3 ms·

> You can't host something publicly, available via common, general purpose technology and then claim protection when someone uses this general purpose technolog

by philh 6y ago

> You can't host something publicly, available via common, general purpose technology and then claim protection when someone uses this general purpose technology to obtain it. I'm not saying this is wrong, but how do you know? That is, do you claim to have a grounded understanding of the law? (Perhaps as a lawyer, or a layperson who's studied this in some depth.) Or are you simply saying that in your opinion the law should consider youtube-dl's decryption acceptable by this reasoning? Or something else? (I'm not even asking for citations here, if it's the first thing.)

feanaro 6y ago
A layperson who's studied this in some depth. This is obviously my interpretation of the law since I haven't tested it in courts. However, if it did come to court, I think this would be the likely conclusion. I'm also interested, though: can you imagine a phrasing or argument that would invalidate the sentence you quoted? How would the restriction be framed? Would it mention a list of concrete programs which you can to access the website? Can RIAA for instance, in your opinion, mandate that a website can only be accessed through Chrome?
- philh 6y ago
  Fair question. I don't necessarily have something specific in mind, I just have a generally high prior of things like: the law is complicated; DMCA is complicated; things don't necessarily mean what they sound like they'd mean; arguments like "if you allow this you can't possibly forbid that, what on earth are you thinking" are unreliable at best[1]. But the sorts of things I could imagine going wrong with your argument might be... * Yes, browsers are in violation of the thing bitwize quoted, but it doesn't apply to them for reasons written elsewhere. * Yes, browsers are actually in violation of DMCA. People probably noticed this when the law was being written, but no one listened to them. If anyone tried to enforce DMCA against browsers, DMCA would get overturned, so no one's going to try. (I think this is unlikely - if there was an argument that browsers violate DMCA, I think I'd probably have heard of it. Probably. But including for completeness.) * Browsers need Javascript engines for many many reasons. Youtube-dl (afaik) needs a javascript engine specifically to get around this obfuscation. That could be relevant somehow. (Similar reasoning might say that locksmiths are allowed to own lockpicks and no one else is. I believe the law has roundly rejected that. But that doesn't mean the law would reject this, too.) Again, not claiming any of these actually apply. Just, this sort of thing is why I'm hesitant to make inferences that seem otherwise sensible. [1] https://xkcd.com/651/ https://xkcd.com/651/
  - feanaro 6y ago
    I very much appreciate your thoughtful response. I think the points you raise are fair, but none of them strongly and clear-cut in RIAA's favour. In fact, I would call them weak and cannot imagine RIAA would want to really press this matter in court using any of them. To answer very shortly: to my knowledge, there are no such exemptions for browsers specifically. Point 2 would actually work against DMCA, as you observed. I think point 3 is defeated by the fact that there are websites which require JS support to initiate video reproduction but which do not use it as an obfuscation technique. Instead, RIAA is counting on this matter not to reach the courts and everyone submitting to their will out of fear, which ever so slightly modifies public opinion on the matter and pushes the Overton window. From my experience, in cases like this the law turns out to be somewhat arbitrary and devolves into "whatever the judge(s) of the highest order think". It is extremely important not to get self-defeatist at this point and argue aggressively for the outcome you want to see play out. Of course, I am not sure how this would in fact play out in court, but I think no one is. If anyone is aware of a concrete fact which makes my reasoning outright invalid, I invite them to cite it.

by philh 6y ago

feanaro 6y ago

A layperson who's studied this in some depth. This is obviously my interpretation of the law since I haven't tested it in courts. However, if it did come to court, I think this would be the likely conclusion. I'm also interested, though: can you imagine a phrasing or argument that would invalidate the sentence you quoted? How would the restriction be framed? Would it mention a list of concrete programs which you can to access the website? Can RIAA for instance, in your opinion, mandate that a website can only be accessed through Chrome?

philh 6y ago
Fair question. I don't necessarily have something specific in mind, I just have a generally high prior of things like: the law is complicated; DMCA is complicated; things don't necessarily mean what they sound like they'd mean; arguments like "if you allow this you can't possibly forbid that, what on earth are you thinking" are unreliable at best[1]. But the sorts of things I could imagine going wrong with your argument might be... * Yes, browsers are in violation of the thing bitwize quoted, but it doesn't apply to them for reasons written elsewhere. * Yes, browsers are actually in violation of DMCA. People probably noticed this when the law was being written, but no one listened to them. If anyone tried to enforce DMCA against browsers, DMCA would get overturned, so no one's going to try. (I think this is unlikely - if there was an argument that browsers violate DMCA, I think I'd probably have heard of it. Probably. But including for completeness.) * Browsers need Javascript engines for many many reasons. Youtube-dl (afaik) needs a javascript engine specifically to get around this obfuscation. That could be relevant somehow. (Similar reasoning might say that locksmiths are allowed to own lockpicks and no one else is. I believe the law has roundly rejected that. But that doesn't mean the law would reject this, too.) Again, not claiming any of these actually apply. Just, this sort of thing is why I'm hesitant to make inferences that seem otherwise sensible. [1] https://xkcd.com/651/ https://xkcd.com/651/
- feanaro 6y ago
  I very much appreciate your thoughtful response. I think the points you raise are fair, but none of them strongly and clear-cut in RIAA's favour. In fact, I would call them weak and cannot imagine RIAA would want to really press this matter in court using any of them. To answer very shortly: to my knowledge, there are no such exemptions for browsers specifically. Point 2 would actually work against DMCA, as you observed. I think point 3 is defeated by the fact that there are websites which require JS support to initiate video reproduction but which do not use it as an obfuscation technique. Instead, RIAA is counting on this matter not to reach the courts and everyone submitting to their will out of fear, which ever so slightly modifies public opinion on the matter and pushes the Overton window. From my experience, in cases like this the law turns out to be somewhat arbitrary and devolves into "whatever the judge(s) of the highest order think". It is extremely important not to get self-defeatist at this point and argue aggressively for the outcome you want to see play out. Of course, I am not sure how this would in fact play out in court, but I think no one is. If anyone is aware of a concrete fact which makes my reasoning outright invalid, I invite them to cite it.