4 ms·

It's outrageous indeed that GH/MS is complying. It's not that far from targeting wget or curl, were it not for the widespread use of them in industry.

by 3np 6y ago

gruez 6y ago
>It's outrageous indeed that GH/MS is complying. Because there's no upside and only downside. If they refuse to comply and it turns out that youtube-dl did infringe, then they won't have DMCA safe harbor status and could be liable for damages.
NobodyNada 6y ago
IANAL, but as far as I know GitHub has to comply with DMCA requests. Otherwise, they would lose their safe harbor protection and become liable for all distributions of copyrighted content through their service. However, GitHub is also required to reinstate `youtube-dl` if the creator files a DMCA counter-notice.
- mindslight 6y ago
  This is not a valid DMCA takedown request, as the claimant has not asserted copyright ownership of anything in the repository. This notice is a conflation of two separate aspects of the DMCA, the copyright takedown process and technological circumvention devices. If the RIAA wishes to claim that youtube-dl is a circumvention device, the proper route is to sue the authors of youtube-dl. This notice is an abuse of process, and highlights the need for a penalty for fraudulent DMCA requests.
  - vhold 6y ago
    This is a good point, but I think ultimately Github has to comply with it to maintain their legal immunity, it's not their responsibility to determine if a copyright claim is valid. Similarly, youtube-dl can issue a counter-notice, and Github will have no responsibility to determine the validity of that either. They simply restore access unless they have been notified that a lawsuit is in progress.
    - yebyen 6y ago
      That's exactly how it works. The content carrier is on the hook to be responsive to DMCA takedown requests, and they are ~allowed~ (actually, also required) to be responsive to counter-notices as you describe. Their responsibility begins with removing the hosted data in question, where a valid DMCA notice is issued (and there is no incentive for them to make a judgement about whether the notice is valid or not.) If the authors of youtube-dl want to file a counter claim, that is their right, (which would put GitHub within their rights to restore the content too.) https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-notice-targeting-your-content https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-no... All of these declarations are made under penalty of perjury, both claims and counter-claims: > The DMCA requires that you swear to the facts in your copyright complaint under penalty of perjury. It is a federal crime to intentionally lie in a sworn declaration. (See U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1621.) Submitting false information could also result in civil liability—meaning you could incur a financial penalty. The civil liability here is a liability to the party who was damaged, (the author or copyright holder), so even if GitHub wanted to assert by themselves that the DMCA takedown claim was invalid, they would not have standing to sue anyone about it. So pretending even if you did believe youtube-dl authors are in the right and that the courts would be inclined to rule in their favor, and you're Microsoft, you have to honor the DMCA request and take down the content in order for there to be justice, since there can be no party with standing unless there are actual damages. (IANAL, you probably already figured that out by now, and I have no idea what the legal definition of "actual damages" is, but I do know what standing is.) Personally I agree that this does not represent a valid DMCA claim, but for GitHub to assert that and ignore the claim based on the way these laws are written, and those safe-harbor laws as well, I think any lawyer would say this is not possible.
      - 15155 6y ago
        > DMCA takedown claim was invalid, they would not have standing to sue anyone about If this exact same logic were extended to YouTube: an invalid DMCA claim will absolutely reduce YouTube ad revenue causing measurable financial damage. Besides arguing: "they should have known it was invalid and refused to comply," how exactly would this not grant standing?
  - murgindrag 6y ago
    It seems like the right process is to mosey on over to gitlab. If gitlab properly defends the developer, that will continue the gradual github exodus to more open platforms.
  - eli 6y ago
    It's not a DMCA Takedown Request. It's just a letter. Making a request to take a repo down. Anyone can write a letter.
- m11a 6y ago
  “For all distributions of copyrighted content through their service” I don’t think that’s true? I think that only extends to this particular DMCA. Obviously it wouldn’t extend to eg me claiming Ruby on Rails is copyright infringement.
  - slaymaker1907 6y ago
    You are correct, apparently YT itself sided with Lindsay Ellis when she received a completely bogus DMCA request. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3v5wFMQRqs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3v5wFMQRqs
  - NobodyNada 6y ago
    I wasn't 100% sure, and the Wikipedia page doesn't specify. Thanks for the clarification.
indigochill 6y ago
While the takedown request is outrageous, I'd probably respond the same in MS's shoes. Frankly defending it is not worth the corporate lawyering required from MS's perspective. That said, I think if Youtube-dl self-hosted on Gitlab or something and received a similar takedown, they could probably mount a successful defense.
kelnos 6y ago
> It's outrageous indeed that GH/MS is complying. Not really. They're legally required to do so. The DMCA notice (despite what someone suggests downthread) is unfortunately quite properly served. Even if it is flat-out wrong, GH/MS has no reason (and likely no resources) to investigate whether or not that's the case. And if they did, and got it wrong, they'd lose their safe harbor status and be liable for damages. If the youtube-dl author believes it to be bullshit, they can send a counter-notice, and GH/MS will then put it back up. If the RIAA still has a bone to pick, they can file a lawsuit. Unfortunately, they very well may. > It's not that far from targeting wget or curl, were it not for the widespread use of them in industry. I get really confused when I hear things like this, because this makes no sense. Targeting a program called "YouTube Download", which has the main purpose of downloading clean copies of YT videos, against the wishes of the content creators is absolutely not the same thing as targeting a generic HTTP/FTP download tool. I think the DMCA is garbage, but it feels like willful ignorance to be at all surprised about things like this, and to compare this to something obviously non-infringing.
- progman32 6y ago
  > which has the main purpose of downloading clean copies of YT videos Among many other sites and services. > against the wishes of the content creators I'm a content creator on YouTube and I'd be honored if anyone chooses to save my videos on disk. The tool has its legitimate uses and abuses.

It's outrageous indeed that GH/MS is complying. It's not that far from targeting wget or curl, were it not for the widespread use of them in industry.

by 3np 6y ago

It's outrageous indeed that GH/MS is complying. It's not that far from targeting wget or curl, were it not for the widespread use of them in industry.

gruez 6y ago

>It's outrageous indeed that GH/MS is complying. Because there's no upside and only downside. If they refuse to comply and it turns out that youtube-dl did infringe, then they won't have DMCA safe harbor status and could be liable for damages.

NobodyNada 6y ago

IANAL, but as far as I know GitHub has to comply with DMCA requests. Otherwise, they would lose their safe harbor protection and become liable for all distributions of copyrighted content through their service. However, GitHub is also required to reinstate `youtube-dl` if the creator files a DMCA counter-notice.

mindslight 6y ago
This is not a valid DMCA takedown request, as the claimant has not asserted copyright ownership of anything in the repository. This notice is a conflation of two separate aspects of the DMCA, the copyright takedown process and technological circumvention devices. If the RIAA wishes to claim that youtube-dl is a circumvention device, the proper route is to sue the authors of youtube-dl. This notice is an abuse of process, and highlights the need for a penalty for fraudulent DMCA requests.
- vhold 6y ago
  This is a good point, but I think ultimately Github has to comply with it to maintain their legal immunity, it's not their responsibility to determine if a copyright claim is valid. Similarly, youtube-dl can issue a counter-notice, and Github will have no responsibility to determine the validity of that either. They simply restore access unless they have been notified that a lawsuit is in progress.
  - yebyen 6y ago
    That's exactly how it works. The content carrier is on the hook to be responsive to DMCA takedown requests, and they are ~allowed~ (actually, also required) to be responsive to counter-notices as you describe. Their responsibility begins with removing the hosted data in question, where a valid DMCA notice is issued (and there is no incentive for them to make a judgement about whether the notice is valid or not.) If the authors of youtube-dl want to file a counter claim, that is their right, (which would put GitHub within their rights to restore the content too.) https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-notice-targeting-your-content https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-no... All of these declarations are made under penalty of perjury, both claims and counter-claims: > The DMCA requires that you swear to the facts in your copyright complaint under penalty of perjury. It is a federal crime to intentionally lie in a sworn declaration. (See U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1621.) Submitting false information could also result in civil liability—meaning you could incur a financial penalty. The civil liability here is a liability to the party who was damaged, (the author or copyright holder), so even if GitHub wanted to assert by themselves that the DMCA takedown claim was invalid, they would not have standing to sue anyone about it. So pretending even if you did believe youtube-dl authors are in the right and that the courts would be inclined to rule in their favor, and you're Microsoft, you have to honor the DMCA request and take down the content in order for there to be justice, since there can be no party with standing unless there are actual damages. (IANAL, you probably already figured that out by now, and I have no idea what the legal definition of "actual damages" is, but I do know what standing is.) Personally I agree that this does not represent a valid DMCA claim, but for GitHub to assert that and ignore the claim based on the way these laws are written, and those safe-harbor laws as well, I think any lawyer would say this is not possible.
    - 15155 6y ago
      > DMCA takedown claim was invalid, they would not have standing to sue anyone about If this exact same logic were extended to YouTube: an invalid DMCA claim will absolutely reduce YouTube ad revenue causing measurable financial damage. Besides arguing: "they should have known it was invalid and refused to comply," how exactly would this not grant standing?
- murgindrag 6y ago
  It seems like the right process is to mosey on over to gitlab. If gitlab properly defends the developer, that will continue the gradual github exodus to more open platforms.
- eli 6y ago
  It's not a DMCA Takedown Request. It's just a letter. Making a request to take a repo down. Anyone can write a letter.
m11a 6y ago
“For all distributions of copyrighted content through their service” I don’t think that’s true? I think that only extends to this particular DMCA. Obviously it wouldn’t extend to eg me claiming Ruby on Rails is copyright infringement.
- slaymaker1907 6y ago
  You are correct, apparently YT itself sided with Lindsay Ellis when she received a completely bogus DMCA request. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3v5wFMQRqs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3v5wFMQRqs
- NobodyNada 6y ago
  I wasn't 100% sure, and the Wikipedia page doesn't specify. Thanks for the clarification.

indigochill 6y ago

While the takedown request is outrageous, I'd probably respond the same in MS's shoes. Frankly defending it is not worth the corporate lawyering required from MS's perspective. That said, I think if Youtube-dl self-hosted on Gitlab or something and received a similar takedown, they could probably mount a successful defense.

kelnos 6y ago

> It's outrageous indeed that GH/MS is complying. Not really. They're legally required to do so. The DMCA notice (despite what someone suggests downthread) is unfortunately quite properly served. Even if it is flat-out wrong, GH/MS has no reason (and likely no resources) to investigate whether or not that's the case. And if they did, and got it wrong, they'd lose their safe harbor status and be liable for damages. If the youtube-dl author believes it to be bullshit, they can send a counter-notice, and GH/MS will then put it back up. If the RIAA still has a bone to pick, they can file a lawsuit. Unfortunately, they very well may. > It's not that far from targeting wget or curl, were it not for the widespread use of them in industry. I get really confused when I hear things like this, because this makes no sense. Targeting a program called "YouTube Download", which has the main purpose of downloading clean copies of YT videos, against the wishes of the content creators is absolutely not the same thing as targeting a generic HTTP/FTP download tool. I think the DMCA is garbage, but it feels like willful ignorance to be at all surprised about things like this, and to compare this to something obviously non-infringing.

progman32 6y ago
> which has the main purpose of downloading clean copies of YT videos Among many other sites and services. > against the wishes of the content creators I'm a content creator on YouTube and I'd be honored if anyone chooses to save my videos on disk. The tool has its legitimate uses and abuses.