8 ms·

DMCA is a bad law, but you'd have a harder time arguing a general purpose web browser meets any of the following conditions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode

by eli 6y ago

DMCA is a bad law, but you'd have a harder time arguing a general purpose web browser meets any of the following conditions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 (2)No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A)is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B)has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C)is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

rmrfstar 6y ago
You could probably scratch out A and B by emphasizing how useful youtube-dl is for grabbing local copies of MIT licensed university lectures. C is harder, given the README.md examples.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  But what DRM "technological measure" is being circumvented?
  - prutschman 6y ago
    As I understand it, there are two definitions of technological measure in the DMCA. One is in the anti-circumvention portion, the other in the anti-cirvumvention-tool portion. In the latter case: 17 U.S.C. Sec. 1201 (b)(2) (B): a technological measure "effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
thaumasiotes 6y ago
Can you argue that youtube-dl meets any of those conditions? You can argue that youtube-dl facilitates making copies of copyrighted works; that's easy. But the items A, B, and C that you quote all require circumventing a technological measure that controls access to a protected work. And youtube videos, in the general case, have completely uncontrolled access. You can't circumvent measures that don't exist.
- corobo 6y ago
  YouTube videos don't have a right click option to download the video (a browser builtin) therefore there's a technical measure that controls the downloading of the video You don't have to be technically correct, you have to be legally correct. It's like technically correct only it's way more pedantic
  - wegs 6y ago
    > You don't have to be technically correct, you have to be legally correct. It's like technically correct only it's way more pedantic That's not how the law works. Legally correct is much less pedantic than technically correct. The difference is that legally correct often takes millions of dollars to ascertain. I use youtube-dl all the time, and never illegally. Most of the content is CC-licensed educational content, and the major use is working in contexts without guaranteed bandwidth.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - e12e 6y ago
    Youtube-dl works with many more services than YouTube, FYI.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
CivBase 6y ago
I think youtube-dl failed 1201(a)(2)(C) and 1201(a)(2)(C) because of that README. Like I said, they should fix the README. However, I still consider it rotten that they would forcibly take down a project as big as youtube-dl because of something so innocuous. A simple "cease and desist" against the youtube-dl project regarding their README examples almost certainly would have been sufficient. Instead, the RIAA took needlessly drastic measures with a DMCA takedown that paints RIAA as a poor defenseless victim from start to finish. This was not an attempt to right a minor copyright infringement, this was a public declaration from RIAA that they are aware of and object to the youtube-dl project. This part of the DMCA takedown document is particularly rotten: > The clear purpose of this source code is to (i) circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube, and (ii) reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Lawyers are not engineers. Corporate lawyers are mercenary thugs with assistants, expensive suits, and very very very high daily rates. This is the kind of thing is that lawyers do, because this is what they're paid to do. You cannot win this by simply saying "Hands off our code - this is outrageous" because that's not how the law works. If you want to make an argument agains this you literally have to make it stand up in court, and that is not easy. While lawyers are sometimes foul and shameless creatures, the engineering community does not seem to understand that it is not playing on its own turf here. If you do not take the time to understand the rules of the game you will lose hard. In this case the RIAA could easily have sued for damages and loss of earnings - and it would probably win that case if it came to court, although someone in counsel probably argued (wisely) that it wouldn't be worth the Streisand Effect damage.
  - rhino369 6y ago
    A huge percent of software engineers work on (directly or indirectly) advertising and spying on users. I wouldn't throw stones.
wlerin 6y ago
The RIAA had a hard time too until the EU wrote the shitty laws their entire argument is based on (though what relevance those have to the DMCA is anyone's guess).
loup-vaillant 6y ago
Reading (A) and (B), I cannot help but notice that it doesn't matter whether the primary purpose of the circumvention is to infringe copyright. It is enough that the software/service is primarily about circumventing the "technological measure". The technological measure itself doesn't even have to be primarily about preventing copyright infringement. It suffices that it effectively controls access to relevant works, even if it's not its primary purpose. We could even argue that YouTube's restriction are primarily a means of getting people back to YouTube, with copyright enforcement being only a secondary concern. Sadly, this argument would be irrelevant with respect to (A) and (B).
- mulmen 6y ago
  Right, it gives creators freedom to build what they want. In this case, YouTube. The sword cuts both ways.
- anticensor 6y ago
  It does, "ordinary course of operation" means "the most obvious use" and they took the tool as circumventing, looking at the test cases that are intended to succeed in circumvention.
  - loup-vaillant 6y ago
    No, really, it doesn't. It just makes the RIAA's case that much easier, makes YouTube-DL look bad. (A) and (B) above however are broader than that. It doesn't matter that the technological measure is primarily about restricting access to protected works. It only matters that it effectively does restrict that access. It wouldn't even matter if Youtub-DL is only used to access public domain videos, because their primary mode of operation would still be to circumvent the technological measure (assuming that measure restrict access to all works, not just the protected ones). A "new" tool branded as a way to download public domain videos hosted on various web sites such as YouTube, (let's call it "Public Domain Tubes Archiver"), would still infringe on (A) and (B) if downloading those public domain videos primarily involved going around a technological measure that happens to restrict access to (unrelated) protected works.
jcranmer 6y ago
There's some definitions that are also relevant: (A) to “circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure” means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and (B) a technological measure “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title. I don't believe the protections that youtube-dl works around qualify under the definition 1201(b)(2)(B) here, but I would definitely want to confer with a lawyer before posting a DMCA counterclaim.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
You're not even quoting the right section. Section 1201 is about circumvention tools, takedowns are Section 512.

by eli 6y ago

rmrfstar 6y ago

You could probably scratch out A and B by emphasizing how useful youtube-dl is for grabbing local copies of MIT licensed university lectures. C is harder, given the README.md examples.

nitrogen 6y ago
But what DRM "technological measure" is being circumvented?
- prutschman 6y ago
  As I understand it, there are two definitions of technological measure in the DMCA. One is in the anti-circumvention portion, the other in the anti-cirvumvention-tool portion. In the latter case: 17 U.S.C. Sec. 1201 (b)(2) (B): a technological measure "effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

thaumasiotes 6y ago

Can you argue that youtube-dl meets any of those conditions? You can argue that youtube-dl facilitates making copies of copyrighted works; that's easy. But the items A, B, and C that you quote all require circumventing a technological measure that controls access to a protected work. And youtube videos, in the general case, have completely uncontrolled access. You can't circumvent measures that don't exist.

corobo 6y ago
YouTube videos don't have a right click option to download the video (a browser builtin) therefore there's a technical measure that controls the downloading of the video You don't have to be technically correct, you have to be legally correct. It's like technically correct only it's way more pedantic
- wegs 6y ago
  > You don't have to be technically correct, you have to be legally correct. It's like technically correct only it's way more pedantic That's not how the law works. Legally correct is much less pedantic than technically correct. The difference is that legally correct often takes millions of dollars to ascertain. I use youtube-dl all the time, and never illegally. Most of the content is CC-licensed educational content, and the major use is working in contexts without guaranteed bandwidth.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- e12e 6y ago
  Youtube-dl works with many more services than YouTube, FYI.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

CivBase 6y ago

I think youtube-dl failed 1201(a)(2)(C) and 1201(a)(2)(C) because of that README. Like I said, they should fix the README. However, I still consider it rotten that they would forcibly take down a project as big as youtube-dl because of something so innocuous. A simple "cease and desist" against the youtube-dl project regarding their README examples almost certainly would have been sufficient. Instead, the RIAA took needlessly drastic measures with a DMCA takedown that paints RIAA as a poor defenseless victim from start to finish. This was not an attempt to right a minor copyright infringement, this was a public declaration from RIAA that they are aware of and object to the youtube-dl project. This part of the DMCA takedown document is particularly rotten: > The clear purpose of this source code is to (i) circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube, and (ii) reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
Lawyers are not engineers. Corporate lawyers are mercenary thugs with assistants, expensive suits, and very very very high daily rates. This is the kind of thing is that lawyers do, because this is what they're paid to do. You cannot win this by simply saying "Hands off our code - this is outrageous" because that's not how the law works. If you want to make an argument agains this you literally have to make it stand up in court, and that is not easy. While lawyers are sometimes foul and shameless creatures, the engineering community does not seem to understand that it is not playing on its own turf here. If you do not take the time to understand the rules of the game you will lose hard. In this case the RIAA could easily have sued for damages and loss of earnings - and it would probably win that case if it came to court, although someone in counsel probably argued (wisely) that it wouldn't be worth the Streisand Effect damage.
- rhino369 6y ago
  A huge percent of software engineers work on (directly or indirectly) advertising and spying on users. I wouldn't throw stones.

wlerin 6y ago

The RIAA had a hard time too until the EU wrote the shitty laws their entire argument is based on (though what relevance those have to the DMCA is anyone's guess).

loup-vaillant 6y ago

Reading (A) and (B), I cannot help but notice that it doesn't matter whether the primary purpose of the circumvention is to infringe copyright. It is enough that the software/service is primarily about circumventing the "technological measure". The technological measure itself doesn't even have to be primarily about preventing copyright infringement. It suffices that it effectively controls access to relevant works, even if it's not its primary purpose. We could even argue that YouTube's restriction are primarily a means of getting people back to YouTube, with copyright enforcement being only a secondary concern. Sadly, this argument would be irrelevant with respect to (A) and (B).

mulmen 6y ago
Right, it gives creators freedom to build what they want. In this case, YouTube. The sword cuts both ways.
anticensor 6y ago
It does, "ordinary course of operation" means "the most obvious use" and they took the tool as circumventing, looking at the test cases that are intended to succeed in circumvention.
- loup-vaillant 6y ago
  No, really, it doesn't. It just makes the RIAA's case that much easier, makes YouTube-DL look bad. (A) and (B) above however are broader than that. It doesn't matter that the technological measure is primarily about restricting access to protected works. It only matters that it effectively does restrict that access. It wouldn't even matter if Youtub-DL is only used to access public domain videos, because their primary mode of operation would still be to circumvent the technological measure (assuming that measure restrict access to all works, not just the protected ones). A "new" tool branded as a way to download public domain videos hosted on various web sites such as YouTube, (let's call it "Public Domain Tubes Archiver"), would still infringe on (A) and (B) if downloading those public domain videos primarily involved going around a technological measure that happens to restrict access to (unrelated) protected works.

jcranmer 6y ago

There's some definitions that are also relevant: (A) to “circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure” means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and (B) a technological measure “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title. I don't believe the protections that youtube-dl works around qualify under the definition 1201(b)(2)(B) here, but I would definitely want to confer with a lawyer before posting a DMCA counterclaim.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

You're not even quoting the right section. Section 1201 is about circumvention tools, takedowns are Section 512.