3 ms·

I know this is an unpopular opinion and I probably get downvoted for this. But I stand my ground that I think the assumption of fair use for this copyright circ

I know this is an unpopular opinion and I probably get downvoted for this. But I stand my ground that I think the assumption of fair use for this copyright circumventing algorithm is wrong. ------ First off: Fair Use does not exist. It is an assumption, not a defined situation as it requires legal evaluation in court to apply. And on top of that: It is a regional difference and is therefore completely unpredictable whether it applies or not. Assuming fair use on a platform with a proprietary license that even forbids downloading, while downloading proprietary content specifically to circumvent copyright protection, while fair use does only exist as a "possibibility" inside, and only inside, the US and only after a legal case was decided in at least state level court ... really? You get sued for downloading 512kB of porn illegaly, just as you can get sued for downloading 10kB of copyrighted youtube videos. As I said, this was just a suggestion to remove that attack surface. Another attack surface is the trademark violation, but that's a different case.

dredmorbius 6y ago
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— ... -- 17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
- cookiengineer 6y ago
  How can you prove that youtube dl is used specifically for, say, classroom purposes? Can you prove it? Probably not. Is circumventing a copyright mechanism an educational or journalistic purpose? In a testsuite? ... Even when siding with you, you would need a court case to evaluate whether fair use applies or not. Again, as I said, unnecessary attack surface. I don't care whether you or I am right or wrong. Nobody of us can be right unless a court case has been made. It's unnecessary and could have been prevented.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    You made a bald assertion that Fair Use does not exist, and is not law. U.S. Code demonstrates otherwise. You might wish to show the sportsmanship of admitting your previous error before embarking on further ones.
    - cookiengineer 6y ago
      Fair Use is a circumstancial definition in the law. It is not clearly defined and needs a court case in order to apply. Therefore I still think that the assumption of Fair Use to apply is wrong. However, the assumption of copyright to apply on the other hand is correct. But, referring to whether fair use exists or not, I agree with you that technically it exists. But as the rest of the very same law criminalizes by default, you can still not refer to fair use if you do not have the required-by-law evidence at hand for it to apply. I think that fair use is almost always nearly impossible to prove, that's why I wrote my statement like this. And I agree that it was worded badly.
      - toast0 6y ago
        Copyright is certainly easier to interpret than fair use, but both rely on courts. If I claim you violated my copyright and you disagree, it will be determined in court. If I claim you violated my copyright and you claim it's fair use, and I disagree, it will be determined in court. What's the difference?
    - elondaits 6y ago
      Fair use is not a “right” (as in a well defined thing you can do freely) but rather a “defense” if someone claims a copyright violation. It’s defined in terms that need to be evaluated by a judge case by case (e.g., if there is an economical damage).
      - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
        Rights can be challenged too.
      - 6y ago
temprature 6y ago
> First off: Fair Use does not exist. It is an assumption, not a defined situation or law. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976#%C2%A7_107._Limitations_on_exclusive_rights:_Fair_use https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976#%C2%A7_... Further recommended reading: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
Is the problem with copyright or drm or they are the same thing?
corobo 6y ago
But of course you're not saying the thing the hive mind wants to hear so now HN has made your comment barely readable
- pessimizer 6y ago
  It's wonderful to have a hivemind that rejects factual misstatements. Fair use does exist, in law. It's the only reason we use that particular, awkward phrase. I agree that they should have stayed away from copyrighted material as if it were radioactive, but I'm not forced to support every bad argument that agrees with my conclusion.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - corobo 6y ago
    I was just commenting on how HN makes the text literally unreadable when you get downvoted enough
dredmorbius 6y ago
Universal's sole textual argument is that fair use is not "authorized by the law" because it is an affirmative defense that excuses otherwise infringing conduct. Universal's interpretation is incorrect as it conflates two different concepts: an affirmative defense that is labeled as such due to the procedural posture of the case, and an affirmative defense that excuses impermissible conduct. Supreme Court precedent squarely supports the conclusion that 11331133 fair use does not fall into the latter camp: "[A]nyone who ... makes a fair use of the work is not an infringer of the copyright with respect to such use." Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 433, 104 S.Ct. 774, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984).* -- Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F. 3d 1126 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2015 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12567649168680108221 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=125676491686801...

dredmorbius 6y ago

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— ... -- 17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

cookiengineer 6y ago
How can you prove that youtube dl is used specifically for, say, classroom purposes? Can you prove it? Probably not. Is circumventing a copyright mechanism an educational or journalistic purpose? In a testsuite? ... Even when siding with you, you would need a court case to evaluate whether fair use applies or not. Again, as I said, unnecessary attack surface. I don't care whether you or I am right or wrong. Nobody of us can be right unless a court case has been made. It's unnecessary and could have been prevented.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  You made a bald assertion that Fair Use does not exist, and is not law. U.S. Code demonstrates otherwise. You might wish to show the sportsmanship of admitting your previous error before embarking on further ones.
  - cookiengineer 6y ago
    Fair Use is a circumstancial definition in the law. It is not clearly defined and needs a court case in order to apply. Therefore I still think that the assumption of Fair Use to apply is wrong. However, the assumption of copyright to apply on the other hand is correct. But, referring to whether fair use exists or not, I agree with you that technically it exists. But as the rest of the very same law criminalizes by default, you can still not refer to fair use if you do not have the required-by-law evidence at hand for it to apply. I think that fair use is almost always nearly impossible to prove, that's why I wrote my statement like this. And I agree that it was worded badly.
    - toast0 6y ago
      Copyright is certainly easier to interpret than fair use, but both rely on courts. If I claim you violated my copyright and you disagree, it will be determined in court. If I claim you violated my copyright and you claim it's fair use, and I disagree, it will be determined in court. What's the difference?
  - elondaits 6y ago
    Fair use is not a “right” (as in a well defined thing you can do freely) but rather a “defense” if someone claims a copyright violation. It’s defined in terms that need to be evaluated by a judge case by case (e.g., if there is an economical damage).
    - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
      Rights can be challenged too.
    - 6y ago

temprature 6y ago

> First off: Fair Use does not exist. It is an assumption, not a defined situation or law. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976#%C2%A7_107._Limitations_on_exclusive_rights:_Fair_use https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976#%C2%A7_... Further recommended reading: Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago

Is the problem with copyright or drm or they are the same thing?

corobo 6y ago

But of course you're not saying the thing the hive mind wants to hear so now HN has made your comment barely readable

pessimizer 6y ago
It's wonderful to have a hivemind that rejects factual misstatements. Fair use does exist, in law. It's the only reason we use that particular, awkward phrase. I agree that they should have stayed away from copyrighted material as if it were radioactive, but I'm not forced to support every bad argument that agrees with my conclusion.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- corobo 6y ago
  I was just commenting on how HN makes the text literally unreadable when you get downvoted enough

dredmorbius 6y ago

Universal's sole textual argument is that fair use is not "authorized by the law" because it is an affirmative defense that excuses otherwise infringing conduct. Universal's interpretation is incorrect as it conflates two different concepts: an affirmative defense that is labeled as such due to the procedural posture of the case, and an affirmative defense that excuses impermissible conduct. Supreme Court precedent squarely supports the conclusion that 11331133 fair use does not fall into the latter camp: "[A]nyone who ... makes a fair use of the work is not an infringer of the copyright with respect to such use." Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 433, 104 S.Ct. 774, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984).* -- Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F. 3d 1126 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2015 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12567649168680108221 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=125676491686801...