6 ms·

DMCA takedowns do not need to be from the copyright holder themselves. They can be from ANY authorized agent of the copyright holder, like a lawyer, or ... the

DMCA takedowns do not need to be from the copyright holder themselves. They can be from ANY authorized agent of the copyright holder, like a lawyer, or ... the rights-enforcement association to which the copyright holder belongs. ETA: And yes, if you submitted a DMCA takedown which has any reasonable chance (from the recipient/provider's perspective) of being valid, it would get taken down. Otherwise, the provider takes on their customer's liability. Very few (and zero free) providers are willing to do so.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
>> Some people think RIAA’s DMCA notice is not legally valid, arguing RIAA is not the copyright holder and there is no infringing material. > DMCA takedowns do not need to be from the copyright holder themselves. They can be from ANY authorized agent of the copyright holder I think it's clear that "RIAA is not the copyright holder" is shorthand for "no member of the RIAA is the copyright holder". Even if you don't accept that, you can easily deduce that no member of the RIAA is the copyright holder by looking at the immediately following claim, "there is no infringing material". Given that there is no infringing material, it can't really matter whose agent the RIAA purports to be.
- CrazyStat 6y ago
  The youtube-dl DMCA notice does not allege copyright infringement (section 512 of the DMCA) but rather breaking DRM (section 1201 of the DMCA). Arguing that there is no [copyright-]infringing material is completely missing the point. The EFF has a write-up about it [1]. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/github-youtube-dl-takedown-isnt-just-problem-american-law https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/github-youtube-dl-take...
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    I'm not disputing that. I'm saying jfrunyon's comment is stupid.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      jfrunyon's comment is an accurate statement of the law, and reflects what the EFF, a legal organization that specializes in IP and tech-related areas of the law, has posted. OTOH, your comment violates a number of HN rules and probably should be deleted for dang kills your account for a few days.
- jfrunyon 6y ago
  The copyright holders can be harmed by actions other than direct copyright infringement. In particular, the law recognizes DRM circumvention as a harm. Other commenters had already covered this aspect before I made my comment, so I'm unsure why you expect me to cover it again.
  - petre 6y ago
    "DRM does not work, so we'll back it up with a few laws criminalizing DRM circumvention." Reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYeFcSq7Mxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYeFcSq7Mxg
    - ascar 6y ago
      Well, it's very similar to many other real situations like common household doors. They provide a weak level of protection and we add laws that criminalize getting unauthorized entry. I'm sometimes baffled that people miss that point when it comes to internet security. The biggest real difference is the global nature of the internet and thus problems with jurisdiction, which obviously doesn't apply if both sides reside in the same jurisdiction.
      - Reelin 6y ago
        We don't criminalize lock picks though, just their illicit use (and any following actions).
        ascar 6y ago
        You're absolutely right. From my non-lawyer understanding that's why the youtube-dl dmca mainly rests on youtube-dl showing illicit use within their code (download of copyright protected material) and not that the tool is theoretically capable. But it's indeed a slippery road. There are other examples in the real world tho, where the distribution/creation of the tool is already illegal (e.g. certain weapons or explosives), because only reacting after damage is done is infeasible.
- jfrunyon 6y ago
  BTW, they also did allege infringing material. Whether or not that material's copyright is in fact infringed upon by youtube-dl is not for GitHub to decide. (And, in my non-lawyer opinion, a US court would probably say it is, if this ever makes it that far.) https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-2... says: > The clear purpose of this source code is to ... reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use. ... We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos, as noted in Exhibit A hereto. For example, as shown on Exhibit A, the source code expressly suggests its use to copy and/or distribute the following copyrighted works owned by our member companies: • Icona Pop – I Love It (feat. Charli XCX) [Official Video], owned by Warner Music Group • Justin Timberlake – Tunnel Vision (Explicit), owned by Sony Music Group • Taylor Swift – Shake it Off, owned/exclusively licensed by Universal Music Group

thaumasiotes 6y ago

>> Some people think RIAA’s DMCA notice is not legally valid, arguing RIAA is not the copyright holder and there is no infringing material. > DMCA takedowns do not need to be from the copyright holder themselves. They can be from ANY authorized agent of the copyright holder I think it's clear that "RIAA is not the copyright holder" is shorthand for "no member of the RIAA is the copyright holder". Even if you don't accept that, you can easily deduce that no member of the RIAA is the copyright holder by looking at the immediately following claim, "there is no infringing material". Given that there is no infringing material, it can't really matter whose agent the RIAA purports to be.

CrazyStat 6y ago
The youtube-dl DMCA notice does not allege copyright infringement (section 512 of the DMCA) but rather breaking DRM (section 1201 of the DMCA). Arguing that there is no [copyright-]infringing material is completely missing the point. The EFF has a write-up about it [1]. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/github-youtube-dl-takedown-isnt-just-problem-american-law https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/github-youtube-dl-take...
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  I'm not disputing that. I'm saying jfrunyon's comment is stupid.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    jfrunyon's comment is an accurate statement of the law, and reflects what the EFF, a legal organization that specializes in IP and tech-related areas of the law, has posted. OTOH, your comment violates a number of HN rules and probably should be deleted for dang kills your account for a few days.
jfrunyon 6y ago
The copyright holders can be harmed by actions other than direct copyright infringement. In particular, the law recognizes DRM circumvention as a harm. Other commenters had already covered this aspect before I made my comment, so I'm unsure why you expect me to cover it again.
- petre 6y ago
  "DRM does not work, so we'll back it up with a few laws criminalizing DRM circumvention." Reminds me of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYeFcSq7Mxg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYeFcSq7Mxg
  - ascar 6y ago
    Well, it's very similar to many other real situations like common household doors. They provide a weak level of protection and we add laws that criminalize getting unauthorized entry. I'm sometimes baffled that people miss that point when it comes to internet security. The biggest real difference is the global nature of the internet and thus problems with jurisdiction, which obviously doesn't apply if both sides reside in the same jurisdiction.
    - Reelin 6y ago
      We don't criminalize lock picks though, just their illicit use (and any following actions).
      - ascar 6y ago
        You're absolutely right. From my non-lawyer understanding that's why the youtube-dl dmca mainly rests on youtube-dl showing illicit use within their code (download of copyright protected material) and not that the tool is theoretically capable. But it's indeed a slippery road. There are other examples in the real world tho, where the distribution/creation of the tool is already illegal (e.g. certain weapons or explosives), because only reacting after damage is done is infeasible.
jfrunyon 6y ago
BTW, they also did allege infringing material. Whether or not that material's copyright is in fact infringed upon by youtube-dl is not for GitHub to decide. (And, in my non-lawyer opinion, a US court would probably say it is, if this ever makes it that far.) https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-2... says: > The clear purpose of this source code is to ... reproduce and distribute music videos and sound recordings owned by our member companies without authorization for such use. ... We also note that the source code prominently includes as sample uses of the source code the downloading of copies of our members’ copyrighted sound recordings and music videos, as noted in Exhibit A hereto. For example, as shown on Exhibit A, the source code expressly suggests its use to copy and/or distribute the following copyrighted works owned by our member companies: • Icona Pop – I Love It (feat. Charli XCX) [Official Video], owned by Warner Music Group • Justin Timberlake – Tunnel Vision (Explicit), owned by Sony Music Group • Taylor Swift – Shake it Off, owned/exclusively licensed by Universal Music Group