5 ms·

The RIAA's whole argument is based upon the premise that ALL YouTube content is copyrighted. I do not believe that is the case. YouTube-dl is just a tool. A

The RIAA's whole argument is based upon the premise that ALL YouTube content is copyrighted. I do not believe that is the case. YouTube-dl is just a tool. A tool can be used for both legal and illegal purposes. If a tool user does something illegal with a tool, the user should be prosecuted and not the tool. (The same logic applies to guns.)

john_minsk 6y ago
PopcornTime is just a tool. A tool can be used for both legal and illegal purposes. If a tool user does something illegal with a tool, the user should be prosecuted and not the tool. (The same logic applies to guns.)
- remexre 6y ago
  Torrent clients are legal though? And prosecution has generally followed the "if a tool isn't advertising 'you can use this to circumvent the law,' it's the user that's liable for an illegal use, not the developer" principle. And as someone who uses youtube-dl to get easy copies of NewsHour... rather annoying that it was shut down.
- kelnos 6y ago
  I agree, but unfortunately the DMCA does not. In order to avoid liability, the tool has to have significant non-infringing uses, and I believe courts will look at how the tool is actually used in the wild as a part of determining that.
sjy 6y ago
It is based on the weaker premise that youtube-dl is “primarily designed or produced“ or “marketed” for the purpose of circumventing copyright protection.
- contravariant 6y ago
  Although it's still not clear to me to what extent a webpage that essentially just shows the copyrighted work counts as 'protection'.
dredmorbius 6y ago
I'd disagree. RIAA advances three theories: (i) [to] circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube (ii) reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use. Third; We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos https://web.archive.org/web/20201025095539/https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md https://web.archive.org/web/20201025095539/https://github.co... #1 Falls under §1201, for a maybe-anticirc tool created by a third party for whom RIAA's standing is likely nil. The anticirc use & claim itself is weak. #2 is ... at best vague, but seems to aver contributory infringement, which ... is not related to any Chapter 1 rights or Chapter 5 penalties that I see. Users of a tool might be liable, but not its developers or manufacturers. Otherwise, a very weak §1201 claim. #3 Fails to identify an infringement in the work but instead in its use. The infringing party given Github's CI/CD process would actually be RIAA member Microsoft. Use of works is de minimis and passes at least three of the §107 Fair Use affirmative defence tests, as well as §117 (computer program), §512(a) and/or §512(b) (Transitory Digital Network Communications). As to YouTube works' copyright status, under Berne (US copyright since 1976), copyright exists "in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression", with very limited exceptions, automatically, with no action required of the author. US Government works and expired copyrights are the principle exceptions. Some authorities dispute that works can be put in the public domain otherwise (I'm not convinced). While some YouTube content is in the public domain, the overwhelming majority is subject to copyright.

john_minsk 6y ago

PopcornTime is just a tool. A tool can be used for both legal and illegal purposes. If a tool user does something illegal with a tool, the user should be prosecuted and not the tool. (The same logic applies to guns.)

remexre 6y ago
Torrent clients are legal though? And prosecution has generally followed the "if a tool isn't advertising 'you can use this to circumvent the law,' it's the user that's liable for an illegal use, not the developer" principle. And as someone who uses youtube-dl to get easy copies of NewsHour... rather annoying that it was shut down.
kelnos 6y ago
I agree, but unfortunately the DMCA does not. In order to avoid liability, the tool has to have significant non-infringing uses, and I believe courts will look at how the tool is actually used in the wild as a part of determining that.

sjy 6y ago

It is based on the weaker premise that youtube-dl is “primarily designed or produced“ or “marketed” for the purpose of circumventing copyright protection.

contravariant 6y ago
Although it's still not clear to me to what extent a webpage that essentially just shows the copyrighted work counts as 'protection'.

dredmorbius 6y ago

I'd disagree. RIAA advances three theories: (i) [to] circumvent the technological protection measures used by authorized streaming services such as YouTube (ii) reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use. Third; We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos https://web.archive.org/web/20201025095539/https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md https://web.archive.org/web/20201025095539/https://github.co... #1 Falls under §1201, for a maybe-anticirc tool created by a third party for whom RIAA's standing is likely nil. The anticirc use & claim itself is weak. #2 is ... at best vague, but seems to aver contributory infringement, which ... is not related to any Chapter 1 rights or Chapter 5 penalties that I see. Users of a tool might be liable, but not its developers or manufacturers. Otherwise, a very weak §1201 claim. #3 Fails to identify an infringement in the work but instead in its use. The infringing party given Github's CI/CD process would actually be RIAA member Microsoft. Use of works is de minimis and passes at least three of the §107 Fair Use affirmative defence tests, as well as §117 (computer program), §512(a) and/or §512(b) (Transitory Digital Network Communications). As to YouTube works' copyright status, under Berne (US copyright since 1976), copyright exists "in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression", with very limited exceptions, automatically, with no action required of the author. US Government works and expired copyrights are the principle exceptions. Some authorities dispute that works can be put in the public domain otherwise (I'm not convinced). While some YouTube content is in the public domain, the overwhelming majority is subject to copyright.