4 ms·
Assuming the content is public, why would they need a subpoena?
by neuronflux 6y ago
Assuming the content is public, why would they need a subpoena?
- echelon 6y agoIs availability on a locked, walled garden "public"? I think we can tell what the RIAA thinks about that.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- JAlexoid 6y agoRIAA doesn't dispute that it's public. Being public doesn't mean publicly owned. It means publicly accessible... Like your local shopping mall.
- cheeze 6y agoBecause the RIAA has shown that this specific tool can't be 'public'. If we have to play by those rules, LEO should too. Boo hoo if it's harder.
- bonoboTP 6y ago> RIAA has shown They haven't shown anything. They made a claim. We'll know what rules we have to play by if it comes to a court ruling.
- cheeze 6y agoI mean, GitHub took it down, no?
- ekianjo 6y agoThey follow the DMCA process.
- inqb 6y agoYou can claim anything, too. GitHub only checks if the Takedown is valid in format with necessary information provided.
- bonoboTP 6y agoHas someone abused this to harass big-name Github projects with takedown notices?
- feanaro 6y agoWhy would that have any bearing on the validity and legality of RIAA's logic?
- efreak 6y agoThe RIAA isn't part of the government.
- feanaro 6y agoWhat if this tool remains public in a different part of the world? Are you going to wall off from the rest of the world so you can no longer see the tool and pretend it doesn't exist?
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoyou mean "because they could just use youtube-dl to download it?" I think that's why we are arguing that ytdl is a tool with legal and moral purposes and should remain accessible.