3 ms·

This isn't a new debate; in the early days of the DMCA, it was used to go after the author of DeCSS [0], despite the fact that legitimate Fair Use cases for the

This isn't a new debate; in the early days of the DMCA, it was used to go after the author of DeCSS [0], despite the fact that legitimate Fair Use cases for the tool exist (personal backups, playback on unsupported devices at the time, like Linux PCs). The case was in fact stronger there, as DeCSS explicitly circumvented encryption [1], which AFAIK youtube-dl does not. And, of course, the infamous case of Napster [2]; while the vast majority of user behavior was obviously piracy, the tool/network itself was content-neutral, and could also be used for public domain content, or works published with the permission of the copyright holder. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS [1] https://www.stoel.com/legal-insights/article/the-anti-circumvention-rules-of-the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-changing-the-digital-landscap https://www.stoel.com/legal-insights/article/the-anti-circum... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster#Shutdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster#Shutdown

ntauthority 6y ago
From the youtube-dl source code, in a file helpfully called youtube.py: def _decrypt_signature(self, s, video_id, player_url, age_gate=False): """Turn the encrypted s field into a working signature""" if player_url is None: raise ExtractorError('Cannot decrypt signature without player_url') It definitely does do decryption, as stated in the DMCA claim: > is a technology primarily designed or produced for the purpose of, and marketed for, circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to copyrighted sound recordings on YouTube .. and some claims referencing a 'youtube to mp3' site ruled illegal by a German court. Not defending this, 'effective technological measures' are a horribly broadly-scoped hole, but there is decryption at play here.
- hamiltonkibbe 6y ago
  Could you make the argument that the technological measures are not effective and therefore not "effective technological measures" since youtube-dl is able to access the recordings in spite of them?
  - ev1 6y ago
    I anal, but from what I've read DMCA anti-circumvention of access controls applies even if it's the string backwards or ROT13'd, because intent.
  - sjy 6y ago
    You could make the argument that the technological measures are not effective (the RIAA says this was rejected by a court in Hamburg), but not in that extreme form. If the existence of a working circumvention tool implied that the technical measures were not “effective,” then all circumvention tools would be legal and the law would have no effect. “Effective” must mean something more than “so ineffective that it can be circumvented with common sense,” and something less than “so effective that there’s no need to make its circumvention illegal.”

ntauthority 6y ago

From the youtube-dl source code, in a file helpfully called youtube.py: def _decrypt_signature(self, s, video_id, player_url, age_gate=False): """Turn the encrypted s field into a working signature""" if player_url is None: raise ExtractorError('Cannot decrypt signature without player_url') It definitely does do decryption, as stated in the DMCA claim: > is a technology primarily designed or produced for the purpose of, and marketed for, circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to copyrighted sound recordings on YouTube .. and some claims referencing a 'youtube to mp3' site ruled illegal by a German court. Not defending this, 'effective technological measures' are a horribly broadly-scoped hole, but there is decryption at play here.

hamiltonkibbe 6y ago
Could you make the argument that the technological measures are not effective and therefore not "effective technological measures" since youtube-dl is able to access the recordings in spite of them?
- ev1 6y ago
  I anal, but from what I've read DMCA anti-circumvention of access controls applies even if it's the string backwards or ROT13'd, because intent.
- sjy 6y ago
  You could make the argument that the technological measures are not effective (the RIAA says this was rejected by a court in Hamburg), but not in that extreme form. If the existence of a working circumvention tool implied that the technical measures were not “effective,” then all circumvention tools would be legal and the law would have no effect. “Effective” must mean something more than “so ineffective that it can be circumvented with common sense,” and something less than “so effective that there’s no need to make its circumvention illegal.”