5 ms·

Not only should they resign from the RIAA, they should reinstate the code, and sue the RIAA for reputational damages resulting from the perjurious DMCA notice.

• Kranar 6y ago
  What is the misuse here? The DMCA makes it illegal to distribute software whose intention is to circumvent technical measures that prevent access to copyrighted materials [1]. youtube-dl's own documentation provides instructions on downloading copyrighted music videos and its test suite uses copyrighted material as well. It's pretty hard, although not impossible, to claim that the intention of the software isn't to engage in copyright violations given those two facts. Okay so you make a counterargument that maybe this qualifies as fair-use or falls under some other exemption. Maybe you're right, maybe you're not right, that's for a court to decide. The RIAA's lawyer is not here to defend youtube-dl's position on the matter, youtube-dl has the responsibility of defending itself and demonstrating why it chose to use copyrighted music videos as the key example and use case. You can object to the law and you can even provide a defense for youtube-dl and counter the takedown notice, but you can't say that RIAA's lawyer abused the DMCA takedown process by defending its client. [1] https://www.copyright.gov/policy/1201/#:~:text=Enacted%20in%201998%20as%20part,in%20technology%20or%20services%20that https://www.copyright.gov/policy/1201/#:~:text=Enacted%20in%...
  • akersten 6y ago
    The misuse of the DMCA takedown notice is that none of the content in the repository was copyright to the RIAA or to an entity the RIAA represents. That's it. The DMCA takedown process is emphatically not the avenue to remedy an alleged circumvention tool as defined by the DMCA. The DMCA allows relief through the courts in that case, a route the RIAA chose not to persue because it is easier to misuse the takedown process. The DMCA takedown process is intended only to remedy the situation where your or your clients' copyrighted content is hosted without permission - any other use is perjury. You can read more about how a claimant must identify the specific infringing content in a takedown notice here [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act#Notice_from_copyright_owner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...
    • Kranar 6y ago
      You are referencing section 512 of the DMCA, but that's not what the RIAA issued to Github. The RIAA issued a notice in reference to section 1201 of the DMCA and Github has a specific complaint process for violations of that section, and I quote "Complaints about Anti-Circumvention Technology" [1]. That was the form that was used to make the complaint to Github. A link to the details of that complaint along with instructions on how to submit a notice for such violations can be found below. So what exactly is Microsoft or Github suing the RIAA for given that it is Github which provides a complaint process for technologies that circumvent section 1201 of the DMCA. [1] https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-policy/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice#complaints-about-anti-circumvention-technology https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-...
      • kazinator 6y ago
        YouTube doesn't have copy protection for downloads; there is nothing to circumvent. These tools just add a user interface for downloading. If you subscribe to Youtube Premium, Youtube itself gives you downloading. This is not like breaking encryption on DVDs. Your device has to download the data in order for the video to be viewed. Streaming is a form of downloading; a copy of the data passes through your equipment, and is retained for some duration of time.
        • Kranar 6y ago
          Yes Youtube does have copy protection for downloads and in fact the reason why certain specific music videos were chosen to be part of youtube-dl's test suite is to test the circumvention of Youtube's copy protections! It's literally in the documentation of youtube-dl's test suite what Youtube's mechanisms are along with how to circumvent them.
          • deleted 6y ago
            [deleted]
          • wayneftw 6y ago
  • Rochus 6y ago
    Downloading copyrighted music per se is not illegal. This is not the same as intentionally circumventing a digital rights protection mechanism. In some countries (but not in all) it is illegal to download copyrighted music if it was illegally uploaded. But we don't have to assume in the first place that Youtube videos were illegally uploaded. And not to forget that many titles on Youtube are licensed under CC-BY, so in any case they can be legally downloaded and even shared.
    • Google234 6y ago
      You are braking the TOS by downloading videos from YouTube so it’s not legal.
      • mbushey 6y ago
        YouTube's TOS is not law.
        • kazinator 6y ago
          Also, Youtube's TOS is not Gihub's TOS, and is not the RIAA's TOS.
      • Rochus 6y ago
        If this standard form contract is relevant at all (depending on country and other factors), it has nothing to do with copyright. As far as copyright is concerned, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....
      • smokelegend 6y ago
        Doesn't YouTube offer a premium service that allows d/l of videos? Youtube red or something I think it's called. What's the difference in using youtube-dl to d/l copyright video or using youtube premium to d/l said copyright video. Note: I have not used youtube res service so idk how it works
  • gravypod 6y ago
    What is illegal according to the DMCA is not the same as what is legal to include in a DMCA Takedown Request. This is a specific extralegal process for streamlining disputes over copyright hosted on a third party's platform. It's like if someone is loitering outside of a store the store owner doesn't have the right to arrest them and lock them in a cell in their basement. There's a process that needs to be followed by people. Just because loitering may be illegal, and you have the right to post a no loitering sign, doesn't mean you can enforce that on your own. DMCA Takedowns are an exception that allows parties to quickly remove copywriten material from distribution that comes with heafty penalties (whatever the judge thinks is reasonable) for when something like this goes to court and it's found that the takedown is invalid.
    • Kranar 6y ago
      Except the RIAA did not issue the specific S512 notice that you, and many other posters are mistakenly referring to. The RIAA sent a notice in reference to S1201 [1] which is specifically about circumvention and which Github explicitly has a section about titled "Complaints about Anti-Circumvention Technology" and linked below [2]. [1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-2... [2] https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-policy/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice#complaints-about-anti-circumvention-technology https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-...]
      • dredmorbius 6y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24893533 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24893533
  • dredmorbius 6y ago
    RIAA's claim against youtube-dl / Microsoft is not a §512 infringement / takedown / safe-harbour act. https://joindiaspora.com/posts/808cf690f8e801381778002590d8e506 https://joindiaspora.com/posts/808cf690f8e801381778002590d8e... HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24888234 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24888234
• nimbius 6y ago
  Whoa there, this is the same Microsoft Github that refused twice to back out of ICE contracts...You know, the guys who forcibly castrate women and separate children from families...I have a feeling theyre going be plenty comfortable telling the developers of youtube-dl to very publically pound sand. If you followed the kim-dot-com trial or any of the pirate bay litigation, the RIAA is basically a wing of the FBI these days. but its a death by a thousand cuts at this point. HN users have sudiously pointed out Github is already in the midst of a brain-drain of developers for various reasons including their heavy-handed ban hammer against devs from the United States list of naughty countries.
  • imgabe 6y ago
    > ICE contracts...You know, the guys who forcibly castrate women Whatever your feelings on ICE, this story was never substantiated and you shouldn't be repeating it as though it's an established fact. This is how disinformation spreads. People just casually repeat things as if they're common knowledge. Soon everybody just "knows", no matter whether it was ever true to begin with. It's lazy and irresponsible. Stop it.
    • dredmorbius 6y ago
      "According to ICE ... two such procedures have been performed on detainees there since 2018." "ICE officials on Tuesday promised to cooperate with an investigation" (Reported 15 Sept 2020). https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/15/ice-covid-irwin-complaint-nurse/?itid=lk_inline_manual_2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/15/ice-covid-i...
      • imgabe 6y ago
        "Two such procedures" refers to two hysterectomies. Not forced hysterectomies. Presumably medically necessary ones. It is conceivable that out of thousands of detainees over two years, there might be two who needed a hysterectomy for some reason, and ICE provided them with the necessary medical care, as determined by the doctors in their employ charged with looking after the welfare of the detainees. > The report did not detail any detainees who said they had received a hysterectomy against their will; Right there in the same article. Even the whistleblower's statement implies that there is one doctor doing it (though again, this is unsubstantiated), not that it is an official policy of ICE as the comment above implies. ("the guys who forcibly castrate women") I'm not trying to say ICE is great or never did anything wrong. I don't know. I'm saying we can't go around casually repeating unsubstantiated rumors as though they are gospel truths - even if they really, really seem like they would be true because they totally confirm all of our preconceived notions about the subject. Information is sloshing around the world faster than ever and this kind of sloppiness is literally destroying civilization.
• ikeboy 6y ago
  Did you read the letter? There's only one sentence there that's submitted under penalty of perjury and it's obviously true. This was not a DMCA 512 notice.
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • 1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
    "This was not a DMCA 512 notice." It is remarkable how few people commenting on the web are noticing that. A notice under section 512 needs to identify both the material infringed and the infringing material. The letter identifies some works that may be infringed, e.g., VEVO videos listed in youtube-dl's documentation. However it does not identify the location of any infringing material, e.g., an unauthorised copy of a VEVO video. It cannot be a valid DMCA 512 notice. The letter instead refers to section 1201 which includes a prohibition against enabling circumvention of copyright protections. The argument is that youtube-dl violates that prohibition. Online debate about the applicability of the DMCA in this case should focus on section 1201 not 512. For example, is youtube-dl "primarily designed for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected [by copyright]" Do most YouTube video URLs use enciphered signatures. Not IME. Does the rolling cipher "control access" to YouTube videos, or does it just control downloading. Etc. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems (a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that- (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) 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; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
    • Wowfunhappy 6y ago