9 ms·

This is not a DMCA notice; A DMCA notice requires the identification of claimed copyrighted content and this document does no such thing. The document claims t

This is not a DMCA notice; A DMCA notice requires the identification of claimed copyrighted content and this document does no such thing. The document claims that youtube-dl is illegal for being able to download video and audio from YouTube but not for hosting copyrighted material in the repo or binary distributions. The RIAA is claiming youtube-dl is "circumventing DRM".

sssarel 6y ago
They do actually mention 3 specific copyrighted songs used as examples in the tests. Seems to me that was on oversight, and they should have only used open videos as tests in the repo. Similar to how Kodi can't use copyrighted material in app store screenshots or videos.
- thristian 6y ago
  The tests are testing that youtube-dl can successfully see through three specific varieties of obfuscation as used by those videos. Testing open videos would not work, since Google doesn't obfuscate those in the same way. Uploading special videos with the right configuration wouldn't work, those particular obfuscation methods are only available to specific YouTube partners, not to the youtube-dl authors.
  - bitwize 6y ago
    That just proves that Youtube-dl is intended to circumvent copyright protection measures. Those obfuscation measures count as "effective" for the purposes of the DMCA. Trafficking in software to circumvent them is a felony. GitHub and Microsoft could find themselves criminally liable if they do not take it down.
    - noxer 6y ago
      Take down chrome then its "intended to circumvent copyright protection measures" as you can clearly watch these youtube videos with chrome.
      - joshmanders 6y ago
        That's what confuses me. Isn't there a gray area here where it's not illegal to download copyrighted material, but illegal to reshare it, aka upload it. So if that is true, then youtube-dl is not illegal and this DMCA is easily reverted. RIAA is just trying to use their deep pockets against a nobody and Microsoft is basically saying "We side with you" knowing damn well their lawyers know this code is not illegal.
      - zaroth 6y ago
        I would love to know the legal distinction between YouTube-dl and Chrome. They are both obviously user agents used for accessing video content hosted on a public remote server using standard web protocols. Then tell me how uBlock Origin is somehow Ok if YouTube-dl is not.
        nogabebop23 6y ago
        I missed the news story where the RIAA is going after chrome and the one where they filed a DMCA complaint against the uBlock Origin repo. Anyone who read the justification in the original complaint would see how these are different, but it doesn't matter; the RIAA is not pursuing them so until they or someone else does it's irrelevant.
        bitwize 6y ago
        What is the legal distinction between DeCSS and the decryption code in the firmware of a DVD player? One comes from the publisher and is intended to play back the content in an approved way. The other is a reimplementation of the first, intended to circumvent the restrictions imposed by the first. That's illegal, per the DMCA. It's black-letter law in the US and elsewhere.
        zaroth 6y ago
        In the case of DVDs, the copyrighted code which decrypted DVDs was being licensed to DVD player companies. The code was not open source, and so stealing the key was itself copyright infringement, and more obviously circumvention of DRM. In this case we have video which is streaming on the open web, which trivially provides for the user agent to download / cache a copy. The question is not a matter of whether that copy is being redistributed, but that the user agent can watch it in an ad-free space whenever they want. You could probably accomplish the same thing, or nearly so, with a browser plugin. Which is why I make the comparison to uBlock. uBlock is similarly "playing back the content in an unapproved way" and perhaps you could say it is also a circumvention device. The whole concept of "user agent" is that software on the user's machine -- that they control -- is rendering remote content in a form and fashion chosen by the user. The HTML provided by a remote server is not a legal contract for how that content must be displayed. It is a semantic description of the content, which the user agent can do with whatever it pleases for display to the user. As long as no redistribution is occurring, the whole basis of the world-wide web is that a user agent can do whatever it wants to the content, including save a copy on the local machine. So to me the most interesting question is exactly how youtube-dl becomes/became distinct from a user agent.
  - tdrgabi 6y ago
    Isn't that evidence for the case though? youtube-dl has code to see through obfuscation methods which are only available to specific YouTube partners. If you're a tool for downloading open, not copyrighted videos, why do you need that?
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      youtube-dl is not, strictly speaking, a downloading tool. It's an access tool. You want to access YouTube videos through an alternate client, as is your legal right in the European Union? youtube-dl is a useful library for the job. You can use youtube-dl to download videos, but the intended use here is clearly for watching them. Just because syringe needles are tested on (and advertised for) human skin and are also tested with poisonous chemicals, that doesn't mean you should attack syringe needle manufacturers for making murder weapons.
      - hnlmorg 6y ago
        You're trying very hard to make a technical distinction but the problem is that this is a legal problem not a technical one and rightly or wrongly, legal definitions don't always align with technical ones. For starters, intent is factored into the law. There's several different classifications of murder depending on intent. Likewise someone carrying a kitchen knife home, still packaged, from the shops is unlikely to be reprimanded compared to someone carrying a more decorative knife around. They're both knives but one instance clearly carries a different intent to another. The problem with youtube-dl is that having tests which work against copyrighted content and having the README describe usages against copyrighted content, it's much harder to argue that the intent of this is purely for copyleft content. Your point about this being an access tool (which actually makes no difference in terms of circumventing DRM anyway -- which was the claim for the take down) also doesn't fly because this tool creates a file on your local disk so it's hard to argue that the intent is for that file to be temporary. I'm not saying I agree with the take down notice (I don't) but something a great many techies on here miss is that not every argument can be won with science.
        decasteve 6y ago
  - kortex 6y ago
    So why can't we crowdsource some Youtube partners that are willing to allow their copyright to be used, while still utilizing the obfuscation? Or are we talking a sweetheart deal only available to specific parnters ?coughvevocough
saddlerustle 6y ago
No, youtube-dl is illegal for including code to decrypt youtube video request signatures, which are scrambled specifically on most music videos, which a german court ruled is an effective technological protection measure.
- nix23 6y ago
  >llegal for including code to decrypt youtube video request signatures No it's not, in Switzerland for example it's legal to use tools to remove stuff like DRM, if you DONT redistribute the decrypted stuff. What a German Court says is often not relevant outside germany.
  - scrollaway 6y ago
    Here's a video of a copyright lawyer agreeing with GP for 1h20min: https://youtu.be/wZITscblMBA https://youtu.be/wZITscblMBA In short, what a german court says will absolutely influence what a US court says in the context of an international copyright treaty.
    - nix23 6y ago
      >german court says will absolutely influence what a US court Not will but can. That's a difference...and i dont watch a 1h20min YT video about Copyright...when decrypting has nothing todo with copyright.
      - scrollaway 6y ago
        It's a video about the exact case in question, talks extensively about the decryption aspect and in general the circumvention of technological protection measures. Watch it, don't watch it, it doesn't matter to anyone here, but please lower that horse back down to earth, it's a little high.
        nix23 6y ago
        >but please lower that horse back down to earth, it's a little high As if your talking about yourself, maybe your a bit young but we had the exact same problem in the past (decrypting DVD's) those are Disc who stored Movies on it. And a Swiss Court decided that it's legal to use dvcss (not sure about the name). And you tell me to watch a YT from a US Lawyer.
bitwize 6y ago
It is. The DMCA makes circumventing "effective" protection measures illegal. "Effective" is a term defined in law and basically means any hoop you have to jump through to get to copyrighted material, no matter how flawed or trivially bypassed. The restrictions in place to allow YouTube videos to be only downloaded through YouTube count. Youtube-dl is absolutely illegal software.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  > Youtube-dl is absolutely illegal software. Not in Italy What US law says is often irrelevant outside of the US of A
  - saddlerustle 6y ago
    No, the restrictions around circumventing an effective technological protection measures are implemented in Italian law too [1] and more broadly are required to be implemented in every EU member state as a result of EU Directive 2001/29/EC [2] [1] https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/it/it211en.pdf https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/it/it211en.pdf [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32001L0029 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A...
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      That doesn't make youtube-dl "absolutely illegal". You should know that "absolutely" means anytime, everywhere, which is obviously wrong. You should also know that in Italy for something to be claimed illegal the court has to emit a verdict. If nobody challenge the status of youtube-dl obtaining a guilty verdict, it is perfectly legal. Last but not least, that law was created during fascmism, so there's also that. But in any case "fair use"(as you americans call it) is always permitted in Italy, you don't need a license, you are liable only if the entity detaining the copyright obtains a restricting order from a judge. So in Italy I can download any video I want from YouTube and I am permitted to watch them, It's not against the law. What's against the law is the re-distribution of the content. Moreover, you probably misread the law or skipped that passage, in Italy internet publishing (such as file downloading) itś a different right and it's called "exclusive right of communication to the public of the work" > it also includes the making available to the public of a work in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them Sorry.
judge2020 6y ago
Regardless, not honoring a DMCA would mean GitHub is asserting that they think it's false and would need to defend their decision if RIAA were to sue them; it doesn't make sense to verify every single DMCA claim and increase liability by not honoring some.
- nogabebop23 6y ago
  THis is likely a consideration. From my decidely non-lawyer viewpoint the RIAA is using a terrible law, but still a law and they have grounds under this law for their claims. GH and MS have deep pockets and if they tried to initially fight this I'm confident they would settle. If you're the RIAA who would you rather go after - someone who will pay after a little bit of fighting, or a huge group who will immediately roll over but have nothing to give you?
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
DMCA covers "circumvention devices".
- fabianhjr 6y ago
  But the DMCA notice mechanism does not.

sssarel 6y ago

They do actually mention 3 specific copyrighted songs used as examples in the tests. Seems to me that was on oversight, and they should have only used open videos as tests in the repo. Similar to how Kodi can't use copyrighted material in app store screenshots or videos.

thristian 6y ago
The tests are testing that youtube-dl can successfully see through three specific varieties of obfuscation as used by those videos. Testing open videos would not work, since Google doesn't obfuscate those in the same way. Uploading special videos with the right configuration wouldn't work, those particular obfuscation methods are only available to specific YouTube partners, not to the youtube-dl authors.
- bitwize 6y ago
  That just proves that Youtube-dl is intended to circumvent copyright protection measures. Those obfuscation measures count as "effective" for the purposes of the DMCA. Trafficking in software to circumvent them is a felony. GitHub and Microsoft could find themselves criminally liable if they do not take it down.
  - noxer 6y ago
    Take down chrome then its "intended to circumvent copyright protection measures" as you can clearly watch these youtube videos with chrome.
    - joshmanders 6y ago
      That's what confuses me. Isn't there a gray area here where it's not illegal to download copyrighted material, but illegal to reshare it, aka upload it. So if that is true, then youtube-dl is not illegal and this DMCA is easily reverted. RIAA is just trying to use their deep pockets against a nobody and Microsoft is basically saying "We side with you" knowing damn well their lawyers know this code is not illegal.
    - zaroth 6y ago
      I would love to know the legal distinction between YouTube-dl and Chrome. They are both obviously user agents used for accessing video content hosted on a public remote server using standard web protocols. Then tell me how uBlock Origin is somehow Ok if YouTube-dl is not.
      - nogabebop23 6y ago
        I missed the news story where the RIAA is going after chrome and the one where they filed a DMCA complaint against the uBlock Origin repo. Anyone who read the justification in the original complaint would see how these are different, but it doesn't matter; the RIAA is not pursuing them so until they or someone else does it's irrelevant.
      - bitwize 6y ago
        What is the legal distinction between DeCSS and the decryption code in the firmware of a DVD player? One comes from the publisher and is intended to play back the content in an approved way. The other is a reimplementation of the first, intended to circumvent the restrictions imposed by the first. That's illegal, per the DMCA. It's black-letter law in the US and elsewhere.
        zaroth 6y ago
        In the case of DVDs, the copyrighted code which decrypted DVDs was being licensed to DVD player companies. The code was not open source, and so stealing the key was itself copyright infringement, and more obviously circumvention of DRM. In this case we have video which is streaming on the open web, which trivially provides for the user agent to download / cache a copy. The question is not a matter of whether that copy is being redistributed, but that the user agent can watch it in an ad-free space whenever they want. You could probably accomplish the same thing, or nearly so, with a browser plugin. Which is why I make the comparison to uBlock. uBlock is similarly "playing back the content in an unapproved way" and perhaps you could say it is also a circumvention device. The whole concept of "user agent" is that software on the user's machine -- that they control -- is rendering remote content in a form and fashion chosen by the user. The HTML provided by a remote server is not a legal contract for how that content must be displayed. It is a semantic description of the content, which the user agent can do with whatever it pleases for display to the user. As long as no redistribution is occurring, the whole basis of the world-wide web is that a user agent can do whatever it wants to the content, including save a copy on the local machine. So to me the most interesting question is exactly how youtube-dl becomes/became distinct from a user agent.
- tdrgabi 6y ago
  Isn't that evidence for the case though? youtube-dl has code to see through obfuscation methods which are only available to specific YouTube partners. If you're a tool for downloading open, not copyrighted videos, why do you need that?
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    youtube-dl is not, strictly speaking, a downloading tool. It's an access tool. You want to access YouTube videos through an alternate client, as is your legal right in the European Union? youtube-dl is a useful library for the job. You can use youtube-dl to download videos, but the intended use here is clearly for watching them. Just because syringe needles are tested on (and advertised for) human skin and are also tested with poisonous chemicals, that doesn't mean you should attack syringe needle manufacturers for making murder weapons.
    - hnlmorg 6y ago
      You're trying very hard to make a technical distinction but the problem is that this is a legal problem not a technical one and rightly or wrongly, legal definitions don't always align with technical ones. For starters, intent is factored into the law. There's several different classifications of murder depending on intent. Likewise someone carrying a kitchen knife home, still packaged, from the shops is unlikely to be reprimanded compared to someone carrying a more decorative knife around. They're both knives but one instance clearly carries a different intent to another. The problem with youtube-dl is that having tests which work against copyrighted content and having the README describe usages against copyrighted content, it's much harder to argue that the intent of this is purely for copyleft content. Your point about this being an access tool (which actually makes no difference in terms of circumventing DRM anyway -- which was the claim for the take down) also doesn't fly because this tool creates a file on your local disk so it's hard to argue that the intent is for that file to be temporary. I'm not saying I agree with the take down notice (I don't) but something a great many techies on here miss is that not every argument can be won with science.
      - decasteve 6y ago
- kortex 6y ago
  So why can't we crowdsource some Youtube partners that are willing to allow their copyright to be used, while still utilizing the obfuscation? Or are we talking a sweetheart deal only available to specific parnters ?coughvevocough

saddlerustle 6y ago

No, youtube-dl is illegal for including code to decrypt youtube video request signatures, which are scrambled specifically on most music videos, which a german court ruled is an effective technological protection measure.

nix23 6y ago
>llegal for including code to decrypt youtube video request signatures No it's not, in Switzerland for example it's legal to use tools to remove stuff like DRM, if you DONT redistribute the decrypted stuff. What a German Court says is often not relevant outside germany.
- scrollaway 6y ago
  Here's a video of a copyright lawyer agreeing with GP for 1h20min: https://youtu.be/wZITscblMBA https://youtu.be/wZITscblMBA In short, what a german court says will absolutely influence what a US court says in the context of an international copyright treaty.
  - nix23 6y ago
    >german court says will absolutely influence what a US court Not will but can. That's a difference...and i dont watch a 1h20min YT video about Copyright...when decrypting has nothing todo with copyright.
    - scrollaway 6y ago
      It's a video about the exact case in question, talks extensively about the decryption aspect and in general the circumvention of technological protection measures. Watch it, don't watch it, it doesn't matter to anyone here, but please lower that horse back down to earth, it's a little high.
      - nix23 6y ago
        >but please lower that horse back down to earth, it's a little high As if your talking about yourself, maybe your a bit young but we had the exact same problem in the past (decrypting DVD's) those are Disc who stored Movies on it. And a Swiss Court decided that it's legal to use dvcss (not sure about the name). And you tell me to watch a YT from a US Lawyer.

bitwize 6y ago

It is. The DMCA makes circumventing "effective" protection measures illegal. "Effective" is a term defined in law and basically means any hoop you have to jump through to get to copyrighted material, no matter how flawed or trivially bypassed. The restrictions in place to allow YouTube videos to be only downloaded through YouTube count. Youtube-dl is absolutely illegal software.

romanoderoma 6y ago
> Youtube-dl is absolutely illegal software. Not in Italy What US law says is often irrelevant outside of the US of A
- saddlerustle 6y ago
  No, the restrictions around circumventing an effective technological protection measures are implemented in Italian law too [1] and more broadly are required to be implemented in every EU member state as a result of EU Directive 2001/29/EC [2] [1] https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/it/it211en.pdf https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/it/it211en.pdf [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32001L0029 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A...
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    That doesn't make youtube-dl "absolutely illegal". You should know that "absolutely" means anytime, everywhere, which is obviously wrong. You should also know that in Italy for something to be claimed illegal the court has to emit a verdict. If nobody challenge the status of youtube-dl obtaining a guilty verdict, it is perfectly legal. Last but not least, that law was created during fascmism, so there's also that. But in any case "fair use"(as you americans call it) is always permitted in Italy, you don't need a license, you are liable only if the entity detaining the copyright obtains a restricting order from a judge. So in Italy I can download any video I want from YouTube and I am permitted to watch them, It's not against the law. What's against the law is the re-distribution of the content. Moreover, you probably misread the law or skipped that passage, in Italy internet publishing (such as file downloading) itś a different right and it's called "exclusive right of communication to the public of the work" > it also includes the making available to the public of a work in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them Sorry.

judge2020 6y ago

Regardless, not honoring a DMCA would mean GitHub is asserting that they think it's false and would need to defend their decision if RIAA were to sue them; it doesn't make sense to verify every single DMCA claim and increase liability by not honoring some.

nogabebop23 6y ago
THis is likely a consideration. From my decidely non-lawyer viewpoint the RIAA is using a terrible law, but still a law and they have grounds under this law for their claims. GH and MS have deep pockets and if they tried to initially fight this I'm confident they would settle. If you're the RIAA who would you rather go after - someone who will pay after a little bit of fighting, or a huge group who will immediately roll over but have nothing to give you?

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

DMCA covers "circumvention devices".

fabianhjr 6y ago
But the DMCA notice mechanism does not.