4 ms·

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

by 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 agree. However, from my understanding, it doesn't matter if the takedown notice is completely without merit. As long as it meets the requirements, Github has to follow it in order to avoid liability.
    - ikeboy 6y ago
      This isn't a takedown notice under DMCA, is the point. There's no safe harbor for this kind of infringement, so Github doesn't avoid any liability by taking it down after receiving a notice.
- Vespasian 6y ago
  But why would Github pick this fight for youtube-dl. As an open source project they do not pay anything (I assume). Furthermore Microsoft dedpends on good relations with the RIAA and other entities from the rightsholder community and youtube-dl is certainly not an extreme example of a wrongful DMCA takedown.
  - ThrustVectoring 6y ago
    This takedown notice is clearly wrongful. The copyrighted works are music videos that are not copied in the repository's code, and links are non-infringing (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com.... ) DMCA simply does not entitle rightsholders to demand third-party removal of a computer program that contains links to copyrighted content. The proper remedy is to sue the youtube-dl team and get injunctive relief.
- ThrustVectoring 6y ago
  GitHub's actions are not required per se, they just need to accept being civilly liable for any alleged infringement if they want to ignore the takedown notice. This requires a high-level decisionmaker, and there are a lot of takedown notices, so only relatively small sites can get away with making decisions on a case-by-case basis rather than doing blanket takedowns of infringing content. Like, there's nothing stopping you from responding to DMCA takedown requests with "this is clearly non-infringing and/or fair use, if you want to sue us send servicing to the following address". You just have to be a particular kind of ornery and make the judgment call that you're willing to risk being sued over protecting third-party speech.
  - zucker42 6y ago
    I wish more companies would take this position, but one barrier to taking this position is that the penalties are so skewed. You can face far larger damages for even minor copyright infringement than spurious takedown requests. Plus there's the cost of litigating.

by wolco2 6y ago

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 agree. However, from my understanding, it doesn't matter if the takedown notice is completely without merit. As long as it meets the requirements, Github has to follow it in order to avoid liability.
  - ikeboy 6y ago
    This isn't a takedown notice under DMCA, is the point. There's no safe harbor for this kind of infringement, so Github doesn't avoid any liability by taking it down after receiving a notice.
Vespasian 6y ago
But why would Github pick this fight for youtube-dl. As an open source project they do not pay anything (I assume). Furthermore Microsoft dedpends on good relations with the RIAA and other entities from the rightsholder community and youtube-dl is certainly not an extreme example of a wrongful DMCA takedown.
- ThrustVectoring 6y ago
  This takedown notice is clearly wrongful. The copyrighted works are music videos that are not copied in the repository's code, and links are non-infringing (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com.... ) DMCA simply does not entitle rightsholders to demand third-party removal of a computer program that contains links to copyrighted content. The proper remedy is to sue the youtube-dl team and get injunctive relief.
ThrustVectoring 6y ago
GitHub's actions are not required per se, they just need to accept being civilly liable for any alleged infringement if they want to ignore the takedown notice. This requires a high-level decisionmaker, and there are a lot of takedown notices, so only relatively small sites can get away with making decisions on a case-by-case basis rather than doing blanket takedowns of infringing content. Like, there's nothing stopping you from responding to DMCA takedown requests with "this is clearly non-infringing and/or fair use, if you want to sue us send servicing to the following address". You just have to be a particular kind of ornery and make the judgment call that you're willing to risk being sued over protecting third-party speech.
- zucker42 6y ago
  I wish more companies would take this position, but one barrier to taking this position is that the penalties are so skewed. You can face far larger damages for even minor copyright infringement than spurious takedown requests. Plus there's the cost of litigating.