3 ms·

DMCA notices are for taking down infringing content, not for taking down circumvention tools. There's no safe harbor for the latter.

by ikeboy 6y ago

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.

DMCA notices are for taking down infringing content, not for taking down circumvention tools. There's no safe harbor for the latter.

by 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.