4 ms·

No because the RIAA letter wasn’t a takedown notice

by eli 6y ago

judge2020 6y ago
https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-2... > and in plain violation of Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §1201. Doesn’t mean it’s legally valid, just that the service provider must take it down until they receive a counter.
- eli 6y ago
  That’s not a takedown notice and does not allege that the repo is infringing any RIAA copyright. They are alleging instead a violation of the anti-circumvention provision of DMCA which is not covered by takedown notice procedure. The letter is also missing several required elements of a takedown letter which makes sense because it’s not a takedown notice nor does it purport to be one. It’s just a letter making demands that cites the DMCA. It carries no legal weight other than the implied threat of a lawsuit.
rndgermandude 6y ago
The RIAA letter was a takedown notice, tho from the looks of it a rather frivolous one. They used a DMCA (17 U.S. Code § 512) takedown notice not to complain about infringing content but to complain about "circumvention" (17 U.S. Code § 1201). This is probably outside of the scope of DMCA notices, but courts often rule like common people would not expect (shout-out to Google vs Oracle). Github then followed the letter of the law (and case law and jurisprudence) and processed the takedown request without looking into the merit, just making sure the notice had the required elements under the DMCA. Doing anything else would potentially open up Github to liability. Now it's up to yt-dl to file a counter-notice, pointing out that the RIAA members do not actually own any copyright to the code itself (and maybe also state that yt-dl is not "primarily" a "circumvention" software according to 17 U.S. Code § 1201), and see what happens. RIAA can then file a lawsuit, which at this point they would probably win just because they can throw more money at it. Hurray for the US civil law legal system, where the richer party almost always wins.
- eli 6y ago
  It’s not a takedown notice and doesn’t follow takedown notice procedure. It doesn’t claim to be a takedown notice. RIAA sent a letter asking GitHub to take a repo down and they listened. They weren’t legally obligated to but they chose to and that’s their right. A counter notification wouldn’t necessarily do anything since the original letter was not a takedown notice. GitHub can’t be compelled to host something they no longer wish to host.
  - rndgermandude 6y ago
    I determined this based on being a person who has to read a lot of these regularly (even tho I am not in the US; fun innit?!) It does not lack any of the required elements (compare https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 ). In fact, it is specifically written to hit all the required elements. Let's go through this. Statement there is copyright infringement and demanding takedown: >In light of the above noted copyright infringements and anticircumvention violations, we ask that you immediately take down and disable access to the youtube-dl source code at all of its locations where it is hosted on GitHub, including without limitation those locations in the representative list set forth above. (yes, the "copyright infringement claim is very most likely bullshit, but it's not Github's place under the law to rule on it, unless they want to lose their safe harbor protections and open themselves up to potential liability) (vi) statement of authorization (with perjury) > Under penalty of perjury, we submit that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its member companies on matters involving the infringement of their sound recordings, audiovisual works and images, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on the Internet. (v) statement of good faith of accurateness >We have a good faith belief that this activity is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. We assert that the information in this notification is accurate, based upon the data available to us. (iv) and (i) contact details and (electronic) signature >You may contact me at RIAA, [private] Tel. [private], >[private] (ii) identification of content >We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos, as noted in Exhibit A hereto. For example, as shown on Exhibit A, the source code expressly suggests its use to copy and/or distribute the following copyrighted works owned by our member companies: [list] (yes, this is basically trickery to hit the (ii)) (iii) identification of infringement > https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl [...] And there you go, all 6 required elements + claim of infringement + demand for takedown are there.

No because the RIAA letter wasn’t a takedown notice

by eli 6y ago

No because the RIAA letter wasn’t a takedown notice

judge2020 6y ago

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-2... > and in plain violation of Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §1201. Doesn’t mean it’s legally valid, just that the service provider must take it down until they receive a counter.

eli 6y ago
That’s not a takedown notice and does not allege that the repo is infringing any RIAA copyright. They are alleging instead a violation of the anti-circumvention provision of DMCA which is not covered by takedown notice procedure. The letter is also missing several required elements of a takedown letter which makes sense because it’s not a takedown notice nor does it purport to be one. It’s just a letter making demands that cites the DMCA. It carries no legal weight other than the implied threat of a lawsuit.

rndgermandude 6y ago

The RIAA letter was a takedown notice, tho from the looks of it a rather frivolous one. They used a DMCA (17 U.S. Code § 512) takedown notice not to complain about infringing content but to complain about "circumvention" (17 U.S. Code § 1201). This is probably outside of the scope of DMCA notices, but courts often rule like common people would not expect (shout-out to Google vs Oracle). Github then followed the letter of the law (and case law and jurisprudence) and processed the takedown request without looking into the merit, just making sure the notice had the required elements under the DMCA. Doing anything else would potentially open up Github to liability. Now it's up to yt-dl to file a counter-notice, pointing out that the RIAA members do not actually own any copyright to the code itself (and maybe also state that yt-dl is not "primarily" a "circumvention" software according to 17 U.S. Code § 1201), and see what happens. RIAA can then file a lawsuit, which at this point they would probably win just because they can throw more money at it. Hurray for the US civil law legal system, where the richer party almost always wins.

eli 6y ago
It’s not a takedown notice and doesn’t follow takedown notice procedure. It doesn’t claim to be a takedown notice. RIAA sent a letter asking GitHub to take a repo down and they listened. They weren’t legally obligated to but they chose to and that’s their right. A counter notification wouldn’t necessarily do anything since the original letter was not a takedown notice. GitHub can’t be compelled to host something they no longer wish to host.
- rndgermandude 6y ago
  I determined this based on being a person who has to read a lot of these regularly (even tho I am not in the US; fun innit?!) It does not lack any of the required elements (compare https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 ). In fact, it is specifically written to hit all the required elements. Let's go through this. Statement there is copyright infringement and demanding takedown: >In light of the above noted copyright infringements and anticircumvention violations, we ask that you immediately take down and disable access to the youtube-dl source code at all of its locations where it is hosted on GitHub, including without limitation those locations in the representative list set forth above. (yes, the "copyright infringement claim is very most likely bullshit, but it's not Github's place under the law to rule on it, unless they want to lose their safe harbor protections and open themselves up to potential liability) (vi) statement of authorization (with perjury) > Under penalty of perjury, we submit that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its member companies on matters involving the infringement of their sound recordings, audiovisual works and images, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on the Internet. (v) statement of good faith of accurateness >We have a good faith belief that this activity is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. We assert that the information in this notification is accurate, based upon the data available to us. (iv) and (i) contact details and (electronic) signature >You may contact me at RIAA, [private] Tel. [private], >[private] (ii) identification of content >We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos, as noted in Exhibit A hereto. For example, as shown on Exhibit A, the source code expressly suggests its use to copy and/or distribute the following copyrighted works owned by our member companies: [list] (yes, this is basically trickery to hit the (ii)) (iii) identification of infringement > https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl [...] And there you go, all 6 required elements + claim of infringement + demand for takedown are there.