6 ms·

Great. I posted two forks, if GitHub takes action then I've got standing to sue RIAA (under the declaratory judgement act), which I'd love to do pro se. Btw, i

by ikeboy 6y ago

Great. I posted two forks, if GitHub takes action then I've got standing to sue RIAA (under the declaratory judgement act), which I'd love to do pro se. Btw, if anyone is associated with any fork that did go down and is interested in bringing a pro se case, feel free to contact me. I'm not a lawyer and can't give legal advice but I can help point you at some helpful laws and cases. I've been fighting false infringement claims in court for over a year on other issues. Also take a look at the complaint in https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-sued-by-youtube-ripping-site-over-dmca-anti-circumvention-notices-201027/ https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-sued-by-youtube-ripping-site-o..., although it has some issues I noted at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24902619 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24902619.

varispeed 6y ago
Why would you have a stand to sue RIAA if GitHub would have blocked your account? I think you may only have a claim against GH, but I have not read T&C well enough, but I can imagine they would have an entry enabling them to block anyone for any reason. I don't think you could do anything about it.
- ikeboy 6y ago
  RIAA made a claim that some content violates their rights under DMCA, which in this hypothetical causes my account to be blocked. I can bring a case under the declaratory judgement act against RIAA, asking a court to decide whether the content is actually infringing. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment I may also have a tortious interference claim, although damages are likely negligible so it's probably not worth bringing any claims other than that declaratory judgement one.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Be the squeaky wheel. Thanks for your efforts.
  - Mindwipe 6y ago
    Well, I would strongly suggest you speak to a lawyer on it, but I would note this strategy only really gives you an American judgement, and the RIAA takedown would still apply in any other territory. I don't know if Github would host content where they felt there were issues in some countries and not others. Would they geofilter it as they do with Iranian contributors due to US sanctions?
    - garmaine 6y ago
      Why would the RIAA takedown apply in other jurisdictions, when it cites US law?
      - heavyset_go 6y ago
        The US and some of its allies have signed treaties and agreements that protect IP internationally.
        ikeboy 6y ago
        None of those matter if a US court has declared that there's no infringement. Also, many of those probably don't cover circumvention.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        Mindwipe 6y ago
        Literally everyone who is a member of WIPO covers circumvention, so that's 193 countries.
        ikeboy 6y ago
        Good point, thanks. I still think a US ruling would be very beneficial, even if it doesn't definitively settle the issue globally.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    You really should talk to a lawyer because it sounds like the entire basis for your protest is grounded in a misunderstanding of how the DMCA provisions work. I can tell you based on what you've posted in this thread that you absolutely do not have a tortious interference claim unless you've entered into contracts you haven't previously mentioned.
    - ikeboy 6y ago
      I've talked to plenty of lawyers and spent plenty of money on intellectual property issues. I know what I'm talking about. A declaratory judgement suit is in my view the proper avenue to address a tenuous IP claim. Like I said, tortious interference is not a great fit, but it's still applicable - interference with my contract with Github counts as interference. If it was an actual DMCA notice then the only remedy would be a 512(f) suit (plus declaratory judgement) because DMCA preempts other causes of action (caveat: [0]), but it's not a DMCA notice. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8166790/tech-and-goods-inc-v-30-watt-holdings-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8166790/tech-and-goods-... here's a recent decision where a tortious interference claim was upheld when a false infringement claim was made to a third party (Amazon in this case). See dkt 30. https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/2017/2556s15.pdf https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions... here's a tortious interference case that went to a jury and 150k in punitive damages was awarded despite actual damages only being around 5k (reduced by appeals to 75k+interest.) [0] Note that some jurisdictions haven't explicitly held that DMCA preempts state claims such as tortious interference, and at least one IP lawyer I've spoken to has brought state claims in such a jurisdiction.
      - varispeed 6y ago
        I am sceptical, but I wish you all the best. I hope you'll be successful like this dude who got Spotify playlist export back on - it was epic.
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        Your cites don't say what you think they say. For starters, the first link is for a motion to dismiss, A motion to dismiss merely assesses whether the plaintiff has made sufficient claims in its pleading to keep the case going. It's not a substantive ruling on the merits of anything. And second, it was related to a "tortious interference with business expectancy claim" which required the plaintiff to have a business that was interfered with as a result of the defendant's false trademark violation claim, and that harm actually resulted from the defendant's false claim. (The case is still going, and both sides have filed competing motions for summary judgment.) The second case was a tortious interfence case in which the defendant also made false allegations of counterfeiting, which led to Amazon removing the plaintiff's products from the store, so I'm assuming you brought it up because you are going to argue that the RIAA will make factually false statements of fact against you if you make a copy of the youtube-dl repository. If that's your plan, good luck, because you're going to need it. You're definitely going to want to hire better lawyers, too, if your current lawyers have advised you that you could beat the RIAA in these circumstances.
mmastrac 6y ago
I'd gladly contribute to a gofundme or kickstarter if they take the bait on this. Can you put together a mailing list for it?
- ikeboy 6y ago
  If I actually end up filing suit I'm sure I'll post about it here and I can get press coverage. Although I'd prefer to do it pro se and keep costs down, I've always wanted to do a pro se case but never had the opportunity yet (all my cases have been big enough it would be dumb not to hire a lawyer.) Still remains to be seen if others that have already been taken down will start filing cases. There's at least one case that I linked above, although it's not directly related to youtube-dl.
m463 6y ago
I believe the RIAA has pretty good cause for the original takedown notice. However, if you posted a fork which functioned like youtube-dl without mentioning an riaa protected copyrighted work that might be more meaningful. Instead show how you could download your own video, or a video under CC0 or similar.
- ikeboy 6y ago
  They might have good cause, but that doesn't mean they'll win in court. As I said in many of the threads on this topic, I think the RIAA's letter is in good faith, and it's not plausible to get damages from them, but they could still lose on the underlying issue in court.
mam2 6y ago
you'll do nooting !
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
RIAA did not allege infringement. They alleged a violation of section 1201, e.g., publishing or otherwise trafficking in copyright protection circumvention technology. No copyright infringement is required to violate DMCA 1201(a)(2): 17 U.S.C. 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. It's not illegal to create copyright protection circumvention technology and in some circumstances it may be legal to use it. However, 1201 says it's illegal to offer it to the public or otherwise traffic in it.
- ikeboy 6y ago
  Yes, technically I'd be going for a declaratory judgement of non-circumvention. It's been done before. Matthew Green brought a declaratory judgement case on section 1201, although in different circumstances - see https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2016/07/28/statement-on-dmca-lawsuit/ https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2016/07/28/statemen...
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
    The EFF on behalf of Prof. Green is not arguing "non-circumvention". They admit Green has performed circumvention. They argue 1201 as applied to Green's work is unconstitutional. Again, the RIAA is not alleging circumvention. They are alleging publication/trafficking in circumvention technology.
    - ikeboy 6y ago

by ikeboy 6y ago

varispeed 6y ago

Why would you have a stand to sue RIAA if GitHub would have blocked your account? I think you may only have a claim against GH, but I have not read T&C well enough, but I can imagine they would have an entry enabling them to block anyone for any reason. I don't think you could do anything about it.

ikeboy 6y ago
RIAA made a claim that some content violates their rights under DMCA, which in this hypothetical causes my account to be blocked. I can bring a case under the declaratory judgement act against RIAA, asking a court to decide whether the content is actually infringing. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment I may also have a tortious interference claim, although damages are likely negligible so it's probably not worth bringing any claims other than that declaratory judgement one.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Be the squeaky wheel. Thanks for your efforts.
- Mindwipe 6y ago
  Well, I would strongly suggest you speak to a lawyer on it, but I would note this strategy only really gives you an American judgement, and the RIAA takedown would still apply in any other territory. I don't know if Github would host content where they felt there were issues in some countries and not others. Would they geofilter it as they do with Iranian contributors due to US sanctions?
  - garmaine 6y ago
    Why would the RIAA takedown apply in other jurisdictions, when it cites US law?
    - heavyset_go 6y ago
      The US and some of its allies have signed treaties and agreements that protect IP internationally.
      - ikeboy 6y ago
        None of those matter if a US court has declared that there's no infringement. Also, many of those probably don't cover circumvention.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        Mindwipe 6y ago
        Literally everyone who is a member of WIPO covers circumvention, so that's 193 countries.
        ikeboy 6y ago
        Good point, thanks. I still think a US ruling would be very beneficial, even if it doesn't definitively settle the issue globally.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  You really should talk to a lawyer because it sounds like the entire basis for your protest is grounded in a misunderstanding of how the DMCA provisions work. I can tell you based on what you've posted in this thread that you absolutely do not have a tortious interference claim unless you've entered into contracts you haven't previously mentioned.
  - ikeboy 6y ago
    I've talked to plenty of lawyers and spent plenty of money on intellectual property issues. I know what I'm talking about. A declaratory judgement suit is in my view the proper avenue to address a tenuous IP claim. Like I said, tortious interference is not a great fit, but it's still applicable - interference with my contract with Github counts as interference. If it was an actual DMCA notice then the only remedy would be a 512(f) suit (plus declaratory judgement) because DMCA preempts other causes of action (caveat: [0]), but it's not a DMCA notice. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8166790/tech-and-goods-inc-v-30-watt-holdings-llc/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8166790/tech-and-goods-... here's a recent decision where a tortious interference claim was upheld when a false infringement claim was made to a third party (Amazon in this case). See dkt 30. https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/2017/2556s15.pdf https://mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions... here's a tortious interference case that went to a jury and 150k in punitive damages was awarded despite actual damages only being around 5k (reduced by appeals to 75k+interest.) [0] Note that some jurisdictions haven't explicitly held that DMCA preempts state claims such as tortious interference, and at least one IP lawyer I've spoken to has brought state claims in such a jurisdiction.
    - varispeed 6y ago
      I am sceptical, but I wish you all the best. I hope you'll be successful like this dude who got Spotify playlist export back on - it was epic.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      Your cites don't say what you think they say. For starters, the first link is for a motion to dismiss, A motion to dismiss merely assesses whether the plaintiff has made sufficient claims in its pleading to keep the case going. It's not a substantive ruling on the merits of anything. And second, it was related to a "tortious interference with business expectancy claim" which required the plaintiff to have a business that was interfered with as a result of the defendant's false trademark violation claim, and that harm actually resulted from the defendant's false claim. (The case is still going, and both sides have filed competing motions for summary judgment.) The second case was a tortious interfence case in which the defendant also made false allegations of counterfeiting, which led to Amazon removing the plaintiff's products from the store, so I'm assuming you brought it up because you are going to argue that the RIAA will make factually false statements of fact against you if you make a copy of the youtube-dl repository. If that's your plan, good luck, because you're going to need it. You're definitely going to want to hire better lawyers, too, if your current lawyers have advised you that you could beat the RIAA in these circumstances.

mmastrac 6y ago

I'd gladly contribute to a gofundme or kickstarter if they take the bait on this. Can you put together a mailing list for it?

ikeboy 6y ago
If I actually end up filing suit I'm sure I'll post about it here and I can get press coverage. Although I'd prefer to do it pro se and keep costs down, I've always wanted to do a pro se case but never had the opportunity yet (all my cases have been big enough it would be dumb not to hire a lawyer.) Still remains to be seen if others that have already been taken down will start filing cases. There's at least one case that I linked above, although it's not directly related to youtube-dl.

m463 6y ago

I believe the RIAA has pretty good cause for the original takedown notice. However, if you posted a fork which functioned like youtube-dl without mentioning an riaa protected copyrighted work that might be more meaningful. Instead show how you could download your own video, or a video under CC0 or similar.

ikeboy 6y ago
They might have good cause, but that doesn't mean they'll win in court. As I said in many of the threads on this topic, I think the RIAA's letter is in good faith, and it's not plausible to get damages from them, but they could still lose on the underlying issue in court.

mam2 6y ago

you'll do nooting !

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

RIAA did not allege infringement. They alleged a violation of section 1201, e.g., publishing or otherwise trafficking in copyright protection circumvention technology. No copyright infringement is required to violate DMCA 1201(a)(2): 17 U.S.C. 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. It's not illegal to create copyright protection circumvention technology and in some circumstances it may be legal to use it. However, 1201 says it's illegal to offer it to the public or otherwise traffic in it.

ikeboy 6y ago
Yes, technically I'd be going for a declaratory judgement of non-circumvention. It's been done before. Matthew Green brought a declaratory judgement case on section 1201, although in different circumstances - see https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2016/07/28/statement-on-dmca-lawsuit/ https://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2016/07/28/statemen...
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
  The EFF on behalf of Prof. Green is not arguing "non-circumvention". They admit Green has performed circumvention. They argue 1201 as applied to Green's work is unconstitutional. Again, the RIAA is not alleging circumvention. They are alleging publication/trafficking in circumvention technology.
  - ikeboy 6y ago