
  Now that 4chan is behind bars, it's time to sue the Internet!
  - segfaultbuserr 6y ago
    Nope, just to sue "the hacker known as 4 Chan".
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Why stop with torrent clients? They should ban all browsers, because they CAN be used to download copyrighted materials!
  - romwell 6y ago
    Browsers? We need to ban radios with tape decks and TVs with VCRs! The audio cassette and the VHS are bringing the downfall of the music industry with how easily they can be used to create unauthorized copies! Oh wait.
    - dirtnugget 6y ago
      Thanks for the throwback
    - jackhack 6y ago
      I realize you're being sarcastic but with a line of logic like that, you have a bright career in Congress, should you want it.
    - fernandotakai 6y ago
      i love how dead kennedys literally left one of their cassette tapes sides blank and printed "Home taping is killing record industry profits! We left this side blank so you can help." on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust,_Inc.#Artwork_and_releases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust,_Inc.#Artwork_...
paul7986 6y ago
Why in the world did they include copyright works in the README? That's contributory infringement!
- jchw 6y ago
  Why? youtube-dl is a violation of YouTube's ToS most probably, but does using it to download a copyrighted video necessarily constitute copyright infringement? I have literally used youtube-dl to watch YouTube, in the past; it's handy to be able to use whatever media player you want, including ones that have better scrubbing.
  - paul7986 6y ago
    Umm, yes the law makes it clear downloading copyrighted material you do not own is not legal. The RIAA and MPAA were suing users of Kazaa, BitTorrent, etc individually because of this law you may or may not like, but that's again the law!
    - jchw 6y ago
      I don't think you understand. Yeah, you can sue people for illegally redistributing copyrighted works. However, I am skeptical that you can do the same for people using YouTube-dl to consume copyrighted works. You are downloading the file from someone who has a license to redistribute it, you are just using a CLI utility instead of the page itself. You can't view something without downloading it in some capacity. I'm not saying there's no possibility this is "illicit," I am saying this is not the same as illegally downloading music off of Kazaa.
      - godshatter 6y ago
        I was thinking the same thing. Instead of using a browser to access a website, parse the files given to it, and download the data so that the user can view it, you are using youtube-dl to access a website, parse the files given to it, and download the data so the user can view it. But I'm not a lawyer.
    - 6y ago
chabad360 6y ago
IANAL, but regardless, according to RIAA, youtube-dl is circumventing the "DRM" built into YouTube, and therefore they're violating anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA. Therefore a DMCA claim can suffice to take it down. Perhaps if youtube-dl used different examples (i.e. videos not protected by anti-circumvention) perhaps they could have avoided this.
- josteink 6y ago
  Incorrect. DRMed YouTube-content cannot be downloaded using YouTube-dl. Only regular content.
  - saddlerustle 6y ago
    Videos with obfuscated request signatures can be downloaded by youtube-dl. A german court ruled this is an effective technological protection measure.
    - wang_li 6y ago
      A German court sets no precedent in US law.
- fireattack 6y ago
  > according to RIAA, youtube-dl is circumventing the "DRM" I didn't find any mention of "DRM" or "Digital rights management" on the page. Can you be more specific?
echelon 6y ago
Conversely, the RIAA is making its media available on a known, at-risk platform to attain distribution. They're not protecting their copyright sufficiently, and the copyrights should be revoked. I can't wait for ML to lower the barrier to entry for music to near nil. Make anyone a vocalist or instrumentalist and hose these assholes.
- jordigh 6y ago
  As much as I would like this to be true, copyright doesn't have to be defended in order to be kept. That's a very different law, trademarks. You can have your copyright infringed for decades before you try to prosecute the infringers, and the courts will still rule in your favour.
  - echelon 6y ago
    I'm suggesting that ML will lower the barrier to entry so dramatically that the value of individual songs and musicians will plummet. The back catalog of copyright that the RIAA holds will become a fraction of its value today. I could be wrong, but nascent technology in this field looks incredibly powerful. I think this will happen with all media.
    - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
      This... doesn't make any sense to me. Are you arguing that songs written by machine learning will become sufficiently good at their "job" that there will be no value in actual humans writing music? And that this will be a good thing?
      - echelon 6y ago
        Yes and yes. People will still be driving and making money. But there will be more people doing it and catering to a much wider audience. It'll flatten the curve. All long tail. Patreon is the first hint at this.
    - simcup 6y ago
kevincox 6y ago
It seems to me that they are making the claim that this tool is expressly for doing something that is forbidden by the YouTube TOS and breaking the music licenses provided. Of course YouTube has other videos that are under different licenses so it isn't clear that this is the only use case of the software.
- loup-vaillant 6y ago
  Wait a minute, there's a difference between distributed copyrighted works, and merely copying it for yourself. In France for instance, we have this notion of "copie privée" (private copy), that says we are allowed to copy anything as long as we don't distribute it back. We even pay taxes on persistent memory for the privilege. Up thread there's also a citation of the Betamax case, which says that it's okay for people to record shows so they can watch them later, and it's okay to sell video recording devices. This is different from Bittorent, which automatically distribute any content you download. With this too, when you are downloading, you are also distributing, which is a much clearer case of infringement in most jurisdictions.
  - bonzini 6y ago
    That's a very common misconception of private copy; the existence of the private copy tax is not excusing copyright violation. What private copy wanted to cover is more like "I bought a physical CD and I make a cassette copy because my car doesn't have a CD player" or because I want to listen to a mix of my favorite music (so you paid a tax on cassettes and later on CD-R and CD-RW media). This was later extended to "I copy all my collection of music to a hard drive and stop flipping CDs in and out of the player" (so you pay a tax on hard disk drives).
    - jkaplowitz 6y ago
      It seems kind of the same to me if the result isn't being distributed again: "I want to view this YouTube video on the airplane when I don't have internet access." (Let's assume no international travel is involved to avoid questions of regional licensing rights.) YouTube's paid offering in some countries includes this feature on Android and iOS, but for computer users there's no built-in way to do it. Wouldn't it fall within the spirit of the private copying rule for a subscriber to YouTube's paid service to use youtube-dl in this way?
larrik 6y ago
The fact that copyrighted works were included in the readme shows it was intended for that use, and the RIAA complaint will likely stand up to any legal scrutiny. Just because it can be used for legit purposes too won't matter in the slightest. I mean, Napster could have been used for legal means as well, and it got destroyed in court. The only chance tools like this have legally is when infringement is an "unintended side effect."
- kzrdude 6y ago
  Should it stand up to legal scrutiny though? What does it matter if I play the beatles on youtube by watching in a web browser or watching an .mp4 file that I just downloaded? It's functionally the same.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    The former gives money to the original content owner for every listen while the latter does not. Which is why you're able to listen to it on youtube without having to personally pay someone.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      It could but probably doesn't One could argue that YouTube success is mostly about unlimited access to illegal copyrighted material uploaded by some unknown person in some unknown part of the world After all the thing it's already on YouTube and on my HD after I watched it
      - Shared404 6y ago
        > YouTube success is mostly about unlimited access to illegal copyrighted material uploaded by some unknown person in some unknown part of the world Good point. I quite like that argument. Not that my opinion actually matters in this case.
      - ydlr 6y ago
        If the videos mentioned in the notice are hosted on Youtube without authorization, then the takedown notice should be sent to YouTube. If the videos were uploaded to Youtube with authorization, then accessing them through youtube-dl is not an example of the program being used for infringement. Either way, the purpose of the software is to download anything publically available from YouTube. Its purpose is not copyright infringement unless the purpose of YouTube is copyright infringement.
bawolff 6y ago
Seems like putting that in the readme was pretty stupid. Intent matters in legal things, making the example infringing undermines the argument that the tool is good and some people are just bad. > This feels like DeCSS all over again. I think napster would be the better comparision (and especially napster compared to vcrs)
- throwaway17_17 6y ago
  I don’t see how Napster is more applicable than vcrs. YouTube in this case is the broadcaster, putting content out to a general viewing public, ytdl is a recording device. For Napster to work, YouTube has to be imputes with illegally providing the copy and ytdl has to be the means to facilitate the copies transport.
  - bawolff 6y ago
    Napster and VCRs were both accused of being tools to infringe copyright, VCRs won the lawsuit, napster lost. A big part of that related to how napster positioned itself in terms of marketing compared to vcrs.
- lelandbatey 6y ago
  They did not put that in the readme. The README contains only references to test videos, videos that don't actually exist, and one small-time video (in spanish?) that seems to be an old test video, but I have a hard time seeing for sure. The source code does contain references to copyrighted videos in the tests, tests intended to make sure that youtube-dl can download the data from videos using the extremely "token" signature scrambling that youtube employs for certain videos. You can see the test cases here: https://gitlab.com/HacktorIT/youtube-dl/-/blob/master/youtube_dl/extractor/youtube.py#L582-585 https://gitlab.com/HacktorIT/youtube-dl/-/blob/master/youtub...
  - lovehashbrowns 6y ago
    There's stuff like Justin Timberlake in there and Taylor Swift. This was immensely sloppy considering how the RIAA has won cases before.
dwardu 6y ago
so should we take down web browsers as well? because they CAN be used to download copyrighted music and videos.
eli 6y ago
I think you are misunderstanding the legal argument. The DMCA Section 1201 specifically prohibits (among other things) technology that "is marketed ... for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." The example in the README is evidence of this. The argument is that youtube-dl is primarily used for breaking DRM not just that it could be used for doing so.
- red_admiral 6y ago
  Calling the thing youtube-dl in the first place rather than GenericDownloadHelper or something like that could, I guess, be seen as marketing it for a specific purpose.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    Sadly yes. Legally this was actually rather stupid. Giving the project an innocuous name - think of a cute animal that isn't already being used as an open source mascot - and not explicitly mentioning popular artists in the README would have made the RIAA's case harder to argue. As it stands now, whatever the ethics or politics, legally there isn't much of a defence.
    - dylan604 6y ago
      so, let's fork it and call it something like FURIAA
      - mulmen 6y ago
        Yeah I'm sure the RIAA won't notice their name hidden in there and argue the tool is designed to obtain their content.
      - TeMPOraL 6y ago
        Too late; the code is already tainted. It carries the colour of "intended, marketed and used for copyright violation", and you can't just wash it away by reuploading the repo under a different name.
bluedino 6y ago
> this seems outrageous the same way DMCA'ing a Bittorrent client would be popcorn time? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23075484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23075484
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hiisukun 6y ago
I wonder what commit added those three listed examples (from three different music companies) to the README, and when. They're the worrying component as they show intent. In a dark universe timeline somewhere, the pull request for adding them to the README came from an RIAA employee.
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  A comment somewhere else pointed out that the listed examples aren't listed in the README, but rather as part of the unit tests. It's confusing, because the letter calls it "the source code", which is not what anyone who knew what they were talking about would usually call it.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    That letter is written by lawyers–trying to explain the specifics of "test cases" versus "source code" is unlikely to be a useful use of space. (Plus, if you can get the entire project taken down, why not go for that?)
    - UglyToad 6y ago
      Do you know of anything that might be applicable here for arguing a distinction between test cases and actual source code? It's a silly example but bringing a replica weapon through airport security is legal, I imagine, if done to test the security system. From a legal layman's perspective, testing on real data doesn't show intent but is instead good engineering to show that the code is verified for correctness.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        The point being made in this takedown is that youtube-dl can be used for copyright infringement and is being used for copyright infringement, and the test cases pretty much do exactly that. (In fact, if you're a lawyer with a bit of an idea of software engineering, you might make the argument that the code is testing the correctness of whether it can infringe copyright!) As an (hastily made, non-expert) example consider a particular gun called the "PandaHunter 9000". Now, pandas being endangered species and such, and having reports that people use buy the "PandaHunter 9000" to kill pandas, you might consider banning the purchase of such a gun. Of course, the manufacturer is going to say that you can use the gun for something else, and its intended purpose is not to kill pandas, but then imagine you find that they've actually been shooting pandas with the gun to test it. Do you see why youtube-dl has put itself in a somewhat unfortunate spot?
google234123 6y ago
Using a copyrighted music track as the example in the README is really stupid or just shows a total lack of respect for copyright.
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  Copyright law is illegitimate and should not be respected. The stupid thing is hosting youtube-dl in the Untied States.
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    "The stupid thing is hosting youtube-dl in the Untied States. " It's not like a million people don't have youtube-dl's source code. It can be hosted anywhere in the world in a heartbeat, and by now probably has been a thousand times over.
- jchw 6y ago
  FWIW, they did not. This was misinformation from me, misreading the DMCA. I am not glad that my misunderstanding will now spread far and wide, but I at least caught it within the edit window. The DMCA is complaining about test cases. See extractor/youtube.py in your local copy.
smegcicle 6y ago
> it uses examples in the README as an example of that: >> We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses as far as I can tell these videos are not referenced in the README, but instead in the youtube.py extractor file, which would go against the accusation that they were featured 'prominently'
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  It makes it worse lol. Using links to copyrighted materials in the tests meant to verify correct functionality? It's "prominent" in the source code. They literally wrote out "Test VEVO video with video age protection" then linked to a Justin Timberlake song https://gitlab.com/HacktorIT/youtube-dl/-/blob/master/youtube_dl/extractor/youtube.py#L604 https://gitlab.com/HacktorIT/youtube-dl/-/blob/master/youtub... I clicked on this ready to see some stupidity from the copyright industry but literally downloading from links to copyrighted music in your unit tests? That's how you give the RIAA a way to take down your project. - Actually seeing this made the comments made in the worst faith about how "they took it down because you can use it to download bad stuff, what's next?!?!" seem pretty dumb. If that was the case Bittorrent... which makes youtube-dl look like a guy slinging tapes out of a van next to Naspter HQ... wouldn't have been able to send them packing with a simple "we don't endorse piracy": https://venturebeat.com/2015/08/07/bittorrent-to-riaa-youre-barking-up-the-wrong-tree/ https://venturebeat.com/2015/08/07/bittorrent-to-riaa-youre-...
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    They can argue that downloading a publically available video for testing purposes is perfectly legal, because it is.
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      Ugh, I don't want to get into this Stallmanist "if the server returns 200 it's ok!" tarpit. If you believe that, it's fine. You probably won't ever actually need to use that defense outside of internet arguments honestly... for all their noise the most repercussions the average person might ever see from infringing copyrights is a scary letter from an ISP. Good luck if the legal system decides to test your hypothesis though. This isn't about YouTube's TOS at this point, you're making a copy of a copyrighted video without the consent of the copyright holder > downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution
pipi_delina 6y ago
This is so annoying... this means they can go after the OS we are using because some kids use their OS to download pirated stuff
- type0 6y ago
  Linux is already often banned in online videogames with claims that it's done to prevent cheating
smsm42 6y ago
That's some prime rate bullshit. Like saying since I could use Linux to download copyrighted materials, and there are guides around which tell how to do so, Linux should be removed from the Internet. Also a good reminder - never trust a third party to host your files, always have a backup. And hosting your infrastructure on Github means anybody who wants it can take it down with a single letter.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  > Like That's the operative word, because it isn't "like" at all to a nontechinical person. If you explain it as "yeah so I have one tool that literally has 'youtube' in its name, and it downloads videos, also some of the test cases to make sure it works show it work on copyrighted videos" and the other one is "people can use it to watch videos…sometimes? Maybe you can even run the first tool on it? But like a billion people use it for completely different things" you can probably see how this works.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
zucker42 6y ago
It's pretty ridiculous. They might argue that a browser is a technological measure to protect a copyrighted work which youtube-dl circumvents since the DMCA is written so vaguely. Cases like this demonstrate why anti-circumvention litigation really has to go.
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  Except the licensing under which the copyrighted works are uploaded explicitly allow for access via a browser, so no you couldn't. That's like saying that a DVD player "circumvents" DVD encryption, or a key "circumvents" a lock. It's the intended use case.
  - zucker42 6y ago
    You misread or misunderstood my comment. I'm saying according to the RIAA, the browser is the technological measure which the command line program is circumventing.
- worblux 6y ago
  Meh, pretty good claim of fair use. They are just picking a smaller file that unlikely to disappear or move. The fact the file is downloaded and then deleted via a script isn't a substitute for actually viewing the file and has zero commercial impact. And the take down could have been targeted against the particular files they found problematic rather than the whole project. And the whole thing is ceded to the public domain. Anyone can remove the examples and unit test, call the code webvid-dl and be golden.
  - zucker42 6y ago
    Fair use doesn't apply to DRM circumvention unfortunately. You can't even circumvent DRM for reasons completely unrelated to duplicating a copyrighted work.
mulmen 6y ago
From the RIAA perspective it seems clear this tool was created to download copywritten material. You can disagree with the law or think the tool has other valid uses but the intent of the tool author seems clear here. The author of the tool should have chosen a better example in the tests to at least maintain plausible deniability.
- mola 6y ago
  People use it for many purposes. Researches downloading public domain material etc. Does any camera manufacturer showing a camera filming a live concert in some promotional video needs to worry?
  - mulmen 6y ago
    Yes, obviously there are legitimate uses. That’s not the point. The point is the actual codebase of YouTube-dl features copyright infringement as a test case. RIAA is using this to make the case that the tool is designed to aid in copyright infringement. That seems like a reasonable argument given the evidence and the DMCA. I’m not defending the DMCA or RIAA here.
ikeboy 6y ago
I'm also NAL, but familiar with IP law. My analysis is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874277 and I'm broadly skeptical of the legal viability under US law.
nullc 6y ago
Without the existence of youtube-dl, youtube itself is necessarily commuting copyright infringement over the a good portion of the CC-By-SA works uploaded to youtube. (not all of them, since the uploader grants youtube a license... but if the work has copyright holders who aren't the uploader, it applies)
- slaymaker1907 6y ago
  I think in that case the copyright infringement would be the uploader rather than YouTube, but IANAL.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - nullc 6y ago
    There are CC-By-SA works uploaded to youtube by google employees while at work.
    - kzrdude 6y ago
      I think you have a good case, if the copyright holder/author is also someone else than the uploader.
    - wang_li 6y ago
      Only if the employee is doing the upload as a function of their job can google have any liability. In any other circumstance google s protected by the safe harbor provisions of the law.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
actually that it is in the test cases instead of the readme makes it seem worse to me, after all the readme is not addressed to anyone in particular, they needed examples of things someone might do and they used popular videos (that happened to be copyrighted) as those examples. But anyone running the test cases that does not have rights to those videos will have infringed, and then of course youtube-dl must also run their own test cases and we know they don't have rights to the videos.
pmoriarty 6y ago
Does it really matter what they said? This is like the reverse of those common disclaimers on hacking tools and tutorials which claim: This is for educational use only. I've always wondered, are courts fooled by such disclaimers? Are their authors untouchable just because they put in some boilerplate disclaimer like that? As for what was written in some code somewhere in the repo, it could have been written by anyone, even an RIAA plant who contributed that trojan horse to the project. What makes anyone think what was said there is endorsed by or even representative of the views of the rest of the authors of youtube-dl or is what youtube-dl is for? God, it pisses me off to no end to think that I'm going to be forced to use youtube's piece of shit, slow, ad-infested, tacker-infested, feature-poor, non-automatable browser interface. But, after taking a few deep breaths, I think within a year there'll be multiple alternatives to youtube-dl which will all bear disclaimers that they are "for educational purposes only" and that they in no way endorse copyright infringement.
- Aerroon 6y ago
  >I've always wondered, are courts fooled by such disclaimers? Are their authors untouchable just because they put in some boilerplate disclaimer like that? I think the answer is that this doesn't always sufficiently protect them, but these small bits add up. It's useful to be able to point at words written beforehand that could help you in a legal situation. This is what corporate speak is about too and enough people engage in it that it likely does something.
- otterley 6y ago
  > I've always wondered, are courts fooled by such disclaimers? No. And there's no educational exception in the DMCA anyway.
- toci 6y ago
  > I think within a year there'll be multiple alternatives to youtube-dl which will all bear disclaimers that they are "for educational purposes only" and that they in no way endorse copyright infringement. i dont think you have to wait that long. its client side, its open source, people have the code, it will most likely be maintained further, just not on github. this is just meant as a backup, but here you go: https://git.svarun.dev/ytdl-org/youtube-dl https://git.svarun.dev/ytdl-org/youtube-dl or get the source with pip download --no-binary=:all: youtube-dl
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lettergram 6y ago
What I haven’t seen pointed out is that this is really Githubs problem. They shouldn’t automatically respond to DCMA. The process should really be passed on to the owner of the repo and make them liable. Basically, defaulting to rolling over to DMCA requests had led to an environment where there’s no way to fight them. Even if I hosted something like YouTube-dl myself, my internet provider could cut me off. It’s the same issue with deplatforming people, do we want a world where literally you lose the ability to share knowledge others don’t agree with Or in this case, a tool that could be used maliciously
- ChoGGi 6y ago
  > Basically, defaulting to rolling over to DMCA requests had led to an environment where there’s no way to fight them That's the DMCA works I thought? When the host receives the notice they have to take down the content then forward the notice to the user, who can then file a counter-claim and then the host restores the content (if they don't take it down they they're liable).
  - lettergram 6y ago
    Github and YouTube and most other places immediately take down content. It’s also extremely difficult to reinstate content, if possible at all.
    - ralph84 6y ago
      GitHub's DMCA policy[0] is very clear on how to reinstate content. It's not extremely difficult, but you do have to send GitHub a properly-formed counter notice, and you do have to be prepared that the sender of the original DMCA notice may sue you to prevent the content from being reinstated. [0] https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-policy/dmca-takedown-policy https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-...
josmala 6y ago
The use youtubeDL for music would probably fit the fair use in Finland. The fair use allows personal copies of legally licensed material but not redistribution of said copies to third parties. It has been used to defend a service where ISP records the specific shows from TV like a VCR and streams them to customers at different time. The ISP:s and representation of copyright holders made a compromise to avoid legal battle, where ISP:s limited the storage duration of said recordings to two years. ISP:s still had service they could sell, and avoid unnecessary legal battle. I'm not a lawyer. So not expert on matter, but just educated local.
- Bellamy 6y ago
  Why not host youtube-dl in Finland?
smsm42 6y ago
Test cases using copyrighted works probably not a good idea... Since one could argue that part of the code is run frequently.

Note that RIAA is making this takedown because the software CAN be used to download copyrighted music and videos, and it uses examples in the ~~README~~(unit te

by jchw 6y ago

alexfromapex 6y ago

It’s probably a case of fair use but it’ll have to go to court to decide that

jchw 6y ago
IANAL but I don't even think DMCA applies. It's not like YouTube-dl is breaking copy protection schemes, at most it is handling anti-abuse schemes. After all, it's not like you can go and bypass Widevine with youtube-dl.
- rmrfstar 6y ago
  Unfortunately, it is making a copy. These guys also fucked up by "marketing" it for use in circumventing such controls. They should have showed how to pull OCW lectures. (a)(2)(C) is the part. IANAL but that's my take. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
  - jchw 6y ago
    I can understand why it would seem like circumvention, but one usage of YouTube-dl even with the README invocations is so that you can listen to or watch the media in a personal capacity. Not technically any different from how you might using the actual YouTube client, albeit probably in violation of YouTube's ToS. "Copying" in a legal sense might need a little more rigor. (IANAL either, though, so hell if I know.)
  - zucker42 6y ago
    What if I use youtube-dl like mpv <(youtube-dl youtube.com/video-url) or similar. Then no permanent copy is made. I agree that they could have been cleverer in their marketing.
    - account42 6y ago
      aka mpv https://youtube.com/video-url

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

molmalo 6y ago

I was thinking the same thing: The next step following this line of thinking would be trying to ban all torrent clients, because they CAN be used to download copyrighted material. This is crazy.

ht85 6y ago
Now that 4chan is behind bars, it's time to sue the Internet!
- segfaultbuserr 6y ago
  Nope, just to sue "the hacker known as 4 Chan".
Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
Why stop with torrent clients? They should ban all browsers, because they CAN be used to download copyrighted materials!
- romwell 6y ago
  Browsers? We need to ban radios with tape decks and TVs with VCRs! The audio cassette and the VHS are bringing the downfall of the music industry with how easily they can be used to create unauthorized copies! Oh wait.
  - dirtnugget 6y ago
    Thanks for the throwback
  - jackhack 6y ago
    I realize you're being sarcastic but with a line of logic like that, you have a bright career in Congress, should you want it.
  - fernandotakai 6y ago
    i love how dead kennedys literally left one of their cassette tapes sides blank and printed "Home taping is killing record industry profits! We left this side blank so you can help." on it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust,_Inc.#Artwork_and_releases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust,_Inc.#Artwork_...

paul7986 6y ago

Why in the world did they include copyright works in the README? That's contributory infringement!

jchw 6y ago
Why? youtube-dl is a violation of YouTube's ToS most probably, but does using it to download a copyrighted video necessarily constitute copyright infringement? I have literally used youtube-dl to watch YouTube, in the past; it's handy to be able to use whatever media player you want, including ones that have better scrubbing.
- paul7986 6y ago
  Umm, yes the law makes it clear downloading copyrighted material you do not own is not legal. The RIAA and MPAA were suing users of Kazaa, BitTorrent, etc individually because of this law you may or may not like, but that's again the law!
  - jchw 6y ago
    I don't think you understand. Yeah, you can sue people for illegally redistributing copyrighted works. However, I am skeptical that you can do the same for people using YouTube-dl to consume copyrighted works. You are downloading the file from someone who has a license to redistribute it, you are just using a CLI utility instead of the page itself. You can't view something without downloading it in some capacity. I'm not saying there's no possibility this is "illicit," I am saying this is not the same as illegally downloading music off of Kazaa.
    - godshatter 6y ago
      I was thinking the same thing. Instead of using a browser to access a website, parse the files given to it, and download the data so that the user can view it, you are using youtube-dl to access a website, parse the files given to it, and download the data so the user can view it. But I'm not a lawyer.
  - 6y ago

chabad360 6y ago

IANAL, but regardless, according to RIAA, youtube-dl is circumventing the "DRM" built into YouTube, and therefore they're violating anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA. Therefore a DMCA claim can suffice to take it down. Perhaps if youtube-dl used different examples (i.e. videos not protected by anti-circumvention) perhaps they could have avoided this.

josteink 6y ago
Incorrect. DRMed YouTube-content cannot be downloaded using YouTube-dl. Only regular content.
- saddlerustle 6y ago
  Videos with obfuscated request signatures can be downloaded by youtube-dl. A german court ruled this is an effective technological protection measure.
  - wang_li 6y ago
    A German court sets no precedent in US law.
fireattack 6y ago
> according to RIAA, youtube-dl is circumventing the "DRM" I didn't find any mention of "DRM" or "Digital rights management" on the page. Can you be more specific?

echelon 6y ago

Conversely, the RIAA is making its media available on a known, at-risk platform to attain distribution. They're not protecting their copyright sufficiently, and the copyrights should be revoked. I can't wait for ML to lower the barrier to entry for music to near nil. Make anyone a vocalist or instrumentalist and hose these assholes.

jordigh 6y ago
As much as I would like this to be true, copyright doesn't have to be defended in order to be kept. That's a very different law, trademarks. You can have your copyright infringed for decades before you try to prosecute the infringers, and the courts will still rule in your favour.
- echelon 6y ago
  I'm suggesting that ML will lower the barrier to entry so dramatically that the value of individual songs and musicians will plummet. The back catalog of copyright that the RIAA holds will become a fraction of its value today. I could be wrong, but nascent technology in this field looks incredibly powerful. I think this will happen with all media.
  - chipotle_coyote 6y ago
    This... doesn't make any sense to me. Are you arguing that songs written by machine learning will become sufficiently good at their "job" that there will be no value in actual humans writing music? And that this will be a good thing?
    - echelon 6y ago
      Yes and yes. People will still be driving and making money. But there will be more people doing it and catering to a much wider audience. It'll flatten the curve. All long tail. Patreon is the first hint at this.
  - simcup 6y ago

kevincox 6y ago

It seems to me that they are making the claim that this tool is expressly for doing something that is forbidden by the YouTube TOS and breaking the music licenses provided. Of course YouTube has other videos that are under different licenses so it isn't clear that this is the only use case of the software.

loup-vaillant 6y ago
Wait a minute, there's a difference between distributed copyrighted works, and merely copying it for yourself. In France for instance, we have this notion of "copie privée" (private copy), that says we are allowed to copy anything as long as we don't distribute it back. We even pay taxes on persistent memory for the privilege. Up thread there's also a citation of the Betamax case, which says that it's okay for people to record shows so they can watch them later, and it's okay to sell video recording devices. This is different from Bittorent, which automatically distribute any content you download. With this too, when you are downloading, you are also distributing, which is a much clearer case of infringement in most jurisdictions.
- bonzini 6y ago
  That's a very common misconception of private copy; the existence of the private copy tax is not excusing copyright violation. What private copy wanted to cover is more like "I bought a physical CD and I make a cassette copy because my car doesn't have a CD player" or because I want to listen to a mix of my favorite music (so you paid a tax on cassettes and later on CD-R and CD-RW media). This was later extended to "I copy all my collection of music to a hard drive and stop flipping CDs in and out of the player" (so you pay a tax on hard disk drives).
  - jkaplowitz 6y ago
    It seems kind of the same to me if the result isn't being distributed again: "I want to view this YouTube video on the airplane when I don't have internet access." (Let's assume no international travel is involved to avoid questions of regional licensing rights.) YouTube's paid offering in some countries includes this feature on Android and iOS, but for computer users there's no built-in way to do it. Wouldn't it fall within the spirit of the private copying rule for a subscriber to YouTube's paid service to use youtube-dl in this way?

larrik 6y ago

The fact that copyrighted works were included in the readme shows it was intended for that use, and the RIAA complaint will likely stand up to any legal scrutiny. Just because it can be used for legit purposes too won't matter in the slightest. I mean, Napster could have been used for legal means as well, and it got destroyed in court. The only chance tools like this have legally is when infringement is an "unintended side effect."

kzrdude 6y ago
Should it stand up to legal scrutiny though? What does it matter if I play the beatles on youtube by watching in a web browser or watching an .mp4 file that I just downloaded? It's functionally the same.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  The former gives money to the original content owner for every listen while the latter does not. Which is why you're able to listen to it on youtube without having to personally pay someone.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    It could but probably doesn't One could argue that YouTube success is mostly about unlimited access to illegal copyrighted material uploaded by some unknown person in some unknown part of the world After all the thing it's already on YouTube and on my HD after I watched it
    - Shared404 6y ago
      > YouTube success is mostly about unlimited access to illegal copyrighted material uploaded by some unknown person in some unknown part of the world Good point. I quite like that argument. Not that my opinion actually matters in this case.
    - ydlr 6y ago
      If the videos mentioned in the notice are hosted on Youtube without authorization, then the takedown notice should be sent to YouTube. If the videos were uploaded to Youtube with authorization, then accessing them through youtube-dl is not an example of the program being used for infringement. Either way, the purpose of the software is to download anything publically available from YouTube. Its purpose is not copyright infringement unless the purpose of YouTube is copyright infringement.

bawolff 6y ago

Seems like putting that in the readme was pretty stupid. Intent matters in legal things, making the example infringing undermines the argument that the tool is good and some people are just bad. > This feels like DeCSS all over again. I think napster would be the better comparision (and especially napster compared to vcrs)

throwaway17_17 6y ago
I don’t see how Napster is more applicable than vcrs. YouTube in this case is the broadcaster, putting content out to a general viewing public, ytdl is a recording device. For Napster to work, YouTube has to be imputes with illegally providing the copy and ytdl has to be the means to facilitate the copies transport.
- bawolff 6y ago
  Napster and VCRs were both accused of being tools to infringe copyright, VCRs won the lawsuit, napster lost. A big part of that related to how napster positioned itself in terms of marketing compared to vcrs.
lelandbatey 6y ago
They did not put that in the readme. The README contains only references to test videos, videos that don't actually exist, and one small-time video (in spanish?) that seems to be an old test video, but I have a hard time seeing for sure. The source code does contain references to copyrighted videos in the tests, tests intended to make sure that youtube-dl can download the data from videos using the extremely "token" signature scrambling that youtube employs for certain videos. You can see the test cases here: https://gitlab.com/HacktorIT/youtube-dl/-/blob/master/youtube_dl/extractor/youtube.py#L582-585 https://gitlab.com/HacktorIT/youtube-dl/-/blob/master/youtub...
- lovehashbrowns 6y ago
  There's stuff like Justin Timberlake in there and Taylor Swift. This was immensely sloppy considering how the RIAA has won cases before.

dwardu 6y ago

so should we take down web browsers as well? because they CAN be used to download copyrighted music and videos.

eli 6y ago

I think you are misunderstanding the legal argument. The DMCA Section 1201 specifically prohibits (among other things) technology that "is marketed ... for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." The example in the README is evidence of this. The argument is that youtube-dl is primarily used for breaking DRM not just that it could be used for doing so.

red_admiral 6y ago
Calling the thing youtube-dl in the first place rather than GenericDownloadHelper or something like that could, I guess, be seen as marketing it for a specific purpose.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Sadly yes. Legally this was actually rather stupid. Giving the project an innocuous name - think of a cute animal that isn't already being used as an open source mascot - and not explicitly mentioning popular artists in the README would have made the RIAA's case harder to argue. As it stands now, whatever the ethics or politics, legally there isn't much of a defence.
  - dylan604 6y ago
    so, let's fork it and call it something like FURIAA
    - mulmen 6y ago
      Yeah I'm sure the RIAA won't notice their name hidden in there and argue the tool is designed to obtain their content.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      Too late; the code is already tainted. It carries the colour of "intended, marketed and used for copyright violation", and you can't just wash it away by reuploading the repo under a different name.

bluedino 6y ago

> this seems outrageous the same way DMCA'ing a Bittorrent client would be popcorn time? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23075484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23075484

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

hiisukun 6y ago

I wonder what commit added those three listed examples (from three different music companies) to the README, and when. They're the worrying component as they show intent. In a dark universe timeline somewhere, the pull request for adding them to the README came from an RIAA employee.

LordDragonfang 6y ago
A comment somewhere else pointed out that the listed examples aren't listed in the README, but rather as part of the unit tests. It's confusing, because the letter calls it "the source code", which is not what anyone who knew what they were talking about would usually call it.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  That letter is written by lawyers–trying to explain the specifics of "test cases" versus "source code" is unlikely to be a useful use of space. (Plus, if you can get the entire project taken down, why not go for that?)
  - UglyToad 6y ago
    Do you know of anything that might be applicable here for arguing a distinction between test cases and actual source code? It's a silly example but bringing a replica weapon through airport security is legal, I imagine, if done to test the security system. From a legal layman's perspective, testing on real data doesn't show intent but is instead good engineering to show that the code is verified for correctness.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      The point being made in this takedown is that youtube-dl can be used for copyright infringement and is being used for copyright infringement, and the test cases pretty much do exactly that. (In fact, if you're a lawyer with a bit of an idea of software engineering, you might make the argument that the code is testing the correctness of whether it can infringe copyright!) As an (hastily made, non-expert) example consider a particular gun called the "PandaHunter 9000". Now, pandas being endangered species and such, and having reports that people use buy the "PandaHunter 9000" to kill pandas, you might consider banning the purchase of such a gun. Of course, the manufacturer is going to say that you can use the gun for something else, and its intended purpose is not to kill pandas, but then imagine you find that they've actually been shooting pandas with the gun to test it. Do you see why youtube-dl has put itself in a somewhat unfortunate spot?

google234123 6y ago

Using a copyrighted music track as the example in the README is really stupid or just shows a total lack of respect for copyright.

bleepblorp 6y ago
Copyright law is illegitimate and should not be respected. The stupid thing is hosting youtube-dl in the Untied States.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "The stupid thing is hosting youtube-dl in the Untied States. " It's not like a million people don't have youtube-dl's source code. It can be hosted anywhere in the world in a heartbeat, and by now probably has been a thousand times over.
jchw 6y ago
FWIW, they did not. This was misinformation from me, misreading the DMCA. I am not glad that my misunderstanding will now spread far and wide, but I at least caught it within the edit window. The DMCA is complaining about test cases. See extractor/youtube.py in your local copy.

smegcicle 6y ago

> it uses examples in the README as an example of that: >> We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses as far as I can tell these videos are not referenced in the README, but instead in the youtube.py extractor file, which would go against the accusation that they were featured 'prominently'

BoorishBears 6y ago
It makes it worse lol. Using links to copyrighted materials in the tests meant to verify correct functionality? It's "prominent" in the source code. They literally wrote out "Test VEVO video with video age protection" then linked to a Justin Timberlake song https://gitlab.com/HacktorIT/youtube-dl/-/blob/master/youtube_dl/extractor/youtube.py#L604 https://gitlab.com/HacktorIT/youtube-dl/-/blob/master/youtub... I clicked on this ready to see some stupidity from the copyright industry but literally downloading from links to copyrighted music in your unit tests? That's how you give the RIAA a way to take down your project. - Actually seeing this made the comments made in the worst faith about how "they took it down because you can use it to download bad stuff, what's next?!?!" seem pretty dumb. If that was the case Bittorrent... which makes youtube-dl look like a guy slinging tapes out of a van next to Naspter HQ... wouldn't have been able to send them packing with a simple "we don't endorse piracy": https://venturebeat.com/2015/08/07/bittorrent-to-riaa-youre-barking-up-the-wrong-tree/ https://venturebeat.com/2015/08/07/bittorrent-to-riaa-youre-...
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  They can argue that downloading a publically available video for testing purposes is perfectly legal, because it is.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    Ugh, I don't want to get into this Stallmanist "if the server returns 200 it's ok!" tarpit. If you believe that, it's fine. You probably won't ever actually need to use that defense outside of internet arguments honestly... for all their noise the most repercussions the average person might ever see from infringing copyrights is a scary letter from an ISP. Good luck if the legal system decides to test your hypothesis though. This isn't about YouTube's TOS at this point, you're making a copy of a copyrighted video without the consent of the copyright holder > downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution

pipi_delina 6y ago

This is so annoying... this means they can go after the OS we are using because some kids use their OS to download pirated stuff

type0 6y ago
Linux is already often banned in online videogames with claims that it's done to prevent cheating

smsm42 6y ago

That's some prime rate bullshit. Like saying since I could use Linux to download copyrighted materials, and there are guides around which tell how to do so, Linux should be removed from the Internet. Also a good reminder - never trust a third party to host your files, always have a backup. And hosting your infrastructure on Github means anybody who wants it can take it down with a single letter.

saagarjha 6y ago
> Like That's the operative word, because it isn't "like" at all to a nontechinical person. If you explain it as "yeah so I have one tool that literally has 'youtube' in its name, and it downloads videos, also some of the test cases to make sure it works show it work on copyrighted videos" and the other one is "people can use it to watch videos…sometimes? Maybe you can even run the first tool on it? But like a billion people use it for completely different things" you can probably see how this works.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

zucker42 6y ago

It's pretty ridiculous. They might argue that a browser is a technological measure to protect a copyrighted work which youtube-dl circumvents since the DMCA is written so vaguely. Cases like this demonstrate why anti-circumvention litigation really has to go.

LordDragonfang 6y ago
Except the licensing under which the copyrighted works are uploaded explicitly allow for access via a browser, so no you couldn't. That's like saying that a DVD player "circumvents" DVD encryption, or a key "circumvents" a lock. It's the intended use case.
- zucker42 6y ago
  You misread or misunderstood my comment. I'm saying according to the RIAA, the browser is the technological measure which the command line program is circumventing.
worblux 6y ago
Meh, pretty good claim of fair use. They are just picking a smaller file that unlikely to disappear or move. The fact the file is downloaded and then deleted via a script isn't a substitute for actually viewing the file and has zero commercial impact. And the take down could have been targeted against the particular files they found problematic rather than the whole project. And the whole thing is ceded to the public domain. Anyone can remove the examples and unit test, call the code webvid-dl and be golden.
- zucker42 6y ago
  Fair use doesn't apply to DRM circumvention unfortunately. You can't even circumvent DRM for reasons completely unrelated to duplicating a copyrighted work.

mulmen 6y ago

From the RIAA perspective it seems clear this tool was created to download copywritten material. You can disagree with the law or think the tool has other valid uses but the intent of the tool author seems clear here. The author of the tool should have chosen a better example in the tests to at least maintain plausible deniability.

mola 6y ago
People use it for many purposes. Researches downloading public domain material etc. Does any camera manufacturer showing a camera filming a live concert in some promotional video needs to worry?
- mulmen 6y ago
  Yes, obviously there are legitimate uses. That’s not the point. The point is the actual codebase of YouTube-dl features copyright infringement as a test case. RIAA is using this to make the case that the tool is designed to aid in copyright infringement. That seems like a reasonable argument given the evidence and the DMCA. I’m not defending the DMCA or RIAA here.

ikeboy 6y ago

I'm also NAL, but familiar with IP law. My analysis is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874277 and I'm broadly skeptical of the legal viability under US law.

nullc 6y ago

Without the existence of youtube-dl, youtube itself is necessarily commuting copyright infringement over the a good portion of the CC-By-SA works uploaded to youtube. (not all of them, since the uploader grants youtube a license... but if the work has copyright holders who aren't the uploader, it applies)

slaymaker1907 6y ago
I think in that case the copyright infringement would be the uploader rather than YouTube, but IANAL.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- nullc 6y ago
  There are CC-By-SA works uploaded to youtube by google employees while at work.
  - kzrdude 6y ago
    I think you have a good case, if the copyright holder/author is also someone else than the uploader.
  - wang_li 6y ago
    Only if the employee is doing the upload as a function of their job can google have any liability. In any other circumstance google s protected by the safe harbor provisions of the law.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

actually that it is in the test cases instead of the readme makes it seem worse to me, after all the readme is not addressed to anyone in particular, they needed examples of things someone might do and they used popular videos (that happened to be copyrighted) as those examples. But anyone running the test cases that does not have rights to those videos will have infringed, and then of course youtube-dl must also run their own test cases and we know they don't have rights to the videos.

pmoriarty 6y ago

Does it really matter what they said? This is like the reverse of those common disclaimers on hacking tools and tutorials which claim: This is for educational use only. I've always wondered, are courts fooled by such disclaimers? Are their authors untouchable just because they put in some boilerplate disclaimer like that? As for what was written in some code somewhere in the repo, it could have been written by anyone, even an RIAA plant who contributed that trojan horse to the project. What makes anyone think what was said there is endorsed by or even representative of the views of the rest of the authors of youtube-dl or is what youtube-dl is for? God, it pisses me off to no end to think that I'm going to be forced to use youtube's piece of shit, slow, ad-infested, tacker-infested, feature-poor, non-automatable browser interface. But, after taking a few deep breaths, I think within a year there'll be multiple alternatives to youtube-dl which will all bear disclaimers that they are "for educational purposes only" and that they in no way endorse copyright infringement.

Aerroon 6y ago
>I've always wondered, are courts fooled by such disclaimers? Are their authors untouchable just because they put in some boilerplate disclaimer like that? I think the answer is that this doesn't always sufficiently protect them, but these small bits add up. It's useful to be able to point at words written beforehand that could help you in a legal situation. This is what corporate speak is about too and enough people engage in it that it likely does something.
otterley 6y ago
> I've always wondered, are courts fooled by such disclaimers? No. And there's no educational exception in the DMCA anyway.
toci 6y ago
> I think within a year there'll be multiple alternatives to youtube-dl which will all bear disclaimers that they are "for educational purposes only" and that they in no way endorse copyright infringement. i dont think you have to wait that long. its client side, its open source, people have the code, it will most likely be maintained further, just not on github. this is just meant as a backup, but here you go: https://git.svarun.dev/ytdl-org/youtube-dl https://git.svarun.dev/ytdl-org/youtube-dl or get the source with pip download --no-binary=:all: youtube-dl

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lettergram 6y ago

What I haven’t seen pointed out is that this is really Githubs problem. They shouldn’t automatically respond to DCMA. The process should really be passed on to the owner of the repo and make them liable. Basically, defaulting to rolling over to DMCA requests had led to an environment where there’s no way to fight them. Even if I hosted something like YouTube-dl myself, my internet provider could cut me off. It’s the same issue with deplatforming people, do we want a world where literally you lose the ability to share knowledge others don’t agree with Or in this case, a tool that could be used maliciously

ChoGGi 6y ago
> Basically, defaulting to rolling over to DMCA requests had led to an environment where there’s no way to fight them That's the DMCA works I thought? When the host receives the notice they have to take down the content then forward the notice to the user, who can then file a counter-claim and then the host restores the content (if they don't take it down they they're liable).
- lettergram 6y ago
  Github and YouTube and most other places immediately take down content. It’s also extremely difficult to reinstate content, if possible at all.
  - ralph84 6y ago
    GitHub's DMCA policy[0] is very clear on how to reinstate content. It's not extremely difficult, but you do have to send GitHub a properly-formed counter notice, and you do have to be prepared that the sender of the original DMCA notice may sue you to prevent the content from being reinstated. [0] https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-policy/dmca-takedown-policy https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-...

josmala 6y ago

The use youtubeDL for music would probably fit the fair use in Finland. The fair use allows personal copies of legally licensed material but not redistribution of said copies to third parties. It has been used to defend a service where ISP records the specific shows from TV like a VCR and streams them to customers at different time. The ISP:s and representation of copyright holders made a compromise to avoid legal battle, where ISP:s limited the storage duration of said recordings to two years. ISP:s still had service they could sell, and avoid unnecessary legal battle. I'm not a lawyer. So not expert on matter, but just educated local.

Bellamy 6y ago
Why not host youtube-dl in Finland?

smsm42 6y ago

Test cases using copyrighted works probably not a good idea... Since one could argue that part of the code is run frequently.