3 ms·

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 (a)(1)(A): No person shall circumvent a technological measure th

by Rochus 6y ago

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 (a)(1)(A): No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. What you propose would lead to complete arbitrariness.

gamblor956 6y ago
No, because in the U.S. we have this thing called "reasonableness." Obfuscating the cache file effectively controls the work by preventing most viewers from making a permanent copy. It takes technical knowledge to overcome that measure. (Go ahead, ask any non-techie you know to download a copy of a video from Youtube without using a tool like youtube-dl. They'll fail.) That's a reasonable measure; it would prevent the overwhelming majority of the population from copying. It doesn't matter that it wouldn't protect against the entire population; in the real world, keys, safes, bike locks, etc. don't stop determined individuals either. And the outcome, if youtube-dl wins this case? Youtube and other sites that feature substantial amount of copyrighted content will have to change the technical details of how they store temporary video content, ultimately rendering youtube-dl useless for all videos, not just the ones guarded by the RIAA. Win the battle, lose the war.
- ttt0 6y ago
  > It takes technical knowledge to overcome that measure. (Go ahead, ask any non-techie you know to download a copy of a video from Youtube without using a tool like youtube-dl. They'll fail.) Go to the Taylor Swift music video, open devtools, go to the Network tab and you can download everything from there. The only caveat is that you have to manually merge audio and video files, and youtube-dl does this for you. Other than that, youtube-dl does basically the same thing.
- Rochus 6y ago
  You claimed that the DMCA does not require the technical measure to be highly effective, or even that it be effective at all and I quoted from the law which says that a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. Now you come with yet other arguments. Now I would quote yet another law or decicion which contradicts your statement and so on.

by Rochus 6y ago

gamblor956 6y ago

No, because in the U.S. we have this thing called "reasonableness." Obfuscating the cache file effectively controls the work by preventing most viewers from making a permanent copy. It takes technical knowledge to overcome that measure. (Go ahead, ask any non-techie you know to download a copy of a video from Youtube without using a tool like youtube-dl. They'll fail.) That's a reasonable measure; it would prevent the overwhelming majority of the population from copying. It doesn't matter that it wouldn't protect against the entire population; in the real world, keys, safes, bike locks, etc. don't stop determined individuals either. And the outcome, if youtube-dl wins this case? Youtube and other sites that feature substantial amount of copyrighted content will have to change the technical details of how they store temporary video content, ultimately rendering youtube-dl useless for all videos, not just the ones guarded by the RIAA. Win the battle, lose the war.

ttt0 6y ago
> It takes technical knowledge to overcome that measure. (Go ahead, ask any non-techie you know to download a copy of a video from Youtube without using a tool like youtube-dl. They'll fail.) Go to the Taylor Swift music video, open devtools, go to the Network tab and you can download everything from there. The only caveat is that you have to manually merge audio and video files, and youtube-dl does this for you. Other than that, youtube-dl does basically the same thing.
Rochus 6y ago
You claimed that the DMCA does not require the technical measure to be highly effective, or even that it be effective at all and I quoted from the law which says that a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. Now you come with yet other arguments. Now I would quote yet another law or decicion which contradicts your statement and so on.