5 ms·

Asking the project authors to remove features that are covered by fair use isn't exactly what the authors want. It's better than no action, but not by much.

by Sephr 6y ago

ev1 6y ago
I'm wondering whether any legal team or similar have donated some time to figure out whether this is actually fair use or to set a precedent, because looking from the outside in, it clearly looks like an implementation meant to circumvent some form of intentionally-obfuscated protected handshake or access control. From a strictly code based POV, it is intended to download protected objects with tests to ensure that protections are circumvented and the correct material can be retrieved. At the same time, removal of this code probably disables downloading of the majority of YouTube, and on top of that if there is no official collaboration on it, it'll be outdated within days.
- thatcat 6y ago
  That code is protection for YT TOS, not copyright law. If YT want's to use dcma in this way it should claim copyright of all posted material and see how that works out for them. Even if it the video's were copyrighted, it could be still be downloaded for fair use purpose rather than infringement. RIAA is using takedown's to protect google ad money, which is not the intended purpose of that legal action.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Youtube is not the copyright holder, the RIAA's members are. They have licensed their content to Youtube. Youtube stores cache files to a user's computer, obfuscated so they can't be easily copied or accessed, most likely as part of the terms of their license. That is legally sufficient to constitute a copyright protection scheme.
    - thatcat 6y ago
      Material is covered by fair use and can be used legally in that way. Takedowns are for copyrighted material being distributed to provide immediate relief, the yt-dl projects code is not owned by riaa therefore riaa is abusing the legal mechanism.

Asking the project authors to remove features that are covered by fair use isn't exactly what the authors want. It's better than no action, but not by much.

by Sephr 6y ago

Asking the project authors to remove features that are covered by fair use isn't exactly what the authors want. It's better than no action, but not by much.

ev1 6y ago

I'm wondering whether any legal team or similar have donated some time to figure out whether this is actually fair use or to set a precedent, because looking from the outside in, it clearly looks like an implementation meant to circumvent some form of intentionally-obfuscated protected handshake or access control. From a strictly code based POV, it is intended to download protected objects with tests to ensure that protections are circumvented and the correct material can be retrieved. At the same time, removal of this code probably disables downloading of the majority of YouTube, and on top of that if there is no official collaboration on it, it'll be outdated within days.

thatcat 6y ago
That code is protection for YT TOS, not copyright law. If YT want's to use dcma in this way it should claim copyright of all posted material and see how that works out for them. Even if it the video's were copyrighted, it could be still be downloaded for fair use purpose rather than infringement. RIAA is using takedown's to protect google ad money, which is not the intended purpose of that legal action.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Youtube is not the copyright holder, the RIAA's members are. They have licensed their content to Youtube. Youtube stores cache files to a user's computer, obfuscated so they can't be easily copied or accessed, most likely as part of the terms of their license. That is legally sufficient to constitute a copyright protection scheme.
  - thatcat 6y ago
    Material is covered by fair use and can be used legally in that way. Takedowns are for copyrighted material being distributed to provide immediate relief, the yt-dl projects code is not owned by riaa therefore riaa is abusing the legal mechanism.