4 ms·

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

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.

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.