4 ms·

According to the EFF link below they don't need to be a holder. If the software is for breaking locks they can submit a take down notice under section 1201. ht

According to the EFF link below they don't need to be a holder. If the software is for breaking locks they can submit a take down notice under section 1201. 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...

marcan_42 6y ago
It's a notice under the provisions of the DMCA, but it's not a "DMCA takedown". What we call DMCA takedowns, coloquially, with the whole counter notification process etc, are notices submitted under Title II. That title deals with copyright infringement, not anti-circumvention. That means treating such notices as a typical DMCA notice, as GitHub has done, is incorrect. GitHub may well choose to follow the takedown if it considers it valid and the repo infringing, but what they've done is treat it as a copyright takedown. And that is clearly, unambiguously wrong, as it goes against their own DMCA policy, linked from the youtube-dl repo's disabled notice, which says: > The DMCA notice and takedown process should be used only for complaints about copyright infringement. Notices sent through our DMCA process must identify copyrighted work or works that are allegedly being infringed. So yes, GitHub messed up here. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have taken down youtube-dl, but they way they went about doing it is wrong. You'll notice that the EFF, in that article, never goes into the details of the takedown process that happened. They never said what GitHub did was proper. They are just talking about the anti-circumvention law in general.
- jfrunyon 6y ago
  The key here is that if they DIDN'T comply with it, the RIAA might sue them. Even if they were to win it (because a judge determines the takedown provisions don't cover it or for another reason), they'd be in for a costly legal battle. Moreover, without the Title II provisions, they would be liable for having distributed the circumvention in the past! On the other hand, if they DO comply with it, the RIAA is extremely unlikely to sue them, whether this is covered by the safe-harbor provisions of Title II or not.
  - jachee 6y ago
    I don't think the Mob could have written a more devious, anti-consumer, draconian law if they'd been given free reign. "That's some nice software you got there... be a shame if something were to... happen... to it. So, you better keep paying us for our locked-down content, and don't even think about trying to pick those locks. Or else."
  - dotancohen 6y ago
    > they'd be in for a costly legal battle. Microsoft might find itself in a costly legal battle? Oh no, software freedom must be curtailed lest poor Microsoft ever find itself in a costly legal battle for doing the right thing.
    - petercooper 6y ago
      I also found it a funny comment because Microsoft employs about 500 lawyers as part of an in-house legal team that is larger than most independent firms. If standing up for what it thinks is ethically and morally right isn't something a multi billion $ company with 500 lawyers can do, who can?
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        The EFF.
        petercooper 6y ago
        Touché! You're not wrong :-)
        alisonkisk 6y ago
        Spoiler: the EFF also agrees with GitHub that they can't challenge 1201 orders, which is why they are lobbying for law changes. 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...
      - 6y ago
dannyw 6y ago
Thank you. I stand corrected. It appears to be a normal response to a legal DMCA notice.
varispeed 6y ago
What locks ytdl is allegedly breaking?

marcan_42 6y ago

It's a notice under the provisions of the DMCA, but it's not a "DMCA takedown". What we call DMCA takedowns, coloquially, with the whole counter notification process etc, are notices submitted under Title II. That title deals with copyright infringement, not anti-circumvention. That means treating such notices as a typical DMCA notice, as GitHub has done, is incorrect. GitHub may well choose to follow the takedown if it considers it valid and the repo infringing, but what they've done is treat it as a copyright takedown. And that is clearly, unambiguously wrong, as it goes against their own DMCA policy, linked from the youtube-dl repo's disabled notice, which says: > The DMCA notice and takedown process should be used only for complaints about copyright infringement. Notices sent through our DMCA process must identify copyrighted work or works that are allegedly being infringed. So yes, GitHub messed up here. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have taken down youtube-dl, but they way they went about doing it is wrong. You'll notice that the EFF, in that article, never goes into the details of the takedown process that happened. They never said what GitHub did was proper. They are just talking about the anti-circumvention law in general.

jfrunyon 6y ago
The key here is that if they DIDN'T comply with it, the RIAA might sue them. Even if they were to win it (because a judge determines the takedown provisions don't cover it or for another reason), they'd be in for a costly legal battle. Moreover, without the Title II provisions, they would be liable for having distributed the circumvention in the past! On the other hand, if they DO comply with it, the RIAA is extremely unlikely to sue them, whether this is covered by the safe-harbor provisions of Title II or not.
- jachee 6y ago
  I don't think the Mob could have written a more devious, anti-consumer, draconian law if they'd been given free reign. "That's some nice software you got there... be a shame if something were to... happen... to it. So, you better keep paying us for our locked-down content, and don't even think about trying to pick those locks. Or else."
- dotancohen 6y ago
  > they'd be in for a costly legal battle. Microsoft might find itself in a costly legal battle? Oh no, software freedom must be curtailed lest poor Microsoft ever find itself in a costly legal battle for doing the right thing.
  - petercooper 6y ago
    I also found it a funny comment because Microsoft employs about 500 lawyers as part of an in-house legal team that is larger than most independent firms. If standing up for what it thinks is ethically and morally right isn't something a multi billion $ company with 500 lawyers can do, who can?
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      The EFF.
      - petercooper 6y ago
        Touché! You're not wrong :-)
      - alisonkisk 6y ago
        Spoiler: the EFF also agrees with GitHub that they can't challenge 1201 orders, which is why they are lobbying for law changes. 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...
    - 6y ago

dannyw 6y ago

Thank you. I stand corrected. It appears to be a normal response to a legal DMCA notice.

varispeed 6y ago

What locks ytdl is allegedly breaking?