4 ms·

I hope that some large company chooses to challenge this and force it to a court ruling for precedent. (hopefully against RIAA, obviously, is my position) But

I hope that some large company chooses to challenge this and force it to a court ruling for precedent. (hopefully against RIAA, obviously, is my position) But it brings up a side point in my mind -- how interesting is it that sometimes, a company, or university will have someone in their administration who cares enough to say, we're going to take this on, and not roll over? Or be willing to say, "even though this is a small annoying cost to us individually, this nuisance is taking $B across everyone and should be stopped". That's a very rare thing to see. I remember only a couple of times this has gotten to the news in a major way: -- When Newegg took those patent trolls to court -- When Caltech, or was it MIT/Harvard took the MPAA to court to say that they are not responsible for their students' hosting of content I.e. not some non-profit or foundation dedicated to the topic, but an actual business that goes out of its way (and at cost to itself) to fight something. I'm sure others can give better examples. (And perhaps I'm not aware, but some industry association also helps back the lawsuit financially?) But still, it takes some kind of courage of legal counsel, probably with backing of the CEO or president of the company, to take stands like this and actually make it a big deal and push back. Funny how personality and individuals at corporations can still show through what you would think is otherwise bland legal daily life. I almost take that as more of a brand equity enhancement / reason that a company gains in reputation than sometimes its products. Or maybe it's those companies that have strong culture and brand that choose (or have the strength) to do this. Anyway, the story just made me reflect on that.

grishka 6y ago
> but an actual business that goes out of its way (and at cost to itself) to fight something. I think it won't be an overstatement to say that RIAA and MPAA are the scourge of the online services industry. If you host any kind of UGC and your product gets any semblance of popularity, it's only a matter of time before they try to come after you. It then comes as no surprise that many people in the industry hate these organizations with burning passion.
californical 6y ago
Two more examples that jumped to mind immediately: University of California vs Elsevier (academic journal publisher), over wanting free open access for the public to their published research. Epic Games vs Apple, over wanting developers & users to have more options and freedoms on a closed platform. I think it’s really special when an organization is able to say “yes this impacts us specifically in a small way, but it impacts the greater community in a much larger way — we have the resources and will take a stand.” Whether you agree with the organizations or not, I just think the act of doing something like that is special.
- japanuspus 6y ago
  Just to nitpick, in Epic Games vs Apple there is certainly a financial motive.
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    I mean, the plaintiff is a for-profit business.
- foerbert 6y ago
  I don't think I'd group Epic Games vs Apple in that category. Epic Games has got to be one of companies feeling the most individual impact from how Apple runs their store. Their case is very much a 'them' thing and not some sort of public service.
  - ReptileMan 6y ago
    I disagree. Epic have enough clout to cut a sweetheart deal behind closed doors with Apple. They just refused to pay the dane geld. The apple store is a golden garrote on the ios platform. I don't have to pay 45% more for software to use on device I own.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    What's good for them isn't necessarily bad for us as a result of that. Being able to run whatever you want on hardware you own should he a legal requirement let alone a company of Epic's size having to fight it out legally.
    - foerbert 6y ago
      I was careful not to comment on the actual good-ness of the potential results for a reason. All I said is that Epic Games did not file the suit purely out of the goodness of their hearts, the desire to make the world a better place, and despite their own wallets. They are doing this for themselves. It doesn't mean the results can't be good, but it does mean it shouldn't be on a list of lawsuits filed for purely altruistic reasons with no selfish motives.
app4soft 6y ago
> I hope that some large company chooses to challenge this and force it to a court ruling for precedent. (hopefully against RIAA, obviously, is my position) Probably, EFF would do that.[0] FTR, EFF is the Electronic Frontier Foundation: > We're the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We defend your civil liberties in a digital world. [0] https://twitter.com/EFF/status/1319787243184123904 https://twitter.com/EFF/status/1319787243184123904
- Perseids 6y ago
  And just as a reminder, for most high paid tech workers employing specialists to do the lobbying and suing for you is the most efficient [1] way to do your part in changing the political landscape. Speaking from my own experience, I find it extremely satisfying to know that I'm actually doing something, instead of just being outraged about the state of the world. [1] Under the "time equals money" assumption. If political activism brings you joy or counts as leisure time, the trade-off might change.
  - zrm 6y ago
    For your convenience: https://eff.org/donate https://eff.org/donate
Nextgrid 6y ago
Most big tech companies today try to build their own "walled garden" and are against interoperability. The "copyright" excuse is often used to shut down screen-scrapers or alternative clients (which is essentially what youtube-dl is), despite having even less legal standing (you could argue that YouTube has lots of copyrighted content that can and maybe did get copied, but in the case of alternative clients for social media, the majority of people - who are the original copyright holders for their content - would not care about which client is used to access the content they post). Defending youtube-dl would - if successful, set a legal precedent for the entire industry, and if unsuccessful would still prevent this company from ever using that same reason to shut down alternative clients targeting their own service. Furthermore, if you are in any way funded by advertising or "engagement" (which is again, the majority of big user-facing tech today), I don't think messing with the RIAA or MPAA is a good strategy. Your advertisers depend on them more than on you, and if the RIAA informally "suggests" them to go to a different ad publisher they totally would. No major IT company is going to get anywhere near this. Successfully defending this wouldn't really benefit the company (it's not like winning this upcoming lawsuit would absolve you of copyright, so that problem will remain - plus if you need to license content the now angry RIAA will be less likely to give you a good deal), might actually harm the company's own attempt at a walled garden, and would piss off a powerful industry that can influence your only funding source.

grishka 6y ago

> but an actual business that goes out of its way (and at cost to itself) to fight something. I think it won't be an overstatement to say that RIAA and MPAA are the scourge of the online services industry. If you host any kind of UGC and your product gets any semblance of popularity, it's only a matter of time before they try to come after you. It then comes as no surprise that many people in the industry hate these organizations with burning passion.

californical 6y ago

Two more examples that jumped to mind immediately: University of California vs Elsevier (academic journal publisher), over wanting free open access for the public to their published research. Epic Games vs Apple, over wanting developers & users to have more options and freedoms on a closed platform. I think it’s really special when an organization is able to say “yes this impacts us specifically in a small way, but it impacts the greater community in a much larger way — we have the resources and will take a stand.” Whether you agree with the organizations or not, I just think the act of doing something like that is special.

japanuspus 6y ago
Just to nitpick, in Epic Games vs Apple there is certainly a financial motive.
- Fnoord 6y ago
  I mean, the plaintiff is a for-profit business.
foerbert 6y ago
I don't think I'd group Epic Games vs Apple in that category. Epic Games has got to be one of companies feeling the most individual impact from how Apple runs their store. Their case is very much a 'them' thing and not some sort of public service.
- ReptileMan 6y ago
  I disagree. Epic have enough clout to cut a sweetheart deal behind closed doors with Apple. They just refused to pay the dane geld. The apple store is a golden garrote on the ios platform. I don't have to pay 45% more for software to use on device I own.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  What's good for them isn't necessarily bad for us as a result of that. Being able to run whatever you want on hardware you own should he a legal requirement let alone a company of Epic's size having to fight it out legally.
  - foerbert 6y ago
    I was careful not to comment on the actual good-ness of the potential results for a reason. All I said is that Epic Games did not file the suit purely out of the goodness of their hearts, the desire to make the world a better place, and despite their own wallets. They are doing this for themselves. It doesn't mean the results can't be good, but it does mean it shouldn't be on a list of lawsuits filed for purely altruistic reasons with no selfish motives.

app4soft 6y ago

> I hope that some large company chooses to challenge this and force it to a court ruling for precedent. (hopefully against RIAA, obviously, is my position) Probably, EFF would do that.[0] FTR, EFF is the Electronic Frontier Foundation: > We're the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We defend your civil liberties in a digital world. [0] https://twitter.com/EFF/status/1319787243184123904 https://twitter.com/EFF/status/1319787243184123904

Perseids 6y ago
And just as a reminder, for most high paid tech workers employing specialists to do the lobbying and suing for you is the most efficient [1] way to do your part in changing the political landscape. Speaking from my own experience, I find it extremely satisfying to know that I'm actually doing something, instead of just being outraged about the state of the world. [1] Under the "time equals money" assumption. If political activism brings you joy or counts as leisure time, the trade-off might change.
- zrm 6y ago
  For your convenience: https://eff.org/donate https://eff.org/donate

Nextgrid 6y ago

Most big tech companies today try to build their own "walled garden" and are against interoperability. The "copyright" excuse is often used to shut down screen-scrapers or alternative clients (which is essentially what youtube-dl is), despite having even less legal standing (you could argue that YouTube has lots of copyrighted content that can and maybe did get copied, but in the case of alternative clients for social media, the majority of people - who are the original copyright holders for their content - would not care about which client is used to access the content they post). Defending youtube-dl would - if successful, set a legal precedent for the entire industry, and if unsuccessful would still prevent this company from ever using that same reason to shut down alternative clients targeting their own service. Furthermore, if you are in any way funded by advertising or "engagement" (which is again, the majority of big user-facing tech today), I don't think messing with the RIAA or MPAA is a good strategy. Your advertisers depend on them more than on you, and if the RIAA informally "suggests" them to go to a different ad publisher they totally would. No major IT company is going to get anywhere near this. Successfully defending this wouldn't really benefit the company (it's not like winning this upcoming lawsuit would absolve you of copyright, so that problem will remain - plus if you need to license content the now angry RIAA will be less likely to give you a good deal), might actually harm the company's own attempt at a walled garden, and would piss off a powerful industry that can influence your only funding source.