4 ms·

This whole case is very strange. From my point of view (I studied law, among other things) there is no justification to take action against this tool or its aut

by Rochus 6y ago

This whole case is very strange. From my point of view (I studied law, among other things) there is no justification to take action against this tool or its authors. There are various contents on Youtube, whose license allows downloading and offline playback without any problems. What is allowed with the tool in a specific case depends on the country or the jurisdiction of the user as well as on his actually intended actions. What has happened here obviously goes far beyond what an author or his or her copyright collective may demand. The whole thing looks more like a charade.

dylan604 6y ago
You must not have studied law very hard, or just missed the classes that taught "reading between the lines" to twist things in your direction. The fact that the read me provided examples specifically downloading RIAA relevant content is pretty damning. Why in the world the maintainers allowed to happen is beyond me. It would have been so simple to provide examples to anything else. It just wouldn't have been sexy. How anyone that studied law couldn't see this as a "gotcha" is confusing.
- Rochus 6y ago
  Remain objective (if your personality allows it). What the Americans do is their business, even if it is in the gray area also there. But the cease and desists to (ex-)developers in Germany are simply tasteless. And the project should move to a server in Switzerland. EDIT: and please be specific which sections of the Readme justify such action by the IP owners or their (effectively legitimate) representatives, or the github responsibles.
  - Mindwipe 6y ago
    > But the cease and desists to (ex-)developers in Germany are simply tasteless. Anti-circumvention law (and bluntly copyright law in general) is a lot stronger in Germany than it is in the US.
    - Rochus 6y ago
      Do you have evidence for this statement?
      - mafuy 6y ago
        I'm German. Can confirm. It sucks.
- waon 6y ago
  > The fact that the read me provided examples specifically downloading RIAA relevant content is pretty damning. That's not a fact, that's baseless rumor. Here's the actual README: https://gitlab.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl https://gitlab.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl And furthermore: https://gitlab.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl#can-you-add-support-for-this-anime-video-site-or-site-which-shows-current-movies-for-free https://gitlab.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl#can-you-add-support-f... So what was that thing about "twisting things in your direction" again?
  - casion 6y ago
    The referenced content was in tests, not the readme.
    - feanaro 6y ago
      According to Hagemeister (source in this article), the tests only download the first 10 KB of the videos, landing this very strongly in the domain of fair use.
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        If true, that actually is relevant to the fair use analysis outlined in 17 USC 107 (factor (3)). The problem though is that as a tool it is subject to a different analysis, 17 USC 1201, and so it must be evaluated on the basis of whether it is intended to circumvent a copyright, and that is why many of us keep bringing up the fact that they include RIAA-focused tests: it shows that at least part of the purpose of the tool was to download music videos.
        Rochus 6y ago
        The presumption that anyone in some test has accessed material on youtube that might not be allowed to be downloaded in the USA does not justify the removal of the project's repositories, as it was done with the support of Github. EDIT: If this were legal, any communications program that was used for a disputable action once (so each browser), could be closed off from the public as well.

by Rochus 6y ago

dylan604 6y ago

You must not have studied law very hard, or just missed the classes that taught "reading between the lines" to twist things in your direction. The fact that the read me provided examples specifically downloading RIAA relevant content is pretty damning. Why in the world the maintainers allowed to happen is beyond me. It would have been so simple to provide examples to anything else. It just wouldn't have been sexy. How anyone that studied law couldn't see this as a "gotcha" is confusing.

Rochus 6y ago
Remain objective (if your personality allows it). What the Americans do is their business, even if it is in the gray area also there. But the cease and desists to (ex-)developers in Germany are simply tasteless. And the project should move to a server in Switzerland. EDIT: and please be specific which sections of the Readme justify such action by the IP owners or their (effectively legitimate) representatives, or the github responsibles.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  > But the cease and desists to (ex-)developers in Germany are simply tasteless. Anti-circumvention law (and bluntly copyright law in general) is a lot stronger in Germany than it is in the US.
  - Rochus 6y ago
    Do you have evidence for this statement?
    - mafuy 6y ago
      I'm German. Can confirm. It sucks.
waon 6y ago
> The fact that the read me provided examples specifically downloading RIAA relevant content is pretty damning. That's not a fact, that's baseless rumor. Here's the actual README: https://gitlab.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl https://gitlab.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl And furthermore: https://gitlab.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl#can-you-add-support-for-this-anime-video-site-or-site-which-shows-current-movies-for-free https://gitlab.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl#can-you-add-support-f... So what was that thing about "twisting things in your direction" again?
- casion 6y ago
  The referenced content was in tests, not the readme.
  - feanaro 6y ago
    According to Hagemeister (source in this article), the tests only download the first 10 KB of the videos, landing this very strongly in the domain of fair use.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      If true, that actually is relevant to the fair use analysis outlined in 17 USC 107 (factor (3)). The problem though is that as a tool it is subject to a different analysis, 17 USC 1201, and so it must be evaluated on the basis of whether it is intended to circumvent a copyright, and that is why many of us keep bringing up the fact that they include RIAA-focused tests: it shows that at least part of the purpose of the tool was to download music videos.
      - Rochus 6y ago
        The presumption that anyone in some test has accessed material on youtube that might not be allowed to be downloaded in the USA does not justify the removal of the project's repositories, as it was done with the support of Github. EDIT: If this were legal, any communications program that was used for a disputable action once (so each browser), could be closed off from the public as well.