3 ms·

I didn't dive in the code that much but I think it is a cost effective DRM, a protection you can't remove accidentally by renaming a file on your computer (ie y

by hhjj 6y ago

I didn't dive in the code that much but I think it is a cost effective DRM, a protection you can't remove accidentally by renaming a file on your computer (ie you need to break it specifically even if removing said obfuscation is easy) and thus is protected by DMCA. In my opinion, it is the only argument in RIAA letter that is relevant. So to have a "nice" youtube-dl, just remove those tests and more importantly the DRM removal (not sure it will benefit RIAA in long term though...)

ttt0 6y ago
It's not DRM. It can't be DRM, obfuscation is never a valid measure to restrict access. The purpose of obfuscation is the opposite, it makes sure that you can still for example run the obfuscated code, but it's just hard to understand what's going on. The reality is that there is no "circumvention of protection measures", like RIAA is claiming. Youtube provides a javascript to decrypt their cipher, youtube-dl runs it just as intended and that's it, that's just what a normal browser does.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  It can't be DRM, obfuscation is never a valid measure to restrict access. From a technical (code) perspective, obfuscation may be an inadequate protection. But legally, the DMCA only requires some technical measure, and obfuscation satisfies that requirement. It is irrelevant that youtube-dl waits until after Youtube decrypts the content, since the law as written is agnostic to the specific technical details of how copyright protection schemes are implemented.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    The content itself is not encrypted in any way as far as I know. They encrypt some kind of URL, to the actual content I think. If this is truly the case, then every web browser that can access YouTube and supports JavaScript is guilty as well. It's like distributing an encrypted video along with a python script that decrypts it and then saying that anyone who executes that script on linux is circumventing the copy protection. It's ridiculous.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      No, that's not how the DMCA or copyright works at all. Youtube-dl will not win this argument based on technical details on how content is provided by a licensee to an end user. That's irrelevant to how copyright law works. The entire history of copyright law has been about preventing the unauthorized copying of protected works through technical means, so copyright laws are deliberately agnostic to how the technical details are implemented. In the case of the DMCA, all that is required is that some technical effort went into restricting the unauthorized copying of licensed content. A lot of HN commenters have pointed out that the technical efforts were quite simple: obfuscating the name of the cache file in the browser's cache folder. But for legal purposes that is sufficient. And if it's not, then in the very near future Youtube will no longer store RIAA music videos (or possibly any content) in an accessible cache folder, and congratulations: youtube-dl (and its competitors) won't work at all for it's namesake site.
      - ttt0 6y ago
        I mean, sure, but the argument is that it circumvents the protection measures. If you willingly give someone a dedicated tool that decrypts your content, I just don't understand in what world using it is considered to be a circumvention of protection measures. I have no idea how American courts usually work, but what a given program actually does seems pretty relevant to me, if you allege something like that. But I guess that's just my opinion and the American law really is that fucked. Thanks for your answer.
        gamblor956 6y ago
        If you willingly give someone a dedicated tool that decrypts your content, I just don't understand in what world using it is considered to be a circumvention of protection measures. No, they don't willingly give someone a dedicated tool that decrypts the content. Youtube simply does that for expediency. The end result if youtube-dl wins on these technical access grounds is that Youtube will be forcedby the RIAA and other content licensors to stop caching content in accessible form. Youtube-dl will win the battle and lose the war.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    It looks like a measure against hotlinking, but not against execution of the script as intended, if that's what youtube-dl does. Is it what they call winedive or something else?

by hhjj 6y ago

ttt0 6y ago

It's not DRM. It can't be DRM, obfuscation is never a valid measure to restrict access. The purpose of obfuscation is the opposite, it makes sure that you can still for example run the obfuscated code, but it's just hard to understand what's going on. The reality is that there is no "circumvention of protection measures", like RIAA is claiming. Youtube provides a javascript to decrypt their cipher, youtube-dl runs it just as intended and that's it, that's just what a normal browser does.

gamblor956 6y ago
It can't be DRM, obfuscation is never a valid measure to restrict access. From a technical (code) perspective, obfuscation may be an inadequate protection. But legally, the DMCA only requires some technical measure, and obfuscation satisfies that requirement. It is irrelevant that youtube-dl waits until after Youtube decrypts the content, since the law as written is agnostic to the specific technical details of how copyright protection schemes are implemented.
- ttt0 6y ago
  The content itself is not encrypted in any way as far as I know. They encrypt some kind of URL, to the actual content I think. If this is truly the case, then every web browser that can access YouTube and supports JavaScript is guilty as well. It's like distributing an encrypted video along with a python script that decrypts it and then saying that anyone who executes that script on linux is circumventing the copy protection. It's ridiculous.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    No, that's not how the DMCA or copyright works at all. Youtube-dl will not win this argument based on technical details on how content is provided by a licensee to an end user. That's irrelevant to how copyright law works. The entire history of copyright law has been about preventing the unauthorized copying of protected works through technical means, so copyright laws are deliberately agnostic to how the technical details are implemented. In the case of the DMCA, all that is required is that some technical effort went into restricting the unauthorized copying of licensed content. A lot of HN commenters have pointed out that the technical efforts were quite simple: obfuscating the name of the cache file in the browser's cache folder. But for legal purposes that is sufficient. And if it's not, then in the very near future Youtube will no longer store RIAA music videos (or possibly any content) in an accessible cache folder, and congratulations: youtube-dl (and its competitors) won't work at all for it's namesake site.
    - ttt0 6y ago
      I mean, sure, but the argument is that it circumvents the protection measures. If you willingly give someone a dedicated tool that decrypts your content, I just don't understand in what world using it is considered to be a circumvention of protection measures. I have no idea how American courts usually work, but what a given program actually does seems pretty relevant to me, if you allege something like that. But I guess that's just my opinion and the American law really is that fucked. Thanks for your answer.
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        If you willingly give someone a dedicated tool that decrypts your content, I just don't understand in what world using it is considered to be a circumvention of protection measures. No, they don't willingly give someone a dedicated tool that decrypts the content. Youtube simply does that for expediency. The end result if youtube-dl wins on these technical access grounds is that Youtube will be forcedby the RIAA and other content licensors to stop caching content in accessible form. Youtube-dl will win the battle and lose the war.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  It looks like a measure against hotlinking, but not against execution of the script as intended, if that's what youtube-dl does. Is it what they call winedive or something else?