4 ms·

Interesting to note he expresses none of the animosity toward Github this action seems to have attracted.

IshKebab 6y ago
I think most people have enough DCMA experience to know that GitHub were legally required to do what they did. They had no choice. The repo owners should be able to file a counter notice to reinstate the repo.
zucker42 6y ago
I've seen very little animosity towards Github. The law in this case makes Github respond promptly to any takedown request, even if it's wrong. Github can face liability for copyright infringement unless it > (C)upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity. They also have to wait ten days before restoring the content after a counter-claim.
- bredren 6y ago
  Huh. I had thought I'd seen some well placed comments describing migrating away from the platform.
- wolco2 6y ago
  This wasn't a takedown request as it didn't include a link to it so github isn't required to take it down. They can legally put it back now. The fact that they did speaks to how they will respond in the future.
  - zucker42 6y ago
    I don't understand which of the required elements you think the notice lacks. It identifies both the content which it claims is infringing (linking the repos) and the songs which it claims are infringed (by name). Relevant statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 The problem is the law is terrible. Github's actions are pretty much required as far as I can tell. Edit: I'd like to add that one thing Github could do is accept liability for copyright infringement and fight against frivolous claims like this in court. Maybe users should start demanding companies protect them from tactics like this, but the existing legal penalties are severely in the claimants favor.
    - ikeboy 6y ago
      DMCA notices are for taking down infringing content, not for taking down circumvention tools. There's no safe harbor for the latter.
      - singron 6y ago
        This is a good point. Circumvention is defined in a different chapter[0] than copyright infringement, and there is no language to imply that circumvention is copyright infringement. Besides that, there are requirements in 1201 that YouTube and youtube-dl might not meet. * The technological measure being circumvented must be "effective". There is a possibility that YouTube's poorly encrypted URLs might not meet that bar. E.g. they evidently don't work that well, and only the URL is encrypted, not the copyrighted work. * Since you can freely receive a copy of the work by ordinarily visiting YouTube, it's pretty questionable that the measures control access at all. E.g. Region restricted videos are blocked based on IP, not using this measure, and so youtube-dl can't download them. * "use" isn't a right restricted by copyright. There generally isn't a distinction between a copyrighted work that your computer transiently stores or saves (e.g. streaming vs. download). The violation would be in a license that you agreed to that specified additional restrictions beyond those offered by copyright (e.g. TOS violations). * youtube-dl has to be primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumvention. That seems a little far-fetched since I think it might predate YouTube's technological measures. 0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
        ikeboy 6y ago
        My analysis is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874277 I agree that it clearly isn't an access control. I think there's a plausible case that it's effective as a copy control, as well as a plausible case that it's not. Re license: the control prevents further copies being made, which is clearly a right protected by copyright. Re your last point, the issue is likely (b)(1)(C), which is about marketing.
      - zucker42 6y ago

I think most people have enough DCMA experience to know that GitHub were legally required to do what they did. They had no choice. The repo owners should be able to file a counter notice to reinstate the repo.

zucker42 6y ago

I've seen very little animosity towards Github. The law in this case makes Github respond promptly to any takedown request, even if it's wrong. Github can face liability for copyright infringement unless it > (C)upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity. They also have to wait ten days before restoring the content after a counter-claim.

bredren 6y ago
Huh. I had thought I'd seen some well placed comments describing migrating away from the platform.
wolco2 6y ago
This wasn't a takedown request as it didn't include a link to it so github isn't required to take it down. They can legally put it back now. The fact that they did speaks to how they will respond in the future.
- zucker42 6y ago
  I don't understand which of the required elements you think the notice lacks. It identifies both the content which it claims is infringing (linking the repos) and the songs which it claims are infringed (by name). Relevant statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 The problem is the law is terrible. Github's actions are pretty much required as far as I can tell. Edit: I'd like to add that one thing Github could do is accept liability for copyright infringement and fight against frivolous claims like this in court. Maybe users should start demanding companies protect them from tactics like this, but the existing legal penalties are severely in the claimants favor.
  - ikeboy 6y ago
    DMCA notices are for taking down infringing content, not for taking down circumvention tools. There's no safe harbor for the latter.
    - singron 6y ago
      This is a good point. Circumvention is defined in a different chapter[0] than copyright infringement, and there is no language to imply that circumvention is copyright infringement. Besides that, there are requirements in 1201 that YouTube and youtube-dl might not meet. * The technological measure being circumvented must be "effective". There is a possibility that YouTube's poorly encrypted URLs might not meet that bar. E.g. they evidently don't work that well, and only the URL is encrypted, not the copyrighted work. * Since you can freely receive a copy of the work by ordinarily visiting YouTube, it's pretty questionable that the measures control access at all. E.g. Region restricted videos are blocked based on IP, not using this measure, and so youtube-dl can't download them. * "use" isn't a right restricted by copyright. There generally isn't a distinction between a copyrighted work that your computer transiently stores or saves (e.g. streaming vs. download). The violation would be in a license that you agreed to that specified additional restrictions beyond those offered by copyright (e.g. TOS violations). * youtube-dl has to be primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumvention. That seems a little far-fetched since I think it might predate YouTube's technological measures. 0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
      - ikeboy 6y ago
        My analysis is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874277 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24874277 I agree that it clearly isn't an access control. I think there's a plausible case that it's effective as a copy control, as well as a plausible case that it's not. Re license: the control prevents further copies being made, which is clearly a right protected by copyright. Re your last point, the issue is likely (b)(1)(C), which is about marketing.
    - zucker42 6y ago