5 ms·

There's nothing to circumvent. It's not illegal.

by db48x 6y ago

sbarre 6y ago
The problem with the DMCA is that the anti-circumvention clauses are vague at best, and unfortunately it's easy for well-funded corporations to make claims against it. There is nothing in the law that talks about the effectiveness of the anti-circumvention tech, so even if the tech is trivial to bypass, if that bypass is done via "unintended usage" (according to the rights holder, not you) then they can claim you are doing something illegal. It's a shitty law.
bitwize 6y ago
Wrong. YouTube obfuscates the URL of the video stream for videos which have been identified as containing copyrighted material and are licensed for streaming only through the YouTube Web player or app. The copyright owner has made the material available under a license which permits ONLY that. Youtube-dl contains code to decrypt the URL of the video stream in order to download and save the copyrighted material, in violation of the license. Now let's look at some definitions from the DMCA: (A) to “circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure” means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and (B) a technological measure “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title. We have to ask ourselves two questions. First, is the URL obfuscation scheme a "technological measure" that “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title”? Yes, it is. In the normal course of its operation, it prevents the user from accessing the work except to stream it through YouTube's Web player or its app. The bar set by the law for "effective" protection is very low. If your "DRM" is a simple XOR cipher whose key is "hello world", then it "effectively protects a right of the copyright owner under this title", provided that it does its job of restricting access to anyone who doesn't know the key. Secondly, does youtube-dl circumvent protection afforded by the technological measure? Yes, it does. The technological measure enforces certain policies by means of its decryption algorithm; youtube-dl reimplements the algorithm, but does not enforce the policies, allowing people to get around restrictions demanded by rightsholders like the RIAA and implemented by Google. Does youtube-dl have limited use other than to circumvent protections afforded by the technical measure? Yes, it does. If the URLs were not obfuscated, a simple HTTP client might suffice to download the video data. The primary use of youtube-dl is to get around the measures Google had put in place to restrict access to YouTube content (the same for other video sites). Therefore... youtube-dl is a circumvention device prohibited under the DMCA, and is therefore ILLEGAL. Distributing it is a felony under federal law, punishable by up to five years in prison. Go ahead. Ask any copyright lawyer. I'm sure they'll tell you the same.
- bnj 6y ago
  Out of curiosity, do you have any insight about how this works when applied to other mechanisms and tools? YouTube-dl has a lot of use cases, among which are the downloading of potentially copyrighted works, in a way which seems similar in my mind to the way a VCR has a lot of use cases including, possibly, the recording of TV shows in violation of a license. Why are VCRs permissible to distribute but not this software?
  - bitwize 6y ago
    > Why are VCRs permissible to distribute but not this software? 1) Because the Supreme Court -- in a narrow 5-4 decision -- ruled them so in the "Betamax case" after the MPAA tried -- and up to that point succeeded -- to have them banned as tools of copyright infringement. The MPAA was sore about this for decades afterward, maintaining that the SCOTUS was simply wrong as a matter of law. My girlfriend's stepfather was a high-powered attorney for the MPAA, and he banned the use of VCRs in the house because to use them to record off the TV was, in his view, unquestionably copyright infringement, SCOTUS ruling or no SCOTUS ruling. And he was one of the foremost experts in the country on this area of the law. 2) The Court, in its Betamax decision, said that "[T]he sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses." However, the DMCA explicitly closes that loophole. Any tool or device whose primary purpose is to circumvent copyright protection is illegal to use or distribute -- save for certain carve-out exceptions including security research, interoperability research, and law enforcement use -- irrespective of whether it has "substantial noninfringing uses" as would, for example, a tool to strip out Denuvo protection from your legitimately purchased copy of Doom Eternal so you can play the game without Denuvo pegging your CPU. The fact that DRM is an irritant that owners of legitimate copies may wish to be removed is immaterial; providing the means to remove it is still a crime.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Clearly that's pretty silly. A photocopier fits the rule of devices that violate copyright. So does a camera. Yet they are for sale.

There's nothing to circumvent. It's not illegal.

by db48x 6y ago

There's nothing to circumvent. It's not illegal.

The problem with the DMCA is that the anti-circumvention clauses are vague at best, and unfortunately it's easy for well-funded corporations to make claims against it. There is nothing in the law that talks about the effectiveness of the anti-circumvention tech, so even if the tech is trivial to bypass, if that bypass is done via "unintended usage" (according to the rights holder, not you) then they can claim you are doing something illegal. It's a shitty law.

bitwize 6y ago

Wrong. YouTube obfuscates the URL of the video stream for videos which have been identified as containing copyrighted material and are licensed for streaming only through the YouTube Web player or app. The copyright owner has made the material available under a license which permits ONLY that. Youtube-dl contains code to decrypt the URL of the video stream in order to download and save the copyrighted material, in violation of the license. Now let's look at some definitions from the DMCA: (A) to “circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure” means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and (B) a technological measure “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title. We have to ask ourselves two questions. First, is the URL obfuscation scheme a "technological measure" that “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title”? Yes, it is. In the normal course of its operation, it prevents the user from accessing the work except to stream it through YouTube's Web player or its app. The bar set by the law for "effective" protection is very low. If your "DRM" is a simple XOR cipher whose key is "hello world", then it "effectively protects a right of the copyright owner under this title", provided that it does its job of restricting access to anyone who doesn't know the key. Secondly, does youtube-dl circumvent protection afforded by the technological measure? Yes, it does. The technological measure enforces certain policies by means of its decryption algorithm; youtube-dl reimplements the algorithm, but does not enforce the policies, allowing people to get around restrictions demanded by rightsholders like the RIAA and implemented by Google. Does youtube-dl have limited use other than to circumvent protections afforded by the technical measure? Yes, it does. If the URLs were not obfuscated, a simple HTTP client might suffice to download the video data. The primary use of youtube-dl is to get around the measures Google had put in place to restrict access to YouTube content (the same for other video sites). Therefore... youtube-dl is a circumvention device prohibited under the DMCA, and is therefore ILLEGAL. Distributing it is a felony under federal law, punishable by up to five years in prison. Go ahead. Ask any copyright lawyer. I'm sure they'll tell you the same.

bnj 6y ago
Out of curiosity, do you have any insight about how this works when applied to other mechanisms and tools? YouTube-dl has a lot of use cases, among which are the downloading of potentially copyrighted works, in a way which seems similar in my mind to the way a VCR has a lot of use cases including, possibly, the recording of TV shows in violation of a license. Why are VCRs permissible to distribute but not this software?
- bitwize 6y ago
  > Why are VCRs permissible to distribute but not this software? 1) Because the Supreme Court -- in a narrow 5-4 decision -- ruled them so in the "Betamax case" after the MPAA tried -- and up to that point succeeded -- to have them banned as tools of copyright infringement. The MPAA was sore about this for decades afterward, maintaining that the SCOTUS was simply wrong as a matter of law. My girlfriend's stepfather was a high-powered attorney for the MPAA, and he banned the use of VCRs in the house because to use them to record off the TV was, in his view, unquestionably copyright infringement, SCOTUS ruling or no SCOTUS ruling. And he was one of the foremost experts in the country on this area of the law. 2) The Court, in its Betamax decision, said that "[T]he sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses." However, the DMCA explicitly closes that loophole. Any tool or device whose primary purpose is to circumvent copyright protection is illegal to use or distribute -- save for certain carve-out exceptions including security research, interoperability research, and law enforcement use -- irrespective of whether it has "substantial noninfringing uses" as would, for example, a tool to strip out Denuvo protection from your legitimately purchased copy of Doom Eternal so you can play the game without Denuvo pegging your CPU. The fact that DRM is an irritant that owners of legitimate copies may wish to be removed is immaterial; providing the means to remove it is still a crime.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Clearly that's pretty silly. A photocopier fits the rule of devices that violate copyright. So does a camera. Yet they are for sale.