3 ms·

Yep. I wonder where this will go defensively in court if it gets there. I guess what the RIAA is really saying is that murder is legal depending on what was u

by nickjj 6y ago

Yep. I wonder where this will go defensively in court if it gets there. I guess what the RIAA is really saying is that murder is legal depending on what was used to kill someone. A hunting knife could be used to kill someone but it could also be used to slice a pizza pie. A pizza cutter was designed to slice pizza but it could also kill someone without too much effort. If it's not ok for youtube-dl to create an mp3 of a music video but it is ok for OBS to do the same then it must also be ok to decapitate someone with a pizza cutter[0]. [0]: Do not try this. I'm not a lawyer.

sjy 6y ago
In that analogy, the RIAA is saying “hunting knives are illegal, because they’re primarily designed or marketed for hunting, which is illegal” and you are saying “that’s unfair because I use my hunting knife to cut pizza.” The analogy breaks down because hunting knives aren’t illegal, but copyright circumvention devices are.
- nickjj 6y ago
  The end result provided by both tools is what's illegal in both cases. Recording copyrighted material and murder. In my analogy the RIAA is saying a specialized tool for recording copyrighted material (youtube-dl) is illegal but since they didn't file a DMCA request for non-specialized tools that record copyrighted material (OBS and the like) then they must be ok with allowing copyrighted recordings from those tools. Thus the RIAA thinks specialized tools for murder (hunting knife) are illegal but generic tools not designed for murder (pizza cutter) are fine to kill someone.
  - nilsocket 6y ago
    Actually I also thought of something similar, but the analogy is wrong. A knife cannot make any decision based on the subject on which it's being treated. i.e., a knife itself cannot do anything, while I use it to kill someone. A software can stop a user from downloading copyrighted content. Intact, YouTube itself gives video info, simply by requesting it's info page. But in-order to download music videos, one needs cryptographic hashes, which need to computed. One needs to write specifically software to deal with this case.

by nickjj 6y ago

sjy 6y ago

In that analogy, the RIAA is saying “hunting knives are illegal, because they’re primarily designed or marketed for hunting, which is illegal” and you are saying “that’s unfair because I use my hunting knife to cut pizza.” The analogy breaks down because hunting knives aren’t illegal, but copyright circumvention devices are.

nickjj 6y ago
The end result provided by both tools is what's illegal in both cases. Recording copyrighted material and murder. In my analogy the RIAA is saying a specialized tool for recording copyrighted material (youtube-dl) is illegal but since they didn't file a DMCA request for non-specialized tools that record copyrighted material (OBS and the like) then they must be ok with allowing copyrighted recordings from those tools. Thus the RIAA thinks specialized tools for murder (hunting knife) are illegal but generic tools not designed for murder (pizza cutter) are fine to kill someone.
- nilsocket 6y ago
  Actually I also thought of something similar, but the analogy is wrong. A knife cannot make any decision based on the subject on which it's being treated. i.e., a knife itself cannot do anything, while I use it to kill someone. A software can stop a user from downloading copyrighted content. Intact, YouTube itself gives video info, simply by requesting it's info page. But in-order to download music videos, one needs cryptographic hashes, which need to computed. One needs to write specifically software to deal with this case.