4 ms·

The law does not place that limitation on filing 1201 claims. Also, the RIAA is not an unaffiliated party. They act as the collective legal representative on b

The law does not place that limitation on filing 1201 claims. Also, the RIAA is not an unaffiliated party. They act as the collective legal representative on behalf of their members (i.e., the recording studios). The alternative is that youtube-dl (and others) could face multiple lawsuits, one from each music company, instead of just one, and each company could test a different legal argument. The music labels can afford this. In fact, in many situations they would prefer it.

dredmorbius 6y ago
The "copyright protection scheme" in question, if it even is one, was written by and is provided by Google/Youtube, not the RIAA. It is not even clear to me the RIAA has standing to sue under §1203: "Any person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States district court for such violation." RIAA are not injured due to utilisation of a non-member's mechanism. The claim does not pass the 17 USC 1201 (a)(2)(B) test: that the technology "has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title". Yes, Github (or its owner, Microsoft Corp.) may have liability under 17 USC 1201 (a)(2), "offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic" the code, subject to the same test above. However there is no safe-harbour provision for such violations. Microsoft is listed on the RIAA's members page. Neither Google LLC, its Youtube subsidiary, nor parent Alphabet Inc. are. The RIAA are threatening a member for a §1201 violation against a nonmember. That's ... weird. From TFA.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  You can cite TFA all you want. I disagree with his legal analysis, as do most lawyers. His first paragraph is wrong. It's irrelevant who imposes the copyright protection scheme, only that one exists. And speaking as someone who has entered into an RIAA licensing agreement in the past, our license agreement with the RIAA did require us to put into place measures to prevent copying of licensed RIAA content, and I assume that Gootube has the same terms in their license. The next conclusion is also wrong, since the RIAA is the authorized legal representative for its members, and prior cases have already established that they can act in this capacity. His conclusion on the (a)(2)(B) test is not correct either. The sole purpose of youtube-dl is to download content from websites which do not make their content available for download through standard means of access. In fact, the whole point of using youtube-dl is that they constantly update the code to get around the changes that websites make so that content can't be downloaded. I would bet a lot of money that this will be the deciding factor if this goes to trial. Microsoft is listed on the RIAA's members page. Neither Google LLC, its Youtube subsidiary, nor parent Alphabet Inc. are. The RIAA are threatening a member for a §1201 violation against a nonmember. That's ... weird. I'm not sure why techies keep bringing this up like it means something. It's irrelevant that they are a member of the RIAA. Microsoft is receiving the takedown request because they are/were hosting the youtube-dl code through their subsidiary Github and legal procedure requires the notice to be sent to them. MS is not the subject of a DMCA infringement lawsuit. Repeat: Microsoft is not the subject of a DMCA infringement lawsuit. By taking down the youtube-dl repository, MS's involvement in this matter ended. Youtube-DL would be the target of the DMCA infringement lawsuit by the RIAA. If they keep working on youtube-dl from this point on, it's very likely the RIAA will file a lawsuit against the maintainers/programmers.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    Huh? As I understand, youtube-dl and browser both use the same method to access the content. Either both use standard method or both hack the system.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      No, they don't. The browser accesses the content directly from the website, and currently stores it in a cache folder on the user's computer. (The caching step isn't necessary but eliminates the need to re-download portions of the content.) Youtube-dl accesses the content from the cache directory after the browser has cached the content.
      - dredmorbius 6y ago
        This is an incorrect description of youtube-dl's function.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    FYI, I'm the author. I'm familiar with my arguments.

dredmorbius 6y ago

The "copyright protection scheme" in question, if it even is one, was written by and is provided by Google/Youtube, not the RIAA. It is not even clear to me the RIAA has standing to sue under §1203: "Any person injured by a violation of section 1201 or 1202 may bring a civil action in an appropriate United States district court for such violation." RIAA are not injured due to utilisation of a non-member's mechanism. The claim does not pass the 17 USC 1201 (a)(2)(B) test: that the technology "has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title". Yes, Github (or its owner, Microsoft Corp.) may have liability under 17 USC 1201 (a)(2), "offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic" the code, subject to the same test above. However there is no safe-harbour provision for such violations. Microsoft is listed on the RIAA's members page. Neither Google LLC, its Youtube subsidiary, nor parent Alphabet Inc. are. The RIAA are threatening a member for a §1201 violation against a nonmember. That's ... weird. From TFA.

gamblor956 6y ago
You can cite TFA all you want. I disagree with his legal analysis, as do most lawyers. His first paragraph is wrong. It's irrelevant who imposes the copyright protection scheme, only that one exists. And speaking as someone who has entered into an RIAA licensing agreement in the past, our license agreement with the RIAA did require us to put into place measures to prevent copying of licensed RIAA content, and I assume that Gootube has the same terms in their license. The next conclusion is also wrong, since the RIAA is the authorized legal representative for its members, and prior cases have already established that they can act in this capacity. His conclusion on the (a)(2)(B) test is not correct either. The sole purpose of youtube-dl is to download content from websites which do not make their content available for download through standard means of access. In fact, the whole point of using youtube-dl is that they constantly update the code to get around the changes that websites make so that content can't be downloaded. I would bet a lot of money that this will be the deciding factor if this goes to trial. Microsoft is listed on the RIAA's members page. Neither Google LLC, its Youtube subsidiary, nor parent Alphabet Inc. are. The RIAA are threatening a member for a §1201 violation against a nonmember. That's ... weird. I'm not sure why techies keep bringing this up like it means something. It's irrelevant that they are a member of the RIAA. Microsoft is receiving the takedown request because they are/were hosting the youtube-dl code through their subsidiary Github and legal procedure requires the notice to be sent to them. MS is not the subject of a DMCA infringement lawsuit. Repeat: Microsoft is not the subject of a DMCA infringement lawsuit. By taking down the youtube-dl repository, MS's involvement in this matter ended. Youtube-DL would be the target of the DMCA infringement lawsuit by the RIAA. If they keep working on youtube-dl from this point on, it's very likely the RIAA will file a lawsuit against the maintainers/programmers.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  Huh? As I understand, youtube-dl and browser both use the same method to access the content. Either both use standard method or both hack the system.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    No, they don't. The browser accesses the content directly from the website, and currently stores it in a cache folder on the user's computer. (The caching step isn't necessary but eliminates the need to re-download portions of the content.) Youtube-dl accesses the content from the cache directory after the browser has cached the content.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      This is an incorrect description of youtube-dl's function.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  FYI, I'm the author. I'm familiar with my arguments.